ought to be holden, whenever there are criminals, once in three months, or oftener. The quarter-sessions would be relieved from cases of an unpleasant responsibility. The necessity of barristers sitting for the judges-the constitutionality, or at any rate the legality of which may be doubted, though its inexpediency cannot would be done away with: a criminal court of the highest order might be in continual session in the metropolis. Instead of multiplying police officers and expenses, increase the number of judges-render punishment certain and speedy-put justice within the reach of the poor, and half the inducements to roguery would be destroyed.

Originally there was but one Chancellor appointed, or more correctly the Chancery business, of which of course there was not much fell into the hands of the Chancellor and by degrees, it is not very well understood how the Chancery jurisdiction grew to its present extent and magnitude, of which it is not exactly known where the boundaries may be :-for though a Chancellor's conscience may be a more definite thing than it was stated by no mean authority to have been formerly, his powers extend to things not only in esse, but in posse, and he himself seems to be the only judge, where they end. It is sufficient for us to know, however, that there is scarcely a human transaction which may not by some means or other be brought under his cognisance. Surely this is too much for any one man, and is very much at variance with our ancestor's ideas, as appears very clearly from the remonstrances they frequently made against the "extraordinary" writs. In due course the Master of the Rolls came to be a judge, and of late the Vice-Chancellor has been brought " in aid"-humbly be it spoken, making bad worse; as it now seems that after getting through the Vice-Chancellor's Court, it is necessary to wait and know from the Chancellor whether you had any right to go thereNulli deferemus! Why have not additional Chancellors been put on the bench? The Lord Chancellor could still retain his precedence and political functions; and the Chancery need not have been shut, while appeals were hearing in the House of Lords-the new members of the bench would be, properly speaking, judges in Chancery. The decisions of the Court would no longer be the dicta of an individual, but would assume the weight and consistence of law; and as a necessary consequence, Nisi Prius sittings in equity, so loudly called for by the pressure of business, and the convenience of the nation, would be held in the counties. Perhaps the law-courts are much more important than the equitable; and though law ought to be brought to the door of every man, yet for equity, he should travel 3 or 400 miles to

London.

Such an arrangement would no doubt meet a very decided opposition would be considered the worst of radicalism, and many other isms too tedious to mention-by many of the learned gentlemen, especially of those who would be supposed the most competent from their standing, &c. to give an opinion. But there is a difference between knowing the law, and deciding on the best manner of administering it. The "operatives" are not generally the best engineers: they strike out ingenious details, but would scarcely be consulted on extended plans. The truth is, the monopoly in the profession would be in danger the juniors would have a chance. Talents of the first order could not be buried for 10 or 12 years, not to speak of that which never makes its way. Such is not the case at the American bar. Talents and industry, at all superior, are sure to be distinguished,-and this is one of the most forcible causes of the excellence of that body. Its leading members are the elite of the nation. I do not recollect to have seen this insisted on by any of their writers: they probably were not suffi ciently aware of the state of things in this country, for the comparison to strike them. The fee-takers of every description, from the topping solicitor with his continuances, to the exactor of some extra shillings for a "private seal," would probably consider the "Great Diana," whom all their craft worshippeth, in danger: the control of the tail of the profession over its head_would be wofully diminished. It is evident enough that Dr. Lyall has been long out of England, or he would not have considered the conduct of Russian servants and functionaries so very unexampled.

A few simple questions which have nothing to do with law, but it is believed may claim some relation to common sense, will probably set the subject in a clearer point of view. For instance,"

If 4 judges were necessary for the Court of King's Bench a century ago, why are not more necessary now?

If circuits were gradually altered from once in 7 years to twice in one year, why should not the alteration go on?

the

If criminal courts were held in the metropolis oftener than in country, on account of the great press of business, why should they not now be of still more frequent occurrence?

Is the practice of a barrister sitting at Nisi Prius constitutional, at least since the beginning of the late King's reign; and whether or not, do not very serious objections exist, both in theory and practice, against it?

If the Lord Chief Justice has 3, or it may be said 11 judges as his assistants, why should not the Lord Chancellor have assistance also?

If it be necessary to have circuits for common law, why not for equity also?

Questions of this kind might be obviously multiplied, but they may be sufficient for the present, without going into "wherefores" respecting the attorneys' fees for continuances, and for putting their heads into court, or sending their clerks there, term after term→ the barristers' remembrancers-the resealings-the "valuable" causes brought into Court for the mere purpose of delay, which of course are well paid for-waiting 4 or 5 years for the decree that the "Court has no cognisance"--bills of reviver, which at present are in many cases tantamount to a denial of even a hearing no mean aid in making a Chancery suit an inheritance-for whom, and to whose uses and purposes, it is needless to say. It is humbly submitted, that when this subject shall come, as it must come, fairly before Parliament, an attorney, solicitor, and proctor, should be purchased for the national benefit. A few thousands thus spent would be well laid out, as no other means of acquiring a knowlege of their mysteries seems to exist, particularly as regards that branch of the ad libitum taxation-FEES, which stare the unfortunate Englishman in the face at every turning-in the courts of justice, in the attempt to secure to himself the fruits of his talents or ingenuity, in an application to Parliament for a beneficial law. If he has been unjustly incarcerated, either by the Dogberrys, or the first law officer of the kingdom, he may be discharged, on "payment of his fees”—if he finds it necessary to take refuge from misfortune in exile, he can have land granted him in Canada, but on "payment of fees," amounting to more than the fee-simple of the land is really worth-about fourfold, it is said, of the sum for which the American Congress sell theirs.

