wished to take the opportunity, before the Speaker left the Chair, to express his satisfaction that nothing was to be done to alter the laws of Scotland. He eulogised the Court of Session, and stated that it was with regret he consented even to make an alteration in the establishment of that Court. The hon. Member entered into a history of that Court, and of the various alterations it had undergone, and of the attempts which had been made to alter it. One great alteration was effected in 1815, when the Trial by Jury to determine matters of fact was introduced in civil cases. The people, however, were not yet reconciled to that institution, and in many cases would be glad to dispense with it. Looking at their views, he wished that some endeavours might be made to meet them; and he should propose, when the two parties agreed to dispense with a jury, that the Judge should have the power to hear proof, and to give a decision, and his decision should have all the effect of a verdict by a jury. By this means he thought the parties would not be exposed to the uncertainty which sometimes belonged to the decisions of a jury. They would have the facts of their case investigated, and be certain that the law would be properly applied. He hoped that some regulation of this kind might be adopted. It was objected to the Bill also by some persons, involving as it did such important interests, that a sufficiency of time had not been allowed to make it known to those who, by their learning and station, were best able to decide on its merits. The difference of opinion which prevailed on the subject perplexed him; for though he was ready to adopt the principle of the Bill, he was compelled to hesitate when he found all the learned and practical men of Scotland against it. Both the Faculty of Advocates and the Writers to the Signet—the two great bodies of practical lawyers in Scotland—had given opinions against it. The hon. Member quoted some of these opinions. One of the objects of the Bill was, to reduce the number of Judges in the Court of Session, and against this the Writers to the Signet had delivered a decided opinion. In their judgment, a reduction in the number of Judges ought not to be made till it was proved that the present were more than enough to get through the business before them. The Lords Ordinary being at pre- sent seven in number, appeared not to be more than competent to the despatch of business. If, therefore, two of the Lords Ordinary were taken away, reducing the Judges from fifteen to thirteen, a greater burthen would be laid on the remainder than they could bear, and the business before the Lords Ordinary, which was now much in arrear, would fall still further back. At present the arrears extended over one year, and causes that were now entered would have no chance of being decided for a whole twelvemonth. Nobody could pretend that this was right, and he was sure that the learned Lord would admit that it was wrong. He wished that before anything had been done on the subject, a commission had been appointed by the Crown to inquire into the proposed improvements. A commission did sit, in 1823, and it had not considered that a reduction in the number of Lords of Session was necessary. He declared that there had not been time to consider a bill of such importance, and a few months did not suffice to enable men to ascertain what would be the consequences of a change in the Supreme Court. He should be glad were the country allowed more time to consider the measure before it was carried into effect. He did not blame the learned Lord, who, having brought in the Bill, probably felt himself compelled to carry it through; and whatever might be its result, there was not a man in the country who would doubt his great disinterestedness, and his zeal to bring this measure to a happy conclusion. The two bodies he had already referred to were also against the introduction of the Trial by Jury, so far as to compel the parties to have recourse to it, whether they liked it or not. They had met and considered the Bill, and he would state their opinions as to the separate parts of it. The Advocates generally objected to the reduction of Lords Ordinary: they were hostile to it on account of the pressure of business at present, which, they stated, would be increased by the abolition of the Commissary Courts, and of the Admiralty Court, which would throw more business on the Supreme Court. The opinions of these gentlemen were entitled to great respect; they were engaged in the Courts, and no persons were better able to form correct opinions on the subject. The Writers to the Signet also stated the heavy arrears before the Lords Ordinary. Ought not the House to pause, then, before it agreed to a measure which was calculated both to augment the business of the Supreme Court, and diminish its means of accomplishing its duties. With respect to the Trial by Jury, both parties were against it. The Advocates said, it ought not to be compulsory. They would have causes tried before the Judges when both parties agreed to that; but the Writers to the Signet went further—further than he would go—for they said, that when the parties were not agreed to have recourse to the Judge, when only one of them desired to forego the Trial by Jury, they would allow the cause to be tried by a Judge without a jury. Another point on which these bodies had given an opinion was, the unanimity of the jury. They were averse from adopting the principle of the English law—that the jury must be unanimous. He would not enter into this question, which was a metaphysical one; he would only say, that he could not understand the magical process by which shutting up twelve men who were of different opinions was to bring them all to be of the same opinion. It seemed to be better to allow a majority to decide the verdict. He was sure indeed, that the principle of unanimity would not answer in Scotland. By a late law the Jury were to be discharged at the end of twevle hours if they could not agree, and he was certain that many a Scotch Juryman would willingly undergo any sort of privation for twelve hours to carry a point, or even for twenty-four hours if it were a point in which his conscience was involved. This had been proved on a late trial, where after being shut up for twelve hours, the Jury had been discharged without coming to any decision. The parties in the case had been put to an enormous expense, and for no other purpose than to be sent before another, jury who, after putting them to as much additional expense, might be again discharged without settling their dispute. He would propose that the rule adopted in criminal should be extended to civil cases, for the Scotch had already Trial by Jury in the former, and in them a simple majority was sufficient to decide on life and liberty. Perhaps a simple majority should not be sufficient to condemn a man to punishment—perhaps the majority should be two-thirds, but it would be singular, if the English principle should be carried into practice in Scotland—that in civil cases the jury must be unanimous, while in criminal cases a simple majority would be sufficient to take away liberty and life. He hoped that a clause would be introduced, allowing a verdict to be found by a simple majority in civil causes. There was another objection to the Trial by Jury, in which both the learned bodies concurred, derived from the mode of addressing the jury. In England it was customary for the plaintiff first to address the jury, and then bring forward his witnesses, after which the defendant addressed the jury, and brought forward his witnesses; and it was a great point in the practice of the Courts, that if the defendant examined no witnesses, the plaintiff lost his right to reply. The consequence of this was, that very often material facts were left out, or the law was unexplained by the Counsel to the jury. In Scotland the practice was different. After the case was opened, and all the witnesses examined, both the Counsel had a right to address the Court. This was, in his opinion, also a better plan than the English mode. The objections he had hitherto stated were made by the two learned bodies he had alluded to. He would then state another objection of his own. The Bill proposed to reduce the number of Judges, and to transfer to the Supreme Court, in conjunction with the Sheriffs' Courts, the business of the Admiralty Court and of the Commissary Courts. To the Sheriffs' Courts, then, would be transferred much of the business of the Admiralty Courts, which embraced not only maritime cases, but mercantile contracts of all kinds. The jurisdiction of the Sheriffs' Courts would therefore be much extended, and it would be necessary to regulate and improve the mode of conducting business before them. He fully shared the opinion of the hon. member for Knaresborough as to the propriety of carrying justice home to every man's door, and he valued these Sheriffs' Courts highly, as effecting that object; but all the value of that institution depended on the manner in which business before them was conducted. The Judge of such Courts should, in his opinion, draw his law from the highest source—the metropolis—and should, on no account, reside in the place where he was to be the Judge. But the Judge of the Sheriffs Courts in Scotland resided on the spot. The Sheriff-depute was generally a learned lawyer; he was selected, indeed, for his learning and his talents, and he resided where he ought to reside—near the Supreme Court. But the Sheriff-depute did not try causes. By the Scotch system, all the evils of a resident Judge, without any of the advantages, were inflicted on the country. The Sheriff-substitute, who tried the causes, was not obliged to possess any one qualification; he was appointed by the Sheriff-depute, who might select any person he chose. The business before the Sheriffs' Court, ought therefore, since it was to be made so important, to be regulated and simplified, and he wished he could engraft into the Bill then under consideration the clause introduced into a bill last year by the hon. member for Stirlingshire, and make the whole of the proceedings before these Courts at once simple and cheap. At present in a cause of 10l. value, there was first, a written statement of the case, to which the defender put in a written reply, and that was followed by a du-ply. But then the Judge did not try the case. The du-ply was followed by a condescendance, and the condescendance was followed by an answer, which carried the case before the Judge. If he were not satisfied, he ordered other proceedings. A proof was taken, not, however by the Judge, but by his clerk; and then the Judge considered the matter for decision. But he might require further proof, and the lawyers were not indisposed to multiply writings till all parties became bewildered, and the Judge, when the time arrived to decide, was at a loss which way he ought to give judgment. The parties ought to be required to make each a statement, and that alone should be the basis of the judgment. He did not make these remarks with any view to individuals. He knew many Sheriffs'-substitutes, who were men of learning, honour, and integrity, in whose hands he would fearlessly trust his own cause; but he objected to the system. He would have the Sheriff-depute to be Judge, and he should try all the causes. Under the present system, too, the Sheriff-substitutes could not perform all the duties imposed on them, without having their emoluments increased. As to the reduction of the Barons of the Exchequer, to that there was no opposition, though he thought the utility of this Court, or at least the utility it might be made to produce, was overlooked. The Bill proposed to do away the Admiralty Courts, and to the consequence of that he begged leave to state an objection. By the transfer of business from these Courts to the Court of Session the expense of law suits, of such suits as were now tried by the Admiralty Courts would be increased, he believed, four times; and the delay would be four times as great. This was, in his view, a very serious objection, as the great object of the improvements ought to be, to make justice cheap, not dear. Then there was the Commissary Court, which decided or settled all questions of marriage and divorce, of legitimacy or illegitimacy. The four Judges, of which this Court consisted, though they did not all sit together, but in succession, had given satisfaction to the people of Scotland for upwards of 300 years. Before them the cause was not publicly heard, and the unhappiness of families was not sounded in the public ear. There were none of those disgusting, scandalous details, three times repeated, as in England, to pollute public morality, till at length they came before that and the other House of Parliament. The expense saved by the abolition of this Court, for which two Judges would be sufficient, would not be more than 1,000l. and he, therefore, should wish to see these Courts continued. He should propose, however, that the Judges should be reduced to two, whose salary of 1,200l. would be patiently borne by the country. The Lord Advocate stated that most of the divorce cases which came before the Commissary Court were cases of collusion. Now, his inquiries led him to arrive at a very different conclusion; but supposing the fact to be as the Lord Advocate had stated, he should like to know from the noble and learned Lord, how his Bill provided a remedy? Would not that Bill add to the facilities for collusion, by leaving the hearing of evidence and reporting on that evidence, to one Commissary Judge? Besides, it would add to the expense of divorces—a highly objectionable principle. Either they should or they should not permit divorces. If they did, why should not the poor man as well as the rich be enabled to avail himself of the permission? Then with respect to the present system of Appeals, he thought no branch of the Scotch judicature demanded more reform. That system tended to lessen the respect and confidence of the people in the local tribunals, and confidence was essential to their efficiency. But even that was not its only mischievous consequence. It tended to increase the number of appeals to the House of Lords, on the chance of a successful issue, founded on the circumstance that the Lords who sat on those appeals were in general wholly unacquainted with Scotch jurisprudence. In fact, one of the greatest hardships to which Scotland was exposed, and against which the present Bill contained no provision was, the total want of knowledge of the law of Scotland on the part of those who had to decide upon Scotch cases of appeal in the last resort. He was aware himself of many cases in which the unanimous decisions of the Court of Session in Scotland were reversed by the House of Lords, to the great dissatisfaction of the people of that country. A writer in a celebrated Review, who was known to possess great practical knowledge as an Advocate, had dwelt with great force upon this subject; and for his own part he never should feel satisfied until he saw some great law officer, skilled in the law of Scotland, assisting at the adjudication of these appeals, which were to decide upon the property of the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman concluded with stating, that he would not then oppose the Motion for the Speaker's leaving the Chair; but, approving generally of the reform principle of the Bill, should advance his objections to some of its details in the committee.

