pendent and representative; the attempts of the feudal lords to repress sub-infeudation on the part of their retainers; the efforts of the Church to acquire land in perpetuity; the development of commerce from a simple system of barter; the reformation of the Church; the prerogative of the Crown; the personal liberty of the subject-these and a host of other subjects of national importance cannot be fairly discussed without continual reference to the Book of Statutes. And more than this, the very fact that the constitution itself is the development of centuries, every portion of which has been won on a battle-field of no ordinary struggle, whilst the statutes now in force have been from time to time supplied by the incoherent efforts of every class of legislator, lawyer and layman alike, has been one of the best guerdons of England's freedom and England's greatness. The result as a whole may not be so satisfactory to the philosopher as any of the codes framed either by Roman or French casuists; but there is inherent in our system a practical utility which more than compensates for its informality. Meanwhile, no one can be blind to the inconvenience caused by the enormous bulk and heterogeneous character of our Statute Book. Even three centuries ago this was so manifest, that King Edward VI. wrote:

"I have showed my opinion heretofore what statutes I think most necessary to be enacted this session; nevertheless, I could wish, that beside them hereafter, when time shall serve, the superfluous and tedious statutes were brought into one sum together, and made more plain and short, to the intent that men might better understand them, which thing shall much help to advance the profit of the Commonwealth."

Much has been done, more is being done, in the way of repealing obsolete and useless statutes, and before long we may hope to be exempt from the dangers of those pitfalls of the Statute Book which Mr. Holland has so graphically described that I am tempted to transcribe the passage :-*

"A scene occurred the other day," he writes in July, 1869, "in the Court of Common Pleas, which ought to be impossible in a civilized country. . . An action was brought by one Susan Varley against the publisher of the Daily Telegraph, for penalties. The plaintiff's case was that the Telegraph had inserted certain advertisements, by which inquiry was made for goods which had been stolen, and in which the owners undertook that if the goods were returned no proceedings should be taken against the thieves, such advertisements

* Essays upon the Form of the Law, p. 153,

being illegal, as tending to the compounding of felonies. The jury was sworn, the judge was all attention, and the plaintiff's counsel told his story with all due elaboration. Witnesses were called

to prove that the copies of the Daily Telegraph produced were really copies of the periodical which emanates from 135, Fleet Street, and that the proper persons had been sued for the delinquencies of that journal. The witnesses were duly cross-examined, the regulation jokes were bandied about, and a laugh' was of course raised, when inquiries were made as to the real existence and the habits of the plaintiff; 'did she,' for instance, live up two pair of stairs?' The case looked very black for our lively contemporary when the counsel for the defendant rose and made an objection to the evidence. The judge did not think much of this. The learned counsel had, however, a further objection which certainly seemed to go to the root of the matter. He submitted that the statute upon which the action was founded had been repealed by the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 27. ... Everybody seems to have been taken aback. The counsel for the plaintiff, who had so far steered their case triumphantly, must have been especially nonplussed. The leader must have turned sharply round on his junior, and some elementary work on criminal law must have been in instant demand.

The plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Robinson, said that his attention had not been before drawn to the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 27, and that he had not been aware of its contents.' The judge observed that this was no discredit to the learned serjeant, for Lord Coke himself said that he did know all the statute law, though, he added, that he should be ashamed to say that he did not know all the common law. He (Mr. Keating) must say he did not know the statute of Geo. IV.' And even the defendant's counsel, Mr. Giffard, the lucky discoverer of the awkward fact, was kind enough to say that he would not say how long he had known it.' Then Mr. Serjeant Robinson added, that he was informed that this matter had been thoroughly investigated, and that the provision upon which the action was founded had not been repealed.' Mr. Justice Keating remarked, that the statute of Geo. IV. stated in the preamble that it was expedient that certain Acts, and parts of Acts, enumerating among others the one sued on, should be repealed, in order that the provisions contained in them might be amended and consolidated into one Act. Now the question was, had they been consolidated into one Act? It certainly looked like a provisional repeal. He thought that the case was clear enough upon the facts, and that the question of law should be further looked into.' After some more discussion, the judge was inclined to direct a formal verdict for the plaintiff, but the defendant's counsel pointed out that 'even if his lordship's impression were well founded, that the enactment still existed in another statute, that would not entitle the plaintiff to recover, for he expressly founded his action upon the statute named in the declaration; and no judge, he apprehended, would amend in such a case.' Eventually a formal verdict was entered for the defendant, with leave to the plaintiff's counsel to move the full court to vary the verdict in accordance with what might be held to be the true state of the law.

The court was moved accordingly, but refused to amend the declaration."

Now, I will not attempt to discuss the questions, whether we may expect to have a complete and systematic code of law incorporating all the statutes-to say nothing of the judgemade laws of the past-and whether such a codification would be a desirable consummation, though I may be permitted to express grave doubts respecting the utility of either proposal, but I will venture to point out a system of reform which might, I think, be adopted with great advantage by our legislators.

I pass by the inconvenience resulting from the mixture of general, fiscal, temporary, English, Scotch, Irish, colonial, and private enactments in our general Statutes. This subject has already received a considerable share of attention, and the remedy will no doubt be as speedily, as it may easily be applied. Indeed, it may be considered a necessary sequence to the present labours of the Statute Law Commissioners.

