for the alleged grievance is set out at length. Lastly comes the "will," in which the Messengers-at-arms are commanded in the name of the Sovereign to serve the Summons on the defender by charging him to appear on the expiry of the induciae legales, and meantime (if the pursuer so desires) to arrest and inhibit on the dependence.

It will be seen that, stripped of formalities, the Summons (along with the annexations) defines in writing (1) the parties to the suit, (2) the facts out of which the controversy between them is alleged by the pursuer to have arisen, (3) the remedy sought, and (4) the legal grounds on which the action is based. When answered by a written defence, in which each article of the pursuer's Condescendence has to be admitted or denied (with or without explanation), and to which is appended a Note of Pleasin-Law summarising the legal grounds on which the defence is supported, the result is to place on record before the Court a complete statement of the case, binding on the parties respectively as a true and complete disclosure of their contentions. Such is the system of written pleadings which is a distinctive characteristic of Scottish legal procedure generally, and by means of which both the field of enquiry for investigation by evidence and the issues for discussion by oral argument are adjusted and restricted. We heard a number of suggestions for relaxing the system of written pleadings in all actions initiated by Summons in favour of a system similar to that which prevails in England. Except as regards Commercial and Admiralty Cases (with which we have already dealt in Chapter V) these suggestions were not strongly pressed, and the witnesses were by no means unanimous regarding them. Moreover, the desire for improvement appeared to be unsupported by any corresponding conviction as to the means which should be taken to effect it.

The Scottish plan is no doubt open to criticism from two points of view. Strictly administered, its tendency is to become too rigid and inelastic; loosely administered, to lose the advantages it possesses. But this is only to say of it-what may be said of any system however well devised that its best results depend on administration. The system is deeply rooted in Scottish practice, and its merits do not lack appreciation in other countries where looser methods prevail. On the whole, we think the balance of advantage is decidedly on the side of retaining the articulate Condescendence, the correspondingly articulate Defence, and the Notes of Pleas-in-Law relative to both. But, as regards the form of the Summons, we think it should be shortened, and made as intelligible to lay minds as it is possible to make it.

The essentials of a short form of Summons in the Court of Session appear to us to be the following:-First, the Summons must run in the King's name, because the Court of Session differs from other Scottish Courts in respect that it alone is the King's Court, and it is to this fact that it owes its supreme character and quality. Second, the Summons must inform the defender clearly (however briefly) of the remedy asked against him. Third,

it must call upon him to make any defence he may have within a certain time. Lastly, it must notify him that, if he does not appear and defend, decree may be given against him in his absence.

We think that a simple form of Summons on these lines should be made applicable without exception to all actions initiated by way of Summons. A slight modification will, however, have to be used in Maritime Collision Cases, if our recommendations regarding the procedure to be followed in them are accepted (see Chapter V). The forms we suggest, both for general use and for maritime collision cases, are set out in Appendix No. IX. The form should be officially printed in blank, and issued by the office of the Court at a charge restricted to the cost of paper and printing. In this way uniformity and regularity in the shape and style of Session papers would be preserved. No drafting or copying charge should be allowed for any part of the Summons which is printed on the form beyond the price of the form itself as issued from the office-charges being limited to those parts only which are not matters of form, namely, the names and designations of the parties, the conclusions, and the Condescendence and Note of Pleas-in-Law.

It will be seen from the Appendix that we propose to do away with the elaboration and detail of the forms of conclusion in use under the present practice, and to confine those forms to the briefest description of the remedy asked consistent with a clear intimation of its nature and extent. This is not intended to imply any departure from the subsequent steps of procedure appropriate to particular actions-say, an action of Accounting or an action of Multiplepoinding-but would substitute for the present style of conclusion in such cases (which sets out the remedy in more or less of the detail of procedure) a simple conclusion for accounting with regard to a defined fund or for the distribution of a defined estate. Again, in a matrimonial cause, the specification of (say) divorce as the remedy asked would no longer be accompanied by a description of the consequences, patrimonial and other, which legally follow on decree; but these consequential remedies, and the procedure for administering them, would remain unchanged, and would be available under the simple conclusion for decree of divorce, whether for adultery or for desertion.

