The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-13 00:00:00

COURT OF SESSION.

The LORD CHANCELLOR rosy to move the
second reading of the Court of Session (Scotland) 7:
Bill. He trusted that their Lordships vrnull secede
to the measure, which Intl passed through the whet
House of Parliament, when they came to hear its
real nature and character. He begged to allude tic I
a petition which had been presented by his Noble
Friend (the Earl of Lauderdale), ou a preceding 4.:
evening, from the Advocates of Scotland, not on ac-
count of what the petition contained, but in conse-
quence of some circumstances that attached to the
period of its presentation. His Noble Friend had
not stated to their Lordships the date of the peti-
tion, which was praying for delay respecting the
measure now before the House. The petition, the
House was now to be informed, was signed so long
back as May, and was not presented until July.
His Noble Friend ought to have apprised the House $
of the date, especially as the petitioners had, since
that period, tnet and signed resolutions, approving
f every part of the Bill, with but very trifling ex-
ceptions.--(Hear.)---His Noble Friend, he there-
fore thought had hardly acted fairly, in not star-
ing this last fact, if he knew it. He (the Lord
Chancellor) must conclude that these resohationa,
,kgreed to in the way that he had described, bad
never reached his Noble Friend; otherwise his •'
Noble Friend would have said, when presenting the 4
petition to the House, something to this effect :
" I have been called upon to present this petition,
but I must inform your Lordships that since the
petition was signed, the petitioners have held r 4
meeting, and have come to the resolution of
approving the whole Bill against which the petition
is directed." This would have been the course
which he should have expected from his Noble
Friend. Their Lordships ought to be informed that,
notwithstanding what had been occasionally urged
against the Bill, only one petition, substantially
'pinta the measure, had been presented to the
House, and that was from the Society of Solicitors t
of the inferior Courts of Scotland.----(Hear.) The
Noble and Learned Lord here entered into a full de-
scription of the nature and object of the Bill It
the year 1825 a proposition was made, that the c,
trial by Jury should be united to the Court of Sea-
lion ; but his Noble and Learned Friend (the Earl
of Odell), with that caution which was so charac-
teristic of him, and he alluded to this only iu praise
of his Noble and Learned Friend, recommended the
Legislature to pause and see the result of the mea-
time then under trial. In the year 1827 the Com-
inissiuners made their report, and the present Bill
was framed upon it. It had beets complained that
the measure was a hasty measure. He denied that
it could be so cheracterised. It was now three years
since the report, upon which the Bill was founded,
was made; and in February last the whole principle '4
of the Bill was explained and discussed in the
House of Commons; since which period it hid
been examined by parties well quid tied to speak or
its merits, and it had received the approbation of
nearly al'. Their Lordships would bear in mind
that the trial by Jury in civil causes bad existed it;
(,
Scotland for 15 years, and the present Bill went to
have it adopted by the Court of Session. It was
true that three of the Commissioners, men of leani—
ng and character, bud disiented from the report ;
but this was rather to the mode than the principle
recommended. These gentlemen ought to have
given their own opinions in a separate report : they ,
had not done so, however, and Government, there-
fore, could not know what plan they wished to have
ldopted. The Noble and Learned Lord bore tes-
timony to the fitness of the Chief Justices of the
two divisions in the Court of Session--no men
could be selected with better qualifications for their
office.—(Hear, hear.) One of the objects of the
BM was to Abolish the Commissary Court, fi
C2sou"rtset
which would diminish the long train of appeals,—
There were four Judges in that Court, and, from
tutu
!d be
would put it to their Lordships whether it was worth
in eanvetihroygeen
ro, fotft
adverted,4o yleeharykswn,
uhet
a ere
sen the
ses
eoriorft
e 0
NowN hy s
xpense
e‘‘‘‘;',ltiiiitellethite'tito'eedkii:l4:(3ll: another Court ? By a previous Act
one of these Barons was abolished in the Court o!
Exchequer. The Chief and three juniors remained
at present. In pursuance Of the general objects prof sl
posed by the Bill, the powers of the Court of Ad-
enmity were to be transferred to the Sheriff,
as in
e cases, It r,linary intended, too, that the office
of the Lord Justice-General, now altogether a sine-
cure, and filled by a Noble Member of that House.
who possibly never set his foot in a criminal Court
in his life, should be transferred to the office of l.otd
President, who would thus make that office no long:
a sinecure, but perform the high duties of the au-
preme Court of Criminal Jurisprudeoce. The stelae}
would thus be abolished, and the duties of the offie
lutthfttliy and properly folfeled,—(lleim)-I'be ,
be was not disposed to presume, was wi Itottfo.
bl, wishes; but he was sati-tied, despite
(1,11. Lordships would be justillA in idopileg; r,

