matured, it would confer great benefit upon the public at large, as well as on the landed proprietors of Scotland; and until such a measure, which it may be hoped is not far distant, be introduced, it may be well to abstain from partial legislation on the subject.

Your Committee observe with satisfaction that several of the matters to which they directed attention in their Report on the Bill of last year have been dealt with in the present Bill, in accordance with the views expressed in that Report, and they are satisfied that the Bill, if passed into a Law, with some amendments, which will doubtless be made upon it, will be productive of general benefit. JOHN C. BRODIE, C.

DISSENT.

I dissent from the Report in so far as it contains an expression of the opinion of the Committee that Petitions of Service may be abolished with advantage to our system of Land Rights. I am of opinion that the judicial investigation of the titles and propinquity of heirs is a valuable adjunct to our system of Registration of Titles, and am confirmed in that opinion by observing that in the measure of Land Registration for England which has been submitted to Parliament by its highest legal authorities, it is proposed to enable the heirs of deceased proprietors to obtain registrable titles by a form of procedure analogous to a Scotch Service, and proceeding upon evidence of propinquity. It appears to me that there is no valid reason for distinguishing between Real and Personal property in regard to possession after death, and that in both cases the warrant of a Judge proceeding upon the testamentary instrument, or on proof that the deceased died intestate and that the Petitioner is his heir, or next-of-kin, is a proper preliminary to that transfer of ownership which the law operates after the death of a proprietor. JOHN M'LAREN.

EDINBURGH, 5th May 1874.

The Month.

Lord Cairns' Court of Judicature Bill.-Lord Redesdale has failed to carry his proposal for the retention of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords. No one will be much surprised at this result. The proposal came just twelve months too late. The only wonder is that his Lordship and his supporters were able to make such a good fight as they did. Many persons may at first sight be surprised to observe the House of Lords parting so easily with their privileges. But when the inexorable Lord Cairns wills a thing, it, is done. When the Old Man of the Mountain commands his followers to commit suicide, they obey him, and indeed they rather

seem to like it. The debate and the division illustrate the circumstance to which reference was made in the last number of this Journal, the growing feeling in favour of the House of Lords as an imperial tribunal. Lord O'Hagan, Lord Chancellor of Ireland under the Government which passed the Bill of last year, strongly supported Lord Redesdale. This support of course laid him open to the obvious taunt from Lord Cairns, "Why didn't you say so before?" A little jibe about inconsistency does not come to much. The real question is, not the consistency of Lord O'Hagan, but the proper constitution of the Court of Ultimate Appeal. The plain answer to the accusation is to be found in the consideration already stated in this Journal, viz., that the measure of last year was pushed through Parliament without much, or at least without sufficient, thought having been given to the subject. If Lord O'Hagan's views are right now, it does not matter very much that he has been a little slow in arriving at them. Lord Moncreiff also opposed the scheme of the Lord Chancellor. His Lordship founded very much on the Treaty of Union. This it seems to us was a mistake. Questions of this kind are determined by much more practical considerations. There are many kinds of dust which you may throw in people's eyes; but in these days the dust of treaties has no place in the number. It is impossible by a treaty, or by anything else, for one generation of men to bind their successors for all time to come. If the Scottish nation in 1874 are willing to forego a condition made by their ancestors in 1707, it is impossible to prevent them. The real argument against the transfer of the appellate jurisdiction to a new Court is the danger of the new Court becoming merely an English Court. This is an evil which might be very easily avoided, but which Lord Cairns seems bent on securing. In Scotland there may be some differences of opinion upon the question whether the House of Lords or the new Court is the best appellate tribunal. But there is no difference of opinion upon the question whether Scotland and Ireland should be represented in this new tribunal. The Irish Bench, the Irish Bar, the Scottish Bench, the Scottish Bar, the Writers to the Signet, the Solicitors to the Supreme Court-all these are unanimous in their opposition to Lord Cairns's proposal as it at present stands. It is a pretty strong thing to ignore,-nay, to go in the teeth of the unanimous opinion of the legal profession in Ireland and Scotland. The profession, however, says Lord Cairns, is not the nation. Yes, but in matters relating to the administration of justice, it represents the nation. Who else is to do so? You must, on special subjects, take the opinion of those who alone have the means of arriving at proper conclusions. You take the opinion of lawyers on subjects relating to justice, and medical men on matters relating to medicine, and if the sweeps and scavengers of the Cowgate and the Canongate did happen to have any opinion on these subjects, that opinion would not carry any very great

