Page images
PDF
EPUB

Proportione geometricâ, arithmeticâ, et harmonicâ Constitutis," and is overlaid with much abstruse learning. This great work of Bodin is now comparatively unknown; but "no former writer on political philosophy had been either so comprehensive in his scheme, or so copious in his knowledge, none, perhaps, more original, more independent and fearless in his inquiries."

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

[WE have been favoured with permission to print the following extract of a letter to Lord Denman from Lord Brougham: -]

"BUT, from the disappointments of the Session 1851, admitting that they were in a great degree compensated by the important change in the Law of Evidence, and by the foundations laid for further improvement both in Chancery and Common Law, I gladly turn to the superstructure which, in the Session just ended, has been raised, and will still further be raised next Session, upon those foundations.

"The Patent Law Amendment Bill of 1851, compounded of the one I presented and the one grafted upon it by the late Government, was prevented, by the prorogation a year ago, from passing the Lords, after it had been sent back from the Commons, with great alterations. Reintroduced this last Session, it underwent other alterations, and has at length passed. I certainly do not think it has been the better for these changes, yet, in some material particulars, it undoubtedly is an amendment of the former Law, and so it will be found when worked. The Copyhold Bill is a great improvement, and sanctions, for the first time, the principle of compulsory enfanchisement, which was defeated in the Lords, whose select committee rejected my Bill of 1841.

Eleven years have thus been lost, to the great injury of landowners; the landlord not having gained, but rather lost, by the delay, which has fallen heavily on the tenant. hasten to the most important measure of the Session.

But I

"In my letter to you a year ago, I stated the opinion which much discussion for some years in the Profession and the recent inquiries of the House of Lords' Committee had made universally prevalent, that a great change in the Chancery Procedure was absolutely necessary; that the Master's Office must be abolished; and the Equity Judges work out their own decrees, sitting in chambers (as the Common Law Judges do), to dispose of such matters as cannot be conveniently dealt with in court. The Chancery Commissioners came unanimously to the same conclusion some time after, but without any previous communication with the Lords' Committee, except in so far as we had the benefit of their able and excellent chairman, the M. R.'s, evidence upon the subject. We must here pause for a while upon the history of this most important measure; not so much that justice may be done to those whom we have to thank for it, because this does not seem to have been withheld from them, but in order to draw a useful and most practical lesson upon the evils of needless delay in effecting improvements of our Legal System. It is certain that the late Government had resolved to carry the measure, and that a Bill, founded upon the Commissioners' Report was in preparation when they somewhat unaccountably resigned. Their Chancellor occasioned considerable doubt as to his own share in this good work by an incorrect and careless statement of his case; an inaccuracy which he hardly ever, a want of zeal which he certainly never, showed in the case of any other person. But the fact of his having ultimately adopted the Report, and joined in giving effect to it, is undeniable. It was proved in detail by Sir W. Page Wood, when the matter came before the House of Commons. One therefore hardly knows whether more gratitude is due to them or to their successors for the invaluable improvement which has been carried; - of great importance, if it be all we are to obtain, but of still greater in what must inevitably follow from it, the examination of

--

witnesses orally and in the Judges' presence, and generally the fusion of Law and Equity.

"But while we render justice to those, first the Commissioners, next the Government, who have made this great step in legal improvement, only let us consider for a moment how long and how needlessly it has been delayed. The inquiry instituted by Lord Lyndhurst in 1841, was given in evidence before the Lords' Committee ten years after; and then it appeared that this very measure had been described in detail to the late M. R. and the others who were directed to consider of the best remedies for the evils so loudly and so generally complained of. Master Brougham's letter of 24th February, 1842, is in evidence; it contains the whole plan, states broadly that no other remedy can possibly prove effectual, and only differs from the proposal of the Commissioners ten years later, in assuming the necessity of making more Judges