declared himself in favour of the Bill, because it extended the operation of Trial by Jury, a principle which, as he conceived, ought to be adopted without delay. He had received communications from all parts of the country in favour of the measure upon this account, and fully concurred himself in the importance which was attached to it. The measure did not indeed go so far as it ought. It was requisite that the form of proceedings should be abridged, that vivâ voce pleadings should be introduced, technicalities done away, and fees lessened. There were many improvements required by the Scotch, which this Bill did not touch, but highly approving of it as far as it went, he should, therefore, give his cordial support to the Motion of the learned Lord.

wished to understand distinctly whether or not this measure was to commit the House to any increase of the Judges' salaries in Scotland. The question had been already asked of the right hon. Baronet in the beginning of the Session, but no answer was given. If there were any such inten- tion, he should deprecate it at this late period of the Session, when many members who would take an interest in the question were absent from town. He hoped the Bill would be delayed, to give all parties an opportunity of being heard upon it; indeed the petitions from Scotland all prayed that the measure might be postponed. With all the professions which had been made of economy, as connected with this Bill, he must say, that if it were intended to increase the Judges' salaries, the measure could boast of no merit on the score of saving, but would add greatly to the expenses already attending the Scotch Courts of Law. The great object of legislation in this case ought to be, to give access to the poor of Scotland to the Courts of Justice; but this Bill would have the effect rather of aggravating than of removing the difficulties which now prevented them from obtaining speedy and correct judgments.

said, he recollected very well the question of the hon. Baronet, and he had some recollection of having replied to that question in the affirmative. At all events he had no hesitation in saying now, that it was intended to increase the salaries of the Scotch Judges, and he believed the impression of the Government, that such an increase had become necessary, was shared by a great portion of those acquainted with the subject. The great increase of business had indeed rendered it absolutely necessary; and although the hon. Baronet thought that the House had not sufficient time for the consideration of this Bill, he could assure him that it was nearly the same Bill as that of last Session, which had been postponed in deference to the opinion that some delay was necessary. He begged the hon. Baronet to understand, however, that although the salaries of the Judges were to be increased, this Bill was not a consequence of that, nor was that increase the foundation of this Bill, so that the hon. Baronet could very safely consent to support the Bill, without pledging himself to the question of the increase of salary, when it came to be proposed. He believed that much of the opposition shown to the Bill arose from the effect it would have on the interests of individuals. He regretted that individuals should suffer, but no legal reforms could be effected without in some degree trenching on existing privileges; and he could assure the hon. Baronet that the Government had abandoned a very ex- tensive and important patronage in order to secure the objects contemplated by the Bill.

supported the Bill, although he thought some of the clauses might be altered with advantage. Objections had been taken to any increase of the burthens of the country by an addition to the salaries of the Judges in these pinching times; but much as he felt this, he could not but agree with those who thought the salaries of the Scotch Judges were not large enough for the duties required of them. He could not, however, dismiss the subject without paying his humble tribute of gratitude to the Lord Advocate for his able and unwearied exertions in the cause of legal reform, and for the industry and perseverance he had displayed in bringing this Bill to its present state of perfection.

could not allow the opportunity to pass by, without bearing his testimony to the quiet, patient, and highly-creditable manner in which the Lord Advocate, under many difficulties, had worked his way in promoting the objects of this Bill, and in bringing it to maturity. He perceived, however, that it reduced two of the Barons of the Scotch Exchequer. Now, the Secretary of State (Sir R. Peel) must have known that these two Judges were to be reduced at the time he appointed a learned gentleman (Mr. Abercrombie) to the vacant office of Lord Chief Baron; and he really thought the country had reason to complain of a waste of the public money, in thus giving away 4,000l. a year, at a time when it must have been known such changes were in contemplation. This proceeding required some explanation, for it seemed curiously inconsistent with the professions of the Government. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman should make compensation to the country for this waste of money, by reducing the number of Judges of the Exchequer to one, on the first opportunity.

said, he should be compelled, in a subsequent stage of the Bill, to enter at some length into an examination of a subject so important as the improvement of the administration of justice in Scotland. At the present he should merely say, that he agreed in all that had been said of the praise due to the Lord Advocate, and he thought that the Government also deserved great credit for the honest and disinterested manner in which it had consented to abandon a very considerable patronage for the sake of an improvement in the administration of the laws.

contended, that the hon. member for Kircudbright (Mr. Ferguson) had much over-rated the effects of some parts of the Bill. He begged, however, to say now, that he should feel obliged to any Gentleman of Scotland who would favour him with suggestions on the subject of the improvements he contemplated; and that, if they would send him their suggestions in writing, he would either adopt them, or state in writing the reasons which influenced him in rejecting them.

The House resolved itself into a committee on the Bill, the various clauses were discussed, seriatim, and several verbal amendments introduced.

The Clause having been agreed to for abolishing the Admiralty Court,

pointed out the injury which would be sustained by the Procurators who had practised in that Court; and proposed a clause by which they should be allowed to practise in the Court of Session, the Ecclesiastical Court, the Sheriff's Court, &c.

said, he had proposed a clause to allow the Procurators of the Court of Admiralty to practise in the Court of Session, and other higher Courts, but he could not consent to allow them to practise in the Sheriff's Court and in the inferior Courts, because, by their competition, they would injure those who already practised in those Courts.

thought, that the public ought to be considered as well as these practitioners, and recommended that competition should be promoted among them, by allowing them to practise in all the Courts.

said, if that recommendation were followed, the practitioners in the Admiralty Courts would ruin the practitioners in all the inferior Courts.

supported the clause proposed by Sir James Graham,—when the House abolished the Admiralty Court, it was only fair to allow the procurators in these Courts to follow their business wherever it might go.

had been of the same opinion as the hon. Baronet who proposed the clause, but on inquiry, was nduced to believe that his proposition would inflict a serious injury on all the Solicitors in the inferior Courts; he supported the Bill as it stood.

The Solicitor General also opposed the Amendment.

acquiesced in the proposal of the Lord Advocate.

