GLASGOW FACULTY OF PROCURATORS ON LOCAL JURISDICTION. 199

thirty-one rogues following that put the bryd in her bed.' He adds, it is to be sung to the tune of 'Fy, let us all to the wedding.'

THE GLASGOW FACULTY OF PROCURATORS ON LOCAL
JURISDICTION.

WHEN the Court of Session adjourned on the 20th of March for the Spring Vacation, it probably did not occur to any of the Senators or Counsel that the chambers of the Parliament House had possibly seen the last of the antiquated system under which justice has been administered there for so many centuries. If they had read the speech of Mr Burns at a meeting of the Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow held on the previous day, the members of the College of Justice must have been awakened to a consciousness of imminent danger, and would, in all probability, either have made a vigorous effort for the maintenance of their position and privileges, or at least have met, and endeavoured with becoming solemnity to celebrate the obsequies of the institution with which they were connected.

It is well, however, that the profession should be made aware of the fact that the fate of the Court of Session has been decided. The present session of Parliament is to see the accomplishment of the change which is to reduce Edinburgh to its natural position of a provincial town, and enthrone Dame Justice in a new palace in the metropolis of the West. The heads of the measure have been tabled by Mr Burns, who has thrown himself with his accustomed energy into the movement; and if not actually carried at the meeting in question, have been discussed with a gravity which may pro

THE GLASGOW FACULTY OF PROCURATORS

יאט

voke a contrary emotion in the minds of some readers, but which certainly warrants us considering the proposals in a serious spirit.

While we congratulate the gentlemen by whose instrumentality the revolution is sought to be accomplished, on the ingenuity they displayed in disguising their scheme for the institution of a new Court, and their kind consideration for the feelings of the metropolitan profession, evinced in the avoidance of any direct allusion to its contemplated dissolution, we may take the liberty of assuring them that the object they have in view is perfectly understood in Edinburgh. When we read (1) that the duties of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire are 'far more onerous and far more important than the duties of a Lord Ordinary;' (2) that the salary of the Sheriff should be augmented in proportion to such increased responsibility; (3) that the present Court should be replaced by two (or as elsewhere stated, three) judges, superior in position and in point of emolument to a Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session; (4) that these judges are to hold sittings jointly for the purpose of reviewing the judgments of the Sheriffs-substitutes, whose salaries are to be increased in a corresponding ratio; and (5) that the decision of the Appeal Court is to be final, we know what all this means. It is a very roundabout way of expressing the proposition, that the Court of Session and the Bar of Scotland should be abolished, that the supreme jurisdiction should be transferred to Glasgow.

The advocates of this modest proposal know very well that Parliament would not sanction the establishment of two independent, supreme, and highly-paid judicatories in Scotland; and the establishment of such a Court as they have described in Glasgow, necessarily implies the suppression of the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Why can they not say so in plain terms? Is it modesty or policy that lies at the root of this studious suppression of the main feature of their project? Does Mr Burns imagine that the mere mention of such an object as the removal of the Court of Session to Glasgow, would be sufficient to insure its instant rejection, even at a meeting of a body of gentlemen who would profit largely by the change? If so, his case must indeed be desperate.

But is it so in reality? On the contrary, there is much to be said in favour of it. Of course we do not for an instant contemplate the possibility of the scheme being carried out in the way Mr Burns proposes; namely, by establishing a co-ordinate Court in Glasgow to compete with the Court of Session, and ultimately to

supplant it. If the change is to be made, it will be made by a direct transference of the existing establishment to Glasgow; and, therefore, if Mr Burns is looking forward to a silk gown, it will be necessary that he should begin by becoming a member of that profession whose chief offence seem to be, that it has precedence of the Glasgow Faculty.

