invalidate the patent. (Cit. in Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 469, 470, 487; Dav. P. C. 170; 1 Web. P. C. 43; 1 Carp. P. C. 28.)

Liardet v. Johnson. N. P. 1778.-The general question is, whether the invention was known and in use before the patent. (Bull N. P. 76; 1 Web. P. C. 53; 1 Carp. P. C. 53.) R. v. Arkwright. N. P. 1785.-Scire facias to repeal letters patent granted to the defendant. The specification described various parts of machinery, but no complete machine, and the defendant did not point out what parts were new. Buller, J., left the following questions to the jury: -"First, whether this invention is new? secondly, if it be new, whether it was invented by the defendant?" After commenting upon the evidence, his Lordship said: "Thus the case stands as to the several component parts of this machine; and if, upon them, you are satisfied that none of them were inventions unknown at the time this patent was granted, or that they were not invented by the defendant. upon either of these points the prosecutor is entitled to your verdict. (Dav. P. C. 61; 1 Web. P. C. 64; 1 Carp. P. C. 53).

made, which is. a proof that the real demand is not of a nature at present to excite any alarm. A large supply of money is offering at short call in the Stock Exchange, and applicants for discount at the chief establishments have preferred to retain their paper to submitting to a charge of 4 per cent., which further indicates that the wants in the general market are not of a very pressing nature. There has been perhaps more excuse for the apprehensions that prevailed yesterday morning than is usually the case, as, considering the inflated state of the German bourses, the raising of the rate of discount by the Bank of Frankfort to 5 per cent. so soon after the Bank of Prussia had raised its terms to the same figure, a move here was not unlikely all things considered.

The British Funds have not been much affected, and are only lower for the week. On the approach of the special settlement in the new French Loan, which will take place to-morrow, the quotation has declined 1 per cent., and French Rentes in this

Bramah v. Hardcastle. N. P. 1789.-The patent was for a water-closet upon a new construction. It was objected that the patent, being taken for the whole water-closet, the arrangement of some of the parts only being new, was void. Kenyon, J., said: Unlearned men look at the specifica-market are also 1 lower for the week. tion, and suppose everything new that is there. If the whole be not new, it is hanging terrors over them." The question for the jury is, whether the principle of the invention, and the means employed to effect the object to be obtained, are new; whether the shape is new or not is immaterial. (Holroyd 81; 1 Carp. P. C. 168.)

Tennant's Case. Patent dated 1798.-Action for the infringement of a patent for a method of making a bleaching liquor. The general ignorance of bleachers with respect to such bleaching liquor, until after the date of the plaintiff's patent, was proved. On the part of the defendant it was established, that a bleacher had used the same means of preparing his bleaching liquor for five or six years anterior to the date of the plaintiff's patent. But that he had kept his method a secret from all but his two partners, and two servants connected in preparing it; and a chemist at Glasgow deposed, that he had suggested to the plaintiff a material part of the method which formed the subject of the patent. Ellenborough, C. J., nonsuited the plaintiff on two grounds-first, that the process had been used five or six years prior to the date of the patent; and, secondly, that the plaintiff was not the inventor of an indispensable part of the process. (Dav. P. C. 429; 1 Web. P. C. 125; 1 Carp. P. C. 177.)

Huddard v. Grimshaw. N. P. 1803.-Action for the infringement of a patent for a new mode of making cables and other cordage. Ellen borough, C. J., in addressing the jury, said: "In inventions of this sort, and every other through the medium of mechanism, there are some materials which are common, and cannot be supposed to be appropriated in the terms of any patent. There are common elementary materials to work with in machinery, but it is the adaptation of those materials, to the execution of any particular purpose, that constitutes the invention; and if the application of them be new, if the combination in its nature be essentially new, if it be productive of a new end, and beneficial to the public, it is that species of invention, which, protected by the king's patent, ought to continue to the person the sole right of vending it; but if, prior to the time of his obtaining a patent, any part of that which is of the substance of the invention has been communicated to the public in the shape of a specification of any other patent, or is a part of the service of the country, so as to be a known thing, in that case he cannot claim the benefit of his patent."... If, in his specification, the patentee "appropriates more than his own, he cannot avail himself of the benefit of it. I don't mean if he states a bobbin which was in common use before, but if he states any particular thing before in common use, applied in a new manner to the production, and effecting a new end, that is part of the substance of the invention. And if he states that which of itself is not new, but old and known to the world, though it was unnecessary for him to do so, having done so, he has overstepped his right, and has included in his invention that which is not his invention; in that respect his patent would be void." (Dav. P. C. 265 ; 1 Web. P. C. 85; 1 Carp. P. C. 200.)

