ago prepared an admirable Guide to the Law and Legal Literature of Germany, which contained likewise an elaborate and extremely useful glossary of German legal terms. Dr. Borchard has quite recently been called away from his library duties to become assistant solicitor to the State department, but he is continuing his bibliographical labours in connection with A Guide to the Law of Spain, which is to be published very shortly by the Library of Congress.

The Falkland Islands, a group in the South Atlantic Ocean, lying about 250 miles of the nearest point in South America, to which public attention has been directed by the British victory in the naval battle fought on the 8th inst. in their vicinity, were the subject nearly a century and a half ago of a noted Parliamentary deliverance, which, owing to the terms of extraordinary heat in which it was couched, has established the principle that criticism of the Speech from the Throne must be regarded as criticism confined exclusively to the Ministers of the Crown and not bearing, however indirectly, on the Sovereign. In 1769 the Spanish Government demanded the immediate abandonment by Great Britain of these islands, and, the demand being disregarded, sent a powerful expedition, which captured the garrison and took possession of the islands. Such an act seemed to make war between Great Britain and Spain inevitable. At last, however, after many not very dignified negotiations, the Spanish King agreed to disavow the act of occupation and to restore the British garrison, maintaining, however, his old claim of right and receiving, it is said, a verbal assurance that Great Britain would speedily evacuate the islands. A transaction of this character became inevitably a matter of severe Parliamentary criticism, and the reference thereto in the Speech from the Throne was thus stigmatised by Lord Chatham at the opening of the session in 1770 in debate on the address: “There never was a more odious or more infamous falsehood imposed on a great nation. It degrades the King; it insults Parliament. His Majesty has been advised to affirm an absolute falsehood. My Lords, I beg your attention, and I hope I shall be understood when I repeat that it is an absolute and palpable falsehood. The King of Spain disowns the thief, while he leaves him unpunished and profits by his theft. In vulgar English, he is the receiver of stolen goods and should be treated accordingly.”

Mr. Justice Shearman, presiding at a social meeting of the Royal Courts of Justice and Legal Temperance Society, which was held in the Old Hall, Lincoln's-inn, on Tuesday, said that recently, for nearly six weeks, he had been trying cases of crime and nothing else in the north of England, amongst a people who were kind, courageous, and generous, and he was sorry to say the pitmen provided a large number of the cases that had come before him. These were men who were heroic, kind to their children, and who possessed other virtues, but on the average there was one case of manslaughter amongst them every Saturday night. The majority of crimes of which they were guilty were not such as required severe punishment; they were usually the outcome of drunken brawls, and, if the people there would only keep sober on Saturday nights and pay days, the proportion of crime among them would be infinitely less. He had lived long enough to be able to look back for nearly fifty years since he had been able to think for himself, and he could bear testimony to the effect that the improvement in this country in regard to temperance was simply enormous. One had only to look at the conduct of people on a Bank Holiday, or to observe a crowd on a wet day, in order to realise the difference there was between the sobriety of the mass of the people nowadays and the very great degree of drunkenness which was apparent twentyfive or thirty years ago. The mass of the population was becoming cleaner, healthier, and more sober. Surgeon-General G. J. Evatt, C.B., delivered an address, and Master Archibald and Master Macnamara were among the speakers. Mr. Justice Shearman, in responding to a vote of thanks, said Master Archibald had referred to the part he had taken in athletics when both of them were members of the same college at Oxford. He was pleased to say he had trained on total abstinence principles. He had some time ago written a book on athletics, and in it he had said that, although he had known men to train well on beer and also on light claret, he had known them to train better on water. A programme of music was excellently rendered by Miss Winifred Whelen and Mr. Harrington Bamford, vocalists, and Miss Margaret Scripps, violinist.