On the clause, giving the Sheriffs jurisdiction in maritime causes being put,

called the attention of the Committee to a particular part of this Bill. Generally he concurred in thinking it would effect a great improvement, and that the interests of Scotland were safe in the hands of the learned Lord. A considerable opposition, indeed, had been raised to the measure, by several public bodies in Scotland, when their interest lay in a contrary direction, and when, instead of opposing, they ought to have supported it. Having stated his general concurrence in the Bill, he wished to observe, that there was one portion of it which appeared to him objectionable: he meant the arrangements for Trial by Jury. One of the clauses provided that the Lord President, and other chiefs of Courts, should, like Judges in Westminster Hall, try all causes in their respective divisions; that in all such causes, either the Lord Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court, or one of the Judges of the Court of Session, should sit with the Judge, and assist him with advice and counsel. It did not appear, however, that this assistant Judge was to be allowed, in such instances, to exercise the functions of a Judge; and he was thus placed in an anomalous and objectionable position. It was one thing to be present, and it was another to exercise the judicial function. He wished this part of the Bill explained. The clause was this:—"And further, that for the space of three years from and after the time that such union shall take place, there shall be present, and form part of the Court, upon all occasions when either of the Lords President of the two divisions of the Court of Session shall respectively try by jury any issue arising out of a civil cause, either the Lord Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court, or one of the Judges of the Court of Session." If this assistant Judge were to sit there to give his advice, the plan was objectionable.

said, the words "and form part of the Court," empowered them to exercise the functions of Judges upon all such occasions.

agreed that these words, "and form part of the Court," were in the clause; and, as they were explained, his objection was at an end. On looking at this clause, in the first instance, he supposed that they were only to be present to give their assistance and advice.

explained, that the words quoted were introduced with a view to make these Judges, to all intents and purposes, a part of the Court, and the arrangement was intended to facilitate the administration of justice.

found the explanation of the learned Lord quite satisfactory; and he was convinced that the knowledge and experience of those learned persons would be useful in the trial of jury causes. He was then desirous of calling the attention of the Committee to the improvements which might be effected in jury trials in Scotland. It was provided by the Bill, and very properly, that the present Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court should assist the Lord President in the trial of jury causes. That was an excellent arrangement, as from that learned person's previous acquaintance with such causes in the Jury Court, his experience would be of great assistance to the Lord President. It would, however, be very desirable and expedient to permit some members of the English Bar to practise in the Court of Session as in the Court of Exchequer in. Scotland, which was a Court of English law. The present Chief Baron of that Court was an English barrister, and it would be proper, in his opinion, to open the practice of the Court of Session to a limited number of English barristers. Suppose it was opened to one English barrister of eminence, it would be very advantageous to have one in the Court previously well acquainted with Trial by Jury in the country where it is most widely practised and best understood. A long time would elapse, he was afraid, before the people in Scotland, and particularly the members of the law, would be able to understand the practice in jury trials. Under such circumstances; it appeared to him, that it would be very desirable to have the assistance in this Court of an English barrister accustomed to all the details of jury trials in the Courts of this country. He did not imagine that the members of the Scottish Bar would object to such an arrangement. Any person acquainted with the proceedings on Scotch appeals in the House of Lords, must have seen innumerable cases sent up from the Courts in Scotland, upon a question of evidence, which should never have been received in the Courts below, and which, if an English barrister were on the bench, or practising in the Court, would never have been heard of. In fact, in that case, he was sure that no question would have been raised upon such matters, and the parties would have been saved the harassing and useless expense to which they were put in bringing up unnecessary appeals to the House of Lords. By having an English barrister of eminence, knowledge, and experience in jury trials, not too firmly wedded to his own opinions, either practising in the Court, or presiding as one of the Judges, this very impartant and useful object would be accomplished. There was another improvement which he would mention with regard to the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland. The Sheriff-substitute, who usually presides in those Courts, is generally a practising agent in the town in which they are held; and it is only when an appeal is made to the Sheriffdepute that a case proceeds beyond the Sheriff-substitute. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had recommended that the Sheriffdepute should be obliged to be resident; but that plan was open to obvious objections. It would be better, in his opinion, to effect improvement by raising the character and qualifications of the Sheriff-substitute, and by allowing issues to be tried by juries in those Courts. It had frequently happened, as the law at present stood, that a delay had taken place of two years, and in some instances of five years, before a cause could be finally adjudicated before this officer. In causes concerning accounts, such delays were frequent. The written pleadings from the two parties went on for a long time, and amounted to an immense mass of papers. The Sheriff-substitute had to go through them all, and in the fulness of time he gave his decision on the matter. It might then be brought, by appeal, before the Sheriff-depute, who might reverse the decision, or order it to be referred to the Court of Session; and from that Court it might finally be brought, by appeal, to the House of Lords. The parties were put to enormous expense without any necessity whatever. He proposed as the remedy for this evil, that all those long-written pleadings should be abolished, and none should be allowed not necessary for the simple Statement of the case. The issue should be tried by juries, and the arguments given vivâ voce in the Sheriffs' Courts. There would be no innovation whatever in introducing jury trials into those Courts, but only a recurrence to the original practice in them. The learned Lord opposite was aware that many of the records which he had, from time to time, brought up from Scotland in cases of appeal, plainly show that trials by jury were formerly had in the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland. Such was the case in 1602: Lord Kaimes having had occasion to suspect that jury trials were practised in those Courts, in civil as well as in criminal cases, went, in the prosecution of his inquiries, into the remotest parts of the country, where the old practice would be longest in wearing out, and he found in the Orkneys, that in the year 1602, as appeared by the Book of the Orkney Court, all cases were tried by jury there. His plan then would only again introduce the ancient practice, greatly, he believed, to the improvement of the administration of justice in Scotland. There was another improvement which he thought might be effected by this Bill. [The Chairman having here called Order at the bar, the learned Gentleman observed, that there were many rooms to which hon. Members might retire for the purpose of chatting and talking, without coming into the House for that purpose. He was aware that the subject of the Scotch law was dry and repulsive to some Gentlemen, but it was one the House was anxious then to discuss, and such hon. Members as did not wish to be plagued with it, had better go away, and not plague the House.] When Lord Grenville's Act was passed, the propriety of establishing an intermediate Court of Appeal in Scotland was much discussed, and then he was opposed to that measure. But the time that had elapsed since, had given him a firm persuasion that those who advocated the introduction of such a Court were right. The more consideration he had bestowed on the subject, the more he was convinced that an intermediate Court of Appeal should be established in Scotland. He should feel disposed to get rid of the first stage, or Outer-house, by introducing the Lords Ordinary into the Inner-house; and then by keeping up thirteen Judges, as the Bill proposed, dividing the business among twelve of them into three Courts, for trying all questions in- teresting to suitors, the country might have all the advantages possessed in Westminster Hall from the constant sitting of three jury Courts. There would then be four Courts acting concurrently, and the Court of Appeal, which he would suggest was a Court between those Courts and the House of Lords. Very few cases found their way from the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, to the House of Lords, because the Court of Error interposed between them; whereas the appeals from the Courts of Chancery here, and in Ireland, and from the Courts of Law in Scotland, to the House of Lords, came thick and three-fold, solely because the House of Lords was the only Appeal Court from their decisions. The establishment of such a Court would, he believed, put an end to that mass of appeal business, which overwhelmed the House of Lords from Scotland. He could not leave the subject without giving to Lord Grenville that praise which his Lordship so well deserved. His bill was the first commencement of reform on this subject, and that distinguished individual had had the rare felicity of living to see the improvements which he in the first instance boldly chalked out, after a lapse of several years, carried into effect, and that mighty reform which he had the courage first to recommend, finally and successfully established. He would only add, that if the suggestions he had thrown out were adopted, they would conduce greatly to the improvement of the administration of justice in Scotland.

said, that he entertained some doubts as to the improvements his learned friend had suggested. He doubted whether by opening the practice in the Scotch Courts to English barristers, the object in view would be attained; for no English barrister of eminence and experience would be disposed to quit the field of practice at the English Bar for that which Scotland could afford him. Scotch lawyers were sufficiently well acquainted with jury trials, or would soon become so, and therefore there was no necessity for such an arrangement. His learned friend suggested that juries should be brought to try issues in the Sheriffs' Courts. He had great doubts of the propriety of now adopting any arrangement of that description. In some causes of small amount, where the decision of a jury was required, his learned friend's suggestion might be useful. Another learned friend of his, however, had already directed his attention to that subject in reference to the recovery of small debts, and intended to introduce a measure on the subject next Session. He had doubts also as to the propriety of establishing a Court of Appeal. His hon. and learned friend said, that if the causes were at once decided, and at a small expense, it would be most beneficial—in that he agreed; but they must be tried before one division of the Court of Session, and therefore the subject required great consideration. Then the proposition was for a Court of Review, which would just carry back the administration of justice to the way in which causes were decided formerly, when his hon. and learned friend was acquainted with the Court of Session. Fifteen Judges met, and examined a matter without assuming much of the formality of the judicial character. His impression was, that if this proposition were adopted, it would be but another step to litigation, as a cause tried in one of the divisions would certainly be carried to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the House of Lords. From the character of Scotchmen, he believed that they would go through every Court, let there be ever so many. As to the appeals from the Scotch Courts to the House of Lords, whatever might be the disadvantages, there were no complaints respecting them from Scotland, the complaints were all from the Judges here. He should be sorry if the people of Scotland were to be deprived of the advantages of an appeal to the highest tribunal.

