Page images


















Nov. 7, 1914.]


The First Sea Lord.


THE resignation by Prince Louis of Battenberg of the great
office of First Sea Lord, because the fact of his being a German by
birth gave rise to the most ill-founded suspicions in certain quarters,
may direct attention to the position in the Board of Admiralty of
the holder of the First Sea Lordship, whose importance may be
ganged by the tribute paid by Mr. Winston Churchill, as First
Lord of the Admiralty, to the work as a member of that board
of Prince Louis. The navy of to-day, and still more the navy
of to-morrow, bear," wrote Mr. Churchill to Prince Louis, "the
imprint of your work," while credit is likewise given to him for
having "taken the first step which secured the concentration of
the fleet prior to the war." The Board of Admiralty, unlike the
Treasury Board, is really a deliberative body, for, though the First
Lord possesses, in spite of the nominally co-ordinate powers con-
ferred upon his colleagues the other members of the board, who,
like himself, change with the changes of the Ministry, a supreme
authority, he is bound to carry the Sea Lords with him in his
measures. The Sea Lords, if they differed from him, would, if he
had the support of the Cabinet, of which he is a prominent member,
be constrained to cease to be members of the board either by
resignation or dismissal. This practice of the board as regards the
relative position of its members was confirmed by Order in Council
of 1872, which made the First Lord responsible to the Crown and
to Parliament for all business of the Admiralty, while the other
members of the board are declared by Order in Council of the
10th Aug. 1904 to be responsible to the First Lord for the
business assigned to them by him. The present distribution of
business rests on a minute of the First Lord made on the
20th Oct. 1904. Its general character is indicated by the terms
of the Order in Council of the previous August, whereby the
First, Second, and Fourth Sea Lords are to be responsible to the
First Lord for so much of the general business of the navy and
the movement, condition, and personnel of the fleet as may be
assigned to them and each of them by the First Lord, the
Third Sea Lord being similarly responsible for the matériel of the
navy. The minute of the 20th Oct. 1904, however, places the
First Sea Lord in a position of greater importance than
heretofore, which renders the concession to public feeling by
Prince Louis in his resignation of the post, and the tribute by
Mr. Winston Churchill to his achievements in filling it, more
easily explained and realised. By this minute the First Sea Lord
in any matter of great importance is always to be consulted by
the other Sea Lords, the Civil Lord, and Secretaries, and, though
these officers have direct access to the First Lord of the
Admiralty if they desire it, the First Sea Lord becomes, in all
matters of great importance, the necessary intermediary between
them and their political chief.

Unanchored Mines.

The Times, in reference to the laying of mines by the Germans to the north-west of Ireland, says on the 29th ult.: "The depth of water in which these mines have been laid would apparently indicate that they are unanchored, and the use of unanchored mines is forbidden by international law unless they become harmless within an hour of being dropped. The enemy, however, have not shown themselves at all inclined to respect international law." At the second Hague Conference in 1907 a convention (VIII.) was drawn up whereby the laying of unanchored automatic mines is forbidden unless they are so constructed as to become harmless one hour at most after those who laid them have lost control over them. It was also forbidden to lay anchored mines which do not become harmless as soon as they have broken loose from their moorings. The whole effect of these restrictions has been weakened by a subsequent provision that Powers which do not own perfected mines of the description referred to, and which consequently cannot at present carry out the rules, undertake to convert the matériel of their mines as soon as possible so as to bring it into conformity with these requirements. Great Britain, on whose behalf this convention was ratified in Nov. 1909, attempted, but without success to procure the insertion of a time limit.

Turkey's Hostilities.

THE Commencement of hostilities by Turkey against Russia, by the bombardment of Russian ports without the breaking off of diplomatic intercourse and without a declaration of war or an ultimatum containing a conditional declaration of war is in violation of the rules of the second Peace Conference at The Hague in 1907, which produced the Convention III., relative to the commencement of hostilities, which prohibits recourse to hostilities without a previous declaration of war or qualified ultimatum, and declares that the existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay and shall not be held to affect them until after a receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Although war has broken out without a previous declaration or qualified ultimatum, all the laws of warfare must find application, for a war is still a war in the eyes of international law although it has been illegally commenced or even has automatically arisen from acts of force which were not intended to be acts of war. The armed forces of two States might, for instance, engage in hostilities without having being authorised thereto and without the respective Governments ordering them to desist from further hostilities. Again, acts of force by way of reprisals or during a pacific blockade or an intervention might be forcibly resisted by the other party, hostilities breaking out in this way.

