The Press.
London, England, 1855-08-11 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

I'&4

• N ‘l4‘llKls •
400•')
SATURDAY,
2

trary, gain it, and therewith also wealth, if
perchance they succeed in persuading the
tribunal before which tbey plead to contra-
vene, ignoVititly, ttkifttd*Mns of Parliament
and the eftity of The tise.
Let("ltot;'the meailitig of these remarks be
miscckultrited. AgaitiA bitted advocacy we say
nothitik: gte system has' faults, but it is
necesNky,nd du 4.111 i perhapswheit( as little
bad Edith() drrangemenfalifisociety will permit.
Nor ii 'it the appoilYttrient of lay magistrates
that we densure ; for the law ought to be intel-
ligible to all laymen of intelligence, at least in
those simple and ordinary cases which consti-
tute the great bulk of criminal and even of
civil business. The fault rests with the law
itself with the absence of system and
order which distinguishes it : in one word, we
want a Code.

It is an idle fear that lawyers will lose by
Law Reform. On the contrary, bad laws, or
bad administration of them, drive men out of
the courts, and cause almost any amount of
social wrong on a small scale to pass with
impunity. When a barrister who has earned
fame and fortune in his profession is forced to
declare (as we not long since heard from the
lips of one of the most eminent counsel of the
day) that ho himselt would submit to almost
any pecuniary injury short of ruin, rather than
become a litigant in his own person, it is time
for all who are thus employed to reflect whe-
ther, even with an exclusive view to the
pecuniary interests of their friends and suc-
cessors, some amendment is not imperatively
called for. But there is more than a mere
money interest involved. The law, it cannot
be denied, has a bad name. Ignorant persons
confound the practitioner with the system:
they see injustice perpetrated in the name of
law—they see that the law wants reforming—
they know little or nothing of the many ob-
stacles to be encountered—and they jump to
the conclusion that the abuses they witness
are found profitable, and that in the profes-
sion itself there exists no wish for their
removal.

On the many problems involved in that
well sounding phrase, "Consolidation of the
Statutes," we have dwelt before, and may
possibly return to the subject. But our pre-
sent scope is more limited. To fuse the
legislation of past times into one consistent
whole, rejecting the superfluous, and simplify-
ing the obscure, is a magnificent. vision, but
one whose realisation seems far, very far,
distant. Some steps are being taken in that
direction—slow, indeed, vacillating, and, as
to us appears, somewhat tortuous. Progress,
however, there is ; and rapid progress in such
a work cannot be expected. Perhaps the next
age may improve on the ideas of the present,
and what is for a time delayed may in the end
be better done But one improvement mean-
time is really practicable—the means of ac-
complishing it are within our reach—and, as
compared with the result attainable, they are
not even costly. If the multitude and inco-
herence of our existing statutes be hard to
remedy, at least we can guard against their
becoming more numerous and more incompre-
hensible. The mode of so doing is easy : it
has been often suggested—by Lord BROUGHAM,
we believe, once ; by Mr. WILLMORE, Q.C., in
a pamphlet published some two years ago ;
and, more lately, by a distinguished member
of Lord CRANWORTH'S Commission for the con-
sideration of his colleagues. All that is re-
quired is a standing Board of not less than three
competent lawyers, named either by the House
of Commons or directly by the Administration,
whose function it shall be to examine all bills
brought before Parliament, once previous to
their introduction, and again before they are
sent up to receive the Royal assent. The
duties of such a Board would be simple, and
ought to he well defined Its members should
limit themselves strictly to the carrying out of
the professed intentions of Parliament in each
instance, accepting, of course, without com-
ment or dispute the policy involved in such
intention. Where the probable meaning is
doubtful from defective wording, they should
indicate the doubt, and show by what means
it may be removed. By this easy process one
half at least of the confusion which hangs
round modern acts of Parliament would be
done away. But one further step might be