said, that his hon. and learned friend's explanation was candid and satisfactory, but he was mistaken as to the appeal. For instance, a cause was first tried in the Court of King's Bench; and, if the party were not satisfied, he took it to the Court of Exchequer Chamber—that is, before the other eight Judges, and there were never more than eight sitting in the Court of Error, and there, generally speaking, the cause stopped. That showed the advantage of a Court of Error in checking appeals. As to any alarm created by this proposition, which he could not think wrong, whatever might be the objections of his learned friends at the Scottish Bar, the real objection was, to having an English Judge or an English barrister interfering with the administration of Scotch law, of which he knew nothing. The danger of this interference was much dwelt upon by the Scotch lawyers; but it was extremely odd, that his friends had no objection, not to an English Judge sitting as one of fifteen, but to an Englishman sitting as lord and judge over those fifteen, reversing their decrees, and altering the law of Scotland at his pleasure. How very inconsistent was that—it made him believe that the Scotch lawyers had not so great a dislike to an English lawyer interfering with the Scotch law as with Scotch profits. If an English Judge went to Edinburgh, he would be but one to thirteen; whereas here, one English Judge ruled and lorded it over all the Scotch Judges; and mark, that this Judge might know nothing at all of any law, either English or Scotch, for the Woolsack might happen to be occupied by a person who was no lawyer at all. As to the Sheriffs' Courts, the noble and learned Lord thought it wrong to allow juries in them; but in all cases of merchant law their interference was advisable. The House had, however, nothing to do with that at present, as it formed no part of the Bill. He was glad, however, that attention had been drawn to this subject, and he hoped before long to see written pleadings abolished in the Sheriffs' Court, and Trial by jury extended to them.

Clause agreed to.

On the Clause that the jurisdiction of the Commissary Court of Edinburgh be restricted,

said, he objected to this clause thus early, because, at a future stage, he meant to propose an alteration repecting it, which it was not competent to him then to do. The opinion, both of the lawyers and of the country generally, was, that justice was never better administered than in the Consistorial Court. All causes relating to marriage and adultery, and above all to divorce, had been well decided there; and he was of opinion that it would be always better to have these cases heard in Courts where there was not the same publicity as in this country; and thus the scandal of having all the disgusting particulars thrice proclaimed, as in the Courts here, would be avoided. Causes had been as well decided in the Consistorial Court as they could be in the Court of Session, nor was there any reason why the jurisdiction should be taken away from the Court. It had existed nearly 300 years, and been administered well and honestly, nor could any sound reason be assigned for its abolition. The salaries of the four Commissaries amounted to 2,400l., two of whom might be dispensed with, and then the Court might be kept up at an expense of 1,200l. The plan of the learned Lord combined the abuses of both systems, because it intrusted the receiving the proof to the one Commissary left, who, although he was not to decide, was; to have the power by his report of really adjudicating on the main point—namely, whether or not there had been collusion between the parties. The great objection generally urged was that of collusion, and while the Bill degraded one of the Judges into a mere clerk, it gave him greater power, by enabling him to decide this point by his report. The Lord Ordinary ought to hear the causes; and one of the advantages of the Commissary Court, regulated as he proposed, would be, that one Judge would be left to take the evidence, which could be much better done than by a clerk, or one left merely in the character of a clerk. On these grounds he moved that this clause be omitted. At a future stage he should move that the Commissary Court of Edinburgh be at liberty to take cognizance of all causes as hitherto, it being understood that as vacancies occur by death, or otherwise, the number of Commissaries in future shall not exceed two, and he should add a clause, to the effect, that no causes should be further carried to the Court of Session by advocation, but by appeal. He knew that a great objection existed to the manner in which these causes were removed. There was at present an appeal from the Consistorial Court to the Lord Ordinary, and then to the Court of Session. He should propose that there should be only one appeal; and this would be effected by not allowing causes any longer to be removed by advocation.

said, that this clause had drawn more attention and been the subject of more communications to him, than all the other provisions of the Bill. From all quarters applications had been made to him respecting it; but after looking and examining into the whole subject attentively he saw no reason for the complaints that were made. The question had been more warmly discussed than necessary, and a deputation from the parties practising in the Court had called on the Members to take their case into consideration, The provision for the abo- lition of the intermediate Court he considered a wise one; for causes would be carried to the Court of Session, of course, and that Court being supreme, and the Judges at least as capable of deciding correctly as any other, it was right that parties should have this advantage of going before them at once. The great objection urged to the change was the increase of expense. The House, however, had been misled upon that point; for he was reported to have said that whereas in the Consistorial Court a cause could be tried for 15l., it would cost 60l. in the Court of Session. Now, what he really said was this, and he said it on the authority of a practitioner of the highest respectability, that instead of the expense being 60l. in the Court of Session, the expense of a cause decided there came to 23l. 19s. 11d. The arrangement now proposed was, that the case should in the first instance, go before the Lord Ordinary, and that would do away with the publicity protested against by the hon. member for Kircudbright. There would not be one word printed then more than at present. As to the expense, instead of being increased, it would be materially diminished. He had made inquiries as to the expense of certain cases in the Consistorial Court when the costs had been taxed, and he found that one came to 15l. 13s., another to 16l. and another to 26l. These he put into the hands of other gentlemen, and asked what the expense would have been if the causes had been tried in the Court of Session. On examining all the items of the account, the report was, that the cause which cost 15l. 13s. in the Consistorial Court would, if tried in the Court of Session, have amounted to 19l. 2s. 7d. He held that document in his hand, and it went to show that the difference of expense between the Commissary Court and the Court of Session, even according to the present system, would be from 4l. to 5l. only. This document was signed by gentlemen of the highest eminence in their profession: and there could be no better evidence as to the expense in these two Courts up to this period. But even the objection to this small increase had no foundation, for the Bill provided that no higher fee was to be demanded than in the Commissary Court, and that nothing was to be paid to the fund of the Court of Session greater than what would have been due to the clerk of the Commissary Court; and this was not to be payable until a decree should have been made and an extract of it required. Formerly, the concurrence of the public prosecutor was necessary, but that was obviated by the present Bill, so that the fee of 1l. 4s. for that concurrence was abolished. After looking at the subject in every one of its bearings, he could state, with the most perfect confidence, that the expense of the Court of Session would not be sixpence greater than in the Commissary Court. The Court of Session, moreover, had the benefit of a poor-law; for if a party be poor and produce a certificate to that effect, Counsel and Agents are assigned him. No Court in Scotland was attended with more expense than the Commissary Court, because a man was not only obliged to employ a writer and Counsel in that Court, but he must also have an agent in the country. It ought to be known, that in Scotland every gentleman had an agent; and, as an hon. Member once said, when Gentlemen were complaining of their expenses, "Yes, persons may talk of their expenses in England for horses and hounds, but they are nothing at all to what we incur, for in Scotland every man keeps a writer." He held a statement in his hand from a Gentleman, of the expense of a trial in the Commissary Court, and that would at once shew the facts of the case. It was as follows: Agent in Edinburgh, 298l., expenses of the Court, 270l. agents in the country, 802l. making in the whole 1,370l. payable to three agents. The objection to the alteration on the score of expense arose therefore in mistake. In doing away with the Commissary Court, and the system of appeals, objections were made on account of the Lords Ordinary; but he wished to shew the House how much of their time was likely to be occupied, which might be judged of by the number of causes tried before the Commissary Court. In 1827, there were twenty two cases; in 1828, twenty-five; and in 1829, thirty; and of these there were opposed in the first year nine, in the second ten; and in the third thirteen. Out of forty-eight causes thirty-nine were decided in absence, and this fact alone shewed the collusion between the parties, which was one of the matters complained of, and for which the opponents of this Bill say the Court of Session will afford no cure. All the gentlemen concerned in the Commissary Court were friends of his, and he was far from wishing to say any thing to hurt anybody's feelings, but he would not do any of the opponents of this measure the injustice of supposing that they did not consider Lord Fullarton, or Lord Moncrieff, as capable of judging on a question of divorce or legitimacy, as the Commissaries; and if he had such a case he certainly should prefer the Lords of the Court of Session to the Commissaries.

said, that if it could be proved that the proposed alteration would open a direct and cheap road to justice, instead of an expensive and circuitous one, he would most undoubtedly support the change. The law of divorce should be equally accessible to the poor and the rich. It had been contended by some hon. Members, that the change proposed by this clause would render justice dearer than it was before; but that was now contradicted by the statement of his hon. and learned friend, who had, at least, made out a case to shew that the difference in the expense would be very trifling, and even that was likely to be diminished. Another objection had been raised to the clause, on the ground that it entailed upon the learned individuals who had hither to presided in the Commissary Courts, a species of duty which would be derogatory to them. This was a point well worthy the attention of his hon. and learned friend. If we were to shut up any one of our Courts; suppose, for instance, Doctors' Commons, a thing not to be mentioned without horror, there would be such a rebellion among the Proctors about Paul's Chain and Saint Paul's Church-yard, as would very soon convince the House that it must make some compensation for the ruin it had entailed upon so many individuals. So it would be in the present case: if the Commissaries Court in Scotland be done away with, a great many most respectable men must suffer considerably, because their practice would be taken from them. If the House proceeded to make the proposed change, it must, from a sense of justice, make some compensation to those who suffered by it.

