subject of a group of statutes; the two other processes, mentioned by your Lordship's memorandum, will have been effectually performed also, that is, a digest will have been actually or virtually made, and in the course of framing the Act used and become unnecessary, and all the uncertainties which could be noticed on a revision, will have been cleared up."

This plan, as Mr. Ker observes, mainly resembles that proposed by Lord Bacon. On the whole we consider it the best and most feasible of any yet proposed. Mr. Ker gives us no idea as to the time it will occupy, but we are convinced that, unless the Commission is materially strengthened, posterity alone will reap the benefit of the work. The result to be expected from the proposed plan is thus stated by Mr. Ker:—

"In conclusion, I beg to state, that if what I propose is adopted, the result, when the task is completed, will be that the whole of the existing statutes will be consolidated in separate Acts, each containing one head or subject; all Acts imperfect as to expression or otherwise will be revised and re-enacted, the Statute Book will be cleared of all obsolete Acts, all doubts as to whether any Act is or is not in force will be removed, and a body of materials will be provided for any future digest or code. Thus all the practical benefits originally contemplated by your Lordship would, as I have previously observed, be in effect attained, and the parties engaged in this task would also have been usefully employed in preparing and settling Bills, reporting on Bills not settled by them, and generally in superintending and influencing as much as possible the whole formal part of legislation with a view to uniformity, conciseness, completeness, and distinctness."1

The Second Report, for which we have delayed our notice of the first, is not likely to allay the feeling of public disappointment, in the result of the labours of the Commission as a whole, excited by the First Report. Individual members of that Commission have indeed, by their separate labours, arrived at some useful and remarkable results. But these, although valuable to the Profession, are yet, with some exceptions, not of a nature materially to further the plan now

See p. 15., Second Report.

tardily developed in the Second Report. This report, like the first, consists merely of a letter from Mr. Ker to the Lord Chancellor. Its principal object being, we are told, to give some explanations as to Mr. Ker's "own contribution to the former report." It bears on its face an amusing expression of injured innocence, and its tone is somewhat vituperative.

The public are neither so ignorant nor so extravagant in their demands as Mr. Ker would have us believe. They had a right to expect some better proof of energy than the reports supply, from one to whom the " employment" is not “novel,” who had been employed in the same work in the similar Commission of 1835. Eighteen or nineteen years' meditation the public thought might (though the subject be abstruse) have sufficed to have matured, ere now, some plan worthy of adoption.

Mr. Ker censures the public for complaining of the disgraceful condition of the only authoritative edition of the Statutes, which he defends as an historical collection.

This defence is quite beside the mark, and is unworthy the importance of the subject. For no one knows better than Mr. Ker, that even in an historical point of view, except as regards obsolete and executed matter, our Statute Book cannot be defended. We must, of course, have an historical record of our laws; but is it no reproach that we have no other? Why are the public to be thrown back upon a mere historical collection of Statutes any more than upon the journals of the Houses of Parliament? But we must proceed to notice one or two points relating to the proposed plan. We agree with Mr. Ker that it would be, if not mischievous, at least highly unadvisable, to pass a declaratory Statute as to expired and defunct Acts.

The draftsmen must, as Mr. Ker suggests, have power to introduce amendments (to be pointed out as such) into the consolidated Statutes. And hereafter, whenever any alteration in a Statute has become necessary or advisable that a new edition of that Statute should be issued, and the first repealed by the Legislature. This appears to us to be the only way of keeping our promised Code of Statutes entire. "The law must be in such a form that it may be altered by isolated

Bills in any particular, and by Bills which may be themselves discussed, altered, partially abandoned in their progress through the House, &c."1

We are glad to observe that the vain repetitions and tautology, the "mortifera facundia," of our Statutes, to which we have before adverted, is likely to be for ever swept away from our Statute Book as re-consolidated. Would that it might at the same time disappear from our deeds and legal instruments. We highly approve of the valuable suggestion that, with every Bill its framers should present a report explanatory 2 of its objects, and of the circumstances which render its introduction necessary or advisable, in place of the present long and often useless recitals. A very bad use has been made of recitals, which have in some instances of late been construed so as to control, qualify, or even to subvert, the plain literal meaning of the Statutes: this evil we hope to see remedied. Mr. Ker, we observe, considers the question of a general digest of the whole law, Statute and Common, as not within the sphere of the present Commission; this point requires further consideration.

