services, the anomalies of the present system in regard to taking counsel's opinion did not escape his notice.

In February, 1851, Mr. Field was nominated one of a Royal Commission to inquire into "the Constitution of the Accountant-General's Department of the Court of Chancery, the Forms of Business therein, and the Provisions for the Custody and Management of the Stocks and Funds of the Court." Mr. Field was, as usual, most active in prosecuting these inquiries, the results of which were embodied in an exhaustive report, in 1846.

Such are the chief special subjects which engaged Mr. Field's attention with a view to an improved condition of the legal profession and a more effectual administration of the law. But those who are well acquainted with his writings can hardly have failed to perceive that, even more than any single improvement, however important, he had at heart a work without which all other improvements would be, after all, only a kind of patching up of the legal system of this country. Distinguishing between the principles of law, or jurisprudence, and the application of these principles, or procedure, he directed his attention more particularly to the latter, as that which most needed a thorough reconsideration at the present time; and the vision which floated before his mind was nothing less than that of raising into an inductive science what now is a most unsystematic, heterogeneous thing, wanting solidarity, harmony and consistency. As early as 1841 he published some articles in the Legal Observer, which were afterwards printed in a separate form under the title of "Judicial Procedure an Inductive Science." In 1843 the subject was pursued in the Westminster Review, and again, in a separate pamphlet in 1857. And in 1870, in a pamphlet entitled "Observations on the High Court of Justice Bill," he offers, as he says, what would "most likely be his last contribution to a subject which had long been one of interest to him.

With his mind fully possessed by such ideas, it was a matter of course that Mr. Field should ardently take up the subject of a proposed concentration of all the courts of justice and their offices in a convenient neighbourhood. This subject, it is believed, was first debated in Parliament in 1822, and since that time it has been repeatedly brought before both the Parliament and the public. In 1841 and 1842 evidence was taken before a Select Committee of the House in regard to the removal of the Law Courts to the neighbourhood of the Inns of Court. Before this Committee Mr. Field was examined. In 1859 a Royal Commission was appointed to report upon the subject, and before this Commission also Mr. Field was among those who were ex

amined in evidence. This Commission reported in favour of the concentration of the courts in a building, or group of buildings, to be erected on what is known as the Carey Street site.

The Acts of Parliament of 1865, authorising this measure, were owing in no small degree to Mr. Field's energetic exertions-exertions begun upwards of thirty years before, while he was still a young man, and continued with all his characteristic vigour and devotion through the intervening years. His evidence given before the House of Commons Committee, appointed in the earliest stage of the agitation, furnished then, and continued to furnish to the last, the chief arguments in favour of concentration. In pursuance of these Acts, a Royal Commission was issued to obtain and approve a plan upon which the new courts should be built. By this Commission Her Majesty appointed her "trusty and well-beloved Edwin Wilkins Field" to be the Secretary to the Commission. It is the usual practice to pay the secretary for his services, but Mr. Field's heart was in the work, and at the first meeting of the Commission he requested that he might be allowed to act as honorary secretary without remuneration. "No other arrangement, he said, "would be satisfactory to him." He zealously discharged all the laborious and responsible duties of secretary, conducting a voluminous correspondence, ascertaining the accommodation required for the judges and officers of the several courts, the most convenient position of rooms for counsel, solicitors, jurors, and witnesses, and the internal approaches to the several courts and offices, and innumerable other details of great importance to the completeness of the work. He was indefatigable also in the preparation of the very elaborate instructions which were issued to the competing architects, and in the subsequent examination of the various plans; and the Report of the Commission, which gave a very accurate account of all the important work done, was drawn by him. In short, for three years, or until the work of the Commissioners was virtually completed, the duties of his secretaryship occupied his incessant attention, and had precedence of everything else.

The firm of which he was the head were appointed, by the Board of Works, solicitors for acquiring the site for the new courts, and under his vigorous superintendence a very short space of time sufficed for clearing the ground on which the public and the legal profession are now anxiously hoping to see the new courts begun without further delay.

In the foregoing account one legislative measure, in which Mr. Field took the most lively interest, has been purposely left out, because his interest in it arose more from his religious feelings and convictions than from any mere legal considera

tions. He was brought up amongst the English Presbyterians, who, as a body, had by imperceptible degrees become Arians and Unitarians, without at any time allowing differences of opinion to interfere with the fullest adherence to liberty of conscience. To this religious body Mr. Field belonged during the whole of his life. In 1813 the clauses which had excluded Unitarians from the benefit of the Toleration Act were repealed by an Act which "passed through both Houses of Parliament without a division, or even a debate." These clauses, however, were found afterwards to possess a "posthumous vitality," which threatened to render them practically more injurious than they had ever been before their repeal. In the well known Lady Hewley case, it was held by the judges, and ruled by the lords, that no endowment could be regarded as intended in favour of a form of worship which the law did "not tolerate at the time of the endowment, and that this original defect was not cured by any subsequent legalisation of the same form of worship." It resulted from this that the chapels, burial-grounds, and religious property of the anti-Trinitarians, derived from their forefathers, and upheld and added to by themselves, were held by a title which would not be treated as valid in a court of justice. A number of leading men among those whose most cherished possessions were threatened, met together to confer on what should be done. Mr. Field's suggestion, that the only remedy was an Act of Parliament, was at first regarded rather as a dream of his sanguine temperament, than as a practical suggestion which could be carried out. But through the indefatigable labours of a number of earnest men, under Mr. Field's leadership, and through the careful and vigorous attention of the members of the Cabinet under Sir Robert Peel, and the thorough way in which Sir William Follett (then Attorney-General) made himself master of the subject, the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, which was applied for in 1842, and the object of which was "the full liberty of private judgment, unfettered by the accident of ancestral creeds, and protected from all inquisitorial interference," received in 1844 the royal assent, and became a part of the law of the land.

