« PreviousContinue »
The type of advocate who is plus sage qe Dieux' is probably not lacking
Recht und Technik des Englischen Parlamentarismus, Die Geschäfts
ordnung des House of Commons in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung
DR. REDLICH's new work is an important contribution to the materials for the study of the British Constitution, and deserves the careful attention of all persons interested in the subject. The book contains the first systematic and complete account of the history and of the present state of English Parliamentary Procedure, and shows in a most remarkable manner how the development of the rules of procedure is connected with the evolution of the several branches of the Legislature and of the other constitutional organs, and the successive modifications of their respective powers and functions. The historical portion of the book distinguishes between the period antecedent and the period subsequent to the Reform Bill of 1832, and divides the first period into three separate parts, of which the first comprises the time in which the two Houses of Parliament gradually assume a definite shape, whilst the second—beginning with the accession of Elizabeth and ending with the accession of William III—witnesses the extension of Parliamentary powers and the origin and growth of a regular scheme of Parliamentary procedure, and the third-covering the remainder of the period—brings about the changes in that scheme, necessitated by the formation of a definite party system and the first beginnings of Cabinet government in its modern form. The part dealing with the events which have happened since 1832 calls attention to the transformation of the procedure of the House of Commons, due to the change in the character of Assembly, to the invention of Parliamentary obstruction, and to other causes.
In the portion dealing with the rules in force at the present moment, the constitutional position of the House of Commons and its social and political structure are discussed, as well as its legislative, administrative, and financial functions and methods of work. The duties of the Speaker and of the other officers of the House are also described in separate chapters.
The author does not purport to deal in extenso with the procedure of the House of Lords, but the relations of the two Houses are so fully explained that it is not incorrect to describe the work as a general guide to Parliamentary Procedure. Dr. Redlich is never content with second-hand materials, but he has a wide acquaintance with the works of constitutional
writers as well as with the original sources of information, and he has above all that practical insight into the working of the Constitution which mere learning can never impart to the full extent.
It is only natural that a book dealing in an elaborate manner with an intricate and difficult subject should contain some assertions which are not entirely unobjectionable, but in the work before us there are only very few statements to which exception can be taken, and they do not concern any important matters. One of the few passages which may possibly mislead continental readers occurs on p. 355, where the offices under the Crown of which the holders are not eligible as members of the House of Commons are referred to. The passage, as it stands, is quite correct, but a reader not acquainted with the statutes on the subject will be unable to discover from its tenor that every member of the Judicial Bench and every member of the permanent administrative civil service is disqualified and consequently excluded from participation in active politics. This fact is so much taken for granted in England that it is not much noticed in the ordinary textbooks, but it stands in such marked contrast to the rule on the subject prevailing in some continental countries that attention ought to be called to it in a work intended to be used for comparative purposes.
It is to be hoped that an English translation of this interesting and highly valuable work will soon be published.
E. S. The Law of Parliamentary Elections and Election Petitions. By Hugh
FRASER. London : Butterworth & Co. 1906. La. 8vo. xxiv
and 430 pp. (15.) This is an altogether admirable work. Within forty Articles is to be found a succinct statement of the law; and in the notes to the articles a full explanation of those articles. It is therefore rendered easy to see at a glance, under each appropriate heading, what the law is, and to criticize the statement in the Article by reference to the cases and decisions set out in the notes.
The arrangement adopted by the author of this book is on the score of conciseness, convenience of reference, and definiteness to be commended.
The book in addition to a presentment of the law in this form contains also a fully set out table of statutes, and all necessary forms and precedents. The Index of Contents also seems to be sufficient.
It should be pointed out that in Article I there is a misstatement of the law. It is there stated that any one may be a candidate for Parliament except any person who has within the preceding five years been adjudged bankrupt in England, unless the adjudication has been annulled, or he has obtained his discharge &c.' It would therefore appear that a bankrupt whose adjudication was more than five years back would be entitled to stand for Parliament. This is not so, for except upon annulment or a special certificate, the disabilities of bankruptcy are not removed until five years has elapsed from the date of discharge. This fact is however made clear in the notes, so that the misstatement can hardly mislead any one.