Germany and the Monroe Doctrine.

COUNT BERNSTOFF has enunciated the proposition that Germany has a right to land troops in Canada if she can, and that an invasion of Canada to secure a temporary German foothold would not be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. President Monroe, in his famous message of the 2nd Dec. 1823, said: "With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. Our policy with regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its Powers. But in regard to these continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different." President Palk, in his message of the 2nd Dec. 1845-three-and-twenty-years to the day after the message of President Monroe-widened the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine with reference to non-interference with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power in America. He said: "It should be distinctly announced to the world as our settled policy that no future European colony or dominion shall without our consent be planted or established on any part of the North American continent." This doctrine of Mr. Palk would require the consent of the United States to any acquisition of dominion by a European Power, whether by voluntary cession or transfer or by conquest. In obedience to that principle, Great Britain and France were more than once notified that the United States could not witness with indifference the transfer of Cuba by Spain to any other European Power. The securing by Germany by an invasion of Canada of a foothold, either temporary or permanent, in that dominion would clearly be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine as enlarged by President Palk. The distinction between a temporary and a permanent foothold in Canada sought to be established would scarcely be recognised by the United States as in consonance with the Monroe Doctrine, which, in the words of President Cleveland in his message to Congress of the 17th Dec. 1895, referring to the contention of Lord Salisbury, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, that the Monroe Doctrine had been given a new and strange extension and development, said 'that doctrine was intended to apply to every stage of American national life,” meaning, no doubt, that it was capable of adaptation to future developments. The Washington correspondent of the Morning Post, in commenting on Count Bernstoff's proposition, expresses the view that any attempt on the part of Germany to challenge the Monroe Doctrine by attempting the capture of British or French possessions in America would constrain the United States to drop its official attitude of neutrality and would cause Americans to rally en masse to the support of the allies.

[ocr errors]


THE British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 17) is dated the 7th Aug. last, and comes into operation on the 1st Jan. next. By the third schedule all previous Naturalisation Acts, from the British Nationality Act 1772 down to the Naturalisation Act of 1895, and especially the principal modern Act, the Naturalisation Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 14), are repealed. In effect the new Act is a codification, with amendments, of the previous law on the subject. Sect. 3 (1), in particular, deals with the effect of the certificate of naturalisation; and the interesting point about it is that it puts an end, at least as far as the issue of new certificates of naturalisation is concerned, to the controversy as to the real meaning of sect. 7 of the Act of 1870, and hence of the scope of the certificate under it. An article in the Law Quarterly Review for October, by Mr. F. B. Edwards, on "The Effect of a Certificate of Naturalisation," refers to a number of different constructions that have been put on sect. 7. The Inter-departmental Committee of 1901 mentions one as possible, which the article contests. This construction would limit the operation of the section to aliens when resident in the United Kingdom, its effect ceasing as soon as the naturalised alien was outside its borders. A naturalised alien, therefore, would not possess the status of a British subject in a foreign country or a British colony. In Re Bourgoise (60 L. T. Rep. 553; 41 Ch. Div. 310, 1889) the question was raised, but not decided. Doubt, however, is now removed by sect. 3 (1) of the new Act. It is enacted that a naturalised alien, in regard to political and other rights, powers, and privileges, as also to obligations, duties, and liabilities, shall have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject.


That ambiguous phrase in sect. 7 of the Act of 1870, " in the United Kingdom," disappears, as well as the reference to the suspension of the effect of the certificate when the naturalised alien should be within the limits of his former State. deference, however, to the susceptibilities of the self-governing dominions on the question of Asiatics, this unconditional grant of naturalisation is to have no effect within those dominions unless their Legislatures adopt the Act in this respect. Nor does the Act affect the power of these Legislatures to treat differently different classes of British subjects. Naturalised aliens whose certificates are under the Act of 1870 will not get the benefit of the provisions of the new Act unless they apply for a fresh certificate thereunder. The Secretary of State may in that case grant it on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.