1 Carp. P. C. 290.)

Wood v. Zimmer. N. P. 1815.-Gibbs, C.J. "The public sale of that which is afterwards made the subject of a patent, though sold by the inventor only, made the patent void." (1 Holt, N. P. C. 58; 1 Web. P. C. 44; Manton v. Manton. N. P. 1815.-Action for the infringement of two patents, one for a hammer upon an improved construction, for the locks of fire arms; the other, for "an improvement in double-barrelled guns." Gibbs, C.J., in directing the jury, said: "In order to support a right to the exclusive enjoyment of any invention, it is necessary that the party who takes out the patent should show that the invention is new, that it was unknown to the trade and to the world before, that it is not only new, but that it is useful to the public; and it is necessary likewise that he should show that he has accurately explained the nature of his invention in his specification, separating that which is new from that which is old. . . . If any one man made these locks, and was in possession of the secret of making them upon the same principle as Joseph Mauton's locks, there would be an end of the patent." (Dav. P. C. 333; 1 Carp. P. C. 278.)

R. v. Cutler. N. P. 1816.-Scire facias to repeal the defendant's patent for "improvements in firegrates or stoves.' The specification, after describing the stove, claims as the invention, the construction of stoves in such manner as that the fuel, necessary to supply the fire, shall be introduced from beneath, either in a perpendicular, or in an oblique direction. Ellenborough, C.J., was of opinion, that the evidence showed grates to have been constructed, prior to the patent, on a principle identical with that described in the specification; that the patentee, by his claim, had confined himself to that principle, which was not new, and that, therefore, the patent could not be supported, although the application of the principle, as described in the specification, was new. (1 Stark. 354; 1 Web. P. C. 76; 1 Carp. P. C. 351.)

THE STOCK MARKETS.

CITY, THURSDAY, SEPT. 19. THE feature of the week has been the unexpected raising of the Bank rate yesterday from 3 to 4 per cent., which was decided on at a special meeting of the directors in consequence of the notice of withdrawal of £205,000 in gold for Copenhagen, and the heavy precautionary pressure for discount in anticipation of a rise to-day. At to-day's meeting, however, of the Board, no further change was

All descriptions of American securities are lower for the week with the exception of Eries, which are higher. The quotation for these shares comes to-day from New York 524, which works out about 43 in this market. The absence of movement is at present unexplained. The 5-20's are lower for the week; Atlantic and Great Western bonds and ditto debentures 2; the United States Funded Loan 1; and Illinois .

Notwithstanding the continuously favourable traffic receipts home railway stocks have been severely prejudiced by fears of dearer money, and with the exception of North British, which is 24 higher for the week, all the movements are adverse. Among the chief are a fall of 3 in North Eastern and Metropolitan; of 2 in Great Northern A; of 2 in ditto Ordinary; of 1 in Midland; of 14 in South Eastern Deferred; of 1 in Caledonian, Great Western, Lancashire and Yorkshire, London and North Western, and Metropolitan District, &c. This afternoon the tone has been firmer. Lombardo-Venetian shares for the week are lower.

3

The foreign market, shows also a considerable fall for the week, the principal being a decline of 23 in Paraguay; of 4 in Peruvian of 1872; of 1 in Bolivian and Turkish; of 3 in the French National, Italian, and Spanish. In the last-named there have been sales to-day on the announced conversion of the debt and reduction in the rate of interest from 3 to 2 per cent.

In Telegraph shares Cubas are lower; and Eastern, . On the other hand, French Cables are higher.

In Miscellaneous shares, Phosphate Sewage are 1 lower;
General Credits, §; and International Finance, 4.
The sum of £8000 has been withdrawn for Rio from the Bank.
Discount demand very fair.

The latest quotations for British Funds are as follows: Consols for
money 92 to 92; ditto 2nd Oct. account, 92 to 923; Reduced and New
Three per Cents., 90% to 903; Exchequer Bills, par to 5s prem.; India
Five per Cent. Stock, 1103 to 111; ditto Four per Cent., 104 to 1051;
ditto Enfaced Paper Four per Cent. 96 to 97; ditto Five and Half per Cent.,
107 to 108; Metropolitan Three and a Half per Cent., 98 to 99); French
Rentes in this market 52 to 53; and ditto New Loan, 2 to 2 pm.
The latest quotation for French Rentes received from Paris was
54fr. 30c.

In the market for American Securities, the United States 5-20 bonds and Great Western Bonds, 31 to 32; ditto Debentures, 41 to 42; of 1882 are marked 92 to 923; ditto 10-40 Bonds, 874 to 87; Atlantic Eries, 39 to 391; Illinois, 101 to 105; and United States Funded Loan, 88 to 89.

