in the other an order for a receiver, without notice to the defendant. The latter, indeed, should get notice of the decree before it could be acted upon. But therein lay the inconsequence of what was called a Fifteenth Section Order, that is an order under the fifteenth section of the Chancery Regulation Act, 1850. After a simple demand and refusal the claimant could put his adversary to the expense of voluminous pleadings, although if the defendant knew that proceedings in Chancery would for a certainty be instituted he might at once settle the claim.

Irish common law pleadings laboured under a similar defect. No writ of summons is issued, but the declaration constitutes both the "summons and plaint." The first Common Law Courts Bill now before Parliament is intended to abolish these anomalies. The returns in "Judicial Statistics" show that only a very slight per-centage of writs is ever proceeded with to judgment. Consequently the declaration in the Irish summons is only of use in four or five cases in the hundred. And a similar observation is applicable to fifteenth section petitions.

Irish procedure, perhaps, would never, or at least not for a long time to come, have eventuated in an assimilation to English procedure, but, owing to the recent changes of government, each administration became in turn committed to this assimilation. The Bills for this purpose were first introduced under Lord Derby's government in 1859, in accordance with the recommendations of a royal commission. The Bills were next introduced by Mr. Lawson, Attorney-General, under Earl Russell. The House of Commons are not much inclined to promote the creation of new judgeships, and the Bill was in great jeopardy when Mr. Whiteside opposed it with denunciations of unusual vehemence. The present AttorneyGeneral for Ireland, Mr. Sullivan, then Solicitor-General, astonished the House of Commons by informing it that Mr. Whiteside himself when in office in 1859 actually had brought in a similar Bill, Mr. Whiteside recovered the lost

ground by stating that though he had brought in the Bill in manner and form alleged, yet he had provided that the ViceChancellor to be appointed under the Bill should be no new creation, but an existing functionary of the Irish Court of Chancery. The House seemed disposed to condone Mr. Whiteside, but it passed the Bill,

The legal melodrama, however, had only reached a fresh "situation." Earl Russell went out and the Earl of Derby came in, and of course appointed Conservatives to the offices created by the Bill. Mr. Chatterton became the first ViceChancellor, and Mr. Whiteside can now meditate over past legislative conflicts from the elevated and calm office at length vacated for him by Lord Chief Justice Lefroy.

Owing to the present tendencies of the Legislature thoroughly to assimilate the law and practice of the two countries, the Irish reports will become still more valuable in future than they were hitherto. Owing to the prevalence of absenteeism, a very considerable portion of Irish conveying is, we believe, transacted in London. But, with regard to equity pur et simple the Irish reports, we believe, usually contain as profound and elaborate judgments as are to be found in our own.

The index before us commences where that of Messrs. O'Donnell and Brady concluded. It thus comprises a clear period of twenty-eight years. It contains, however, also such equity cases decided before 1837 as are not contained in the index of Messrs. O'Donnell and Brady. The present work commences with the first volume of the Irish Equity Reports, and includes the cases decided in the Bankruptcy and Probate Courts, the Landed Estates Court, and the other Courts of Equity, down to Hilary Term, 1867, as also Irish appeals to the House of Lords. As to such of these as are not reported from the courts below, the labours of Messrs. Gamble and Barlow will be peculiarly useful. Their work appears to comprise more than 7,000 decisions, and covers 1,408 pages, large quarto. Certainly the compilation is indicative of the labour and anxious care which the

its preparation.

authors profess to have expended on Nothing relevant seems to have been omitted, nothing edundant included in the index, if indeed an index can be redundant.