[blocks in formation]

Whereas on the fourth day of August 1914 We did issue Our Royal Proclamation specifying the articles which it was Our intention to treat as contraband of war during the war between Us and the German Emperor; and

Whereas on the twelfth day of August 1914 We did by Our Royal Proclamation of that date extend Our Proclamation aforementioned to the war between Us and the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary; and

Whereas on the twenty-first day of September 1914 We did by Our Royal Proclamation of that date make certain additions to the list of articles to be treated as contraband of war; and Whereas it is expedient to consolidate the said lists and to make certain additions thereto :

Now, therefore, We do hereby declare, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, that the lists of contraband contained in the schedules to Our Royal Proclamations of the fourth day of August and the twenty-first day of September aforementioned are hereby withdrawn, and that in lieu thereof during the continuance of the war or until We do give further public notice the articles enumerated in Schedule I. hereto will be treated as absolute contraband, and the articles enumerated in Schedule II. hereto will be treated as conditional contraband.


1. Arms of all kinds, including arms for sporting purposes, and their distinctive component parts.

2. Projectiles, charges, and cartridges of all kinds, and their distinctive component parts.

3. Powder and explosives specially prepared for use in war. 4. Sulphuric acid.

5. Gun mountings, limber boxes, limbers, military waggons, field forges and their distinctive component parts.

6. Range-finders and their distinctive component parts.

7. Clothing and equipment of a distinctively military character.

8. Saddle, draught, and pack animals suitable for use in war.

[blocks in formation]

2. Forage and feeding stuffs for animals.

3. Clothing, fabrics for clothing, and boots and shoes suitable for use in war.

4. Gold and silver in coin or bullion; paper money.

5. Vehicles of all kinds, other than motor vehicles, available for use in war, and their component parts.

6. Vessels, craft, and boats of all kinds; floating docks, parts of docks, and their component parts.

7. Railway materials, both fixed and rolling stock, and materials for telegraphs, wireless telegraphs, and telephones. 8. Fuel, other than mineral oils.


[blocks in formation]

14. Hides of all kinds, dry or wet; pigskins, raw or dressed; leather, undressed or dressed, suitable for saddlery, harness, or military boots.

15. Field glasses, telescopes, chronometers, and all kinds of nautical instruments.

Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this twentyninth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, and in the fifth year of Our Reign.



At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 29th day of October 1914 Present, the King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.

Whereas by an Order in Council dated the 20th day of August 1914 His Majesty was pleased to declare that during the present hostilities the Convention known as the Declaration of London should, subject to certain additions and modifications therein specified, be adopted and put in force by His Majesty's Government; and

Whereas the said additions and modifications were rendered necessary by the special conditions of the present war; and

Whereas it is desirable and possible now to re-enact the said Order in Council with amendments in order to minimise, so far as possible, the interference with innocent neutral trade occasioned by the war:

Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, is pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:

1. During the present hostilities the provisions of the Convention known as the Declaration of London shall, subject to the exclusion of the lists of contraband and non-contraband, and to the modifications hereinafter set out, be adopted and put in force by His Majesty's Government.

The modifications are as follows:

(i.) A neutral vessel. with papers indicating a neutral destination, which, notwithstanding the destination shown on the papers, proceeds to an enemy port, shall be liable to capture and condemnation if she is encountered before the end of her next voyage.


(ii.) The destination referred to in Article 33 of the said Declaration shall (in addition to the presumptions laid down in Article 34) be presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to or for an agert of the enemy State.

(iii.) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 35 of the said Declaration, conditional contraband shall be liable to capture on board a vessel bound for a neutral port if the goods are consigned "to order," or if the ship's papers do not show who is the consignee of the goods or if they show a consignee of the goods in territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy.

(iv.) In the cases covered by the preceding paragraph (iii.) it shall lie upon the owners of the goods to prove that their destination was innocent.

2. Where it is shown to the satisfaction of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State that the enemy Government is drawing supplies for its armed forces from or through a neutral country, he may direct that in respect of ships bound for a port in that country, Article 35 of the said declaration shall not apply. Such direction shall be notified in the London Gazette, and shall operate until the same is withdrawn. So long as such direction is in force, a vessel which is carrying conditional contraband to a port in that country shall not be immune from capture.