157 to 158;

Great Eastern, 47 to 474; Great Northern, 131 to 135; ditto, A, In the Railway Market the prices are:-Caledonians, 111 to 112; shire, 150 to 150; London and Brighton, 72 to 73; London, Great Western, 115 to 116; Lancashire and YorkChatham, and Dover, 23 to 211; ditto 4 per cent. preference, 604 to 60; London and North-Western, 142 to 143; Manchester and Sheffield, 80 to 80; Metropolitan, 583 to 58; ditto District, 273 to 284; Midland, 110 to 141; North British, 80 to 80; North Eas tern Consols 161 to 162; South Eastern, 101 to 1024; ditto Deferred, 824 to 83; Grand Trunk of Canada, 19 to 20; Great Western of Canada, 22 to 221; Antwerp and Rotterdam, 241 to 25); Great Luxembourg, 17 to 17; and Lombardo Venetian, 18% to 191.

tine 1868, 95 to 96; do., 6 per cent., 1871, 90 to 91; Bolivian, 6 per The prices of the principal Foreign Stocks are as follows: Argencent. 57 to 59; Brazilian, 5 per cent. 1865, 95 to 96; do., 5 per cent., 1871, 95 to 96; Costa Rica Scrip, 1872, 10 to 7 dis.; Egyptian, 7 per cent., 1868, 88% to 891: do., Viceroy Loan, 91 to 93; do., Khedive Mortgage Bonds, 83 to 834; French Morgan, 6 per cent. Loan, 99 to 993; do., National, 5 per cent. Loan, 1871, to 1 pm.; Greek, 14 to 16; Honduras, 37 to 39; Italian of 1861, 661 to 661; Mexican, 15 to 15; Paraguay, 8 per cent., 1871, 74 to 75; do. 1872 scrip, 7 to 5 dis.; Peruvian 6 per cent. 1870, 74% to 75; do., 5 per cent. 1872 scrip, 10 to dis.; Spanish 394 to 393; do., 3 per cent., 1871, 29 to 293; Turkish, 5 per cent. 1865, 51 to 51; do. 6 per cent., 1869, 631 to 63; do., 6 per cent. 1871, 72 to 73; and Uruguay, 73 to 73.

In the Telegraph Market, Anglo-American Stock is quoted at 118 to 119; British Australian, 7 to 73; British Indian Extension, 113 to 113; Chinas, 83 to 8; Cubas, 7 to 8; Eastern, 94 to 9; Great Northern, 11 to 11; Mediterranean Extension, 6 to 7; Reuter's, 9 to 10; French Cables, 214 to 21; and West India and Panama, 5 to 54.

In miscellaneous shares the prices are as follows:-General Credit and Discount 2 to 2 pm.; International Finance, 1 to dis.; Hooper's Telegraph Works, to pm; Hudson's Bay, 12 to 12; India Rubber and Construction, 324 to 33; Royal Mail Steam, 88 to 90; Native Guano, 14 Gutta Percha, 32 to 33; National Discount, 11 to 12; Telegraph to 16; Phosphate Sewage, 11 to 12; New Sombrero Phosphate, 3 to 41; and Phospho Guano, 11 to 11.

LEGISLATION AND JURISPRU-
DENCE.

SOCIAL SCIENCE CONGRESS. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON LAW REFORM. THURSDAY morning in last week was appointed for the delivery of the address of Sir John Coleridge, Q.C., M.P., the Attorney-General, the president of the Department of Jurisprudence. Sir John was briefly introduced by Lord Napier, and spoke as follows:

On taking the chair of this section-an honour which I owe to the fact of my filling for a time the office of Attorney-General-it is proper, and you will expect, that I should address to you a few words by way of opening; and my subject has been, I will not say dictated, but suggested, to me by those who asked me to take the chair. I was asked at the same time to address you upon law reform-a subject, indeed, of vast extent and great complication, one in which some persons take a keen and intelligent interest, in which many more profess to take an interest without knowing anything about it but the name, and which, if newspaper criticism be correct, I am the very last man in England to handle-a lethargic amateur, knowing nothing about the law, and, if possible, caring less, altogether wanting in breadth of view and manliness of mind, perfectly satisfied with everything as it exists, the indolent but inveterate foe of all improvement. Such is the flattering portrait drawn by candid and philosophical criticism of the chairman of this section of the Social Science Congress of 1872. It is very seldom worth the trouble to attempt a personal controversy; it certainly is not worth the trouble now; but even if it were, this is not the occasion for it, nor are you the person to inflict it on. J propose, therefore, as I have been asked to do so, simply to lay before you some of the notions on this subject which have been irmy mind for many years, careful only that the opinions shall be real, grounded on reasons which shall be stated, and capable of being practically enforced. With some exceptions-remarkable because they are exceptions-the English law, like the English people, is unscientific. It does not bear the

