Star.
London, England, 1807-03-17 00:00:00

MUTINY BILL.

On the queltion for reading a kcond time the Mutiny Bill,
Lord HAWKESBURY laid, there were tome parts of the Bill,
on which he walled to make a few obfervations in a future Rage
of its progrefs. It was, however, neccriary that the Papers, for
which he had moved Come time fince, relative to the army, mould
be previoufly in the polleffinn of the Honk..
Lord ILDON obferved, that it had not been ufual to debate
Mutiny Bills, and perhaps matters of importance might thus have
been fornetimcs palled over without notice. He walled to know
whether there were many material alterations in this Bill.
Lord GRENVILLE laid, there were feveral alterations made
in this Bill, of the importance or propriety of which, the Houle
would of courfe judge, in the proper Rage of the Bill. With re-
fpcct to the Papers, he expelled to be enabled to lay the remain-
der on the table to•morrow.

The Bill was read a fceond time, and ordered to be printed.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND.
The Order of the Day, for going into a Commit-
tee upon the Scotch Judicature Bill, being read,
The Duke of 'MONTROSE, after Come prelimi.
nary obfervatians, Paid, that the Bill in quellion
went moll materially to alter and change the Jti
dicature of that part of the United Kingdom ; and
he muff, before the Houfe went into a Committee
upon this Bill, declare his molt ardent and de-
cided oppofition to the meafure. The two great
objets this Bill was propofed to effea, were, pre-
venting fuch a number of Appeals to that Houfe,
and to relieve the Court of Sefton from a great
weight of bufinefs, by dividing it into more Courts,
and by introducing the Trial by Jury in Civil
Cafes. A Noble Lord (Eldon), who had for years
been a Counfel at the Bar of that Houle, and had
conduaed many Appeal Caufes, before he fat in
judgment upon them, thought the Houfe fhould
not confine itfelf to granting only zoo!. cons, but
that it would be much better to grant full remune-
ration in damages, to the party who had fuffered.
This would, in a great degree, remove that evil ;
and the difference of opinion feemed to be, whether
it fhould be done by (mall degrees, or by a pofitive
enaament ? The next objea was, to relieve the
Court of Seffion, by appointing a Court of Re-
view; but this latter Court was again narrowed,
and would be no more able to do the bufinefs, than
the Court of Sefton ; and the confequence would
be, that the Court of Review would find itfelf
bankrupt as to bufinefs. The next objeaion was,
that this meafure was direaly contrary to the un-
derftanding between the two nations, and contrary
to the letter of the Al of Union. The appointment
of two extra Lords, was a fort of jurifdiaion they
could not agree to ; the Chief Juftice might be an
Englifh Lawyer, and the decrees of the one Court
would be reverted perhaps frequently in the other; fo
that this meafure could not prevent Appeals to their
Lordfhips' Bar; and they would find it necellary, at
lall, to reflore to the Court of Sefton its original
powers. But if the parties were compelled to lodge
the money in Court, uutil the cattle fhould be finally
decided, he thought it would check all unneceffary
Appeals. His Lordfhip's next objection was to the'
Trial by Jury in Civil Cafes, which he confidered fo
general and capacious a meafure, that there was
fcarcely any cafe which might not be brought before
that Court by an ingenious praaitioner. He objeaed to this general manner of proceeding; but thought
the bell mode to make a fair trial of it would be, to
introduce k fire into the capital, Edinburgh, until
they fhould be able to comprehend the duty they
had to fulfil. This meafure was not caned for by
any circumflances with which he was acquainted ;
no Petitions upon the fubjea had been prefented
from any perfons of landed property, manufac-
turers, or any other defcription of perfons, who
might be interefted in it. He further objeaed to
this meafure, as being of an additional expence to
the nation at large, and giving a confiderable in-
creafe of patronage to the Government; not that
he meant by any means to fay, that this was the
objea of the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment (Grenville), in introducing this Bill. It
was alfo an infult to the feelings, and degrading to
the (laden of the Judges prefiding at the head of
the Supreme Court of Scotch Judicature. The
people of Scotland were very tenacious of the obli-
gation of an oath, and in many cafes they might be
either flat ved or perjured. The Trial by Jury may
do very well for England (Hear! Hear! from the
7renfury Bench); but it will not anfwer when twelve
men cannot agree, and the introduCtion of it would
only create confufinn in that country. His Lord.
fhip, therefore, would with to propofe, that the Court
of Seffinn fhould be divided into two Courts, and
that the Lord Prefident fhould fit at the head of
each; and, during his abfence from the one Court,
the Vice Prefident, Lord Juilice Clerk, for the time
being, fhould prefide in the other ; this he confidered
would occation much greater folemnity and regula-
rity in the proceedings, and be of very confiderable
advantages upon the whole. After fhortly recapi.
tulating there feveral arguments, his Lordfhip con-
cluded
by moving, " That inftruetions fhould be
given to the Committee to divide the prefent Bill
into two or more Bills, feparating that part relating
to the Judicature, from that relating to Trial by
Jury.".

