The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 29., 1842.

Cm. He (Lord Howick) could not agree to that person being
relieved from custody, and he should, there ore, support the
motion tor his detention. _ _

Mr. BORT IIWICKsaid, he would detain the House but
a very short time. He thought that darkness had been pro..
duced by an excess of light. if the question had rested on the
recommendati.n from the Committee, to be acted upon, aye
or no, his voice would have been a3e. But the Noble Lord
was not in that position, but had departed from the recom-
mendation of the Committee—viz., to commit the witness to
Newgate ; but the effect of the Noble Lord's argument
was a certain amount of censure on the Committee.
'This was not a question of precedent. The question was
simply, what were the grounds on which he ought to say aye
or no to the motion of his Hon. Friend. Those grounds were
whether the prisoner at the bar had given a bonu fide answer
•to the questions put to him. He (Mr. Borthwick) was of
opinion, alter fully considering the matter, that he had not
done so ; and upon that ground he should vote that the pri-
soner continue in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
( Loud cries of " Divide.")
Mr. MUNTZ said it was not a question with him whether
the warrant which had been issued was a legal one or not. It
was sutfci•ent for him that the prisoner had attended to it.
The question was, under what circumstances he had come
to that bar ; and judging from what he had himself said, it ap-
peared that three months after having received the warrant
from, the Speaker, he gave these papers over to some person
who denied ever having received them: This House might be
credulous, but they must be credulous indeed if they believed
all that man had said. Believing that he had done all he
could to deceive that House, he (Mr. Aluntz ) should certainly
give his vote for detaining him in custody.—(Divide.)
Mr FLENIING said that he had had extensive dealings
with Mr. Mabson—(Loud ironical cheers)—as an ironmonger
—(Cheers)—and he had always found him a most honourable
and respectable man in all his proceedings; and if he could be
guarantee for him he would gladly be so..—( Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the motion
EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
SCOTCH JUDGES.

