maritime law consolidated; and a great step would thus be made for gradually introducing a more general assimilation of the laws of the three kingdoms; a matter which, from the constant and encreasing intercourse since the Union, certainly appears of very general importance. "In the present state and relation of the two countries," says Professor Bell, "it is a most desirable object, a gradual, and at last a perfect assimilation of the English and Scottish Jurisprudence." That Report takes a view of the jurisdictions of the English Courts of Common Law and Equity-shews the fictions on which the jurisdictions are founded-contrasts them with the system of jurisdiction in Scotland—and adds, "It humbly appears to the Committee, that the Courts of Law and Equity in England might form only one general Court; and that the different Courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas, King's Bench, and Chancery, should form merely branches of such general Court, each having the same extent of jurisdiction both in Law and Equity; and that the House of Lords ought to be the ultimate Court of Appeal for England, Scotland, and the Colonies, in all cases, whether before the Law, Equity, Ecclesiastical, or Admiralty Courts. In this way, the Court of Session in Scotland, and the Supreme Court in Ireland, would be placed on the same footing, with respect to jurisdiction, as the general Court at Westminster, and the House of Lords, as the highest Court of Appeal, would preserve a uniformity in the proceedings and in the principles of the law." This report not only demonstrates the necessity of a general assimilation of the jurisdictions and consolidation of the laws of the three kingdoms, but, as respects the Admiralty Courts and law, gives the heads of Acts of Parliament, by which the assimilation and consolidation might be practically carried into effect.

The other pamphlets, mentioned in the note on the preceding page, are confined to an examination of the Scots Judicature Bill. The PROMPT REMARKS and SUGGESTIONS Contain some hints worthy of consideration; but some of the hints appear to be founded on erroneous views. The

"LETTER" of Sir A. Mackenzie, and the "HINTS," which seem to be by the same author, are chiefly directed to the abolition of the Jury Court as a separate tribunal, and its incorporation with the ancient system of the Court of Session; but Sir Alexander's views as to the Scots Acts of Sederunt are entirely erroneous. We are convinced no practitioner would be found who would concur in them. The" REPORT" of the committee of Writers to the Signet is signed, and, we presume, drawn up by the Commissioner who prepared the View of the Scots forms of process in the Appendix No. IV. of the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioners. In so far as the monopoly of the Writers to the Signet is concerned, that view is very obscure, and the same vagueness, as may be anticipated, pervades the Report. In our last Number we pointed out the abuses of the present objectionable system of signet writs, including summonses, hornings, captions, &c. The Report seems designedly to blink the question, and modestly proposes that the summons should be allowed to remain in its present form "untouched!” This recommendation must be viewed with considerable jealousy. does not seem to be calculated to satisfy the public. The system of signet-writs is now well understood, and it is not necessary to serve an apprenticeship to acquire that knowledge. Every expensive and superfluous form in the administration of justice ought to be abolished. The people of Scotland have long groaned under this monopoly, and marks of its ruinous effects may be traced in every village and valley of Scotland. Such of the Writers to the Signet as are respectable, appear to be aware of the objections to the system, and would cordially rejoice to see it abolished; but there are others, amongst the Writers to the Signet, who will cling to the monopoly to the last, although utterly indefensible; and the Judges, so far from desiring the abolition of the abuse, have, by a late Act of Sederunt, done all they can to render it perpetual. In other respects, the Report is equally vague and unsatisfactory, and displays neither correct nor enlarged views. It proposes, in

It

substance, to continue the present system of special pleadings, with the exception of some trifling suggestions. It is obvious that the framers of the Report have not studied the English practice, and should it come under the notice of any of the English barristers, who are members of the Legislature, the suggestions must appear crude, and neither adapted to lessen expenses nor materially to improve the Scots system of pleading, or assimilate it to the English practice of special pleading.

II. Bill-Chamber.

"The Bill-Chamber, and all the clerks connected with it, might be beneficially done away. Applications which at present are made there might, with some slight alterations, be made directly to any one of the permanent Lords Órdinary, by which the lieges would, in effect, have a choice of courts, and the business would go on and be conducted like the other business of the Court."-Observations by Mr Ritchie, S.S.C., in 1818.

Since the institution of the College of Justice in 1537, it has been the practice, in the vacations, for each of the thirteen ordinary Judges to perform the duty of the Bill-Chamber weekly in rotation. After this practice had continued for 387 years, the Judges, soon after the appointment of Lord Eldin, issued an order, which is not even entered amongst the Acts of Sederunt, laying the whole duty of the Bill-Chamber upon his Lordship. On this occasion, the practitioners, who, in behalf of their clients and the public, had the chief, or at least some interest in the measure, were not called upon to state their opinions with respect to the expediency of the change of a practice which had existed for so many centuries. But to render this important innovation permanent under the sanction of the Legislature, a clause has been introduced into the new bill, (but without any reference to the order of the Scots Judges already in operation,) "That the junior Lord Ordinary, in the Court of Session, shall officiate as Lord Ordinary on the bills at all times!"