- Lord REDESDALE confidered this Bill as a
fpecies of juggle, as a kind of keeping the word
of promife," as a meafure which will mot remove
the evils complained of, but may infringe, and did

in fats violate the Alt of Union, and amounted In%
breach of contrats betwen the two ccuntiits : 1.,
could not fee the neceffizy of the meafure, and lard.
why it could not be left to the Court of Section
to make delegations from its own body, and bon)
them into three Courts or Chambers. By doing thii,
the Houle would adhere fully to the principles of
the Union. His Lordfhip thought the introdueli,,n
of the Trial by Jury, in civil cafes, into Scotlan6,
thould form a leparate Bill, and (Mould be fully coil.
fidered firft, by perfons who were converfant
the Courts of Scotland. In elucidating this fubj:k
his Lord(hip adverted to a French Lawyer, will
came to this kingdom fome years ago to (lady Oct
Englifh laws, for the purpofe of inrrochicing
Trial by Jury into France; it fell to his Lordihir,
lot to be his indruCtor and edvifer ; but after giving
the utmoft attention to the fubjeCt, he returned to
own country, impreffed with the extreme impoffil);.
lity of adopting fuch a meafure. His Lordfliip,
therefore, wished the Houfe not to go into the Bill,
until the arrival of the Scotch Judges, whole
ance would he of the utmost importance ; otherwl.e
they would be proceeding to, apply a remedy wi
nut having the proper information before them; and
for thefe reafons he objected to going into the Con;.
mittee.

The Earl of SELKIRK differed materially from
the Noble and Learned Lord in the opinion he had
advanced as to the prefent Bill. That Learned Lard
had Paid, that it went to violate the Articles of
Union, but he had forgottrn'to date to their Lord-
fhips the reafons and arguments which warranted
fuch an affertion. If the Houfe lhould examine into
the hillory of that compael, it would be found, that
a profpeCtive view was taken of thole regulations,
which, in the courfe of time, the adminiitration of
Janice in Scotland might require. Of the principle
and neceility of an alteration in the Scottilb Ju:!ica.
ture, every man who knew that country mull be
aware ; and, in his opinion, the Bill fubmitted by
the Noble Lord, was calculated to produce the be-
neficialand necefrary effeets.