In offering these remarks we feel, and our readers will appreciate, the difficulty of making the two publications we have placed at the head of this article the subject of a special review; and the labour is not diminished when the transition is one from Irish to Scotch law. We would not however have experienced the difficulty we have referred to had we at the commencement of these remarks been in the possession, as we now are, of the First Report of the Judicature Commission on the condition of the English Courts. For, although that report strictly relates to the English Courts, it may be almost said to apply with equal force to the characteristics and peculiarities of the Courts in Ireland. This is especially the case with reference to the recommendations of the Commissioners in favour of the fusion of the procedure at law and in equity, or at least of such a general administration of the laws by all the Queen's Courts as would involve, if it would not necessarily lead to an identity of procedure in them, of course, with a due regard to judicial discretion,-the object being the certain attainment of complete justice, a thing, strange to say, not to be attained by the existing procedure of any of Her Majesty's Courts in England or Ireland.

But we must not carry these thoughts too far on the present occasion, which is not one for the examination of the Report of the Judicature Commission, but for the homely and more practical object of inviting attention to the above Scotch publication. If Messrs. Gamble and Barlow, of the Irish Bar, have done a good service to the law of their country, we can conscientiously assert that a not less service has been afforded to the law and profession in Scotland by the digest authenticated by the names of Messrs. Bell and Lamond. The form and method of the latter differ from the Irish

66

Index," which substantially follows the English plan, but on examination this difference will be found to consist merely in form, for in substance the two works are identical, both giving to the profession precisely the same information of the determinations of the respective courts. We need not, however, dwell on the Scotch digest, because in previous numbers of this Magazine we have had opportunities of remarking on its merits as it progressively appeared. The part now under consideration well bears out the good opinion we expressed of the earlier numbers, and we sincerely commend it to the study of the profession in England and Ireland, as well as to our Scotch readers. Indeed, under the influence of the ideas that now happily prevail respecting the enlargement of the views of the professional lawyer, such advice is scarcely needed. The lawyers in Scotland are looking beyond their own system and are disposed to take a leaf or two out of our English book, hoping by such means, as well they may, to make themselves better men of business.

We might continue these general remarks, and, in the present state of opinion as to the reform of the law, not without advantage to the public and the profession, but we must reserve such considerations for another and more fitting opportunity.

There is a great deal in the language of this Scotch digest which appears to us to be unsatisfactory. The law laid down, so far as we can collect it from the terms used appears to be intelligent and enlightened, but the phraseology is exceedingly loose, so much so as to justify the oft repeated slur on Scotch pleading, that it is prepared after the form and manner of a popular pamphlet, and occasionally not much better than the language of a gossiping letter. This is not too contemptuous, for no contempt, however extravagant, no discipline whatever, however severe, should be disregarded, if it can be hoped to have the effect of ridding the Scotch Courts of their utterly abominable system of procedure, so far, at least, as their pleading is concerned.

The number of Scotch cases digested is extraordinary, and as to the reporters we are scarcely sufficiently acquainted with the profession in Scotland to speak confidently of them. But among them we observe the name of "Stuart" in connection with two volumes of reports which are frequently quoted. The author of these reports we believe to be Mr. R. Stuart, Q.C., who, as our readers are aware, is also a member of the profession in Scotland, and practised for many years there.

Mr. Stuart, we understand, had previously acquired a knowledge of the English law and its practice, and had formed professional connections in England, which ultimately led to his removal from Edinburgh to London. The profession, therefore, in this country will be inclined to repose confidence in a work which includes cases reported and contributed by a gentleman who is so well known to them.

The number of this Scotch digest is devoted to the letters R. and S., and when we mention that under the former, Railway, Recompense, Reparation, Res-judicata, Restitution, Revocation, River, Road, etc., are included, our readers will be able to judge of the multifariousness of the ground occupied by the work. If to these we add a large number of digested cases, under the head of Sale, we may be allowed to offer to the legal voluptuary a large and appetising banquet. We shall return to these subjects, meantime we find it necessary to close our remarks for the present.

ART. XI.-LORD CAMPBELL'S LIVES OF LORD LYNDHURST AND LORD BROUGHAM.

THIS is a good story-book and bad biography. It is most

amusingly written, and deserves considerable praise for its literary merit, and yet the more we read of it, the more disappointed we feel. Taken up and skimmed through as we