cision. Many nice points necessarily arise in thus working out an inclosure, but the cheap, speedy, and accessible Tribunal appointed, disposes of them to the general satisfaction of all concerned.

ART. XII.-PROSPECTS OF LAW AMENDMENT.

SINCE our last Number there have been important changes in the political world, with which of course we are wholly unconcerned, except in so far as they affect the legal world. But before touching upon them, in this view, we must note what was done by the late Ministers, both in justice to them and to the subject.

Lord St. Leonards received at our hands the commendation to which he was well entitled for his full adoption of the great plan framed and reported on by the Chancery Commission. He had the greater merit in this, because it was well known that his own opinion had been exceedingly adverse to the fundamental principle of the plan, the abolition of the Master's Office; and because, after struggling against it, when he yielded, he did so with the greatest fairness and sincerity, giving the fullest effect to the whole measure. The abolition, the corner stone of the new structure, had been originally, as we had formerly occasion to show from the evidence both before the Commissioners and the House of Lords Committee, recommended in detail, as the only possible remedy for the evils of Chancery Procedure, among others by one of the most experienced Masters (Mr. Brougham) ten years before, and no reason whatever can be assigned for the continuance of these great evils during that long period of time. But the Commissioners had themselves framed most ably the provisions to accompany that measure, and Lord St. Leonards made valuable additions to these provisions in the orders which he issued under the powers of the Act. He has therefore deserved well of the great cause of Law Amendment, and must take a distinguished place among

reforming Chancellors, a body far more select and respectable than numerous.

He did not, however, stop here. He, in the short Session which began before the Ministry was changed, brought in Bills for further improving the proceedings in Chancery; and though some of his propositions are of more than doubtful merit, some also have great value.

one.

The late Government deserve equal praise for taking up the important subject of the Criminal Code or Digest. In our last Number we published Lord Brougham's Letter to Lord Denman, in which he stated, that both Lord Lyndhurst and himself had come round to the opinion of Mr. B. Ker and his colleagues in the Commission, in favour of passing the Digest, not in one Act but piecemeal, each chapter forming a separate Act, and ultimately reducing the whole into This letter bore date in August, and it is now well known that nearly two months before it was made public, the Government had resolved to pursue this course, giving instructions to have the first of the Bills prepared, digesting the Law upon offences against the person, together with the preliminary chapter referring to all offences. We think no one can doubt that for much of this important service to the Law, we are indebted to the influence of Lord Lyndhurst. But the merit of the late Government is not the less conspicuous; and it must be admitted to stand in very advantageous contrast with the dilatory, if not absolutely hostile course pursued by their predecessors. In truth, the conduct of the Whig Ministry in relation to the Digest, much as it has been condemned, has never received even adequate

censure.

We wish we could award the same praise to the Derby Government in relation to the most important of all subjects connected with the Law, the County Courts. Some little was effected by the Act of last Session, but the issuing of a Commission on those Courts, as well as the Bankrupt Courts, has been apparently refused, certainly withheld; and without that we can have no hope of the system being placed upon a solid foundation, and of the other measures being brought forward with effect which are absolutely necessary to secure

-

in the Superior Courts the benefits that should naturally flow from the Local Judicature. We own it gives us pain to note in passing the disposition shown by some Judges of these Superior Courts to interfere with the good working of the new system. The maxim, Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem, seems to have been taken too literally for the guide in certain recent proceedings. One most eminent Judge, for example, certified for costs in a case of false imprisonment brought before him most unnecessarily, an action which could have been most fitly tried in the County Court, and in which the defendant, having a verdict of five pounds against him, will probably be ruined by having to pay a hundred pounds in costs. If attorneys feel secure of having such certificates where there is every probability of the plaintiff recovering damages, it is certain that the jurisdiction of the County Courts is at an end. The Judge who grants the certificate thus easily, makes the suitor and the public pay very dear for the favour which he may acquire from the Profession; and if it be said that the Superior Courts are underworked, the answer is obvious. Let the Judges go circuit more frequently, if the reform of the procedure cannot bring the costs of resorting to them so low as that their tribunals may have the power of standing the competition with the inferior ones. In the case to which we have referred, the costs in the County Courts would not have exceeded five or six pounds, and the action would have been tried at once, instead of waiting for the sittings at Guildhall, perhaps eight or ten months.