Lord ELDON felt the important duty which the
Houfe was that night called on to difcharge; and
though he was convinced of the abfolute necefEty
of doing fomething, he gill could not conceal his
1 opinion, that in the digeflion of the prefent meafure,
fufficient caution.was not ufed, nor was there In&
cient refpeft paid to the fentiments and judgment of
the Bar and Bench in that country. With refpeg
to the arguments advanced by the Noble Prop°fer
of the meafure, as arifing holt) the number and
preffUre of Appeal Caufes, he could only fay, that
whatever regulations this bill might make on that
head, the inconvenience would gill continue. It
was not a right criterion to regulate the number of
Appeals from Scotland, by a companion with the
number prefented from this part of the Ifland. It
was to be rec illeded, that the Scottith Courts had
no Reprefentative in the Houle, a circumgance
which naturally tended to increafe the number of
fuch applications. The protradion and tedioufnefs
which marked every gage of their progrefs, in a
great degree arufe from the inability of the Scotch
Lawyers to attend at the Bar of the Houle, until
late in the Segion of Parliament ; and, confequently,
a number of caufes of that defcription were, of ne-
celEty, deferred ; whilft loch caufes continued to
operate, the Houfe would never be able to overtake
the bufinefs fobmitted to its judicial decifion. That
the neceffity for Come regulation exitled, no perfan
could deny ; the point at iiTue was, whether the
meafure propofed by the Noble Baron was the one
molt likely to remedy the admitted defeds ? In the
prefent gate of that meafure, he could not agent to
many parts of it, for the cleareg of all realms, be-
caufe many of its provifions and enadments were
at prefent unintelligible to him. He was bold to
fay, that to render it beneficial in principle, and
comprehen(ive in detail, it would require the atten-
tion, diligence, and wifdom of the Houle, aided br
the talents and information of the ablest and molt
experienced Scotch and Englifh Lawyers. For his
own part, he was free to admit, that under the p: e•
fent view of the fubjed, if he was placed on the
Bench of the Court of Seffion, he would, from an
ignorance of its provilions, be unable to expound
the meaning and context of the prefent meafure.
Relative to the Trial by Jury, friendly as he cer-
tainly was to its utility and principle, yet he could
conceive cafes in the fygem of jurifprudence, where
the introdudion of that meafure would rather he at-
tended with evil than productive of benefit. It was
no argument in his mind, becauf: the people of this
part of the empire were juflly attached to fuch a
valuable privilege, that, therefore, it fhould be in-
troduced in the laws and regulations of another part
of the nation, where the falwary principle would
not be operative, but may be attended with tinier-
viceable confequences. The framers of the pre-
fent meafure appeared to forger, that they were to
regul4e a Court, which combined in its inveftiga.
Lion pleadings of Law and Equity; and a conk-
quence was, that, by the prefent Bill, whilft the per-
formance of one duty called a Lord of the Court
of Seffion to the Highlands, the fame Judge would
be wanted to perform another duty at Edinburgh,
under the provifiens of the prefent Bill. The Noble
Lord entered at large into the various proceffes of
the Courts of Scotland, with a view of proving, that
the meafure fubmitted by the Noble Baron was not
,competent to the ends propofed; and that, whilst
it was loaded with objedions, it did, in no mann:r,
remedy the defects which he admitted to exift.---1,1
the good intentions of the advocates of the
lure, he gave every credit ; but he nitilt again ill
prefs upon the Houfe, that it was impollible to
tain either the nature of the evil, or the mariner of
remedy, until the Houfe had fully awl nut' e!
weighed the tenor of the information ia.:,ioh it waiii
be enabled to receive fr..m the dillingoithed
whom it was intended to examine at the hir or he
Houfe.

Lord GRENVILLE faid, he could no: ab•'iain
from expreffing his furprize at ore of the MOIL tin'
founded charges which was brought again It the mea•
lure he had the honour to flibmit to the Houle. T: le
Noble and Learned Lord had complained of a w4nt
of caution in the digeftion of the piefent Bill, of .a
want of refpeet to the dillinguithed charaoers who
compofe the Court of Seflion, and o.e able Lawyers
who adorn its bar. Was the Noble and Learned
Lord juitified in making loch a charge ? Was there
any ground on which fuch an argument againft the
meafurc, and fuch an accufation againft its adv,-

