co-operation are very serious objections to the scheme submitted to us, under which individual writers would be appointed to each Court. In the light of these various considerations we do not see our way to suggest any improvement in the arrangements at present subsisting.

Copies of Notes of Evidence.-There is, however, one point affecting shorthand writing with which we find it necessary to deal. The presiding judge is required to certify the extension of the Notes as correct, and he is the final arbiter in eliminating unnecessary redundancies, in clearing up any obscurity as to the precise effect of a witness's evidence as taken down verbatim, and in giving the extended notes their ultimate form. Until certification, therefore, the parties have no access to the notes except with the judge's leave; and, when leave is granted, the Lord Ordinary's Clerk makes, or rather procures from the shorthand writer, a copy of the Notes and makes a copying charge against the party who has applied for the copy. This charge the Court restricts to a sum materially lower than the copying charge allowed to a law agent by the Table of Fees. If the status of the Judges' Clerks is to be changed in accordance with our recommendations in Chapter X, this perquisite will require to be abolished. Like the perquisite dealt with in the succeeding paragraph, it has been founded on by the Treasury as a ground for limiting the salaries of the Judges' Clerks. We think and accordingly recommend that WHATEVER CHARGE THE COURT ALLOWS for what is really an advance copy of the Notes, or part of them, SHOULD BE PAID DIRECT TO THE PERSON WHO SUPPLIES THE SHORTHAND SERVICE FOR THE CASE IN QUESTION.

Judges' Opinions.-The Opinions delivered by the judgesalike in the Outer and in the Inner Houses-are either delivered at once at the conclusion of the debate or, in cases in which further deliberation is found necessary, after an interval. If either or both of the parties to a case desire to have a copy of an Opinion, they obtain it through the Judge's Clerk, who charges a copying fee restricted in the same manner as the fees referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph. The Opinions are revised by the judges before these copies are made and issued. It was urged by some of the professional witnesses we examined that the revised Opinions should be put in process, so as to make them accessible to the parties' law agents, who would thus be enabled to make copies for their clients. If these copies were to be charged the ordinary copying-fees allowed by the Table of Fees, the only result of this procedure would be to increase the cost to the litigant. If the parties instructed a shorthand writer of their own to take and extend a Note of the Opinion as delivered, the cost incurred would be higher still. In view particularly of the desirability of revisal by the judge before the final issue of the Opinion, there is great convenience in a system which makes the Judges' Clerks the medium for its issue; and we think that, so far, the present procedure should be preserved. The charge made by the Judge's Clerk is,

however, in the same position as the charge for advance-copies of the Notes of Evidence referred to above, and it ought, in our opinion, to disappear as a perquisite of the Clerk who issues the copy. We therefore recommend that COPIES OF OPINIONS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE made by the Judges' Clerks AS PART OF THEIR SALARIED DUTY, AND SHOULD BE ISSUED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE COURT, REGULATED FEE-FUND CHARGES BEING MADE FOR THEM BY MEANS OF COURT STAMPS. The improved status of the Judges' Clerks proposed in Chapter X (where we deal further with this matter) would, we think, sufficiently recompense them for the loss of their present perquisites, both as regards advance copies of evidence and Judges' Opinions.

Fee-fund Dues.-The fees charged in the Court of Session and its allied offices were recently the subject of enquiry by a Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Blackburn, which reported on 8th May 1922. For detailed information on the subject of these fees, we refer to the Report of that Committee. The recommendations of the Committee that there should be various increases were adopted and, by Act of Sederunt dated 20th July 1922, made operative as from 1st October 1922. The Table prescribed by that Act is still in operation.

As regards its possible effect on the business of the Court, we need only consider the provisions of this Table respecting the Inner and Outer Houses and the Bill Chamber. For the year 1920-21 the approximate cost (excluding bonus) of the salaries of the office staff in these departments was £16,250, and the receipts from fees amounted to £4350. Towards meeting the deficiency the Committee recommended increases estimated to yield £3400, making the total fees amount to £7750. This estimate has been justified by the events, the dues for the last three years having amounted respectively to £7475, £7910 and £7694. The increases made have been severely criticised by some of our witnesses, a majority of those who dealt with the question urging that the scale of dues in operation prior to October 1922 should be re-enacted.

