.ET. 37.] SCOTCH COURTS OF LAW. 263 



length ; they are reported, and written, and printed, and 

 argued on in written and printed papers for years, 

 and then decided upon by a judge who probably never 

 heard a witness examined in his life certainly never 

 heard any of those witnesses examined. Hence, too, 

 law of evidence there is none, nor can be. The per- 

 son examining is scarcely like a judge, and generally 

 attended by attorneys only. But of this enough has 

 been said. The Chancellor in 1807, when your bill 

 was in the House, and when he substituted his own after- 

 wards for it, was averse to forcing a trial by jury upon 

 the Scotch courts, so left it to themselves."* They are 

 averse to it, and have not taken a step towards it. 

 Experience has since proved to him more and more 

 the absolute necessity of its introduction, and also that 

 they won't take it without compulsion. Now for the 

 job. It is self-evident that the proper way of doing 

 is to make the Court of Exchequer try issues. When 

 the last augmentation of salary was voted in 1810, I 

 supported the proposition for giving the Barons an 

 equal sum, Archibald Hamilton and others opposing, 

 because their office is a sinecure, or very nearly so, and 

 they have as much pay as the other judges. I contended 

 that the necessity of jury trial, and the fitness of 

 making an English court (as it is entirely by its con- 

 stitution), where already that trial prevails in revenue 

 causes, the place of its introduction, was too obvious to 

 leave it doubtful that such an arrangement must in the 

 end take place. Indeed, I expressed doubts whether, 

 by law, issues between common persons as well as the 

 Crown cases might not there be tried now ; for there is 



* Keferring to the Act by which, in 1808, the Court of Session, which 

 consisted of fifteen judges, was separated into two Divisions. 