Warrants for diligence on the dependence and for arrestments to found jurisdiction. It will also be seen from the Appendix that we propose that the necessary warrants for all forms of diligence on the dependence should be obtainable on the summons by filling in the blank provided for the purpose. In addition, we think that warrant to arrest for the purpose of founding jurisdiction should, when required, be obtainable in like manner. Under the present procedure, it is necessary in order to found jurisdiction against a foreigner to apply to the Bill Chamber by Bill for Letters of Arrestment. The Bill does not come before any judge, but is marked "fiat ut petitur" by the Bill Chamber Clerk. Letters of arrestment have then to be prepared, signeted, and executed.

All this has to be done independently of the Summons, but the arrestments need not be executed before service of the Summons. The abolition of the separate jurisdiction of the Bill Chamber, which we have recommended in Chapter III, would make it practicable to cut out the whole of this circuitous procedure and enable the necessary warrant to be obtained on the Summons itself. We think this should be done.

Signing of Summonses. We think that the pursuer's lawagent, being a law-agent entitled to practise before the Court of Session (36 and 37 Vic. c. 63, s. 12), should be entitled to sign a Summons. Originally, Summonses-with certain exceptions, e.g. Summonses in maritime and consistorial causes were written to His Majesty's Signet by a Clerk or Writer to the Signet holding a Commission as such, and Summonses generally were known as Letters to the Signet." The Signet is the King's seal for judicial proceedings in Scotland; and, when adhibited to a Summons, it vouches the Sovereign's authority for service and all proceedings following thereupon. This explains the original requirement of the signature of a person specially commissioned as a Clerk or Writer to the Signet to any Letters which were to pass the Signet. Part of this requirement still survives in section 13 of 31 and 32 Vic. c. 100, whereby the last page of a Summons must be signed by a Writer to the Signet "in testimony of its being written to the Signet." Any Writer to the Signet is bound to give his signature (without incurring any responsibility thereby) for a fee of half a crown, which is, however, never exacted in practice. The requirement has thus become a pure formality, and we think it should disappear.

Signeting of Summonses.-The seal of the King's Signet impressed on the principal Summons is, as explained above, the Warrant for Service and for all diligence on the dependence. If the recommendation made in the second-last paragraph above should be adopted, it would also be the warrant for arrestments used to found jurisdiction.

Some of the witnesses we examined proposed that signeting should be abolished, and that the necessary warrants should no longer pass on the Seal but on the signature of one of the Clerks of Court to whom the principal Summons might be presented for the purpose. This proposal has nothing to do with any objection, real or imaginary, to the use of the Seal as the symbol of the necessary authority for service and diligence. It springs from the circumstance that the Signet Office is separate from the office of the Court of Session and is served by a separate and salaried establishment. The fees payable to the Signet Office on the signeting of a Summons thus put a charge upon ordinary litigation, over and above the Court Dues which are exacted (in respect of the establishment of the Court itself) upon every Summons and on almost every step of the procedure following thereon. The salaries payable by Treasury to the establishment of the Signet

Office are usually fully met, and more, by the fees ingathered by it in connection with the admission of members of the Society: of Writers to the Signet and it is thus very intelligible that objection should be taken to a solemnity the underlying object of which could be more easily and cheaply attained without signeting. No object would, however, be served by breaking a tradition so venerable as that which associates the use of the Royal Signet with the proceedings of the King's Court in Scotland, if the objection above expressed can be obviated. We think it can. The Signet should be kept in the office of the Court instead of in a separate office, and should be available there for impressing the seal on summonses, and no charge should be made in addition to the Court Dues exacted on the Summons. The present establishment of the Signet Office would thus be largely relieved of attendance, and its cost might be reduced, if thought necessary, as new appointments came to be made. If, for any reason that we have failed to grasp, this administrative re-adjustment is found to be impossible, we think the best course would be to adopt the proposal made by the witnesses who raised this point, and substitute for the Signet -as the warrant for service and diligence--the stamp for the Court Dues on the Summons and the signature of a Clerk of Court. The Court Dues would in that case become payable on presenting the Summons in the Office of Court for the warrant.

