than a year has been, Lord Brougham, Lord High Chancellor of England! Nous verrons. The first questions you would of course ask would be, "Have the mode and spirit of your proceedings in the good work been improved ?" "Have the law officers of the crown, under a reforming administration, been instructed to attend to the subjectto lay regularly before parliament the propositions of the boards of inquiry?"-For the expences of these boards, by-the-by, I see no less than 39,000l. voted this year, at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Have those in the administration, to whose care such matters would naturally fall, superseded the former scheme of discordant and heterogeneous law-patching, not only by interposing their advice, but by setting a better example of forming and pursuing a connected plan of operations ?" these questions the answer at present is in the negative. The present Attorney and Solicitor-general trouble themselves far less about the matter than those who went before them; and their superiors appear to follow the old system of each riding, and letting every one else ride, his own particular hobby, his own road and his own pace. Το In the first session (which lasted five months, from November, 1830, to April, 1831) we had, as usual, many projects, but made little way. The bills moved were, with their results, as follows: 1. A bill was quickly passed to amend Sir James Scarlett's act of last session. 2, 3. Sir E. Sugden brought in two bills, the one for amending the statute of frauds, the other as to the attestation of instruments; both were pending at the dissolution in April. 4, 5. Lord Wynford had also pending at the same period, a bill to carry some of the Commissioners' alterations much farther than they proposed; and another bill, of a very honest character, for making absentee landowners pay their debts. 6 to 11. Lord Tenterden, during this and next session, has assumed the practical task of carrying into effect such of the propositions of the Commissioners as he approves. His lordship is a very moderate reformer; things will go but little way if they move no farther than he will carry them; but it is pleasing to see any thing done, and done, too, in a business-like manner. The three of his bills which passed were unquestionably good. -They are, 1. For power to examine witnesses abroad, or otherwise incapable of attendance at the trial. 2. For amending the practice in mandamus and prohibition. 3. The rejected measure of last session, for giving judgment in ordinary cases immediately on verdict. His three bills which fell at the dissolution were, 4. The very questionable proposition of enabling a judge to compel reference to an irresponsible individual of his nomination, if the parties cannot agree. 5. A bill for giving the courts of law power in "interpleader" cases. 6. A bill for altering the law of prescription and limitation. 12 to 17. Mr. Campbell, as head and parliamentary representative of the “Real Property” Commission, but on his own responsibility (the government keeping clear of committing themselves, even in opinion), introduced six bills, which "came like shadows-so departed." 1. A general registration bill. 2. A bill to amend the law of dower. 4. A bill to amend the law of inheritance and descent. 6. A bill to abolish "fines and recoveries." 18. Lord Eldon had a bill for “ amending the bankrupt laws.” What it was and what became of it, I do not trace. Let us hope it was intended to remove the scandalous job perpetrated by his former bankrupt amendment act; which rendered it necessary to have two barristers attending all meetings under.country commissions, and moreover doubled the fees of each; a real grievance and imposition, which Lord Brougham has since left as he found it. 19 to 22. Lord Brougham produced four bills, which found the five months too short for their passage. 1. His local courts' bill;-not since heard of. 2. His bankruptcy court bill. 3. A bill as to the registrars' and masters' offices. 4. A bill to carry into effect some provisions planned by Lord Lyndhurst as to lunatics' estates. 23. A bill by Mr. Freshfield (a solicitor) for amending the bankrupt laws shared the fate of the majority. While this was going on, the rival legislature, created by Sir James Scarlett's act (which enabled eight judges to bind all the courts) began to take upon itself the dealing, as far as its authority enabled it, with insulated, points. The power was primarily intended to enable the judges to reduce the discordant practice of the three courts to uniformity. I before remarked that it would have, perhaps, been wiser that the legislature should itself, with the advice of the Commissioners, have first settled the basis. The first use made by the judges of their power has been to originate plans of reform of their own; and accordingly a series of rules was issued in the summer, taking up and modifying portions of the Commissioners' suggestions. The result was to alter the practice in “bail,” and some other details, and to curtail the forms of " declaration" in ordinary actions. It is good to see the judges disposed to improve the practice of their courts; and improvement, it certainly is, to simplify and shorten pleadings. Yet a reformer may be excused if he doubts whether this be the right way to deal with the subject. Independently of the annoyance to practitioners, occasioned by a continuing series of detached innovations, any such regulations must, without parliamentary assistance, be necessarily very incomplete; nay, they are often of dubious tendency,-sometimes positively injurious, when unconnected with other measures, out of which, in fact, they arise, and without which their efficacy must at least be limited. -- 66 Take an instance; the Commissioners contemplated a bill (which, in fact, has been long drawn, though no one has attended to its progress) for simplifying and rendering uniform all the present varieties of initiatory process," and providing also for relieving suitors from many of the restrictions and hindrances in the way of justice, imposed by the "terms." Assuming this done, it naturally followed, that the plaintiff being no longer obliged to hasten forwards so fast, a defendant might be indulged with some locus pænitentiæ some interval between the service of process upon him and "declaration"-so as to prevent proceedings being precipitated to increase costs. In framing their new rules the judges seized on the last idea, and