should be put on the establishment. On this footing, the difficulty is to suggest the appropriate salaries for these officials, particularly as we contemplate ultimately a completely interchangeable staff on which (except in the Teind Office) there shall be no merely clerical assistants on a scale below £250-400. The unestablished Bill Chamber man, who is over 50 years old and a most competent clerk, is obviously underpaid, but his immediate. promotion to the scale mentioned would perhaps scarcely be justified. After considering all the circumstances, we recommend:-

(1) THAT THE Unestablished Bill Chamber Clerk be estaBLISHED ON A SCALE OF £200-10-250 PERSONAL TO HIMSELF, AND THAT, IF FOUND SUITABLE, HE SHOULD RANK FOR PROMOTION TO THE £250-400 SCALE ON THE OCCURRENCE OF VACANCIES;

(2) THAT THE UNESTABLISHED Teind Office Clerk be eSTABLISHED ON THE SCALE £250-15—400, WITH ENTRY AT HIS PRESENT SALARY;

(3) THAT THE TEIND OFFICE CLERKESS BE

ESTABLISHED

ON A SCALE TO BE DETERMINED AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CLERK OF TEINDS, WITH ENTRY AT NOT LESS THAN HER PRESENT

SALARY.

Judges' Clerks.-These clerks are directly appointed by the Judges they serve. The present salary scale of eleven of them is £250-20-350, while the salaries of the two who are Keepers of the Inner House Rolls are fixed at £450. They are not pensionable like the Clerks of Court, but are entitled to retiring allowances not exceeding £166, 13s. 4d. in the case of the Keepers of the Rolls, and £100 in the case of the other clerks. These allowances are payable only when the appointment terminates either by the death in office or the retiral of the Judge who made it. No right to them emerges in other circumstances. No provision is made for a clerk's enforced retiral through ill-health or other cause. Thus, a clerk whose appointment is terminated after five years' service by the retiral or death of his Judge receives an annuity of £100, while a clerk who serves, say, twenty years and then retires owing to his personal ill-health receives no retiring allowance of any kind. The position is still further complicated by the fact that these clerks receive personal fees for supplying to agents and others copies of Notes of Evidence and of the Opinions of their Judges. This is an unsound system to which we have already referred in Chapter IX; but our immediate concern with it is that it involves an implied contract with the present clerks as regards the emoluments of their office of which account must be taken in determining the amount of inclusive salary that they ought to receive if assimilated to the unified staff. The annual value of these personal fees varies from clerk to clerk, and could only be ascertained exactly by reference to each man's income-tax returns, which are private documents, but from enquiries we have caused to be made we think they may be taken to average about £50 per clerk. If this be so, the present clerks, if they were deprived of these fees, would not suffer loss if they were put on the scale of £250-15-400, with entry at a figure £50 higher than their present salaries. But against the contingency that they might do so and

to provide against sacrifice of their existing pension rights, we suggest further compensation in the shape of a superannuation scheme which will add to the value of their posts. We also propose some addition to the salary of the Lord President's Clerk, pending full reorganisation. His duties are much more onerous

than those of the other clerks. We recommend

(1) THAT THE JUDGES' CLERKS ASSIMILATED TO THE UNIFIED

STAFF SHOULD HAVE THEIR PENSIONS CALCULATED ON A DUAL BASIS, VIZ.: THE AMOUNT OF PENSION ACCRUED FROM THE DATE OF ASSIMILATION TO THE DATE OF RETIRAL PLUS THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED AS ANNUITIES HAD THEIR

JUDGES RETIRED AT THE DATE OF THE ASSIMILATION.

(2) THAT, UNTIL HIS POST IS COMBINED WITH THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL CLERK, THE SALARY OF THE LORD PRESIDENT'S CLERK SHOULD BE THE SCALE £500—20—600, AND THAT THE SALARY OF THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK'S PRESENT CLERK SHOULD BE £500 (BEING PRESENT SALARY PLUS £50 COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF FEES).

(3) THAT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE Judges' Clerks should BE OFFERED ASSIMILATION TO THE NEW STAFF (ON THE TERMS STATED ABOVE) ON AN INCLUSIVE SALARY SCALE OF £250—15—400.