It is clear from the terms of the remit to Lord Blackburn's Committee that it was made upon the view that a large proportion, if not the whole, of the cost of salaries of the Court of Session staff (excluding the Judges) ought to be met from the proceeds of Court dues. The most directly opposing view expressed to us was that the Government of the country should supply the facilities for justice as inexpensively as possible and that no Court dues should be charged. Other opinions were to the effect that the dues generally should be less than at present; that particular dues in the new Table should be reduced or abolished; that an ad valorem principle might be applied, at least in certain kinds of cases; and that, without regard to the amount at stake in the action, only small dues should be charged in consistorial cases and actions of damages for personal injury or slander.

It is difficult to generalise about the probable effect of these dues upon the volume of litigation because their proportion to the

total cost of litigation varies greatly with the nature of the action. We were told by the Auditor of Court that in the case of a decree in absence this proportion may be as high as 27 per cent, but that the average proportion over all accounts taxed by him (including decrees in absence) is less than 1 per cent. One witness went so far as to say that in his experience the effect of the increases of 1922 had been to quadruple the fees; and it is possible that, in untaxed accounts relating to actions in which the stakes are of moderate amount, the fee-fund 'dues may be relatively high. Other witnesses, although willing to admit that the increases are scarcely large enough to bulk appreciably in the total cost of a litigation, maintained that their psychological effect in depressing the volume of litigation had been material. We think it just possible that there is some foundation for this view. Actions in which the pursuers are persons of inconsiderable means have (we were told) been affected because the agents in such cases run a risk of not recovering their outlays, and any increase in the irreducible minimum of the latter makes agents unwilling to act, even although the pursuer has a case worthy to be tried. There can be no proof either way regarding opinions of this kind, and the best comment upon them seems to be the figures quoted above. The minutely detailed estimates of the Blackburn Committee were based upon the assumption of the maintenance of the 1920-21 volume of business, not merely in the aggregate, but in the details of its due-paying steps. The striking coincidence of the estimates with the resulting revenues argues prima facie that the assumption made has been justified and that no depression of business has in fact resulted. It is, of course, impossible to say whether the increased dues have prevented an increase of business which might otherwise have taken place; but in the light of the known facts we see no sufficient reason to impute to the increases any of the alleged effects.

We think it right, however, to express our opinion on the merits of some of the particular suggestions made to us.

In the first place, in the Act of Sederunt "party" is defined to "include a set of persons with the same interest for whom one and "the same first paper is or has been lodged." This definition is designed to exclude parties with different interests who conjoin for a specific purpose in one paper, and also parties with the same interest who lodge separate papers when one would suffice. The effect as regards dues is sometimes considerable and complaint was made to us that hardship is often caused. In a few cases this may be so, but the provision generally seems reasonable and should cause no unnecessary expense if agents keep its implications in view.

In the second place, the 1922 Table substituted a time-due of 10s. per hour of the duration of proofs for the previous charge based on the number of witnesses. It also introduced, for the first time, a similar charge for Debates in both the Inner and Outer Houses. Several of the witnesses examined by us objected to this time-due, whether in respect of proofs or in respect of debates. As regards proofs, we agree with Lord Blackburn's Committee that the value

of the services of the officials of the Court in connection with the supervision and marshalling of a crowd of witnesses is, on the whole, more suitably assessed by a charge based on the time occupied by the proof than (as was formerly the case) by a charge based on the number of witnesses. We do not, accordingly, think that there is any good ground for complaint against the time-due for proofs. But the application of a similar time-due to the duration of Debates in either the Outer House or the Inner House is, in our opinion, neither just nor expedient. In expressing this view, we include among Debates in the Outer House the speeches of Counsel on the evidence after the completion of a proof. Our reason is that the time occupied by Debates bears no relation to any service performed by the officials of the Court. Indeed, while a Debate is in progress the officials in question are occupied in completing duties connected with other cases and other matters; and we are unable to justify a charge the only basis for which is the time occupied by Counsel and the Court in disentangling a nodus which the existing state of the law, or the complexities of parliamentary draftsmanship, have created. In view, however, of the necessity for general revision of the Table of Fee-fund Dues which will arise if effect be given to our main recommendations, we think it sufficient to state our opinion as above, without making any recommendation for the alteration of the present Table.