But the transference of the Court of Session to Glasgow is, prima facie, not an unreasonable proposal. If we were about to establish a new constitution for Scotland, Glasgow would undoubtedly be selected as the seat of the supreme jurisdiction. Its wealth, population, and central situation, entitle it to the distinction. We will go further, and assert, that if any positive and serious inconvenience could be shown to result from the continued maintenance of the supreme judicial establishment at Edinburgh, and if any corresponding benefit would result from its transference to Glasgow, the change ought to be made. It would be a very costly change, but not more so than the often proposed removal of the English Courts from Westminster Hall to the vicinity of the Temple. Let Mr Burns and those who agree with him make out their case for removal, and Parliament will listen to them. But we think there can be little doubt that the balance of convenience is in favour of the existing arrangement; and such we believe to be the preponderating opinion among the most intelligent and influential sections of the profession in Glasgow, whose sentiments we believe to be in accordance with those enunciated by their Dean of Faculty, Mr Bannatyne. As regards the interests of the Bar, it is of little consequence whether the business of the Supreme Courts is to be transacted in Edinburgh or Glasgow, except as regards the inconvenience of a change of residence. But to the Edinburgh Writers to the Signet and Solicitors, the withdrawal of so important a branch of their business would be of very serious consequence. Society has no right wantonly to disturb arrangements, on the faith of which individuals have embarked their capital and personal skill; and that consideration alone ought to furnish a sufficient answer to proposals involving such radical changes as those suggested by the mover of the resolutions lately submitted to the Glasgow Faculty.

VOL. VII.-NO. LXXVI. APRIL 1863.

2 c

Legal Intelligence.

VACATION ARRANGEMENTS.

CIRCUIT APPOINTMENTS.

THE following dates have been fixed for the Spring Circuit Courts :

South Circuit.

LORD JUSTICE-CLERK AND LORD DEAS.

Jedburgh-Thursday, 9th April.
Dumfries-Tuesday, 14th April.
Ayr-Friday, 17th April.

ALEXANDER MONCRIEFF, Advocate-Depute.

ALEXANDER STUART, Clerk.

West Circuit.

LORDS NEAVES AND JERVISWOODE.

Glasgow-Tuesday, 21st April.
Inverary-Wednesday, 29th April.

Stirling-Tuesday, 5th May.

GEORGE H. THOMS, Esq., Advocate-Depute,

WILLIAM HAMILTON BELL, Clerk.

North Circuit.

LORDS COWAN AND ARDMILLAN.

Perth-Tuesday, 21st April.

Aberdeen-Tuesday, 28th April.

Inverness-Friday, 1st May.

JAMES ARTHUR CRICHTON, Esq., Advocate-Depute.

JAMES AITKEN, Clerk.

Box-days, Spring Vacation.

Edinburgh, 27th February 1863.-The Lords appoint Thursday the 16th day of April, and Thursday the 30th day of April, to be the Box-days in the ensuing Vacation.

(Signed)

DUN. M'NEILL, I.P.D.

Digest of Decisions.

COURT OF SESSION.

FIRST DIVISION.

A. v. B.-Feb. 27.

Consistorial-Expenses.

A husband brought an action of divorce against his wife, who was cited personally. She did not appear, and after a proof the Lord Ordinary granted decree of divorce. The present is an action of reduction of that decree at the instance of the wife, on the ground that the decree was pronounced on false evidence. A proof in the reduction having been led, the Court to-day, without calling on the defender's counsel, dismissed the action.

Counsel for the wife, the defender in the action of divorce, and the pursuer in the action of reduction, moved for expenses, on the ground that a wife is entitled to the expenses of her defence, though unsuccessful, to an action of divorce. The Court, after argument, unanimously refused the motion.

CARMICHAEL v. ADAMSON.-Feb. 28.

Poor-Settlement.

This is an action at the instance of Hugh Carmichael, Inspector of the Poor of the parish of New Kilpatrick, against Ebenezer Adamson, Inspector of Poor for the City Parish of Glasgow, and Dugald M'Lachlan, now John McTavish, Inspector of Poor for the parish of Glassary. The material facts of the case are as follow:-The pauper child, William Philips, whose settlement is now in issue, was the son of Michael Philips, and Mary M Nicol, his wife, and was born in Glasgow in August 1853. His father, Michael Philips, was an Englishman, who never acquired a settlement in Scotland. His mother, Mary M'Nicol, was born in Scotland, in the parish of Glassary. In March 1855, Michael Philips deserted his wife and child, went to sea, and has not been since heard of. His wife supported herself and her child till September 1857, when she was seized with small-pox; and, on 28th of that month, became chargeable on the parish of New Kilpatrick, the place of her then residence. She died on 3d October 1857. Her child was thereafter taken charge of, and alimented by that parish. The present action is brought by the parish of New Kilpatrick, for reimbursement of the sums expended in the support of this child from 6th February 1858. The action is directed against the City Parish of Glasgow, as the parish of the child's birth; and the parish of Glassary, as the parish of birth of the child's mother. The question is, whether either, and which, of these parishes is the parish liable?

A majority of the whole Court, to whom the case was remitted by the Judges of the First Division, have decided that the parish of New Kil