The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-24 00:00:00

much to exceed that of Gen, Lee, he is holding a line
at least six miles longer than he has hitherto sues
ceeded in holding. It follows that the long line of
intrenchments which connect with City Point must
over a considerable portion of their length, be very
weakly manned, It is obvious that there is a great
chance for Gen. Lee to cut Grant's line in two in the
centre, and to bar him off from City Point and the
James. Ido not say that this policy will actually
be adopted by Gen. Lee, although before this letter
reaches you you may have heard of its adoption.
What will be attempted and what has already been
taken in band is by throwing Confederate batteries
upon the now unoccupied northern bank of the river
to interfere with the passage of transports along
the stream to City Point. In the meantime the
accumulation of Gen. Lee's forces at the town of
Petersburg suggests thoughts of his contemplating
a rush through his opponent's centre. The tempta-
tions which urge the adoption of this step are
many, but it is possible that prudence and desire
to spare his men's lives may induce Lee to lie
quiet, and to leave the Weldon Railroad in his ad-
versary's hands. It must be understood that the
inconvenience to the Confederates of the extension
of Grant's left is only an inconvenience. The rail-
road still runs from Weldon to Stony Creek, 20
miles south of Petersburg, and close to Stony
Creek is encamped General Hampton in command
of a large body of Confederate cavalry. Supplies
for Lee's army flow without interference to Stony
Creek, and are waggoned thence to Petersburg,
while the waggons thus employed are pro.
tented by Hampton. There is very little reason to
fear that a Federal cavalry raid can be successfully
sent out with a view to attacking the Danville
Railroad, by which uninterrupted communication
with Richmond from the South is kept up, The
Confederate cavalry under Hampton is superior in
numbers to that possessed by Grant, and is infi-
nitely better in morale and efficiency. It is safe to
conclude that one of the two following alternatives
will be witnessed. On the one hand, it is possible
that Lee will cut Grant's centre and isolate half the
Federal army from the other half; or, on the other
hand, it is possible that Lee will lie quiet in front
of Petersburg, while he keeps up his communication
with Stony Creek. Nothing will in all probability
be done until the effect of the Confederate batteries,
about to be opened on the Federal transports from
the north bank of the James, is ascertained. In
the meantime, the Confederates possess the great
advantage of knowing that lapse of time is working
in their favour, and that Grant is no nearer the
capture of Richmond than when he crossed the
Rapidan. Oa the other hand, Grant has the dis-
advantage of being compelled by Mr Lincoln's poli-
tical necessities to hazard activity and to act more
as an electioneering agent than as a General.
There has never been a moment since the begin-
ning of the war when more confidence as to its Mae
mate result was entertained throughout Secessia.
It was anticipated, directly Grant threw himself
across the James, two and a half months ago, that
the railroad between Weldon and Petersburg could
not be kept open by the Confederates ; but it was
not until two days ago that Grant suspended come
munication along this lice, and he has now only suc-
ceeded in interfering with 20 miles of its length.
Whether Lee be tempted to make a dash through
Grant's lines or not, it is felt that the Virginian
campaign of 1861 in the neighbourhood of Riche
mond is over. But lam still under the impression
that the fine Confederate force in the Valley, soon
to be under the command of Gen. Anderson (now
at the head of Longstreet's old corps) will make
itself felt gravely before long. The operations of
the Federals and Confederates in the Valley for the
last two months have resembled the set figures of a
quadrille. Early has executed a forward chasse,
to which Sheridan has responded by a retrograde
movement. In his turn, Sheridan, after receiving
reinforcements, has advanced, to find Early in re-
treat. How much longer this swaying of two
powerful armies up and down the Valley is to last
I cannot say, but I can only compare it to the
" gong-fighting" of the Chinese. It is possible that
Gen. Anderson, if he assume the command to which
his rank entitles him, may alter the complexion of
affairs ; but it is evident that nothing important
will be achieved by Gen. Early. At this moment a
forward glissade of the Confederates has carried
them to the Potomac, while the corresponding back-
ward glissade of the Federals has been executed on
the soil of Maryland. It is not impossible that while
Grant makes desperate efforts to subtract wind from
the sails of the Chicago Convention by a successful
electioneering move on the betake of the James,
which move will be credited to Mr Lincoln, the
Confederates will hazard a counter move on the
Potomac, which will greatly strengthen the hands
of Vallandigham and his associates. Up to the pre-
sent time, neither Federals nor Confederates have
gained any advantagas in the Valley which will be
likely to have any effect on the issue of the war. But,
as is usually the case, anguish and poverty have, as
the wave of war rolled backwards and forwards, been
brought home to many an unoffending woman and
child. In the midst of the accounts of Sheridan's re•
treat through burning barns and homesteads, with
the wail of destitute women and starving houseless
children wafted upon every breeze, it is impossible
to read without stern satisfaction the narrative of
an incident which has just happened in Clark county,
Virginia. A party of from 12 to 13 Yankee soldiers
were engaged in their customary avocation of burn-
ing a Virginian homestead. The women who had
lately been its tenants gathered a short distance from
the blazing rafters, and, lifting up their voices
and weeping, prayed God that vengeance might
overtake the oppressors of harmless and helpless
women. The words were scarcely out of her mouth
when a body of Mosby's Southerners burst upon
the Yankee marauders, and caught them red-handed
in flagrante delicto. Short shrift was given, and in
Lew seconds some 12 or 15 bodies were swinging
from the neighbouring trees. It is possible that, in
reference to this occurence, we may hear some sickly
wail from Federal sympathisers in England about
the usages of civilised war. It is time that your
readers should understand that this American strug-
gle (apart from the great armies on either side) has
long ago ceased to be conducted according to the
nominal code of civilised warfare. I have again and
again endeavoured to call attention to acts of spe-
cial barbarity, and little heed as England now gives
to the details of this war, I am in hopes that the
recent infamous atrocities committed in Westmore-
land county by Federal Officers, who instigated the
brutal African savages to enact deeds of lust and
shame upon white women such as make the blood
run cold with horror, will not have fallen upon en-
tirely unheeding ears. But if it is imagined that
Southern men, and especially Virginians, will look
quietly on at burning farms, and merely capture the
Yankee perpetrators of these atrocities when they
catch them red-handed, your readers can know very
little of Southerners, or, indeed, of human nature.
The position of the two armies before GPue St
Te
r s3bou. r g
is not materially altered since the date of my last
letter, but what change there is is in favour of the
Confederates. It will be remembered that on the
19th inst. Grant appeared upon the Weldon Rail-
road in force, that Lce attacked him there on the
19th and 21st, suffering upon the last of those days
a decided repulse. Upon the evening of the 25th a
body of Yankee cavalry, which was engaged in
tearing up the line southwards, was gallantly at-
tacked by Gen. Wade Hampton's cavalry, and driven
back into the infantry intrenchments. Dismounting
from their horses, Hampton's squadrons threw
themselves on foot upon the intrenchmente, and,
being supported by A. P. Hill's infantry, sueeeded
in carrying a considerable length of breastworks and
in capturing nine pieces of artillery and some 2,000
prisoners. It was a gallant achievement and ape.
cially creditable to the cavalry, which has daring
pined such credit for striking hard
kthniosecliaimstpltiaitgn the sneers at its expensewhichofwtehree
quibble in 1862, and 1863 from the mouths
infantry arc :10W con7rrtud into warm expressions
of gratitude ar.d. admiration.
It may be within the recollection of some of your
readers that in a recent letter I estimated the mor-
tality on both sides consequent upon this war as
being at the rate of 1,000 lives every 24 hours.
There are many to whom this estimate will appear
extravagant. I regret to say that increased
thought and inquiry have only served to convince

