languages does not seem to be always unimpeachable, for at p. 370, of Vol. I., he conjugates the verb "constituer" as if it were an English verb in a quotation from Emerigon, and in his list of authorities he prints the French "de" for the Italian "de'" (for "dei"), in giving the title of Lampredi's work. And is not the title of Cleirac's book, "Us et coutumes de la mer," not "Us. et coutumes," which could only be a contraction for "Usages?" But these are slight blemishes in a work extending over two volumes, and more than twelve hundred pages, filled with citations, and we can confidently recommend the practice of quoting the present fifth edition to those of our Transatlantic cousins who have vexed the soul of Mr. Maclachlan by appearing to know none later than that of 1848.

Remarks on the Use and Abuse of Some Political Terms. By the late Right. Hon. Sir GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS, Bart. A New Edition, with Notes and Appendix, by Sir ROLAND KNYVET WILSON, Bart., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Oxford: James Thornton. 1877.

1

Anything from the pen of the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis is sure to be worthy of attentive consideration. We are, therefore, not surprised to find from Sir Roland Wilson's preface to his present publication, that the perusal of "Remarks on the Use and Abuse of Some Political Terms was recommended by Oxford Tutors even when the work was scarcely accessible. Sir Roland has done good service in bringing out a new edition, which will, doubtless, come rapidly into favour both at Oxford and Cambridge, among men reading for honours, whether or not they are likely to enter upon public life. The study of Political Science, indeed, is not only proper for all who belong to the Hereditary branch of our Legislature, or aspire to forming part of its Elective branch, but is of far wider application, and of the highest utility to every educated member of the Commonwealth. While welcoming this new contribution to so useful a study, we cannot refrain from pointing out some particulars in which we think that Sir Roland Wilson has not acted up to the full mark of editorial revision. At p. 38, where Sir G. C. Lewis incidentally speaks in a note of the "arresting a debtor," as an instance of the necessity for keeping the administrative functions of the Sovereign power in constant activity, the Editor should have pointed out that arrest on mesne process has long been abolished. In other passages, as on p. 68, where France is

spoken of as "one of the States where a King rules," and is therefore classed with "Monarchies," no hint is given of the altered condition of affairs. Perhaps Sir Roland considers the Marshal President to be virtually a King! Similarly, at p. 54, Sir George Lewis is still allowed to class Austria, Prussia, Spain and Portugal, among countries where "the whole Sovereignty belongs to one person," although every one of them is, at this moment, in a greater or lesser degree, a Constitutional or mixed Monarchy, like that of Great Britain. This is the more singular, that at p. 144, Sir Roland does add a note on the abolition and restoration of the Constitution of Hungary, of which kingdom he somewhat oddly states that, in 1867, it was "declared to form a double Monarchy with Austria, on a footing of complete equality." This is true in fact, but odd in its expression. It is difficult to see how one kingdom could form a "double Monarchy " unless it were split in two. In an Appendix, Sir Roland Wilson adds some brief but useful notes on modern applications of various political terms, which have had a rather exciting history since the days of Sir G. C. Lewis, such as Nationality, Autonomy, Home Rule, &c., and which require to be carefully studied both for Home and Foreign Politics.

A Treatise on the Law of Easements. By JOHN LEYBOURN GODDARD, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Stevens and Sons. 1877.

We are glad to see that a second edition of Mr. Goddard's able book on Easements has been called for. Although it cannot be said to have superseded the well-known Treatise by Gale, it has certainly achieved a well-established footing by the side of the older work. Its success has been deserved. Unlike many of the volumes which annually issue from the press, Mr. Goddard's book was not written for the mere sake of writing something, but was the outcome of severe and conscientious labour upon the Law of Easements by the author when appointed, in 1867 by the Digest of Law Commissioners, to preface one of the three specimens of Digests which were determined upon. The author tells us that he made a complete search through the whole of the Common Law and Equity Reports from the time. of Queen Elizabeth to the then present date, the number of volumes being upwards of eight hundred. The result of this painstaking research has been the production of a Treatise on this branch of the law, exhaustive yet restrained within

moderate dimensions, and so arranged as to prove interesting and instructive reading to the student, as well as a useful book of reference to the practitioner. The cases decided since the publication of the first edition have been carefully noted in the present.

Die Vorbereitung der Mündlichen Verhandlung nach dem Gegenwärtigen Stande der Civilprocessgesetzgebung. (Berlin: Franz Vahlen, 1875.) Die Parteienvernehmung und der Parteieneid nach dem Gegenwärtigen Stande der Civilprocessgesetzgebung. (Wien Manz'sche K. K. Hof-Verlags-und Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1876.) Von Dr. PHILIPP HARRAS RITTER Von HARRASOWSKY.