Service. The only point in this connection which was brought to our notice was the form of Edictal Citation (6 Geo. IV c. 120, s. 51; 1 and 2 Vic. c. 118, s. 21; 13 and 14 Vic. c. 36, s. 22), which applies whenever the party to be cited is out of Scotland. When the defender has a known residence or place of business in England or Ireland reasonable notice of the Summons has to be given to him by registered letter (C.A.S., C. i. 6). Apart from this notice, edictal citation is no doubt a very artificial form of service but it is difficult to dispense with some formality of the kind, and no better or less expensive form than that in use at present was suggested to us, nor has one occurred to ourselves. We therefore make NO RECOMMENDATION on this subject.

The Inducia Calling-Entry of Appearance-Time for Defences. We propose, in the first place, to reduce the long inducia to ten days, which-with present-day facilities of communication— seems ample. We think the induciæ of seven or ten days, as the case may be, should apply without exception to all Summonses (see 31 and 32 Vic. c. 100, s. 14). Failure on the part of the defender to enter appearance within these inducia (instead of, as at present, within three days after their expiry-31 and 32 Vic. c. 100, s. 22) should entitle the pursuer to decree in absence obtainable in the same way as under present practice. In the second place, we propose that the pursuer should be peremptorily required to lodge the summons (for "calling ") on the day next after the expiry of the induciæ, along with the relative Condescendence and Note of Pleas-in-Law, and that the defender's remedy of pro

testation should apply to the pursuer's failure to comply with this requirement in the same way as at present. By the existing practice the same latitude of three days is allowed in relation to calling" as in relation to entry of appearance. 'Calling" is the formal step of bringing an action-begun by service-into Court, and it is a terminus a quo for reckoning certain times which are important in the sphere of diligence. We think the partibus should be dispensed with, and that the publication in the Calling List should consist of a reproduction of the Backing on the Summons (see Appendix No. IX), including the year and annual serial number. In the third place, we propose that defences should be due on the seventh day after the expiry of the induciæ, or fourteen days in all (where the defender is on the mainland of Scotland) from service. This tightening up of the procedure results in a minimum saving of four days, and in our opinion allows ample time for the preparation of a defence. Failure to lodge a defence would entitle the pursuer to apply for decree in absence in the same way as at present. The papers requiring to be lodged for calling would be the same as at present, except that (1) the roll of defenders' names, if more than three, and (2) the copy of the partibus would be dispensed with; and-if the recommendations made below with regard to motions are adopted-a "Motion Sheet" would have to be included.

It may be noticed that whereas the pursuer both initiates his case and states it fully by means of a single writ, the defender can only reply with equal completeness in two steps-first by lodging a Notice of Appearance and then by lodging Defences. Entry of Appearance is the means by which the defender obtains access to the documents lodged by the pursuer at "calling"; and, if the documents in question include productions upon which the pursuer's case is founded, such access may be necessary before defences can be prepared. In some instances, however, such access is not necessary for the preparation of defences and in a case where there is urgency it should be competent for a defender to lodge his defences within the induciæ for appearance, intimation of the lodging being given to the other side. In these circumstances the lodging of the defences should stand for appearance. This would be purely optional procedure, since it would involve curtailment of the time within which Defences could be lodged, but it might offer a slight economy and facility to a certain number of litigants. We therefore recommend accordingly.

The Closed Record.-The culmination of the successive steps of process discussed in the preceding sections of this Chapter is the production of the "Closed Record "-that is, the finally revised and adjusted written pleadings upon which the parties join issue. Until adjustment is completed by the interchange between parties of their amendments, the state of the Record is known as " Open." The necessary revision and adjustment is a fruitful source of delay : and this delay is the one serious defect in the Scottish system of written pleadings. Under present practice, the pursuer is required