me that it is not far from the mark. I need hardly
say that by far the largest portion of those who
perish fall victims to disease. Think of the
immensity of this war; of the numberless bodies of
men scattered in unhealthy garrisons over the vast
area of Secessia, and some conception of the waste
of human life (sacrificed to the Moloch of this war
no less than if cut short by the bullet) may be
formed. As an item I may mention that the
deaths among the Yankee prisoners now held in the
South average 150 per diem. The deaths of Con-
federates held captive in the North must be on
something of the same scale, though possibly rather
less numerous, as the Northern climate is healthier
in summer. Here we have 300 deaths (or there-
abouts) occurring every 24 hours among the prisoners
alone. It is not much of a stretch to conceive that
each day's fighting, when there are six large armies
in the field (to wit, Lee's and Grant's, Hood's and
Sherman's, Early's and Sheridan's), not to mention
countless desultory bodies of combatants, adds 700
men to the list of perishing victims. The 'picture
of this fair American continent, which four years
ago any man to whom human happiness and pros-
perity are dear might have delighted to contemplate,
is one from which an Apollyon would at this moment
recoil with shuddering. What pen is there to write,
what eye to witness the unnumbered ghastly deeds
of horror which somewhere or other in the vast and
voiceless solitudes of Dixie the sun daily looks
down upon ? May it be granted to this continent,
now wasted with misery, to learn the lessons which
adversity teaches, both to nations and individuals,
and of which tha choicest is humility ? Would that
1 could see indications that this war is teaching
either section the lessons, or is likely to be produc-
tive of the qualities, without which, in the opinion
of all impartial and not unfriendly spectators, it is
impossible for an American community, whether
composed of the Northern or of the Southern States,
or of both together, ever to attain to the dignity of
a great and honoured nation !

