augured more confidently had less haste been shown in filling up the late vacancy. The abolition of the Masters, no doubt, is the excuse given for this step. But that it is, at least for the present, a false one, we can have no doubt.1

ART. XIII.-THE LAW REFORM BUDGETS OF THE LATE AND PRESENT GOVERNMENTS.

1. The Substance of the Speech of the Lord Chancellor [St. Leonard's] in the House of Lords, Nov. 16. 1852. Sweet,

1852.

2. Confusion worse confounded; or the Statutes at Large in 1852. By GRAHAM WILLISON, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel.

1852.

3. Elements of Jurisprudence. Being Selections from Dumont's 'Digest of the Works of Bentham." Translated by THOMAS D. INGRAM, Law Scholar, Queen's College, Belfast. With an Introduction, by Professor HANCOCK. Dublin: 1852.

1 Since this Article was written, we have taken some pains to ascertain the number of matters which stood for judgment by the various Chancellors on the day of their resignation of the Great Seal, from the time of Lord Eldon's first Chancellorship downwards; and believe the following precis to be correct : —

4. First Report of the Commissioners appointed by His Excellency the Governor-in-Chief, to inquire into and report upon a System of Procedure suited to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. 1852.

5. Speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland [Napier], on introducing the new Code for regulating the Relation of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland. Nov. 22. 1852.

THE cause of Law Reform at last has triumphed. It has first prevailed in the late Administration, actively progressive in nothing else, and it is now firmly enthroned by the present Government. It will be remembered by our readers that we gave the Government of Lord Derby all the support in our power, so far as their Law Reform policy went. "Mere general professions," we said, "will not serve our purpose, but if our children are well nourished we shall not raise any objection to the colour of the nurse."1 We considered that their conduct was to be carefully watched, but so long as they really brought in or furthered good measures, we thought they were to be supported. Let us, therefore, consider to what praise they are fairly entitled, and what were their shortcomings.2

For a correct conclusion as to this we have ample materials given us by the late Lord Chancellor himself, who, in his speech on the 16th of November last, made a statement as to what had been and what was to be done by the late Government; and here we heartily commend the practice which Lord St. Leonards, so far as we remember, has been the first to introduce, that the Lord Chancellor should have his Budget, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has his, and that early in the Session a statement should be made of what is intended to be done. The Lord Chancellor thus fairly took upon himself the functions of a Minister of Justice, and we hope that this practice may be followed by his successors. What then was done by the late Administration, and what

1 16 L. R. p. 8., Art. " Lord Derby's Policy as to Law Reform."

2 This is also considered in the previous Article with greater authority than the writer of the present Article can pretend to; but it is not useless, we trust, to view this subject from more quarters than one. — ED.

was promised to be done, and what was omitted to be done, and what was declared against? All these are important points to consider.

The three most important Acts passed are thus described by Lord St. Leonards:

"One Act was for the abolition of the office of Master in Chancery, and for introducing an altogether new system of Chamber practice with regard to matters which, up to that time, had been prosecuted by the Masters in their own Chambers. The next Act was for the Improvement of the Jurisdiction in Equity; and the third Act was called the Suitors in Chancery Relief Act; and it certainly did afford a great relief, by the reduction of salaries and the abolition of useless and unnecessary offices." (P. 3.).

But much was left to be worked out by Orders for supplying the deficiencies in the Acts; and to the preparation of these Orders the Lord Chancellor gave his attention, and here he did good service.

"I can assure your Lordships, therefore, that my vacation has been principally occupied in a species of legislation - sometimes with and sometimes without the assistance of my learned colleagues in order to supply what was necessary to give full effect to these Acts of Parliament. My Lords, they are now in full operation; and I think I can assure your Lordships, from what I have already seen, that they will fully effect everything which the country and Parliament had in view. And I think I may venture to assert that the celerity with which matters will be decided in Chancery will be such as to make the old proverb entirely forgotten, and to lead to the introduction of a new one. I think there is no Court in this country in which questions of property will be decided with such rapidity as there and by rapidity I do not mean haste, which above all other things is to be deprecated in the administration of justice; I mean really good speed speed so far as is consistent with the most mature deliberation; and that such speed can now be given to matters coming before the Court of Chancery, I hope to show your Lordships before I sit down, as well as that the expense may yet be greatly diminished, so as to render that Court, and every portion of it, at once rapid in its operation and truly cheap to the suitor." (P. 4.).

