is essential in the case of an infant's estate (Calvert v. Godfrey, 2 Beav. 267., and later cases, vide suprà, p. 65.); the proposition in the old case of Coleman v. Upcot, again cited as law (vide suprà, p. 61.), without reference to Boyce v. Green; a repetition (p. 569.) of the error (suprà, p. 65.) as to Right v. Bucknell; the old omission (suprà, p. 61.) of the Corporation of Ludlow v. Charlton, 6 Mee. & W. 815., and the old cumbrous and inaccurate statement of Goodall v. Pickford, 6 Sim. 379. (suprà, p. 65.). In Exparte Lee, 12 Jur. 995., Vice-Chancellor K. Bruce followed two earlier cases as to opening biddings in bankruptcy; Sir Edward notices (p. 47.), and disapproves of, these early cases, but makes no mention of the recent decision to the same effect; so in the section on "part performance" (p. 101.), we find no reference to Sir J. Wigram's judgment in Dale v. Hamilton, 5 Ha. 381., where the general principles on which the Court acts with respect to part performance are laid down in very lucid terms, or to the more recent case of Lady Thynne v. Earl of Glengall, 2 H. L. C., 131. on the same subject; in p. 106., in treating of the effect of an alteration of the executed agreement, Powell v. Divett, 15 East, 29., is cited; but there is no reference to the later cases of Davidson v. Cooper, 13 Mee & W. 343., and Mollett v. Wackerbarth, 5 C. B. 181.; we have not discovered a single reference to the important case (upon the question of costs and general practice between vendor and purchaser) of Jones v. Lewis1, 1 D. G. & S. 245., and 2 Mac. & G. 163.; in p. 487., in treating of the Satisfied Terms Act, we find a statement of Doe v. Jones, 13 Jur. 824., but no intimation of the serious question there raised by the Court as to what is a satisfied term within the meaning of the act. The general nonliability of assignees to covenant for title is stated (p. 433.). but without any reference to Page v. Broom, 3 Beav. 36., which qualifies the general rule. We are sorry also to observe that Sir Edward has not given up that ex-cathedrâ style of writing which is in bad taste even when an author is right, and is intolerable when 1 Jones v. Lewis appears in the Table of Cases, but it is an old case reported in Cox. he is wrong; we were particularly struck with the following passage (p. 307.):-" Courts of Equity, as between the parties, sometimes act upon the presumption that a woman of advanced age is past child bearing; but no such presumption would be made against a purchaser;" no authority is cited in support of this statement, which is not, we apprehend, in accordance with modern practice, as it has been stated to us by several very eminent counsel to whom we have mentioned the point. The above list of what we cannot but consider to be imperfections, even in a book written by an ex-Chancellor, is not the result of a careful search after errors, but is an incomplete enumeration of inaccuracies and omissions which have at once forced themselves upon our notice during what has necessarily been a partial and cursory examination of the work; of course in stating that a case is omitted, we can only speak to its not appearing where we might expect to find it in the body of the work, nor in the Table of Cases. Such is the result of Sir Edward's hasty authorship; and such must always be the result when a man, however great his ability, sits down to write or re-edit a work upon a practical subject, with which he has for many years ceased to have a practical acquaintance, and without allowing himself sufficient time;-"time, without which" (we quote Sir Edward's own words; see the Preface to the 6th edition of the Powers)" nothing important can be accomplished upon legal subjects." Extract of a Letter to Lord Denman from Lord Brougham. 425 ART. XVI. — EXTRACT OF A LETTER TO LORD DENMAN FROM LORD BROUGHAM. Extract of a Letter to Lord Denman from Lord Brougham. [WE are favoured with this extract for publication]: Notwithstanding such disappointments, it is a very pleasing reflexion that, in considering the Legal history of this Session, we have not near so much cause of condolence as of gratulation. My views are not by a great deal so gloomy as when I addressed you last autumn. Our impatience may be as great to see what is most wanted completely supplied; but it would be very unjust not to feel thankful for what we have gained, and cheerful as to our future prospects. "The postponement of the Registry Bill is certainly a serious misfortune; but its passing through the Lords, after full scrutiny in the Select Committee, and in the face of a persevering opposition from the Chancellor, heading the small but zealous minority of the Real Property Commissioners', must be regarded as an indication of its future adoption. With the single exception I have mentioned, the Government in both Houses heartily supported this valuable measure; Lord Lansdowne in a very marked manner. They had announced it in the Speech from the Throne, and they cntrusted it to the learned, able, and most judicious advocacy of Lord Campbell, who, having great difficulties