Mr. WALLACE said, that in rising to bring be-
fore the House the subject of which he had givett notice he was
desirous of impressing upon the Right Hon. Baronet that he did
so with an earnest desire of improving the administration of jus-
tice in Scotland. He was quite aware how unwilling the House was
to hear so dry a subject as this, and he should, therefore, feel
it his duty to proceed quickly as he possibly could, and rather
to refrain from expressing the opinions which he himselfenter-
tained, that he might bring before the House the opinions oa
the subject expressed by others. The Blithe proposed to bring
in was absolutely necessary, if the Courts to which he alluded
were to he improved at all ; because it was quite evident, from
the Report which he held in his hand, that the improvement of
the Scotch Courts could not be effected without the inter-
ference of Parliament. He had found, in the course of the evi-
dence taken before the Committee, that no measure could be
effectual without legislative interference. Another object he
had in view, when he moved for the Committee from which
the Report to which he had referred emanated, was to see
whether or no the number of Judges could not be reduced ; and
he must say, circumstances had since then lei him to believe that
there would have been no occasion to fill up the vacancy which
had since taken place. His best course would, perhaps be to read
from the Report those parts which he thought bore most conclu-
sively upon the points which he wished to present to the House.
He believed that Report was drawn up either by his Learned
Friend the late Lord Advocate for Scotland, or by the Chair-
man of the Committee ; for though he ( Mr. Wallace)
moved for that Committee, and gained it too,
he was not permitted to be the Chairman. That great ques-
tion was too important, as they called it, for any Member not
connected with the Government to preside ; consequently, the
hie Under-Secretary was elected Chairman, and he ( Mr.
Wallace) sat as one of the Committee. In the course of reed-
ing the evidence, he wished to say decidedly to the Right Hon.
Baronet and the present Government, that he did feel he was
strongly pressed by those who had other views to read
that evidence. There were certain views entertained
by the ll'ght Honourable Chairman, which went to-
wards a very small improvement, viz., that the Judges
should be required to listen more patiently to the arguments of
Counsel. It had been very well observed in that House, that
it was a hard case that the Judges of a Court of such high re-
spectability as the Court of Session should be ac-
eused of not giving that due and fair attention
to the arguments of Counsel which they deserved.
He had found that really the Judges were more 0: less liable
to that censure, and that they had since found it necessary to
pay more respect to the arguments of Counsel than they had
hitherto done. Though it had been alleged by the Hon.
Member for Stamford that he (Mr. Wallace) had never
done any good at all in bringing 'these questions before the
House, he was sure that his Hon. Friend would concur
with him that a great deal of good had already resulted.
Now, with regard to the Report, he thought the best course
he could pursue would be to read at once to the House the most
important points which it contained. He should first say,
however, that he looked upon the Report as being considerably
one-sided, inasmuch as the Gentlemen opposed to him on tile
Committee were almost all members of the legal profession ;
and he had not found them at all anxious to improve
those Courts in which they themselves practiced. He did
not mean in making that statement to impute any parti-
cular blame to those Gentlemen ; he believed that no class
were impartial where their own interests were concerned. It
was so with the East India monopoly and all other monopolies.
He had no hesitation in saying that the Supreme Court of Scot-
land was now the worst constituted Court in the world. The
En _dish Court of Chancery formerly deserved that character ;
but since the reforms in that Court, the Supreme Court of
Scotland stood forward pre-eminently as the most expensive,
the most dilatory, and, he might add, the least satisfactory, in
which the law was promulgated in any country in the world.
Those were atromg expressions, but he used them advisedly.
He believed that he would hereafter be able to prove his asser-
tions ; if, as he hoped, he should be allowed the means of in-
stituting an inquiry into the subject. He would read to the
House a passage from the Report to which he had alluded,
which would confirm, to a certain extent, at least, the opinions
he had expressed. The Hon. Gentlemen then read the fol-
lowing passage from the Report of the Select Corn-
mittec oat Supreme Courts in Scotland, dated May 28, 1840:
"It would appear that complaints exist as to certain parts
of the procedure before the Lords Ordinary in preparing the
record. This matter was brought before your Committee in
so far only as it affected the time and labour bestowed by the
Judges ; and while your Committee see no reason to withdraw
the preparation of the case from the superintendence of the
Judge, they have no doubt that, preserving that superintend-
ence for all useful purposes, the system might in many respects
be imprnved, so as not only to save a great deal s f judicial
time, but what is much more important for the suitor, pre-
vent delay and expense in the progress of the cause. It does
not belong to your Committee to suggest any particular mea-
sures as proper to be adopted with this view, the improve-
ment generally of the form of process not being before them.
But they think it proper to remark, that many of the evils
complained of, and for which a remedy is most required, have
arisen from this, that the form of process introduced by the
statute of 1825 was not equally well adapted to all forms of suit
or subjects of litigation, on the one hand; and that the Court,
on the other, was so tied down by the express terms of the sta-
tute, as to prevent them from introducing, by acts of sederunr,
or rules of Court, such modifications as would be not only
advantageous, but necessary, in several important classes
of cases. It will be seen by a return laid before Par-
liament, that the time daily cccupisd by either division
of the Court does not extend, on on average, much
beyond two hours a day, and of thst time some part is
always occupied in disposing of orders and motions of no great
importance. Some of the witnesses have stated that on the
Lverage, this part of the business occupies at least one. third of
the time during which the Court sits, reducing to less than
one hour and a half, if their statement be correct, the daily
sittings of the Courts. These aro circumstances which strongly •
mark the present existence of former complaint; but, without
going through the evidence in detail, your Committee are com-
pelled to state that, in their opinion, the system introduced
in 1825 has not been fully carried out in the proceedings of the
Inner House, and that dissatisfaction justly prevails as to the
administration of this part of the judicial system. It is very
much in consequence of this, and of the sittings of the Court in
public not being extended under a system, intended to sub •
stitute, as far as possible, oral for written argument, that an
opii.ion has arisen in many quarters, and apparently with
reason, that the number of Judges in the Court of Session is
too great for the business it has to discharge, and that by
abridging the vacatiensof the Court, and prolonging the periods
of its daily sittings, the whole business might be done by a re-
duced number of Judges. Dissatisfaction has been the con-
sequence, and it may be that this has been among the causes
which have recently occasioned the diminution of the business of
the Court of Session. It appears, too, it has produced, indi-
rectly, very considerable results, by influencing, in some degree,
the form of making up the Records, and introducing a form
different front that intended. An opinion has been
expressed that hearing of causes has become more
full and satisfactory than formerly ; but, on the other
hand, the small amount of time given in public to the perform-
ance of judicial duty appears by Parliamentary returns, anti
the evidence, not to have been augmented. Your Committee
are, therefore' not justified in concluding that the dissatisfac-
tion which has so long prevailed has materially diminished.
arious propositions were made by witnesses as to relieving
the Courts from motions of course, and from difficulties con-
nected with the attendance of the bar in different Courts. It
is clear that motions of form occupy small portion of time in
the Inner House, though no doubt a considerable por ion of the
time during which either division actually sits at present.
Much the more important suggestions relate to the extended
sittings of the Court—to the necessity of their sitting during
a much longer time—every day—'o their sitting on Monday,
and to their availing themselves, if necessary, of the power to
prolong the Session. If it should appear that a greater por-
tion of time than can be given during the present terms is re-
quired for fuller discussion and a proper dispatch of busness, it
ought to be obtained by curtailing the vacations, whether as re-
gards the Outer or Inner Houses. The Court of Justicary
frequently sits on Monday; but they do not see that that circum-
stance necessarilly interferes with arrangements by which that
day might be gained for one or both divisions of the
Court. A great deal might be accomplished by the divi-
sion% sitting on alternate days, or at all events by
using the Wednesday occupied in the business of the
Teind Court, which, though important, is not extensive. If it
w ere necessary, it might be proper to enable the Court of Justi-
ciary to sit at Edinburgh, with two Judges, or with a single
Judge, as on Circuit. Without altering the slays on which the
Court met, a great deal of time might be saved, and usefully
employed, by bedding the meetings of the Judges upon those
occasions when the whole Court is called upon to advise re-
gularly, exclu,ively upon Mondays, or the Wednesdays appro-
priated to the sittings of the Teind Court. These, however,
are matters of detail, upon which your Committee thought it
unnecessary to enter at length, being satisfied th it even we hout
Legislative interference, and under the existing powers of the

Court, there can ba little difficulty to adopt such arrangements
as would give great additional time. Arrangements, however,
may be necessary beyond the power of the Court, in which case
recourse must be had to the intervention of Parliament." Now,
it appeared that the Court sat only two hours a dat, and that
for a limited number of days. He would put it. to English and
Irish Gentlemen how unsatisfactory must be the proceedings of
such a Court? He should observe, in addition, that viva voce
witnesses were not examined before the Court. In
criminal matters alone witnesses were heard; while
in civil cases, every thing was done through long
printed documents. That was their Judge•matte law, and he
could conceive nothinc, so much opposed to the spirit of a free
people. He should inform the House that the labours of the
Scottish Judges at Assizes were of the most trifling descrip-
tion. The proceedings at Assizes i❑ Scotland were reduced
to a mere farce. They had in that country most excellent
local tribunals, which tried all but the gravest offences.
Those tribunals were presided over by sheriffs, who were men
well acquainted with the law. The labours before the Judges
of Assize were thus rendered so light, that the provincial papers
were in the habit of describing them as mere trips of plea-
sure, during which they paid convenient visits to their friends
in the diflerent towns. He would next advert to the informa-
tion lie had received from three gentlemen of the highest know-
ledge and respectability, whose names he would not then
mention, but which he would readily communicate to any
Hon. Gentleman in private. The first letter he would read
contained a description of the state of the Court at the present
pe,iod. The Hon. Gentleman read the letter, which
was addressed to himself, as follows :

