The Sun.
London, England, 1822-02-19 00:00:00

COURTS OF LAW.

Mr. SCARLETT wished to know from any of his Majesty's
Ministers what had been dune, or was intended, towards.re-

building the Courts of Law in Westminster. It was reported
that it would be two years before new ones were built, and
much as that would be inconvenient, hi should nut obj'ect to it
if the uld ones were hull: up for the interval.
The CHANCELLOR of the FXCHEQUER stated, that
directions had been given to accelerate the execution of the
plan which had been adopted. The new courts, would cer-
tainly not be so long as the Learned Gentleman had stated.
Inquiries had been made on the subject of rebuilding the old
Courts, but it was found that a great supplyitif new mate-
rials.would he required.
Mr. BANKES hoped the Estimates of ;It new building
would be laid before the House.
SCOTCH APPOINTMENT'.

Lord A. HAMILTON, pursuant to. notice, moved for a
copy of the appointment of Alexander Ferrier, Esq. to the
office of Conservator of the Privileges of the Royal Burghs of
Scotland. The Noble Lora said, that. he 4,4 s not aware that
there was any use in any such appointment; hut he bad been
told that the appointment upon this occasion had been made
without any salary beihg attached to it. Not being able to
satisfy himself on this point, however,, and finding that a
salary of 2001. a-year belonged to it formerly, he should
press. his motion, reserving any remarks he might wish to
make, till be heard if there was any salary in the present case.
The LORD ADVOCATE said, he had no objection to the
motion ; but he meant to state, that the appointment of Mr.
Ferrier was without salary. With regard to the nature of
the office, it was created in 1550, for the purpose of watch-

PRICE SEVENPtgChIi,

ing over certain commercial privileges which Royal Burk.fis
had in trading with the Netherlands.. It was as a tribute of
respect that Mr. Ferrier had been appointed to this situa-
tion.
Sir W. CURTIS said, thatif -there was any thing improper
in the case he was to blame., baying. recommended Mr. Fer-
rier to the situation. He did so, because that Geyt/eman has
conducted himself in a distinguished manner in o.otheiat si-
tuation he held at Rotterdam; and he. could assure IN:House,
-he sought after it for honour more than 'emolument.
After a few obser.rations from Mr. Aim:mumßY and Mr.
PEEL; not distinctly addible in the gallery, the -Motion was
agreed to.

INFERIOR COMMISSARY COURTS in SCOTLAND_
Lord A. HAMILTON, in calling the attentiorsof the House
to the subject he was now about to bring forward, took a very
different view of the conduct of the Gentleman opposite in
this case, from that which he took of it in the one which hai
' just been disposed of. The offices in the inferior Commissary
Courts had been reported on by the Commissioners who sat in
18113. He would first state to the House what the offices were ;
in the next place, he would give his reasons for wishing to see
them abolished :. and thirdly, he would shew the means by
which they were to .he abolished. The offices were- remnants of
the old Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. There were 23 Com
missaries, aCommissaries' Clerks, and 23 Procurators.
These officers were not paid by the Government, le-was aware,
but they were paid for by the people, and the offices ought to
be abolished not only because they were useless, but because
they, were absolutely prejudicial. The Commissioners who
sat in. 1808 reported on these offices in 1810, and Ministers
Were 'culpable. for haying neglected in the years which had
since elapsed, to attend to that recommendation. But what
had been the conduct of Government? They waited from 1810
till 1814 or 1815, and then the Lord Advocate brought in a Bill
for the abolition of them. The preamble of that trill set forth
that the Offices of the inferior Commissary Courts of Scotland
ought to be abolished, and therefore declared them them to be
abolished from the lapse of a calendar month after the passing of
,that Bill. The theh Lord Advocate, however, abstracted the
Bill altogether from the House. He (Lord A. Hamilton) had ,
never been able to learn the true reason why ,that Bill was
abandoned; but the pretext was, that another .Bill, had been
prepared for the same purpose by
.an Honourable Friend of his.
A new Report, in 1818, had .made it more imperative than
ever on Ministers to abolish the offices in question. The Bill
of which he had spoken, was not only to abolish the offices in
question, but it was also to put an end to the sale of offices in
the Commissary Courts. He would now proceed 'to state the
reasons which induced him to ask for leave to bring in a Bill
to accomplish these objects. He proceeded 'to shew that the
practices complained of in the reports were in full activity
in 1818. Great abuses appeared to exist with respect to the
exaction of fees, and in sonic instances he had been given to
understand fees had been exacted to an enormous amount, for
the purpose .of giving the parties a larger claim for compen-
sation. He hoped this would be remembered by the Learned
Lord when they came to be abolished, as he trusted they
would be shortly. He proposed to move for leave to bring-
in a Bill to abolish them, and inadequate as tie might
be to frame a nieasure himself, as he had before hint the Bill
formerly introduced on this subject by a Learned Lord,
he hoped he should 'not greatly err. Ile would admit that
some few of the parties whose situations. would be done away
by this Bill might be entitled to compensation, but the
great bulk of them he was of opinion-were entitled to no com-
pensation at all. He was at a loss to guess on what grounds
these offices could be defended. They had been reported as
fit.to be abolished fourteen years ago. Five, or six years af-
terwards a Bill was brought into the House for that purpose,
and three or four years after that, a new Commission reported
on them in the same way. Why offices should be kept up in
times like these which had been so repeatedly recommended
for abolition, he could not conjecture. the Noble Lord, after
some further comments, concluded by moving " For leave ,to
bring in a Bill to abolish the inferior Commissary Courts in
Scotland." ..
. . .