The appointment of the Right Hon. Sir David Brynmor Jones, K.C., M.P., to the position of Master in Lunacy, whereby his seat in the House of Commons has become vacant under the operation of the Place Act, supplies an instance all but unique of the abandonment of a judicial for a Parliamentary career and the subsequent resumption of judicial office. Sir David Brynmor Jones, who was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1876, filled from 1885 till 1892 the position of judge of County Courts. He retired from the County Court Bench with a view to his election as a member of the House in 1892, and from 1892 till his

recent acceptance of office he has served in the House of Commons at first as member for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire and afterwards as member for the Swansea District. He has been a member of some important commissions-the Welsh Land Commission, the Welsh Church Commission, and the Metropolitan Police Commission, of which he was the chairman. On the elevation of Sir Alfred Thomas to the peerage, Sir David Brynmor Jones became the leader in the House of Commons of the Welsh National Party, while the honours of knighthood and of membership of the Privy Council have been conferred on him. A seat in the House of Commons has on previous occasions been vacated for a Mastership in Lunacy. Thus in 1901 the late Sir Francis Maclean, Q C., who had been member for Mid Oxon in the House of Commons since 1885, and in 1896 became Chief Justice of Bengal, vacated his seat in Parliament on being appointed Master in Lunacy. The most noticeable instance of the exchange of a judicial position for a seat in the House of Commons and a subsequent return to the Judicial Bench is that of the first Lord O'Hagan, who resigned an Irish County Court judgeship to become a member of the House of Commons, from which he was appointed to an Irish puisne judgeship, subsequently becoming, in 1868, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The holding by Sir Brynmor Jones of the chairmanship of the Welsh Party may direct attention to the fact that of the six political parties in the House of Commons-the Conservative, Radical, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and Labour Parties-four have had leaders simultaneously who have been bred to the Bar. The Prime Minister is, as everyone knows, a leader of eminence at the Bar. Mr. Redmond, the leader of the Irish Party, was for years in practice at the Irish Bar, and the Right Hon. Eugene Wason, the leader in the House of Commons of the Scottish Party, has had experience not only as a barrister, but as a solicitor. He was called to the Bar, was disbarred at his own request to be admitted as a solicitor, and his name was afterwards struck off, at his own request, the roll of solicitors with a view to his readmission to the Bar.

some

IRISH NOTES.

THE retirement of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland takes place because Lord Aberdeen has been now for over eight years in office, and the usual period for a Governor-General to hold office is only five, or at most six, years. It has been stated that the Chief Secretary is also leaving the Irish Office, and that Sir John Simon is to be his successor; but in the best-informed quarters this rumour is discredited. It is known, however, that Sir John Simon has ambitions about the government of Ireland, and takes a great interest in this country's future.

THE Master of the Rolls in a case of Tipperary County Council v. Irish Insurance Commissioners has decided a point of some The importance under the National Insurance Act 1911. plaintiffs employed direct labour in the repair and maintenance of the roads in their county, and entered into contracts of service with their labourers securing to them sickness and disablement benefit, and claimed thereupon to be exempt from the operation of the Act, under Exception (b) Part 2. The Local Government Board raised an objection to the scheme of the county council being adopted on the ground that the council had no power to enter into such a contract with their labourers, or any contract providing for anything in the nature of superannuation or deferred pay. The county council, the Local Government Board, and the Insurance Commissioners were represented at the hearing. The court decided against the contention of the county council. term of employment securing a pension would be directly opposed to the limitation on the power of county councils to employ direct labour on the roads," declared the learned judge. It was necessary for the council to make a general declaration specifying the roads suitable to be maintained by direct labour, but the declaration remained in force only for three years. The intention was that the ratepayers of the future must not be involved by their predecessors in liabilities arising from direct labour schemes. His Lordship further declared that, having regard to all the provisions, he was unable to hold that the words" officers" in the Local Government Act included labourers, and in his view they were not within the purview of the section.

"The

AN important point on the law of compensation for malicious injury to property, a code applicable only to Ireland, was argued in the Court of Appeal last week in a case of Ballymagoran Co-operative and Dairy Society v. County Councils of Leitrim and Cavan. Portion of the plant of the plaintiff company was injured

maliciously, and a claim was brought before the County Court, which came before Lord Justice Holmes on appeal. The Lord Justice had no doubt about the case, but, finding that the property in respect of which the claim was made was insured, he held that no compensation under the statute was payable. The material words of the section are that the court may, when the case is proved," make a decree for such sum or sums of money as the person or persons so injured ought to receive for such injury or damage." There was no case on the point, and the difficulty in the defendant's way was that, though the Act has been nearly eighty years in operation, the question was never raised previously. This, however, is not conclusive. In the event of the decision, which was reserved, being in favour of the county councils, one wonders how the insurance companies will manage in future to get outside of its consequences.

