The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-26 00:00:00

England, Scotland, and Ireland alike, for they all paid alike,
and bore a great cost--no less than 25,000/. per
annum—for the payment of their judges. He held in
his hand the Act that was passed for increasing the salaries of
those judges, in order to diminish the arrears of business, and
to facilitate justice. He would read another extract to the
house as to the state of the Scottish law, and that return
showed that in the course of one session there were only eight
vases adjudicated on. He (Mr. Wallace) had many facts in
his possession, all bearing upon the question, but he would
crr,fine himself to the particular matter of his motion. He
had obtained, last year, a return, showing the number of cases
adjudicated on in England, as also in Wales, in Ireland, and in
Scotland. The result of that return he would lay before Hon.
Members, and he requested their particular attention to it.
'1 he return was for the season of ltr44, and the proportion of
cases in the different countries was as followed :—To the
thirteen millions of population in England there were 154
judges, thus showing one judge to every 100,000 inhabitants ;
Ireland, with a population of eight millions, had 124 judges ;
and Scotland, with above three millions, had 94 judges, thus
showing one judge to every 27,000 persons. The people of
Scotland complained most grievously of the two courts of law,
and of their ever-varying judgments. The Scottish bar was
now so much reduced both in the number of first-rate, and
other counsel, that it was perfectly impossible that
persons could get their cases conducted without a
very great, indeed an enormous expense.—( liter, hear.)
It appeared that in Scotland the vacations of the Courts of
Session exceeded the time of the sessions themselves. One
court sat 113 days, and the other only 103 days. By a re-
turn, which he had moved for in 1840, it appeared that for ten
years there had been 813 appeals to the House of Lords. Out
of these 598 came from Scotland, or nearly three-fourths of
th • number of the whole kingdom. The Hon. Member then
referred to several documents to show the comi arative expen-
diture of the law courts of Ireland. Scotland, and England,
and the business done in each. He contended that the busi-
ness; in the criminal, as compared with the civil courts, was
simple, easy, and disposed of with facility. He next referred
to the time devoted to judicial business by the House of Lords,
which, he said, did not average five hours a day. Then with
respect to the Court of Quarter Sessions, he would beg leave
to read a short statement upon that subject. Having done so,
he then went on to say, that the reason he had brought this
question forward was, because he had hitherto entirely failed
in inducing the Government to give them a better system of
jurisprudence. All over Scotland criminals were brought up
time after time, and for a series of slight offenses
might be convicted and sentenced to transportation.
In England there was a frequent opportunity of
trying prisoners, but in Scotland, they bad the old jog-trot
system of holding an assize once in six months. They had
wisely legislated for England and Ireland in this respect, for
prisoners were tried at periods near to the time when their
offences had been committed, and they had, therefore, a great
advantage over Scotland towards the repression of crime.
During the sitting of the Court of Session, and then only, pri-
soeers were tried once a week in Edinburgh. • Why was not
that system adopted over the whole of Scotland? But, in-
stead of this, persons were kept in prison who might be inno-
cent, for four or five months, and this was so because the con-
venience of the judges was consulted rather than the proper
administration of the law. He did sutanit that this was a
state of things which ought riot to be suffered to continue.
There was great inconvenience to the inhabitants of Scot-
land generally, under the present mode of proceeding.
Ile believed that nothing could be more injurious to the morals
of the people of Scotland, and to their right to have justice
fairly administered, than the present system. With respect to the
penitentiary system, that was found to be an entire failure.
ti hen the criminals were discharged they returned to their
old habits ; and he was satisfied that if the House adopted his
recommendation, it would remedy the evils. If the proposal
he had suggested met with the approbation of the House, there
would be a great improvement in the general jurisdiction of
the courts of Scotland. The Honourable Member con-
eluded by making the motion of which he had
given notice :—" To bring before the House the amount
of business done yearly by the Court of Session, and the nature
and extent of the duties of the Judges composing that Court;
and to ask leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the
Act 1 William IV., c. 69, as provides that there shall be thir-
teen judges in the said court ; and to extend the jurisdiction of
the stipendiary county judges, called sheriffs, by giving them
the power of awarding the punishment of transportation, in
the event of the judges in the Court of Session being reduced
below the number of thirteen."