E. B. B.-R, English Constitutional llistory, from the Teutonic Conquest to the
present time. By T. P. TASWELL-LANGMEAD. Sixth edition, revised with Notes by P. A. AsawoRTH. London : Stevens
& & Haynes. 1905. 8vo. xxiv and 640 pp. (15%.) TASWELL-LANGMEAD has long taken its place as the best student's book on Constitutional History, at any rate of those books that give a sketch of
the subject with some regard to chronology. In this edition Dr. Ashworth is to be congratulated upon the courage with which he has applied the pruning knife. The author's text has been left untouched, but both the author's original notes and those added by the former editor have been cut down to more reasonable dimensions. The decision to do this is in every way a wise one, because the book was becoming overloaded with notes, thereby spoiling its value as an introductory volume, and the notes did not supply the place of the more extensive details that are given in the treatises of Stubbs, Hallam, and Erskine May.
The editor's notes are in most cases confined to references to recent authorities, and the only criticism that one can make is that too many of these are omitted. To take a few instances from the early chapters :
P. 3. Mr. Scrutton's Yorke Prize Essay on the Influence of the Roman Law on the Law of England is not referred to.
P. 46 and elsewhere. Prof. Vinogradoff on the Growth of the Manor should surely be noticed as an authority on this subject.
Chap. IV. There is no reference to recent works on Magna Charta, such as Mr. McKechnie's Commentary and Mr. Edward Jenks's paper in the Independent Review for 1904.
P. 129. On the subject of Trial by Jury it is quite right to mention Brunner's decisive proof of its ultimate origin, but the exposition of its later history in England by Thayer in his · Evidence at the Common Law' sliould not have gone unmentioned.
P. 152. In connexion with the Justices of the Peace the student is not referred to Dr. Beard's monograph in the series of Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law.
H. J. R.
Russell on Arbitration and Award. Ninth Edition. By EvWARD
POLLOCK and HAROLD WARREN POLLOCK. London : Stevens & Sons, Lim.; Sweet & Maxwell, Lim. 1906. La. 8vo.
lxxv +627 pp. (308.) THE ninth edition of this well-known textbook, although more than 70 pages longer than the eighth edition, is far less bulky than the earlier editions, and combines the merits of clear print and convenient size. The most important question which has arisen since the last edition is as to the right of appeal from a Master when an action has been referred to him under Order XIV, rule 7 (as amended in 1902). The importance of the
. question is considerable, since if there is no appeal from the Master's decision it is very difficult for solicitors to advise their clients to consent to a reference to the Master. The right of appeal is now established by Fraser v. Fraser, but it required three decisions to arrive at this result. First the Court of Appeal decided that there was no appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of a Master on a reference under Order XIV, rule 7 ( i K. B. 56); then the Divisional Court decided that there was no appeal at all from a Master's decision on such a reference ( 2 K. B. 245); finally the Court of Appeal decided that such a right of appeal does exist, but that the appeal lies to the Divisional Court and not to the Court of Appeal ( · K. B. 368). That is to say, the Master is not a common law arbitrator, but the reference is to him as an officer of the court under 8. II of the Arbitration Act, 1889, and consequently rules 6 and 6 a of Order XL apply.
The only other decision of importance which has occurred since the last edition is that of Wynne Finch v. Chaytor (1903] 2 Ch. 475, which decides that when in an action in the Chancery Division the whole action has been referred to an official referee, and judgment has been entered in pursuance of his direction, an appeal from the judgment does not lie direct to the Court of Appeal, but an application to set aside the judgment should be made to the judge of the Chancery Division to whom the action is assigned.
The index and table of cases appear to have been carefully prepared, and the ninth edition of Russell on Arbitration will no doubt prove as useful to practitioners as the former editions.
An Encyclopaedia of Forms other than Court Forms. By eminent
Conveyancing and Commercial Counsel. Under the general editorship of ARTHUR UNDERHILL, assisted by Harold B. BOMPAS, E. J. NALDREIT, R. Powell-Williams, Harry Bevir VAISEY, and HUMPHREY H. King. Vol. X. Patents to Public Health. London: Butterworth & Co. 1906. La. 8vo. lix and 667 pp.
(258.) This volume contains Patents, Pawnbrokers, Profit Sharing without Partnership, Provident and other Societies, and Public Health.
