OF SCOTCH APPEALS. History of the Jurisdiction. Scotch Courts subject to review by appeal to the House of Lords, 285.— First Scotch Appeal from the Court of Session, 286.-Principle on which the Jurisdiction was entertained, 288.-Appellate Jurisdiction of Scotch Parliament, ib.-Scotch Appeals did not originally stop execution, 291.-Order of the House suspending execution upon Appeals from Scotland, 292.-Appeals from the Court of Teinds, 293.—From the Equity side of the Court of Exchequer, 294. THERE are in Scotland three courts whose decrees or sentences are immediately reviewable by appeal to the House of Lords. Of these, the first and chief is the Court of Session; a high tribunal of civil judicature, holden at Edinburgh by the Senators of the College of Justice; or, as they are more usually styled, the Lords of Council and Session. The second is the Commission of Teinds; composed of the Judges of the Court of Session, and established for the "Plantation of Kirks, and Valuation of Tithes." The third is Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer; erected in pursuance of the Articles of Union (a), for the determination of all questions affecting the Royal Revenues in Scotland. It was, indeed, at one time contended, that an appeal lay to the House of Lords from a fourth tribunal in Scot(*) Art. 19. land; namely, the High Court of Justiciary. But this question has been long settled in the negative; and it would now be superfluous to recite the merits of the controversy. With respect, then, to appeals from the Court of Session; the Articles of Union, and the Statutes passed in pursuance thereof, contain, strange to say, no provision whatever. We are assured, however, that this omission arose from no accidental oversight. A project, says De Foe (b), was in agitation "to erect a Court in Scotland, delegated from the Peers of Great Britain, assembled in Parliament, to be named annually, or triennially, or every session, or otherwise, as in the Treaty of Union should be agreed." But the author significantly intimates, that "there were reasons why this scheme was not further entered upon; though both sides approved of the method" (c). The first appeal presented to the House of Lords from Scotland, was that of the Earl of Roseberie v. Sir John Inglis ("); concerning which there are the following minutes in the Journals: (b) Hist. of Union, p. 158, et seq. (c) Adverting to this project, Sir Ilay Campbell, for many years Lord President of the Court of Session, in his preface to the "Acts of Sederunt" (Ed. Edin. 1811), observes: "This would not have been a very eligible mode of proceeding; and, after some discussion, it appears to have been laid aside; the commissioners being probably of opinion that it was better to try the experiment of going on in the natural course of discussing appeals in the British House of Lords; where it was to be presumed there would be no want of the ablest assistance and the greatest knowledge of law of every kind; and where the people of Scotland had ob tained their due share of representation, though not exactly in the form and manner of their old Parliament." (4) It is matter of tradition, that on the presentation of this appeal, the officers of the House were at a loss what to make of it; and it was a question whether such a thing as an appeal from the Court of Session in Scotland was competent, or could be entertained. Lord President Hope had this tradition from his grandfather, as well as from the second President Dundas, whose father (the first President Dundas) was, at the period of the Union, of an age, 22, to remember such things. For this information I am indebted to the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland. |