Neither the Report of the Commissioners, nor the opinions of any of the learned persons, in the appendix to the Report, recommend this inno

vation, nor to delegate power for ever to the Scots Judges to regulate, by Acts of Sederunt, the forms of process of the Supreme and Inferior Courts of Scotland, although one of the reasons urged for passing the bill at the end of last session was, that it corresponded in every particular to the Report of the Commissioners.

Now this clause, with respect to the Bill-Chamber, we humbly conceive, with the greatest possible deference, is highly inexpedient, and may be attended with very injurious consequences-while there can be no hardship whatever in requiring each of the thirteen ordinary Judges, during the vacations, to perform a portion of the six months duty of the Bill-Chamber, which portion would be only one fortnight, and thus allowing the junior Judge, as well as all the other Judges, five months and two weeks of relaxation. A more absurd regulation, both as respects the public and the junior Judge, cannot easily be imagined. Indeed, during last spring vacation, complaints were loudly made against the injurious effects of the measure, which were soon felt. The business in the Bill-Chamber became too heavy for one Judge to perform, and without imputing the slightest blame to the learned Judge, upon whom the performance of such heavy duty was in the first instance laid, causes were said to remain frequently too long undecided. From the nature of Bill-Chamber causes, they require generally the most urgent despatch, and should seldom remain at avizandum, that is, under the consideration of the Judge, undecided, above twenty-four hours. It is no answer to the objection to the proposed clause, that the present junior Judge may be willing to undertake the laborious duty. But the public have a material interest, that the Bill-Chamber duty, while the Bill-Chamber exists, shall be performed with the necessary despatch, and that one Judge shall not be over-burdened, nor required to perform the proper duty of other twelve Judges, who, during the same time, are unemployed.

By 53 Geo. III., c. 64, § 2, it is enacted, that, "during the spring, autumn, and Christmas vacations, the whole thirteen Ordinary Lords of

Session shall continue to officiate as Ordinaries on the Bills, by rotation, each week."-This act is not repeal ed; but it would appear that an Act of Parliament has been virtually set aside by a mere order of the Scots Judges, which is not even entered amongst the Acts of Sederunt. A stronger instance cannot be selected for inducing the Legislature to rescind for ever the power of the Scots Judges to enact Acts of Sederunt, and thus to set aside even Acts of Parliament. But the new bill is also materially objectionable and defective, in so far as, by several of its clauses, the BillChamber, and advocations and suspensions, are proposed to be continued, and not entirely abolished.

The establishment of the BillChamber we consider as one of the greatest defects or abuses that exists in the administration of justice in Scotland.

Neither the Scots institutional writers, nor Acts of Parliament, nor Acts of Sederunt, contain any historical information with respect to the origin of the Bill-Chamber. There are numerous Acts of Sederunt, establishing and increasing the fees of the Bill-Chamber, but none declaring its constitution and the extent of its functions and jurisdiction. It seems to have arisen in the progress of time from custom. But so little is the practice and powers of the Judges sitting in the Bill-Chamber understood, that the practitioners, clerks, and Judges, are often appealed to in vain for information. For instance, in the case of a bill of suspension or advocation refused with costs, and a second bill presented and passed, the clerks in the Bill-Chamber, who are presumed to know the practice in it from the time of David II., reported that the costs of the first bill must be paid, although the interlocutor awarding them had been submitted to review by a second bill, and the interlocutor itself altered by the passing of the second bill. The late Lord Kinnedder found the practice, as reported, erroneous and absurd upon principle, and it has since been discontinued. In another case, which came lately before Lord Eldin, the present Ordinary in the BillChamber, a charger, (respondent,) who had been successful in opposing

a Bill of Suspension, applied for expenses. His Lordship refused to allow such expenses, and found the charger liable in the expenses of opposing the demand. On appeal to the Inner-House, their Lordships (7th July 1824) "Find that the awarding of such expense in the Bill-Chamber was inept, and accordingly in so far alter the interlocutor complained of."

