¹ The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. Bowring, John, 11 vols., Edinburgh, 1838–1843, v. 417.Google Scholar

² Humphreys, James, Observations on the Actual State of the English Laws of Real Property with the Outline of a Code, London, 1826.Google Scholar

³ Simpson, A. W. B., A History of the Land Law, Oxford, 1986, p. 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Offer, Avner, Property and Politics, Cambridge, 1981, p. 27.Google Scholar

⁵ See Kelly, P. J., Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice, Oxford, 1991. pp. 8–13Google Scholar, which explains that Bentham returned to the Civil Law at different times. The majority of these manuscripts have not been published. Others have been included in ‘The Principles of the Civil Code’ and ‘Pannomial Fragments’ which were constructed by the editors for the Bowring edition of the Works of Jeremy Bentham.

⁶ See Offer, , p. 27.Google Scholar

⁷ SirMegarry, Robert and Wade, H. W. R., Law of Real Property, London, 1984, p. 1Google Scholar, write, ‘Despite all this reform, the first thing the student must understand is that the basis of the subject remains the “old” law, and that the elements of this must be mastered before the new statutes can be understood. The approach to this subject … is still bound to be historical’.

⁸ The Law of Property Act 1925 confirmed the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 and abolished all feudal tenures save free and common socage. Section 1 of the Act allows only two estates to exist in law. These are the fee simple absolute in possession and the leasehold estate. Therefore all other estates, such as the life interest or the entailed estate, can only exist in equity. These measures did undoubtedly simplify land law, but at the same time the feudal doctrines of tenures and estates were preserved and continue to exist. Other reforming legislation introduced in 1925 included the Administration of Estates Act, the Settled Land Act, the Trustee Act, and of course the Land Registration Act.

⁹ Lieberman, David, The Province of Legislation Determined, Cambridge, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 13.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 72.

¹² Humphreys, , p. 209.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid., p. 225.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 226.

¹⁵ Bowring, , v. 418.Google Scholar

¹⁶ UC lxxvi. 147.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Long, Douglas, ‘Bentham on Property’, Theories of Property: Aristotle to the Present, ed. Parel, A. and Flanagan, T., Waterloo, Ontario, 1979, p. 221.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Bowring, , v. 389.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 390.

²⁰ UC xi. 29.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid., 27.

²³ Ibid., 21.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid., 29. Referring to Brougham's great law reform speech in parliament, Bentham wrote that Brougham's ‘eyes were directed by a vision of the Rolls’, while for Bentham himself ‘to no Rolls looks he no court butter for his bread’.

²⁶ Ibid., 23.

²⁷ Ibid., 29.

²⁸ Dixon, Robert, Observations on the Proposed New Code Relating to Property Law, London, 1829Google Scholar; Sugden, Edward, A Letter to James Humphreys on his Proposal to Repeal the Laws of Real Property and Substitute a New Code, London, 1826.Google Scholar

²⁹ Simpson, , p. 274Google Scholar; Offer, , p. 27.Google Scholar

³⁰ His often quoted remark that nothing would cause him greater pain on leaving his office than to feel he had justified the reproach that ‘the equity of this court varies like the Chancellor's foot’ is used to criticize his unhurried proceedings as procrastination.

³¹ The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vol. viii, ed. Conway, Stephen, Oxford, 1988 (The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham), p. 146.Google Scholar

³² Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History, London, 1990, p. 130.Google Scholar

³³ House of Commons Sessional Papers, 1826, xv. 34.Google Scholar

³⁴ UC xi. 30.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., 29.

³⁶ Ibid., 23.

³⁷ House of Commons Sessional Papers, 1829, x. 1Google Scholar (hereafter cited as First Report).

³⁸ First Report, p. 5.Google Scholar

³⁹ Offer, , p. 28.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ First Report, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Simpson, , p. 275.Google Scholar

⁴² First Report, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid., p. 9.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 10.

⁴⁵ BL Add. MS 34,661, fo. 3, discussed below.

⁴⁶ For example Question 13, First Report, p. 87 asked,Google Scholar

Do you think it advisable that persons beneficially entitled in fee to gavelkind lands should be enabled to disengavel them by declaration to that effect by deed? Have the goodness to state any objections to this measure that may occur to you.