The LORD ADVOCATE objected to the motion. The
Hon. Member had not made out any case for any alteration
of the constitution of any of the Scotch Courts. In 1840 the
Hon. Member had made a proposition very similar to this. At
that time an investigation had taken place. That investigation
had been full and ample, and what was the result ? It had then
been decided, not that there should be a reduction of the num-
ber of the judges, but that the business should be so divided,
that each case should obtain more of the time of each
of those judges. Many of those views which the
lion. Gentleman entertained at the time that investiga-
tion took place, he seemed now not to have taken. One of the
two inner chambers of the court—those courts of appeal which
reviewed the aludication of causes before single judges—has
before it an excess of business. At the date of the Commis-
sion in 1840 the business of those courts was less than it had
been for some years before. It continued to be. much smaller
than it had been up to 1842, and during that and the following
year it gradually increased ; but he believed no inconvenience
had arisen from this circumstance, or to affect the result of the
investigation of the Cemmittee in 1842. It should net be sup-
posed that because a greater quantity of business is at times
performed in one court than another, that that court was inef-
ficient or useless. Still less should it be supposed that because
a less number of cases was heard in one court than another, that
Court was idle. A combination of circumstances some-
times threw a greater quantity of business into one court
than another. In one of the divisional courts of Scotland
there was at that moment a most fortunate combination of
talent and legal knowledge.—( Hear, hear.) It was not
wonderful, therefore, that such a number of causes were
brought there. If two courts were wanting in 1840, which
it was clear were required at that time, surely they could not
in 1845 dispense with one of them. It frequently happened
that causes of greater intricacy were brought into one of the
cons is—the hearing of those causes was more protracted—and
occupied a greater length of time. It would, therefore, be
seen that the number of causes was a most fallacious test. But
even with respect to the number to which the Hon. Member
had so pointedly alluded, let him, instead of considering the
mere quantity, look to the description of those causes. Now,
those gentlemen who reported in the law courts, reported only
those cases which were in some points of view remarkable. arid
deserving notice. lie would read for the House, from as official
return, the record of those causes that had been tried in the
two courts. In the first division of the court in the }ear 1642,
108 causes had been reported. In the second 158. In the
fist division, in 1834 (the year ending Nov. 4), there had been
98 causes tried ; in the second 111. The judges of both courts
were almost continually occupied between the circuits and what
was done in the ordinary courts and in the chambers. The
whole period intervening between the rising of one session and
the sitting of another, was in this manner occupied. The Hon.
;Wernher proposed to do away with the circuits of the supreme
judges, and to vest in the sheriffs the power of passing sentence
of transportation. lie thought that this would be an unwise
and unsatisfactory measure. At present those who were sent
to be tried before the circuit courts had their cases previously
anxiously investigated. If they gave to sheriffs this power,
what would ensue? There were thirty-one sheriffs, each of
whom might arrive at a different decision. At all events, it
was quite clear that with such a number there could be nothing
uniformitylilts in the punishment, than which nothing could
be more desirable. Here were thirty-one separate discretions,
in addition to the judges; and, in short, he did not know of any
course that would be mere likely to cast a blot upon their
criminal jurisprudence. At present no man was tried
subject to transportation without being defended by counsel.
In the High Court of Justiciary every man was defended by
counsel. If he asked for counsel, the request was at once con-
ceded, and he got any counsel: he chose to seek. If it were a
serious charge, no counsel at the bar would refuse his assist-
ance, be the situation of the accused never so odious. One
case of this nature, in which counsel had been asked—they
must be all familiar with it—the case of Burke and Hare. The
present Lords Moacrieff, Jeffreys, Robinson, and Cockburn,
lent their assistance.—( Hear, hear.) After some further ob-
servations the Nob* Lord concluded by saying that without a
ease of great necessity, which the Hon. Member had not made
out, his proposition could not be maintained, and he therefore
felt bound to oppose it.
