the subject. They were aided by the able work of those to whom had been entrusted the preparation of the Bills of Exchange Act. These facts are a guaranty that we have in the negotiable instruments law the legislative expression of the law theretofore determined by the courts, through a long series of years and in a multitude of decisions, barring, of course, those conflicting decisions and diverse statutes which had led to embarrassment and confusion in the administration of the law of commercial paper. It may be said probably without serious question that in the enactment of this statute no essential feature of the law of negotiable instruments as theretofore determined has been eliminated. What business needs is fixed and uniform rules to govern commercial paper. Such rules are now to be found in the negotiable instruments law. The bills of exchange act.-In 1882 the British Parliament passed an act entitled "An Act to codify the law relating to Bills of Exchange, Cheques, and Promissory Notes;" better known by its authorized short title as the "Bills of Exchange Act, 1882.'' This act is with certain exceptions declaratory of the common law of England, or rather of the Law Merchant, as expounded by the authority of English law. The bill was drawn by Judge Chalmers, author of the excellent Digest of the law of bills, notes and checks,* an acknowledged expert on the subject, and submitted to recognized authorities on English commercial law and practice and finally settled by strong committees in 3-See Bills of Exchange Act, of Bills of Exchange, Prompage 235. issory Notes, and Cheques. 4-Chalmers' Digest of the Law ferred to a sub-committee conster, of Connecticut, Henry ( and Frank Bergen, of New J employed Mr. John J. Crawf made a special study of the ' paper, to make a draft of the was prepared by Mr. Crawf conference of commissioners August, 1896. The commissi twenty-seven in all and repr States, went over the draft, amendments therein, most of existing law which Mr. Craw to incorporate into the origi amended was subsequently New York, and has since b law in two-thirds of the St: has been introduced in other passage for reasons which do presents within narrow comp bills of exchange, promissory the result of two purposes; th pose was to make the law changes were necessary to b purpose were accordingly m was to preserve the law as T existed. The work was co experienced persons, well v rds of the total number of the various colodependencies of the British Empire and by ost important of them, but not without changes ere then settled, and it had been read a second time As the result, a y propositions in the en on points of frerrence, had to be stated probably") or a ("perSome two years after the of my digest I read n the question of codifyaw of negotiable instruefore the Institute of Mr. John Hollams, the wn commercial lawyer, present, pointed out the es of a code to the merommunity, and mainly, I on his advice, I received ons from the Institute kers and the Associated rs of Commerce to prebill on the subject. The of the bill was first subto a sub-committee of the of the Institute of Bankwho carefully tested such ons of it as dealt with matof usage uncovered by auty. The bill was then introd by Sir John Lubbock, the Ident of the Institute. After Parliament. And so the act may be regarded for the main part and so far as the propositions contained in it are directly applicable as an authoritative declaration, under the sanction of the Legislature, of the English law. The act was not intended to be merely a code of existing law. It was designed to alter and did alter the law in some respects. The act has been adopted 6 6-Bank of England v. Vagliano (1891), App. Cas. 144. See Introduction to 3rd ed. Chalmers' Bills of Exchange, from which the following extract is taken in explanation of the purpose, mode of preparation, and enactment of the statute. "For the most part the propositions of the act were taken word for word, from the propositions of the Digest. The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, was the first enactment codifying any branch of the common law which found its way into the statute book. 5-See English Ruling Cases, The draftsman comes across doubtvol. 4, p. 132. ful points of law which he must decide one way or the other. Again, voluminous though our case law is, there are occasional gaps which a codifying bill must bridge over if it aims at anything like completeness. Still in drafting the Bill of Exchange bill my aim was to reproduce as exactly as possible the existing law, whether it seemed good, bad or indifferent in its effects. The idea of codifying the law of negotiable instruments was first suggested to me by Sir FitzJames Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence, and Sir F. Pollock's Digest of the Law of Partnership. Bills, notes and cheques seemed to form a well isolated subject, and I therefore set to work to prepare a digest of the law relating to them. I found that the law was contained in some twenty-five hundred cases, and seventeen statutory enactments. I read through the whole of the decisions, beginning with the first reported case, 1603. But the cases on the subject were comparatively few and unimportant until the time of Lord Mansfield. The general principles of The success of the Bills of Exchange bill depended on the wise lines laid down by Lord Herschell. He insisted that the bill should be introduced in a form which did nothing more than codify the existing law, and that all amendments should be left to Parliament. A bill which merely improves the form without altering the substance of the law creates no opposition, and gives very little room for controversy. Of course codification pure and simple is an impossibility. by two-thirds of the total number of the various colonies and dependencies of the British Empire and by all the most important of them, but not without changes the law were then settled, and it had been read a second time subsequent decisions, though very numerous, have been for the most part illustrations of, or deductions from, the general propositions then laid down. On some points there was a curious dearth of authority. As regards such points I had recourse to American decisions and to inquiry as to the usages among bankers and merchants. As the result, a good many propositions in the Digest, even on points of frequent occurrence, had to be stated with a ("probably") or a ("perhaps"). Some two years after the publication of my digest I read a paper on the question of codifying the law of negotiable instruments before the Institute of Bankers. Mr. John Hollams, the well known commercial lawyer, who was present, pointed out the advantages of a code to the mercantile community, and mainly, I think, on his advice, I received instructions from the Institute of Bankers and the Associated Chambers of Commerce to prepare a bill on the subject. The draft of the bill was first submitted to a sub-committee of the Council of the Institute of Bankers, who carefully tested such portions of it as dealt with matters of usage uncovered by authority. The bill was then introduced by Sir John Lubbock, the president of the Institute. After in the Commons it was referred to a strong select committee of merchants, bankers and lawyers, with Sir Farrer Herschell as chairman. As the Scotch law of negotiable instruments differed in certain particulars from English law, the bill was originally drafted to apply to England and Ireland only. The first work of the select committee was to take the evidence of Sheriff Dove-Wilson, of Aberdeen, a well known authority on Scotch commercial law. He pointed out the particulars in which the bill, if applied to Scotland, would alter the law there. With three exceptions the points of difference were insignificant. The committee thereupon resolved to apply the bill to Scotland, and Sheriff Dove-Wilson undertook the drafting of the necessary amendments. Eventually the Scotch rules were in three cases preserved as to Scotland, while on the other points the Scotch rule was either adopted for England or the English rule applied to Scotland. A few amendments in the law were made when the Committee was unanimous in their favor, but very wisely no amendments were pressed on which there was a difference of opinion. Sir Farrer Herschell reported the bill to the House and it was read a third time and sent up to the Lords |