While this matter was going on, an information was filed against the trustees of Dr. Williams's library, on the ground that they did not represent the theological opinions of the founder. In this case, also, Mr. Field's religious zeal and legal ability were alike manifest. He drew up an elaborate historical memorial, to be laid before the Attorney-General, and himself replied to the arguments urged, before the Attorney-General, by two eminent counsel, who argued the case on the opposite side. The considerations thus laid before

the Attorney-General led him to stay all further proceedings.

After the passing of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, a considerable sum of money was raised with the view of presenting to Mr. Field some testimonial in acknowledgment of the great services rendered by him in connection with the Bill. But he was unwilling to accept for his personal use the money which was raised, and at his request it was applied to the rebuilding of the Rosemary Chapel at Kenilworth, at which his aged father was then the minister.

Of the Incorporated Law Society Mr. Field was a member, and his partner, Mr. Sharpe, was on the Council. Of the Law Amendment Society, established in 1844, he was an active and zealous member from, it is believed, its commencement. The Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, which held its first meeting in 1848, had his warm sympathy and hearty cooperation; its object being "to promote the interests of suitors by the better and more economical administration of the law, and to maintain the rights and increase the usefulness of the profession." He attended most of the annual meetings, and very often read at them papers, several of which were printed by the Association. After his death the Committee, of which he had been a member from the birth of the Association, passed a resolution, expressing their deep regret at the loss of their colleague. The Council of the Incorporated Law Society also bear their testimony to "the energetic assistance at all times rendered by him to uphold the character and interests of the profession, to promote improvements in the law and amendments in its practice;" and add that, "with the concentration of the Courts of Justice, and the selection of the site now fixed upon for their erection, the name and services of Mr. Field will always be inseparably connected." The directors of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association, of which he was a member, and one of the founders, bear a similar testimony to "his zealous and efficient co-operation in many important works interesting to the profession.

Of Mr. Field as a leading partner in one of the most eminent legal firms in London, it is not necessary that much should be said. The position he occupied, and the confidence placed by his clients in his great ability-in his doing the best that could be done, even in the most difficult cases, are too well known to require any lengthened reference here. It is also well known that some years since the firm became two-Sharpe, Jackson, and Co., forming one, and Field and Roscoe (the son of his old master), the other, and that the latter were afterwards joined by Mr. Basil Field and Mr. Francis.

The relation between Mr. Field and his clerks was of an unusually cordial and confidential kind. About 1858 his

"hundred clerks and pupils" presented him with his portrait. The feeling which this tribute excited in him may be shown in fewest words by an extract from a letter to his friend, Crabb Robinson:

"Congratulate me. A hundred of my old clerks have subscribed to have my portrait painted. Men I have tyrannized over-bullied -taken the praise from which they really had earned-who knew every bit of humbug in me, and who have nothing more to get out of me-no sense of favours to come. Regard from such a body is worth having."

Mr. Field's generosity to younger members of his profession was often of the most considerate kind.

Field was a great lover of art, a great friend to artists. How he was able to attain such proficiency is best told in his own words. Addressing his "century of clerks and pupils," he says

"There is a favourite rule of mine, which I am sure I have preached to every one of you over and over again; It is, Have one horse and one hobby.' I trust I may have helped to teach you all to ride our common great horse; I am also happy to have induced many of you to mount my especial hobby. A hard-worked lawyer can scarcely find a better solace than the study and pursuit of art. To me these have been inexpressible blessings; I never knew what sunshine was till art told me."

On the capability of art for religious expression, he speaks in his own strong, poetical, Miltonic way, in connection with some of Flaxman's relievos presented by Mr. Field and Mr. H. C. Robinson to the congregation, of which the former was a member, for erection in Rosslyn Hill Chapel, Hampstead: "These reliefs of Flaxman's are as truly psalms as those of Wesley or George Herbert; if not as devout, after their speech and language, as those of the old King of Israel himself." And while acknowledging that souls are differently strung, he asks that those who cannot interpret this particular gift of tongues, will not "debar others from singing in harmony with Flaxman's holy songs," unless it can be asserted "that the very angels could not mould out of mere clay divine things fit for the sacred house."

As Mr. Field was a warm lover of art, so he was a warm friend of artists. As his house overflowed with their works, so his heart overflowed with personal kindness towards themselves. To them his house was open with a kindly hospitality. He always seemed to treat them as the living representatives of a source of happiness to which he owed a greater debt of gratitude than he could ever pay.

In 1863 Mr. Field received a portfolio very valuable in its