Mr. FOX M AULE said, that whatever opinion they might
entertain as to the merits of the question before the House,
they must all admire the ability, good temper, and moderation
with which his lion. Friend had introduced it. He felt bound
to say that he did not agree with him—( Hear, hear)—and en-
ly agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord that it would
be unwise to give the inferior courts greater jurisdiction than
they had at present. Such being the case, he could not assent
to this motion. But it was possible that circumstances might
arise to bring this matter under the notice of the Government,
arid if such circumstances did present themselves means might
be devised by which the business of the Court of Session might
be so regulated that parties coming to that court might be
redressed. He would not say what means ; but perhaps one of
the most obvious was to give parties coming to that court the
power of choosing their own courts. Should this means be
devised, he believed it would be sufficient for the purpose; but,
if not, there was little doubt but that other means would
present themselves of obviating the difficulty.
Mr. WALLACE, in reply, said that he understood that the
opinion of the Lord Advocate was, that young persons who had
committed an offence should go on until their tendency to
offence was nurtured into habit.—(" No, no," from the
Treasury Benches.) Either such must be the case, or else
the offences which were daily committed must be stopped.
What was the course pursued ? Young persons were seldom
brought before the inferior courts. They were first subjected
to the jurisdiction of magistrates, then of the shei ills, and then
of the Court of Session. , There was no power that could
inflict the punishment of transportation below the Court
of Session. Now, it was well known that persons
were frequently committed, respecting whom it was
not known whether they were subject to the penalty of
transportation or not, and no fitting adjudication of their
case could be made. The Hon. Member for Perth had passed
a Bill to remedy some of the defects of which he (Mr.
Wallace) complained. But he believed that it was the
opinion of all Scotland that that measure was a perfect failure,
or if not a perfect failure, yet vs nearly so as possible. It did
not, at arty rate, obviate the evil of which be (Mr. Wallace)
complained. The real question was, whether prisoners liable
to transportation should be tried once in six months, as was
the system now followed in Scotland, or whether they should,
as he desired, be brought to trial once in every ten days or a
fortnight. The judges complained that their time was so
occupied by reading papers that they had no sufficient oppor-
tunity of fulfilling their public duty. Now he (Mr. Wallace)
wished that no papers should be read by the judges. If the
judges were so oppressed, and had their duties to perform, he
would put the Jurisdiction Act in force. lie believed that the
judges acted on something the same principle as the Board of
Trade. They were fonder of reading those papers at home
than of doing their duty in the public courts. He had been led
to believe that the custom of the Board of Trade was for its
several members to take the papers to their own houses, and,
after considering them there, to give their decision, when
they assembled at the office. Now, in his (llr. Wallace's)
opinion, it was perfectly absurd to go on to a certain position,
then submit the papers to a judge, for him to put in his
pocket, to consider at• his leisure at home. The Lord Advo-
cate had said that a remedy for these defects would b 3 to allow
the people to choose their own courts. But, for his part, he
believed that the true remedy would be to allow the
people to choose their own judges, rather than their own
courts. It was his belief that if the Lord Chief Justice Clerk,
by any accident were to be removed to any other Court, ho
would have as little business to transact as he had now. He
was aware that he was using strong language, but he believed
the facts of the case would justify the use of such language ;
and he hoped, at least, that the discussion of the matter in that
House would do some good. In the face of the opposition
which he had experienced, he felt it would not be wise to pro-
ceed, and therefore he should withdraw his motion ; but he
believed that the admonition to the judges would be of service,
and he should consequently have the less regret in withdraw-
ing his motion.
CONDITION OF LIBERATED NEGROES.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that his object in calling the atten-
tion of the House to the motion of which he had given notice,
was simply one of benefit to the persons whom he -,.;,,„de-
sirous to serve; and he therefore 1-24,5 a that the terms
were such as would av:•:;, any hostile discussion. When
negroes weresported from Africa aced taken by our vessels, it
was generally supposed that they were provided for. From the
time the slave trade was abolished by law it was certainly