We perceive that notices have been given in the House of Commons of bringing forward, after the recess, both the general question of Law Digest, Statute and Common, and that of a Court of Review in Criminal Cases; in other words, extending the late Act to motions for new trials (after conviction, we presume, is alone meant).

Upon the former subjects we need scarcely say how heartily we wish success to these efforts. But we must be excused for expressing a hope that both the honourable gentlemen, one an English the other an Irish member, have examined the learned Reports of the Common Law Commissioners on

the digesting of the Law. Those Commissioners have really gone so fully into the whole question, that it would be both unfair towards them, and most injurious to the success of the attempt, were their labours not well considered, and their suggestions carefully attended to.

Touching the other subject, we have some little repugnance to the course taken of hanging so important a measure upon a trial which has, from the singularity of its circumstances, excited so great a degree of popular feeling. The learned Counsel for the party convicted is the person who gives the notice, and no doubt its connection with the conviction will be avowed. We give no opinion upon the merits of that case; but we think it our bounden duty to warn the community against encouraging appeals to the public upon the event of criminal trials.1

But on these and all other changes in the Law much must of course depend upon the composition and the prospects of the new or Coalition Government. The friends of Law Amendment are, naturally enough, greatly relieved by the omission of Lord Truro, in whom they had found much too often a persevering adversary. But it would be most unjust to join the exaggerated attacks upon him, and the kind of clamour to which he has been exposed. It is not only untrue, it is the very reverse of the truth, to allege, as has been constantly done, that he was against the Chancery Reforms. He had originally, but not more than his successor (indeed not so much), felt averse to the propositions of the Commissioners in some essential particulars. He had, by an unfortunate indistinctness in explaining his views, become classed with opponents of the Report. But before his retirement from office, nay, before there was the least expectation of that event, he had entirely adopted the Report, had applied his united acuteness and industry to preparing the

1 In all the discussions which we have seen on this trial, we have found no notice taken of one remarkable and very discreditable circumstance. At eleven o'clock one, at least, of the jury was decidedly opposed to the conviction; but before twelve he joined in the verdict. Is it conceivable that a man should thus act against his opinion where life was at stake, for fear of being inclosed all night?

Bills which were to give it effect, and had left those Bills in such a state that, had he not quitted office, they would have been passed much earlier than they ultimately were. The details of this matter were fully stated by one of the Commissioners in his place, Sir W. P. Wood, now Vice-Chancellor, then Solicitor-General. Justice, as well to Lord Truro as to the Government he belonged to, requires that this important fact should not be lost sight of. The supporters of the succeeding Government were very readyindeed, they still continue very willing-to give it the credit of the Chancery Reform. But the members of that Government have never pretended to more than the praise of adopting the measure which they found prepared, and of aiding in working out its detailed provisions. It is truly disgusting to see the attempts made for party purposes, and especially for election purposes, to claim for them the credit of these great measures in the face of the most distinct statement by the Ministers themselves that they were the measures of their predecessors. Thus (Hansard, vol. cxxi. p. 946.) we find Lord St. Leonards fairly and honestly telling the real truth. "He wished most carefully to guard himself from the imputation, that he was taking credit to himself for those measures. Though the Government was ready to adopt those measures, they could not take credit for originating them." This was said 12th March 1852, in his statement of the course which the new Government intended to pursue on Law Amendment; and on the 10th of May, he said, on presenting the Bill itself, "It has been drawn up in strict conformity to the recommendations of the Commissioners." (Hansard, vol. cxxi. p. 419.) So that those Ministers considered it an imputation upon them to pretend the measures were theirs, which their utterly unscrupulous or grossly ignorant partisans do not hesitate to claim for them. Lord Lyndhurst, the patron of that Government, said on the same occasion that "he had examined the Bill as printed, and found that its provisions substantially carried the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect." (Hansard, vol. cxxi. p. 552.)

It is impossible to mark, as we have now been doing historically, the labours of the Chancery Commissioners, and not