The LORD ADVOCATE for SCOTLAND considered the
subject now before the House to be of some importance to the
country to 3,vbich liehelonged.. _Had the Noble Lord done him
the honour to ask him what he purposed to do with 'respect to
the offices in question, he should have told him, that before
leaving Scotland, he had been in correspondence with the
heads of the Courts on this subject; and further, that he had
considered it to be his duty to propose a Bill, which he should
bring forward in the course of the present Session of Parlia-
ment. Such being his avowed intentions, he would put it to
the Noble Lord, whether it might not be advisable for him to
withdraw.* present motion, and leave him (the Lord Advo-
cate) to introduce the, measure which he had framed to meet
this evil. The Noble Lord had thrown great blame on Minis-
ters for not attending to this subject sooner. Ile:knew not
what censure might be merited elsewhere, but he was confident
that no blame could, in fairness, attach to himself. When he
came into office two years ago, he found eight reports, recom-
mending the abolition of offices. It was hardly possible for
any individual, in one Session, to attend to all of these—
He had taken two of them last year, those relating to the
Court of Sessions and the Court of Admiralty.• lie was
prepared to take two more this year, and thus he intended
to proceed, seriatim, with the . whole. He admitted that
some of the officers were entitled to no compensation, but
others were placed in a different situation, and would certainly
claim compensation. The total amount of the emoldments of
these persons came to not less than 4 or .1,0001. per annum.--/
This had been shewn by the persons themselves at a time when
they were desirous of making their gains appear as low as pos.-
sible. It was a very serious question for Ministers to deter-,
mine, whether they abolish offices which were not paid for out
of the public purse, and charge the-public with that compen-
sation which would be expected by those who at present held
them, when they were abolished. He was of ()mien that it
would be better to abolish them gradually. To the officers
connected with the Courts that could only recover 'debts to
the amount of 31. 6S. Bd., he' should propose to give- no corn-
pensation. In other cases some coinpensation might be given..
Here the Learned Lord proceeded to shew the advantage of
abolishing.the Offices in question gradually, and appealed to
the. Noble Lord whether he could be acquainted with • all the
details connected with this subject, so as to be able to proceed
with his Bill to advantage, seeing. it was the intention. of Go-
vernment to take it up in the course of the present Session.
He had only further to say, that no office in these Cniirts had
been recently given•to any but on the express undeastanding
that should a bill like that now in contemplation pass; no coal-
pensation would be allowed to those taking office.
Sir J. NEWPORT supported the motion,: and hoped lit
what might hereafter be done, no improper couipensation
would he granted. -
Sir w. DUNDAS expressed his conviction that those who
had stepped beyond their duty to get up a claim to large com-
pensations, would not be countenanced or protected.- •
Lord A. HAMILTON,- in reply, said he conld have no oh,
jection to surrender this business to the Learned Lord, if he
had a reasonable prospect that there would be promptitude of
action. He therefore wished the Learned Lord to let the pre..
sent motion be carried, he (the Lord Advocate) taking upon
himself to bring in the Bill. He (Lord A. Hamilton.) would
not again interfere, if he ,saw the matter likely to be attended to
in earnest by the Learned Lord.- Be insisted on the necessity
of his having some pledge given to him on'thissubjeci;ttior the
delays which had already taken place. Ile was glad ;to hear
the Learned Lord say that he considered it to be his duty to
proceed to abolish these offices, but wished to ask how it had
happened that Ministers had not scone: discovered that it was
their duty to frame such a measure. „ ••;„ -
The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND repeated what
he had previously stated on .the subject. lie had a Bill in a
forward state of preparation, which he pledged to• bring in.
before the Eastet,Reeess. Re thought the more regular way
would be for him to move-for leave to bring in this till when
he was ready.
Mr. PEEL begged to say, that there was one office which it
might be necessary to fill up,. but if 'this *ere done, it would
be on condition, add the same condition would be attached to.
any other office granted' in those Courts, that in the event of
abolition, no compensation should be allowed, even for the
legal fees of office. • ~
The SPEAKER said, 'no debate could then take place, in
conformity with the strict rules of the House; but, if there was
any misunderstanding about the question now to be put, it
might be for the corrkeniencei of the House that explanation
shbald be asked and given. • •• :•
BROUGHA3I-clid not understand the objection of the
Noble- Lord to:the proposition made by-his Noble Friend. The
Learneiclihrdaseernetr to. think it would not be regular for
the motion Of the Noble Lord for leave to bring in a Bill
to be carried. But in that House they had no Lords of the
articles, as they formerly had in Scotland, whose duty it was
to prepare all Bills. It might be more expedient, but it,