REVIEWS
| Published date | 01 April 1951 |
| Date | 01 April 1951 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1951.tb00203.x |
REV
I
En’
s
TEE
INHERITANCE
OF
THE
COMMON
LAW.
By
RICHARD
O’SULLIVAN,
K.C.
THE
HAMLYN
LECTURES
:
Second Series. [London
:
Stevens
&
Sons, Ltd.
1950.
viii and
118
pp.
8s.
net.]
THE
HAMLYN TRUST
is unique in the law. Other branches of knowledge have
had trusts for their furtherance. Most people have heard of the Giffard,
Rede and Romanes lectures for other subjects but there were no com-
parable lectures for the law until Miss Hamlyn left her estate for the purpose.
In this series of lectures
Mr.
Richard OSullivan,
K.c.,
has traced the
origin of some of the most fundamental conceptions of the law. He hns
shown how much we owe to the Christian religion. We owe the concept of
the
‘
reasonable man
’
to the Christian sense of equality of human nature:
the indissolubility of marriage to the Church regarding it
at
one time
a
sacrament:
our
political freedom to the Christian view of the relations
between Church and State: and our freedom of conscience to the law
of
nature as transformed in the light of the Christian revelation. The reason
is
because the Christian religion has been the religion of the judges and of
the people of England, both before and after the Reformation.
It
is not
because the English common lawyers had any love for the canon and civil
law. They would never have anything to do with the positive doctrines of
the canonists and theologians.
Mr.
OSullivan gives interesting examples of
their refusal to accept the Papal decretals-Nolmus
loges
AngUa,
mutaro.
He does not stop
at
the lieformation. He traces the concepts down to the
present day and warns
us
of the dangers of
our
times. Rut he is not
a
pessimist.
‘
The ordinary man of the law who is the despair of the gentleman
in Whitehall may yet be the hope of the world.’
Mr. OSullivan’s hero is Sir Thomas More whom he describes on three
occasions
as
‘the most illustrious of the common lawyers’. This is the only
point
at
which some may disagree with him. Whatever claims
to
fame that
More may have, they do not rest on his contributions to the common law:
for he made none of any permanent value. His
only
judicial office was his
two and
a
half years
as
Lord
Chancellor when, in the exercise
of
his equitable
jurisdiction, he issucd injunctions restraining proceedings
at
common law.
But he did not himself exercise any common law jurisdiction: and he wrote
no legal work. There
me
many names in the common law far more illustrious
than that of More. For instance the character of Sir Matthew Hale was as
exemplary as that of More, and he contributed far more to the common law.
That, however, is a mall point. The lectures of Mr. O’Sullivan are
a
notable contribution to
our
legal history. They are illumined by his wide
reading and learning and are full
of
the good common sense which marks
the
good common lawyer that he
is.
It is
a
book well worth reading and keeping.
A.
T.
DENNINQ.
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW.
By
E.
C.
S.
WADE,
M.A.,
LLI).,
and
G.
GODFREY
hILLIPS, CAE., M.A., ~L.M.
Fourth Edition
by
E.
C.
S.
WADE.
[London
:
Longman’s, Green
Rr
Co.
1950.
xxix and
535
pp.
85s.l
CONSTITUTIONAL
Law.
By
E.
W.
RIDGES.
Eighth Edition
by
G.
A.
FORREST,
M.A.
[London: Stevens
&
Sons,
Ltd.
1950.
xxviii and
550
pp.
429.1
281
282
THE
MODERN
LAW REVIEW
VOL
14
THE
previous edition of
Wade and Phillip
appeared in
1946,
and the
previous edition of
Ridges
(sub noin.
Keith)
as long ago as
1939.
The duties
of
their editors have therefore been heavy. Although the fundamental con-
tinuity of constitutional dcvelopment has been preserved, new trends that are
certain to have lasting significance have emerged, particularly in adminis-
trative and local government law and in Commoiiwealth affairs. Moreover,
statutes like the Representation of the People Acts, the Crown Proceedings
Act,
1947,
and the British Nationality Act,
1948,
have
so
altered the old law
that substantial portions of the texts have had
to
be rewritten.
Wade
and Phillips
is essentially
a
students’ textbook; and
a
remarkably
good textbook it is. Hitherto it has been distinguished by balance, concise-
ness nnd accuracy rather than by readability, but the present edition
is
more interesting than any of its predecessors.
It
includes
a
good new
chapter on Cabinet organisation, and the
first
few pages of the section
OIL
administrative law have been greatly improved. These and other changes
have made the book more than
a
textbook of the law of the constitution; it
is
a
succinct account of constitutional practice as well as of constitutional
law, of public administration as well
as
of administrative law.
Errors and omissions Rre very few. Returning officers
at
elections are no
longer under any civil liability (p.
79)
nor are they disqualified from voting
(p.
80):
see
Representation of the People Act,
1949,
6s.
60,
17
(6).
(The
same errors occur in
Ridgea,
pp.
49, 48.)
The effect of the Triennial Act,
1694,
is
misstated (p.
87).
In the present Parliament the Deputy-Chairman of
Ways and Means
is
a
member of the Opposition (p.
91).
Not all special
juries were abolished by the Juries Act,
1949
(p.
228).
The Crown cannot
be sued in England in respect of breaches of contract by colonial govern-
ments
(p.
401).
The membership of the Canadian Senate was increased upon
the incorporation ,of Newfoundland in
1949
(p.
418).
Occasionally the
treatment of individual topics is too compressed to be adequate. Thus, the
conventions governing the exercise of the prerogative of dissolution are
at
once more complicated nnd less vague than the text would suggest: see,
e.g.,
Eugene Forsey,
Royal
Power
of
Disaolutim
of
Parliament in the British
Commwaalth.
The closure in the House
of
Commons
is
not clearly
explained (p.
104),
and few students will understand the
Bradlaugh
Caee.9
from the account given at pp.
119-20.
It
would have been useful
to
have
a
more detailed statement of the procedures by which Parliament supervises
the affairs of nationalised industries. Something might well have been said
of the colonial application clause in modern British treaties: see
1949
B.Y.I.L.
86.
These criticisms and suggestions are all concerned with small
points. I’robahly
no
one hut the learned editor could have written
so
coni-
prehensive and accurrite a hook in
so
few
pnges.
Ridges
is
a book of
a
different character. Inelegantly written, particularly
in the important introductory chapters, it has nevertheless been an invaluable
work of reference. It is well docuinented, and contains a wealth of informu-
tion on ninny recondite topics. The last three editions, by Professor Berrie-
dale Keith, bore the impression not merely of the editor’s remarkable scholar-
ship but also of
his
less noteworthy views on current political developments.
His successor must have faced an estremely difficult task. He has improved
the layout nnd balance of the book, notably by omitting the chapters on the
history of legal institutions nnd most references to internal affairs in Com-
monwealth countrics, and by rearranging and shortening the account of local
government. He has also added new chapters on administrative law, delegated
legislation, judicial control of public authorities and Crown proceedings; these
chapters are sound, if rather brief.
In
the result,
Ridge8
has become less
overweighted with historical learning and Commonwealth affairs, and
is
accordingly less likely
to
daunt the uninitiated.
Unfortunately, however, the present edition suffers from
a
serious defect..
The work of re-editing began as early as
1947,
and apparently
it
was not
To continue reading
Request your trial