" Edinburgh, March 30, 1842.
To Robert Wallace, Esq., from Esq. .
" The Court was divided into two Chambers in 1808. At
that time the Lumber of causes brought into Court in a year
was about 2,500.--(See Parliamentary Return; No. 241,
1824.) • ..The number now (1641) brought into Court in-
_a
year is on), 1 500. —( See Itettirns.) 'this show.; a failing off
of 2-sths. But this does not show the whole elect case in real
business, for iii addition there is to t e noticed the increase in
decrees in absence, which . oceupy almost no time. . In
these eases there is only one enrolment, and at the first
calling, the whole matter is disposed of in a quart -r
of a minute. It is only the decrees in fore that
can give an idea of the real business. Now the decrees info:o
in 1608, when the two Chambers were instituted, were in
number about 1,500. At present they are only about 600. So
that while the total business has been Steadily decreasing, the
real business has been still more decreasing by the increase in
decrees in absence. It is, therefore, no exaggeration to say
that business has decreased one half. If, therefore, two Cham-
bers could do Cie business in 1808, one Chamber could (In it.
now when it is so reduced. It is well known that the two
Chambers when they had cleared off the arrears which had ac-
cumulated, but not sooner, began to sit only for about two
hours a day for 113 days in the year, and even now, under the
influence of the lash, applied by the late Pa liamentary inquiry,
they don't usually sit above three hours a day. . There is n
good reason why the Court should not sit at least thirty
days more, and two hours more each day if neces,ary. But it
is believed that the business would not require such long sittings;
even with only one Chamber. This can be made plain by
figures. The present prolonged sittings at three hours a day,
fur 113 days, give 339 hours for each Court yearly—say, for
both, 678 hours in the whole year. Before the late Parlia-
mentary inquiry, the sittings were only two hours a day, or 452
hours yearly. If the sittings were prolonged 30 days—that is, to
143 days in the year, and to five hours a day. we should have
715 hours from one Chamber, being 37 hours more than the
present volt:wed sittings of the two Chambers. Can it be
seriously maintained that sitting for 143 days at five boors a day
would be too much labour? Let the sittings of the English Judges
answer the question. There would still remain an ample portion
of each day for reading papers. besides more than half
the year for vacations. If the excess of 37. hours by one.
Chamber sitting 143 days for five hours be deducted from the
assumed daily sittings of that time, it would not much exceed
4i hours. 't his, with the constant decrease of business, as
shown by the returns for many. years back, demonstrates that
the time has now arrived when one Court of Review may
safely be abolished, and thereby the delays and consequent ex-
pense arising from the present faulty system, and from the
want of senior counsel both in the Inner and Oater Houses, be
removed, or be greatly lessened, and the still more grievous
and unseemly evil of conflicting decisions emanating from the
two co .ordinate Courts of Review be put an end to."
The next letter he would read to the House was as follows :
" Edinburgh, March 30, 1842.
" Sir—There can be no doubt that your Committee did
much good, and that the Bar, and particularly the Whig
clique, although slow to acknowledge this, cannot deny it.
Their horror at reduction is rational enough, and we must not
be too severe upon them. As you have obtained- for them a
great increase of courtesy from the Bench and enlarged pa-
tience in hearings, they in return should have the courtesy to
acknowledge your services frankly., But this improvement in
patience of course lengthens the hearings, and thereby aggra-
vates one of the crying evils of our Courts, viz., the difficulty
of getting eminent counsel to debate ac- in the Outer House,
without interruption, by being called away to the Inner Houses,
or indeed to get the leading Counsel at all, after the
advisings begin in the Inner House. This great evil can only
be remedied in two ways, either by restricting counsel to one
division of the Court, or, what would be far more effectual and
better everyway, by having only one Inner Chamber. I see
the same evil much complained of in England, and the abrupt
way in which Lord Denman terminated the sittings last term
must have made even counsel themselves feel the inconveniences
of their practising in so many different Courts ! !

" The two divisions sit about one hour longer daily since
your Committee—that is all—and they have had less
work to do last year than in any former one. I have not
}et seen returns for the year ended in July, but from the
printed Rolls I have no doubt of this fact. One division
could now overtake the whole work with perfect ease.
The bankruptcy business being almost' all done now in the
Sheriffs' Courts, has greatly thinned the Rods; and decrees in
absence, which occupy little or no time, are still increasing..
The adjustment of issues before the Jury clerks does not now
occupy so much time as formerly, ai they are better acquainted
with their duties, and very few causes are tried, sowing the
continued unpopularity of the institution, as at present consti-
tuted and conducted in Scotland. As to leading Counsel, we
have very few. Mr. M'Neil is clearly at the head ; the'. Messrs.
Rutherford, Anderson, Wood, and Robertson—five in all—
a poor array certainly from which to supply a bench of 13 Judges.
I am more and more convinced, that one Inner House is suffi-
cient for all the business, and this is the effectual remedy for the
difficulty in getting counsel to plead cases continuously in the
Outer House. Had it not been for the Church cases, the
Inner House would have been quite out of work this winter, so
that the Kirk's squabbles have been a godsend to cur Courts,
for without work, the job of keeping them up, would be too bee
even for Peel's majority. I remain your faithful servant."
The next letter he would read, was also addressed to him by a
professsional gentleman of the highest respectability, and was
as follows

