When Blackstone, a hundred and sixty years ago, made the first modern summary of the laws of England, the constitutional relations of Great Britain to the rest of the Empire were perfectly clear and perfectly simple. The King in Parliament was supreme. “Ireland”, Blackstone writes, “is a dependent subordinate Kingdom” (I. 98); “Our American plantations are dependent dominions; they are subject to the control of the Parliament (though like Ireland … they are not bound by any Acts of Parliament unless particularly mentioned)”. In thus writing, Blackstone correctly expressed not only the legal doctrine as accepted in forensic theory by all jurists, but also the constitutional doctrine, as accepted in working practice by all statesmen.

Instead of dealing with technical matters, I shall take a different path to-night, because you may like to hear from a judge something of the reality of his everyday life, the actual decisions that he has to make and the actual problems that he has to face. Will you, therefore, go with me upon one of the circuits? As you know, the whole country is divided into seven circuits, and the one that I should like to choose for the purpose of this evening is the North Eastern circuit—Newcastle, Durham, York and Leeds.

Thirty men decide to engage in the business of manufacturing and selling bicycles. They procure the formation, under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, of the X Bicycle Company, Limited. In the memorandum of association the objects of the company are stated to be: “The manufacture and sale of bicycles.” The associates supply that legal unit with funds through payment of subscriptions to its stock, and the company proceeds to manufacture and sell bicycles. But the company loses money, and, on the recommendation of the directors and with the approval of all the shareholders, the manufacture, of bicycles is stopped, and the funds of the company are employed in maintaining a motor omnibus service between two towns. The driver of one of these omnibuses, while acting within the scope of his employment as prescribed by the directors of the company, by his negligence runs into A, who was at the time in the exercise of due care, and breaks A's leg. The driver is financially irresponsible. A sues the X Bicycle Company, Limited, and that company defends on the ground that maintaining the omnibus service was ultra vires. Should this defence be successful?

The Book of Assizes, as we call it shortly, has two more formal and descriptive names. In the earliest printed edition it is called Liber Asssisarum et Placitorum Corone. On the title pages of later editions this is turned into French and expanded into Le Liver des Assises et Plees del Corone Moues et dependauntz deuaunt les Justices sibien en lour circuits come aylour en temps le Roy Edwarde le tierce. Why reports of Assizes and of Pleas of the Crown, two quite different things with no apparent connection, should be mixed up together may be considered later on. It will be best to begin with a word or two of definition. We still to-day talk somewhat loosely of Assizes, though in fact there have been no assizes, in the original sense of the word at any rate, since the last day of 1834, full ninety years ago, when they were abolished by the statute 3 & 4 William IV, c. 27. What were Assizes when the book which we are considering was compiled? Up to some time in Henry II's reign, the only way of settling which of two claimants to a landed estate, large or small, was actually entitled to hold it was a duel with cudgels between them, or, as more' usually happened, between “champions,” as they were called, representing them. The victor in these duels established, by the mere fact of his victory, his principal's absolute right to hold the land in dispute. There was no sort of appeal from a decision so obtained.

The Law of Property Act, 1922, to a very considerable extent assimilates the law of real and personal property, except so far as their physical natures render this impossible or undesirable. But the assimilation is not carried out, as some reformers wished, by making the law of real property correspond to the law of goods. That would have been too great a change. It would have upset the well-recognised method of settling land by means of life estates followed by successive estates tail. The plan was therefore adopted of permitting personalty also to be entailed. This will save much trouble when, as often happens, it is desired to settle the family pictures or heirlooms to go with the mansion house. The trusts now used to achieve this are complicated and, as numerous cases show, sometimes fail to bring about the result desired. Now in a deed, an estate tail can be created in three ways: by a grant (1) to A. and the heirs of his body, (2) to A. in tail, or (3) to A. for life with remainder to the heirs of his body. (These estates can be limited to heirs male or heirs of a particular class, such as the heirs of the body of two named persons.) Of the three forms of words: (1) is the old and correct form based on the Statute De Donis, 13 Ed. I., c. 1, which says that the will of the donor should be observed; (2) is possible as an alternative form by virtue of Section 51 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881; (3) is curious; it is due to the Rule in Shelley's Case, that if land is limited in remainder to the heir or heirs of the body of a person to whom a preceding estate of freehold is given, the words “heirs” or “heirs of the body” are words of limitation.