With all due respect for the skill and powers of the members of the late Commission, it is open to the objection, especially as then constituted, that professional men whose attention is confined to one pursuit are liable, whether from the peculiar construction of their minds, or from educational bias, to confine their attention, too closely and too exclusively, to the matter immediately before them, to the exclusion of what would, in another science, be called "disturbing influences." This, to our mind, forms also a strong reason for extending and enlarging the Commission, for an infusion of more eminent men, of men of experience in the public service, and in the administration of the laws proposed to be dealt with by the Commission.

We trust that the matter will not be suffered to rest in its present stage. A brilliant career, we are persuaded, is before our present Lord Chancellor if he will only pursue it.

A Chancellor now-a-days cannot, indeed, like Hadrian, who

! Second Report, p, 10.

2 Ibid. p. 13.

1

was Chancellor (Quæstor) under Trajan, aspire to the imperial purple, but he can, like that eminent Roman lawyer, bear such a part in compiling a Digest of the laws of his country as shall make his countrymen grateful and his name illustrious. Let his Lordship try with Hadrian the "sortes virgilianæ," and we are confident that at all events a very important part of the same fortune may yet be his Lordship's. "Primam qui legibus urbem Fundabit.”1 But above all, do not let us succumb to that terrible "vis inertia," which ever, by creating or suggesting ideal or imaginary difficulties and dangers, most of all hinders the progress of all real amendment.

The labours of the Commissioners have already opened out enough to show how goodly and promising a prospect is before us; to prove what might, with a more comprehensive Commission, backed by an efficient working staff, be not less readily accomplished now than in the days of the Roman decemvirs, of Hadrian, Theodosius, or Justinian.

ART. VI.—THE RECENT REFORMS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY AND THEIR RESULTS.

IT seems at one time to have been considered that the practice (for it is only by courtesy that we can call it procedure) of the Court of Chancery was the result of the labours of a series of learned sages, which during the golden age of Lords Redesdale and Eldon had attained such a degree of aptitude for its ends, such perfection both in its details and as a whole, that it would have been rash, if not sacrilegious, to disturb it.

Such being the feeling, at any rate, of the practitioners (with few exceptions), we can scarcely feel surprised when Sir Samuel Romilly's Act (affording a summary relief in charity cases) came into operation, that it was regarded as a dangerous innovation, and likely to create confusion in a

1 Virg. Æn. lib. 6. 1. 809.

system already perfect and symmetrical; nor perhaps ought we to feel greatly astonished at Lord Redesdale in the House of Lords making the following remarks upon that Act, faithfully embodying the conservative feelings of Lord Eldon and himself:-"I conceive," said his Lordship, "that the intention of this Act, however loosely it may be worded, was simply this to substitute a summary proceeding, instead of a more regular proceeding. I have always considered that it was a wise saying, that the furthest way about is often the nearest way home; and I believe that these summary proceedings will be found to be not always the nearest way home, or at least not the best way home. I have a fixed and rooted objection to any rash alterations of established laws, because I am thoroughly persuaded that, generally speaking, such alterations lead to mischief. In the first place, they are precipitately undertaken, and loosely expressed; and that which the wisdom of ages has contrived to have clearly described, is confused by the words of an Act of Parliament, often extremely difficult to interpret. "

When the attempt of so eminent a man as Sir Samuel Romilly to introduce a more summary mode of procedure into the Court of Chancery was characterised in such terms, we ought not again perhaps to feel surprised that its operations were confined within the smallest possible limits - that it was, in fact, almost repealed by judicial decisions, or, as Lord Eldon rather naïvely expresses himself,-"I think we have now got to this restriction that the Act is only to apply to simple cases."2

Fortunately for the country, there were in the House of Commons such men as Michael Angelo Taylor, John Williams, and Henry Brougham, who took a more just view of our Chancery practice, who year after year called the attention of the House and country to the misery brought upon the suitors in the Court of Chancery by its ruinous expenses and almost interminable delays.

After many defeats their perseverance was at length, in a certain sense, rewarded. A Commission was issued on the

11 Bligh, N. S. p. 48. and see p. 74.

2 Ib. p. 88.