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
- You praise Humphreys, who drafted a written code for land law, yet fault him for keeping old legal terms. Wouldn't familiar words help a new code succeed?
- Gathering the old land laws into one tidy book, you say, is not codification. What would a real code change that the tidy book leaves alone?
- The legal writer Hale set down the law as he found it and never asked what it ought to be. Why is that not enough for you?
- You split the lawyer Humphreys' land-law plan into eight reforms so no single opponent can sink them all. Why does splitting make the parts likelier to pass?
- A couple arranges who keeps what and who inherits. Why would your short list of numbered blanks serve them better than a lawyer's long deed?