This is very well, and we trust that the effect of these Acts and Orders is not overstated.

It will be seen that the Lord Chancellor does not claim the merit of originating these measures. He had, indeed, on a previous occasion expressly disclaimed it. He is fairly entitled, however, to that of having carried them through, and having bestowed much labour in completing the details. His Lordship has long been known as a ready and accomplished draftsman, and all this capacity for such a task he freely bestowed. There is, however, it must be admitted, a wide difference between the faculty which originated the plans and that which simply worked out the details, as the present Solicitor General (Mr. Bethell) observed, with perfect truth, in his speech at Aylesbury on the 6th of January last: "They found ready for the sickle a crop of measures of Legal Reform for which they had not ploughed, for which they had not sown, but for which others had laboured; and their merit was this, that they had promptly put the sickle into the standing corn and gathered home into their own garners that which had been sown and matured and ripened without any industry or merit of their own. All these things had been prepared ready for their hands, and I give them credit for being quick enough to appropriate them, and for their skill, agility, and adroitness in carrying those measures into effect. With regard to any thing else done by these gentlemen, they undoubtedly, so far as the late Lord Chancellor was concerned, desired to remove a number of impediments and obstructions which still remain in the way of the easy, ready, and economical dispensation of justice. But there are still left for the consideration of their successors many very great and important reforms in the law."-Morning Chronicle, Jan. 7. 1853.

So far then for the late reforms in Chancery, the exact position and history of which has been already authoritatively discussed in these pages.2

The Lord Chancellor then justly took credit for the very.

See Hansard, vol. cxix. p. 900., and antè, p. 412.

* See 16 L. R. p. 431., Art. " Law Reforms of the last Session."

valuable alteration effected by him of transferring the salaries of several Judges of the Court from the Suitors to the Consolidated Fund, and also took the right distinction between contentious and administrative suits.

"And so, unquestionably, the administration of justice ought to be paid for by the public funds, and not by the funds of the suitors. But then there is this clear distinction: the costs of the administration of justice, properly speaking, ought undoubtedly to be paid by the country; but the costs of the administration of the property of a party within the Court ought not to be paid by the public. Every man ought to have a right to go into the Court itself free from expense, if it may be, and to have the decision of the Judge. But, if he has accounts to be taken if he has estates to be guarded and watched, and kept in order, he is no more entitled to have the expense of that paid for him in Court, than he would be if the operation had taken place out of Court. Keeping in mind that essential distinction, I must call your Lordships' attention a little to the state of the funds, as I shall have occasion afterwards to call your Lordships' particular attention to the operations relating to them." (P. 7.)

Then he gave a clear account of the Suitors' Fund and the Suitors' Fee Fund; and we like this all the better because the more the statement looks like a Budget the better; we hope to see the time when the suitor may as easily complain when he is taxed a pound too much for justice as he can now for an overcharge for house-tax.

"There are two funds upon which the Court draws for sums for which it has occasion. One is called the Suitors' Fund, and the other the Suitors' Fee Fund. The Suitors' Fund arises in this way-there are in the Court sums of money, sometimes of a large amount, which the persons interested in them never require to be invested. The Court, therefore under the authority of various Acts of Parliament, has been in the habit of itself investing from time to time that portion of the suitors' ' unemployed cash,' as it is called, which the suitor has not called for or required to be invested on his account. The consequence of the party not requiring it to be invested is, that of course he cannot be entitled to the dividends upon that which he has not had invested, and he is not liable to any loss; but he can demand the amount simply of his cash whenever he thinks proper to do so. The dividends on the stock thus