National Association for the Promotion of

Social Science.

YORK; FRIDAY.
The Association resumed its proceedings this
morning, with an aggregate attendanc3 of between

900 and 1,000 members. The first business waa the

delivery of an address by Sir J. P. Wilde, Judge

of.the Probate and Divorce Court, and chairman a

he Jurisprudence Department of the Congress, on
the subject of law reform. This address, though

ntended to be introductory to the sittings of the

section on jurisprudence, was delivered at a general
meeting of all the members, held in the Festival
Concert-room. Lord Brougham presided, and was
loudly cheered on entering the hall. O❑ the plat.

form were the Archbishop of York, Sir J. P. Wilde,
Sir J. Pakington, M.P., Sir S. Northcote, M,P.,

Lord R. Montagu, M.P,, Miss Parkes, Mr A, J
Stephens, Q.C., Mr H. Roberts, F.S.A., Mr. Cf,
_ _ _

H: Palmer, Mr Edwin Chadwick, the Rev. Canon

Melville, Mr Godfrey Sandwith, the Hon. D.
Campbell, Mr R. Baker (inspector of factories),
Robert M. Ferguson, Ph.D., Dr Lankester, F.R.S.,
Dr Waddilove, Sir C. Hastings, the Lord Mayor of
York, &c. Many ladies were also present, and
_ _

listened to the discourse, dry and uninviting as its
subject might seem to their sex, with much appa-

rent interest.

Mr. JAMES WILDE said—The 7th of February,
1828, was a memorable day in the annals of law
reform. Then it was that thu greatest orator of his

age delivered his celebrated oration in the House

of Commons, and laid open the sweeping changes
which our law required. From that moment an
impulse was given which has not ceased to be felt.
Interest was aroused, indignation excited for the

errors of the past, and a basis laid on which to build
fair hopes of the future. Since that time the pros
gress of law reform has been unceasing, though
gradual—and now, after 36 years, after the destrnc-

tion of a host of anomalies and the removal of bar-
riers and obstructions, such as set justice at defiance,
we find ourselves still engaged in the same work,
and, singularly enough, under the guidance of the

same hand. No one can rise from the perusal o

that remarkable speech, and a contrast with the
reforms actually since effected, without marvelling
at the success with which the defects and weak
points of our judicial system were hit upon and
exposed. And it is not too much to say that nine-
tenths of thb precise evils there indicated have been
successfully met by the precise remedies there pro-
posed. A glance at the subjects dealt with willterve
to show us both the benefits that we have reaped
and the evils from which we have escaped. It will
farther serve to stimulate us to successful labour
in the same field. Having glanced rapidly at the
principal changes recently effected, Sir James pro-
ceeaed wish to draw attention to the fact that
the whole of these changes have been confined to
the procedure of the courts and the method of ap-
plying the law, not to the body of the law itself.

