§ On the third reading of this bill,
The Earl of Lauderdaleregretted, that after the subject had been so long before the house, so little should be done by this bill, and particularly that no regulation was made with respect to the Court of Tiends. He wished also that something-more had been done, with respect to the introduction of trial by jury.
The Lord Chancellorthought that nothing should he done with respect to tiends until after a judicial decision as to the rights of the clergy.
§ Lord Hawkesburydefended the bill, which he thought would tend to operate a material reform in the administration of justice in Scotland. With respect to trial by jury, the house was not yet ripe for deciding that point, nor did he believe that it was sufficiently understood in Scotland.—The bill was then read a third time, and passed.