JUDGMENT in the case of Lord Clanricarde v. Congested Districts Board for Ireland was delivered in the House of Lords on the 10th inst. The court consisted of Lords Loreburn, Atkinson, Dunedin, and Parmoor. Without calling upon counsel for the respondents, the order of the Court of Appeal in Ireland was affirmed. The questions of law involved have been from time to time alluded to in this column. The plaintiff, who is owner of a big estate in County Galway, within the area of the operation of the defendants, sought to enjoin them against compulsorily acquiring his lands on the grounds that they had not proceeded regularly in accordance with the statute to do so, that the lands themselves were unsuitable, and also that they were not acting bona fide in their effort to so acquire them. The Master of the Rolls decided to grant the injunction, but the Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the decision. The case depended upon the construction of a number of sections in the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1909, and upon the steps which the statute directed must be taken as a condition precedent to the acquisition of the estate

LORD LOREBURN disagreed in emphatic terms with the Master of the Rolls. His Lordship said:-"I believe the law is this: When an administrative body is authorised by statute to take land compulsorily for specified purposes, the court will interfere if it uses its powers for different purposes. Whether it does so or not is a question of fact. The administrative body must really intend to act for a statutory purpose, and the land they seek to obtain must be land which is capable of being used for these statutory purposes." The only other member of the court who delivered a written judgment was Lord Parmoor, who gave a really fine scientific exposition of the law. In order," said his Lordship, 'to establish a case of ultra vires, the appellant must prove either that the respondents were taking his land for some purpose which the statutory powers did not authorise, or that they were acting without inquiry, having no information on which, within reason, to form an opinion as to the suitability of this land for their statutory purposes. The board had no power to take land outside the authority conferred on them, either expressly or impliedly by statute. There was no difference in this respect whether the body authorised by Parliament to take land was an administrative board or a trading company." Dealing with the weighty decision of the learned Master of the Rolls, his Lordship said he could not discover any ground for questioning the reliability of the evidence of Sir James Dougherty and Mr. Doran; the respondents took the land for their statutory purposes, and, in making inquiry into the suitability of the appellant's estate for such purposes, the respondents followed a procedure satisfactory in itself and appropriate to a body constituted as the Irish Congested Districts Board was constituted.

INTERNATIONAL, FOREIGN, AND COLONIAL LAW.

Swiss Neutrality.

THE protest of the Swiss Government against the action of the allies' airmen in flying over Swiss territory as a breach of Swiss neutrality will direct attention to the fact that difficulties in reference to matters affecting the neutrality of Switzerland have powerfully tended to the evolution of international morality, and have established the doctrine that the passing of belligerent troops through a neutral State is a violation of neutrality. The right of passage through neutral territory, as it has been termed, has been gradually extinguished, although the idea that a neutral State could grant a passage through its territory to a belligerent army without a violation of its neutrality, certainly in the event of its being granted impartially to both belligerents, was upheld by leading publicists down to the earlier part of the nineteenth century. That right, however, has not been exercised-if we omit the recent invasion of Belgium, which could not be included within its limits-since 1815, when the allies forced the Federal Council of Switzerland to grant permission for the passage of troops across its territory on their way to invade the south-eastern portion of France. The opinion of recent publicists that the right no longer exists has been vindicated by the refusal of Switzerland in 1880 to grant permission for bodies of Alsatians enlisted for the French army to cross her frontiers, although they were travelling without arms or uniforms. Aviation being an entirely new factor, no international regulations governing it have yet been enunciated. While the British and the French Governments have expressed regret to the Swiss Government at the incident, this country declines to admit that any Government possesses a sovereignty in the air over its territory. It, however, seems to be difficult, if not impossible, to draw any distinction between the passage of belligerent troops through neutral territory and the passage of belligerent aeroplanes in the air over that country, the consequences to belligerents being in both cases strictly similar in their character. If the passage of belligerent troops through neutral territory is rightly regarded as a violation of neutrality, the passage of aeroplanes over neutral territory can scarcely be otherwise regarded, if reliance be placed on the principle Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad cœlum. The tendency will probably be in the direction of acknowledging the rights of each country to the control of its own atmosphere. The hint of the Swiss Government that their troops have been ordered to attack belligerent aeroplanes will recall the fact that permanently neutralised States such as Switzerland and and Belgium, while denied the right, under the conventions securing their integrity, of making war as sovereign States, are at liberty to engage in defensive warfare, and are allowed to enter into compacts for purely defensive purposes that might involve them in hostilities. The maintenance of the Swiss and Belgium forces is solely for the purpose of self-defence as distinguished from aggressive warfare.