The Fusion of Law and Equity.
Take the fusion of our two systems of law and
equity a thing which is absolutely certain one
day to be done. To have two sets of courts
existing side by side, one main function of one set
being to prevent the injustice which would result
from the judgments of the other set, is in idea
barbaric, and in practice highly inconvenient.
But till you have settled, first, that law and
equity shall be united, and next, at least, the
leading terms of union, how can you possibly tell
what courts will be wanted, or by what rule of
procedure the courts shall be governed? It must
be remembered always that the things themselves,
law and equity, and the rights and liabilities
arising out of them, are inherently distinct. The
distinction is in the nature of things, and has not
been created, nor can it be abolished, by Act of
Parliament. The courts which now respectively
administer them have systems of procedure
adapted, or intended to be adapted, to these
respective jurisdictions. But if an entirely new
system of law is to be evoked by legislation from
the union of the two, the procedure by which it
is to be administered will require the most careful
framing; the principles, at least, of the new
system must be determined and expressed in
something like a code, or I venture to say that a
confusion of years will follow, profitable to no
one but to practising lawyers, and discreditable
to a great country which will have the meaning of
its law to be ascertained at the expense of suitors,
instead of taking the trouble to have it clearly
expressed by statute or code, to be sanctioned by
Parliamentary authority.

A Code or a Digest?

I have often before said, and I have been
laughed to scorn for saying, but I here delibe-
rately repeat, that there is no reason why the law
of England should not be expressed in a code. It
would not, undoubtedly, put an end to litigation,
It
nor prevent bad and conflicting decisions.
would not be an easy matter, and when done
would be open to bjections. But there is no
difficulty inherent in the nature of English law,
none which great and able lawyers might not
well overcome. That we
have had it

taking young barristers in no large practice, and
setting them to make digests of different heads of
the law. Such work is waste of time and money,
and has led to disputes and heartburnings much to
be regretted. A code, if it is to be made at
all, must be made by the first lawyers in the
country, men of power and authority sufficient,
not merely to digest the law, but, if need be, to
make it. The code of Justinian was made by the
greatest lawyers in the empire; so was the code
of Napoleon; so was the code of New York. To
pass a code clause by clause through the Houses
of Parliament is utterly impracticable. But I do
not think it is at all impracticable to pass a code
(as bodies of statutes are often passed), made by
competent men, submitted to Parliament, and
acquiring the force of law if Parliament does not
dissent. Choose your men and pay them properly,
and I believe a code, whether of law and of pro-
cedure, to be perfectly attainable. It would be
the best return the country ever received for the
expenditure of its money, and I believe there would
be no difficulty raised by Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer. I think I can answer for the present one.
My plan would be something of this sort. Take
three men, aud if you choose, four, of the very
highest position, give them, if they have not it
already, the rank of privy councillors, and the
salary of judges; make their services, in the pre-
paration of the code, count as judicial, and give
them, if not otherwise entitled to it, at the
expiration of their labours, the pension of
a judge. In some such way I am convinced
code might be prepared and sanctioned
in its integrity by Parliament-a triumph for the
minister who achieved it, and of great and per
manent advantage to the country. Whether the
opportunity might be taken to make one system
of law for the three kingdoms is a question for
politicians rather than for jurists. That there is
much in the Scotch law, and something in the
Irish procedure, which we might probably borrow.
I am sure ; and, on the other hand, both Scotland
and Ireland, it is possible, might with advantage
adopt something which at present is to be found
in English only. Such are my reasons for think-
ing a code possible-possible if aimed at in a
practical spirit, and with due adaptation of the
festly the first thing to be taken in hand, because,
if well accomplished, it will save the doing of
many others. Should, however, a complete code,
similar to what other nations have accomplished,

a

impress of one age or of one set of minds, still less at this moment I am fully ced, if we had means to the object; and, if possible, it is mani.

is it the creature of a single great act of legislation. This is not said in praise either of the law or of the people of this country. It is too much

the fashion to boast with a good deal of self-sufficiency of the practical character of Englishmen, and their impatience of system, of accuracy, of science, as it in themselves praiseworthy and excellent. It is a bad fashion, the cause of much slovenly legislation, and of the toleration of much

eccentric barbarism in our laws and customs. If things work fairly well, and result in no great or widely-felt grievance, nine Englishmen out of ten will be for leaving them alone.

The Jury System.

spent upon the code the money, the time, and the
labour that have been comparatively thrown
away in feeble and ineffectual attempts to make

a digest of English law. In general, with a few
magnificent exceptions, of whom Lord Mansfield
is the greatest, English judges having had to ad-
minister a system of unwritten law, except where
it has been modified or created by statute, have
brought to the task an almost superstitious
reverence for decisions, and a determination
to follow out a legal principle to its logical con-
sequences, utterly regardless too often of moral
and practical absurdities therefrom resulting. It
follows that to all men not lawyers, and to most
men that are, there is a multitude of decisions

cess of

deemed too great an undertaking for the Engpeople, there are certain heads of the law which led therton. Such are, for example, the themselves willingly to the great pro law of evidence, the criminal law, the law of real If a complete code be beyond us, por property. tions of it may not be unattainable, and if attained will render the great work easier accomplished. I have said in Parliament, and I here repeat, will endeavour to deal with that if I can in this way the law of evidence next year. Through mass of materials ready to nable amount of trouble

