« PreviousContinue »
spect, under 3 and 4 Vict. c. 97, s. 5, and 7 and 8 Vict. c. 85, s. 15: the inspectors are expressly disabled from exercising any power of interference in the affairs of the company. It is needless to say that inquiries before magistrates, or on occasion of death before a coroner's jury, are totally unfitted for the determination of any thing likely to be of service to prevent future accidents. The Board of Trade has at present no power to enforce precautions for that purpose. In case of a system of inspection, and certificate of fitness for safe working of the plant or the way, to be renewed from time to time on fresh inspections, if the Board saw fit, or withheld if it did not, the objection would, no doubt, be taken, which is so usually taken by the owners of steamers with the Board of Trade, which is entrusted with a like inspection with regard to them_“You inspect our steamers, and satisfy yourselves that they are proper to go to sea; how unjust then to make us suffer, in case any accident happens, when you were satisfied yourselves,” using this argument as a lever, to hoist off from themselves the responsibility for injuries and loss.
But, whether on good grounds or no, the railway companies complain bitterly of the losses accruing to them by the operation of Lord Campbell's Act. They say the value of life under it is measured by a class standard. They put their case this way: A high public functionary takes his ticket for a journey of halfa-dozen miles, at a cost of a shilling; there being in the same train a mechanic, setting out on a journey of a hundred miles, having paid ten shillings fare. The train meets with an accident and both are killed. Then, it is said, the life of the rich man, holding public offices of emolument, &c., is worth twenty thousand to his family, and that amount the jury will give; but to the poor family, who are not able to establish a pecuniary loss, the jury will give no compensation. This is the ground taken. Our readers will judge for themselves how far experience shows it to be warranted. The sums paid in compensation are no doubt very large, the aggregate of such sums—by far the larger part of which, however, are paid under arbitration, and not by award of a jury-during the last ten years, we find to be no less than
£412,349 10s. 10d.;and there is much said of railway depreciation, or at least the fluctuation of such property of late years, and the falling off of dividends. But still, in spite of all this, railway enterprise does not appear to flag; still there seems to be a field of unworked harvest, in the estimation of the railway world—still corn in Egypt; for, after all, the number of bills for railways in the session of 1859, was 172, of which 129 were to authorize new works; of these 70 were by new companies, 59 by existing companies. The total length is 1129 miles.
Nevertheless, that juries in some places, and that some judges, are more inclined than others to take unfavourable views, as against the companies, is notorious. It is also stated to be considered that the Railway, &c., Traffic Act (founded on the 7th Resolution of the House of Commons Committee of 1853), as administered in the Court of Common Pleas, has not proved satisfactory, from the difficulty, as it appears, of a court of law interfering with good effect in railway management. The whole question, however, of railway responsibility is so wide, and various, and complex, that there is no wonder perhaps to find a great difference of opinion entertained amongst lawyers upon it. Some judges have held that the occurrence of a railway accident is primâ facie evidence of negligence on the part of the company, whilst other judges have expressed their inability to concur in such ruling. For ourselves we should wish to see the question of railway responsibility, of whatever character or class, whether as to goods or passengers, dealt with by the courts in the spirit indicated in a most remarkable judgment of a learned judge in a late case 5 _“ As the profits from carrying depend much upon the contracts for carrying, and as railway companies, like other carriers, are perpetually infested by attempts at overreaching and fraud, to be defeated only by vigilance in making con
Report of Committee on Railway Accidents, Appendix, p. 195. ? Evid., pp. 21, 22, compare Id., p. 52. See also Evid. before Committee on Railway, &c., Legislation, pp. 21, 24.
* Parliamentary Paper, Sessio! 1859, No. 6, p. 4. 4 Evid. before Coinmittee of 1858, on Railway Legislation, p. 21, and see 68.
