have to rule the question of law. And the adoption of the largest and most indefinite view of the law of conspiracy leaves the tribunal practically without a check, except by way of appeal on the question of fact, where the sentence is sufficiently severe,-never a very efficient remedy. It is no part of the object of this paper to attempt to review or criticise the way in which the duty of deciding the question of fact has been in practice discharged. But it is permissible to question whether it is wise to leave to justices powers so vast and indefinite as are involved in determining without further guide than their own sentiments what is and what is not undue or improper inducement. Even where the functions of judge and jury have been kept separate, the Legislature has found it necessary to lay down a far narrower and more definite rule as to what constitutes criminal combination in furtherance of trade disputes than is to be gathered from the rulings of Lord Bramwell and Lord Esher or the Report of Chief Justice Cockburn's Commission. It is difficult to see why a rule which is just as regards trade combinations, should not also be just as regards agricultural or any other combinations, which the varying circumstances of the social or political conditions of the time may bring into prominence. The general rule suggested is, that where crime is the object or direct result of the combination, the combination should be held to be a criminal conspiracy, but not otherwise. It is above all things desirable in criminal law that what is and what is not crime should be clearly and intelligibly defined, and that the infliction of punishment should accord with and not jar upon the general sentiment of the community. These ends are not attained, but are frustrated, if the law of conspiracy is extended so as to render criminal what large classes of the community refuse to regard as crime. In the Indian Penal Code as originally drafted by Lord Macaulay, and as it at present exists, conspiracy other than conspiracy to wage war on the Government is no crime unless a crime is contemplated by the conspiracy 1. Our own law is the 1 See Penal Code, 1837, chap. iv. on Abetment; Indian Penal Code, xlv. of 1860, sects. 107, 109. Lord Macaulay's reasons for this exception are worth quoting; Notes on Code, p. 28: In the first place, war may be waged against the Government by persons in whom it is no offence to wage such war, by foreign princes and their subjects. Our general rules on the subject of abetment would apply to the case of a person residing in the British territories who should abet a subject of the British Government in waging war against that Government; but they would not reach the case of a person who, while residing in the British territories, should abet the waging of war by any foreign prince against the British Government. In the second place, we agree with the great body of legislators in thinking that, though in general a person who has been a party to a criminal design which has not been carried into effect ought not to be punished so severely as if that design had been carried into effect, yet an exception to this rule must be made with respect to high same as regards the most important combinations known in this country. But in Ireland the prevailing combinations are not in furtherance of trade disputes, and consequently the theory and still more the practical application of the law is widely different. Is there not a case made out for adopting as the general rule of law the principle recognised by the Indian Penal Code, the Act of 1875, and the Criminal Code Commissioners? Is it possible to administer the law as declared by the Act of 1887 without serious risk of injustice to individuals and of danger to the State? KENELM E. DIGBY. offences against the State. For State crimes, and especially the most heinous and formidable State crimes, have this peculiarity, that if they are successfully committed the criminal is almost always secure from punishment. The murderer is in greater danger after his victim is dispatched than before. The thief is in greater danger after the purse is taken than before. But the rebel is out of danger as soon as he has subverted the Government. As the Penal Law is impotent against a successful rebel, it is consequently necessary that it should be made strong and sharp against the first beginnings of rebellion, against treasonable designs which have been carried no further than plots and preparations. We have therefore not thought it expedient to leave such plots and preparations to the ordinary law of abetment. That law is framed on principles which, though they appear to us to be quite sound as respects the great majority of offences, would be inapplicable here. Under the general law a conspiracy for the subversion of the Government would not be punished at all, if the conspirators were detected before they had done more than discuss plans, adopt resolutions, and interchange promises of fidelity. A conspiracy for the subversion of the Government which should be carried as far as the Gunpowder Treason, or the assassination plot against William the Third, would be punished very much less severely than the counterfeiting of a rupee or the presenting of a forged cheque. We have therefore thought it absolutely necessary to make separate provision for the previous abetting of great State offences.' REGISTRATION-OR SIMPLIFICATION-OF TITLE? I. T is too late to discuss the question whether any further reform of the laws which regulate the tenure, transfer, and transmission of English land is desirable. Upon this point there is a wonderful unanimity. All political parties are agreed that something should be done. But, after a triple failure, it may well be deemed an open question whether Registration of Title is the direction which reform can most wisely take. Attention has recently been so exclusively directed to this branch of the subject that the wider questions why Reform is desirable, and how it can best be obtained, have, for the last three years, been comparatively neglected. It may, therefore, be worth while to consider what inconveniences and disadvantages have been complained of by advocates of reform, as incident to our present system; to glance at their causes; to see how far they have already been removed by remedial legislation; and to inquire, not only whether Registration of Title is entitled to the preference over other proposals for reform which it appears recently to have gained in professional and political opinion, but whether it even