" Edinburgh, Bth April, 1842.
" The number of well employed Counsel at the Scotch Bsr
does nut exceed twenty ; and the leading Counsel are five, viz.,
Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Solicitor •General Mr. Dean of
Faculty Wood, Mr. Adam Anderson, and Mr. Patrick Ro-
bertson. The first two are, and have long been decided
leaders; Mr. Wood and Mr. Anderson nly lately ; that is
since your Select Committee sat. •At the most you will see
there are only five. Whilst such is the number of leading
Counsel, and the well-employed Junior Counsel are not
above fifteen, but say twenty, in order to be within the mark;
the Judges are thirteen in number, subdivided into
two Courts of Review, of four Judges in each, and
five Lords Ordinary, who sit separately, and four of
them daily. Thus, there are daily six Courts sitting,
at precisely the same time, besides which there are issue clerks
sitting for the aojustment of issues to lire tried by Juries, who
require to be attended by Counsel ; anti the' leading
Counsel are also chiefly tmpluved fur this purpose; theretore,
it may be said, truly, that there are seven tribunals sitting
daily. There are a number of English Counsel in the Louse
of Commons who can well understand the bearing of there facts,
and I think you might place the matter before them in a
forcible light, by putting to them-1. Whether they
think thirteen Judges can be required to despatch the business
prepared for their decisions by a Bar, which, reckoning
the well employed Counsel, noes riot count twice their
own number? I should think that English Counsel,
accustomed to sec what is accomplished in the English
Courts, will be satisfied that the Scotch Judges must be
greatly underworked, or that assuredly there is something
very far wrong in our system.-2. Whether it is possible for a
Bar, reckoning no greater number of well-empkyed Counsel
than I have mentioned, can efficiently supply seven tribunals
sitting at the same moment. They will be able to answer this
from their own observation ; but the actual results, the con-
fusion, the delays, inconvenience, and obstructions which are
thereby occasioned, arc given in evidence to prove the fact.-
3. Whether it b' reasonable to expect that such a Bar can
supply a Bench, consisting of thirteen Judges, with lawyers of
real eminence ? In point of fact, it h the great bane of ;he
Scotch system and the Scotch Courts, that we get so many in-
ferior men placed on the Bcneh, where first rate men only
should sit. These are the simple views of the case which occur
to myself; and I think you may glee effect to them in such
a way as to come home to the understandings even of men un-
acquainted practically with our profession."
He would cow read them an extract from a letter in corrobo-
tion of these facts, from his Learned Friend the late Lord Ad-
vocate. He had other letters, which he should not detain the
House with then, but if they were at all necessary in reply, he
should go into them particularly. The Hon. Member then
read the following extract from a letter from the Lord Advo-
cate, Rutherford, to Mr. Cranstoun, dated London,
August 10, 1839 :—" No one who knows the low esteem in
which, from many causes, our judicial institutions are held,
could doubt that if such a Bill * had been introduced, it could
not have been carried, but must have led to defeat, not less
unpleasant to you than the Government. There was a reluc-
tance in supporting us, even where you might least expect it."
He then read an extract from a letter from Lord J. Russell to
Mr. Cranstoun, dated 14th December, 1839 :—" The alterna-
tive for the Government to consider, therefore, was the aban-
donment of the clause, or the loss of the Bill. So fer as my
own personal opinions were concerned, the loss of the Bill would
have been the preferable event. I had some doubts as
to the increase of salary to the Scotch Judges, and
it was only in deference to the sentiments of those
better acquainted with the subject than myself, that I did not
snake a reduction of the number of Judges an indispensable part
of the measure." This extract (continued the Hon. Member)
he considered a very strong authority. The Noble Lord
said, it was only in deference to the opinion of others that he
gave up his own in favour of a diminution of the number of the
Judges ; and whose opinions did he refer to? Let him beg
the attention of the House to this, that the witnesses brought
by the Noble Lord to give evidence, were all expectant: of
office, with on or two exceptions. Two had been made Judges
since, and he had understood at the time that his Hon. and
Learned Friend was himself on the threshold of a very high
appointment. If that was out true, then public notoriety had
misled him ; he was in nobody's secrets; no one confided them
to him.—( Hear, hear.) If they did he would never have
kept them a moment, and therefore he never got any from
either side of the House. He got secrets in •the same
proportion as he did favours—lie never asked for one, and
therefore never got any ; if he got the secrets of others, he
should never keep them, and therefore he neither had one nor
the other.—(Hear, hear.) But he could show that there had
been juggling among parties who ought not to have been con-
cerned in such matters ; they had been kept from him, though
he was considered a decided party man, who might have voted
on a party question, merely because it suited a particular purpose
to carry a particular object. But this was not a party
objet*.—( Hear, hear.) That was legitimate with Members of
Parliement, but this was not a party object. Here were the
Core .house job papers, and he would place them in the
hands of any Hon. Member. During that session there
were only four Judges doing the duty of eight; two were
incapacitated from bad health ; one of them was
declared to be in such a state of weakness not
of mind, for he was of perfectly sound mind—
but he was in such an extremely weak state of health that he
could not do the duty of the Summer Session The other object
' lie had in view was to follow up the course adopted by one of
the most distinguished men who ever sat as Pre-
!Went of the Supreme Court, Sir Ilay Camp.
bell. in his Bill of 1785, for reducing the
number of the Judges from fifteen to ten. He thought it a
very rational proposal, and was supported by the authority of
Lord Jeffery, in the Edinburgh Review. He had before him
a list of the amendments he (Mr. Wallace) moved
in the Report under discussion, but he would not
detain the Helve with reading them
wished to show the necessity of enabling the Court to
do that, which it could not do of itself, and which
was alleged to be absolutely necessary. FT
--e therefore moved
a series of amendments, eleven in number, and he had shown
what evidence had brought out on the question.he merely
He had
now stated, in general terms, the object he had in view ; and he
mightnot
t more favourable with ie
confidence;ellthemm'itbgrweat•spcttu e the ?pinion of the public
was the situation of the Courts
that' his was. They denied entirely that there was a better
dispatch of business, or more wise decisions, and they com-
plained most bitterly of having two Courts sitting at the same
time on questions of the same nature, trying causes on the
same day, and having from the two Courts contradictory
decisions. They complained, justly, of two co-ordinate
Courts having four Judges, as they would be sure to give con-
tradictory decisions. No one in the House could deny that
fact. Where there were four Judges of equal powers,
they would he sure to differ in opinion, and the consequence
was the Scotch Judges were continually having unseemly differ-
ences of opinion. With regard to the!lnner House Judges, they
had little or nothing to do as compared with the other Judges.
He should be glad to have a Bill introduced which would give
them at once three or four months in the year for their vaca-
tion ; reduce the number of Judges to nine or ten,
and they might require four months; they now took
seven ; but how did they take it ? They took first three weeks,
then two months, and then four. In the Scotch Courts busi-
ness was despatched by papers. They did not have witnesses
produced in Court, oral evidence was not taken ; nor was there
any cross •examivation of witnesses by Counsel. If they
did this, they should not require five Judges ; but

