cluding a Chief Baron, were maintained | smuggling-a cause, for contributing to by the right hon. and learned Baronet, which I thought he would have taken and decided by this House, though by a credit to himself, and have demanded small majority, to be the number which some praise for preceding Governments, in were necessary to discharge the high, la- which I should have readily and cordially borious, and responsible duties of this concurred. As to investigation, my prinCourt. With these facts before us, and cipal objection to it is, that it is quite usewith the confessed truth, that in the less; it would stay the progress of a benelast year only two defended causes were ficial measure, and could lead to no result brought into Court; when it is notorious to justify the delay, or which would prove that the Court has little or nothing to do, the case of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. can the House hesitate to read this Bill Is it not notorious that the Court, as a a second time?-a Bill which adequately court of justice, is a nest of sinecurists? and cheaply provides for the discharge Can any Gentleman deny, that in Scotof the scanty duties which remain to be land, when a political partisan, of a cerperformed. "But," says the hon. member tain standing and good interest, was to be for Selkirk (Mr. Pringle)," although the provided for, but whose attainments renCourt of Exchequer have but little to do at dered it impossible that he should be present, cannot an arrangement be made, placed on the bench of the Court of by which it can have some tolerable share Session, he was made a Baron of Exof duty? cannot the Tiend causes be chequer, as soon as a vacancy occurred? transferred from the Court of Session?" Whatever may be thought in this House, If, Sir, there were no other objections, I make this assertion without any fear of into which I shall not detain the House its meeting with contradiction. One reaby entering, this proposal would be ma- son for inquiring by a Committee, which was nifestly inadequate to give employment stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) to the Court. The time occupied in de- appears to me rather remarkable, viz. ciding all the Tiend cases which arise, that the Bill passed the House of Peers would be about three hours once a fort- nearly sub silentio—that is, because the night. As to the project of taking away case is so clear, the Court is so indefensible, the jurisdiction vested in the Court of that none of those noble Lords-and many Session, with respect to minors-some- they are — who combine knowledge of thing similar to that invested in the Scotch legal proceeding, with sufficient Keeper of the Great Seal-that would, I veneration for antiquity, to say the least, believe, be objectionable in many respects. attempted to arrest its progress-we, of I never, I confess, heard any complaint the House of Commons, ought to make made of the manner in which that high the certainty of the evils felt by the other and delicate jurisdiction is exercised House, the ground of our doubt. Such by the Court of Session; and some an argument is not a little whimsical. much better reason must be given to That the measure has been introduced by justify its transfer, than merely to give the great man at the head of the law, and some shadow of pretence for maintaining who, it is well known, is intimately acthe Court of Exchequer. But, says the quainted with Scotch legal questions, is, hon. and learned Baronet, the cause of to my mind, no small recommendation. the apparently little business in the Court That it has received the sanction of my of Exchequer is the system of compound-right hon. and learned friend, the Lord ing offences-and of course, were this evil corrected, a considerable accession of business would be the result. As to the reasons, the solid reasons which exist for resorting to those compositions, they have been so ably and convincingly stated by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that it is needless for me to repeat them. I was much astonished, however, that the hon. and learned Baronet did not state one cause, and the chief one, for the diminution of business in the Exchequer, namely, the great decrease of

Advocate, is an additional recommendation to those who look for authority to support their decision of this question. Indeed, no man, from the splendor of his talents, from the length of his experience, and from the extent of his legal practice, can know more intimately the wants and wishes of the people of Scotland, than the right hon. and learned Lord; and, however respectable may be the character of the right hon. and learned Baronet, I must be excused from considering him so good an authority, or so safe a guide,

on a question of this kind, as my right hon. and learned friend (the Lord Advocate). I feel, indeed, the great disadvantage under which we discuss this question in his absence. But, notwithstanding this, I am clearly of opinion, that the Bill should be read a second time.

deprive Mr. Abercromby of his office without some compensation.

Mr. Goulburn having been joined in the inquiry into the Courts of Scotland in 1830, and having then found that there was no reason for the abolition of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, he should say there was no ground for reversing that decision. He thought further inquiry was at least necessary before they legislated. The bill for regulating the Court passed in July, 1830, and he really thought the right hon. Gentleman should not effect a change without inquiry, and thereby convincing the country that Parliament acted, not upon the principle of jobbing, but the public interest.

Mr. George Dawson disclaimed all knowledge of the nature of the function of the Scotch Exchequer Court; he thought the proposition of the right hon. member for Portarlington, for an inquiry into this subject, so reasonable, that he should vote against that course which the House was called upon so precipitately to adopt. On that part of the subject which he did understand, and which related to granting the retiring pensions, he considered that it The Solicitor General said, it was a would be a gross and flagrant job to saddle mistake to say this measure would reflect the country with a retiring allowance of any disgrace upon Scotland. Not one of 2,000l. a year to Mr. Abercromby, the Chief the Gentlemen who opposed the Bill had Baron, who had been but eighteen months said there was any business in the Court. in office, and was in the prime of life. He Before 1794, the Court consisted of five considered this proceeding totally incon- Judges, which by an Act, the 1st of the sistent with the economical professions of King, they cut down to two Judges. It the Ministry. The Government which was clear upon the facts, that the Act to could thus sacrifice the public money, was which he alluded passed without inquiry, unworthy of the confidence of the coun- and, if so, on what ground were hon. Gentry. It was astonishing that the first Lord tlemen on his side of the House to be of the Admiralty, after making a speech charged with smuggling a bill through the upon economy and retrenchment, should House without inquiry? Consistently sanction this pension to the Lord Chief with their own conduct, the Gentlemen who Baron of Scotland. If the Government opposed the Government on such grounds had been sincere in their desire not to could not be sincere. create new offices, they, instead of fixing upon the country 2,000l. a-year, would have called upon Mr. Abercromby to execute the office of Judge in Bankruptcy. If the Government thought proper to persevere in giving Mr. Abercromby 2,000l. a-year, he should move an Address to the Crown, requesting, if the Bankruptcy Bill should pass, that Mr. Abercromby might fill the office of Chief Commissioner in the Bankruptcy Court. If the noble Lord said the intention was to appoint Mr. Abercromby he should be satisfied.

