LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, Sept. 10, 1892. '"PHE Council of Judges has at last made its Report. The Judges have been conferring from time to time during the present year, for the purpose of inquiring into any defects in the sys tem of procedure, and in the administration of the law in the High Court of Justice. The result of these deliberations was issued just before the commencement of the Long Vacation. The pro posals made are to a large extent in accordance with professional expectations, and should receive, I think, general approval. I shall confine my self to a sketch of the Report's more salient fea tures, mere detail being of course devoid of in terest. As I have mentioned in more than one letter, a prominent difficulty has been how to ar range for the constant presence of a sufficient number of judges in London to provide for the continuous administration of justice, and at the same time for a sufficient attendance of judges in the country to satisfy local requirements. The Council now proposes a scheme of judicial labor which would secure the presence in London of never fewer than eight, and for the greater number of working days in the legal year, more than eight judges of the Queen's Bench Division. If this plan can be effectually carried out, the wheels of our old Circuit system should move sufficiently smoothly. Perhaps the most interesting section of the Report is that which recommends the in stitution of a Court of Appeal in criminal cases. "There is a great diversity," say the Judges, "in the sentences passed by different courts in respect of offences of the same kind, where the circum stances are very similar. It is much to be desired that this diversity should if possible be avoided. It often happens, when a person is convicted of a serious crime, and is sentenced to a severe pun ishment, and most frequently when a person is convicted of murder, that a petition is presented, after having been circulated for signatures, and the Home Secretary is pressed to review the find ing of the jury, and the sentence of the judge. This review is not asked for on the ground of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, but by way of appeal, upon the assertion that the verdict or sentence was wrong. The request is really an appeal, and not merely a petition. That appeal

throws at times more responsibility on the Home Secretary than any one man ought to have im posed upon him." It is suggested that this Court should consist of seven Common Law judges, with a quorum of five. It would, however, in the opinion of the Judges, be contrary to the funda mental rules of English Criminal I^aw to interfere with a verdict of acquittal, so that no man who has once been acquitted should be put in danger again in respect of the same accusation. In thus recommending the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal, the Judges are only giving effect to an opinion which has gradually gained ground with the public; it is no doubt a distinct innovation, but the circumstances alluded to in the Report, as quoted above, have rendered it inevi table. The New Government is now complete, and all important appointments have been made. Con trary to expectation, but in accordance with a fre quent rumor, Mr. Asquith, Q. C., of whom I spoke in my last letter, has been made Home Sec retary. Sir Charles Russell again becomes Liberal Attorney-General, with Mr. Bigley, Q. C, one of the leaders of the Chancery Bar, as Solicitor-Gen eral. As in Mr. Gladstone's last administration, the Woolsack is occupied by Lord Herschell. The principal public diversion of the recess has been the Labouchere episode. Mr. Labouchere, M. P.. the well-known editor of "Truth," reflect ing that he had consistently dowered the Liberal party with his support in the columns of his jour nal, arrived at the conclusion that he should find a place in Mr. Gladstone's cabinet. This dis tinction not having been conferred, Mr. Labou chere then began to assert, through the medium of " Truth," that he owed his rejection to royal disfavor. It now, however, abundantly appears that his exclusion from office was exclusively due to Mr. Gladstone's own opinion that the editor of "Truth" was, from the nature of his occupation, incapacitated from serving in the inner sanctum of political life. The humor of the incident consists in Mr. Labouchere's feverish asseverations that it was a matter of indifference to him whether he received office or not, and the conspicuous keen ness of his disappointment.