gives reasonable promise of proving a panacea for the evils of dilatory and costly transfer. In the performance of this task there is but little scope for originality. It requires, rather, a review of arguments and suggestions which have already emanated from authorities of eminence and experience. A perusal of the principal works and articles which have recently been published on the subject, leads to the conclusion that the object of most advocates of reform is to remove or diminish inconveniences and disadvantages which are considered to affect: (a) Landowners and their families. (6) Land, and its occupiers, and cultivators. (d) Dealings with the land. Chief among the inconveniences and disadvantages which are said to affect landowners and their families, are those incident to the positions of tenants for life and remaindermen in tail under strict settlements. The old objections that eldest sons are often too independent of parental control, and under great temptation to extravagance, have been supplemented by a more modern one, to the effect that they are less often encouraged to cultivate prudent and economical habits than would be the case if they were generally placed in positions more similar to those of younger children. After all due allowance for exaggeration, experience proves that these objections are not unfounded. A tenant for life under a Strict Settlement suffers a double pecuniary hardship: his income is usually lessened by charges in favour of the families of prior tenants for life, and his own powers of charging seldom enable him to provide adequately for his younger children except out of savings of income, unless he is fortunate enough to possess other property than the family estates. If misfortune overtakes him, the nature of his interest in the land precludes him from raising money except upon exorbitant terms. He must give, as security, not only a mortgage of his life estate, but a policy of assurance upon his life, and the premiums and interest form a heavy deduction from an insufficient income. In extreme cases, the entire income has been for years appropriated by an incumbrancer, leaving nothing for the support of the tenant for life or his family. A hardship incident to a strict settlement in tail male arises. when the daughters of a tenant for life who has no male issue are compelled to give up the family house and estate, on their father's death, to some collateral remainderman in tail. Where a settled estate is of comparatively small value, it is not improbable that it may be considerably reduced by litigation in relation to the various interests and charges to which it is subject. The law of primogeniture is objected to, not only on the ground that it is unjust in principle, but because (although the cases in which it directly operates are comparatively few) it is considered indirectly to encourage strict resettlements with all their inconveniences. The occupiers and cultivators of land suffer from the effect of existing laws, principally in the two cases of land subject to strict settlements, and land subject to building leases. The chief interest of a tenant for life is to obtain the largest possible income from the land. Even if he feels the responsibility of real ownership, he has little, if any, inducement to spend his own money on the most necessary of improvements. To do so would confer an additional benefit upon an eldest son (or collateral remainderman in tail) already amply provided for, at the expense of the younger children or daughters of the tenant for life. If he desires to improve the land he often lacks the means to do so, unless he resorts to the powers of the Improvement of Land Acts or Settled Land Acts. How far these Acts have removed this objection will be subsequently considered. While a tenant for life has too often neither inducement nor means to improve the land, the law relating to fixtures and improvements is not such as to encourage tenants for years to make permanent improvements, especially in the numerous cases where land is held under short leases or yearly tenancies. Settled land is therefore too often neglected, while the labourers who cultivate it are lodged in badly-built, badly-drained, unhealthy, and over-crowded cottages. If these evils exist on the lands of resident tenants for life in possession, they are intensified when an absentee landlord is tenant for life of several estates, which for all practical purposes are managed by an agent whose chief interest is to earn a salary or commission on the rents. Still more are they aggravated when the management of settled land passes-as it too often has done— into the hands of the mortgagee of an embarrassed tenant for life. The law of distress has been objected to as anomalous and unjust; while the system of petty tyranny which is capable of being exercised by bigoted landlords over tenants and labourers, in political and religious matters, and the mode in which the game laws are sometimes administered, have elicited deserved condemnation. A lessee of a house is often precluded from making alterations or improvements and from assigning without special licence; and if he makes extensive additions or improvements at his own expense, even with his lessor's consent, he cannot under ordinary leases obtain any compensation when his term expires, while under a building lease he may be bound to rebuild at the end of his term. The disadvantages to the community at large which result from our present system have been too often dwelt upon to need more than enumeration. Advocates of reform are generally agreed that a large and contented rural population, and the distribution of the soil among a considerable number of independent owners, are advantageous to the community; but it seems clear that large estates continually grow larger and larger, that land tends more and more to accumulate in the hands of a limited number of proprietors, that shopkeepers, small farmers, and labourers find it difficult to purchase suitable houses, farms, or gardens, that the old class of yeomen is quickly disappearing, and that emigration to overcrowded towns is increasing. Complaints have also been made that public improvements are checked, and that ancient monuments are recklessly destroyed; while the litigation of the last twenty years has conclusively proved that commons and roadside strips have often been illegally enclosed. Unworthy men are said to be occasionally placed in positions of influence and power, and a reckless tenant for life may be encouraged in extravagance by the |