[ocr errors]

3. The Order in Council of the 20th August 1914 directing the
adoption and enforcement during the present hostilities of the
Convention known as the Declaration of London, subject to the
additions and modifications therein specified, is hereby repealed.
4. This Order may be cited as The Declaration of London
Order in Council, No. 2, 1914."
And the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, the
Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and each of His Majesty's
Principal Secretaries of State, the President of the Probate,
Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice,
all other Judges of His Majesty's Prize Courts, and all
Governors, Officers, and Authorities whom it may concern, are
to give the necessary directions herein as to them may respec-
tively appertain.


Oct. 26 and 29.


[blocks in formation]

THIS was a case in which the court was asked to condemn a vessel and her cargo, and to order the sale thereof under the following circumstances.

The Berlin was a sailing cutter of 110 tons metric measurement, registered at Emden, in the German Empire. She was -captured on the 5th Aug. 1914, the day after the declaration of war between Great Britain and Germany, by H.M.S. Princess Royal and taken to Wick, by the order of the commander, by the steamer Ailsa. At the time of her capture the Berlin was about 500 miles distant from Emden, and nearly 100 miles distant from the coast of Scotland. She had on board materials for curing fish and some cured fish.

Arthur Pritchard for the Crown.-The vessel ought to be condemned. The whole of the evidence in the case showed that she did not fall within the exemption from capture accorded to vessels engaged exclusively in coast fisheries as provided by the Hague Conference 1907, Convention XI., art. 3. He referred


The Paquete Habana and The Lola, 175 U. S. 677 :
Young Jacob and Johanna, 1 C. Rob. 20;

Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act 1867 (30 & 31 Viet. c. 52, s. 11);
Westlake's International Law, vol. 2, 157.

Cur, adv. vult.
Oct. 29.-The PRESIDENT-In this case the Crown asks for
the condemnation of the sailing ship, the Berlin, and her cargo
as enemy property. No claim has been made in respect thereof,
but it is necessary, nevertheless, to ascertain whether by inter
national 1..w the ship is immune from capture as a fishing vessel.
The Berlin, as it appears from the ship's papers, was a German
fishing critter manned by fifteen hands. She was owned by the
Emden Herrings Fishing Company. She had on board 350 empty
barrels, 100 barrels of salt, fifty barrels of cured herrings, and she
also had two drifts of nets. The vessel, as appears from her log,
had been on a fishing voyage in the North Sea. From the
27th July onwards she had been catching herrings in latitudes
(a) Reported by J. A. SLATER, Esq. Barris:er-at-L w.

between 55 degrees and 58 degrees 30min. N., and in longitudes between 1 degree E. or W., and in depths of from 66 to 148 metres. At these times, therefore, she was far out in the North Sea, at distances of about 100 miles from the nearest coast-Great Britain and about 500 miles from her home port and from the German coast. She was brought into Wick on the 6th Aug. by the steamer Ailea, and handed over to the Chief Officer of Customs, who retained her as prize captured at sea.

There is no direct evidence, in the legal sense, as used in our municipal courts of law, of her capture by one of His Majesty's ships or of the place or time of her capture. It was reported to the officer of the Ailsa that she had been captured by the Princess Royal. I have seen a confidential report made by the commander of the Princess Royal of the capture, and it appears that the exigencies of war rendered it necessary for him to request the Ailsa to take the captured vessel to Wick on his behalf. It appeared also that the capture took place at 11.30 a.m. on the 5th Aug. Apart from this, I should have presumed that the capture was not made until after war was declared on the 4th Aug. (11 p.m.). When the capture took place the vessel was in the North Sea in the position which I have approximately stated.

It would have been advisable for the commander of the Princess Royal to enter the time and the place of capture in the vessel's log, or to make a declaration in the presence of the vessel's master, lest objection might be made of the absence of direct legal evidence. But fortunately, in this court, I am entitled to act upon other evidence or trustworthy information and to draw inferences therefrom upon which the court may think it safe and just to act. The Prize Court is not bound by such confining fetters as our municipal courts.


