CONTENTS
| PAGE | ||
|---|---|---|
| [Introductory] | 1 | |
| I. | [Legislation] | 8 |
| II. | [The Law Courts] | 12 |
| III. | [Corporations] | 18 |
| IV. | [The Criminal Law] | 22 |
| V. | [Family Law] | 28 |
| VI. | [The Land Laws] | 39 |
| VII. | [Costs and Fusion] | 45 |
| VIII. | [Private International Law] | 66 |
| IX. | [Individual Liberty] | 78 |
LYCURGUS
INTRODUCTORY
The title of this book connotes limitation, for it is obviously impossible to attempt a prophecy about law in all parts of the world, even though “prophecy is the most gratuitous form of error.” I shall confine myself in the main to law in English-speaking countries, for the countries which have adopted Roman Law—i.e., Scotland and most European countries—are not likely to change it very much. English law has largely influenced the world through English Colonies and even through South America, where Bentham drafted more than one constitution. Bacon drafted the constitution of Virginia, which has been the model of the average American State. Even the present writer has been unofficially consulted about a Federal divorce law for the United States.
The future of law in every State depends very much on political developments. If democracy proceeds on its present lines all law is likely to be brought into contempt. Law is brought into contempt in many ways but usually as follows:—
(1) Bad drafting of statutes as in the case of the Rent Restriction Acts, the ambiguity of which necessitates incessant litigation and conflicting decisions.
(2) Absence of principle or indolence in applying it. Thus Professor Dicey wrote:—“English Law might be made lucid, and would be in the main good, if we had no statutes. It is not only or perhaps mainly that Statutes are ill-drawn ... but that English judges are incapable of recognizing a principle when once it is put into the form of an Act of Parliament.” The Married Women Property Act of 1882 might have been drawn in two clauses; the result of this clumsy Statute is that more than forty years afterwards a man is held liable for his wife’s torts, while on the other hand the Partnership Act, 1890, remains as a model of lucidity and saves much litigation.