weight. The unanimous judgment of those in both countries most capable of judging on the matter being against the proposal of Lord Cairns, one would expect to have some strong reasons stated for the maintenance of an obstinate attitude; or if no strong reasons can be stated, at least a reason of some kind; or at anyrate something that has a resemblance to a reason. The only thing that Lord Cairns has to say is, that there might be no Scotch judge qualified for the position of judge in appeal. That however is not a reason. It is only an impertinence. As Lord Moncreiff pointed out, that time has not yet arrived. It is all very well to say that if there is a Scottish lawyer qualified for the post he is pretty sure to be appointed. Few Scottish lawyers enter Parliament. If a vacancy occurred, a Scottish judge or counsel of the most eminent qualifications would have little chance as against an English counsel of half his ability, who had fought some hard election fights, and who had voted steadily with his party in the House of Commons. But it is really no answer to say that a Scottish lawyer may be appointed. What we say is, that in order to the completeness and satisfactoriness of this new tribunal, a person conversant with the Scottish law, which the Court is to administer, must and ought to be appointed. Of course if Lord Cairns refuses to make any alteration in his proposals it is of very little use for any body to say a word against them. He can carry any measure he chooses to carry. At the same time there are more satisfactory reasons for a measure than the possession of a majority, and more permanent ones. A majority is a transient thing. Like the grass, in the morning it flourisheth and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down and withereth. Further, it may be questioned whether it is prudent to treat as a thing of no weight the unanimous opinion of a great profession. There was a time within the memory of men still living, when a Lord Chief-Justice of England was compelled, as the head of his profession, to write a letter of remonstrance to the Prime Minister of the day. The offence then caused to the legal profession did little harm to the ministry at the time,-at least they thought so. But it came to have its effect. It was an element in the cup, an ingredient in the cauldron. And we have been told by good authority that "the thing which has been is that which shall be."

Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Bill.—Sir Henry James and Sir William Harcourt, the late Attorney and SolicitorGeneral, have introduced a Bill to regulate the expenses and to control the charges of returning officers at Parliamentary Elections. It applies to Scotland, as well as to England and Ireland; but like many other Bills drawn by English lawyers, it shows an inadequate knowledge of the previous law and practice in the northern portion of the United Kingdom. We have a shrewd suspicion that the draughtsman did not know who the returning officers are in Parliamentary Elections in Scotland. If he did, why is it proposed that

in Scotland the returning officer's account of expenses shall be taxed in the Sheriff-Court? To be sure, to make up for the obvious ignorance of who holds the office of returning officer, the draughtsman imagines another office-that of under sheriff-which has no existence with us.

The object of the Bill is not only to regulate, but to diminish, the official expenses of Elections. In one respect the Bill, if carried, would have the effect of increasing them. It is proposed to allow the returning officer certain fees for his own personal trouble. Now the Sheriffs who are returning officers in Scotland have never taken any fees for their trouble at Elections, and still decline to do So. We think that they are right in this declinature. A gentleman holding the position of Sheriff should trust to his salary for his remuneration, and should not look for that to fees levied from candidates any more than to fees levied from suitors.

It has never been the practice in Scotland to require candidates to lodge a deposit with the returning officer, or to give security for the expenses. It was the practice in England; but, as the decision in the Haverfordwest case shows, there was nothing in the Statute authorizing the returning officer to exact this. Section 3 of the present Bill gives power to the returning officer, "if he think fit," to require a deposit to be made on security given for the charges that may become payable to him. Probably it would be better to make the provision imperative. It would look rather invidious for a Sheriff to require a deposit from one candidate and not from another; and it is well that returning officers should be above even the suspicion of partiality.

