Trusts Law: A Song Without End?
The appearance within an eighteen month period of three introductory texts to the law of trusts seems a clear statement by publishers: there exists a firmly established subject area with a potentially substantial readership. This sense of stability may be an illusion. Almost contemporaneous with those confident developments on the publishing front, the Marre Committee induced a slight tremor with their recommendation that 'consideration be given to teaching trusts and land law as a composite subject. '2 Even if implemented, this will not necessarily satisfy the potential student readership. There may remain those who continue to perceive themselves as unwilling conscripts, being de facto required by virtue of the subject's core status to study something which they believe will be of scant relevance to them in their future careers.3 Some, moreover, noting the absence of any reasoned rationale behind the recommendation or perhaps simply possessed of a temperament that resents compulsion, might still be expected to question quite vigorously why a course in the law of trusts should remain such a requirement. Explanations couched in terms of entrants to the profession needing to acquire some irreducible core of basic legal knowledge at the academic stage are unlikely to cut much ice, particularly if the practical utility justification is difficult to establish. Formulating a response to this pragmatic line of questioning leads inescapably towards a more fundamental issue. It is almost de rigueur nowadays for a reviewer of books about an established subject area to question its authenticity and integrity.4 This is not just a fad of academic fashion. The increased freedom in structuring courses recently permitted by the profession carries with it burdens of responsibility and insecurity: the overly prescriptive syllabus is no more. In exercising this newfound freedom and in responding to developments in the real world, which affect