had temporarily lost his head. It is more certain that he had permanently lost his character. Peel had him now at his mercy; and a less magnanimous man than Peel would have felt that Providence had delivered his enemy into his hands. But Disraeli was spared the production of the letter; and it was left for a later age, when time had softened censure, to expose the wretched fact. There is indeed a story, to which Mr Monypenny alludes, that Peel passed the watches of the night that followed the denial in searching for the compromising document. But there is also another legend at once more agreeable, more likely, and more dramatic. It is said that, immediately after Disraeli's statement, Peel leaned forward and opened the despatch-box which lay before him on the table, raised for a brief moment a piece of note-paper, and then without a word returned it to a long oblivion.

Whichever way we like to have it, here at all events the curtain drops with a certain sombre finality, though the play is not played out, nor the story told. Disraeli doubtless will come again; he will awaken new interest, excite new dispute and evoke new enthusiasm, as his character passes through new phases, developes new powers and pursues its infinite variety. But of the stagemanager we shall see no more; and it is with unfeigned regret that we take our leave of one who has toiled so faithfully and served us so well.

ALGERNON CECIL.

Art. 11.-THE MAJORITY REPORT OF THE DIVORCE COMMISSION.

1. Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. Minutes of Evidence.

Five vols. London: Wyman, 1912.

Appendices.

2. The Divorce Commission. The Majority and Minority Reports Summarised. By the Secretaries to the Commission. Westminster: King, 1912.

THE Majority Report of the Divorce Commission is in a special sense the work of Lord Gorell. Without any disrespect for his able colleagues or any disparagement of their useful assistance in matters of detail, it must be acknowledged that if Lord Gorell had sat alone, the Report, both in form and in substance, would not have shown any material variation, so far as its chief topicsthe multiplication of grounds of divorce and of Divorce Courts-are concerned. His long experience of divorce law and practice and his great gifts, especially a remarkable power of enthusiastic concentration, professional tact and rare personal charm, would have ensured for him signal influence in the conduct of any similar enquiry; but on this Commission, amongst those in general harmony with his point of view, he was the one dominant figure. If strong prepossessions are not disqualifications for the direction of an investigation which involved the exposure of pitiful human suffering, tending to upset the coolest judgment, Lord Gorell was in a unique degree fitted to be the Chairman. But the prepossessions were there-the outgrowth, be it said, at least as much of a warm heart as of reasoned conviction. The Commission was appointed on Nov. 10, 1909. Three years earlier, in 1906, Lord Gorell, then President of the Probate Division, in his considered judgment on the very important divorce case Dodd v. Dodd (L. R. [1906] P. 189 at p. 207) had taken the exceptional course of expressing, in an interrogative form, his own conviction of the necessity of divorce reform and of the direction it should take. We quote his words.

'It is not necessary for me now to express a formal and final opinion upon these serious questions, but the considera

tion of what I have found it necessary to deal with in this judgment brings prominently forward the question whether, assuming that divorce is to be allowed at all, as it has been in England by judicial decree for the past fifty years and for a long time before that by Act of Parliament, any reform would be effective and adequate which did not abolish permanent separation, as distinguished from divorce, place the sexes on an equality as regards offence and relief, and permit a decree being obtained for such definite grave causes of offence as render future cohabitation impracticable and frustrate the object of marriage; and whether such reform would not largely tend to greater propriety and enhance that respect for the sanctity of the marriage tie which is so essential in the best interests of society and the State. It is sufficient at present to say that, from what I have pointed out, there appears to be good reason for reform, and that probably it would be found that it should be in the direction above indicated.'