cater, could for a moment rest ? The Houfe would
recollea the circumftances of the cafe ; and in that
recollation, their Lordships would find a complete
refutation of the objeetion which had been made.—
In the courfe which had been adopted, their Lord.
Mips thould bear in mind, that the Houfe recom-
mended certain refolutions, with refpeß to the in•
troduitinn of this AR of Regulation, in the laft
Sellion—a circumftance unprecedented, Cave in the
Union between this country and Ireland. When
this Seffion he had brought in the Bill, he fully
entered into the merits of the meafure, and propofed
fuch an interval of time between the &ft and fecond
reading, as was calculated to inform the public
mind, and the .parties interefted, on the nature of
the remedy propofed, and the alteration intended.—
With fuch feels before his view, can the Noble Lord
perfevete in his affection, that fufficient time was not
given for the rotten difcuffion of the meafure in
that part of the country molt immediately interefted
in the refult of this inveftigation ? But the objeilions
againa the prefent meafure go to a greater extent.—
It has been reprefented by Come as a violation of
that folemn compaß of Union, which it is the pa-
ramount duty of the Houfe molt arietly to preferve.
Was it poffible for him to think that the meafure he
recommended, in the flighteft degree, trenched on
the provifions of that grear Legiflative Contrail, he
would feel it the duty of their Lordfhips at once to
refill it. But he was affured, that it was neither in-
continent with the articles of the Union, or the pre-
cedents of the Houfe, fince the adoption of that mea-
fure. The Court of Seffien, the Supreme Court of
Scotland, was founded on the Parliament of Paris.
The Parliament of Paris was fubdivided into Cham-
bers. This bill only did that which exceed in that
Parliament, upon which the Court of Seffion was
engrafted. So far it was only an acknowledgment
of the original conftration of that Court. Another
objeaion was, the appointment of new Judges, for
the purpofe of conflituting a Court of Review. In
this particular, the opponents of the meafure are
equally mistaken. No new Judges were appointed ;
but in forwarding the fyftem of regulation, the legif-
lature was called upon to revive thole appointments
which did cliff at the period of the Union, and which
were only abolithed by the loth of George the First.
Ic will not be contended, that if Parliament had at
that period the power of abolifhing the offices of Ex-
traordinary Lords, it has not now a tight to exercife
a fimilar authority, in the revival of them. But
when Noble Lords inveigh against the fubdivifion of
the Court of Seflion into Chambers, as violating the
Articles of the Union, they furnifh equal weapons to
deftroy the motion which the Noble Duke ( Mont: ofe)
bad thought proper to make. If the fubdivifion into
Chambers be a violation of the Articles of the Union
the objeftion is equally valid, both against the fub-
divifion into two, propofed by the Noble Duke; and
into three, which the preterit Bill would effeß. But
the Court of Seflion has already exercifed the right of
dividing itfelf into the Outer and Inner Chambers;
and finely it will not be argued, that Parliament is
not competent to do that, which a fubordinate Court
of Junice has previuutly effedted. An able and dif-
tiliguithed charafter had in an unanfwerable manner,
deprecated that monstrous incongruity and irreconci
'able policy, which would bind up the hand. of the
Legiflature, and not permit it to vary the forms of
administering justice, for the period of one hundred
years. But it was idle to take up the time of the
Houle by anfwering fuch objeftions. The Union I
gave to Parliament the power, and it was the duty
of their Lordfhips to confer on Scotland this greaten
boon ; at the fame time that it would enable them,
in the exercife of their judicial funaions and duties,
to do that kinice to both England and Ireland, from
which they were now in no small degree prevented,
by the preffure of Scotch caufes of Appeal.
Lord ELDON role to explain.
Lord MELVILLE (fated, it was not his intention
at prefent to detain the Houfe for any length of
time ; fince he was of opinion with the Noble Lord,
that there would be a muck better opportunity to
ail-curs the expediency of the meafure at length in
the Committee. He was not inclined to earl with
others, that the propofed change in the number of
the Judges was contrary to the spirit or letter of the
Aft of Union. He had himfelf introduced into Par.
Lament, near twenty years ago, a Bill for that ex-
prefs purpofe ; and though feveral were of opinion
that this change was contrary to the principles of
she Union, yet he, in conjunftion with others, whole
ti iendfhip at that time did him honour, thought de-
eidtAlly otherwife ; and in this opinion they were
lupported by the allelic of the greater part of both
Nations. His objeCtion then was confined to that
part of the Bill which introduced the Trial by Jury
into the Scottifh Courts of Judicature ; this, he con-
ceived, totally unfitted to the genius and difpolition
of the country, which was repugnant to the change,
and conceived it a dangerous innovation of their an-
cient cuftoms and privileges. He conceived the ella-
blifliment of a Chamber of Review in Scotland would
be attended with nobeneficialconfequences as to !ellen.
ing the number of Appeals which might be preferred
to the Houfe, as the Scotch were remarkably tena-
cious of their opinions, efpecially in matters of law,
and would never be fatisfied with the decifion of this
mock Court of Judicature. In WI, it would be
found, not only ufelefs in the praaice, but abfurd in
the principle itfelf. It was to inveft certain legal
officers with powers which never would be called
into aftion ; or if called into altion, and this Court
thould decide on cafes which had previoufly paired
tboiugh the Inner and Outer Chambers, their decifion
would nib be confidered as imperfeet, from the caufes
before mentioned, and the parties would never fail
to bring the matter at iffue finally before this Houfe.
Thus the procefs of law would be rendered both more
tedious and expenfive to the parties, by multiplying
the lieges through which they were to arrive at a final
determination. He confidered this fulonitution of a
Chamber of Review, as a breach of the Bill of Right,
contained in the A 8 of Union, which (fated that the
Scotch people thould have the power to appeal im-
mediately from the Court of Seffion to the Britifh
Parliament. And, in the eonfideration of this mate-
rial queflion, he hoped the fupporters of the Bill
would treat with fome deference the excited feelings
of a whole nation. He finally expreffed a with that
the Noble Lord would leparate the fir ft of the objeas
of the Bill from the lan; and, as each was fufficiently
cumprehenfive, they might be fubmitted to the Houle
in a lefs objectionable form ; for, though be himfelf
vase fricud to the recludlion of the number of Judges
i