Clause agreed to, as were the other clauses of the Bill.

The House resumed; the Report to be received on Monday.

said, he should oppose this Bill so far as its introduction into Wales, and the restriction of the Local Courts of that Principality were concerned. In the first place he objected to the proposed addition to the number of the Judges. The supporters of the Bill were not agreed among themselves upon that point, for the Attorney General said, that as the number of Welsh Judges was to be reduced, that of the English Judges ought to be increased; while the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department put the argument the other way, and said, that as there was to be an addition to the number of English Judges, who could perform the business of the Welsh Circuits, the number of the Welsh Judges might be diminished. Even with reference to England, before three new Judges were added to the number already existing, while there was one Court almost without business, a very strong case ought to be made out to justify their appointment. He objected to the Bill that it was decidedly against the wishes of the inhabitants of the Principality; but he was sorry to find, that notwithstanding their opposition, as they only formed a very small proportion of the population of England, they were to have it actually forced upon them. He did not think that they ought to be thus treated. He objected most decidedly to the clause which provided for the consolidation of the counties by the order of the King, assisted by the advice of his Privy Council. It gave an unconstitutional power to the Executive Government, and he was astonished that such a clause should have come from men professing liberal whig principles. In this respect the Bill copied the provisions of an Act of Henry 8th, and the part copied was the most objectionable part of the Statute. In commenting upon that Statute, Lord Coke said, that the power given by that clause was a most monstrous power. But bad as that clause was, it was not so bad as the clause in the present Bill; for in the Statute of Henry 8th, the power was confined to the then reigning Monarch, and the word "Successors" was omitted; but in the Bill now before the House that word was introduced, and its introduction extended a power which he was disposed to look upon with much jealousy, and which ought, if granted at all, to have been limited to the life of the Monarch on whom it was conferred. He did not believe that the present Ministry would abuse the power thus conferred on them; but he could not so well answer for the intentions and conduct of any future Ministry, who might use it most vexatiously, provided it would tend to increase the extent of their power and influence. He would suppose that Caermarthen, or any other town, sent a Representative to Parliament, and that in the discharge of what he conceived to be his duty, that Representative gave offence to the Ministry; they might revenge themselves by taking away the Assizes from the town he represented, and appoint them to be held at another town at some distance from it; and this they might do under pretence of the necessity for consolidating the counties for the better administration of justice. But there were other objections to the Bill, arising from the evils that must follow the introduction of the present system of administration of justice into Wales. The hon. and learned member for Knaresborough had shewn, that by the law, as it now stood in England, it was not worth the while of any man to sue another for a less sum than 50l., and he justly complained of that as a great evil. In Wales, on the contrary, people had very rarely to sue for a sum so large as 50l., and they could safely bring an action for a much less sum, for their costs would hardly amount to more than 1l., a system which, in his opinion, was one of cheap and speedy justice. Then the hon. member for Knaresborough said, that one of the evils of the present system in England was, that it occasioned great expense in the conveyance of the witnesses to a distant Assizetown, and their maintenance there. The complaint was well founded; yet that very evil would be occasioned to the Welsh, if the object of the right hon. Gentleman, in the consolidation of counties, was to be carried into effect, for the counties could not be consolidated without the assize town being removed to a greater distance than at present from the borders of the county. Another evil would ensue from introducing the use of the English system of pleading. At present sham pleas were unknown in the Welsh Courts; for, as the pleadings were framed under the eyes of the two Judges of the Court, they took care to admit no sham plea; and if any attempt was made to introduce one, they stopped it at once, by requiring that it should be verified on oath. He contended, therefore, that, in every respect, the Welsh system of the administration of justice would be rather deteriorated than improved by the operation of this Bill. Besides this, the Welsh were satisfied with the present system of judicature; and in proof of that assertion he might mention, that the number of Welsh causes tried in English counties had been annually diminishing in each of the last ten years, and that in the last year, only twenty-two Welsh causes (including those of Chester) were tried in the English Assize-courts. The objections to subjecting the Welsh to the English equitable jurisdiction were greater than those which applied to their being put under the jurisdiction of the common law Courts. If a Welsh farmer was made the legatee of a sum of 20l., was he to be subjected to the necessity of instituting a suit in Chancery for the recovery of his legacy? He trusted that no such evil might be inflicted on them. The present plan would send the Welsh from tribunals which confessedly worked well, to others which, by universal consent, required much amendment. He hoped that Ministers, therefore, would pause before they changed the system, in order to ascertain more completely the wishes of the people of the Principality. If it were an argument in favour of the Bill, that the counties of Wales were so small that they ought to be consolidated, that argument would apply equally to at least six counties of England, the population of which was smaller than that of any county in Wales. He maintained, that although in Glamorganshire there might perhaps be a divided sentiment, yet that in the other counties the opinion was almost universal against the change. The people of Wales were most faithful, loyal, and peaceable subjects, and deserved every degree of consideration; for when other parts of the kingdom were disturbed, they preserved most commendable tranquillity. It was much easier to destroy venerable institutions than to substitute others that would work equally well. Conceiving that the sentiments of such a people ought to be the guide of their legislators, he should move that the Bill be re-committed on that day six months.

, in rising to second the Amendment, said, he was always ready to support any measures of practical reform, come from whatever quarter they might, whether from the Government or not; but his chief objection to this Bill was, that it went to create three more Judges. In his opinion they proceeded much too rapidly with this question. The House ought to bear in mind that there was now pending before the House a bill, which had been brought in by the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough, (Mr. Brougham) and the object of which was, to establish Local Courts in various parts of the country, appointing, at the same time, not less than fifty new Judges. He (Mr. Harvey) understood that this measure had the sanction of the law-officers of the Crown, and if it should pass into a law, where, he would ask, was the necessity for new Judges in Wales? Looking at the nature and extent of the public business that devolved on all the Courts, he found that the Court of King's Bench was invariably crowded to excess; the proportion in the Common Pleas was by no means so heavy; but in the Court of Exchequer little or nothing was done, comparatively, and no sufficient reason could be assigned for its not taking a fair and due share of the public business. The fact, however, was notorious, that the four Barons who presided as Judges in the Court of Exchequer were generally looked upon as little else than legal Benchers. They had nothing to do. This he could prove, by a return laid before the House, from which it appeared, that the number of cases tried in the Court of King's Bench, between 1823 and 1827, was 11,487; during the same period, the number tried in the Common Pleas was 3,479 (being only one in three, as compared with the Court of King's Bench). But how stood the case with respect to the Court of Exchequer? Why, from 1823 to 1827, only 1,017 causes were tried. When this was the case, he would say, that before they created new Judges, they ought to take care that those who were at present in being, had sufficient to occupy their time. He conceived, therefore, that measures should be taken to throw into the Court of Exchequer as large a share of business as now went to the King's Bench and Common Pleas. He was quite sure that this object would be effected in the course of a year, if they placed at the head of the Court of Exchequer men equally able as those who presided in the Court of King's Bench and the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Exchequer was now regarded by the public only as a retreat for persons of known incompe- tency, or who were paralyzed by age. He did not, however, mean to say that the learned persons who presided there might not be as well qualified to discharge the duties of the judicial office as the other Judges; he admitted that they were, and therefore it was, that he desired to see them much more actively employed than at present. It appeared to him that it ought to be made compulsory on suitors to carry their causes into the Court of Exchequer, and an officer appointed for the purpose might select the issues to be tried between the parties. He now held in his hand one of the most extraordinary documents that had ever been laid before Parliament, and the facts which it disclosed were such as to call for the earnest attention of the House. It was an account of the number of posteas, or return of the causes tried in the Court of King's Bench for three years—namely, 1826, 1827, and 1828. In this period the number of causes disposed of, and on which verdicts had been returned, was 5,655. But what did the House think was the amount of the damages upon these causes on which verdicts had been so found? Why, not more than 836,343l.; making an average of not much more than 150l. upon the whole, to each individual plaintiff. The party, however, did not receive anything like that sum, and, in many cases, he got little or nothing, after the costs were paid. The House could scarcely believe the fact; but it was not to be disputed; for there was proof of it, in black and white, that the taxed costs upon the causes he had just enumerated amounted to the enormous sum of 1,205,000l. When he took off twenty-five per cent from the Attorney's bill in every cause, it would be perceived that he was not disposed to be too sparing of the profession; but with this twenty-five per cent added to the sum now stated, the amount would be 1,500,000l., forming a balance of nearly 700,000l., which parties must have lost in endeavouring to recover a right by means of Courts to maintain which they paid yearly a very large sum. No public advantage could be derived from the species of reform proposed by this Bill; on the contrary, the only effect of it would be, to throw additional patronage into the hands of the Crown. He did not mean to say that the present Government was more tenacious of patronage than any other; but there was a natural tendency in all governments to secure it.