an error, if it be one, in which I shared, though I now incline to think that there will be no such necessity, unless the new system should occasion, as for the benefit of the suitor we should hope that it may, a very considerable increase of business in the Courts of Equity. Then how vexatious to reflect, that ten years have been thrown away, when all might easily have been done in 1842 which has with no little difficulty been accomplished this year! My brother spoke from eleven years' experience in the Master's Office, and after consulting with colleagues of still longer standing. Lord Langdale, one of the most enlightened and zealous, but also judicious and circumspect Law Reformers, entirely approved of the proposal, and declared his perfect willingness to bear his part in the execution of it by working out his decrees, taking chamber business. I know that the V. C. Shadwell, Sir J. Wigram, then also a ViceChancellor, and, I have reason to believe, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, a most able and experienced practitioner, agreed. It is plain, from the evidence both before the Lords' Committee and the Chancery Commission, that nothing whatever was stated to either body in 1851, which had not been pressed upon the private committee of Lord Lyndhurst ten years earlier, and in the selfsame terms. Yet, when in

1849, I brought in, and indeed, carried through the Lords, the far less effectual measure, the Judges Masters Bill, only propounded by Master Brougham, in his letter and pamphlet, as fit to be entertained, should it be found impossible to carry the other, the true remedy, I was strenuously opposed by Lord Cottenham; who, with merits of the highest order as a judge, laboured under the prejudice so fatal to him as a lawgiver, of believing everything perfect to which he had been accustomed in the Court of Chancery. He all but prevented the Bill from passing the Lords, and secured for it such a reception in the Commons, that we abandoned it in despair. If we are bound to profit by observing this remarkable instance afforded by the Chancery Bill, to illustrate the evils of delay in effecting necessary improvements, we may, perhaps, also draw from its history another lesson; not, indeed, to make us less cautious in preparing plans, or more hasty in executing them, but to show how the most effectual measure may oftentimes meet with no greater obstacle to its adoption than the half measure.

"While both Houses were so usefully occupied in effecting this important change, it became the friends of Law Amendment to abstain from bringing forward any proposition which might interrupt them or distract their attention; and accordingly, nothing was pressed which could create controversy in proceeding with the County Courts Bill. I consented to withdraw the Equity clauses, and it passed, effecting some considerable though still very inadequate improvement in these Courts. But one provision is of material importance. The repeal of the prohibition against barristers there taking briefs from clients, on which, this year and the last, we had both been defeated, was restored by the Commons, and the Lords withdrew their objection. Thus, in the inferior but most frequented Courts, as it has always been in the superior Courts, the regulation of this matter is now left to professional etiquette instead of statutory prohibition; and the barrister can always protect himself against undue attempts to exclude him from practice.

"The Chancery Bills and the Common Law Bill, (from which my expectations are less sanguine by a good deal than

yours, very valuable as is a considerable portion of it,) were only passed at the close of the Session, and we were therefore unable to proceed with any other measures. But on the eve of the prorogation I strongly pressed upon the Government the subject so often brought before Parliament, of the Criminal Law Digest, all but completed about two years ago (twice indeed made part of Bills that passed through their first stages), and of the County Courts, as well in themselves as in their connection with the Supreme Judicature. The Government gave the most positive assurances that both these important subjects should command their best attention.

"As to the Digest, there can be, and I really believe there will be, no further delay after all that has passed. The whole of the first branch, Crimes and Punishments, has been fully examined by one commission, after being diligently prepared by another. There can, therefore, be no difficulty in now passing this branch. The second, that of Procedure, alone needs revision; and although I recommended that the Commission should be renewed, and beside revising the Procedure Digest, should assist the Government in passing the other, yet the reasons appear to be satisfactory which Mr. B. Ker, agreeing, as I believe, with his brother Commissioners, assigns for dispensing with the Commission, at least until the Procedure Digest is to be passed, the Secretary alone being sufficient to aid the law officers in passing the first Digest. But a very judicious suggestion proceeded from the same quarter, and was at once acceded to both by Lord Lyndhurst and myself. It was to take one great division or chapter of the first Digest (for example, Offences against the Person), and begin by passing this, together of course with the General or Preliminary chapter applicable to all offences. The whole might be thus successively passed, and the Digest of Procedure taken afterwards, first undergoing a revision. Upon looking at the first Digest (Crimes and Punishments), which you will find in my two Bills of 1843 and 1844, you will observe that though the provisions are all carefully classed under the several heads in distinct chapters, yet the numbers of the articles run through the whole in one series, as in the French

« PreviousContinue »