he could never content to it when accompanied witl,
the other claufes, to which he had Rated his objceion:
in a eurfory manner, but which he would take an
opportunity of (Wing at length in the Committee,
'fbould the Bill come before them in its prefent form.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE contended, that
the Articles of Union had not been viewed in a jun
light by the Noble Lord, and was of opinion, that
no part of the Bill went to infringe any of the Ar-
ticles of Union. Thefe Articles never put it out of
the power of the Britifh Parliament 46 to alter or im-
prove the exiting laws, as far as it fbould appear ne-
ceffary for the purpofes of civil right and general
policy ;" and none would, he hoped, deny, that the
purpofe of the Bill was not to trench on any private
right, but to facilitate the purpofes of public jußice,
and benefit the nation colletively. The Chamber of
Review, fo much argued againft by the Noble Lord,
had, neverthelefs, been as effeAually ellablifhed, fur
a time, by the regulations of the Cuurt of Seffion, as
the prefent Bill could render it, and even Juries had
been called in to decide, on various occafions. Yet
would the Noble Lord affirm, that Parliament was
not competent to tad that which this Court had
effeEted But the right of Parliament had been ad-
mitted, not only in the AA of Union, but in the Me-
morial of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, re.
prefenting to this Houle, that no greater boon could
be bellowed on the Scottifh nation, than a participa-
tion of the right of Trial by Jury, and a general
alteration in their fyftern of judicial proceedings. He
concluded by obferving, that it was rather furprifing,
no greater oppofitiun on the part of the Scotch had
been given to the Bill, which had now remained on
the table near a twelvemonth ; and he would natu-
rally be inclined to conclude, that if luch were the
confequences defcribed by the Noble Lord as refulting
from it, the table would long lince have been covered
with petitions from the Faculty, a* well as the diffe-
rent counties of Scotland.

Lord MANSFIELD objeCted to the Bill in its
prefent Rate, thinking it too great an innovation
upon the calling laws of Scotland. He coincided
with the Noble Duke (Montrofe ), in wifhing :hat the
Bill fhould be divided under different beads, and was
wholly inimical to the introduCtion of the Trial by
Jury, which he confidered as by no means confonant
with the popular feelings of that part of the United
Kingdom. In fupport of there objetions, his Lord-
fhip cited the opinion of his grand uncle, the late
Lord Chief Juflice Mansfield, given upon this fubjeet
in the year 1782, when a fimilar Bill was introdu-
ced into Parliament. In conclufion, his Lordihip ex-
preffed a v.ifh that the Hnufc fhould not !take any
further Reps until the arrival of the Scotch Judges,
from whole information the Houk would derive the
greatett advantages.
The iZteition upon the original Motion, for going
into a Committee, was then put and carried, nem. dif.
after which the Amendment for dividing the Bill,
propofed by the Duke of Montrofe, was negatived
without a divifion.

The Bill WU then committed, and the Preamble
poll poned.
Lord ELDON Paid, that when the Committee
(hould come to the claufes refpeeting Trial by Jury,
he fhould propofe that this (hould be made a feparate
and diainet Bill, and alfo would offer Tome amend-
ments upon that head. _

The Report was then brought up, and ordered to
be taken into further confideration on Wcdnefday.
The Houfe Adjourned at One o'Clock.