It would be a great relief to suitors in Chancery, if matters of bankruptcy were detached from it, more or less. The Lord Chief Justice might have a concurrent jurisdiction, or what it is thought would be far better, there might be a separate court, with an appeal to Chancery, or elsewhere.

There is no improvement more simple and obvious than an alteration in conveyancing, and but a single argument can be raised against it; viz. that the interests of a few individuals are opposed most materially to those of the community. Look at the sheets of parchment made use of in conveying, for example, a landed estate. Now the use of the instrument in this case, is, to identify the property and securely distinguish it from the adjacent lands, which, by the bye, is the business of the surveyor, rather than the lawyer; and then, to state the fact that it has passed from the possession of A to that of B, with, sometimes, the conditions and circumstances of the transfer. Now every lawyer knows in how many, or rather in how few, words this can be securely and technically effected; generally speaking, in 5 lines as well as 500.

There might easily be an act of Parliament, establishing certain forms of deeds, bonds, mortgages, leases, &c. containing the necessary words, and stripped of the verbiage, which is continually creating law-suits, and rendering property uncertain; because, forsooth, a conveyancer is paid according to the number of words he can crowd into an instrument. Why should not these forms be given as well as those of warrants, &c. which are of much smaller importance? At present, how many "landed” men are there who could fearlessly permit an inspection of their papers? Are there not very many instances where "possession" is their best title, from the confused, ignorant, or careless manner in which their muniments have been drawn up. It is also worth enquiring, whether some latitude might not be given to the judges for conveying into effect the "intention." As the law now stands, the intent of an instrument may be visible on the face of it, independent of, though perhaps corroborated by, collateral evidence; and yet a technical difficulty may exist, such as to render it a mere nullity, or cause it, like a bursting cannon, to injure those whom it was intended to benefit. This would be no novel principle in our law. In the construction of wills it has been long acted on, the necessity of the case having enforced it. No injury has arisen; and it is not perceived why the proposed extension would not materially subserve the ends of justice.

It is much to be hoped that the digesting of the laws, which has been so ably and usefully commenced, may be persevered in, on a liberal and extensive plan, combining the statute law as it now exists, with the " decisions" on the same subjects, which have the force of law. Increasing the number of judges would materially facilitate such an operation, which certainly in its effects would eventually lighten their labors, by the law being more definite, and more within reach. The digests should pass through their hands before they are submitted to Parliament. No doubt, from the magnitude of such a work, many who perceive its necessity despair of its being effected. But has it not already been successfully begun? where is the difficulty in proceeding to the law of evidence, of real estate, of descents, insurance, exchange, of uses and trusts,' &c.? Three capable barristers might be allotted to each subject, who should present the result of their labors, with the authorities annexed, to the judges for their examination and opinion, after

The law of "uses and trusts" is in a great measure built on a “ dictum ;" viz. that there cannot be a use on a use; which dictum very sound law yers have declared little if at all better than an absurdity: yet it is law, and law it must be till the legislature'shall decide otherwise. This, however, is not the only absurdity in it. The doctrine as regards dower, has also been dignified with the same appellation.

which they should go before Parliament. It should also be competent to the judges to point out where they considered the existing law defective; and an interval of a year might be allowed, during which, if any unintentional omission of, or departure from, the ancient law should be discovered, the old law, under the discretion of the judges, should still be in force, and the necessary alterations made at the next session of Parliament. It is supposed great benefit would arise from embodying in the same manner Chancery decisions of acknowleged authority; and why might not such matters when become law, be taken cognisance of in the courts of law? It is not intended by this indirectly to hint at the abolition of Chancery-far from it-were all its decisions enacted into laws to-morrow, the day after some case would arise requiring its peculiar powers. Years would no doubt be required for the truly Herculean task, as well as for digging a canal, or building Waterloo-bridge, though in the latter cases, that has not been considered a necessary obstacle or even a serious objection. It is not altogether to the national honor either to be behind other nations, both in the new and the old world, in so beneficial an undertaking, as simplifying and giving certainty to the law.

In a well-written article in the Quarterly Review, some time back, the increase of reports, past, present, and to come, was noticed as a nuisance of no small magnitude, and what is still worse, as almost hopeless of remedy. It is truly a melancholy addition to other evils, that it is difficult to know what the law is; it is to be searched for through such a mass of irrelevant matter, and frequently conflicting authorities-even the Judges saying occasionally, "the law is so settled, but it is contrary to our opinions." All this calls loudly for the fixing of the law in some tangible shape, by clearing away the lumber which chokes up the avenues of justice-learned lumber it may be; and those who delight in it may still continue to study its chaos, such being at least as innocent employment as butterfly-hunting, or shell-gathering; but the nation at large cares no more for the one pursuit than for the others. Vast as the work appears, every year would render it lighter-the old Machiavelian maxim, divide et impera, is true for good, as well as for evil. The inhabitant of the wilderness is not discouraged by the number and magnitude of the "cumberers" of the ground, but perseveringly attacks them in detail, receiving eventually the reward of his industry in smiling fields and plentiful harvests.

The process of ejectment, a very serious inconvenience with which landed property is saddled, ought to be abolished; and those venerable personages, Messrs. John Doe and Richard Roe, be allowed to retire, with a pension if necessary, from this branch of their vested rights. This process is expensive, dilatory, and of difficult