34 Mr. Mayne on ike Administration of Native Law 



the contrary) remain personally liable for all family- debts 

 contracted before division. Where the person adopting 

 English law had undivided sons, they should be allowed a 

 fixed period to signify their dissent, and to demand their 

 share of the family property. If no dissent was signified 

 within the specified time, then their status should be the 

 same as that of the father. After-born sons would, of course, 

 be allowed no option. In all cases, change of status should 

 be formally registered, and publicly announced, and. when 

 once made should be absolute and irrevocable. 



Little need be said upon the fourth rule. (See ante, p. 4) 

 The Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, which have been 

 passed within the last four years, have placed the practice of 

 our Courts upon a footing which, for simplicity, cheapness, 

 expedition, and adaptation to the discovery of truth, seems 

 to me to be very far in advance of the system which prevails 

 in England. The Penal Code too, though in some respects 

 deformed by overlegislation, is on the whole a wonderful 

 monument of industry and accuracy, and of language at 

 once simple and clear. Under the influence of these im_ 

 provements, we no longer witness such grave comedies as 

 that of a mufti, first acquitting a prisoner because the only 

 evidence against him was a single woman, and then joining 

 in his conviction, on the hypothesis that the single woman 

 might have been two men. 



Much however still remains to be done. For instance, our 

 whole testamentary procedure requires to be remodelled. It 

 is inconceivable why the Letters Patent constituting the 

 new High Courts should have swept away the Common Law 

 and Equity Procedure, and have retained the old Ecclesiasti- 

 cal Procedure, which is infinitely worse than the other two. 

 Not only is that system cumbrous and complicated in itself, 

 and framed with, reference to a secret mode of taking evi- 



