even linguistically, but they are bound together and made homogeneous by what Mancini called the supreme test of nationality, la coscienza della nazionalità, the consciousness of nationality. That test the native assimilated Jew everywhere satisfies without derogating in the least from his religious and racial identity, or from any of his other non-political ethnographic peculiarities.

This state of things is sometimes looked upon with horror by the Jewish nationalists, and only lately I heard from one of them, a leading Zionist, the ugly word 'Apostasy.' But, in truth, it is not unreasonable to claim that it is in the West, and not in the East, that the real Jewish tradition survives in something approaching its original purity. The Jewish secular nationality in the East, admirable though it be in many ways, is a new and utterly revolutionary departure in Jewish life. It is not essentially bound up with Judaism, and even in its Zionist form might conceivably exist without it, or indeed without any religion at all. In Russia it has already opened its doors to baptised Jews, and a very cursory examination of the foreign Jewish colony in the East End of London will suffice to show that the substitution of the national for the religious bond has operated destructively against all religious observance, and has not made for the spiritual well-being of the community. On the other hand, in the purely religious communities of Western Jewry, we have the perhaps unworthy, but still lineal, spiritual heirs of the law-givers, prophets, and teachers who, from the dawn of history, have conceived Israel, not primarily as a political organism, but as a nation of priests, the chosen servants of the Eternal.

LUCIEN WOLF.

ECONOMY IN LAW

I. Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, Cd. 7832. 1915.

2. Civil Judicial Statistics for 1913.

3. Return, County Courts (Plaints and Sittings), for 1913.

4. Statistics of Compensation and of Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act for 1913.

5. Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. 1912.

6. Report of the Select Committee on County Courts Jurisdiction. 1878.

AT

Ta time when in every department of national life earnest men and women are preaching and practising economy, a correspondent of a northern newspaper complains of the two wonderful men playing on key bugles' and the 'splendidly caparisoned coach and horses with more men ' in livery' which are part of the necessary equipment of the Judges of Assize. In times of peace these are pretty playthings enough, but the habit of mind that regards them as of the essence of the social contract between the law and the people makes the hope of a legal reformer almost a forlorn one. It is natural for the lawyer who loves the forms and ceremonies of his craft to cling to old customs, but to the ordinary citizen, who perhaps takes too narrow a view of law and law courts, it is typical of a want of sympathy with the business affairs of the country.

That there is room for a better economy in legal affairs is a commonplace. The necessity of the co-ordination and consolidation of legal matters has long been apparent to men of business and to those lawyers who can approach the subject from the citizen's point of view. What is wanted is more or less manifest. How to bring it about in spite of the apathy and opposition of a powerful profession deeply attached to its vested interests is not so clear. We may, however, believe that lawyers are eager for the welfare of the people though we may decry their methods. This is well exemplified in the

historical account of the early efforts of Moses to establish courts of law. We read in the eighteenth chapter of Exodus that 'Moses sat to judge the people and the people stood 'by Moses from morning unto the evening.' Then Moses' father-in-law Jethro arrived and inquired what he was attempting to do, and asked Moses: 'Why sittest thou thyself alone, ' and all the people stand by thee from morning unto evening?' Moses explained that it was his idea of instituting a law court; and his father-in-law replied: 'The thing thou doest is not good.' Then Jethro set forth his idea of legal reform, and it remains as clear a statement of the true principle of the construction of law courts as one could wish for to-day. He chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of 'fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all 'seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every 'small matter they judged themselves.' Jethro, the man of business ideas, came to the rescue of Moses the Lawgiver, and Moses had the wisdom to accept his advice. Until that happens in this country we shall never have anything but an unworkmanlike, uneconomical legal system clogging the wheels of business and weighing heavily on the poorer members of the community.