It is the double function of procedure to precede
and (ollow legal adjudication, first ascertaining the
facts in dispute, and then carrying into execution
the decrees of the law upon them. It is, therefore,
properly the machinery of the law. Now in 1828
the avenues to justice were so choked with artificial
obstacles that approach was pratically denied. Ex-
pense, delay, uncertainty—these three monster evils
barred the access of the suitor, or terrified
him into submission. The clearing of these
obstacles, while it has opened the way to
the speedy and certain administration of the
law for the suitor, has brought the law reformer
face to face with the body of the law itself. The
question, then, forces itself upon us—ls the law
itself free from defects of a similar character to those
which have disfigured its procedure ? Can we boast
of a judicature so logical, eo free from entanglement
and inconsistency, so clear and uniform, so harmoni-
ous and well balanced, as to be worthy of our social
progress and equal to the mixed and multiplied wants
means
i ealls justice administered accord-
ingn this justice should be pare-
omfoouun to
our age
nagaeenthd? omd. Lawe Andthod subordinate. Good laws will
work occasional hardships, for they should be un-
bending; but if well administered, never injustice,
for their principle should be unerring. Every legal
system must impose some forms upon the business
transactions of life, but they should be as few as
possible, lest from guides and supports they pass
into fetters and trammels. The law should also be
clear ; because simple in its principle though diffuse
in details, and compact in form because well collated,
though compendious in grasp. How far can we
conscientiously say that the common law of this
country fulfils these ends ? To what extent can it
lay claim to simplicity, certainty, clearness, and
unerring justice ?..Above all, what can we say of its
compactness whose principles wander at large
through the pages of 300 volumes, and the leaves of
whose oracles lie as they first fell, scattered and
unsown ? When we reflect on the history and growth
of our laws we have no need to be surprised or
ashamed. The marvel is that they contain so much
worthy of admiration and homage. If they do not
meet all our modern wants, to how many of them
have they been gradually and insensibly adapted?
Is it to be wondered at if laws which sufficed in the
time of the Plantagenets fall short in the present
age ? Bear in mind that the laws of this country
have suffered no general revision from time imme-
morial. As the middle classes forced their way, as
the wealth of land found itself emulated, if not sur-
passed, by the wealth of trade, as civilisation bore
its universal fruit of complicated relations in life, the
laws regulating these relations ought to have felt
an equal progress. Provision should have been made
by the Legislature for new requirements, and
the obsolete constantly thrust out. But was this ever done ?
Did the change of our social condition at any period of our
history carry with it a new system of laws framed by the
Legislature for the new matter with which it had to deal ?
Was a fresh chapter from time to time added to our code to
keep pace with the fresh chapters of history ? Far from it.
With the exception of the Statute of Frauds, the Statute of
Limitations, and a few Acts directed to very limited objects,
the Legislature has laid no hand on the body of the common
law. What wonder, then, that after the lapse of centuries
legal procedure should have been found incompetent to the
swift movements and varied terms of a community whose
time had become wealth. And, in like manner, who would
reasonably expect that laws which, originally highly artifi-
cial, were adapted to the time when nearly preperty con-
sisted in land should be unfit to pursue the complications of
personal property and the intricate folds of trade ? The
gradual development which has turned a handful of mili-
tary adventurers and a population of serfs into the wealthiest

