commencement of a sitting, owing to the intervention of Sunday immediately before the latter. We deal hereafter with the utilisation of Mondays during Session.

Keeping in view the various considerations alluded to above, we think the Sessions of the Court might be advantageously arranged in three distinct sittings, of thirty-three complete courtweeks in all, as shown in the subjoined table:

Under this arrangement the Winter Session (sittings III and I in the above table) and the Summer Session (sitting II) would consist of twenty-two and eleven complete weeks of court-time respectively. The former would be broken by the Christmas recess, as at present, except that the commencement and termination of the recess would be automatically fixed instead of being annually arranged. In this connection we think the statutory restriction against sitting on the term-days should be abolished, these days becoming ordinary Court-days.

Mondays and Saturdays during Session.-The evidence disclosed considerable difference of opinion with regard to the disposal of Mondays and Saturdays during Session. As already explained, Monday is forbidden by Act of Parliament to be used as an ordinary Court-day (31 and 32 Vic. c. 100, s. 8), and on Saturday the Court usually rises at 1 p.m.

Certain classes of business are however appropriated either by statute or by custom to Monday. Thus all hearings before consulted judges under 13 and 14 Vic. c. 36, s. 35, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 100, s. 60, are directed to be taken on that day. In this way interference with the regular work of the Courts on sederuntdays is avoided. By section 10 of the Statute last-mentioned, Registration Appeals are likewise appropriated to Monday. The

sittings of the Justiciary Appeal Court are also usually taken on Monday, and the Lands Valuation Appeal Court uses Monday during its sittings. In emergencies both the Divisions of the Inner House and the Lords Ordinary of the Outer House use Monday for the completion of cases the adjournment of which into the next regular Court-week would interfere with judicial engagements already made. In short, although Monday is not a Court-day, it is used, more or less, for a number of purposes which would otherwise interfere with, and delay, the orderly and continuous discharge by the various Courts of their regular civil duties.

There is much convenience in these arrangements, and it seems to us better to extend them, and to make observance of them compulsory, rather than to disturb them by making Monday an ordinary sederunt-day. We are reinforced in this view by the consideration that, if Monday were given over to ordinary business, inconvenience and expense would frequently result if proofs were set down to commence on that day. In order to secure the attendance of necessary witnesses from a distance on Monday mornings it would often be necessary to keep them in Edinburgh over Sunday. This might not be regarded as an objection in England where it is usual to have witnesses in attendance awaiting trial; but in Scotland the practice of calling proofs on a diet fixed some time beforehand is inveterate, and the expense of keeping witnesses in attendance pending the uncertain commencement of a trial would be considered intolerable.

We think the utilisation of Mondays for the following purposes should be made imperative alike on the Court and on the parties. (1) All proofs not completed on a Friday or a Saturday to be continued on the Monday instead of being adjourned to the Tuesday following. (2) All discussions before the Inner House in jury cases, where the judge of the Outer House who presided at the trial is required to sit with the Division, to be appropriated to Monday, thus obviating interruption of the Lord Ordinary's regular work on Court-days. (3) It is impossible to foretell the number of appeals which may be presented under the recent Statute appointing a Court of Criminal Appeal, but we venture to make the suggestion that the best method of preventing undue interference with the civil work of the Court of Session might be that the new Court should, as far as possible, sit on Mondays during Session. (4) Peremptory diets for procedure roll discussions, and debates on concluded proofs (when these cannot conveniently be taken immediately on the conclusion of the evidence), to be fixed for Monday. They might advantageously be appropriated to that day. If the Court is given the wide powers over the disposal of its own business we have suggested elsewhere, there are probably other purposes for which Mondays could be profitably and economically employed which, under the present over-rigid system of statutory administration, lead to inconvenient invasions into regular court-time. The power already possessed by the Inner House to sit on Monday (31 and 32 Vic. c. 100, s. 8) should, we think, be used whenever the state of business makes that course expedient.

E

Some witnesses who favoured making Monday a regular sederunt-day also proposed the discontinuance of Saturday sittings. Whether our recommendations regarding Mondays are approved or not, we are unfavourable to this suggestion. There are no doubt disadvantages, from the point of view of court-work, in a half day; but, on the other hand, the Saturday sittings enable a great many litigants of inconsiderable means-in consistorial causes particularly -to attend Court for the purpose of giving evidence and the like at a sacrifice of only a half-day's wage instead of a whole day's wage, and, besides, they are thus sometimes enabled to get the benefit of cheap Saturday railway fares. If only for this reason, we think the Saturday sitting should be maintained as it is.

Vacation Business.-If, as we have recommended, the Bill Chamber is abolished, it will be necessary to substitute "any Lord Ordinary" for the "Lord Ordinary on the Bills" as the Vacation Judge. There is no reason to disturb the arrangements by which, at present, the work is shared by the judges in rotation during vacation time. The Vacation Judge must have all the powers now exercised by the "Lord Ordinary on the Bills," whether as Bill Chamber Judge or as representing the Court of Session under 31 and 32 Vic. c. 100, s. 93 and C.A.S., A. i. 3 (a). We do not suggest any interference with the existing arrangements regarding Box-Days in Vacation. The only change we think expedient is that the Vacation Courts (as they are called-see section 93 just cited) should be discontinued; and that, instead, it should be made competent to do all the business which is now done at the Vacation Courts on any day during vacation and recess, in Chambers. This would, we think, tend to the speedier despatch of business.

