The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-15 00:00:00

the outer-house, why should a stronger line, or
higher wall, be interposed betwixt him and the
inner-house in. the one case than in the other
There is not a shadow of reason, or a consider-

ation in expediency for exhibiting this phenome-
non. Let there be a separate Bill-Chamber--a
place where business of the description con-
ducted there may be exhibited to practitioners in
one condensed record. In this there may he
some expediency. But why should not the

Judge of the Court of Session, who consi-
ders, orders, and decides, not be held as sit-
ing in the Court of Session ? Why, if he think
the case deserving of further investigatiou or
discussion in the outer-house, not have power
to send it de piano to the Lord Ordinary for
the week? And why, after the Judge, who con-
siders a;bill with answers, is of opinion that the
matter ihould be sifted or considered further,
should parties be put to the expence of having
this simple fact told to a single Judge in the
outer-house, by means of a writ in the King's
name, expede (so the phrase is) at no little ex-
pence and with risk of blunders, by an Agent
and Writer to the Signet, executed by a Mes-
senger at Arms, at a considerable cost both in
time and money, and again subject to risks,
although both parties were present in the Bill-
Chamber, and then brought under notice by
the weekly rolls? There is here an apparatus
of forms—for no other results than expence and
delay—which, if understood, would revolt the

reason of the country, and to which nothing
but the force of habit could reconcile the feel-
ings of any conscientious practitioner. The
whole system of Personal Diligence and Signet
Letters, so oppressively felt in the attempts made
to recover small debts, is equally unnecessary

and revolting : and yet that system, with the
Bill-Chamber, and numerous other forms, are,

so far as hitherto explained,
to remain un-
touched ! It is a great deal, however, that they
are all condemned by the principle of Mr. Peel's
reform. This principle would go also, we hate
said, to the abolition of the Exchequer ; since
neither the amount nor nature of business to
be transacted there, is sufficient to justify its
maintenance as a separate Court. It would be
a great improvement, we conceive, if revenue
matters were decided by our Judges of common-
law, instead of those who are more emphatically
called Judges of or for the Crown ; and we have
just as little doubt that Mr. Brougham is cor-
rect in holding that one English Judge on the
Bench of each division of our Court, would be
highly beneficial to Scotland. There is much,
we think, in what Mi. Peel said as to four
being the best number for a deliberative Bench,
the concurrence of three Judges being indispen-
sable to the validating of a decision. One Judge
might thus be spared from each division ; but if'
the mode of conducting business in the outer-
house be not greatly changed, we would, instead
of lessening, require to increase the number of
the Permanent Ordinaries. We would make
the proposed single consistorial Judge, a Perma-
nent Lord Ordinary.
In approving generally of Mr. Peel's reforms,
we are net sine that we ought not to :except the
abolition of the Jury Court. It is very far from
being perfect as it is ; but that is the chief reason
why we question the expediency of its abolition.
We consider jury trial, the calling in of the un-
adulterated common sense and general sympathies '
of society to aid and check professional subtlety
and habits, as indispensable to the due admini,
stration of justice ; but so long as some of the
most experienced practitioners assure us that
there is hardly a caw in which they would - not
rather decline calling evidence for a defender, or

Lri other words, take —a
verdict on one half of the

evidence, than give the Pursuer's Counsel the
reply, we hold jury-trial to be in a most unri-
pened and dangerous state ; and we fear that the
profession at large embracing Bench, Bar, and
Agents, are not as yet sufficiently impressed with
the benefits of jury-trial, to be qualified for car-,
rying it in the Court of Session to a state L
of,
comparative health and perfection. liere, as •
much as any where, and'both in the preparation
for and conduct of trials, reason has still to
triumph over rules of evidence and forms of
procedure.
We have apprehensions, also, that throughout.
the empire, and more especially in Scotland, Mr.
Peel's measure, excellent as his motives are, will
be tainted by the views and prejudices of the pro-
fession. It is too frequently forgotten by lawyers,
that law is made by and for society, and not so-
ciety for the law, and that Judges are truly ser,
vants appointed and paid for doing the work ci.f
the public. If they can, as moralists, either by ex-
ample or precept, extinguish bad passions, and
strengthen good feelings, let them do so by all
means. But if bad feelings, or misconcep-
tions, prompted to the commission of injuries,
or the making of unjust demands, they will only
add fuel to the flame, by throwing obstacles in
the way of right and speedy decision. IP at-
tempting to stifle litigation they will deny justice.
What have Judges to do with the work of legis-
lation ? What right have they, the servants of
the public, to prescribe how much and what start
of justice the public may obtain ? The duty of
Judges clearly is to investigate calinly and un-
partially, and decide wisely—to be at once inde-
fatigable and prompt—to encourage the wrong to
seek redress—the honest and candid to vindicate
their rights and to discourage and punish the
wrong-doer by the exposure arising from the pa.
tient and inflexible administration of justice.
Let each Judge do what he can and all he can
well; and, when his duties have been discharged
as extensively as the physical and mental powers
will permit, without injury to health, if as in-
crease of business then remain, let society say
by its legislative body, whether the number of
Judges is to be increased, or the business of the
Courts, the means of obtaining the best just ice,
diminished or obstructed.
It is true that the Judges of the Court of Ses-
sion sit only for a few hours of five days in the
week, of five months and one week in the year ;
but if they employ their vacancies for the pin.,
'pose of invigorating the body by rural exerciae,
and the mind by general reading—for a Judge
ought to be well informed and maintain an a 6.
quanitance with all sorts of knowledge, a sympa-
thy with all classes—if they go to the Bench
thoroughly acquainted with the facts and the law
of each case—if they hear Counsel patiently and
with attention, the junior ones especially when
they happen to urge views different from those
which have been taken by themselves—if they
are open to conviction, ready to correct errors,
lair towards all connected with the business of
the Court, and anxious to avoid all mis-decision,
we should not grudge them their leisure or their .