The question that now arises is whether this vessel, the Berlin, is immune from capture as an enemy vessel on the ground that she is a vessel engaged in coast fishing. The history of the varying practices of this and other countries in exempting from capture in war those vessels which are engaged in coast fishing, up to the year 1899, has been given in the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of The Paquete Habana and the Lola (ubi sup.). The judgment of the court was delivered by Gray, J. The conclusions stated by him, which form the judgment of the majority of the Supreme Court, were as follows:This review of the precedents and authorities on the subject appears to us abundantly to demonstrate that at the present day, by the general consent of the civilised nations of the world, and independently of any express treaty or other public Act, that it is an established rule of international law, founded on considerations of humanity to a poor and industrious order of men, and of the mutual convenience of belligerent States, that coast fishing vessels, with their implements and supplies, cargoes and crews, unarmed, and honestly pursuing their peaceful calling of catching and bringing in fresh fish, are exempt from capture as prize of The exemption, of course, does not apply to coast fishermen or their vessels, if employed for a warlike purpose, or in such a way as to give aid or information to the enemy; nor when military or naval operations create a necessity to which all private interests must give way. Nor has the exemption been extended to ships or vessels employed on the high seas in taking whales or seals, or cod or other fish which are not brought fresh to market, but are salted or otherwise cured and made a regular article of commerce. This rule of international law is one which Prize Courts, administering the law of nations, are bound to take judicial notice of, and to give effect to, in the absence of any treaty or other public act of their own Government in relation to the matter.'


Since the date when that judgment was pronounced, the matter has been dealt with by Japan in its prize regulations and and in some of its Prize Court decisions, and it forms also the subject of one of The Hague Conventions of 1907. Art. xxxv. of the Japanese regulations governing captures at sea, which came into force on the 15th March 1904, provides as follows:"All enemy vessels shall be captured. Vessels belonging to one of the following categories, however, shall be exempted from capture if it is clear that they are employed solely for the, industry or undertaking for which they are intended:

"(1) Vessels employed for coast fishery..

[His Lordship referred to the judgment of the Japanese Court in the case of the Alexander (Russian and Japanese Prize Cases, vol. 2, 86) and continued:] I do not propose to make any pronouncement in the case now before the court as to whether the German Empire or its citizens have in the circumstances of this war the right to claim the benefit of The Hague Conventions. But to show how the doctrine with which I am now dealing has been treated by the nations with the progress of years and events, I refer to art. 3 of the 11th Convention of The Hague Conference 1907, which is as follows:

[ocr errors]

Vessels employed exclusively in coast fisheries, or small boats employed in local trade, are exempt from capture, together with their appliances, rigging, and cargo. This exemption ceases as

soon as they take any part whatever in hostilities. The contracting Powers bind themselves not to take advantage of the harmless character of the said vessels in order to use them for military purposes while preserving their peaceful appearance."

In this country I do not think any decided and reported case has treated the immunity of such vessels as a part or rule of the law of nations (see the Young Jacob and Johanna, ubi sup., and the Liesbet van den Tol!, 5 C. Rob. 283). But after the lapse of a century I am of opinion that it has become a sufficiently settled doctrine and practice of the law of nations that fishing vessels plying their industry near or about the coast (not necessarily in territorial waters) in and by which the hardy people who man them gain their livelihood are not properly subjects of capture in war so long as they confine themselves to the peaceful work which the industry properly involves.

It is obvious that in the process of naval warfare in the present day such vessels may without difficulty and with great secrecy be used in various ways to help the enemy. If they are, their immunity would disappear; and it would be open to the naval authorities under the Crown to exclude from such immunity all similar vessels if there was reason for believing that some of them were used for aiding the enemy. And this seems to be the sense in which art. 3 of The Hague Convention 1907 should be regarded.

As to the Berlin, I am of opinion that she is not within the category of coast fishing vessels entitled to freedom from capture. On the contrary, I hold that by reason of her size, her equipment, and her voyage she was a deep-sea fishing vessel engaged in a commercial enterprise which formed part of the trade of the enemy country, and as such could be, and was, properly captured as prize of war. I therefore decree the condemnation of the vessel and cargo, and order the sale thereof.

Solicitor for the Crown, Treasury Solicitor.