because of the great objects which it proposed to
Attain, more especially as its adoption would pro-
duce a seeingto the public of not less than 24,000/.
3 year. Whatever might be the objections of Noble
'and Learned -Lords to the details of the measure, he
felt assured he should have no opponent us to the
principle Of the Bill. In the Committee these minute
details might be satisfactorily -discussed anti settled,
arid he pledged himself he should then give to the
uggestions of each Noble Lord all the weight and
deliberate attention 'to which they might be found
entitled. His. Lordship concluded by moving that
the Bill shouldbe- read a second time.
The Earl of ELDON said that, in the examina-
tion of the 3 ill before them, he should totally divest
himself of any party feeling, and confine himself to
the merits of the proposed measure. He had cer-
F ..ainly been properly described as the active and
zealous friend of the principle of introducing the
trial by Jury into Scotland ; but, if he was so, he
Was only a frieed to the introduction of a Jury into
the Court of Session under circumstances which
wouldnot fail to obtuie for it a favourable reception
from the lieges of Scotland.--(Hear.) A Bill to
effect the introduction of a Jury into the Culla of
Session had been brought forward by a Nobleman
of high talents in 1806 (Lord Grenville), which he
opposed, and that was filially lost. Indeed, for his
part, he was, and still continued, disinclined to
u nit iog a Jury to the Court of Session as far from
desirable, from this circumstance, that the evidence
was documentary, and often so obnoxious, that the
Joie', having seen it in print, would be constantly
. found deciding cases, not from what they bad heard
glom the Beech, but from some other sources. He
. however wished it to be understood now that he
• :vas not so much opposed to the principle of the
Bill as he was opposed to its being introduced at so
late a period; indeed, almost the last night of the
Session. If the people of Scotland wished fie
Trial by Jury, he was far from saying that they
. ought not to possess it; on the contrary, he would
admit that they ought to possess it ; but then their
Lordships should take care to secure it to them in
the best mode, and after due deliberation. One of
his objections to the present Bill was, that it pro-
pounced the Judges of the Court of Session in
Scotland unfit for their offices—an opinion which
he knew to be unfounded in fact. With respect to
the Judges of the Consistorial Court in Scotland,
he was authorised mid requested by a Noble relative
i of his, who bed long filled the same office in this
country, to state that he WUP indebted for the most
important assistance to the talents and the know-
ledge of the Scotch Judges in many of the causes
upon which he had to deckle. These were Ids opi.
mons. The delay which he asked for was, as he
conceived, necessary to that full consideration which
the subject required. But, if the House should
; differ from him, he must submit; and, if his opi-
nions should turn out to be wrong, no man would
be more willing to acknowledge his error.
The Earl of ROSSLYN felt strongly the (baud-
. vantage of speaking idler so high an authority as the
Noble and Learned Lord on such a subject ; but it
was impossible that Government could consent to
delay the measure under the remelt circumstances.
All branches of the profession in Scotland, from the
Judges down were favourable to the principle of
uniting Trial by Jury with the other privileges of
the Court of Session. In 1813 the principle of
Trial by Jury was partially adopted, in 1819 it was
tetended farther, and in 1825 a Committee was
appointed, which, after much inquiry, recommended
that the Legislature should go further still. The
Commission, which was appointed at the sugges-
tiou of his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Eldon,)
were unanimously of opinion that, within five years,
the Trial by Jury might be introduced with safety
into the Court of Session in Scotland. The change
1,411 not been now introduced for the first time, but
had been ender • diseueeion fur the last roue years,
anti the opinions of the legal bodies and of the
Commissioners were in favour of it. The Bib
wee brought forward in February, then Owed :mil
circulated in Scotland, where it was received with
general upprobation. The Noble Lord concluded
by saying that there was no object be had so much
at heart us the establishment of Trial by Jury in
Scotland.

