Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

English baron are no longer essential or requisite. With the exception of one of our number, we concur in thinking, that five barons are one more than necessary, and that the business of the Exchequer might be conducted with equal advantage by four, as in the Court of Exchequer in England, and without adding to the duties and labour of these judges." If the House did not concur in the recommendation of the commissioners, the eight Reports which they had already presented would be useless paper, and Parliament would neither do its duty by them nor by the country. He would now state the duty of the Barons, and he begged it to be observed, that the account was not that of an enemy, but was supplied by these judges themselves. They stated, as was to be found in the 10th page of the Report, that there were four terms; one beginning on the 24th of November, and terminating on the 20th December; another beginning on the 15th of January, and ending on the 3d of February; a third beginning on the 12th of May, and ending on the 2d of June; and a fourth beginning on the 17th of June, and ending on the 5th of July. The Court, it was remarked, did not usually meet on Monday, except it was the first or the last day of term. Thus, then, the Barons were not employed in their judicial duties more than two months in the year, and this, be it remembered, was their own account of their employment. The average number of causes set down for trial did not exceed a hundred. They likewise acted as a board of treasury, and the average number of petitions, memorials, and other applications disposed of by them in that capacity, amounted to 1300. In point of practice, the disposal of this part of the business belonged to the Remembrancer; it was their duty only to transmit these memorials to

him, to order him to make out his report, of which they disapproved or approved. When they had given their approbation or disapprobation, their labour was at an end. Now he would beg leave to contrast the duties which they thus performed, with the duties performed by the Barons of the Court of Exchequer in England. The Barons of the Exchequer Court of England went the circuit; the Barons of Scotand performed no part of this duty. The Court of Exchequer in England performed the duties of a Court of Equity; in Scotland no such duty devolved upon the Barons. In England, other suitors could apply to the Court of Exchequer besides the suitors of the Crown; in Scotland only the suitors of the Crown. The Barons of England took their turn at the Old Bailey, and performed other parts in the administration of justice; in Scotland they had no similar labour. In England the Barons had to decide on references from Parliament; in Scotland they had to do nothing similar. There could, therefore, be no comparison between the labour performed by the four Barons of the Court of Exchequer in England and the five of Scotland. He would beg to know, as connected with this subject, what was the opinion entertained of the appointment of the present Chief-Baron of the Exchequer (the late Attorney-General of England, Sir Samuel Shepherd.) Did he consider himself, or was he considered by his friends, as going to perform a laborious duty, or going to fill an easy situation, if not a sinecure office ?The late Chief Baron (the Right Honourable Robert Dundas) held his office three years, while he never appeared in court; he was in Italy two of those years from bad health, and when he returned he was unable to attend to business. The present Lord High Commissioner of the Jury Court

of Scotland, though almost unacquainted with the laws of Scotland, and going down to establish a new court, and to perform the laborious dnties of a new appointment, was yet able to execute the functions of a Baron of the Exchequer in addition to his other avocations. Indeed, when it was proposed in the last Parliament to grant retired pensions to the judges, it was contended by some hon. members, that such pensions ought not to be allowed to the Barons of the Exchequer, as they were already in a state of retirement. He could not refrain from denouncing a scandalous appointment, alike injurious to the character of Parliament and to the credit of the courts of justice. The opinion of the commissioners had been unanimous, with the exception of Sir Ilay Campbell, whose nomination had been objected to, on the ground that nothing had been done regarding appointments in courts of justice for the last half century, but by his advice. The opinion of no person in Scotland could be of less weight, as, without meaning any personal disrespect to him, he had protected all the abuses that had prevailed for the last fifty years, and might say of them, quorum pars magna fui. The next name that he found subscribed to the report was that of Sir James Montgomery, who had been Lord Advocate of Scotland. His authority, he did not hesitate to say, weighed as much with him as that of the learned lord or of the Lord Register opposite. Mr Robertson Scott, and Mr Threipland, were every way qualified for their appointment by character and knowledge. He came to Mr Glassford, though last not least, whose opinion deserved the greater credit, as he had written a book upon the courts.