IT'S WAR-TIME. BUT DON'T FORGET THE MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL. Its responsibilities are great and must be met.

FIXED INCOMES.-Houses and Residential Flats can now be Furnished on a new system of Deferred Payments especially adapted for those with fixed incomes who do not wish to disturb investments. Selection from the largest stock in the world. Everything legibly marked in plain figures. Maple and Co. Ltd., Tottenham Courtroad, London, W.-[ADVT.]

SANITARY ASSURANCE.-Before renting or purchasing a house it is advisable to obtain an independent report on the condition of the Drains, Sanitary Fittings, and Water Supply. Moderate fees for Sanitary Inspections on application to the Sanitary Engineering Company, 115, Victoria-street, Westminster. 'Phone 4316 Victoria. Telegrams: Sanitation," London.-[ADVT.]

POOLING INSURANCE.-The Licenses Insurance Corporation and Guarantee Fund Limited has established an entirely new scheme of Insurance for Fire, Burglary, Workmen's Compensation, &c., by which the profits accrue to the insured. (See p. vi )—[ADVт.]

British Ship-Enemy Goods-Interruption of Voyage-Seizure of Goods-Condemnation-Claim for Freight-Allowance of Part of Freight-Principle to be applied-Calculation of Amount to be allowed-Rule to be followed.

THIS was a case in which a claim was made by the Bristol Steam Navigation Company, the owners of the steamship Juno, a British ship, with respect to freight due upon a contract to carry certain goods from Bristol to Amsterdam, the goods being destined ultimately for alien enemies in Germany. The Juno, after leaving Bristol, put in at Swansea and the goods were there seized and afterwards condemned. The company also claimed for other expenses and losses arising out of the seizure.

(a) Reported by J. A. SLATER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law,

Bateson, K.C. and Balloch for the Crown. Dunlop for the claimants.

The learned President condemned the goods as prize, and reserved judgment as to the freight and the other claims raised.

The facts and the arguments sufficiently appear in the judg ment.

Cur. adv. vult. Dec. 14.-The PRESIDENT.-The steamship Juno is a British vessel. It belongs to the claimants, the Bristol Steam Navigation Company Limited. On the 28th July 1914 certain cargoes consisting of (1) red earth; (2) tin alloy; and (3) strontium ore, were shipped on board the Juno at Bristol. The cargoes were destined ultimately for various places in Germany, but the sea voyage destination in each case was Amsterdam. After leaving Bristol the vessel called at Swansea to load other cargo. She finished her loading there on the 1st Aug., and was then ready to proceed on her voyage. Her owners, however, decided to delay her departure owing to fear of complications on the Continent.

While the vessel still lay at Swansea, the cargo of red earth was seized as enemy goods on the 20th Aug., and the cargoes of tin alloy and strontium ore on the 24th Aug. In these proceedings I have already condemned these cargoes as lawful prize. Thereupon the steamship company, as owners of the vessel, claimed the freight due in respect of the goods, and other expenses and losses resulting from the seizure. This claim is the matter remaining for adjudication. The claim as originally put forward has been amended. I accept the final affidavit of Mr. Taylor, the manager of the company (sworn on the 25th Nov. last), in proof of the arrangements and circumstances under which the goods were shipped, and therefore I need not discuss various questions which were argued as to the contracts of affreightment and bills of lading. The claim as amended is set out in par. 10 of the affidavit.

The company claim the full freight as having become due on shipment. Alternatively, they claim the full sum, because, 'although the goods were only carried from Bristol to Swansea, the detention of the ship at Swansea, owing to having the goods on board, cost the company more than if the Juno had performed the voyage in the ordinary course.' They also claim extra costs of discharging and shifting the goods at Swansea. Various reported cases were referred to in argument which related to claims by captors of ships for freight against owners of cargoes; and to claims by shipowners for freight against captors or seizers of cargoes. These were all cases of neutral vessels. In none of them were British ships concerned, and counsel for the claimants said he had not been able to find any cases relating to British vessels dealing with the same subject. The position of the seacarrying commerce of this country was very different 100 years and 50 years ago from that of our own day. I have only come across one case reported in the English Prize Court affecting a British vessel in which somewhat similar questions arose; but that was a case between the owners of a ship captured, and afterwards recaptured, and the owners of cargo; and not between shipowners and captors. The case is that of The Friends (Edw. 246; Roscoe's English Prize Cases, vol. 2, 48). I have considered all the other cases. It would be wrong to say that their consideration has not been helpful. Nevertheless, they are not decisions on the points now before me.