The Earl of ELDON explained.
Lord W YNFORD addressed the House sitting,
but he spoke in so low a tone of voice that his ob-
servations were but very imperfectly heard at the
bar. klis Lordship was understood to say that he
opposed the Bill, not from any want of confidence
in the integrity, learning, and ability of the Scotch
bar, but because he thought a change of such im-
portance ought not to be made but after the most
mature deliberation. The Noble and Learned Lord
who bud advocated the measure with his usual abi-
lity, bad brought forward a great many arguments
to show that a change was necessary; but these ar-
gutnents, in his opinion, formed the strongest
ground for postponing the further consideration of
the measure till next Session. The topics which
were contained in the Bill were so numerous, and
of so important a nature, that it was highly expe-
dient not to decide on it prematurely. The Bill
went to extend Trial by Jury in Seotland,but:even
in this respect, it was extremely imperfect. ft up-
plied to charter-parties, to bills of lading, and to a
number of minor details in commercial policy.; but
it did not apply to hills of exchange and to several
other points which formed the most important sub-
jects fur the decision of rx Jury. It was necessary
'to give only one instance—the else of bankruptcy,
far which no provision was made. This Bill, too,
would do away with a number of the inferior Courts,
end, among the rest, the Consistory Court—u
Court which deserved the highest praise for the
discrimination and judgment which marked its pro-
eueslings, He, therefore, winds, be - no party to
lower that Court by piecing the judges in the situa-
tion of officers of the Court of Session. The Noble
Lord then adverted to the Sheriff's Court, and con-
tended that if Trial by jury were extended to the higher
Courts, it ought also to be adapted in the inferior.
A Bill hid been introduced which would establish
County Courts throughout Estgland; and, as there
seemed to be a general wish to asslmilate the judica,
tore of the two countries, be could not see on what
principle the Sheriff's Courts, and the other inferior
Courts, were to be passed over in this Bill, while
new Courts of the same desatiption, but with the
privilege of Trial by Jury, were about to be este,
Wished throughout England. These were some of
the grounds of his opposition to the measure; and
het was the more confirmed In his opinion on the
subject becalm no documents had yet been laid be-
, . fore their Lordships on which to found the altera.
den, Till documents to that effect were produced,
he shold certainly withhold his assent to the mea-
sure. I-fe was obliged, with great humility, to differ
front his Noble and Learned Friend on the Wool-
sack, and from others of his Noble Friends, on thi
question ; because be thought it one upon which
their Lordships could not safely some to a busty
conclusion, was in a state of douht, and was
desirous of being in possession of facts before he
gave his assent to a measure of Co much importance.
I. Ott that account, and not with it view to dispose
finally alba Bill, he Should move that it be read
that day six months; intending to follow up a mo-
tion, which be proposed to make tomorrow, with a
proposition, it, the course of the next Session—if lie
ua►ouief live so long--that a Committee be appointed
o /10/t4tiptd the subject,
Etal 011,43. rem mt intimated litc intention to
hupport t 1 sam,
• siihl that att. the principle of
this mit bud been already- amply ciiteassed and its
details been made matter of amply
Lat.
the
isle
,ttfrr.-9'uent e-
' liberation, be was sorry
Lord opposite should wish to interim:6Z Learned
and fruitless delay. It was argued by sornieletcheatst4irY
• change, now proposed ought, for consistoneyusake,
if they were adopted at all, to be extended *till
further;' but on that subject he would say that it
was necessary to Framed gradually, in order to eel
with effect. He saw no adequate grouna for delay
and ho could testify that in the highest judieia
quarters in Scotland -It-was felt that a great injury