commercial community of the world has surely called for
the destruction of as much that was old and useless as the
creation of what was new and requisite. What have been
the means employed to this end ? With rare exceptions,
nothing but the judicial power. It has been left to the tri-
bunals themselves so to mould old principles into new forms
as to make them subserve modern uses. The law lying in
no fixed code, but only in tradition and the records of its
own application, was capable enough of being bent to now
purposes and fashioned to new ends; and administered by
powerful minds with great labour, and a body of men drawn
from no particular or favoured class, the structure has been
raised, chiefly within the last century and a half, of which we
may well be proud. But this fabric, like the political con-
stitution of this country, has been a thing of very gradual
growth. If any one doubts this, let him ask himself
with what success he would be likely to search the year
books or the pages of the old reporters for any authority
in support of nine out of ten of the decisions to which a
single term now gives birth. Let him ask himself with
what probability of success he would search in the history
of remote centuries for the incidents and combinationswhich
now daily ask for judicial solution. Land, it is true, still
exists, but how occupied and enjoyed ? under what relations
and conditions ? to what ends and purposes, as contrasted
witk feudal days ? Such reflections as these serve to show
how great a change must have passed over our judicature.
A few further reflections may tend to show with what in-
evitable defects. In saying this, lam far from the sugges-
tion or belief that this gradual progress of the law, built up
on old foundations, resting step by step on precedents
reaching far back into remote antiquity, and thus bringing
up to the surface the experience and wisdom of past gene-
rations, was altogether faulty in system, or void of invalu-
able features. It had, however, this capital defect, that the
powers of the courts of law were constructive only; under
the name of adaptation they could practically create; under
no name could they destroy. But it was not enough to
create, power was needed to abolish ; it was not enough to
build, unless timely clearance could be made of the ruins
and rubbish of past structures. Here it is that in my
opinion the system has broken down. This defect it was
that choked the access of justice with empty forms and
worn:out expedients, and induced those vices of procedure
which the labours of the law reformers of the last 30 years
have scarce sufficed to remove. And this it is which still
affects the body of our laws themselves, binding our real
property in the clogs and shackles of feudal rights, and
tainting the laws of personalty with analogies largely drawn
from the same extinct system. Yes ; the life, the body, and
even the spirit of the feudal system has passed away, but
the armoury of its weapons and defences is still cherished
in:our halls of justice. Let us examine our English system
of law-making a little closer and observe the inevitable
process. Did a new position arise for which the jurist had
no precedent, analogy was resorted to. If no near analogy
was at hand, a more distant one was sought ; if none
found in the region of similar rights, a more remote
one taken from a different class or branch, was often
brought forward and bent, perhaps distorted, till it
served the end. It might perhaps have been better to deal
with a new class of cases as avowedly demanding an appli-
cation of law, for which there was no precedent; and this
has been sometimes, though more rarely, done. But it must
be borne in mind that the courts at Westminster had, in
strictness, no power to mike the law, but only to declare
it. They had no alternative, therefore, between declaring
the voice of the law to be absolutely silent, and adapting its
recorded oracles, such as they were, to the case in hand as
best they might. And thus the law has grown, professedly,
indeed, drawing its decisions from its own inexhaustible
stores, but in reality framing, adapting, creating as it went
along. From this method both evils and benefits have
flowed of a sufficiently remarkable character. It is no small
benefit that, in a fresh application of legal principles to a
new class of cases, there should be apparently mingled the
element and the sanction of time. The decisions of the
Courts being avowedly nothing more than enunciations of
the pre-existing law, though in reality new determinations
framed upon old principles, carry with them the veneration
of tradition, while they embody the spirit of the time. It
is another circumstance of value that the changes effected
are gradual, and while they do not anticipate, yet keep pace
with the necessities of the day. Further, when any new
subject engages the attention of the Courts, it is the pecu-
liar feature of this system that each step is taken separately,
never exceeding the particular circumstances of the case or
aiming at generalities. Thus the law falls into shape as the
subject becomes familiar; opportunity is given by the suc-
cession of each fresh example for contrast and reconsidera-
tion ; the direction first taken is followed out, modified, or
even reversed; limitations and qualifications make their
appearance, and something like a general rule at length
emerges, well suited to the actual exigencies from the ex-
perience of which it is drawn, If this is legislation, it is
legislation of the best kind, for it is framed by those who
have no popular interests to support or collateral ends
to attain, and who bring to the task carefully-trained in-
tellects familiar with the subject in hand. The evils of
the system are, perhaps, equally apparent. Invested with
a power larger than avowed, the tribunals may be said to
have too much or too little confided to them. If they frame
new applications of the law they arc obliged to do so on old
models only, and administer them under old forms. Tied
down by the last, they are too little set at large to work out