His Majesty's Ministers had not abandoned the system which had hitherto existed in Wales, till they found, by the voice of Parliament, loudly expressed, that it could no longer be maintained. But to return to his principal objection against the Bill, he must repeat that it was premature. If the Local Courts were established there would be a great diminution of business at the Assizes. Why, then, should there be an increase in the number of Judges? He would take thirty causes tried at the Assizes, and he would venture to say, that the sum litigated did not, on the average, amount to more than 30l. Now he was quite convinced that, if Local Courts were appointed, the Judges on Circuit, instead of thirty civil causes, would scarcely have ten to try at any given Assizes. But they were told that, if new Judges were not appointed, they would be giving additional trouble and labour to those who were employed at present. In answer to that he would say, "equalize your Circuits." The Home Circuit was 226 miles, the Midland 355 miles, the Norfolk 300 miles, the Oxford 400 miles, the Northern 652 miles, and the Western 500 miles, being an average of 406 miles. Now he could see no difficulty in extending the Home, the Midland, and the Norfolk Circuits, and contracting the others; so that there was no weight in that particular objection. He would again say, that if it were intended to carry the bill introduced by the hon. member for Knaresborough, and to appoint a number of Local Courts, it was quite unnecessary to "permanize" three additional Judges in Westminster-hall.

had never heard the question of the Welsh Judicature agitated by competent authorities without objections being taken to the system. Perhaps it might be necessary to introduce some alterations in the present Bill, in order to give general satisfaction: but, on the whole, he approved of the principle of the measure, as well as of the greater part, if not the entire, of its details. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member, who insinuated that the Judges in two of our Courts appeared to have comparatively little or nothing to do, he entirely dissented from it, and was of opinion that the twelve Judges had that to do which but few men could adequately perform. The hon. Member looked only at what the Judges did in Court, but he should recollect their other duties, and not overlook their constant attendance at the Old Bailey. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to eulogise the character of the Judges, whom he described as persons that did honour to the situations which they filled with so much advantage to the community. There might be amongst them some who had reached an advanced period of life, but were there not also some young Judges, who had been recently appointed, and who would do honour to any appointment; who showed their fitness for their office by the anxiety and the competency with which they discharged its high functions? He did not consider the additional number of Judges too great, when the increase of legal proceedings, and the extended duties assigned them, were taken into account. There were in former times five Judges in each Court. He did not deny that at present there was not so much business transacted in the Exchequer as in either of the other Courts; but this depended upon circumstances that were capable of alteration, and it was now intended to make it equally efficient with the King's Bench and Common Pleas, by the appointment of a new Judge, and the adoption of an improved system. What improper selection of Judges had the Crown made, that any body should suppose Government capable of selecting the three new Judges improperly? According to the plan now proposed, Government would have less patronage than before. If he were a Minister, and desirous of patronage, he should prefer having the appointment of the Welsh Judges, eight in number, to that of three new Judges. He should support the Bill, because he thought that it was desirable to bring the Welsh counties under the English jurisdiction, and assimilate the administration of justice throughout the land.

said, that he must enter his protest against the wrong which was proposed to be done to the County Palatine of Chester. The Bill said, that it was expedient to put an end to the separate jurisdiction of the county of Chester. Now that declaration was unsupported by any proof; it was contradictory to some of the clauses of the Bill itself; and it was contrary to fact, if any reliance were to be placed upon the numerous petitions which had come from the county of Chester and elsewhere on the subject. So far were the privileges which this county had heretofore enjoyed from being detrimental to the neighbourhood, that there were petitions from Liverpool', from Manchester, and from Warrington—three of the most important towns in that quarter—stating that the system was attended with great benefit to them. The regulations which had been made by legislators, he must say of a very different stamp from those of modern days, had lasted for eight centuries, without any complaints such as were now brought forward. He could not tell whether the three new Judges were necessary or not; and therefore he should vote for the Amendment. The Bill gave the Attorney General the power of sticking his compasses into the map, and dividing the counties into new arrondissements, which had nothing to recommend them but their geographical proportions. Again, juries were to be struck, half English and half Welsh, who would not be able to understand each other more than if they spoke foreign languages. It appeared that the indemnifications occasioned by this Bill would cost the country 100,000l. a year, which, in these times of difficulty, certainly ought not to be thought of. Another detriment which would be inflicted upon the county of Chester was, that landed property would be subjected to frauds from the persons who tenanted it, for, by the local jurisdiction, a man was enabled to bring his tenant to action if he did not go out by the 2nd of February. This Bill withdrew that power, and the tenant would have until Michaelmas Term to gather his summer crops, and might then go off with the year's rent. But the Attorney General said there would be a remedy at law. The lucky tenant would be in America before the landlord would be able to take the necessary steps to avail himself of that redress, so that, in fact, it was no redress at all. The Bill also proposed to do away with the Chester Court of Equity, in spite of a declaration of the Commissioners that they had forborne to inquire into that subject at all. Every person seeking to recover a claim above 40s. would be compelled to come up to Westminster-hall, where he might ruin himself if he pleased, and where the expenses were at least four or five times as great as in the County Courts. He could not be condemned for voting against the Bill, as no man could be expected to support a self-destroying principle. If the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite were to introduce a measure for a reform of Parliament, and to provide that no lawyers should have seats in that House, he rather thought that the hon. member for Knaresborough might not like it.

said, that there were many occasions on which he should have no objection to the exclusion of lawyers.

objected to the course taken by hon. Members, who, in opposing the committee upon the Bill, had anticipated the discussion proper to a committee, and, instead of combatting the principle, contented themselves with criticising the details of the Bill. He should not imitate this example, but address the observations he had to make to the object or principle of the measure. After repeated complaints of the delays that occurred in legal proceedings, and the consequent hindrance of justice, a commission was appointed, at the unanimous desire of the House, to investigate the whole question of the proceedings in our Courts of Common Law, and submit to the Crown and Parliament remedies for so striking an evil. Now that the inquiry had been instituted, and the report had been made, they were asked to begin the inquiry over again, and by persons who, he would venture to say, had never read the report at all. This, however, was the constant course now pursued: for inquiry they had clamour; and when the time for inquiry had gone by, then fresh inquiry was called for. He would, however, ask hon. Gentlemen, before they decided against the principle of this Bill, to advert a little to the facts of the case. The first inquiry of the commission was with respect to the Courts of Common Law; and, with reference to the Court of King's Bench alone, it appeared that there had, within five years, been begun in that Court no less than 281,000 causes. In the year 1823, the number was 43,000; in 1826 it was 69,000; and in 1827 it was 66,000. The Commissioners pursued this calculation further, and the conclusion to which they came was, that the Court of King's Bench was immoderately over-burthened with business; that the Judges exerted themselves with great activity; but that, notwithstanding, the arrear of Term business and Nisi Prius causes was extremely oppressive: that the Court of Common Pleas was also very busy; that there was no arrear of Term business, but a con- siderable arrear of Nisi Prius business. The Commissioners doubted the policy of adding to the labour of the Judges, and of occupying every moment of their time, without allowing them any leisure for recreation, or even for the pursuit of those branches of learning which were connected with their functions. They proposed, therefore, that the business in all the Courts should be equalized, and, for that purpose, that another Judge should be added to each Court. That was the main proposal which the report suggested, and which the Bill was to carry into effect. There were others, into which he did not think it necessary to enter at present. If it were admitted that three new Judges were necessary, then arose the question, whether the time of those three Judges would be entirely and exclusively occupied by the business so assigned to them, or whether it would not be possible that a portion of their time might be employed in the business which now devolved upon eight Judges in Wales? The Commissioners had come to the conclusion that it was possible so to employ them, and that led to the question, whether it was not desirable, by that means, to save the expense of the eight Judges who now performed the duties? His Majesty's Ministers had come to the conclusion, that if three new Judges were to be appointed in the first place, they could not ask Parliament to retain eight unnecessary persons in office; and, next, he thought that they would be able to show that justice would be better administered by Judges of the highest character, belonging to the superior Courts, than it would be administered, without meaning any disparagement to the present Judges, and entertaining, as he did, the highest respect for them, by those who might hold their offices with a seat in Parliament, and who, from the narrowness of their salaries, were necessarily practising barristers. But then Ministers were met with this objection, "You must not make this alteration because the people of Wales (a brave and gallant people, as his hon. and learned friend designated them, and truly)—the people of Wales are adverse to it;" and his hon. and learned friend went so far as to deny the right of Parliament to take away their Court of Equity. No man could speak more affectionately than he could do, with the utmost sincerity, of the Principality of Wales. He must say that he honoured the Principality; that no part of the empire had held out examples more worthy of admiration than Wales had, at various periods of difficulty as well as of success; but could he, on reading the reports, say that the measure was contrary to the will of the people of Wales? It was not either by his, or his hon. and learned friend's assertion, but by the evidence, that that point must be decided. Now, who were the parties whose opinion had been taken by the Commissioners on the subject? The first was his hon. friend, the member for the county of Brecon, who, he was sure, if the honour or character of the Principality were at stake, would be ready to stand up in its vindication. The Chairmen of the different Quarter Sessions had also been examined, who, by their own experience, and by their intercourse with the Magistrates, were best calculated to form a judgment. They all concurred in pronouncing it desirable that the Principality of Wales should be included in the circuits of the English Judges. One of those gentlemen added, that the Attorneys were principally adverse to the change, because the fees in the Principality Courts were higher than elsewhere. After the Government had received the opinions of the Commissioners, supported by this evidence, would it have been justified in refusing to act upon the report, and ought it not to call upon Parliament for its sanction to a measure so recommended? Besides, it was a fallacy to say that the Principality had Local Courts, and that this Bill was taking them away. There would be just as many Local Courts as ever, only the justice in them would be administered by English Judges, and on the English system; it appeared to him, that there was a combination of advantages to be anticipated from this Bill. First, there was the more effectual administration of justice in England, by the addition of the new Judges; and next, the advantage of placing Wales under the same jurisdiction as England, and saving the expense of the Welsh Judges. Now, certainly, if his Majesty's Government were inclined to select improper persons to fulfil the judicial office, the Welsh judicial system would have been precisely what they would have preferred, from the necessity in which the Judges were of practising as barristers. This it was proposed to do away with altogether, as well as the patronage and local machinery connected with these Courts.

