from and evolution of the unassisted methods which the practical experience of publishers has already in part devised. Nor is the partition of the copyright into the dominium strictum of the proper author and the dominium utile of the first republisher, a distinction that is either novel or impracticable; for indeed the times in which we live are already such and are increasingly becoming such as necessitated the like distinctions in the Roman jurisprudence-when the foreigner was raised to an equality with the citizen in respect of all property matters, through the useful fiction of the uti or quasi rights which were allowed him, and the uti or quasi actions which were accorded to him for their vindication."

IV. THE LATE EDWIN WILKINS FIELD.

MR.

The

[R. EDWIN WILKINS FIELD was born at Leam, near Warwick, on October 12, 1804. His father, the Rev William Field, the friend and biographer of Dr. Parr, was for many years a dissenting minister at Warwick, and kept a school, which attained a considerable reputation. There are many still living who remember his fine vigorous old age. mother, whose maiden name was Mary Wilkins, was a woman of remarkable spirit and energy. Mr. and Mrs. Field had a large family, of whom Edwin was the eldest. John Field, the father of the Warwick minister, was a medical practitioner in the City of London, and founder of the London Annuity Society. He married Anne, the great-granddaughter of Henry Cromwell, son of the Protector.

Having been educated at his father's school, Edwin W. Field was articled, on March 19, 1821, to Messrs. Taylor and Roscoe, solicitors, then of King's Bench Walk, Temple. The late Joseph Parkes persuaded the parents to risk sending their son to London, and the trouble he took in the matter was always remembered with gratitude. Towards both of the heads of the firm the pupil entertained strong feelings of regard, which increased with the lapse of years. With Mr. Robert Roscoe, whose father was William Roscoe, of Liverpool, the author of "The Life of Lorenzo di Medici," he was brought into close personal relations by residing in his house for some years after coming to London; and with this "dear old master," as he was wont to call him, he was on intimate terms till the close of Mr. Roscoe's life in 1850.

Owing to the custom, now discontinued, of evening consultations at barristers' chambers, the hours of attendance at business used to be much longer than they are at present; but throughout the period of his clerkship, and during the early years of his professional practice, Mr. Field made a point of devoting several hours in the day to professional reading, sitting up far into the night, if his other duties or occupations rendered it necessary. From the 1st of April, 1823, to the 5th of August, 1825, he kept a journal, which gives a clear impression of his way of life. His industry may be judged of by one entry: "Perdidi diem. I did nothing before breakfast, nothing at dinner, nothing at tea, and very little in the evening." At another time he says he must consult his "lawgiver," as to whether he might not have half an hour after midnight "for writing, gymnastics, and prayers." His principal companions were Bryant, who died of consumption in 1825, W. Sharpe (afterwards a partner), H. Roscoe, James Booth, Yate Lee, C. Fellows (afterwards Sir Charles), M. Pearson, T. F. Gibson, Baron Field, Crompton (afterwards Mr. Justice Crompton), William and Henry Enfield, and James Robinson (afterwards of the firm of Lowndes and Robinson, of Liverpool). With Bryant, W. Sharpe, and Robinson, successively, he was in the habit of reading law; and at one time he and several of his young legal friends used to meet at one another's rooms for the purpose of discussing knotty points of law, and of acquiring the power of public speaking.

In his general reading, "the standard of knowledge which his secret thoughts formed for him," included, in addition to an acquaintance with the chief English writers, increased facility in reading Latin, French, and Italian (they were all taught in his father's school), and some knowledge of the most distinguished writers in these languages. On one occasion, when he was at the house of a friend, and was going to church with the family, his friend said, "I am sorry that the only spare prayer-book we have is in Italian." The reply was, " That will do."

The great activity of his mind showed itself, from the first, in the earnest practical interest he took in a wide range of subjects. He found time to help Mr. Roscoe in the editorship of a monthly periodical, the Palladium, translating Italian sonnets for it, and writing notices of recent books. The diary contains, moreover, modest references to original poetry and readings on chemistry and geology.

Desirous for his father's sake to avoid unnecessary expense, and busy, too, with his own pursuits, he appears to have indulged very little in London amusements. The recreations e was most fond of were those of swimming and boating

in the Thames. He writes, "Swam from Waterloo to Blackfriars Bridge, and could have gone twice as far with the greatest ease;" and several boating parties are described with manifest zest.

In the Michaelmas term of 1826, Mr. Field was admitted an attorney and solicitor, and shortly afterwards commenced business in Bread Street, Cheapside, in partnership with his former fellow-clerk, Mr. W. Sharpe. There had been some question of his settling in Warwick, near his native place; and he attributed his determination to remain in London to the advice of his friend, Mr. James Booth, then entering on his career as a barrister. The first clerk of Messrs. Sharpe and Field was Henry Ellwood, who remained with Mr. Field, and was greatly and increasingly valued and esteemed by him, till they died together through the same accident. In 1830 or '31 the firm of Sharpe and Field removed from Bread Street to the Old Jewry, where it made steady progress. Meanwhile, Mr. Roscoe having retired from practice on account of the state of his health, Mr. Taylor had associated with himself Mr. James Turner, nephew of the late Lord Justice Turner, and the late well-known conveyancer, Francis Turner, and of Sir Charles Turner, a retired Master of the Court of Queen's Bench. Soon, however, Mr. Turner's health also failed; and in 1835 overtures were made by Mr. Taylor, which ended in Messrs. Sharpe and Field becoming partners in the firm in which they had both been articled clerks. But there were already in Mr. Taylor himself the seeds of fatal disease, and in 1838 he died, at the early age of forty-six, at the head of one of the most extensive agency houses in London.

