with the existing boundaries accurately marked, would present a very fantastic appearance, and it would certainly tax the ingenuity of the draftsman. With all the colours of the rainbow on his pallette, to find distinctive shades for the ever varying areas, the Map would of course show the boundary of the eight cities and boroughs, now constituting the Metropolis, with their several wards and subdivisions, and the 200 parochial and extra parochial districts of which these are composed. Then, beginning a-fresh with the several county boundaries, the area of jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Courts of the London, Westminster, and Clerkenwell Sessions, and the fifteen police courts, the thirteen county courts, and finding a satisfactory colour for the boundary, designed to distinguish trials in London from trials in Middlesex, the draftsman would have to delineate on the map thus scored over, the territories of the Metropolitan Board of Works, of the thirty-nine local boards, their wards and divisions, and of the thirty-nine Boards of Guardians. He then would have to carefully mark out and find distinct colouring for the nineteen police divisions, the fifty-six building Act districts, the thirty-seven registration districts, the ten School Board districts, the fifteen lieutenancy and militia districts, and (more difficult of all to delineate) the dividing of the metropolis for ecclesiastical and eleemosynary purposes. Such a map, with proper shading to denote the rate of local taxation, would be of very great service, not only to all persons taking a part in London local government, but to members of the legal profession, and indeed to every Londoner

The City of London, in Lord Coke's time, housed within its confined area of about one square mile not only the whole of the citizens, but for the most part the population of London; and for the government and well being of the City so peopled there existed laws, franchises, customs, and privileges derived from very ancient times, when London, like all the free Cities of the Middle Ages, existed to a great extent independently of any superior power. The ancient laws and

customs of the City of London, which again and again are referred to in Coke's works, were designed to supersede almost all external control; regulating not only the local government of the City in the most comprehensive sense of the term-its police, sanitary system, supply of water, light, and fuel, its roads and buildings, poor relief and suppression of vagrancy, technical education, regulation of the markets and exchanges, the shipping and port, the guilds and trade, regulating apprenticeship, and the relations between the workmen and their employers, the guardianship of orphans, and certainly a great many matters which, at this day, are deemed to be altogether beyond the scope of mere municipal regulations.

During the two centuries and a half which have elapsed since Coke wrote both London itself, within and without the old walls, and the regulations coming under the designation of the laws of London, have wonderfully changed, and the latter certainly increased in bulk and number, as well as in character and diversity. In defiance of royal proclamations prohibiting the erection of any building upon a new foundation within the limits of three miles from any of the gates of the City of London or Palace of Westminster, and other sagacious provisions, extramural London has gradually expanded to its present dimensions, and the single square mile, which constituted the site of ancient intramural London, has come to be disused as a place of residence, and to form a small part of the actual London of our day, a part which, abandoned for residential purposes, is now merely used as a place of resort during a portion of the day for the mercantile classes, whose permanent abodes are spread over the whole area of the metropolis.

London, properly so-called, now comprises an area of about 78,000 acres, or the ancient area more than one hundred times magnified, and its growth and prosperity have certainly not been helped by any system of legislative provisions. Until 1855 there was really nothing approximating to a system of local government for the metropolis.

As district after district sprung up, its local government was left for the most part to be provided for by the makeshift machinery improvised from time to time by mere local schemes. The machinery of the parochial vestries originally called into existence merely for the purposes of the management of the church and the relief of the poor, was, from time to time, altered, patched up, repaired, and extended, so as to pass as a substitute for actual municipal government, and whilst comprehensive measures for sanitary purposes were, to a great extent neglected, the supply of water and light was left to the mercy of mere private companies, avowedly seeking, at the hands of the legislature, sanction for taxing the inhabitants to the largest practicable extent for the supply of the necessaries of life.

The Corporation of the old City of London inevitably composed, under the circumstances already described, of måterials altogether inferior to those which belonged to it when the City formed really the whole of the metropolis, little interfered in all this. Year after year they opposed every measure of reform likely to affect them. They neglected the River, and the Port, and resisted the formation of Docks, abandoning the latter work to the mercy of private companies, and being at last relieved by law from the conservancy of the River. There have no doubt been at all times energetic men in power at the Guildhall, but it is nevertheless true that whilst every other municipal corporation in the Kingdom was reformed forty years ago and the municipal limits extended so as to embrace the whole area. of the ancient city or town, we owe to the successful resistance of the Guildhall, to all efficacious and comprehensive reforms in the Local Government of London, its present anomalous state.

A recent movement, emanating in the first instance with a merely private Association, revived the interest felt in the question of London Municipal Reform, and the interest has been kept alive by an admirable paper by Mr. Hare, read at the Law Amendment Society, and a discussion on the subject

which has been spread over several evenings. In the course of three recent discussions on the subject, whilst we have heard on the one hand strong expressions of general dissatisfaction with the state of things at present prevailing, and the most singular objections on the part of those who having officially or otherwise personal interests in its continuance, it has been well made out that the almost unanimous cry is for uniformity and efficiency in the local government of London, and what would inevitably follow, greater economy and less local burdens.

To the legal profession the subject of London local government may appear at first sight of secondary importance, but on reflection it will be seen that no class are so competent to testify to the evils of our present want of system, the unnecessary trouble which the conflicting provisions of the local enactments occasion, the inconvenience and cost which arise from the confusion of districts, and the impracticability, to say the very least of it, of the one thousand and one separate officials whose humours have to be studied and conciliated.

VII. MODERN PRACTICES OF THE BAR.

WE

E observed with great gratification that a very common and reprehensible practice had been spoken of by a member of the Bench in a manner in which it deserves. When we say that the member of the bench who uttered the criticism was Mr. Commissioner Kerr, we need not infer that the criticism to which we allude was complimentary neither to the custom itself nor to those who practice it, as Mr. Commissioner Kerr is only famous for

uncomplimentary criticisms. We do not for one moment say that Mr. Commissioner Kerr is never complimentary, but only that his utterances, when of a contrary nature, attract the most attention.

The practice to which we allude is the well-known practice amongst barristers called "devilling," and we think that we cannot do better than repeat here at length the description recently given in the Times of what took place on the occasion to which we refer :-

"For upwards of an hour after the opening of the fourth court, at the Central Criminal Court, on Friday, although there were four cases for trial on the list, the business was at a standstill, owing to the absence in one of the three other courts which were sitting simultaneously, of one or more of the learned counsel, who were instructed either to prosecute or defend the prisoners. After waiting some time Mr. Commissioner Kerr observed that it might be thought degrading to take a leaf out of the book of Scotch law, but the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh sat every Monday throughout the year for the trial of criminal cases, and as there was consequently no accumulation or congestion of business, the court invariably got through its work early in the day. In London, however, there were but twelve sessions in the year, each of which, as a rule, with four courts sitting, occupied the greater part of a week. The result was that the same counsel were engaged in most of the cases, and that a number of separate juries had to be kept kicking their heels about day after day. Perhaps it might be as well in future for the counsel to arrange among themselves when the sessions should be held, and then to bring down the judges and juries after they had completely made up their minds on the point. He thought the disreputable practice of counsel who were instructed in cases handing their briefs over to others who knew nothing of the facts should be discountenanced and stopped. Sir Cresswell Cresswell, an eminent counsel and judge, prided himself that in the whole course of his professional career he had never handed over any brief entrusted to him, and it would be well if Sir Cresswell's highminded and honourable conduct in that respect could be generally followed. The system at that Court, by which a few counsel monopolised the whole of the business, and then handed over their briefs to juniors if it was inconvenient for them personally to attend to them, was simply detestable. He should like to see every prisoner insist on being defended by the counsel whom he had in