If the proper functions of the BillChamber be so little understood, even in Scotland, our friends on the south of the Tweed may have some difficulty to understand, even what is the meaning of the Bill-Chamber, as there is nothing analogous to it in England, except, perhaps, the Committee of the House of Lords, which judges of the competency of appeals to that House. For their information we may shortly state, that it is a branch of the Court of Session, having jurisdiction to review the judgments of all inferior Judges on appeal in the form of a bill of suspension or advocation, to the effect of refusing the bill, or declaring whether it must be allowed to pass for consideration on the merits before the Lord Ordinary and Inner House Judges of the Court of Session. If the bill be passed, it is expede or extracted at full length, at a heavy expense, in the form of letters of suspension or advocation under the signet, in virtue of which the respondent is summoned to appear in the Court of Session as upon a new action. If the bill be refused upon the first appeal, a second bill may be presented in the vacation. If it be passed, the same course of procedure as upon a first passed bill is followed. If second bill be refused, an appeal may be presented to the Inner House, which may remit to the Lord Ordinary to pass the bill; or if the Ordinary's judgment refusing the bill be affirmed, an appeal is competent against the Inner House interlocutor to the House of Lords. If that House remit to pass the bill-for in this shape this is all that can be done, if the judgment of the Inner House Bill-Chamber be not affirmed-there must be a petition to the Court of Session to apply the reversal, and after all which, the round-about-course must still be followed of getting the bill passed— expede-the party summoned-and

brought before the Lord Ordinary in the Outer House, who is then permitted, for the first time, to decide on the merits, by affirming or altering the judgment of the inferior Judge. An appeal against his judgment is still competent to the Inner House Judges-and after their judgment another appeal to the House of Lords. In this way, a person who raises an action, say for only £13, in an inferior court, may be involved in two sets of appeals, the first to the Bill-Chamber and House of Lords, and the second to the Court of Session and House of Lords, and an expense incurred of £.100 in the Bill-Chamber, £.100 in the Court of Session, £.250 in the House of Lords, in all £.450 on each side, or on both sides £.900, which, (except the expenses in the House of Lords,) so far as allowed on taxation, the loser may have in the end to pay ! That this statement is not exaggerated, no one versant in the practice will pretend to deny. Nor can it be denied, that the continuance or possibility of such forms and expense in the administration of justice being sanctioned, is a flagrant abuse, and calls loudly for amendment.

But this is not all. There are two principal clerks of the bills, whose offices are sinecures, and the appointment vested in the crown, and two depute clerks and an assistant, who do all the duty. The former Commissioners reported, that the fees of these officers, exacted from the suitors, amount, on an average of three years preceding 1st January 1815, to £.2186, 4s. 11d. per annum. They proposed, by transferring the duties of the clerks of the bills to two of the principal clerks of session, at £.200 each, and two deputes at £.450 each, to reduce the expense of the establishment £.900 per annum.

But that Report proceeds on the footing of the Bill-Chamber being continued, and the alterations proposed by it would not sufficiently remove the evil. For it humbly appears to us, that not only the whole expense of the establishment in future may be saved, but that the whole proceedings in the Bill-Chamber, and letters of suspension and advocation, should be altogether abolished as unneces

sary. Of course, the present officers would receive compensation from the Exchequer.

The remedy is simple and obvious:-Instead of appealing to the Court of Session through the circuitous form of the Bill-Chamber, in which the Lord Ordinary, the InnerHouse, and House of Lords, can merely, in the first instance, pass the bill-allow the case to be removed at once into the Court of Session, by a short note or petition, and considered on the merits, first by the Lord Ordinary, and on appeal by the Inner House. It seems doubtful whether any caution should be exacted on presenting such note or petition; at all events, it should only be for future expenses. The depute and assistant clerks might receive this caution, and the bond of caution might form a step of the process, or remain in their custody like a receipt for consigned money till sent to the extractor. But, perhaps, it would be better if the bond of caution were lodged in the Inferior Court. If so, the expense of correspondence as to the sufficiency of cautioners, which is sometimes considerable, would be saved, and the Sheriff-Clerk, from his local knowledge, would be well qualified to judge of the sufficiency of the cautioners offered. Caution being found, the cause, upon a short note, or petition of appeal, as abovementioned, should come before the Lord Ordinary, sitting in Outer House, in the first instance. If sufficiently prepared before the Inferior Court, by mutual cases or memorials, no farther additions to the pleadings should be permitted; but if those memorials should appear to the Lord Ordinary imperfect, an addition to each, as in the case of an appeal to the House of Lords, might be permitted. The cause should then either be reported to the Inner House, for despatch, or follow the same course as an original action before the Court of Session.

the

This plan is not without some kind of sanction from the analogy in cases of bankruptcy. In these cases, the assistant-clerks receive caution, and act as clerks before the Lord Ordinary sitting in the Bill-Chamber. This sufficiently shews the practicability and simplicity of the proposed