to scientific accuracy

with a sense that

There are, however, many things in our law utterly worthless, to say the best of them, which the labours of others, especially of Mr. Fitzjames which do not work well, and do result in great and diffusive grievances, and these may be handled at once with good hope of success. Such a subject is the law relating to juries. A good system of juries is of infinite importance; our present law works very badly, and occasions a large amount of unjust, oppressive, and entirely needless inconvenience. It is a subject entangled with a multitude of details, and difficult to deal with. But I invite your attention to the Bill upon the subject which it became my duty to endeavour to pass through Parliament this year, as an example of the manner in which I conceive it to be practicable and right to reform the law where it is faulty. If the Bill ever passes-and if I hold office I shall try earnestly that it shall-it will contain the whole law of juries, and will introduce certainly very large, and I hope very useful, alterations into one of the most important of all our institutions. To apply remedies to those things which experience has shown to work injustice is no doubt far less showy, but I think is far more real, than to attempt reconstruction from the very foundation of our judicial system-for which, as it exists, much is to be said, which has great positive advantages, and which I firmly believe with certain obvious modifications, presently to be pointed out, may be made to do the work of the country to the reasonable satisfaction of reasonable men. In speaking of law reform we speak of that which has to do with two things perfectly distinct and separate from each other, not only in idea but in fact. I mean the law itself, and the procedure by which the law is administered. Both may be improved; but the last procedure, is the handmaid of the first, law, and depends upon it. To my mind it is clear that you waste your time upon procedure if you have not clearly before your mind what the law should be, and what changes of principle, if any, you mean to make in it. No doubt you may make a bad law more endurable by administering it well, but if you have any reasonable hope of changing the law itself, and altering it for the better, this s the first step in the law reformer's journey.

for the credit of the law, had best be partly for-
gotten. It is of melancholy interest sometimes to
trace the ingenuity with which courts and judges
have striven to evade the authority of a bad or unjust
decision without in terms questioning its autho-
rity. Take, for instance, the struggle between the
courts as to the extent to which a principal can
take advantage of a mistake or a fraud committed
by his agent. A majority of one court, in a
famous case, where a principal put forward an
ignorant agent to tell a falsehood, by which he
benefited, and the person injured pleaded the
fraud as a fraud of the principal, said there was no
legal fraud. Such an outrageous absurdity is too
much for acquiescence of another court, which
accordingly proceeds to accept the authority of
the case, and at once to distinguish it, while
accepting it, by a line too fine for any but a legal
intellect to see and apprehend. Instances can be
multiplied fiftyfold, but this is enough to show you
what I mean, the worthlessness of a digest, as
compared with a code; for all these decisions will
be preserved in a digest, bad and good, sensible
and foolish alike, and a plain and intelligent
rule, if it can be drawn from them, will still
have to be drawn out by the ingenuity of courts
and judges. But these decisions will disappear
in a code. A code cuts the knot which a digest
leaves to be disentangled. Between two conflicting
principles it selects one, and clearness and sim-
plicity, the two main elements in all good law, are
at once and for ever secured. That the thing can
be done our own times have shown us. Perhaps
the Code Napoleon can hardly be said in strictness
to belong to our own times, but its date is only
just before them. We have ourselves, in the last
few years, enacted for India a code which in many
respects is a model of what such a code should be.
In New York a great code of procedure was
enacted but a few years since, which I under-
stand to have worked to the satisfaction of those
who had to administer it. These examples are
enough to show the possibility, at least, of an
English code. But it will never be made by

Stephens, there is a
hand, which a reaso
would without difficulty mould into a Bill. For
ar before I have done, I
reasons which will appe this subject, but at least
can give no pledge upon
I will try. I have pointed out already how only I
think with any approach harmonious system of
and completeness a single
ed from the present
law and equity can be evol
e denied us, I should
conflict of the two. If that by working with our
wish to try what can be done
w and equity by an
present materials. To fuse la conflict equity shall
enactment that whenever they
prevail, appears to me (I say it I remember the
I may be quite wrong, when lause, an utterly
eminent men who proposed the of dealing with
impracticable and slovenly way nty years of liti
the question. It would take twe
to settle the
gation, ten hecatombs of causestute. I should
meaning of one clause in a sta and to supple-
propose to proceed experimentally might show us
ment the scheme as experience class of court
what was wanted. Clothe each
with the whole jurisdiction of the equity, and
make every court of law a court observe certain
every court of equity a court of law, re bankruptcy,
special jurisdictions such as lunacy, do not in the
and, as now, divorce and probate (Ithese excep-
list enumerate the admiralty), and with plete remedy
tions make every Superior Court a comhis kind was
to the suitors in it. Something of t the great
nearly twenty years ago amongst in the reluc
changes in their procedure forced upclawyers who
tant courts of law. But the great ould none of
then dominated Westminster Hall wreduced the
it. They summarily rejected it, and letter, as in
Act of Parliament to nearly a dead in others, it
this respect, though most beneficial
has remained from that day to this jurisdiction,
them in terms with full equitable I know very
they could not refuse to exercise it. purts have no
well the stock objections-the cort of jurisdic
machinery for exercising another s practice, give
tion. If that turns out to be so ir

