22 DECEMBER 1944, Page 10

By HAROLD NICOLSON

1[

4 AWYERS, especially elderly lawyers, are sensible people, and I

am not among those who believe that the law is a fool. It is on the face of it unlikely that generations of upright and gifted men, constantly preoccupied with the need of bringing the body of our law into line with contemporary thought and habit, should have allowed to persist into modern times enactments which are demon- strably illogical or archaic. The fact that the law arrays itself in wig and gown, and is apt to conceal its wisdom in doubtful Latin or Norman French does hot diminish its modernity. Thus when the Attorney General—an urbane and humane man—uses arguments which may appear illogical, he is in fact seeking to adjust an ancient and rigid formula to circumstances to which, in our modern world, no reasonable person would wish it in any extreme form to apply. A curious and illuminating instance of this arose last Friday, when Mr. Quintin Hogg in the House of Commons questioned the view ex- pressed from the Government bench that for British subjects to speak upon the enemy wireless in war-time is not in itself an offence. Mr. Hogg quoted the Treason Act of x351, under which it ought to " be judged treason" for any British subject to give " aid or comfort " to the King's enemies, whether " in this Realm or elsewhere." He also quoted the "milder" Statute of the Trading with the Enemy Act, under which am, British subject who has "financial or other intercourse or dealings with the enemy for the benefit of the enemy " is liable to certain pains or penalties. And he contended that one or other of these Acts should apply to British subjects who, for financial or other considerations, speak upon the enemy wireless.