The questions which I have to determine in the present case are primæ impressionis; they come before the court for decision for the first time, so far as I am aware. While there are no rules of law or decisions to bind or to guide the court, the problems can, I think, be solved without great difficulty by a rational application of fair and equitable considerations. The Prize Court has always claimed to exercise equitable jurisdiction, using that term in its broadest sense and not in its more technical Chancery meaning.

Counsel for the claimants contended that they were entitled to the full freight for two reasons: (1) because by the contracts the freights were due on shipment; and (2) because, as in the case of neutral ships in former days, capture was said to be regarded as delivery, and full freight was given to neutral shipowners, and so it should now be given to British shipowners.

For the Crown it was contended that no freight should be allowed, or, if any, not the whole freight, because an incapacity attached to the ship in the present case, as she was prevented by law from performing her contract to deliver the goods to the consignees, and because the non-completion of the voyage was not due to the "incapacity of the cargo to proceed."

The short answer to the first contention of the claimants is that there is no contract to which the court can look which is applicable to the existing facts. This court has no concern, touching the matter now in question, with the contracts between the shipowners and the shippers or cargo-owners. Whatever claim the shipowners may have under their contracts is not taken away by the decision of this court. By the very facts of

the situation the shipowners could not perform their contract by carrying the enemy goods to their destination.

As to the second contention, a neutral vessel and a British vessel are not in the like case or condition. Even before the Declaration of Paris a neutral vessel had the full right to carry enemy goods into an enemy country, subject to the risk of her detention by a belligerent for the purpose of seizing the goods; and this was the foundation of the principle which, generally speaking, secured to them their full freight.

It is needless to cite the cases in which the doctrine was applied, or in which exceptions were made. But I will quote from two of the latest cases in which Lord Stowell dealt with the matter-his statement of the principle. The first is the case of The Fortuna (Edw. 56; Roscoe, vol. 2, 17). "The general principle has been stated very correctly, that where a neutral vessel is brought in on account of the cargo, the ship is discharged with full freight, because no blame attaches to her; she is ready and able to proceed to the completion of the voyage, and is only stopped by the incapacity of the cargo." The other is the case of The Prosper (Edw. 72; Roscoe, vol. 2, 25): "In this court it is held that where neutral and innocent masters of vessels are brought into the ports of this country on account of their cargoes, and obliged to unliver them, they shall have their freight upon the principle that the non-execution of the contract, arising from the incapacity of the cargo to proceed, ought not to operate to the disadvantage of the ship. This rule was introduced for the benefit of the shipowners, and to prevent the rights of war from pressing with too much severity upon neutral navigation."

Since the Declaration of Paris, and indeed before that, by the practice adopted in the Crimean War, neutral vessels laden with enemy goods could not be prevented from continuing their voyages and so earning their freight, except where the goods were contraband, or where the pursuit of the voyage would amount to a breach of blockade; and in these cases no freight would be allowed. With British vessels it is quite otherwise. They must not carry enemy goods, nor proceed on voyages for which such goods were shipped. In the present case there was accordingly an "incapacity to proceed," attributable not only to the cargo, but also to the ship.

It would not be right, however, in my opinion to withhold from the shipowners all the freight on account of the "incapacity of the ship" where the shipment took place before war and the voyage was partly accomplished. What, then, ought to be the rule? It is possible that even if the cargo is not carried to its destination, it would be just in some cases that the whole amount of the freight should be paid. For instance, suppose an enemy cargo was shipped before the war from Australia for Hamburg; and was seized near British waters and taken to Bristol. It may be that it would be fair to pay the shipowners the fu'l freight.

On the other hand, suppose a cargo of enemy goods had been shipped before the war for Bristol, and destined for Cameroon or Kiao-Chao, and was seized, as in this case, at Swansea. It would be wholly inequitable for the shipowners to claim, or for the captors to be subject to, payment of the full freight, even though by the contract it was due on shipment at Bristol.