In the following year we find Mr. Field ardently giving his mind to the subject of Law Reform, in which his labours have been so honourable to his profession, and so beneficial to the public. Before Mr. Field was admitted an attorney and solicitor, the attention of the profession and of the public had been especially drawn to the state of the Court of Chancery, the costs and delays of which were such as to amount to an absolute denial of justice in many cases falling exclusively within its jurisdiction. In reforming the procedure of the Court, it was necessary to begin with the Six Clerks' Office. The Six Clerks were in early times the only persons who were allowed to practise in the Court of Chancery; it being supposed that by restricting the number of legal practitioners in the various courts the growth of litigation would be effectually checked. The business of the Court did, however, increase, and the Six Clerks had clerks appointed under them, called Sworn Clerks, or Clerks in Court, the number of whom was finally limited to sixty. By degrees the whole of the

business came to be transacted by the Sworn Clerks, who acted in the names of the Six Clerks, sometimes without even knowing one of them by sight.

Such was the state of things when a Commission was appointed to report on the Court of Chancery. The report, which was made in 1826, was without much effect; for it failed, as Mr. Field afterwards, in 1840, pointed out, to show how large a saving there would be in the expense of a Chancery suit, if the Six Clerks' Office and the intervention of the Sworn Clerks were abolished. During the Chancellorship of Lord Brougham, in 1832 and 1833, several Acts were passed with a view to certain improvements; but the larger plans, which his lordship contemplated, were not carried out. Further legislation on the subject took place in 1840, 1841. Still the Clerks in Court remained untouched, as likewise the mode of transacting the business in the Six Clerks' Office.

Early in 1840, Mr. Field published on the subject a pamphlet, which, by its vigorous arguments and excellent suggestions, attracted much attention. This pamphlet, seconded by other writings of his in periodicals, and by conversations with persons of influence, seems to have been a main cause of the passing of the Act of 1842, by which the Six Clerks and Sworn Clerks were abolished, and the solicitors themselves were enabled to do the business which they had previously been compelled to do through others. The effect of these changes was an immense improvement in the practice of the Court, and paved the way for further changes, by which the Court of Chancery has been greatly improved in regard both to efficiency and to economy.

In 1841 the Court of Exchequer, as a Court of Equity, was abolished, and two additional Vice-Chancellors of the Court of Chancery were authorized. These alterations also had been advocated, and their necessity pointed out, in the pamphlet of 1840.

Another law reform, in which Mr. Field took a most prominent part, had for its object to facilitate the winding up of the affairs of joint-stock companies and other partnerships. An Act for this purpose was passed in 1844, but was found to be inadequate. Mr. Field's attention was called to the subject by his own experience of the practical impossibility of winding up the affairs of companies in several instances in which he was employed professionally. A scheme for a winding up Act was submitted to the Board of Trade by Mr. Field and Mr. Rigge (then of the firm of Ambrose Lace and Co., of Liverpool, and formerly in Mr. Field's office). In 1848 an Act was passed, embodying substantially all the clauses proposed, and was supplemented by another Act the next year; and though both these Acts were repealed by the Com

panies' Act of 1862, their provisions had been found to work in so satisfactory a manner that they were adopted in that Act and in the subsequent legislation on the subject.

Though the Six Clerks' Office had been done away with, the Office of Master in Chancery remained, and was productive of great delay and expense to the suitors. Mr. Field expressed a most decided opinion that the only effectual remedy was the total abolition of the office, and the performance of the Master's duties by the judge in chambers, or by clerks under his immediate direction. A report of the Incorporated Law Society, in 1851, strongly recommended this and many other changes; and to the preparation of materials for that report Mr. Field devoted himself with untiring industry and perseverance. The Acts of 1852, by which this great reform was accomplished, are based on the recommendations of a Royal Commission, appointed in 1850. In 1851, Mr. Field gave evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons on the subject of a limitation of the liability of shareholders in joint-stock and other companies and partnerships.

A Commission appointed, in 1853, to inquire into the whole matter, sent to him amongst others a series of thirty-two questions. This led to his publishing a pamphlet of ninety-six pages, dedicated to his old friend, Mr. James Booth, Secretary of the Board of Trade, in which he enters into an elaborate consideration of the subject.

In a paper read by Mr. Field at the Annual Meeting of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, in 1846, he dwells on two matters, on which he himself felt strongly. The first is the exclusion of attorneys from the Bar, in regard to which he contrasts England with the United States, in which every lawyer may plead in court and address the jury, and if successful in his career, may be raised to the Bench. The second is the present system of legal remuneration, which, he maintained, offers a premium for lengthiness and incompetency, and fines brevity and efficiency. This subject was brought forward by him on various occasions. The matter was taken up by the Incorporated Law Society, and a committee appointed, of which Mr. Field was a member, with a to practical suggestions. Communications extending over several years took place on the subject between the Society, the Master of the Rolls, and the Lord Chancellor. The result was an improvement in the old system, but not what he was anxious for the radical change of a system on a par with that on which doctors used to be paid in proportion not to the time and skill devoted to the recovery of the patient, but to the quantity of physic inflicted on him.

view

In connection with the subject of remuneration for legal