One advantage of that Codification which has for years been the goal of Law Reformers and Jurists in Great Britain, and which has long been more or less fully enjoyed by most of their Continental brethren, is that it greatly facilitates the comparative study of Jurisprudence. And, to that extent, it is also undoubtedly favourable to the reform and amendment of the Law, as well as to the interests of Juridical Science. The Comparative Method has, indeed, come into great favour of late years, through the labours of eminent workers in various departments of Science. Scarcely a branch can be named which has not felt its influence. Bopp applied it to Philology, Pritchard to Ethnography, while more recently, Max Müller has applied it to the study of Religion, and Freeman to that of Politics. Among Jurists, who have made the Comparative system the basis of their writings, and also of their fame, Dr. von Harrasowsky, not unjustly, reckons Mittermaier pre-eminent, and considers that his important labours will receive the wider acceptance the more carefully Foreign Systems are studied. In both the works now before us, therefore, the method pursued is that of Mittermaier, and the reader is carried rapidly through the Procedure of the principal countries of the Old and New World, so far as the studies of the learned author have enabled him to carry out his views. The work done is naturally best in regard to the countries possessed of Codes. In both volumes, Great Britain and the United States fare the worst, not only as to extent, but also as to thoroughness of treatment. It is not too much to say that Dr. von Harrasowsky appears to have enjoyed only limited. opportunities of studying the working of the Judicature Acts, so far as it can be studied in the numerous editions of the best works on the subject which have flooded our Library table ever

since the passing of the Acts. His references to standard authorities are not up to date, for he quotes Stephen's Commentaries from an edition (1844-5), more than thirty years old. We fear that this use of somewhat antiquated text-books has obscured Dr. von Harrasowsky's view of our existing Procedure. He appears to us in his work on Oral Procedure (Vorbereitung, p. 24), to speak of the issue of a Writ of Subpoena to the Defendant in a manner which leaves some doubt on our mind whether he meant to describe the famous writ of subpoena, invented by John de Waltham, Master of the Rolls, temp. Ric. II., or whether he had in view the "writ of summons" by which all actions, in every Division of the High Court, are now commenced. In any case, the description is wanting in clearness, if not in accuracy, and it seems to be based on authorities which could not describe the existing practice, viz., if we mistake not, the First Report of the Chancery Commission, 1852, and Stephen's Commentaries cited from an Edition of 1845. Moreover, our authority, speaking of the "Klage," or statement by the plaintiff of the nature of his claim, as being written on parchment, seems clearly to show that he cannot have had the modern Practice in view, although he uses the present tense throughout his description. We may consider it, perhaps, as a "Historic Present," but it would make his otherwise valuable work more useful to his fellow-countrymen if in a future edition Ritter von Harrasowsky were to refer to more recent authorities, and describe the Practice in the Chancery Division of the High Court as it is established under the Judicature Acts. In his later, and much more considerable, work on Parties (Parteienvernehmung), we are glad to see that our author has, on the whole, followed better, because more recent, authorities, and has based his statements more frequently upon the Judicature Acts themselves, in the latest shape in which they were accessible at the time of his going to press. It scarcely seems to us that Dr. von Harrasowsky brings out the fact that oral evidence is the norm under the Judicature Acts (Ord. xxxvii.), while discretion is given to the judge in the Order just quoted to allow any particular fact or facts to be proved by affidavit. It is, no doubt, true, as the author says, that considerable elbow-room (spiel-raum) is allowed to the English judge in his estimate of the grounds of the suit, but although it may not be his official business to take care that those grounds be clearly and fully set forth, this statement should be qualified by the recollection that the claim, which forms the ground of

the action, is indorsed on the writ of summons, and also by the necessity under which the judge lies to direct the jury in his summing up. If the case is being tried without a jury, it is quite certain that the judge will be equally careful to satisfy himself as to the plaintiff's case.

We have dwelt at some length upon points in which those portions of Dr. von Harrasowsky's works which relate to English Procedure seemed to us to require further explanation or modification, because we have thought that such a course would best meet the learned author's own wishes in regard to criticism. But we are not, therefore, blind to the merits possessed by both his works, and more particularly his later and much more elaborate volume on Parties." We are quite in harmony with him as to the value of the comparative method in scientific Jurisprudence; we do not doubt that it has a tendency to soften down antagonisms, and to reduce what German politicians would call the particularist spirit, or, as our French neighbours happily call it, "l'esprit du clocher." In labouring to diminish the prevalence of this narrow spirit, we are quite sure that Ritter von Harrasowsky is doing a good work, and we hope that Austrian Jurists who share his views will support him in his endeavour to give to the exposition of Foreign Law-Systems an abiding place in Juridical Science.

Public Libraries of the United States of America. Their History, Condition, and Management. Special Report, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education. Washington. 1876.

Those who may have paid any attention to the recent Conference of Librarians, which the energy of a former Librarian of the Union Society at Oxford was mainly instrumental in convoking, will scarcely need to be told that the "science" of Librarianship, if one may use such a term, has been deeply and widely cultivated in the United States. The mass of information, historical and statistical, which has been gathered up in the weighty volume now before us, defies analysis in the limited space which we can afford it. There is something for all readers in the Special Report of the Bureau of Education, for the Lawyer, the Scientific man, the Theologian, the Student of History and of Literature and Languages. And there is much, we need scarcely observe, which the managers as well as the officers of Libraries will do well to ponder over. We seem to meet here the originals of some characters who probably