In the present case, where only a comparatively small part of the voyage was made, I think the whole freight ought not to be allowed. What part should be allowed I will refer to the registrar and merchants to say, but I must give them some direction or guidance, although no strict rule can be laid down which would be universally applicable. Cases differ greatly. The phrase pro rata itineris has been used in some cases. But this does not import a mere arithmetical calculation of distances or times. The only rule which I propose to state for the guidance of the registrar and merchants is this: Such a sum is to be allowed for freight as is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, regard being had to the rate of freight originally agreed (although this is not necessarily conclusive in all cases), to the extent to which the voyage has been made, to the labour and cost expended or any special charges incurred, in respect of the cargo seized before its seizure and unlivery, and to the benefit accruing to the cargo from the carriage on the voyage up to the seizure and unlivery; but no sum is to be allowed in respect of any inconveniences or delay attributable to the state of war or to the consequent detention and seizure. I am conscious that the rule is not precise. I doubt whether any precise rule could be laid down; but, such as it is, I am satisfied that the experience of the registrar and merchants will enable them to apply it so as to bring about a fair and satisfactory result.

As to the items for extra cost of discharging and shifting the goods at Swansea, I think these should go against the cargoes, and should be allowed. I have said that the claimants in the affidavit in support of their claim urged that the detention at Swansea should be taken into account, and that it would amount to the whole freight. In this particular case the fact is that the owners themselves, according to Mr. Taylor's affidavit, on the 1st Aug. "decided, owing to the political situation on the

Continent, to keep the Juno at Swansea and to await developments." Apart from this, and as the point will no doubt arise in future cases, I desire to pronounce as my opinion that no sum ought to be allowed, unless there are some special and exceptional circumstances, in respect of any delay or inconvenience which may occur to a ship as the necessary result of her diversion or detention for the purpose of seizing and making unlivery of confiscable enemy cargo. Such things, and their consequent losses, are some of the unfortunate, albeit minor, results of war to which those engaged in shipping have to submit as other citizens must in other capacities and walks of life.

I allow the claim of the claimants to some freight, and to the special items mentioned, and order a reference to the registrar and merchants to ascertain the amount.

Solicitor for the Crown, Treasury Solicitor.

Solicitors for the claimants, Holman, Birdwood, and Co.

were held at the same date, but a separate commission of oyer and terminer was issued for Maclean's trial. Lastly there remains to be noted the trial, fresh in the memory, of "Colonel" Lynch (now M.P.). It took place at the bar of the King's Bench Division, on the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd Jan. 1903, before Lord Alverstone, C.J. and Justices Wills and Channell: (Rex v. Lynch, 88 L. T. Rep. 26; (1903) 1 K. B. 444). The grand jury had been summoned to the King's Bench Division in the previous sittings, and charged by the Lord Chief Justice (Times, Dec. 20, 1902). The sentence of death was pronounced by Mr. Justice Wills, the senior puisne judge. Anciently, there was an allowance of £40 per annum to the second (i.e., senior puisne) judge of the Court of King's Bench "in respect of his labour and trouble in giving the charge to the grand jury and pronouncing judgment in the said court against malefactors" (see 6 Geo. 4, c. 84, s. 7), but this is now discontinued under the Judicature Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), s. 29. The capital sentence on Lynch was originally commuted to penal servitude for life. He was released on licence in 1904, and received a free pardon in 1907.

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

MODERN TREASON TRIALS.

THE Conviction of Ahlers for high treason, before Mr. Justice Shearman at the Durham Assizes last week, reminds us that trials for high treason in this country are happily rare. Still more rare is such a trial at the assizes. For a precedent we have to go back to the year 1782. At the adjourned summer assizes for Hampshire held at Winchester on the 10th Aug. 1782 David Tyrie was convicted of high treason before Mr. Justice Heath. His treason consisted in writing from Gosport divers letters to inform "Lewis, the French King (the British Sovereign was then styled "King of France"), of the stations of the British ships of war. The letters were intercepted. But the writing and dispatching them were held overt acts of compassing the King's death and also of adhering to the King's enemies : (21 St. Tri. 815).

The old series of State Trials (Howell's) concludes (vol. 33) with the report of the trial of Thistlewood and others, the Cato-street conspirators, in 1820 (1 Geo. 4). Since the trial of Hadfield, for shooting at George III., in 1800, there had then been three trials for high treason in England-those of Colonel Despard and others (1803), Dr. Watson and others (June 1817), and Brandretts and others (Oct. 1817).

Since 1820 there have been only six trials for high treason in England.