That gentleman had said in his publication, that the appointments of the Exchequer were sources of patronage, but

not offices of business. With regard to the individual appointed, (Sir Patrick Murray) he was scarcely known as a lawyer, and had seldom entered the courts, unless from curiosity. The only argument which could be urged for the number five was, that if four were equally divided, there might be want of a deciding voice; but the experience of England shewed how little room there was for this apprehension; and it would be strange to incur the expense of an additional judge for the mere purpose of inequality. The Lord Advocate had indeed produced a paper, purporting to contain the opinion of four judges, the heads of the courts in Scotland, and which was unfavourable to the discontinuance of the fifth Baron. Lord A. conceived that the judges, from their very situation, were liable to bias, and that their whole authority was destroyed by one assertion contained in this paper. In opposition to the recommendation of the commissioners, that the duties of the two clerks of bills should be devolved on the principal clerks of session, it expressed an opinion that the last office was sufficient to occupy the whole time and attention of any individual. What would the House think, when it understood that Sir Walter Scott was one of the principal clerks of Session? Could they believe that his whole time was engrossed by the duties of that office? The paper containing their opinion did not carry conviction to the people of Scotland; it did not carry conviction to all the judges; it did not, he was assured, carry conviction to the bar. As the paper could not carry conviction, so neither could the vote of that House, if a vote of confirmation, carry conviction to the country. "The time may soon come," continued his lordship, "when I shall meet with this appointment in the mouths of persons in the disturbed

district with which I am connected, whom I may be called upon to repress. With what consistency can I, as deputy lieutenant or justice of the peace, put down at the point of the sword those whom distress has goaded to madness, and who from time to time are outraged by acts of this kind?" The noble lord concluded by moving, that the House concur with the commissioners, that five Barons of Exchequer in Scotland were unnecessary, and that four were sufficient for all the business of that court. In reply to these observations, the defence of the measure was undertaken by Sir William Rae, Lord Advocate. On him it naturally devol ved, both as holding an office usually supposed to include that of minister for Scotland, and as having taken an active part in forwarding the appointment. The constitution, he observed, of the Court of Exchequer, was founded upon the national contract at the union of the two countries-a union which proved satisfactory to the people, and promoted the interests of that part of the country, for more than a century. That contract was not to be wantonly broken in upon. The appointment took place in consequence of a circumstance connected with the trial by jury, lately introduced into Scotland. Mr Adam, Lord Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court, and to whose zeal, talents, and good management, the success of the experiment was mainly owing, found his duties as Baron of Exchequer incompatible with due attention to the business of that court. He therefore resigned the former, that he might betow on the latter his undivided attention. With regard to the choice made of a successor, an individual better fitted for the situation could not have been found. He had held the office of principal Remembrancer in the Court of Exchequer from the year

1799 till last year, except one year that he held an office in London. He was by this means better fitted for the ministerial and judicial functions of a baron than he could have been by the longest practice as an advocate in the Courts of Justice. As the English law is the law of the Court of Exchequer, a barrister had to learn all the forms and rules of the Court when appointed to preside in it as one of the Barons. The noble lord had said that he had performed his office by deputy, but he (the Lord Advocate) knew that he had perfor med it personally, since 1799 till last year, except the year that he had an office in London. Nor was such an appointment of an inferior officer without precedent, for Baron Moncrieff had been deputy King's Remembrancer for 25 years before he was appointed one of the Barons. Another remark he begged leave to make here, respecting the selection of the individual. By his appointment a very considerable saving was occasioned, because the office of King's Remembrancer ceased, on its becoming vacant, by an act of an honourable member on the floor. The saving hence arising amounted to one half the salary of one of the Barons of Exchequer. By the statute of Anne it was enacted, that the number of Barons should not be fewer than five. The expression was, "should not exceed five;" but this, he contended, in Parliamentary language, implied the same thing. "We always have been accustomed to five," said his lordship ; 'you have always been accustomed to four; we prefer five, according to what we have been accustomed to; you prefer four, according to your custom."

[ocr errors]

The nature of the business required an admixture of Scotch and English lawyers; of the former, there could scarcely be fewer than three, or of the latter than two. If there

should be a division of opinion respecting the granting of a charter to an individual, what could be done? It might be of importance to an individual at the moment when an election approached. The noble lord had himself alluded to elections. A judge could give up his opinion where a court of review decided against it; but why should a judge give up his opinion, if an honest and conscientious one, when there was no court of review? The consequence would therefore be, when there was an equal division, that no charter and no tutory would be issued. He could not see how such an evil could be remedied without an inequality of numbers. He contended that the commissioners had exceeded their powers, and went entirely out of their way, when they reported on the constitution of the Court of Exchequer. Their instructions were, as stated in their own report, to inquire into the fees, salaries, and emoluments of the several clerks, officers, and ministers of justice. Now, he would be glad to know under which of these heads the "judges" were meant to be included? As to the commissioners themselves, with all the respect and esteem which he entertained for them personally, he must say that he did consider them to be unqualified. One of them, after practising at the bar, went into the country and lived upon his estate, without returning to his practice; another went to India, and, after staying there for some time, returned, and lived almost entirely in the country; and a third, having also practised some time at the bar, retired to his estate, improved the country round it, but never returned to the profession. Now he thought proper to mention these circumstances, because he would submit to the House that the opinions of that commission could not be entitled to any great