Many think that legal reform is of necessity a lawyer's business and that a layman cannot understand, much less solve, the problems of it. That is wholly an error. For the

last hundred years questions of legal reform have been thrashed out and discussed and illustrated in the pamphlets and papers of legal writers, the reports of commissions, and the publication of statistics. These can be read and digested by any ordinary citizen. Some of them-as the Divorce Commissionhave been the outcome of public discontent with existing laws. From time to time we find small reforms forced by the general body of citizens on the lawyers; for, hitherto, such work has always been done in the teeth of professional opposition. would be interesting to dwell on the pagan mysteries of special pleading, and the religious enthusiasm with which lawyers fought in its defence. In 1847 John George Phillimore, the jurist, wrote with magnificent scorn of the folly and iniquity of special demurrers.' 'The man who would waste a 'moment in arguing with the advocates of special demurrers

It

'is unworthy of all leisure.' He expressed the view that these absurdities' would speedily be abolished; but it was not until the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852 that they disappeared, and many other similar absurdities-such as the indictment—have lingered on into our own generation. Phillimore was certainly right when he said that arguing with lawyers about the absurdities of the law is waste of time. Any layman of reasonable education can read for himself the returns and reports of the various State departments dealing with law. In these he will find not only the facts and figures necessary to form conclusions, but the reasoned opinions of all the great thinkers, both jurists and practical men, on what is wanted in our legal system to make it useful to the community, and also such arguments as the obscurantists can bring forward against any and every proposed change.

The first and most extraordinary point about our legal system is that we have no Minister of Justice. It may be said that the Lord Chancellor occupies this position, but from a business point of view that does not seem to be true. The Lord Chancellor presides in the House of Lords, he is a member of the Government, he is the head of the chief Court of Appeal, he has the disposal of an important patronage in the Church, and also many legal offices in his gift. No doubt he has great controlling powers in legal affairs, but in magisterial matters he is over-shadowed by the Home Secretary. Bankruptcy affairs are in the hands of the Board of Trade, whilst the Treasury has a special department dealing with County Courts. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, too, has certain local legal matters entirely under his direction.

We shall find that the want of a Minister of Justice has made it necessary, whenever a legal reform was mooted, to appoint a commission to examine witnesses and obtain information on the subject from various quarters. When the report is made and the evidence printed there is no department to consider and weigh the result, and in a generation the whole thing is often discussed all over again. The idea of the necessity of a Minister of Justice is no new one. Henry Bickersteth (Lord Langdale), Master of the Rolls in 1836, explained to a House of Commons Committee, in 1848, exactly what was wanted and why. My opinion is that you want an office of the Govern'ment in which the affairs of Justice should be the particular

VOL. 225. NO. 460.

Y

object of attention.' He proposed that the Minister should be called the Secretary of State for the Affairs of Justice, ' and he was to be charged with the whole superintendence ' over the establishment and organisation of the Courts, their 'official arrangements, and everything belonging to them, 'except matters judicial.' The duties were to consist of the discipline and management of all legal and judicial departments, and the collection and arrangement of all information, to enable Parliament to legislate with prudence and caution. In a word, Law was to have as complete a ministry as the Army, the Navy, or Trade; and Lord Langdale concluded by telling the House of Commons: 'You cannot work out a system ' of safe and rational law reform without an authority of that 'kind.' The history of seventy years has proved the truth of his prophecy. We have not worked out any scheme of law reform at all, but have wandered along from pillar to post content to snatch a measure of reform here and there when Parliament was in the mood to grant one.

For many years business men have recognised that no real economy, in the sense of good household management, can be effected without a business manager of legal affairs or Law Minister. He need not be himself a lawyer, and there is much to be said for his being a member of the House of Commons; but if it is thought too revolutionary to divorce the office from legal representation, and the ministry is to devolve on the Lord Chancellor or upon one of the Law officers, then that official should be relieved of all other duties and given a secretarial department necessary to the work, and should gather together all the duties and powers concerning legal affairs now scattered irrationally among different departments.

One great economy of a Ministry of Justice would be that for many years no further commissions to take evidence and report would be necessary; for, during the last fifty years, the questions to be settled have been discussed and reported upon ad nauseam. The matter of co-ordination and consolidation of all our Courts has been approved in many of these reports. In 1872 the Judicature Commission-a very powerful bodyrecommended that the County Courts should be annexed to ' and form constituent parts or branches of the proposed High 'Court of Justice.' Upon incorporation, judges and officers would be attached to the High Court and act under their rules