reference was made to the Judges on the motion of Ex-Chancellor Hardwicke, respecting a bill for amending the law of Habeas Corpus; and it was proposed to introduce a new bill in the ensuing session. "But I am sorry to say,"—observes Lord Campbell,—"that when the next session arrived, nothing was thought of except the taking of Quebec; and the subject was not again resumed, till the very close of the reign of George III."
Now it is certainly possible, that in like manner the Lawreforms so confidently promised for this session, may be set aside; and some future writer of Chancellors' Lives, may express his regret, that "in the Session of 1854 little was thought of except the taking of Sebastopol."
But, if another half century should glide away without reform in our Ecclesiastical and other Courts (as more than half a century elapsed, between the motion of Ex-Chancellor Hardwicke and the amendment of the Habeas Corpus Act) shall we set it all down to the overwhelming interest taken in Quebec and Sebastopol?
Shall we not rather look for the solution of these delays, in a certain supineness on the part of those who work the machinery of justice? and in the fact (also stated by Lord Campbell) that "it is very difficult to draw the notice of the representatives of the people to measures for the Amendment of the Law." Difficult to draw attention to such measures; not difficult to find "time," either for their discussion, or the consideration of any examples which may prove the necessity of change.