• A Bill for the increase of salary.

it was owing to the infernal system of papers—( Oh,
oh)—it was the ..infernal system of Judge-made
law that enforced the nece sity of so many Judges. What was
the result of the system in the House of Lsrds? There were
k3OO appeals to the House of Lords, from England. Ireland,
and Scotland —( Hear, hear.) Let the Gentlemen who cheered
bin , guess what was the share Scotland bad of these appeals ?
They had GOO appeals out of 800.—(Hear, hear.) This was
out of a population of two millions and a half, and thus a
well-informed nation was made to appear a litigious one, from
this confounded system He had done his duty its
bringing the question forward, and he would defy any
Scotchman, with the exception of members of the legal
profession, to say that he had not justly stated
the case. Before he sat down he might refer to the opinion
of the Honourable Member for Glasgow, ors the last occa-
sion the question was brought forward; the substanc,., of it
was this he said he was no lawyer, he represented a large
city, mixed largely with the inhabitants, and he stated that
there was a great feeling of disgust and dissatisfaction with the
Superior Courts. Gentlemen who knew the Hon. Member must
feel that it must be an urgent case that made him speak thus
on such a point as this. Hu was satisfied that he had shown
a good case for being allowed to bring in a Bill. He beg
to state that he was called on to do this by the late Govern-
ment; on the last occasion he brought it forward, he
was asked why he did not not ask for leave to bring in a Bill,
and the [lon. Gentlemen opposite cheered the suggestion. The
Bill would be a very short one, and he could not believe that
the Right Hon. Baronet would refuse his assent to the bringing
in the Bill, by which alone the grievances could be remedied.
The Hon. Member concluded by moving fur leave to bring in
the Bill.

An HON. MEMBER here called out, " Sit down,"

Mr. WALLACE rose with some warmth, and said that he
would not allow any man to tell him to sit down. He should
like to see the man who would take off his hat and say that to
him —( Hear, hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM could assure the Hon. Gentleman
that he had no reason'to complain of a want of courtesy on his
part, because, on a former occasion, he had, at his (Sir James
Graham's) request, postponed his motion on account of the
absence of the Lord Advocate. In the continued absence of
that Learned Lard, it was his ( Sir James Graham's) misfortune
to have to encounter the present motion, without his able
assistance; and such being the case, he:should have hesitated on
determining as to the expediency of not renewing his request,
had he not felt certain that in resisting the motion he might
rely, upon the support of almost the whole House.—( Hear. )
His (Sir James Graham's) opinion on the subject had been
supported by the labours of a Committee selected most
impartially from both sides of the House, and when he con-
sidered the names of same of the Members who sat on that
Committee, he could not conceive a tribunal more likely to
arrive at a sound conclusion, or one more entitled to the con-
sideration of the House. In that Committee many divisions
bad taken place, and upon every occasion the Hon. Member
divided alone ; the subject had therefore undergone meet dis-
cussion. The Hon. MeMber had not stated to the House
what great changes had taken place in the judicature of Scot-
land. The Exchequer and Admiralty jurisdiction had been
abolished, together with many others, and the duties of the
Judges of those Courts were now transferred to the
diminished number of Judges. Now what had been
said by the late Lord Advocate on this subject?
He stated before the Committee that after so many exteusise
changes, that which was really necessary to Scotland was some
pause in those changes. Lord Chief Justice Clerk had given
a similar opinion. The Hon. Gentleman had spoken contemp-
tuously of the manner in which the criminal justice of the
country was carried on, and the manner in which the Judges
conducted the Circuits. Now, for his own part he must say
that he thought the manner in which the business was con-
ducted, amounted almost to perfection. . In discharge of his
official duty, he (Sir J. Graham) had constant communication
with the Judges in Scotland, and he would undertake to say a
more proper discharge of official duty, could not be found
in any part of the United Kingdom. The Honourable
Gentlemen had stated that the Courts of Law in Scotland were
regarded by the people almost with disgust. The Hon. Gentle-
man's motion was confined to obtaining leave to bring in a Bill
to diminish the number of Judges. 'I he Hon. Gentleman
founded his motion on three anonymous letters. Now, he (Sir
J. Graham) would rebut those three letters by reading the
evidence of three witnesses that were examined before the
Committee. The first was the late Lord Advocate. the second
was the present Lord Justice Clerk, and the third the present
Solicitor-General for Scotland. The Hon. Gentleman had
read pretty largely from the Report of the Committee, but
there was one passage that bore •n the motion
which the Honourable Member had studiously avoided
reading. That passage was concurred in by all the
Members of the Committee. except the Honourable
Member, and it was to the effect that the business of the
Courts could not be carried on by one division alone. With
respect to the doubts entertained by the Noble Lord opposite
(Lord John Russell) as to an increase in the salaries of
Scotch Judges, he (Sir James Graham) certainly
shared in those doubts ; but he differed, and con-
tinued to differ, with the Noble Lord relative to the
number of those Judges. He (Sir J. Graham) was satisfied
that the business of the Court of Session could not be con-
ducted satisfactorily to the people of Scotland if the Judges
were diminished. In the practice of the Court, written evi-
dence was done away with, and oral evidence had begun to be
generally resorted to, and every requisite reform was being
brought into operation.
Mr. RUTHERFORD, who was inaudible throughout the
greater portion of the observations he addressed to the House,
was understood to say that he was greatly surprised to find any
dissatisfaction expressed with respect to the administration of
criminal law in Scotland. The conduct of the Hon. Gentle-
man ( Mr. Wallace) was a specimen of the nature of the oppo-
sition got up against the Scotch Courts. The Hen. Member
had no means of informing himself personally respecting these
Courts, but he gathered a series of what he considered facts
from persons on whom he thought he could rely, and then on
such information he came forward in that House, and in lan-
guage the most reprehensible censured the proceedings of the
Supreme Court of Scotland. He hoped there would he a
pause to further change. Though he quite agreed that the
Court of Session had many faults, he thought that its business
was conducted in a much better manner than it had been;
though still low, it was rising in pubic estimation. With
these views, he could not support the motion of the Non.
Member.