In the case of any who might decline these terms, proof should be required of their earnings from writings (based on their incometax returns for six years), and on this basis they should be paid a lump sum annually in lieu of fees for their writings, the dues of which, as indicated in Chapter IX, should in future be fee-funded. Those who accept the terms should be assimilated to the new unified staff they would be permanent officials and would be allocated to particular Judges as vacancies occurred.

It follows from the whole scheme that the Judges would lose the right to nominate or appoint their own clerks. It also follows that the reduction of staff would commence by the retirement (when their Judges retire or die) of those clerks who do not elect to be assimilated. For the rest, reduction should take place by attrition in ordinary course, and not by the arbitrary retirement (on the death or retirement of Judges) of clerks who are willing to be assimilated.

Age of Retirement.-In so far as the age of retirement is already fixed by the commissions of pensionable officers, we need make no recommendation. As regards the others who will be newly established, we think that special consideration is due to these men, most of whom will be assimilated comparatively late in life and can therefore earn only small pensions. We recommend—

THAT IN THE CASE OF JUDGES' CLERKS AND HITHERTO NONPENSIONABLE OFFICIALS WHO ARE OVER 35 YEARS OF AGE WHEN ASSIMILATED UNDER OUR PROPOSALS, RETIRAL SHOULD BE OPTIONAL AT THE AGE OF SIXTY, BUT NOT COMPULSORY TILL THE AGE OF SEVENTY.

2. OFFICES NOT INCLUDED IN UNIFICATION SCHEME.

In addition to the above scheme of reorganisation, which arises. directly from our own recommendations, there have been from time

to time proposals for amalgamation of all the Offices of Court solely with a view to effecting economies of accommodation and personnel (see particularly Report of Lord Salvesen's Committee, pp. 17 and 21 ; and Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, p. 66). In addition to the offices we have dealt with, any such larger scheme might conceivably comprise the offices of the Keeper of the Signet, the Extractor, the Auditor, the Accountant of Court, and the Register of Deeds (now commonly known as the Deeds Office), but in our opinion no further fusion than that which we have recommended is desirable. The position of the Signet Office we have already dealt with in Chapter VI. The offices of the Auditor, the Accountant, and the Register of Deeds have only incidental contact with the distinctively legal work of the Courts: their work is specialised and lends itself to self-contained departments, and no useful purpose would be served by disturbing their present separate position. We do not therefore make any recommendations regarding these departments except under the head of "Appointments and Patronage" below.

The Extractor's Office is in a different position, because, while its inclusion in the unification scheme would present no technical difficulties, it raises a not unimportant question of policy. The duty of extracting decrees, etc., of Court was, prior to 1810, performed by the principal clerks of court assisted by their deputes and a large number of engrossers who were called extractors. In 1810, by 50 Geo. III c. 112, s. 13, the offices of extractors then existing were abolished and the six assistants of the principal clerks were appointed to be extractors; but the principal clerks continued as before to authenticate the extracts. By the Act 1 and 2 Geo. IV c. 38, s. 17, four extractors authorised to authenticate the extracts were appointed, with eight engrossing clerks as assistants. By 1 and 2 Vic. c. 118, s. 18, these appointments were abolished and one principal extractor was appointed. He was authorised to employ an assistant and such engrossing clerks as might be necessary.

This history is significant in view of the suggestion made to us that the work of the Extractor's Department might be transferred to the central office and performed by the Clerks of Court. It appears that it was at one time performed by those clerks, and it may be inferred that the development into a separate office recommended itself on the ground of practical utility. But more than this is involved. It has been maintained by at least one Extractor (Lord Salvesen's Committee, Evidence, par. 70) that the oversight of his department by the Principal Clerk of Session is limited to difficulties which the Extractor might have in the preparation of extracts. There is reason for this. In reporting favourably to the retention of the Extractor's Office, Lord Salvesen's Committee pointed out (Report, p. 7) that the Extractor has a special duty to scrutinise processes for the discovery of formal errors or omissions before the judgment of the Court is issued. He protects litigants from official oversight and error. These " errors would not readily "be discovered by the officials who originally made them "—nor might they be readily acknowledged-and this special and salutary

function of the Extractor (which will be as necessary under the system of shortened extracts recommended in Chapter VIII. as now) would cease, were he either absorbed into the General Office staff or made a subordinate of the chief of that staff.