other class,

But clothe

it them as they want it. A vice-chancellor trying a horse cause in a court of common law, or the latter court dealing with a suit for winding-up a company, would be respectively unfitted for the subject-matter before them very likely, but first such business as, in its very nature, is unfit for one tribunal will never, as a rule, find its way before it. Next, do what you will, if you alter largely the present system, and make one court and one procedure, there will be a period of transition in which the judges will have to learn their work, and will not all be equally fitted for the discharge of every separate portion of their duty. There is no change to which an ingenious mind which dislikes the change cannot make objections. There are very few objections which do not give way before a resolution to go on in spite of them. To such objections as I have made, and to the like of such objections I answer, Try! Try what now exists already in most of our colonies, make every court a court of law and equity, and see what comes of it. You will find it, I believe, throw an unexpected light upon the nvmber of courts, and the amount of judicial power which the country requires to do its business. Such is the contribution I presume to make to the solution of this vexed question, which has at least the merit of simplicity, which would cost the country nothing, and which, if it failed in practice, would interpose no obstacle to the creation of another system.

1

A Supreme Court of Appeal.

I do not pretend to be able to suggest a simple and perfectly inoffensice amendment of the court of final appeal. Because these amendments are necessarily destructive. But there is no prescription in favour of two or three ennobled lawyers-ennobled often quite as much from political exigency as for legal distinctionsitting in appeal upon and reversing the decisions of all the judges of England; and I think (speaking, I hope, with due respect) that there is not any reason for continuing it, either personal or practical. I do not know what Lord St. Leonards would say now, but I know what Sir Edward Sugden did say in a great work reviewing the decisions of the House of Lords in real property cases. I have no means of knowing what the judges think of recent decisions overruling them, but I know what they thought and said of the Brownlow decision, and one or two others, which, from professional reasons, I refrain from mentioning. Moreover, small as the legal force of the House of Lords is at present, it is subject to continual diminution. Small blame, indeed, to those who can obtain the powers of Lord Cairns and Lord Westbury for obtaining them if they can, for the decision of their private affairs as arbitrators. Most suitors would be glad to be so fortunate. But their absence materially reduces the judicial strength of the court of appeal, and of this small and fluctuating body; and so it is that the court of appeal feels keenly the necessity of cloaking itself with what is in their case the unreal but imposing character of the House of Lords. They keep up the form of a deliberative assembly; the judgments are a debate; the decision is a vote of the House; and so tenacious are they, and from their point of view with good reason, of this utter unreality, that in the last proposal for a reform of the court of appeal, which we owe to Lord Cairns, the tribunal is to report both to the Queen and to the House of Lords, so that the judgment itself is proposed to be in one set of cases technically that of the Queen, in the other that of the House of Lords. Nay, more, a proposition in the select committee by Lord Redesdale, that the House should pass a standing order," Entrusting the hearing of appeals to a committee of peers selected by the House as specially qualified to do that duty," was (it is incredible, but true) negatived without a division. I said it was not easy to prepare a scheme for a supreme court of appeal which should not be open to objections. Yet the field is clear for us. The Judicature Commission, in its first report, pointedly, and of set purpose, abstained from saying a word about the House of Lords. The only scheme before the country is the one proposed by the House of Lords itself, or rather by a select committee of the House, of which committee every lawyer in the House except Lord St. Leonards was a member, though it does not appear that Lord Penzance ever attended. The scheme proposes the creation of a judicial committee, to exercise as far as the hearing goes, the functions of the present Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of the House of Lords, to consist of the Lord Chancellor, four salaried officers at £7000 a year (£1000 a year being added to the original proposition on the motion of Lord Chelmsford), all law lords, the Chief Justices of England and of the Common Pleas, the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Baron, and the Lord Justices of Appeal in Chancery. None but the salaried members are to be obliged to attend more than twenty days in the year, and then only on the summonses of the Lord Chancellor. All the members "with a view," says the report, "to the greater