entire justice. Working in the trammels of tradition, they
are driven to the resort of legal fictions. Founding all de-
cisions on precedent, they are circumscribed and limited by
the analogies on which their decisions are founded. The
broad rile of:right is but too apt to suffer in such circum-
stances, and full justice must needs be at times shorn down
to obtain a footing on precedent. But the worst feature
attending a law purely traditional is its incapacity to obli-
terate. Tradition is the expression of permanence—and if
it perpetuates -Utah it also embalms error. It renders what
is really obsolete unquestioned because it is familiar, and
fences it from attack by giving it the immunity of age.
Thus it is that many of the positions of our law pass with-
out inquiry, though their justice might well be challenged.
Now, let us compare this system of law -making with the
more comprehensive system of a code adopted in most other
countries. The attractions of the code are obvious, and its
faults not so apparent. The object of both is alike to form a
permanent frame for the action of justice. The chief point
of contrast lies here—the framers of a code propound their
principles in accord with justice, and casting about in their
minds to imagine the possible cases falling within them, ad-
just them accordingly, giving them expression in elaborated
rules. The English system frames no rule in advance, looks
backwards in place Of forward, and substitutes the actual
experiences of the past for the possibilities of the future.
True, the future is not provided for in the latter, except so
far as principles are gradually evolved, which make solution
not difficult or unexpected when the case arises, whereas
the former professes to make such provision. But is this
provision ever made with success ? Does any cede really
offer a text, which, when applied to the circumstances of an
individual case, at once, and without reasonable doubt, de-
cide it P Let the innummerable decisions on some of the
most celebrated codes answer the question. Take the Or-
dennance de la Marine of Louis XIV. How:simple and brief,
and apparently plain the text. Yet who ever read the inge-
nious commentaries of Vella or Boulay-Paty on any and
every article of it without owning that the text was only
plain because the difficulties of particular cases were not
present to view, and only simple because their complications
were excluded ? The same thing is true of the codes of the
French empire, and of all others which the world ever saw.
The truth is that the intricacies and complexity of possible
combinations of fact aro beyond the range of human con-
ception, and any attempt to foresee and provide for them all
beforehand, and dispense a ready made justice with success,
will give little reward to the labour it wastes. But a code
resting on no detailed decisions or elaborated instances to
expound it has an especial evil of its own. There is no more
fruitful source of doubt and litigation than the meaning of
language. The careless use of language does much, but the
inadequacy of language as the vehicle of precise thought
does perhaps even more. What treaty, or code, or statute
was ever so framed that its moaning in all possible contin-
gencies was free from reasonable controversy ? Now the
especial evil of all codes and statutes is that over and above
the difficulty of framing adequate principles the ambiguities
of construction are introduced. Expressed in certain defi-
nite language, its force depends on the interpretation which
ingenuity may give or deny it. And here the system of case
law contrasts favourably, for its principles, enforced in every
variety of language, and under every turn of thought,
shine out in their application rather than in their expres-
sion, and are further removed from the cavil of words.
The most ardent lover of uniformity and symmetry would
hardly be prepared then to surrender the treasures of our
common law for the inevitable litigation of a code ; but does
it follow that nothing can bo done to render our system
more uniform, and our jurisprudence more compact and
harmonious ? We have nothing in the English law between
the succinctness of a maxim and the detail of an individual
case. We have no declared body of rules, however general,
and no set of political principles, however broad. There are
no doubt to be found scattered up and down our reports
etiar mutualffar
the
enunciations of general legal principles, but even they have
dependencene ve r bee n collated
shown
by orbrought
o r contrast.ter iand
tßut,h
majority of cases decided,no general principle is propounded.
The principle is indeed there, guiding and controlling the
decision, a silent appeal is made to it in the mind of the
geth
tribunal, but such is the jealous caution of the judicial mind,
and so great the obstacles cast in the way of generalities
by a system which calls only for the decision of the indivi-
dual cases, that broad rules are seldom or never laid down.
Hence it comes that cases containing the law on one par-
ticular brunch or subject are rarely appealed to in discussion
of another branch or subject, though these may be cognate
and though the law ought to be and probably is in harmony
with respect to them. No subject can be treated philoso-
phically that is treated entirely in detail, and no ss stem can
promise harmony that is based on separate trains of inde-
pendent thought. Is it nut possible to amend our legal
system in this regard? If it be considered nut wise that
the tribunal should do more than decide the individual case,
and pledge itself as it wore to an area of law wider than that
occupied by the matter in hand--and this to preclude the
possibility of prejudging difficulties not foreseen ; still the
law as already settled, and to the extent to which it has al-
ready been actually applied, might surely be bound together
and epitomised for the practical use of mankind. Is not this
what in fact and practice every well-read lawyer more or
less does fur himself ? When a case presents itself to his
mind for legal solution does he instantly recur to tome spe-