to contend with, left nothing undone to further its progress, and save it from the known perils attendant upon the close of the Session. To those perils it has fallen a victim, like your great bill in 1842, postponed to 1843. The Fabian tactics of our friend have prevailed over the honest resolution of his colleagues to pass the bill. I heartily wish they had defeated him as we did his precursors,-Lord Eldon, &c., when, after losing the Reform Bill, we kept Parliament sitting till late in October, 1 Lord Langdale's Commission, which sat for several years. veyancers, Lord Beaumont, an able Law Reformer, was on it. Besides con for the sole purpose of passing the Bankrupt Law Bill, now the object of our friend's unsparing attack-an attack, too, made in the presence of the Ministers of 1831, who had advised the King to congratulate the Parliament of that year upon the passing of that same bill. But for this fatal delay the country would now have been in possession of a system of registration as perfect as the unfortunate want of maps will allow a want which must be supplied if we would have any thing like a good system of conveyancing. "The same cause entailed upon the Government the loss, at least for the present, of another important measure-the Charity Trusts' Bill; and here they had the support of their colleague, who ably opened and zealously pressed it forward. Had he brought it forward three, nay, two months earlier, beyond all doubt it would have been easily passed. "We were at one time apprehensive that another measure of great value might share the same fate; but it has happily escaped; I mean Lord Campbell's important bill for improving Criminal Procedure, shortening and simplifying it in some material respects, giving such power to amend as may prevent the escape of guilt by purely technical errors (a great opprobrium of our practice), and facilitating the punishment of perjury. Lord Campbell deserves the thanks of the profession and of the community for his manful perseverance; there cannot be a doubt that he had to struggle against no little weight of prejudice, in not the most obscure quarters of our legal body. Nor can we forget, in connexionwith this subject, the great benefit which the bill secured from the examination of its details, first in the Committee of our House, where we had the valuable assistance of Mr. Pitt Taylor (who, I believe, drew the bill), and then in the Committee of the Commons, presided over by the learning and sound judgment of Mr. Baines, a man whom to name is to honour. "Lord Harrowby's Absconding Debtors' Bill must be noted as curing an obvious defect in the laws of 1842 and 1843 curing it by the aid of the County Courts, which really seem fated to lend assistance in every branch of our jurisprudence, and, returning good for evil, to help us in propor tion as certain heads of the law occupy themselves in running them down. But Lord Harrowby devotes his talents and influence to worthier objects, taking a most useful part in the Amendment of the Law-a part well becoming one who derives his honours and descent from a great legal dignitary. "The Patent Law has, likewise, been much improved. The bill which I presented would probably have been sufficient to remove the evils chiefly complained of; the bill of the Government, which adopted it in great part, might also have sufficed. But both being referred to a Select Committee, the result was a third bill, compounded of both, and with one or two useful additions. Mr. Webster was of the greatest service in this inquiry, and is entitled to the same thanks from the friends of improvement in this limited, though not unimportant, department of our jurisprudence, as Mr. Pitt Taylor in its other branches. I am, however, now assuming that the bill is to pass; the period of the Session, and the declared opinion of the Government against all patents for inventions, may very possibly cause its postponement. "Of the Chancery Bill little needs be said, except that it is a very small step in the right direction, because it gives an additional judicial force both to the Court and the Appellate Jurisdiction. But with respect to it, I will venture to affirm that, both within the profession and without, both in Parliament and in the country, there prevails the same fixed opinion. This, if meant to be all, will never do. No structural change will meet the evil universally complained of. A functional change is absolutely necessary. The Judges in Chancery, like the Judges at Common Law, must work out their own decrees, and not send between two-thirds and three-fourths of their business to be done by the Masters. You must make more puisne Judges in Chancery, and get rid of the Masters' Office entirely, those Judges sitting now in Courts, now in Chambers, as do the other Judges of the Superior Courts.' The abolition of the separation between proceedings in Equity and at Law, what is termed the fusion of the two, -must come next; but the important change I have adverted to is necessary at all events; it will both pave the way for the ultimate and complete improve |