The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-11 00:00:00

fourti) 7:.'7bittgit

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PAHL IA sIENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(THIS DAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from Bays.
water, praying for the enfranchisement of the London
University.

Similar petitions were presented from Warwick, by
Mr. Green, and from Canterbury, by Mr. Pellatt.
Mr. BIGGS presented a petition from the Isle of
Wight in:favour of the ballot and other electoral reforms.
Mr. PENNANT presented a petition from Caer-
martheri in favour of the County Rates and Expenditure
Bill.

Capt. SCOBELL presented a petition praying for the
improvement of the management of lunacy.
Mr. 0. GORE presented a petition from places in
Salop against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday.

ELECTIONS BILL.
Mr. G. M. BUM' moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which he explained was to lessen the
expense of elections, by shortening the time which, ac-
cording to the present law, must elapse, both with re-
gard to counties and boroughs, between the receipt of
the writ or precept and the nomination. There was
also a provision limiting the time of polling at the Uni-
versities to five days.
The bill was they read a second time without further
discussion:

SHERIFF COURT (SCOTLAND, No. 2) BILL.
Mr. CRAUF UR I) presented petitions in favour of
this bill.

Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., presented a petition from the
Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland against the bill.
Mr. CRAUFURD then moved the second reading of
the bill. The hon. member then proceeded to enter into
a history of the courts up to the present time. The
sheriff courts occupied the place of the county courts in
England, and the object of this bill was to graft on the
Scotch courts all the advantages which had been con-
ferred on the English courts by recent legislation, with-
out at all seeking to Anglicise the courts. The
evils of the present Scotch system were these : The
sheriff substitute performed, in Scotland, the dif-
ferent functions of county court judge, criminal
judge, police magistrate, and had also testamentary and.
Admiralty jurisdiction, and to perform all these fuTic-
tions, of course he was obliged to reside on 'spot:
The appeal from him being not only on points of law,
but also of fact, to the sheriff principal, who was gene-
rally a practising barrister residing in Edinburgh, and
all the proceedings before him were carried on in
writing. They were generally very expensive. The
great evil complained of was this appeal to a
non-resident judge, and he proposed by this bill to
do away with this appeal upon points of fact,
and to give an appeal on points of law to a court of law,
and not to the Sheriff. They would be far cheaper and
more satisfactory. He also proposed to give parties the
power of trying the case by a jury of five on the decision
• .
of the majority. The great mass of those classes of the
people of Scotland were the suitors in this case,
though he would allow that there was a great diversity
of opinion on the subject among other classes. He
wished to have this bill read a second time, in order that
it might be referred to a select committee.

COWAN said that when the subject first began
to excite the attention of the people of Scotland, he
had felt favourable to the principle contained in the
bill, but after consideration and inquiry, he had come
to the conclusion that the abolition of the double system
would be very prejudicial to the administration of
justice. He did not deny that the Sheriff's Court
greatly needed reform, but he was quite satisfied that
the bill of the learned Lord Advocate would do all that
was required, and he should therefore oppose this bill
as unnecessary, and even prejudicial to the interests of
the Scotch people ; and he should move that it be read
a second time this day six months.

Lord DRUMLANRIG brought up the answer of her
Majesty to the address on the subject of Kilmainham
Hospital, informing the house that her Majesty would
cause immediate inquiry,to be instituted on the subject.

Mr. EWART supported the bill. He desired that it
should be read a second time, in order that it might be
referred to a select committee, and evidence taken on
the subject.

Mr. C. BRUCE opposed the bill, because he thought
it would destroy by far the most 'valuable part of the
local jurisdiction in Scotland. He denied that the
opinions of Scotland were in favour of doing away with
the office of principal sheriff ; in fact, he believed it was
quite the contrary. The two great bodies—the Faculty
of Advocates and the Writers to the Signet—were de-
cidedly against any change in the existing system of
double sheriffs, but were in favour of the reforms pro-
posed by the Lord Advocate's bill. It was said that
persons of no standing or ability were appointed to the
office of principal sheriff ; but on looking over the rolls
of the sheriffs of different counties, he found that
all the eminent lawyers and judges of Scotland
had at one time of their career filled this office.
(Hear.) He believed that if the house read this bill a
second time they would have to say good bye to law
reform in Scotland, and he should therefore support the
amendment.

