ds corrected his definitions accordingly.[113] He
did not think his principle wrong, but considered the form to be
inconvenient for practical application. Upon this, however, I need not
here dwell.[114]

Two other important measures of codification were passed during
Fitzjames's tenure of office. The 'Limitation of Suits' Act, passed
March 24, 1871, was, as he stated, entirely due to Mr. Whitley Stokes.
Fitzjames expressed his high admiration for it in a speech in which he
takes occasion to utter some characteristic denunciations of the
subtleties of English law, connected with the subject of this Act. Did
human memory run to the year 1190, when Richard I. set out on the third
crusade, or to 1194, when he returned? That was one of the problems
propounded by Lord Wensleydale, who for many years devoted
extraordinary powers of mind to quibbles altogether unworthy of him.
There is no more painful sight for a man who dislikes the waste of human
energy than a court engaged in discussing such a point. Four judges,
with eminent counsel and attorneys, will argue for days whether
Parliament, if it had thought of something of which it did not think,
would have laid down an unimportant rule this way or that. It would have
been better for the parties to the suit to toss up, and leave the most
convenient rule to be adopted for the future.

The 'Contract Act' had been prepared by the Indian Law Commission, and
had been under discussion for five years. The final revision had taken
place in the winter of 1871-2, and Fitzjames specially acknowledges the
help of two colleagues in the Legislative Council, Messrs. Bullen Smith
and Stewart, gentlemen engaged in business at Calcutta. The subject is
too technical for me to approach it. One point may just be mentioned: If
a man steals a cow, and sells it to an innocent purchaser, who is to
suffer the loss when the theft is discovered? The original owner, said
the Law Commission. The purchaser, said the Legislative Council.
Stealing cows is one of the commonest of Indian offences--so much so
that it is a regular profession to track stolen cattle. But if the buyer
has a good title to the cow, unless he knows it to be stolen, the
recovery would be generally impossible. Cattle-stealers would flourish,
and would find an asylum in our territory, where the law would differ
from that of the native states. This appears to indicate one of the
subjects of discontent of the Law Commission, who desired to