[In Savell v. the Duke of Westminster, Lord ESHER, Master of the Bolls, said:—­“It was the demands for interrogatories and discovery of documents and commissions in cases of this simple nature which had made the practice of the Common Law so expensive, and caused the public to fly from Courts of Law as from a pestilence.  This oppression must be put down.”]

  “How does it hap,” quoth ESHER, M.R.,
    “That Solicitors languish for lack of bread? 
  That want of cases, as felt by the Bar,
    To cases of want has recently led? 
  Oh, how does it come, and why, and whence,
  That men shun the Law as a pestilence?

  “It can’t be denied that the public tries
    To avoid an action by every means;
  To a Court it with much reluctance hies,
    And to arbitration madly leans. 
  In fact—­I say it without offence—­
  It shuns the Law as a pestilence.

  “’Tis all the fault,” said this great Law Lord,
    “Of demands for inspection, and similar pleas;
  Of expenses that neither side can afford,
    Commissions and interrogator-ees;
  Till Pelion’s piled on Ossa—­and hence
  Men shun the Law as a pestilence.

  “I call it oppression, and I’m a Judge! 
    We must put it down, for the wrong’s acute;
  And then the public no fees will grudge,
    But will rush to get suited with a suit;
  For Law, the perfection of common sense,
  Should never be shunned as a pestilence!”

* * * * *

KING JOHN AT OXFORD.

The Oxford University Dramatic Society have acted another Shakspearian play with conspicuous success.  To say that the O.U.D.S. have acted a play of SHAKSPEARE is to say nothing, seeing that they are compelled, under fear of the most dreadful punishments known to the University Calendar, to confine their histrionic efforts to the drama as SHAKSPEARE wrote it, with an occasional excursion into the dramatic verse of BROWNING.  A great many, however, of the most influential members of the Hebdomadal Council are said to view any such departure from SHAKSPEARE with alarm, as calculated to impair the discipline and sap the morality of the tender nurselings confided to their charge, and it is doubtful if the experiment will be repeated.  Long live the legitimate drama, say I, and so say all of us.  But, after all, it may be questioned whether those who can listen unharmed to the broad, and, if I may say so, “illegitimate” humour of Faulconbridge in King John would take much damage from SHERIDAN, or LYTTON, or TOM TAYLOR, or even—­though I make this particular suggestion with bated breath—­from the performance of such burlesques as the A.D.C. at Cambridge from time to time offers to its patrons.

All this is, however, by the way.  We must take the O.U.D.S. as we find it, and I must confess I found it in a very strong and flourishing condition during the performance of King John.  The audience is not an easy one to act to.  Not that it errs on the side of over-criticism.  Rather it is too painfully friendly and familiar with the actors.  Here is a stray example culled from the Stalls:—­