cific case forming a precedent, or does he rather fall back
upon the general legal principles with which his mind is
embued ? Now, I hope lam not too sanguine in this, but
I cannot resist the belief thatwithin the bounds of labour and
time the general principles and broad bases on which our
common law reposes, and which tacitly guide the decisions
of our Courts, might be brought to the surface, grouped
together, subordinated in their several relations, and con-
trasted in their differences. (Cheers.) An attempt of the

kind, and not without great success, was made by the late

Mr Smith in his Leading' Cases. And those who have studied
the notes of that book will not fail to perceive how easily

and with what success large groups of cases treated and
handled together have been made to yield up short and suc-

cinct propositions of law. What I desire to see is a similar
attempt made with authority, and on a much larger scale,
to be finally confirmed by Act of Parliament; but Ido not
conceal from myself that the first judicial minds of the coun-
_ _

try are alone adequate to the task, at least in its ultimate
stages, and that it is far beyond the rerch cf the unpaid ser-
vices of occupied men. If such a result could be obtained,
the benefits are not doubtful—to the student and the general
public the vast area covered by the law would present a
district set out in order in place of a tangled thicket. The
true bearing of each abstract proposition would stand out
plainly, because side by side with others of a similar nature.
Here, too, another great advantage would be reaped.
As the decisions which have radiated from some central case

came to be classed together, and their common principles
with its qualifications and limitations extracted, all those of
a questionablesoundness would come to be suppressed. That
our books abound with such cannot be denied ; and their

expurgation by authority is an end of great importance. For
once entangled in them, tho Courts are either led astray or
only escape to the doing of justice by some refined distinc-
tion, which in its turn becomes a snare for the future. It is

thus that error once committed under our present system is

perpetuated. And decisions whose soundness is doubted
for years continue for years to be the rule of judgment and
the source of endless distinctions and refinements, until at
last they are either trampled out by the reiterated dicta of

the tribunals, or reversed in regular form by the Courts of
Appeal. Many, too, are the instances of disc2rdant deci-
sions on identically the same subject, and it is not an un-
common remark " That all the cases upon this subject
cannot be reconciled." Any classification by authority
mist decide between them, and thus remeve, pro Canto,
one of the worst evils of the law—uncertainty. But the
great gain that would accrue to the law would be the reduc-
tion of its bulk. 'We possess in our legal records accumu-
lated instances of exact justice, in individual cases, series
-

------ -
after series of social duties and relative rights, set forth in

every variety and combination and pursued into the minutest
details, and to all of which, each in their turn, the law has
been applied and adjusted with a precision and laborious
rectitude such as the legal annals of no other country can,

believe, produce. The national attribute of exact labour on
minute objects has stood us in good stead in the beating of
our laws. And they bear the impress throughout of the
national characteristics in the spirit of liberty, the spirit of