In the third place, suggestions (1) that only small dues should be charged in certain kinds of cases, and (2) that, particularly in Commercial and Maritime cases, the ad valorem principle might be applied, are attractive; but we think that any attempt to give effect to them would raise many questions both of definition and of equity which could only be settled arbitrarily in ways that would be as far from giving all-round satisfaction as the present system.

On the broad question, we think that the provision of facilities by which justice should be made open to all is a matter of fundamental principle, and we reject the view that litigants, rich and poor alike, ought to be liable for the cost of that provision. The tendency of high Court dues is to make justice the privilege of a limited class. But it is not unreasonable that litigants should make a certain contribution to the cost of the public facilities of which they avail themselves. Besides, there is the consideration that access to the Courts free of charge might encourage frivolous and even malicious actions. We do not think it has been established by any of the evidence presented to us that the present scale of Court dues (except in regard to the time-due for Debates) is excessive in this view.

We do NOT therefore recommend ANY CHANGES IN THE PRESENT TABLE OF FEE-FUND DUES APART FROM SUCH AS MAY BE CONSIDERED EXPEDIENT ON A GENERAL REVISION IN CONSEQUENCE OF NEW OR ALTERED PROCEDURE.

CHAPTER X.

OFFICES AND OFFICERS OF COURT.

1. Unification of the Offices of Court and Reorganisation of the Clerical Staff-Necessity for alterations consequent on earlier recommendations— Difficulty due to location of Court Offices in Register House-Number and Duties of Present Staff, Principal Clerk of Session, Depute Clerks, Assistant and Ordinary Clerks, Bill Chamber Staff, and Judges' Clerks Staff necessary for reorganised Office Organisation and Ultimate Staffing of Unified Office-Qualifications and Salaries of Staff-Method and Terms of Assimilation of existing Officials Special Circumstances affecting the Assistant Clerk of the Bills, the Ordinary Clerk of the Bill Chamber, the Unestablished Clerks in the Bill Chamber and Teind Office, and the Judges' Clerks-Age of Retirement.

2. Offices not included in Unification Scheme-re Signet Office, see Chapter VI-The Offices of the Accountant of Court and the Register of Deeds-the Extractor of Court and his Staff.

3. Appointment and Patronage.

1. UNIFICATION OF THE OFfices of COURT AND REORGANISATION OF THE CLERICAL STAFF.

THE recommendations made in Chapter III of this Report imply a drastic change in the present organisation of the staff of officers of Court. With the disappearance of the system of "marking" and enrolment in particular Courts, it will be necessary to abolish separate offices, and there will no longer be any propriety in retaining separate Ordinary and Assistant clerks for each of the Divisions and Lords Ordinary. Nor will it be necessary for the Judges' Clerks to enrol cases at any stage. Enrolment, lodgment of papers, enquiries, and similar work will naturally all be dealt with in a central office, which-however it may be sub-divided for certain purposes-will consist of one staff directly under the unifying control of a single head. We have already indicated that this unification should comprise the Clerks of Court and the staffs of the Bill Chamber and the Teind Office (although the last-named office will necessarily, as regards its chief at least, be constituted a separate and self-contained sub-department of the general office). The unification should also, we think, comprise the staff of Judges' Clerks.

It will not be possible to derive the full potential advantage of this reorganisation-as regards either convenience or economywhile the offices of Court continue to be situated in the Register House, almost half-a-mile away from the building in which the Court sits. It seems probable that, under any system, extra staff will be required to meet the contingencies that arise from this circumstance. This point is set out at length on p. 11 of the Report of Lord Salvesen's Committee, and reported upon in similar terms by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (6th Report, p. 66, par. 14), to both of which we refer for a narrative of the facts. We endorse everything that is said in these Reports regarding the inconvenience and expense caused by the present system, and the desirability of forthwith providing accommodation in Parliament Square for the Offices of Court. When that has been done and some