Tuesday, June 21, 1808.

The house vent into the further consideration of the Scotch judicature bill. The bill being re- committed, Mr. Horner objected to the clause enacting that no appeals should be permitted from the interlocutory judgments of the Court of Session, without the consent of the Court of Ordinancy. In this opinion he was supported by Mr. Abercromby and sir S. Romilly; and opposed by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Solicitor General for Scotland, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After a long conversation, sir S. Romilly proposed an amendment to the clause enacting that appeals should not be permitted, in the following words: "except where there is a difference of opinion among the judges." The Solicitor General opposed the amendment, but after some further conversation between sir S. Romilly, the Solicitor General, and the Lord Advocate of Scotland, it was agreed to.—Mr. Horner objected to that part of the clause which allowed an appeal where an interlocutory judgment might become final, and moved that that part of the clause should be expunged. After a few words from the Lord Advocate of Scotland and Mr. Abercromby, the words were expunged.—Mr. Horner next proposed, that the commissioners for inquiring into the regulations and the proceedings of the courts in Scotland, and reporting how far they might admit of the introduction of the trial by jury in civil causes in Scotland, should be appointed by parliament, and not by the crown, and that they should report to the houses of parliament. This amendment was opposed by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Solicitor General for Scotland; and was supported by Mr. Whit-bread and Mr. Tierney, when a division took place in the committee: For the amendment 12; Against it 44. Majority 32.—The report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

The house went into a committee on the Assessed Taxes bill. Several new clauses were proposed, and several amendments of omission and insertion made. Mr. Wardell, as a check upon vexatious surcharges, moved that the inspector should state the grounds of the surcharge in the certificate, so as to enable the party to come prepared to meet it. Various cases of vexatious surcharge were stated from both sides of the house, the necessity of some specification was allowed, and an amendment calculated to answer the purpose, was agreed to. The hon. gent. also suggested that persons surcharged should be required to answer on oath only

to the particular object of the surcharge, and not generally to swear to the correctness of the original return in every point. After some explanation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his intention to I take this case into consideration, and to apply such remedy as the case should require.—Another amendment was proposed by Mr. Wardell, for reducing the excessive penalty of 500 l. on vexatious surcharges, to a more reasonable and practicable amount of fine, and for having that amount levied directly by the commissioners, instead of making it the ground of a tedious suit at law. On the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the penalty was fixed at 100 l. On the other part of the clause the amendment was withdrawn, on the suggestion of Mr. W. Smith, who proposed the postponement of the clause, to afford time for considering an adequate remedy. The question being put on Mr. Smith's motion, a division took place: For the postponement 21; Against it 63. Majority 42.—On a proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint special commissioners or inspectors general to superintend the decisions of appeals, with a salary of 600 l. a year, with travelling expences and allowances for clerks, &c. a discussion arose, some thinking the appointment unnecessary. Upon a division the numbers were: Ayes 58; Noes 15. Majority 43.

The other clauses were then agreed to and some new clauses were added.