equality, and the hatred of injustice and oppression. Bu
they exist in a scattered, inconvenient, and unmanageable
form. Instances in place of precepts, examples in place of
rules, our recorded decisions stand thick together like a fair
field of grain—full of wealth and worth, but waiting the
hand that shall gather it into sheaves and store it to the use
of man. (Cheers.) And here I would observe that the
method I propose is properly a digest, and not a code; and
a digest has this advantage, that it permits of gradual for-
mation. Unlike a code, which is the offspring of large and
comprehensive views— and should deal with all subjects as
a whole—a digest, with narrower aims, may properly be
worked out piecemeal. In times past the "Bigot of Cornee"
and the "Abridgment of Bacon" did much in this direction,
though they owned no authority but that of their intrinsic
merit. Aud in modern times the law would be almost unap-
proachable but for the text-books, some of them executed
with admirable talent, with which the labours of the Bar
have enriched us. If there be those who fear to handle a
body of laws which, on the whole, work so well, I would ob.
serve to them that I propose to displace nothing. I would
not that the authority of the cases should necessarily bo ex-
tinguished by the authority of the digest. Unless expressly
set aside, and inconsistent with decisions better approved, I
would have all decisions remain of authority, content to await
the time when the life shall have passed into their offspring,
and they fall away of themselves, and pass into a sure decay.
(Cheers.) If there be those who think that a system which
has survived with success for five or six centuries can have
no great inherent vice, I would recall the attention of such
to the position in which we now find ourselves. Each year
now calls into being a number of decided cases so long as to
threaten the extinction of the law as a conscientious study.
I do not stop to inquire into causes, but the fact is that the
present century has added more decided cases to the law
than aro to be found in the records of the five preceding
centuries put together. (Cheers.) This vast agglomeration
breeds not only confusion in those who aro to be bound by
the law, but inconsistency in those who administer it. No
power of assimilation can keep pace with that of such pro-
duction, and the tribunals, occupied to the full with the
business befOre them, have little time to master the results
of cotemporary decisions. This evil is aggravated by a com-
petitive system of reporting, and the records of useless de.
visions; but the source of it lies deeper, and the time has
now come when we may well ask whether the record of our
law is always to lie in detailed instances, whether its prin-
ciples ate capable of no exposition, and whether the most
laborious and wealthy community in the world will be con-
tent to pass on to posterity a 'shapeless mass of scattered
laws as the legacy of its labours and its wealth. (Hear,
hear.) But the cause is that of the present generation as
well as of posterity. Is the nation well content with things
as they are ? Aro the conclusions of the law any longer
accepted without test, and received without inquiry ?
Time was when the law had its priesthood, its mysteries,
and its votaries. The science of the few was ever the
mystery of the many; and while want of knowledge in
the latter forbade the support of reason, possession of it in
the former commanded the homage of reverence. Our
people have ever loved justice and order, and revered the
law as the guardian of both. Perhaps this reverence has
been in past times carried too far. It concealed its errors
and even gilded its faults, Did an estate pass to an unex-
pected hand by a flaw, the victim received his condolence,
but the superior wisdom of the law had its worship. If
strength has the element of the sublime, the inscrutable
has not less so, and it was just because the ways of the law
sometimes passed reason that they achieved admiration. A
severe exactitude in the application of a system highly tech-
nical has ever been the foremost blemish of English juris
prudence. It was not difficult to exalt this severity of preci-
sion into the inflexibility of justice, and mistake an iron rule
for a golden precept. And such was the tendency of the
national mind, hugging itself in the conceit that its laws
were not as the laws of other countries, and well content to
worship what seemed at least mysteriously wise. But our
lot is cast in times of a far other character. Reason and
veneration—the two great forces by which instituted rights
are upheld—bid fair to change places, and while one has
waxed, the other has waned, There is no subject so sacred,
not even the sacred subject of all, which escapes inquiry,
observation, and the hard scrutiny of distrust. Tho law is
no exception, and the popular sense of justice may not be
violated with impunity, though its violation may be backed
by the sanction of forms or rules, however time-honoured or
venerable. The time has surely come when those who really
revere our noble laws should have it at heart to place them
beyond cavil, and give them that hold on the good sense of
the people which they have ever had on their affections, and
it should not be difficult. For all reform is now possible,
and the mere respect for what exists presents no longer any
barrier to improvement. The slow formation of a general
opinion, and the vis inertice which holds the present in its
place—characteristics both of the national temperament
—are the chief impediments to salutary change, Autho-
rity denies nothing now to the general desire, and the
waters of discontent are no longer pent up till they over-
flow. But, for this very reason, the current of amendment
flows torpid and slow. The active pressure of resistance,
forcing men into concord towards their common aim, is with-
drawn, and freedom to think and act with independence
brings with it freedom to differ. It is therefore in times
such as these that the attainment of a general consent is
most difficult. The most proper method to come at this
purpose is general discussion. For interchange of ideas and
comparison of mind begets both , ultimate agreement
and moral force to carry it into action. We aro here met
with this intention, and as the great honour haS fallen to
my lot of presiding over your deliberations, I have thus
made venture on your patience, affecting not to inform, but
rather to remind, and for the greater part to confirm rather
than convince. But it is from those like yourselves, who
have the knowledge to conceive and the public spirit to ela-
borate, that the impulse of reform must come. The spring
and root of all our law reforms have been laid in public
opinion. They have been miulded into shape and carried
into result by the unpaid services of lawyers. It is good to
reflect on this, for the power and the machinery are still
ours ; and it is no bad omen for future amendment that
men have been found skilled in the mysteries of the law, and
nurtured in its most cherished anomalies, ready to turn that
skill to their amendment or removal. (Cheers.) I venture
not on any enumeration of the numerous shortcomings and
defects of our legal system, beyond that to which I have
shortly drawn attention. They will be amply discussed, I
trust, by others. But I may add a word on the spirit legal
changes should be approached. The great evil which has
ever beset out judicature is that which legal education engen-
ders—the prizing above their worth of refinement and preci-
sion. This it was that in legal procedure sacrificed the
substantial rights of thousands at the altar of mere words.
It culminated in the new rules of pleading of 1831, and
begot its own downfall in the triumph of its complete
adoption. But it, still lives in all branches of our law. The
fear of going too far ever present ; the fear of not reaching
justice faintly felt ; positive injustice worked in the present
to avoid poesiblo injusl ice iu the future; rights so bound in
safeguards, lest they become wrongs, that they cease to be
worth asserting; a structure in which form ever overlays
substance, and a contest in which justice is apt to sink
under the weight of her own armour ; while precedent,
casting its shadow both ways, binds the present by the
errors of the past, and narrows it by the possibilities of the
future—such are the fruits which a spirit, of over-jealous
caution and exactitude is calculated to bear. Nur is it the
spirit of the lawyer alone. It is not long since a great peer
was accused of shooting at a fellow-subject iu a duel and
acquitted, because it Was not made to appear beyond doubt