We therefore recommend :

(1) THAT THE SITTINGS OF THE COURT SHOULD BE REARRANGED AS PROPOSED, SO AS TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE SESSIONS FROM TWENTY-NINE TO THIRTY-THREE WEEKS ;

(2) THAT THE SPECIAL JURY SITTINGS SHOULD BE ABOLISHED ; (3) THAT THE TERM-DAYS SHOULD BE MADE ORDINARY SEDERUNT-DAYS;

(4) THAT IT SHOULD BE MADE IMPERATIVE THAT ALL CASES

THE DISPOSAL OF WHICH INVOLVES INTERFERENCE WITH THE REGULAR SITTING OF ANY OF THE COURTS OF THE INNER OR OF THE OUTER HOUSE AND AIL PROOFS CONTINUED FROM FRIDAY OR SATURDAY, SHOULD BE HEARD ON MONDAY, BUT THAT MONDAY SHOULD NOT BE MADE AN ORDINARY SEDERUNT-DAY;

(5) THAT THE VACATION COURTS SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED,

AND THAT ALL VACATION BUSINESS SHOULD BE HEARD ON ANY DAY

BY THE VACATION JUDGE IN CHAMBERS.

CHAPTER V.

PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY LIST.

Demand for Special Procedure and Facilities-Special Court or Judge Inexpedient-But Special Cause-List desirable, with Specialties of Procedure The Preliminary Act (see App. VIII) in Maritime Collision Cases--Latitude for Judge regarding Pleadings, Procedure, and also (when parties consent) Evidence-Assessors Agreement of Parties to accept Outer House Judgment as Final--Cases appropriate for Proposed List-Right of Appeal.

IN connection with the recommendations made in Chapter III for the rearrangement of the business of the Court, by classifying it according to the distinctions in procedure which apply to the various kinds of work, we have already proposed the establishment of a separate List in the Outer House for Commercial and Admiralty Cases. At present there is no difference in the procedure applicable to these cases from that which is followed in any ordinary action initiated by Summons. So far as we are aware, Commercial Cases, that is to say cases arising out of the ordinary transactions of merchants and traders, have never had any special procedure appropriated to them in the practice of the Court of Session; and in like manner, at least since the merger of the Scottish High Court of Admiralty in the Court of Session in 1830 (11 Geo. IV and 1 Wm. IV c. 69, s. 21), Admiralty Cases have had no special procedure of their own. But the general tenor of the evidence points strongly to the desirability of amending and specialising the procedure in Commercial and Admiralty Cases in several important respects. If this is done, as we think it should be, the procedure in these cases will present distinctive peculiarities, and the formation of a separate list for them will become highly convenient.

We have already recommended the introduction into Scottish Admiralty practice of certain improvements with regard to the action in rem. This kind of action constitutes in itself a marked specialty. But, in the proper sphere of procedure, the evidence discloses a general demand for the adoption, in maritime collision. cases, of the Preliminary Act, which has been in regular use in the English Admiralty Court since its first introduction there. In many actions of this sort, if not in most, the effect would, it is claimed, be to dispense with the cost of formal Records altogether, and in almost all of them to narrow down the real points in dispute. We are favourable to this proposal, and deal with it below.

The evidence discloses a further demand for the provisionin commercial cases generally (including shipping cases)-of wide facilities for the simplification of procedure such as would but rarely be expedient in the investigation of ordinary disputes. This demand takes the shape of a proposal to establish in the Court of Session a Court more or less similar to the recently formed Commercial

Court in the King's Bench Division in England. The object is to place at the disposal of the business community a tribunal whose methods and forms should be as simple and direct, as rapid and inexpensive, as is consistent with the attainment of a sound legal decision. An English witness, well qualified to speak, thus summarised the raison d'être of the Commercial Court in London :Nothing is more distasteful to business men than delay; they "are always prepared to make some concessions or take some risk 'to ensure a quick deal; they are impatient of legal forms and "technicalities, and of the strict rules of evidence. From the earliest "years they have endeavoured to adjust their differences before their "own tribunals, and still show decided leanings towards the arbitra"tion of merchants. Arbitration is found to be expensive and some"what casual and uncertain; and some machinery for settling "disputes midway between it and the technical observances of the "Courts is needed to meet the requirements of modern commerce. "The Commercial Court is the effort of the English Judicature in this "direction. It has proved most successful and met with the con"fidence and approval of the commercial community." The necessities of business and the attitude of business men towards the settlement of their disputes by resort to the Law Courts are the same north as south of the Border; and it seems to us that, so far as the conditions will allow, the Court of Session ought to be in a position to provide the business community in Scotland with facilities similar to those now available in the High Court in England.

We do not, however, propose the establishment of a new Court. What we have in mind is to bring together Commercial and Admiralty actions in a separate Cause List, and to provide certain special procedure-facilities for cases on that List (particularly in the Outer House)-the principle being to give the parties themselves every facility for simplifying and cheapening the process of obtaining a judicial decision. Nor do we propose that a particular judge or judges should be rigidly assigned to the trial of those cases. On this point we refer to what has been already said in Chapter III. There is much less specialisation in all branches of the legal profession in Scotland than there is in London, and there is consequently less specialisation on the Bench. This is the natural result of the smaller volume of legal business in Scotland as compared with England. But there is, we think, in the practice of the Court of Session specialisation enough to produce a sufficient number of judges with high qualifications for commercial work. So far except in respect that the proposed List includes not only Commercial cases but Admiralty actions also-the innovation we propose closely resembles that already made in England. For the English Commercial Court is not in reality a Court separate from the King's Bench Division. Its work consists in disposing of cases, initiated in the King's Bench Division in the ordinary way, which have been set down upon a Commercial Cause List; and, while special facilities are made available in those cases, they