He said that his Majesty's Government were not only justified in the course it had pursued, but that it would not have discharged its duty if it had acted otherwise.

said, that although leave had been given for bringing in this Bill, it was no more than giving leave to bring in a sheet of blank paper, so much was the Bill altered from its original state. He must contend, in spite of what the right hon. Secretary had said, that the people of Wales were opposed to the alteration; and he might observe by the way, that the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions had never been held to be the representatives of their counties. He did not think that it was advisable to take away a jurisdiction which the people had enjoyed for so many years, unless they took some means of knowing the popular feeling on the subject. He did not mean to say, that they ought to poll or ballot the Principality, but he should certainly be glad to know what were the sentiments of the mass. His notion was, that the Bill ought to have been brought in and passed over to the next Session. He also wanted to know what were the sentiments of the Government with respect to the Local Judicature Bill just introduced by the learned member for Knaresborough; because it would be singular enough if, while this Act was diminishing local judicature, Government should admit the principle of that bill, which was to establish local jurisdiction—thus in 1830 performing the act of demolition, and in 1831 the act of reconstruction. The House was also entirely kept in the dark as to what system of practice was to be pursued; they knew, indeed, that the Judges were to be changed, but no hint had been dropped as to what other proceedings were to mark the alteration. He would even concede that the new Judges were required; but surely the Welsh mode of pleading ought to be retained. The forms of proceeding in the Courts in Wales might still be preserved, notwithstanding the appointment of additional Judges; but the Attorney General said no. It certainly might not be convenient to hon. and learned Gentlemen to hold six, or eight, or ten Courts in one day; but the practice was exceedingly convenient to the people of Wales. Under the new arrangement to be made by the present Bill, all the law for Wales was to emanate from Westminster-hall. The whole was to come from London, instead of being had almost, the moment it was required in the Principality. Thus cheap justice was exchanged for dear. He would gladly learn from the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite how the Bill was to operate. Not one of them had as yet condescended to explain how the Bill would operate—not, he was sure, from any inability on the part of the learned Attorney General to explain his meaning whenever he might be so minded; but it must be evident to the House that he had not yet thought proper to explain the operation of the Bill, or that of any one of its clauses. He had not, up to the present moment, distinctly stated whether the rules, the forms, the Courts, the pleadings, were to be all, or in part, preserved or abolished. If there were any man in that House who knew any thing of the matter, he had not yet thought proper to explain himself, or enlighten those who happened to be in ignorance, in which number he included the greater part of those who heard him. If there were anyone in that House who understood the operation of the Bill, it was greatly to be regretted that he should keep the knowledge to himself, and call upon Parliament to legislate in the dark—to legislate speculatively—to legislate injuriously. They could only understand, respecting the matter in question, that they were getting rid of that which was in existence, but they received no information as to what they were to obtain in return. As for the preamble of the Bill, it might well be likened to a sheet of white paper, for it contained no information whatsoever; and upon those grounds he thought he should best consult the interests of justice in refusing his support to the measure.

stated, that he had conversed with every person of influence and intelligence resident in the county which he represented, and, with very few exceptions, he found every one of them, professional and otherwise, disposed to support any measure which would go to assimilate the administration of justice in England and Wales. It was the univeral opinion amongst them, that the time had arrived at which the system of the Principality should be assimilated to that of the country at large; nevertheless, he felt bound to object to the clause for uniting English counties with any of those in the Principality.