Lord Althorp said, their want of economy was, that they converted a place for life of 4,000l. a year to a pension of 2,000l. Then it was said, why was not Mr. Aber cromby appointed to the vacant office of Commissioner of Bankruptcy? The fact was, it was desirable to place a proper person in that Court. If Mr. Abercromby was a fit person he might be appointed, but he did not think the practice of Mr. Abercromby had made him fit for a Jury Court. It would have been unjust to

Sir Charles Wetherell concurred in what had fallen from the noble Lord, who said when an office was to be abolished the officer was entitled to compensation; but still he could not admire this Bill. It had been said this Scotch Exchequer Bill and the Bankruptcy Courts Bill were to run in couples. It did not appear at first sight how those Bills could run together, one being a measure of destruction, and the other of construction, but, taken jointly, both produced a job. In the abolition of former Courts, and the construction of new Courts, they had always proceeded on parliamentary inquiry. It was not enough for any Member to say there was ground for the abolition of a Court. No papers had been laid on the Table. There had been no parliamentary inquiry. Upon the mere dictum of a noble and learned Lord this Court was to be abolished. According to the Solicitor General's argument, the reduction of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer was the extinction of that Court. To whom was the business of the

vote had been come to, and to sign his | in the Spring of 1830. As the case was name before the rising of the House on pressing, and as there might be but very that day. Now the House rose so early short time for passing this Bill, he begged on Saturday, that many noble Lords who to move that it be read a first time now; came down for the purpose of signing the and he gave notice that to-morrow he protest which had been entered on the would move the suspension of the Standing Journals were prevented from doing so. Orders, in order that the Bill might be As it would be only fair to give them an passed through all its stages as a matter opportunity, he begged to move, that all of course. noble Lords who wished to sign the protest in question should be at liberty to do so until the rising of the House that day.

The Earl of Rosslyn said, he had no objection to the Motion, but he begged it to be understood it was not acceded to as a matter of course, or upon which a preIcedent was to be founded. Motion agreed to.

Lord Lyndhurst quite concurred with his noble and learned friend as to the necessity of passing such a Bill. He felt bound to state, that the judgment in question was pronounced during his (Lord Lyndhurst's) absence from the House, by a noble and learned Lord near him (Lord Wynford).

Lord Wynford said, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had given

upon a judgment pronounced by him.

The Lord Chancellor was greatly astonished to hear such a statement made by the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord's memory quite deceived him. The noble and learned Lord had only to look amongst his papers, and he was sure he would find a draught of this very Bill, which he (the Lord Chancellor) gave to him some months ago. He also mentioned to the noble and learned Lord the correspondence which he had with the Judges of the Courts below in Scotland on the subject, and the absolute necessity there was for such a measure as this. The fact was, that in consequence of his having given the draft of the Bill to the noble and learned Lord, he was obliged to send, a few days ago, when he wanted a draft of it, to the professional gentlemen engaged in the case. He brought in the Bill thus suddenly, as it was most desirable that in the present state of the Session no time should be lost in passing it through the House.

SCOTCH APPEALS.] The Lord Chan-him no intimation of such an attack as this cellor begged to submit a Bill to their Lordships, for the purpose of reversing a decree of their Lordships with reference to an appeal case from the Courts below in Scotland, as the said decree was utterly and completely inconsistent and at variance with the Scottish law on the subject. The case to which he was alluding had been decided by some of their Lordships who were unacquainted with the law of Scotland, and the consequence was, that the decision was quite contrary to that law and completely contrary to Scotch practice, and that no man that knew any thing of Scotch law would have ever pronounced such a decision. The thing had happened in the press of business, and arose from that inopia consilii with regard to Scotch law which they had often to lament. The decision, however, being utterly at variance with the Scotch law, it was necessary to rescind it, and for that purpose, on the suggestion of the Judges of the Courts below in Scotland, with whom he had had a correspondence on the subject, and with the consent of the parties on both sides, he now brought in a Bill, with a view to reverse that decision, and to place the case in the same circumstances that it was in previous to that decision being pronounced. His noble and learned friend who preceded him in the situation which he (the Lord Chancellor) filled, quite concurred with him as to the necessity of such a measure. He felt it due to himself to state, that the decision in question was pronounced some months before he (the Lord Chancellor) had the honour of a seat in that House, for it was pronounced

Lord Wynford said, that if the noble and learned Lord had sent him a draft of this Bill, he could assure him that this was the first time that he had ever heard of this Bill. He had heard something before of a draft of a bill, but he had not heard of what description it was.

The Lord Chancellor said, that the noble and learned Lord certainly laboured under a mistake on this point. He (the Lord Chancellor) distinctly remembered having mentioned the subject to him at the Table. He remembered having told the noble Lord on that occasion, that he