London Legal Letter. was the foundation upon which a New Nation in the New World was built. It was one of the most momentous strokes of national policy in the annals of the world, resulting in the acquisition by England of a large portion of the Spanish claims in North America, without breaking the treaty and without firing a gun. And the victory on the vital national issues — on which the begin ning of this nation really depended — was won by British statesmen, diplomats, poli ticians and lawyers.
4i
Note. — The case had been on the docket — contested sometimes, but not decided — for more than one hundred years. The discovery by Cabot furnished the base of the case for England, while the base of the Spanish claim was the discovery by Columbus. Hence as a nation we trace back to Cabot and not to Columbus. Yet the name of Columbus is engrafted on more than one hundred places scattered all over the land which was acquired by our forefathers vs. the Spanish claim for his discovery. While Cabot, who furnished the basis for our prime right and title to this land, is almost unknown in the land. And this is only one of many illustrations given by the world as to the truth of the Biblical saying : "A prophet is never with out honor save in his own country" for by the same token the name of Columbus is almost unknown in the Spanish American countries, which really trace back to his dis covery.
LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, Dec. 6, 1893.
WHAT we call the " Rule Committee " of judges of the Supreme Court have now passed several of the rules which have been under consideration since the Council of Judges issued their report on the working of the judica ture acts. As had been anticipated, these new rules introduce the system of trial without plead ing; they of course do not abolish pleading, but plaintiffs may endorse their writs of summons with a statement sufficient to give notice of the nature of their claim or of the relief or remedy required in the action, and the writ in such cases will further bear that if the defendant appears, the plaintiff intends to proceed to trial without pleadings. Liberty is reserved to the defendant to take the opinion of the judge whether there should be pleadings or no. It is clear enough that this scheme might revolutionize our legal procedure, but the general opinion of the pro fession seems to be that matters will be left very much where they are at present, as in the im mense majority of cases where the plaintiff intimates his intention to proceed without plead ings, pleadings on the defendant's application will be ordered by the judge. Our whole system of procedure is at present in a more or less chaotic condition; further experiments and pro
longed experience are required to educe har mony and symmetry. Mr. Crump, the indefatigable editor of the "Law Times," is still contending manfully for his scheme of establishing a Bar Association. He introduced a discussion on the subject at the Hardwicke Debating Society lately, and last week in replying to the toast of the bar at the quarterly dinner of the British Empire Club, he delivered himself of an eloquent apologia on behalf of his cherished idea. Within the past year or two there has been a marked revival throughout London of local par liaments. These institutions are simply debating societies, organized on the model of the House of Commons; in the seventies they were so pop ular that even small provincial towns considered their municipal life incomplete without one, but the debating public in time were surfeited with these mock legislatures, and they almost entirely died out. The instinctive love of controversy, however, which distinguishes lawyers, whether bar risters or solicitors, has re-established in various parts of the metropolis extremely successful par liaments. The most notable are those in Hadding ton, Kensington and Chelsea, where, when mem bers of our profession do not actually predominate in numbers, they are the mainstay and inspiring