The preliminary note on Patents contains discussions as to who is the true and first inventor, what is a manufacture, and what is novelty, utility, and invention. It also contains a careful description of the method of applying for a patent, including a full account of the construction of the specifications and what ought to be contained in them, bow to amend a specification, the examination of the application and specifications, the acceptance of the specifications, and the grant of the patent.
The matters discussed in the parts of the preliminary note that we have mentioned are probably of interest to a limited class of practitioners only, but the matters treated of in the remaining part of it constantly occur in practice. They consist of devolutions, assignments, patents, and licences both voluntary and compulsory, in connexion with which the remarks on registration must be considered. There are a few other matters discussed which it is not necessary to refer to. There is a large collection of precedents which will be a safe guide to the practitioner in all cases of common occurrence.
The heading Pawnbrokers contains a preliminary discussion and collection of precedents.
The precedents under the head of Profit Sharing are interesting. The first of these precedents consists of regulations under which the persons employed by a company or firm are to share in the profits. The outline of the scheme is that the employees who receive less than a certain weekly sum are divided into four classes according to their weekly wages, and that the members of each class shall receive a percentage of a fund to be called the bonus fund. The weak part of this scheme is that the amount of the bonus fund is to be determined by the accountants who make out the yearly balance sheet, and that there is no indication of the rules which are to guide them in determining what sum is to be placed to the credit of the bonus fund, and it appears very doubtful whether in case of dispute the employees can insist on any or at least more than a nominal sum being place to the credit of the bonus fund.
There is a short though useful preliminary note on Provident and other Societies, in which the differences between a Provident Society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and an ordinary Joint Stock Company are discussed. The precedents under this head appear to contain all the forms which will be useful in practice.
The heading Public Health has space assigned to it in proportion to its importance. The general introduction, preliminary note, and the precedents occupy about 430 pp. The preliminary dissertations and notes are of great value, and will be found very useful by the officials of local authorities. As however their contents are not of much interest to the ordinary practitioner, and as generally speaking they are not adapted to his use, and as a review doing them justice would occupy many pages, we content ourselves with calling the attention of those interested to the nature of the information that they will find under this heading. The forms appear to have been framed carefully, and we do not doubt that they will be found well suited to the purposes for which they are intended to be used. In conclusion we can only say that this volume keeps up to the high standard that the editor has adopted in the former volumes.
The Law of Compensation. By ALFRED A. HUDSON, assisted by H. E.
MILLER, W. A. Peck, and S. HUMPHRIES. London: The Estates
Two vols. cxcviii, 232 and 1598 pp. (378. 61.) This is a new work of prodigious bulk and certainly cheap at the price, but we do not feel sure that it is required by the legal practitioner, who is already amply provided with books on the subject of compensation and arbitration, whether written by way of annotation on the statutes (the better method and the method adopted in the present work) or in the shape of a continuous dissertation. But the form of the work suggests that it is intended rather for persons other than practising lawyers, who desire legal information and have not reports and other books of reference at their command. The sections are annotated by means of tables of contents, and propositions illustrated by the decided cases, which are set out at a length quite unnecessary for a person who has the cases themselves at hand, but doubtless useful for those who have not. This was the method adopted by the author in his useful previous work, on Building and Engineering Contracts. Whether the method always conduces to clearness may be doubted. We turned for instance quite casually to see wbat the work said on the subject of giving notices to treat to yearly tenants, as it happened to be uppermost in our mind at the moment. In the lengthy introduction (a useful and well-composed piece of work), at p. clxxv we found nothing definite on the matter. We then turned to the notes on s. 18 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, partly because we knew that section dealt with notices to treat, and partly because the only reference to the matter which we could see was in the Index to the notes to that section. There we found, in the table of contents, p. 113 ‘III. The Notice to Treat. Persons to whom notice must be given ...(6) yearly tenant (see s. 121) p. 139 ... IV. Cases where Notice to Treat is unnecessary (a) Tenants from year to year (see s. 121) p. 142.' This did not seem particularly illuminating; however, we persevered. On p. 139 we found · (b) yearly tenants (see s. 17).' Pursuing our weary course back to s. 17 of the Act, to which we supposed ourselves to be referred, we found something about a certificate of two justices that the capital had been subscribed. Still more footsore we tried p. 142 and there found '(a) as to yearly tenants, see s. 121. We saw s. 121, and there we found a definite statement that a notice to treat was not necessary (p. 670), but no authority was cited as illustrating this