Mr. WALLACE rose to reply. There were thirteen Judges
in the Supreme Court, and not more thin twenty well-em-
ployed counsel. That fact stood uncontradicted. 'There were
seven Courts all sitting at the same time, and only five leading
counsel to serve them. This, too, was uncontradicted. It required
little algebra to show that this was not a proper state of things.
—( Loud laughter.) Now, with respect to the
Committee appointed to investigate this subject, thir-
teen witnesses had been examined. Six of these
witnesses were looking out for Judgeships. Two of them had
been made Judges. Three Of them were expecting to be made
Judges. Now that was the farce which had been acted in
the Committee. How did they get rid of the East India mo-
nopoly, and the West hulls monopoly, and all other monopo-
lies? Were they in those cases guided by the testimony of
those who were interested in the monopoly? Nothing could be
more absurd, unsatisfactory, or disgusting in the opinion of the
people of Scotland, than the administration of justice in the
Supreme Courts in Scotland. Nothing could be more satisfac-
tory to them than the administration of criminal justice in the
County Courts. In the one case it was placed on a cheap foot-
ing, in the other on an expensive and bad one. The Judges
did not sit in the Supreme Courts more than
four months and a half in the year. He was perfectly satis-
fied that, with the exception of those parties who were inte-
rested in the present system, he would receive the approba-
tion of his countrymen for bringing forward the motion in the
stroxig terms which he had done. He did not complain of
the administration of justice in the County Criminal Courts,
but its administration in the Supreme Court was a positive farce.
In Edinburgh there were three Judges sitting daily''on similar
causes to those decided at Glasgow and elsewhere with one or
two at most. So little was there to do they had to spread nut
the business as much as possible. There was nothing to
prevent the Sheriffs from performing the whole of the duty.
He believed that the opposition to a change arose from those
who were interested in the present state of things, and in this
belief he would divide the House upon his motion.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap-
peared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion ..... 165
POST-OFFICE.