would be done if the measure were further delayed.
He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would
now give the Bill a second reading.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said that this Bill
was the crudest and most inconsistent low to regu-
late the jurisprudence of any country that he had
ever met with. The Bill was intended to repeal
certain Acts, and to enact certain new provisions.
But what did it do in fact I It re-enacted the whole
of the Acts in question save such us should be in-
consistent with the present Bill; so that a lawyer
would be under the necessity of reading through the
whole of the former Statutes to discover what was
in conformity, and what was at variance with this
law. He would venture to say that there were not
two Noble Lords in that House who would agree as
to what was or was not consistent with this Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the
principle of the Bill had been admitted in it Bill
which had been brought in many years ago, and dis-
cussed in a Committee.
The Bill was then read a second time. To be
committed on Wednesday.
SALE OF BEER BILL.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the third
reading of the Bill.
Tire Duke of RICHMOND thought that a more
gradual change ought to take place in the law than
could be brought about by this Bill. In the case of
the bounties in the linen trade fisheries Government
had allowed time. The clause which he pro-
posed the other night he should again propose to-
night ; viz., that the matter should stand over for a
year. Would coy advantage be gained by the public
by the destruction of 50,000 publicans ? If his
clause of the former evening were rejected, lie should
then move another clause. He should also propose
that no one who bud received parochial relief should
be allowed to occupy one of these houses.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had no
objection to the insertion of a few words to tho effect
that the securities of persons to have excise licenses
should be householders, assessed and paying poor-
rates. As to preventing a constable having one of
these licensed houses, he begged to remind the Noble
Duke that the office of constable was a burden.
Persons were riot to be excluded from it in conse-
quence of enjoying the privilege of a license. As
to the amendment respecting hard labour, he begged
to remind the Noble Duke that the penalties were
on account of failure. lie did not believe that it
was usual to sentence a person confined for debt to
the punishment of hard labour. The publicans at
present obtained enormous profits under their
licenses. There had been instances of persons leak-
ing 7001. and 8001. a-year, with an expenditure of
no more than 2or :3,000/. capital. There could be
no preat injury in not depriving these persons of
every thing they possessed, or even of a small por-
tion of what they possessed, but by creating such a
competition as would benefit the community gem-
rally, they would only be deprived of a part of their
enormous profits. There was one part of the profits
—namely, that from the sale of spirits—which. could
not be touched at all. The same might be said of
that part of their licenses which enabled them to
send out beer to other houses.
The Bill was then read a third time.
Lord MALMESBURY did riot think she clause
of tho Noble Duke (Richmond) would interfere
with the operation of the Bill. By giving an addi-
tional year, those who had embarked their capital
would have a better opportunity of getting out of
die trade. They ought to have a year of grace.
The Duke of Richmond's amendment was put
and negatived.
The Duke of RICHMOND proposed another
clause, which was also negatived.
Several amendments were then proposed by the
Duke of WELLINGTON, and agreed to. • One
was that two householders should be security for the
person taking out a license.
The Duke of RICHMOND proposed "That no
constable or police officer should be allowed to keep
one of these houses."
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that the
clause was unnecessary; for, by the present law, no
publican could be u constable.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that those per-
sons who sold beer were not by this law publicans.
The Noble Duke then withdrew his amendment, and
ilso the amendment relating to punishment by hard

_ .
labour.
Other Bills were passed through their respective
stages, and their Lordships adjourned at Twelve
o'clock.

LIST OF THE MINORITY
OF virrnsor wno vamp von THU MAR OF ItICIIMOND'a

M 1 NT ON TUN THIRD RNADING OP Tll

Puma,
Itiohmond
Cirafton
l'ortland

EARLS.
Falmouth
Ilarewood
Malmesbury
Matirtleld
Sheffield

RA ft EN,
Dartmouth
Eldon

DuKits.
Bedford

Ne-v;ciitle

IArtQUIS.
All esbury

PARLIAU