dignity of the committee, should be Privy Coun-
cillors." With the same view it proceeds to re-
commend that they should be peers. But what
sort of peers-peers for life? No, only while they
remain members of the committee. Peers of
Parliament? No; they may sit and vote in the
committee, but not even sit, still less vote" in
any legislative or other proceedings of the House."
The House is to keep its jurisdiction, and to exer-
cise it through men not worthy to share its digni-
ties and functions. These are to be preserved for
the noble and learned Lords upon whose minds it
has at least been forced that they can no longer
with satisfaction to the public alone discharge
one of the most important of them all. I ought
to add that a proposition to make those who were
to exercise the jurisdiction of the House of Lords
themselves real members of it, was made by Lord
Gray and Lord Redesdale, and was supported by
Lord Salisbury, Lord Derby, Lord Powis, Lord
Romiley, and others; but except Lord Romilly
(Lords Penzance and St. Leonards were not pre-
sent), every other lawyer in the House was against
admitting brother lawyers to the same dignities
and priviliges with themselves. Where have these
noble and learned persons been since they left the
bar? What air have they breathed, what com-
pany have they kept, what waters of oblivion
have they quaffed, that they should suppose that?
any Attorney-General, with one grain of self-
respect, or with the slightest feeling for his great
profession, would make to the House of Commons
such a proposal as this? My suggestion shall be
simple and direct. A court of eight members at
the least, in which Scotland, Ireland, and the
colonies should be represented, and of which all
existing law lords should be ex-officio and unpaid
members, should sit during all the present legal
terms and sittings, in two divisions, if necessary;
and I believe could well dispose of the business
now disposed of by the House of Lords, the
Judicial Committee, and the Exchequer Chamber.
Whether it could also dispose of intermediate
Chancery appeals, I am unable to say with con-
fidence, but I should think it could. One source
of supply for the future, would make the ex-
Lord Chancellors and Chief Justices, whose pen-
sions, whether maintained at their present rate or
reduced-as I think they might be-should be
dependent uutil some given age-seventy, or
seventy-five, perhaps, or until permanent incapa-
city-on some fixed amount of attendance as
members of the court of appeal. I, myself, think
it very important to have on the tribunal of last
resort some members who are not lawyers; but
this is a matter as to which there is a great differ-
ence of opinion.

The Arrangement of Courts.

ments made during the last twenty-five years could possibly have been made; and, further, as far as I can judge, the Government (I speak without distinction of party) neither knows much nor cares much for what lawyers think. But no sensible man can doubt the great importance of such a check, supposing it to exist in part. If possible, in the public interest, its strength should be increased, not lessened; whereas, with the multiplication and decentralization of bars and courts, some diminution of power in the bar and of authority in the court is all but inevitable. I admit all this; and because I admit it, I cannot concur in the present scheme to raise the County Courts somewhat, and make them do the work which our Superior Courts now performed in the provinces. I retain the opinion which, together with Sir Montague Smith, I expressed in March, 1869, either that the present system, which is based on the existing divisions of counties, and which brings justice reasonably near to the houses of suitors, witnesses, and jurymen, should, with some modifications, be continued; or that the present system of circuit should be altogether discontinued, and provincial courts established, with assigned districts, having judges who should go frequent circuits to convenient places within such districts, and with appeal in certain places to the Metropolitan court of appeal. I believe that with a more sensible distribution of the present judicial power, our thirty-one paid judges could do all the work now cast upon them with ease, and with largely increased dispatch and consequent satisfaction to the suitors. But if these arrangements cannot be made (which I deny), then I come, with great reluctance, but I do come, to the conclusion, that England should be broken into provinces, and that there should be provincial courts, sitting in Banco, in the capital of each province, and going frequent circuits within it, as the County Court judges now do.

Need of a Minister of Justice.