Mr. WALLACE was again on his legs, on our re-admission
to the gallery. The Hon. Gentleman said—Notwithstanding
the adverse opinion which has been pronounced by the House
on the motion I have just now made, I beg to move for print-
ing a return of what I call plunder by the Post-office. The
question is, whether the return which shows ali the moneys,
whether bills of exchange, or notes, or gold, or trinkets, or
other articles, which have been lost through the Post-office
shall be printed, and those who wish to see the return printed
will vote with me. I air. now speaking of the return of 1837,
which contains Tipages, filled with those abstractions rf money,
bank notes, bills, &c. The return in 1838 contains 25 pages ;
in 1839, it contains a still greater number; and in 1840, it
contains 273 pages ; so that it appears this trade is increasing,
and those who wish to encourage this trade will vote not to
have these documents printed. My returns in 1836
exhibit abstractions to the amount of 600,0001. or 700,0001.,
but what is the amount of the new returns I do not
know. The return is in three different parts, and the
Select Committee for Printing have ordered that two parts
should be printed, and that the third, which contains the items,
should not. I suppose this has been caused by reasons
of economy on the part of the Committee. But if I
had been informed that the Printing Committee would
not print the items, I would not have taken
charge of the matter. In point of fact the return was
originally moved for by Major Chetwynd, who took the
same course which I have done. On looking over three
or four pages of the return which is now to be printed, I find in
each page that coins, bills of exchange, bank notes, money
orders, cheqnes, drafts, chains, and patterns of silks, satins, and
woollens have been abstracted, and I think a great cause of all
this is owing to the Post-office authorities not registering let-
ters. I see two Honourable Members present who
were connected with the Post-office under the late Go-
vernment, and who recommended improved registration. There
is a great difference, report says, between the Poit-office and-
the Treasury as to registration, and I believe that the whole body
of the people will thank the House for agreeing to my returns.
The people never know what becomes of the money which
they transmit by post; I believe the letter sorters, and
letter carriers, and others in the Post-office, have got
PO expert in abstracting money out of letters, that there is
no safety whatever in the transmission of money through
the Post-office, by letter.—( Hear.) I believe it is well worth
the 'while of his House, to inquire into the subject, and the
expense of the returns would be as nothing compared with the
security which the people would feel if they knew (last trans-
mission through the Post-office was properly conducted.—
( Hear, hear.) There has been already enormous expmse
incurred in the returns. As to the motion which I
have on the paper, I am perfectly indifferent personally
as to how the House may deal with it. The Honour-
able Member then concluded by moving—" That the return,
showing the applications which have been made to the Post-
office for letters which were missing, and which contained
money or money's worth, which return was presented to
this House on March 4, be printed ; or failing in this, that a
complete abstract thereof be made and printed along
with the return, which was moved for in connexion with the
above, and which was made to this House on the 18th of May,
and hasheen ordered to be printed."
Mr. H UME seconded the motion.
Sir GEORGE CLERK oppo,ed the motion, and said that
the petitions moved for would not be worth the expense. It
would be an ui.necessary waste of the public money to furnish
these returns, when there were already do cuments before the
House, and accessible to the public, which contained all the in-
formation that could be afforded.
Mr. V. SSIITII thought the motion of the lion. Gentle-
man much too extensive. It went much further than the re-
turn of the 4th of March. It also exce ded the terms of the
motion the Hon. Gentleman made at a former time, which was
for an account of the number of letters, from the sth of
January, 1837, to the sth of January, 1841, frankest or
unfranked, applied or not applied for, containing money
bills, or other •property known to have been secreted
by the setvants of the Post-office; but to the terms
of that the Honourable Baronet now added the words
" or money's worth." But then, by going into the " ap-
plications" for letters, the Hon. Gentleman would throw' a
great deal of undeserved imputation on the servants of the Post-
office. Now, when persons applied for letters, and not getting
. them, alleged that they had been lost in the Post-office, the

fact was that many of the letters w ere lost between the writing
and the delivery, and many more were lost after they_ were de-
livered to the servants of the applicants. He (Mr. V. Smith )
must oppose the motion in its.present shape, on account of the
great expense it would throw on the public, and the Ilouse was
bound to support the view of the Printing Committee, whose
duty it was to practice economy as much-'as they might with'
prudence.
Mr. HUME said, no doubt. great abuses had been cum=
mitted in the printing of returns.—( Ilea., hear, and laughter. )
But there was a great want felt by the public for such informa-
tion as was now asked far ; and if to this were added the ad-
vertisement issued by the Post-office respecting the safety of
Post-office orders, and the ease with which they could be got,
the value of the documents would be increased. But the whole
mass of returns moved for by his Hon. Friend would be too
cumbersome; he (Mr. Hume) would, therefore, recommend
his Hon. Friend to accept the abstract which had been very
properly offered to him.
Mr. -BARING fully recognised the importance of. this sub-
ject ; but there would be great difficulty :n complying with the
motion of his Hon. Friend: However, he (Mr. B.) thought an
abstract would be of great value, and if the motion should
have no other, result than to make people more cautious
in sending money and articles of value through the Ptht-ottice
it would be of great benefit. Ile trusted it would extend the
practice of sending Post-office orders instead of money ; and
indeed, considering the exceediu:;ly careless mariner in which
money was frequently sent, it was too hard that people of the
lower class, and scantily paid as many of the Post-office ser-
vants were—it was very unfortunate that they should be ex-
posed to the temptations they now were through this negli-
gence. He hoped, therefore, the advantages, facilities, and
securities of the order and register sys'ems would be fully im-
pressed on the public. He admitted there might be some d,fects
in the registry system, but it was a very difficult business, and
it delayed the transmission of this letters considerably. He
and his friends, for these reasons, fixed the fee at Is. at first,
in the hope that when the machinery was extensively used and
supported, they might be enabled to reduce it, which he hoped
might soon be done.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER concurred
in the feeling and wishes expressed by his Hon. Friend and
predecessor. Nothing could promote the morality of the Post-
office servants more than that people should cease from the
practice of sending money, and transmit Post office orders in-
stead. When the facilities were made generally known with
which an order for any sum up to 5/. might be procured; he
hoped the practice of tempting poor people would soon be at
an end—for the practice of sending money through the hands
of the poor men who were in the service of the Post-office, was
a system of temptation which needy men could not always
resist.—(Hear.) It should also, in fairness to this hardly
worked class, be remembered that in the rapidity and quantity
in which letters were sent, many of them, said to have been lost,
were only mislaid by accident. As to missing letters the ap-
pearance was always worse than the reality, for though people
would come to the office complaining that their letters had not
reached, and though they would soon atterwards find those
letters at home, they would not comeback and say so. He would
suggest the return shoull state the number of letters missing in
each month, and the money they contained or were said to
contain.

