Codify the law, and go all the way
Should England's tangled land law be patched or rebuilt? Bentham backs Humphreys' call to replace it with a written code, then faults him for stopping short of a thorough one.
James Humphreys had done what almost no English lawyer dared, arguing that the chaotic law of real property be scrapped and rewritten as a code. Bentham, who had demanded codification for half a century, half welcomes and half corrects him. He salutes Humphreys for grasping that land law must be rebuilt rather than patched, then faults him for not going far enough, for leaving too much old learning and terminology standing, and for stopping short of the thoroughgoing utilitarian principles a genuine code demands. It is Bentham near the end of his life, watching the codifying idea he had championed almost alone begin to win respectable converts.
- classification
- legal drafting
- property law
- legal reform
- clarity
- inheritance
Enter a dialogue
- Someone struggling through the tangle of English land law wonders whether it can really be rebuilt from scratch; what does Humphreys' attempt show them?
- You praise Humphreys, then fault him for keeping old terms; isn't some continuity with familiar language exactly what makes a new code usable?
- How does genuinely codifying the law differ from merely writing the existing muddle down in a tidier order?
- To build the thorough code you demand, what accumulated learning and professional habit must the law be willing to throw away?
- Someone doubts a single written code could ever capture something as intricate as land law; how would you steady that doubt?