Time warns me to refrain from entering upon the subjects of land transfer and registry, as to which, in some place and at some time, I should like to say a word. But there is one subject most intimately connected with law reform on which, as I have a clear opinion about it, and it can be shortly stated, I will speak before I end. The first great law reform I believe to be the creation of a minister who shall really be responsible for the administration of the law and for its amendment. There is such a minister in most foreign countries. There is such a person in many, at least, and those the most important, of our colonial possessions. Nay, there is such a person in substance, though not in name, in Scotland and in Ireland. In England his functions are divided between, and, if performed This subject led me to consider, because it is so at all, are most imperfectly performed by, the intimately connected with it, the very important Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, and the question of the reconstruction of our judicial sys- Attorney-General. The Lord Chancellor is a great tem; as upon those matters which the Judicature judge, he has also a large and troublesome departCommission has dealt with in its recent report on ment of State to administer, and if he underthe character and work of the subordinate tri- takes law Bills he must undertake them at bunals-from which an appeal is to be made such time as the routine, but most important depends obviously the character and work of the work of his court and his department, leaves at court of ultimate appeal. Now, the question his command. The Home Secretary in a country raised, not in terms, but in substance, by this like ours is at least as hard worked as the Lord report, is very grave indeed. Shall we continue, Chancellor, yet upon him recent custom has imas now, a central bar, with central judges sent posed the duty of undertaking many Bills which round the country periodically to do the work, or are certainly more properly the work of a minister shall we have provincial courts, with provincial of justice. The Attorney-General remains: whose judges and a provincial bar, and with only an official work is enormous and of unspeakable imappeal in certain cases to the courts in London. portance, since it is said, at least, that delay in a A grave question, this is. Far more than most law officer's chambers is about to cost the country men think, is involved in maintaining, in even three millions of money, whose private practice raising, if it might be, the character of our ought to be considerable if he is to retain his judges and our bar. The interests of the bar proper weight in the courts and with the profesare the interests of those who have to employ sion, of which he is the head; and whose position, the bar, and the higher the character of its if he is not a man of altogether extraordinary and lawyers, the better, in all ways and in all times, commanding powers, is curiously and completely but especially in troubled times, for the country. inadequate to the functions which some I protest with my whole soul against the mis- expect of him. The Lord Advocate of Scotland chievous and foolish assumption which runs is now a Privy Councillor, and has always been a through too many writings and speeches on this great minister of state. He governs Scotland, and subject, that the object of the whole of the judicial has the weight and authority due to such a posisystem is the cheap and speedy dispatch of the tion. The Irish Attorney-General is a Privy business of suitors. It is one great object; per- Councillor also, but does not govern Ireland, nor haps, taken singly, it is of all the greatest object is he consulted except by the Irish Government, but it is not the only one, it is not to be pursued and if he attends to Parliament has time for the exclusively to the neglect of other objects, very consideration and the carriage of Bills through the great and very important. Cheap law and quick House. The English Attorney-General, alone of decision are purchased far beyond their value at the heads of profession in the three countries, has the expense of incompetence, of unchecked arro- no rank beyond that of the First Queen's Counsel.' gance, of the suspicion, even far less the reality, He is not in the Cabinet; he is not consulted by, of corruption. There is surely great force in what nor does he consult, the Lord Chancellor, and one Mr. Justice Blackburn says, assuming it to be of the very greatest and most powerful Attorneywell founded. The opinion of the Profession, he Generals of modern times told me that he found says, is the only practical check upon the judges, his position in that respect utterly unsatisfactory, and is a real check to any abuse of patronage by for that he often knew nothing whatever of law the Government. I hope what he says is well Bills till he was asked to support them in the founded in all instances. He ought to know as House of Commons. Supposing that I had the to the judges, and if I seem to hint a doubt as to best and most comprehensive measures of law the fact, it is, perhaps, only because our opinion reform ready in my chambers, I should in practice often fails to reach the heights on which they sit. be dependent on the Secretary to the Treasury, If I doubt it as to the Government, I can do no and on such fragments as I could snatch of the more than appeal to legal memories whether, if Prime Minister's time, for any chance of getting this check had had a real existence, many appoint-them understood or recommended to the Cabinet,

men

the subject of local taxation afford, if thoroughly
dealt with, materials for a session by themselves.
I leave all candid men to judge what is the chance
of any great and disputed measure in the House
of Commons in 1873, if these subjects should be
undertaken by the Government. All I can pro-
mise is to do my best, to leave no opportunity
unimproved, and to seize every chance to advance
one or more of the measures which I have recom-
mended to you to-day. One thing I will not do.
I will not bring forward measures I have no chance
of passing, and I will not be guilty of what I
think the littleness of making speeches for the
sake of a spurious popularity, which can only
take up valuable time, and end in nothing. One
word, and I have done. You and all of us have it
in our power to do something to turn the public
apathy on law reform into active and hearty
sympathy. Let me urge you to do what you can.
See very clearly what is the mischief you would
remove. Do not suffer vague and historical phrases
to stand in the place of practical knowledge. See
very clearly also what is the practical remedy you
would propose. The mischief and the remedy being
very clear to your own minds, it is not very hard to
make them clear to others. So, and so only, you
can really help those in Parliament who are in
earnest in the matter; and when law reforms are
carried, as sooner or later they certainly will be,
the credit of them will be due not so much to
those who have sailed upon the current as to those
who have crested its volume and directed its flow.
Forgive me that I have so long detained you, and
forgive me that I have detained you with what
has so ill-occupied your time.

Lord Napier said that after listening, as the
meeting had, with the deepest interest to the
beautiful, graceful, thoughtful, and earnest re-
marks of the learned Attorney-General, he felt
that although it was not the custom of the society
to propose votes of thanks upon such an occasion
as that, he should be ill-discharging his duty if
he did not informally express to Sir John their ap-
preciation of the address which it had been their
privilege to hear. (Applause.)

"And whereas, in despite of the violations of the neutrality of Great Britain committed by the 290, this same vessel, later known as the Confederate cruiser Alabama, was on several occasions political necessity to bring forward. I speak with Britain, instead of being proceeded against as it freely admitted into the ports of colonies of Great out any special information, but it seems to ought to have been in any and every port within me that Irish education, public health, and British jurisdiction in which it might have been local burdens are matters which it is impos. found; sible the Government should not bring for at its first session, the Counter Case and addi- "And whereas the Government of Her Britannic ward next session. The questions arising upon tional documents, correspondence and evidence, Majesty cannot justify itself for a failure in due