Mr. WALLACE, in reply said, that the advice which he
had received from the other side, he had himself given ; the sug-
gestion would be found in his motion ; therefore, he had no
thanks to give them. He would open one page by chance of
the Return. (The Hon. Member here read a long list of
notes and money which had been stolen from the Post-office.)
All this had been taken in one day. He knew a great deal
about the Post-office.—(Cheers and laughter.) He doubted
if the Printing Committee knew any thing about it. It was a
universal rule whenever a bank-note, or a sovereign, or gold
passed through the Post-office that it never was returned.
Nobody ever heard of any property of this sort ever having
been returned ; but he would admit to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that when a letter contained a bill or property of
that nature, which could be negotiated only with some dif-
ficulty, it miajit be recoverable, but there never was an in-
stance of a letter containing coin which was once lost having
ever been recovered. He would appeal to his Noble Friend
the Postmaster-General if such was not the fact. He had no
doubt but that the Postmaster-General himself would not wish to
see the return published. He (Mr. W.) thought it advisable
to prohibit by law the sending of coin by letter. He would
consent to take the abstract, although he felt that the ab-
stract would not give the information which the return would
give. He believed the system of plunder was so complete,
that the people at the Post •office knew every letter containing
money , that nothing escaped from them. No money got out
of the Post-office now at all. He thought it was
absurd 'to defend the conduct of the Printing Committee.
Members-Were treated in the most cavalier way by the Com-
mittee, and he thought he had just cause of complaint. He
would accept the offer which had been made of the abstract,
and withdraw his motion. _ _

%Ir. HUME wished to know whether it was intended to
extend the time for receiving letters at the general receiving-
houses. At present none were received after five o'clock.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said time
had at least been extended a quarter of an hour.
Mr. HUME—That was only four of the houses. Was it
likely to be expended to all?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could no
answer the Hon. Member's question, but he could assure him
that there was every disposition on the part of the Postmaster-
General and of the Treasury to afford the public every facility
in their power. _

The notion was then withdrawn.
SURVEY OF NEW ZEALAND.

Lord INGESTRIE moved—" That an humble Address be
presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to order a Maritime Survey of the Coasts and Har
bours of the Islands o f New Zealand." As a proof of the
growing importance of New Zealand, he would mention tha
in one year 152 ships had entered Port Nicholson, and during
the same period 18 vessels had been wrecked on the Coast.
This showed the necessity of having a survey in order to have
correct charts. There was no department of the Admiralty
more useful than the Hydroprapher's. As he did not wish to
press suddenly upon the resources of that department he would
qualify his motion by adding to it the words " when vessels
can be spared for that duty without inconvenience to the public
service."

Capt. PECHELL was glad the Noble Lord bad called at-
tention to the subject. The Government, bethought, ought to
explain why the survey had not taken place long :Alice.
He agreed with the praise which had been bestowed upon the
Hydrographical department of the Admiralty. There was no
departmentbetter conducted, and none worse paid. The posi-
tion of the hydrographer's office was truly disgrauful, in a
miserable garret at the Admiralty. At the time he was on the
coast of America during the American war, there was fre-
quently an error of a degree of longitude in the charts of the
American coasts, so that it was quite unsafe to trust to them.
Ile was sorry the Noble Lord had listened to the suggestion
which had been made to him, to snake the addition to his
motion which he had done. In fact, there was no intenthin
whatever to make the survey, It might perhaps be made in
the course of the next twenty years, but it ought to be made
immediately. —Agreed to.
Mr. COWPER postponed his motion for calling the atten-
tion of the House to the state of the Greenwich Hospital
Schools, and to move the following resolution—" That, in the
opinion of this House, the schools attached to the Royal Hos-
pital at Greenwich should be open at all times to the inspection
of inspectors appointed by the Committee of Privy Council on
Education, and that Reports of such inspection should be an-
nually laid upon the table of this House"—to the 12th May.
Mr. HUME postponed his motion for a Committee to in-
quire into the proceedings of the Commissioners of the National
Debt, under the Act 9 Geo. IV. .c. 92.
FINES AND RECOVERIES BILL (WALES AND

CHESHIRE).
Sir J. GRAHAM, In moving for leave to introduce a Bill
" for remedying defects arising from the misprision of Officers
in recording Fines and Recoveries in Wales and Cheshire, and
for better recording the same," said, that under the ancient
jurisdiction of fines and recoveries, there had been very
gross neglect. When he said neglect, he used the mildest
term, for he had reason to believe that some very im-
proper transactions had taken place in that depart-
ment ; so much so, that many titles had been jeopardised.
In providing a remedy great care should be taken not to injure
those titles which had been affected. This was a subject of the,
greatest importance, and he had not introduced this Bill with-
out first consulting the highest legal authorities.—Leave was
given.
The RIGHT Box. BARONET also moved for a copy of the
Report of Mr. Block, on the subject of fines and recoveries.
—Ordered.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BILL.
On the Order of the Day being read for going into Com-
mittee on this Bill,

Lord STANLEY said he hoped the Hon. Member opposite
(Mr. Hawes) would postpone his amendment to a clause
of this Bill until the third reading, and not take the sense
of the House on the Report. As the Honourable Gentleman
wished but ono discussion, he (Lord Stanley) hoped the Hon.
Gentleman would consent to take it on the third reading.
Mr. HAWES said he thought the Noble Lord had hardly
done him justice, as he (Mr. Hawes) had already postponed
his motion, and he therefore could not consent to further
delay, but take the discussion on the Report.
Dr. BOWRING said he believed it was generally under-
stood that the discussion should be taken on the Report.
Mr. HUME said that he himself approve{4 of the clause, but
he wished a discussion to take place, and he thought more jus-
tice ivould be done to the subject by discussing it on the Report.
After a few words from Mr. Plumridge, Lord Stanley, and
Sir C. Napier,

•
The Report was brought up,
The consideration of the Report on the Colonial 13,,sungers
Bill was deferred till Monday next.
The Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill went through Com-
mittee. Report on Monday.
The Timber Ships Bill was read a third time.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at One o'Clock.