5 M.Manus v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 5 Jur. N.S. 647. Exch. Ch.
VOL. VIII. NO. XV.
tracts, and by the protection of the law in enforcing them, an intention to make their contracts uncertain appears to have the evil of taking from this property a security which belongs to all other property in trade. The evil also is greater in proportion as the contingency is uncertain; and the test of the just and reasonable, in the person who happens to be the judge, is peculiarly uncertain. Some judges seem to have thought it just that the carrier should always pay for every damage and loss. In the minds of other judges the just and reasonable is tested by an intuitive perception of right known only to themselves. Some judges may think that a party to a bargain should take care of his own interest, and that, if he makes a promise, it is just that he should keep it. Other judges may attempt to know the interest of railways and customers respectively, and try the reasonableness of contracts by this knowledge ; but their situation makes such knowledge almost impossible. Upon the argument, this supposed hardship on the companies was said to be justified by the assumption that carriers have a monopoly ; and Jervis, C. J., 18 C. B. 829, says, “The monopoly created by
, railways compels the public to employ them, and therefore the legislature has imposed securities on them." It is true that railway proprietors have produced accommodation so excellent, that the public prefer it to any other ; but that for that reason the prejudice against monopolies should be brought against railways, is not right. In monopolies, the seller of a bad article, by virtue of a grant, compels the buyer to pay too much; here, the buyer chooses an article on account of its goodness, and claims to compel the seller to take too little. The public has granted nothing to railway companies without exacting full price; their act, their land, and their works are all paid for. Subject to the conditions imposed originally, they have the same rights of property as other owners ; and confiscation of any of those rights is not justified by an unfounded imputation of monopoly. The notion, that customers of railways require protection, on account of incapacity to resist oppression, is not more true than the notion, that against a large proportion of customers railway companies stand in nced of every aid the law can afford.”
ART. X.-THE LIBRARIES OF THE INNS OF COURT,
1. Memoirs of Libraries; including a Hand-book of Library
Economy. By EDWARD EDWARDS. London: Trübner & Co., 1859. 2 vols.
2. Catalogue of the Printed Books in the Library of the Hon.
Society of Lincoln's Inn. By WILLIAM H. SPILSBURY, Librarian. Printed for the Society, 1859.
the Middle Temple. We now propose to make a few remarks upon the Libraries of the remaining Inns of Court. We are told that a hero renowned in fiction, when assailed by more than one adversary, " applied to the weakest first.” Acting on the same judicious principle, we shall commence our inquiries with the Library of Gray's Inn. It is no discredit to a society numerically so much weaker than the three great legal colleges of London, to possess a smaller collection of books in a less showy receptacle. It is merely what is naturally to be expected, and reflects no blame upon the guardians of Gray's Inn. Nor indeed are we sure that the apartments in which their books are lodged, would suffer by a comparison with those which at present contain the much larger array of volumes appertaining to the Middle Temple, and which the unfortunate effects of the “Strike” threaten to retain in their present location for a much longer period than we a few months since anticipated.
The books constituting the library of Gray's Inn are chiefly upon law, or subjects immediately therewith connected; but there are also some valuable works on divinity, including a collection of “The Fathers of the Church," and some manuscript missals, &c. There is no modern printed catalogue of this
1 See L. M. and R., vol. vii. p. 67, No. 13, May 1859. Tom Jones.
library, but increased attention has of late years been paid to its condition.
The Library of Lincoln's Inn is widely different in bulk, corresponding in magnitude with the wealth of the very important body to which it belongs. Its foundation is said to be of an earlier date than that of any other library now existing in London. As far back as 1497, the rudiments of the collection were formed by bequest of John Nethersale, a member of the society, thus anticipating the work of Mr. Ashley, at the Middle Temple, by 144 years. In both instances, the good intentions of the original founders do not seem, until a period approaching our own, to have been regularly and systematically followed up by the higher powers of each Inn. The much-admired building which contains the books of Lincoln's Inn was erected only fourteen years ago.
Amongst the benefactors to the Lincoln's Inn collection, may be found the celebrated names of Dr. Donne and Archbishop Usher, also of that singular, dogged, witch-visaged, indefatigable personage, William Prynne (so hardly dealt with by Samuel Butler and the executioner’s shears), who was a bencher of the society. A copy, believed to be unique, of the Introduction to Prynne's
, Records, was purchased by the society of Lincoln's Inn, at the sale of the Stowe library in 1849, for the very considerable sum of £335.
But Sir Matthew Hale - so conspicuous for his gifts of hand, head, and heart-was one of the most liberal, as well as perhaps the worthiest, of the deceased benefactors to this voluminous collection. His manuscripts are not only important in bulk hut in quality, comprising, amongst other interesting matter, many papers in the handwriting of Selden, and a large folio with the formidable title, “The Black Book of the New Law," by Sir Matthew Hale himself.
Of living donors to this extensive library, Mr. Purton Cooper, one of the members of the Bench of the Inn, undoubtedly holds the most conspicuous place. This gentleman, whose own writings are well known, presented to the Society in 1853, nearly two