A transfer to the Extractor's department of the work of the Keeper and the Clerk to the Minute Book was effected on 1st August 1924, and the only other amalgamation suggested regarding this department is that recommended by the Law Commissioners of 1868 and the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, both of which thought that the decrees of the Sheriff of Chancery should be recorded and extracted by the Extractor of Court. We cannot agree. These are Sheriff Court decrees: and it is inappropriate that part of the work of the Sheriff Courts should be merged with that of the Court of Session. A natural change, if one is desired, might be to require the Sheriff Clerk of Chancery and the Sheriff Clerks of counties to make these extracts in the same way as the latter make all others pertaining to their own Courts:

The Extractor and his typists are pensionable, but the Assistant Extractor and the clerk (who is now also Clerk of the Records) are unpensionable. This is an anomaly due to the fact that both are appointable by the Extractor personally. The Report of Lord Salvesen's Committee (pp. 6 and 7) deals fully with this situation, and we endorse the findings of that Committee regarding these two appointments.

The salary last assigned to the post of Extractor (which is at present vacant) was £750 plus a personal allowance (not carrying bonus) of £60 per annum-the latter having been granted from 1st August 1924 in consideration of the Extractor also acting as Keeper of the Minute Book. In view of a suggestion made to us that this salary is too high, we review briefly the history of this office and its salaries since 1868. In that and certain following years the staff and cost (salaries and allowances calculated at maxima) of the offices responsible for the work now done by the Extractor were approximately as follows:

* Prior to 1st January 1897, Engrossing Clerks were paid direct by the Law Agents for whom they made extracts, but, as from that date, the writing fees were made Court Dues and the writers-at first Engrossing Clerks, afterwards Typists have since been remunerated from Public Funds.

The economies effected appear to have been reasonable; but, coupled with the recommendations of Lord Salvesen's Committee that the work of the Keeper of the Minute Book should be taken over by the Extractor's Department, was an express recommendation that the salaries in the latter department should be increased. The increases actually granted were trivial, and it is therefore, in our opinion, unreasonable to suggest that, within two years, the increase allocated to the post of Extractor should be taken away. The Extractor's work and responsibility have been increased, and we do not think the salary of the post should be reduced. It is desirable, however, to reduce the allowance to £50 and incorporate it with basic salary.

The Assistant Extractor is in a peculiar position, less responsible than that of the Depute Clerks but more so than that of the Assistants. A special scale would be appropriate in his case.

The Clerk of the Records has as much work and responsibility as an Assistant Clerk.

We therefore recommend :

(1) THAT THE OFFICE of the EXTRACTOR BE CONTINUED, WITH

DUTIES AS AT PRESENT DEFINED.

(2) THAT THE BASIC SALARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EXTRACTOR BE £800 PER ANNUM.

(3) That the Assistant EXTRACTOR BE PLACED ON A SPECIAL SCALE £400-15—500, THE Clerk of the RECORDS ON THE SCALE £250-15-400, THAT BOTH BE ESTABLISHED, AND THAT IN

CALCULATING THEIR PENSION RIGHTS REGARD SHOULD BE PAID TO THEIR PAST SERVICE.

3. APPOINTMENT AND Patronage.

As already stated, the unestablished officers in the Bill Chamber, Teind, and Extractor's Offices are, meantime, appointed by the heads of these offices; the Judges' Clerks by the Judges they serve. Two of the typists in the Extractor's Office are appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners. All the other appointments with which we have dealt are vested in the Crown. In practice they are made by the Secretary for Scotland on the nomination of the Lord Advocate, who is really final in the matter. In the past this was commonly supposed to result in appointments being made as a reward for political or personal services, but in recent years it has become the practice to promote the junior staff to the senior posts. The arguments for and against the present system are developed in the Sixth Report of the Royal Commissioners on the Civil Service (pp. 59-63), who, while they were emphatically opposed to a system of political patronage, did not think that the system of open competition could be usefully adopted. They recommended that nomination should remain with the Lord Advocate, but that he should be assisted by an ad hoc Advisory Committee. It was hoped that this plan would not only result in the Lord Advocate obtaining the best information about candidates, but would also enable