required all plaintiffs, under all circumstances, to wait six days between "service" and "declaration," not even allowing a party to proceed at his own risk of costs. So that (there being no concurrent relaxation of the restraints of term) every plaintiff's position is, for the protection of some defendants from occasional vexation, enormously deteriorated. In distant, parts of the country he, in short, loses one-third of the term, already inconveniently short. Again, as to the shortening of pleadings; the Commissioners proposed to accomplish this as part of a new system of pleading, having for its object to cut off much useless evidence, by putting in issue something like the real point in dispute. As abbreviating the forms would render necessary a new standard of remur eration to practitioners, (they being at present paid on a most impolitic scale, that of length), and as the alteration in the substance of pleadings would vary the stages in which certain responsible duties would have to be discharged, the Commissioners meant to remodel the whole system of costs, and to adopt one applicable to the new state of things. The judges meantime seize on the mere pro position of shortening declarations, dropping all attempt (perhaps from want of authority) to reform the general scheme of pleading, and taking no notice at all of the subject of costs. A new scale of the latter is of course in preparation. But it will be one which must be again altered hereafter; because the views of the Commissioners, on which they would frame the eventual standard, do not apply to the present change; which merely substitutes one number of words for another, and has no relation to ulterior and more important objects. The opening of the Court of Exchequer has operated very little in relief of the Court of King's Bench, or towards an equal distribution of business. From the want of cotemporaneous reform in the Common Pleas, the Exchequer has gained at the expence of that court, which rather wanted business, than had it to spare; and, moreover, the efficiency of the Court of Exchequer, both in its equity and common law branches, is impaired by the want of effectual separation of the two departments. Nothing can be more absurd, than that it should have one over-worked judge, and four men of leisure. LETTER IX. January, 1832. A second parliament having been called, its first session lasted four months from June to October; and once more the mushroom tribe thrust forth their heads, as follows: 1, 2. Sir Edward Sugden is early at his post and produces his bills of last session; but again they are unable to make their way. 3, 4. Lord Wynford's two bills are also in the field; the one directed towards compelling absentee landowners to pay their debts, was successfully opposed by the Whig Chancellor of Ireland. The other bill was pending at the session's close. 4 to 6. Lord Tenterden brought forward his three dropped bills of last session of these the Interpleader" bill. (an excellent measure) is now passed. " 7 to 12. Mr. Campbell opened his budget of six bills; with the same success as before. 13. Mr. Freshfield also again failed with his bill. 14. An act passed, amending Sir R. Peel's "Fees bill." 15. Lord Brougham moved, I think, through one stage towards the end of the session, a bill of reform in some of the Chancery offices, of which nothing more has been heard. 16. He succeeded in passing his "Bankruptcy Court bill." The mode in which this bill found its way into the statutebook, is, independent of any question of merits, very illustrative of our mode of proceeding. From the beginning of July to the end of September it was pending or sleeping in the Lords; till at length the House of Commons had about a fortnight allowed it, in autumn (at a period when the House never sits, and never would have sat, but for the extraordinary occasion of the reform bill), to proceed de die in diem, parliament being kept together for the purpose; the ministry obviously exerting all its strength to carry it, as it became an important point not to lose such a measure of their own, after their defeat on the reform bill; and the country, open-mouthed at any arguments, bad or good, which emanated from the only persons likely to discuss the measure, because they came from the ranks of those who had opposed the great project of reform. Was it likely that a bill of this sort could, under such circumstances, be fitly discussed on its own merits? But it seems fated, that even such subjects as the improvement of the administration of justice must either be neglected, or canvassed amidst the halloos of contending parties. So high was the excitement carried, that the Lord Chancellor did not scruple to reply, nightly, in his place, to the arguments of the preceding evening in the other house; all this operating of course so fiercely through the newspapers, that I verily believe many fancied the bankruptcy bill as vital as Lord John Russell's. As to the bill itself, which was so needlessly made the subject of all this precipitancy, and of which I send you a copy that you may judge for yourself, I do not feel inclination to say much. Though a ricketty bantling, at present the wonder of Westminster Hall, its parentage entitles it to respect. While we may lament that so much energy was not exerted to better purpose, we cannot dispute that the motives which originated it were good. The reformer laments to see the time in which so much good might be done, passing away in such projects, and justly fears that they will bring discredit and distrust upon better measures. Should the present administration unfortunately be unseated, I cannot help thinking that those among it who take an interest in the subjects of the last five years' inquiries and discussions, will have something to answer for in neglecting the golden opportunity. What do we gain by Lord Brougham's extended means of usefulness, if he employs them only to emulate Lord Wynford in trying to rear up showy superstructures of his own, on foundations which both profess to laud, and both omit to give any assistance in laying? There is no doubt that our late system of town administration of the bankrupt law, as carried on by seventy commissioners, had become justly obnoxious to public reprobation, as not only inconvenient in itself, but as leading to impunity for other abuses. It is equally clear that the grand mischief might have been remedied, at a great saving too to the public, by the reduction of |