What may be called the new era opens with_the_period (1820-58), covered by the eight volumes of State Trials (new series) published under the direction of the State Trials Committee, and edited successively by Sir John Macdonell (now Senior Master and King's Remembrancer) and Sir John E. P. Wallis (now Chief Justice of Madras). The discontinuance in 1898 of this excellent series is much to be regretted.

The first trial is that of John Frost and others (4 St. Tri. N. S. 85) for the Newport riots. It took place before a special commission at Monmouth, composed of Lord Chief Justice Tindal, Baron Parke, and Mr. Justice John Williams. The special commission was opened on the 10th Dec. 1839, when the Chief Justice delivered a luminous charge to the grand jury which has since been considered the locus classicus on the amount of insurrection required to constitute high treason by levying war. After the conviction certain technical points of procedure which had been reserved were considered by all the fifteen judges at Westminster: (9 C. & P. 162; 2 Moo. C. C. 140.) This was before the estab ishment of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, under the Crown Cases Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 78.)

The next three trials belong to a sinister class of themselves, being for shooting at Queen Victoria. They are those of Edward Oxford (1840), John Francis (1842), and Roderick Maclean (1882).

It must be remembered that the Treason Act 1800 (39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 93)-passed in consequence of Hadfield's case-had assimilated the procedure in cases of treason by assassination or attempted assassination of the Sovereign to that in cases of murder, so these three were hardly treason trials, stricto sensu.' The trial of Oxford (4 St. Tri. N. S. 497) took place at the Central Criminal Court before Lord Denman, C.J., Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Maule. It was not by special commission, but the Central Criminal Court Act 1834 (4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 36) extends to all treasons, murders, felonies, and misdemeanours within the jurisdiction. In the same court the trial of Francis (4 St. Tri. N.S., Appendix A, 1376) took place, before Chief Justice Tindal, Baron Gurney, and Mr. Justice Patteson. It was then quite usual at the Old Bailey for two, or even three, judges to sit together in cases of importance.

After an interval of forty years we come to the trial of Maclean (Times, April 20, 1882), which took place before a special commission at Reading, composed of Lord Coleridge, C.J. and Baron Huddleston. The ordinary spring assizes for Berks

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. BELL (Charlotte). Her grandchildren living at the death of her son, George Bell (Feb. 27, 1914), or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by April 30, and prove their claims before Master Watkin Williams, at chambers of the Judge, Room 252, and enter their names at Room 254, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing May 5, at 12, at said chambers, Room 252.

HARKER (William), Beverley. Next of kin or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by April 28, and enter their names at chambers of the Judge, Room 710, Royal Courts of Justice, and prove their claims by May 5, at said chambers. Hearing May 5, at 11.30, at said chambers, Room 706.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
WINDING UP ACTS.

NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M.
ON THE DATE GIVEN, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

BADALONA WORKS SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 21, to L. F. Scott, Capel House, 54, New Broad-st, E.C. BLUE SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 12, to F. C. Owen, 65, London-wall, E.C. CATALANA TIN PLATE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 21, to L. F. Scott, Capel House, 54, New Broad-st, E.C. CENTRAL LAND SOCIETY LIMITED. -Petition for winding-up to be heard Jan. 5, at Derby County Court, at 10.30. LI. B. Lewis, Long Eaton, sol. for pets. Notices of appearance by Jan. 4.

CHINA STREET POTTERY COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 29, to R. E. Clark, 17, Albion-st, Hanley. CLEMENT MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 29, to M. J. Stodell, 21, Mercer-st, Long-acre, W.C. DUNCAN THOMAS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 31, to W. Hand. 12, Cherry-st, Birmingham. EARL'S COURT SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Alan Clarke Vincent, 9 and 10, Pancras-la, Queen-st, E.C.. incorporated accountant, has been appointed an additional liquidator to act jointly with Edgar Norton Read. ELBRON METALLISING COMPANY LIMITED.-Adjourned petition, also petition for continuing the voluntary winding-up under supervision of the court, to be heard Jan. 12, at Royal Courts of Justice. Carter, Harrison, and Armstrong, 39, Great James-st, Bedford-row, W.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by Jan. 11.

FALCON RUBBER COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Jan. 12, at Royal Courts of Justice. Gedge. Fiske, and Gedge, 10, Norfolk-st, Strand, W.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by

Jan. 11.

Jan. 11.