The most important provision in the Bill is that in section 2, which states that the expenses are in no case to exceed the sums mentioned in the scale of charges contained in Schedule I. Now, in the first place, it is absurd to provide one scale of charges for every kind of place, populous or paltry. The scale of charges, say for notices of the election, suitable for a little Dumbledowndreary Irish borough, where about a hundred persons vote, cannot be suitable for a large place like Glasgow with 50,000 people on the roll In the next place, the scale of charges is too low. Reference has just been made to the notices of Elections. The Bill proposes to allow for every occasion on which a notice relating to the Election requires to be published, "the necessary expenses, not exceeding ten shillings." In Glasgow, at the late General Election, the printing and posting of the statutory notice of the arrangements for the Election cost £60, 10s. It is ridiculous to fancy that in a great city such a notice can be printed and posted for ten shillings, or even ten pounds. Again, the Schedule provides that the maximum charge "for each presiding officer, and travelling expenses at 1s. per mile," shall be £3, 3s. The clause is clumsily expressed, and it does not appear clear whether the fee of the presiding officer and his travelling expenses together shall not exceed £3, 3s., or whether he may have his travelling expenses over and above his

£3, 3s. But taking the most liberal, or rather the least shabby, construction of the provision, the remuneration is in by far the most of cases far too little. In many places it is impossible to get competent men resident in the locality; and even if you could, it is as a rule not desirable to employ local men. Besides, the polling stations in counties and groups of burghs are often so remote from the county town or the head burgh, that more than one day must be taken up in connection with the polling.

In a report of a Committee of the Sheriffs upon this Bill, it is stated that

"At the last two elections for the county of Inverness, it was found necessary, before the day of nomination, to make arrangements to secure the services of the railway steamer at Strome Ferry to convey the ballot boxes, papers, &c., to and from the polling-station at Lochmaddy in North Uist, but as the threa tened contest did not take place on either occasion, the steamer was not required. The charge for the steamer, if it had been used, was £100. Again, under the provisions of the Ballot Act, the presiding officer at Lochmaddy would have had, after the poll, to come with his ballot box, &c., and deliver them to the returning officer at Inverness; and if resident at Lochmaddy, he must return again to Lochmaddy-an amount of travelling which must in any circumstances occupy several days of his time. Three guineas is obviously no remuneration for such a case. And is he not to have his personal as well as his travelling expenses? Although this is, in degree, an extreme case, it is by no means a singular one, nor in kind unusual in this country."

It is not economical economy to give dog's wages to the officials engaged in Elections. If you do so, you get an inferior class of men, who may not be above suspicion, and who are very apt to make some blunder that may cause a new Election; and the official expenses are a mere flea bite to the expense of that.

Evidence Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.-Two or three years ago Lord Penzance introduced and carried a Bill to make the evidence of the pursuer and defender in divorce cases admissible. The Lord Advocate has introduced a Bill which, inter alia, has the effect of extending that alteration to Scotland. The Bill also provides for evidence being taken down by a shorthand writer in the SheriffCourt just as it is now taken in proofs in the Court of Session. The second alteration will be a great relief to the Sheriffs. The first may perhaps increase the labours of the Procurators-fiscal. The following are the principal clauses of the Bill:

"2. The parties to any proceeding instituted in consequence of adultery, and the husbands and wives of such parties, shall be competent to give evidence in such proceeding; provided that no witness in any proceeding, whether a party to the suit or not, shall be liable to be asked or bound to answer any question tending to show that he or she has been guilty of adultery, unless such witness shall have already given evidence in the same proceeding in disproof of his or her alleged adultery.

"3. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to alter or effect the law of Scotland in force at and prior to the passing of this Act relating to the proof of a promise of marriage in any action of declarator of marriage founded upon promise of marriage, cum copula subsequente.

4. In every case of a proof in a civil cause or proceeding in a Sheriff-Court in Scotland, the following provisions shall have effect:—