⁴⁷ See Ker, Bellenden in First Report, p. 295Google Scholar, on codification. He mentions both Bentham and Humphreys, and advocates using the American model of property legislation as opposed to the French model.

⁴⁸ First Report, p. 127.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ UC lxxvi. 145.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ‘Principles of the Civil Code’, Bowring, , i. 309.Google Scholar

⁵¹ UC lxxvi. 150.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid., 143.

⁵³ Ibid., 145.

⁵⁴ A Letter to James Humphreys by Edward Sugden, London, 1826, p. 5.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 22.

⁵⁶ Correspondence (CW), viii. 287.Google Scholar The Pamphlet was on interest rates. Referring to Bentham's ‘Defence of Usury’, Sugden called Bentham the ‘father of the subject’.

⁵⁷ Peel, to Campbell, , 17 05 1828Google Scholar, Stratheden and Campbell Papers, Roxburgh, Scotland. I am grateful to the Hon. Misses Moyra and Fiona Campbell for allowing me access to the papers in this collection.

⁵⁸ Peel's influence over the composition of the Commission is denied in a letter to Arbothnot, , 19 05 1828Google Scholar, BL Add. MS 40,396, fo. 197, in which Peel declared himself unable to influence the composition for he was ‘compelled to be guided by the advice of more competent judges’. But perhaps he was being disingenuous, because in a letter to Gordon, Robert, 11 08 1828Google Scholar, BL Add. MS 40,396, fo. 219, Peel showed that he certainly took great pains to select the members of the Commission to consider the lunatic bill.

⁵⁹ Letter cited, Peel to Campbell, ‘my emphasis’. See also the Life of John, Lord Campbell, Lord High Chancellor of England, ed. Hon. MrsHardcastle, , 2 vols., London, 1881, i. 454–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., 503.

⁶¹ See Cornish, W. R., Law and Society in England 1750–1950, London, 1989, p. 173Google Scholar; Simpson, , pp. 282–3Google Scholar; Offer, , p. 28.Google Scholar

⁶² UC lxxvi. 28.Google Scholar

⁶³ Life of Campbell, ii. 19.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid.

⁶⁵ The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vol. iv, ed. Milne, A. T., London, 1981 (CW), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, vol. v, ed. Milne, A. T., London, 1981 (CW), p. 334.Google Scholar Bentham again complained bitterly to his brother about Butler in December 1796, Ibid., 338, also mentioning that he was suffering from toothache, so perhaps his physical pain accounts for his irritability.

⁶⁷ Correspondence (CW), vi. 4.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The Institute: Memoirs of Former Members, ed. Vaizey, J. S., London, 1895.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 223.

⁷⁰ Offer, , p. 28.Google Scholar

⁷¹ College Correspondence, University College London Library, fo. 818.

⁷² First Report, p. 249.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid.

⁷⁴ Revisers' Notes, 3 New York Revised Statutes, 1836, Appendix, p. 401.Google Scholar The connections between Humphreys and the New York reformers are examined in Rudden, B., ‘A Code Too Soon: The 1826 Property Code of James Humphreys: English Rejection, American Reception, English Acceptance’, Essays in Memory of Professor F. H. Lawson, ed. Wallington, Peter and Merkin, Robert, London, 1986, pp. 101–16Google Scholar, and Stevenson, Charles E., ‘Influence of Bentham and Humphreys on the New York Property Legislation of 1823’, American Journal of Legal History, i (1957), 155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Stevenson maintains that Bentham through Humphreys influenced the codification of New York Property legislation.

⁷⁵ Tyrrell, John, Suggestions Sent to the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Laws of Real Property, London, 1829, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ UC lxxvi. 281.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid., 287.

⁷⁸ Livingston Papers, Box 72, fo. 13, Princeton University Library.

⁷⁹ Ibid.

⁸⁰ BL Add. MS 33,546, fo. 317.

⁸¹ BL Add. MS 34,661, fo. 2.

⁸² BL Add. MS 33,546, fo. 422.

⁸³ Parliamentary Debates, xxv. 1114.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ BL Add. MS 34,661, fo. 3.

⁸⁵ Ibid., fo. 4.

⁸⁶ Livingston Papers, Box 72, fo. 13.

⁸⁷ Bowring, , i. 301.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ BL Add. MS 34,661, fo. 5.

⁸⁹ Bowring, , v. 419.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ UC xi. 27.Google Scholar