objected to the principle of the Bill. If there were one point upon which the people of the United Kingdom could be said to be unanimous, it was, that law reform was necessary—that there was an absolute and crying necessity for a reform in the mode of administering justice. If it were necessary to effect a reform in Westminster-hall—and upon that there could not be a second opinion—it was also necessary that reform should be effected in Wales also; but the present Bill raised not a question of reform, but one of abolition; such a reform was wanted in the law as should make it intelligible, and should make it cheap, and should make it expeditious. Did the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite make law either cheap, expeditious, or intelligible? It was perfectly well-known that if an Englishman wanted to learn what course he ought to pursue in any legal difficulty, he could never ascertain for himself, but that, in many instances, he must have recourse to one of the fortunate few, who, by long practice, were enabled to comprehend what was unintelligible to the mass of mankind. The laws of England might as well have been written in Sanscrit as in English for aught that an Englishman could make of them, unless he had recourse to some of the conjurors of the profession to carry him through the mazes and the difficulties by which the litigant was surrounded. Had any effort been made by the framers of the present Bill to reconcile varying and conflicting decisions, to remedy the evil of positive Statutes being repealed by Judges, or any one of the crying and intolerant abuses that had crept into our system of jurisprudence? How then could that Bill be called a Bill for the Reformation of the Law? It was a drama of reform, "leaving out the part of Hamlet by particular desire." It applied itself to that which was of secondary or of no importance, and passed by in silence the only matters demanding remedy. What did it do for expedition? Nothing at all; though there was the Court of King's Bench with more business than it could get through, the Court of Common Pleas with much less than it could perform, and the Court of Exchequer with scarcely any. As it was true that the Court of King's Bench had too much business, it might, perhaps, be some advantage to it to add another Judge; but there was the Court of Common Pleas, with not more than a third of the business of the Court of King's Bench. The Court of Common Pleas tried but 3,000 causes in a year; while the King's Bench tried 11,000. Why not remedy the monopoly enjoyed by a certain class of barristers in the Court of Common Pleas. Other causes were supposed to keep the want of business at so low an ebb in that Court; but there was a third Court, and one in which no business was done—he meant the Court of Exchequer—why was not something done with that? It might be made as efficient as the Court of King's Bench for any thing that he saw to the contrary: it might be made to try 10,000 causes in a year, and the Common Pleas 8,000 above its present number, being a total of 18,000. Would there not be in that something that might tend to render justice cheap and expeditious? In Ireland the Court of Exchequer at present did the most business. Into the causes which created that difference he would not stop to inquire, but in Ireland the case was not always so. At one time the Common Pleas had the greatest amount of business: it was when fees were payable; and then, he might say, that in seventy-five out of every seventy-six cases the plaintiff succeeded. So attractive did this circumstance render the Court, that suitors flocked to it in unprecedented numbers; no sooner, however, was the system changed and fees abolished, than the current of business began to flow in an opposite channel, and the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland became sufficiently deserted. To return to the Bill under consideration. It abolished the local jurisdiction of the Courts of Wales, under which execution could be had in the short space of fifteen or twenty days, and probably, under the new arrangement, the suitor would not have execution in as many months. Hence it was evident that expedition was not gained by it, and he believed it was equally evident that cheapness was not amongst the number of its recommendations. The universal feeling throughout the country was, that the expense of legal proceedings was a monstrous evil; that the first duty of the Legislature was to remedy that evil effectually and immediately. He doubted not that he shared this sentiment with the nation at large, that not a moment was to be lost in abating such nuisance. Government abrogated its principal function when it did not apply its best energies to secure the due administration of justice. Of what importance was it to the poor man, whether his property was taken from him by ruffian violence in the streets, or his pockets picked in the legal proceedings necessary for the defence of that property? In Wales, if a poor man had a legacy bequeathed to him of 20l., which to him was wealth, he had his local Court of Equity for the recovery of that legacy; that he possessed in all times past; but what was he to have for the future? The Bill before the House took away from him his local Court of Equity, and gave him nothing in return except the benefit of filing his bill in the High Court of Chancery, and the dignity of an appeal to the House of Lords. Again, in the case of verbal or written agreements for land of a particular kind, though it might be for five acres, it was still an object to a poor man; and yet from the resident in Wales the present Bill took away the remedy which he enjoyed. In Ireland he had himself five hundred, nay, five thousand times told the poor man who held agreements for land, "You have the clearest case in the world—there can be no doubt that justice and the principles of equity are with you, but you must file a bill in the Court of Chancery." Such a reply of course put an end to his hopes; and he had no difficulty in asserting that the want of a remedy in such cases led to much of the disturbances which unhappily occurred in Ireland. One of the most awful crimes committed in that country—the burning of the family of the She as—had its origin in the want of such a remedy as that which he described—the want of means to obtain a decree for specific execution. That Wales possessed; and the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to deprive the Principality of that advantage. It was one of the most tranquil portions of the British Empire; and if, by the proposed change, they applied to it one of the most exciting causes of discontent which afflicted the least tranquil portion of the United Kingdom, let them look to the consequences. They took from the poor man his Local Court of Equity, and then they boasted that they were reforming the law. The Bill, no doubt, would prove exceedingly convenient to the gentlemen of Westminster-hall—it would enable them at most convenient seasons to recruit their health by instalments, and pursue their favourite amuse- ments at no distant intervals, and with no injury to their professional interests; and the Bill would also have the effect of giving more great prizes to the profession of the law; but be it remembered that it did little for the poor man, though it did much for the rich. Was he, in making those observations, to be understood as standing up in that House to advocate the existing system as it stood now in Wales? Quite the contrary; he was any thing but the advocate of a system which enabled gentlemen to exercise the functions of Judges in any part of the kingdom, and at the same time possess seats in that House; he was any thing but the advocate of a system which allowed gentlemen to give opinions upon nominal cases in their capacity of practising barristers, and next decide similar cases in the capacity of Judges. If necessary, let the number of those Judges be curtailed—let the salaries of those who remained be increased—let them devote their entire time to the discharge of their judicial duties; let all practicable and advantageous reforms be introduced, but let not the rich man be benefitted at the expense of the poor. He objected also to the Bill because the humane clause was thrown overboard—that which limited arrests on mesne process to sums above 100l. was thrown out, and the protection of men in humble life was swept away from them. It might happen in Wales, as in other parts of the world—he did not impute any thing in particular to that district—but it might happen in Wales, that in some rare cases wealth and malignity would be united in the same individual; he would suppose that it was a case upon a promissory note for 20l., in which case it would be in the power of the plaintiff to bring the matter up to London, and, though the poorer party, the defendant, might have a most excellent defence, yet that defence might require to be supported by eight or ten witnesses; and how could a poor man bring eight or ten witnesses up to London from Wales in a cause of 20l.? It was a mockery to call such a system a system of impartial justice. There were other evils against which no provision had been made. One of our Courts affected to have no jurisdiction over property, but only a jurisdiction over conscience; and yet it ruled all the property and land in the country, but encumbered with enormous expense to the suitors. Another Court had, it was usually conceived, the whole of the land, and all the titles, referred to its jurisdiction; whilst, from the beginning to the end of the proceedings, the whole pleadings were a tissue of falsehood, and a living lie throughout. He must express an earnest wish to see the barrier which separated law from equity broken down; he wished to see the system of pleading, and the whole mode of proceeding so altered, that the parties would be brought together in the presence of the Judge; and he was persuaded that, in most instances, it would be found that their first appearing together before the Judge would be their last appearance in the character of litigants. Whilst reform was called for on all hands in our Courts, what, he would ask, had been done? He had expected something in the nature of a remedy for many of the evils in the constitution of these Courts, from the very sensible, and, he had almost said, seductive speech of the right hon. Baronet at the beginning of the Session. It had much of promise and much of good sense in it; and had the right hon. Baronet had the legal knowledge which the effort to introduce the reform, of which he then gave the outline, required, and not been obliged to rely for the species of information necessary to complete his object, upon others, who had only misled him, it would not have remained for an humble individual like himself to have thrown out observations of the nature which he had felt it his duty to make on this occasion. He could never consider that a beneficial reform was accomplished in our present system of judicature by the appointment of another Judge in the Courts at Westminster-hall, accompanied by the abolition of those local jurisdictions which might be said, at least comparatively, to bring cheap justice home to the doors of the suitors in those parts of the country.

supported the Motion. He should like to see all the recommendations of the Commissioners carried into effect; and as he could not have the whole of them, he was willing to give his support to all which he could obtain.

said, that the observations of the hon. and learned member for Clare took too wide a range, and were altogether too general and theoretical for him to offer to the House anything like a specific reply. Nothing was more easy than to pour forth a given quantity of declamation upon that or any other topic. But to come to the point; he would admit, for the sake of argument that there was from one end of the country to the other a universal cry for the reform of abuses in the law; and supposing the hon. and learned Gentleman to agree that those abuses required reform, what was there of consistency in opposing that small and partial benefit which he found himself able to effect? The whole of the views of the hon. and learned member for Clare might be extremely well founded, but he must be allowed to say, that, up to that time at least, they were purely theoretical, and as theories he must continue to treat them until that hon. and learned Gentleman thought proper to bring in a bill himself, embodying the opinions which then and at other times he had expressed upon the subject of legal reforms. He next proceeded to reply to his hon. and learned friend, the member for Plympton. After complaining of the preambles having been likened to a sheet of white paper, he proceeded to observe that it did not appear to him that his hon. and learned friend had, on the present occasion, exercised his usual industry, or he would have been at no loss to discover the tendency and operation of the several clauses of the Bill; and when they went into committee, if the House agreed to do so, he would undertake to explain to his hon. and learned friend the operation of every one of the clauses. He next noticed the clauses that had been added to the Bill, observing that it was considered more convenient to make the enactment for the payment of the retiring Welsh Judges, and for the payment of the new Judges, part of the present measure, than to introduce a new bill for that purpose. The effect of the Bill would be, to assimilate the jurisdiction of the law in both parts of the kingdom—to make the King's writ obeyed in Wales as it was all over England; and so far as he could learn, and he had taken every pains to inform himself upon the subject, it was the universal opinion both in England and in Wales, that the time had arrived when that assimilation ought to take place. He had now nothing more to say, except that he believed there did not exist a worse system than that which prevailed in Wales. He believed it the worst system that any country ever had. Precise estimates had been formed of the comparative expenses of proceedings in Wales and England, and the difference was found to be in favour of the latter. As to the Local Court of Equity, of which so much had been said, he would affirm that the benefits it conferred were greatly overrated; it was best described as a fugitive Court never continuing in one place for more than five days; and as to its expenses, it was more expensive than the High Court of Chancery. He had not the slightest doubt that when the Bill then before them came into operation, if it should receive the assent of Parliament, that it would turn out that the people of Wales would prove more content with it than they had ever been with their former system. As to the notice so good-naturedly taken by the hon. and learned member for Clare, of the effect of the Bill upon the convenience of the profession, he should not reply to it. He had only, in conclusion, to say, that the object of this Bill was to put all the Courts upon the same footing; and if the House would but go into committee on the Bill, he felt little apprehension of not being able to satisfy it, clause by clause, that the Bill would accomplish the objects proposed; and he had no doubt that he should be able to show that those objects were in themselves beneficial.

declared, though he represented a place in Wales, that he should support the Motion for going into a Committee.

was willing to rest the question on the single issue of expense; and as to the wishes of the Principality, the tone of the petitioners was decisive on that point. The Secretary of State had assigned as one of his reasons for supporting the Bill, that more Judges were required for the improvement of the Courts in Westminster-hall, but that was not an argument which could justify the overturning of the whole system of law and equity in Wales, under which the country had been so long governed. For these reasons he should vote against the committal of the Bill.

expressed himself decidedly favourable not only to the principle of the Bill, but to almost all its enactments. The hon. member for Clare had said, that they ought to do more than they professed to do by the present Bill; but if he thought so, it was competent to him to make specific propositions himself, and take the sense of the House upon his own plan of reform. The Bill would, as he contended, be a great benefit to the people of Wales, who were desirous to participate in the advantages of the English law.

The House divided—For going into a Committee 129; Against it 30—Majority 99.

The House went into a Committee.

On the clause empowering the Judges to sit in rotation at certain periods,

re-stated some of the objections he felt to the appointment of three new Judges, and expressed a hope that the Attorney General would now put an end to the practice of giving judgment on matters in Banco, without the presence of the Chief Justice. His hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) knew well, that "up to the time of Lord Mansfield it was the invariable practice not only to require the presence of the Chief Justice, but to have the case twice argued. He did not desire that, but he hoped the old practice would be revived with reference to the Chief.

, in reply, admitted the propriety of the learned Gentleman's suggestion, and observed, that by a clause in this Bill, the Act which empowered three Puisne Judges to sit in Banco was repealed, and therefore the ancient practice would be revived as a matter of course.

Some verbal amendments were made; the Committee to sit again on Monday next.