These sentences might almost seem a short summary of the Majority Report with regard to the matters dealt with in them. The question of local courts had been handled by Lord Gorell in February 1909. As Chairman of a Departmental Committee on County Courts he had recommended that full divorce jurisdiction, for persons of limited means, should be conferred on those courts outside London (County Courts Comm. Rep., p. 22). The Majority Report differs from Lord Gorell's earlier proposal in substituting for the main body of County Court Judges, taking divorce as an addition to their ordinary work, a smaller body of County Court Judges temporarily detached for divorce business exclusively, with the title and powers of Commissioners of the High Court. But both plans involve divorce being granted by County Court Judges at a great number of local courts. The Majority Report suggests 89 centres as a beginning, with facilities for adding to that number. Ardent sympathy and preconceived opinions have obvious dangers for an investigator; but, although it would be idle to pretend that any witness who came in contact with Lord Gorell during the sittings of the Commission was left in doubt as to what he thought, it is a tribute to his fairness and real elevation of mind that he was able to keep his own views as much out of sight as he did.

At the outset of the Majority Report (p. 2) Lord Gorell dwells with pride on the copiousness of the evidence heard by the Commission. 'A full enquiry, such as has taken place before us, does not appear to have been held at any time previously in this country, nor, so far as we are aware, in any other.' It will not be disputed that within the three thick volumes of evidence, containing 1510 pages of matter and 43,598 questions and answers, there lies enshrined a great deal of valuable material. It is due to circumstances over which the Commissioners had only partial control that this unwieldy mass has been swollen by repetition and irrelevance, and its importance lessened by the record of eccentric and exaggerated opinions. Royal Commissions do indispensable national service and become more necessary as Parliament itself grows less and less capable of the effective discussion of subjects which demand knowledge, reflection and independence. But we have no settled practice for the conduct of Royal Commissions; and in no part of their machinery is it more wanted than in the matter of collecting evidence and choosing witnesses.

As an example of haphazard arrangements, the two Royal Commissions on Divorce may be instanced. The first Commission was appointed in 1850. It heard two witnesses, adopted the evidence of five others given some years previously before a Select Committee, and presented a Majority Report which recommended that divorce a vinculo on the ground of adultery, hitherto unknown in our courts, should be introduced into English law. This advice was based partly on the needs of the day and partly on an historical retrospect. The latter has long been a byword for its errors. Plainly this Report, with its gravely important recommendations, would have gained in repute if more pains had been taken with the evidence. But, while seven witnesses were deemed enough for the Royal Commission which initiated the Divorce Court, the recent Royal Commission to consider its development has found it necessary to hear 246. It is difficult to believe that excess has not now taken the place of defect. Examination of the bluebooks strengthens this impression. Did it, for example, really require eight County Court Judges, six Registrars and one High Bailiff to convince the Commissioners that, while

some of these public officers think the County Courts could grant divorce with advantage to the community, the others think exactly the reverse? It should be added that, notwithstanding this lavish supply of County Court witnesses, neither in the evidence nor in the Majority Report is any reference made to the Statement of the General Council of the Bar (see App. vii) in which concrete illustrations of the present congested condition of business in many of the County Courts, the difficulty of obtaining continuity of trial, and the consequent expense' are given.

The piling-up of witnesses who repeated the same facts or expressed the same opinions is to be found in other contexts. But irrelevance is far more noticeable and far less excusable than repetition. For example, if there be one subject of social concern which, more than another, has no legitimate relation to party politics, it is the marriage question. Yet the views of political persons and associations were allowed the freest possible expression in the witness chair. It does not diminish the force of this criticism that the political witnesses to whom the Commission listened came from one side only. Thus Sir David Brynmor Jones, M.P., appeared to inform the Commission that the Welsh Liberal Parliamentary Party had passed a resolution and that they look upon this question of the localisation of the administration of the law in divorce and matrimonial causes in the Principality as one urgently needing the attention of the Government.' Proceeding in the same dignified strain and still as the spokesman of the Welsh Liberal Parliamentary Party, Sir David continued?(iii, 499),

'We are of opinion that for judicial purposes Wales should be regarded as a self-contained area on racial, linguistic and historical grounds, though in the practical application of this principle we do not desire to advance proposals of an extravagant character involving any undue burden on the Treasury.' Why the Divorce Commission, with surely more than enough business of its own, should be made the vehicle for conveying to the Government these views of high policy and considerate economy is by no means obvious. It is true that Sir D. Brynmor Jones, having discharged this important mission, gave evidence in the same lofty