4. Since the provision of a local Appeal Court of two or more judges would involve increased public cost disproportionate to the end in view, the proper choice of litigants in small cases and in Interlocutory Appeals is between an appeal to a centralised Court and the total waiver of an appeal. The practical considerations in favour of the latter course are numerous and would serve as a salutary check upon frivolous and trifling appeals.

5. Although the Principals are ostensibly available as local Appeal Judges, it is not uncommon for some of them to arrange for country agents to come to Edinburgh for the purpose of pleading local appeals in Chambers. As regards Sheriffdoms in which this practice obtains, the proposed change would involve litigants in neither additional inconvenience nor additional expense.

6. A litigant in the Sheriff Court can at present be represented either by his Agent or by Counsel, as he pleases, the allowance of the expense of Counsel in a question of judicial costs being always in the discretion of the Court. This should remain the rule in the Divisional Court, before which all Enrolled Law Agents would, accordingly, be entitled to plead; so that, not only would there be no disturbance of any vested interests, but there would be no necessity for Country Agents to employ Edinburgh Agents.

7. The procedure before the Divisional Court should be the same as it now is before the Principal. There should be no extra Court dues and there should be no printing The only extra expense would then be the trifling one of an additional typewritten copy of the Record for the extra Judge.

With regard to the existing holders of the Office of Sheriff Principal, they might instead of being compensated by a lump sum-be allowed to draw their existing salaries up to a certain age or for a specified number of years (whichever period be the shorter), and, while drawing their salaries, some use might be found for their services, e.g.

(i) The Sheriffs Principal of the Lothians and Peebles and of Lanarkshire might take the office of Senior Sheriff Substitute in their respective Sheriffdoms.

(ii) The remaining Principals might form a Panel to be drawn on in the discretion of the Lord President of the Court of Session for the constitution of the Divisional Court.

(iii) They might carry out their administrative duties while drawing salary.

(iv) Their services could be utilised, without additional payment, for the commissions and enquiries which occur so frequently under present bureaucratic Government methods.

Even if (as would be proper) some portion of the saving consequent on the abolition of the Office of Sheriff Principal were used

to increase the emoluments of the present Substitutes—thus improving their status and making their office more attractive for *talented members of the Bar-the ultimate result of the abolition of the Office of Sheriff Principal would still be a substantial annual saving, because the cost of these increases, together with that of the alternative Appellate Tribunal, would be appreciably less than that of the establishment of the Principals. At the same time, a practical improvement on the existing system for dealing with Appeals would be effected. Even if, contrary to my expectation, this scheme were to involve litigants in slightly increased expense, I should still think it desirable. The claims of the country in the direction of economy must be regarded as seriously outweighing any small inconvenience or extra cost put upon individual litigants, especially when the latter are being provided with a much improved Appellate Tribunal.

On the whole question, therefore, since it does not appear that, as regards either the Administrative and Executive or the Judicial duties of the Principal, there exists any cogent reason for the retention of his office, the determining consideration should be that of national economy, and with this in view I respectfully submit that the abolition of the office is desirable.

ROBERT C. THOMSON.

[APPENDICES

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX No. I.

Return of NUMBER OF ACTIONS in the COURT OF SESSION and SHERIFF COURTS in each of the years from 1875 to 1924 inclusive.

NOTES:-The Outer House figures include some business done by the Junior Lord Ordinary in the Bill Chamber. They have been omitted for the years 1875 and 1876, as they are admittedly incomplete for these years.

The Sheriff Court figures relating to Actions do not include Workmen's Compensation, Small Debt or Debts Recovery actions. The Debts Recovery Court was abolished by Section 52 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, and the cases previously dealt with by it passed partly to the Small Debt Court and partly to the Ordinary Court. This explains at least part of the increase of Ordinary Sheriff Court actions in 1908.

The Sheriff Court administrative business seems to owe its rapid increase mainly to new legislation such as :—

Dogs Act, 1906 (45,000 applications in 1924); Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (14,000 applications in 1924); and its temporary war-time and post-war increase and subsequent decline to The Courts (Emergency) Powers Act, 1914 (practically ceased 1922).

The pre-war average is for the forty years 1875 to 1914, both inclusive (Outer House for thirty-eight years only, 1877 to 1914). The post-war average is for the five years 1920 to 1924, both inclusive.