weight, even if it stood alone, and unopposed by the weighty opinion of the late President of the Court of Session, Sir Ilay Campbell, but above all, of the Chief-Baron Shepherdan individual who had gone so lately from this country, after acquiring a thorough and extensive knowledge of the whole body of the laws of these kingdoms, and whose special duty it was, if it were any one's, to say whether an appointment of this nature was or was not necessary. He did not know what authority the ChiefBaron's name might have there; but certain he was, that in his (the Lord Advocate's) part of the country, they felt grateful to his Majesty's ministers for having sent among them a man whose talents as a judge were not more respected than his virtues as an individual were admired, After attaining to very high honours in his profession, he declined those highest ones to which he might reasonably and certainly have aspired, and, in the discharge of his duty, was willing, at his time of life, to undertake that duty, accompanied as it was with the necessity of forming new connexions, and in a distant part of the kingdom; although the office was of a nature far below that which he might have been entitled to claim. He submitted, then, that unless they were willing to suppose that there was something infectious in the air of Scotland, which had the effect of instantly destroying that character of honour which an individual had sustained through life, it was utterly incredible and impossible that the learned judge in question, when called upon to decide on the constitution of the court over which he was to preside, should have concurred in the propriety of an appointment of which he did not see and feel the necessity. It was a mistake that the late Lord Chief Baron was ever more than a year absent

from the court at a time; this was when unavoidably obliged to go abroad by the state of bis health; but even when generally residing at Bath, he came and attended the regular terms. Some observations were made by Sir John Newport, in defence of Lord Archibald Hamilton's motion.

Lord Castlereagh now came forward in defence of the appointment. The noble lord (A. Hamilton) had called upon the House, without previous inquiry, without any evidence in the appendix of the report, and without suggesting any facts on his own authority, to come to the conclusion that the constitution of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland ought to be changed that that constitution for ages had been faulty-and that the decision of certain commissioners ought to be preferred to the deliberate judgment of the learned heads of all the different Courts. Lord C. indignantly repelled the insinuation that ministers felt any reluctance to redress and reform actual abuses; but to represent them as looking only to influence and patronage, and all public virtue and purity as monopolized by their antagonists, was a language by no means new to gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, and particularly convenient at the opening of a new Parliament. He did not mean to blame the commissioners for travelling into various matters, and making the suggestion they had done respecting the Court of Exchequer ; at the same time, if it had been the purpose of the House to authorise them to examine into the constitution of the Courts of Scotland, as well as into the mere details of fees, he could not help thinking that individuals of a different class would have been more properly nominated to such high, important, and extensive functions. He believed that the present was the first occasion on which the House had

been required to affirm, not the report of a deputation of its own body, but the mere dictum of four out of five gentlemen in no way connected with Parliament. He could not agree to the present motion; on the contrary, he should move the previous question upon it; but he would assent, on any future day, to refer the whole question to a select committee. The noble lord (A. Hamilton) seemed to think that he had made out a good case in favour of four Barons, if he could shew that even once the business of the court had been transacted without the presence of the fifth; and because he found that one ministerial officer was a poet, he jumped at the conclusion that all the offices could be discharged as well by poets as by lawyers. Yet was it not known to all who heard him, that the brightest luminary of the law of modern times, Lord Mansfield, had long been incapacitated from attending the court to fulfil his judicial functions, and no man had been so obtuse in his faculties as to argue from thence that the office of Chief-Justice was a sinecure. He begged to be allowed to say, that of all economies abhorrent to common sense, that was the most absurd which regarded the bench-to secure the pure administration of justice was always the best economy. He must congratulate the other side of the House upon the cheerfulness they displayed. They were never so happy as when they had got some paltry thousand pounds to peck at: as soon as they had hold of a particular sum, how they rejoiced in their supposed advantage, until the necessity of its payment was shewn, and then they endeavoured to overcome argument by clamour. The constituents of the noble lord were a little too enlightened to be persuaded even by him that the addition of a poor thousand pounds would make a serious differ

« ForrigeFortsett »