Mr. A. HASTIE said that the city which he had the
honour to represent (Glasgow) was almost to a man
in favour of the abolition of the double sheriffs. It is
perfectly true that many eminent men have held the office
of Sheriff, but not more than three of those at present in
office have ever practised in the court. The fifty-two
Sheriff-substitutes only received among them the sum of
21,0001. In the west of Scotland, people had unani-
mously declared in favour of the single Sheriff. He would
support the second reading of the bill.
Colonel BLAIR considered that it was not necessary
at present to discuss the advantage of the single Sheriff.
The question was whether evidence should be taken
before select committee. If the noble lord would
pledge himself that evidence should be taken on this
subject he should vote against the bill, but if not he
should certainly support the second reading.
Mr. E. ELLICE did not consider it advantageous
to go into any lengthened inquiry upon the subject. The
Sheriff's substitutes are appointed entirely without
reference to their politics, and only in reference to their
capabilities. In his opinion the objection to the single
sheriff was that he might be elected with reference to his
politics. The groundwork of the present system seemed
to him to be well adapted to the state of the country.
In the Highlands some of the best sheriff-deputies are
not advocates at all, and they are, notwithstanding, well
competent to perform their duties. He should vote
against the second reading of the bill.

—Mr. CHARTERIS considered that the agitation
about the double sheriff system was not so great at
present as it bad been. The question had been con-
sidered by the Law Commissioners in 1834, and they
were of opinion that any change would be prejudicial.
He did not at present see any. greater reason for a change
now than there was then ; and he should therefore vote
against the second•reading of the bill.
After a few words from Mr. COLLYER and Mr. MAC-
GREGOR,

The LORD ADVOCATE considered that, as in the
years 1818 and 1835, the public voice of Scotland had
put down agitation on this subject, so it had in the year
1853. The main principle of the present bill had been,
at a meeting in Berwickshire, entirely condemned. He
was sure that the house would pay some attention to the
opinion of the Scotch lawyers, and that of the writers to
the Signet who were not eligible to be nominated sheriff-
substitutes ; and their opinion was unanimous, that to
alter the working of the present system would be very
injurious to the proper administration of justice. The pe-
titioners before the sheriff's court were unanimously of the
same opinion. In his opinion the present measure would
be far from affording real relief to suitors.
Mr. HUME was of opinion that what was really re-
quired in Scotland was a cheap method of obtaining
justice.

After a few words from Mr. ELLIOTT,
Mr. S. WORTLEY thought it better, even at the
risk of the failure of the bill, to meet the strong feeling
in Scotland by instituting a preliminary inquiry on this
subject. He considered the house was not in a condi-
tion to deal with the principle of the bill, and he ap-
pealed to the noble .and learned lord to consent to his
own bill being referred to a committee up stairs.
The LORD ADVOCATE declined to refer his bill to
a committee, as parties were unanimous on all sides that
it should be proceeded with this session.
Mr. DUNLOP said the great mass of the petitions
prayed that. both bills should be referred to a select com-
mittee, in order that out of both they might make a good
bill.

Mr. CRAUFURD replied and expressed a hope that
the house would not, by refusing to send the bill to a
committee, show the people of Scotland that they were
opposed to a full and fair inquiry into this subject.
Mr. BOUVERIE opposed the proposition for refer-
ring the bill to a committee. He denied that the house
was not now in a position to decide on the principle of
the bill.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 5B
Against it lB4

Majority against 126
PROBATES OF WILLS AND GRANTS OF
ADMINISTRATION BILL.

This bil,l went through committee pro joriael, after an
intimation from the' Attorney-General, that he should