A more important reform is still urgently needed. Every lawyer knows the difficulty of wading through a mass of repealed and partially repealed Statutes in order to arrive at a clear perception of the actual law upon any point under discussion. The frequent publication of new editions of approved text-books to some extent meets the difficulty, but in many cases even this assistance cannot be had; and whenever it is desired to determine the state of the law a few years back, without text-books of the actual date in question, the task becomes exceedingly laborious. I may mention as a familiar instance, the law relating to mortmain, the whole of which might readily be gathered up into one short statute, containing a dozen or twenty sections, but for which it is now necessary to study as many separate and conflicting Acts. In fact, hardly a single important statute is passed without a schedule containing a long series of Acts and sections of Acts only partially repealed. So inveterate has this custom become, that the purchaser of the revised edition of the Statutes issued by the direction of the Commissioners must needs go through the volumes only just published, pencil in hand, striking out sections and portions of sections of Acts repealed since their issue. Of this the August and September parts of the Statutes, printed for the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, containing the Universities Test and the Promissory Oaths Acts, supply abundant proof. I will only mention two. Under the former Act, so much of the 6th section of the Act of Uniformity is now repealed as is unrepealed, together with sections 13 and 16, except so far as it relates to the colleges of Westminster, Winchester, and

Eton, or any governor thereof; and under the latter, section 1 of the Act of Elizabeth, relating to the swearing of undersheriffs and others, is repealed from the words, "for and concerning the supremacie " to the words "other corporal othe," together with so much of section 3 as relates to the "othe of supremacie." The result can only be, that with future volumes of the series of Revised Statutes must be supplied a long catalogue of minute errata, with careful notes, and who that is in the habit of noting up such memoranda does not know the labour that this will entail? Add to this, that it is impossible, without the most attentive consideration of every portion of an Act, to incorporate with it another without in some minute detail either providing what is inconsistent with the original enactment, or re-enacting the original provisions.

In proof of this I need only refer to the numerous Acts during late years passed for the relief of Trustees, and containing directions as to the investment of trust funds, and I may be forgiven for quoting at length the preamble to the Debenture Stock Act, which immediately follows the Universities Test Act already cited. It runs as follows:

"Whereas by divers Acts of Parliament, and more particularly by the Companies Act, 1863, and the Acts amending the same, companies authorized to issue debenture stock are empowered to raise by means of such stock all moneys which they may for the time being be authorized to raise on mortgage or bond; And whereas doubts are entertained whether it is lawful for trustees, who may be authorized to invest trust funds in the mortgages or bonds of companies to invest such funds in debenture stock; Be it enacted, &c."

Why, in the name of reason, should not the framers of the Bill have prepared a short summary of all the Acts relating to the investment of trust funds, and consolidated them into one for general practical use? The student of no other subject, so far as I am aware, has so needless, so puzzling a difficulty besetting his path. The surgeon is not obliged in the daily discharge of his professional duties constantly to use works written before Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood, nor is the temper of the young classical scholar tried by lexicons and histories of old date, only adapted to modern learning by long and conflicting supplements. It is the lawyer alone, boastful though he is of logical clearness and acumen, that submits to so unphilosophical, so confusing a system as that which we have described.

Briefly, to summarize the reforms which are specially needed in addition to those projected by the Statute Law Commissioners, I venture to propose

(1.) That no mere portion of a Statute should in future be repealed, but that in case of a reform being required the whole Statute should be remodelled to meet the special exigencies of the case and re-enacted. If it is objected that the bulk of the annual issue of the Statutes would be enormously increased by the adoption of such a system, I think it would be found, on examination, that if the issue was simply confined to enactments of a really public nature, this difficulty would not arise. Even in the present entangled state of the law, it is utterly surprising how the existing Statute Law has been condensed into Chitty's four volumes of compendium.

(2.) That at the expiration of each session of Parliament, the Commissioners* should direct their attention to such Bills as have passed into law, with a view to advising the law officers of the Crown thereon, so that in the ensuing session other measures should be brought forward to consolidate and render easily intelligible the Statutes affected thereby. This would be, in fact, to supersede the labours of the numerous class of aspirants, who are only too pleased to find in a crude and hastily-framed Bill, receiving the royal sanction, a justification for adding to the already numerous and costly series of the textbooks of English law. In making this proposal, I am only claiming for the framers of our Statutes the privilege so readily conceded to writers upon every conceivable subject when second and succeeding editions of their works afford them an opportunity of correcting the errors which their own researches or the criticisms of the learned have exposed. The importance of pursuing the same course with the Statutes will be evident to any one who reflects upon the hasty manner in which, session after session, important Bills are pressed through the Committees of our Houses of Parliament, and how immediately afterwards all the ingenuity of our profession is engaged in discovering their weak points. The danger is year by year increasing, and the necessity for a remedy grows more and more imperious. ROBERT W. GRIFFITH.

VII.-SANITARY LEGISLATION-THE PUBLIC HEALTH BILL, 1872.

THER THERE is on the Col de Bonhomme a cairn of stones, said to mark the place where a great lady and her suite perished in a tourmente of snow on this bleak Swiss mountain. Every one who passes by the way adds to the heap a stone.

*The Commission, it is understood, is now dissolved, having completed its functions since this article was written,