Chapter 2

_Number Three_, being the easiest way out of the difficulty, has been adopted. The _decision_ remains untouched, the _law_ it expounds remains unaltered--nothing has gone, except the _order_ of the Final Court giving effect to the untouched decision and to the unaltered law. _That_ has been tampered with for the reasons suggested in _Number Three_.

John Locke was fond of referring questions to something he called 'the bulk of mankind'--an undefinable, undignified, unsalaried body, of small account at the beginning of controversies, but all-powerful at their close.

My own belief is that eventually 'the bulk of mankind' will say bluntly that the House of Lords went wrong in these cases, and that the Act of Parliament was hastily patched up to avert wrong, and to do substantial justice between the parties.

If asked, What can 'the bulk of mankind' know about law? I reply, with great cheerfulness, 'Very little indeed.' But suppose that the application of law to a particular _lis_ requires precise and full knowledge of all that happened during an ecclesiastical contest, and, in addition, demands a grasp of the philosophy of religion, and the ascertainment of true views as to the innate authority of a church and the development of doctrine, would there be anything very surprising if half a dozen eminent authorities in our Courts of Law and Equity were to go wrong?

Between a frank admission of an incomplete consideration of a complicated and badly presented case and such blunt _ex post facto_ legislation as 5 Edward VII., chapter 12, I should have preferred the former. The Act is what would once have been called a dangerous precedent. To-day precedents, good or bad, are not much considered. If we want to do a thing, we do it, precedent or no precedent. So far we have done so very little that the question has hardly arisen. If our Legislature ever reassumes activity under new conditions, and in obedience to new impulses, it may be discovered whether bad precedents are dangerous or not.

THE END