THE importance and value of life insurance is greater than ever in time of war. One of the primary effects of war is that colossal expenditure is set on foot, which does not involve the creation of further wealth, nor breed, as economic expenditure does, further production and enterprise. An immediate result of this is the increased value of money, and a rise in the rate of interest, which, in addition to its function of remunerating capital, has also to include compensation for the greater risk of loss of capital which, such conditions entail. Government loans trench heavily upon the market, and the money which is in times of peace sufficient for the calls of trade has other and urgent requirements to meet. Besides absorbing funds which in the ordinary way would pass into trade and productive investment, these loans involve increased taxation for the payment of interest, thus making additional inroads upon individual incomes, and reducing the value of, as they lessen the demand for, ordinary investments. The same process is at work in the hostile nations, and, just as our internal trade suffers, so does international trade contract and become more hazardous, more expensive in transit, and so less lucrative. It has been seen how, at the outbreak of war under modern conditions, the mere possibility of interruption and destruction of maritime trade dislocated the medium of exchange and shook all national credits; even the neutral nations. eagerly hoarding their financial resources against all sorts of possible contingencies, help to swell the forces which batter down the value of securities. There are, of course, certain industries which flourish in time of war, being those which supply in one form or another the equipment and needs of the forces, but, taken as a whole, the country suffers from the restriction of foreign commerce, the contraction of internal trade, the demands for gold, the rising rate of interest, and the flooding of the investment market with new loans.

THERE is nothing new in the position which is seen to-day-it is all a question of degree; and, as has happened after the great wars of the past, the inherent wealth of this country, its insular position at the gates of Europe, its ports, its coal, iron, and mercantile fleets, the skill of its operatives in cotton, in wool, in leather, and a thousand other manufactures, will sooner or later restore the losses and replace the capital destroyed. But, for the restoration of confidence, it is necessary that self-restraint be exercised in several directions; individuals must not indulge the selfish inclination to hoard, but must at once consider whether there is not a course, far more prudent for their own safety and far more patriotic, when reviewed in relation to the national emergency, which should be adopted in preference to leaving money lying practically idle on deposit in their bankers' hands.

JUST as a sinking fund should be the natural accompaniment of every new national loan, so should a sinking fund of some sort or other be formed by every individual whose investments have been damaged by depreciation. Take the case of a man who has been saving £500 a year out of a good professional income, and who at the age of forty found himself with investments amounting to £20,000, or, to speak more correctly, investments which would have fetched £20,000, we will say, a year ago. We will suppose that half of his capital is invested in gilt-edged securities and has only depreciated by 10 per cent., and that of the other half £5000 has depreciated by 15 per cent., £4000 by 20 per cent, and £1000 has been lost altogether in some unfortunate foreign venture. This will give a present value of about £16,450, although, if the position be candidly faced, the investor knows that at the present time he could not sell his holding for that sum in cash, in spite of the minimum prices and the timid little lists of "Business Done" which appear in the forlorn financial columns of the newspapers. But after a few years these things will right themselves; Consols stood at 54 in 1803-a price which is equivalent to 45 on the present basis of interest, and no doubt there were croakers then as now ready to argue that a permanent change had taken place in the value of securities, yet, as soon as the Junker of Those days was safely interned in St. Helena, the price of Consols bounded up and the forecasts of the pessimists were forgotten.

WHAT the individual requires is either a life policy by way of a sinking fund, by which he may steadily turn some of his income, however small the annual contribution may have to be until his professional income returns to its normal level, into capital; or else, as a cheaper alternative, some temporary insurance cover for a short term of years. Turning back to our investor, aged forty, with his definite £3550 loss on his investments, he can create a sinking fund by insuring his life for that sum at an annual cost of, say, £89, from which can, of course, be deducted the income tax allowance. That policy being whole-life, it would be immaterial to him how long a time elapsed before his investments righted themselves, except for the self-imposed obligation to put aside the £89 every year in order to repair the destruction of war. He can, however, set a limit to his payments if he like, and pay, say, fifteen premiums of £145.

BUT it is possible that income may not run to this under present circumstances, and that fact may be coupled with the sanguine belief that, long before the end of another five years, things will be right again, or sufficiently so to be of no great moment. It is therefore, by those holding that view, only death during the next five years that need be feared. That risk, to the extent of £3550, can be covered by an annual payment of some £44, and, for a small additional sum, the option of going on at the end of the five-year period, if it prove desirable, can be secured, and. secured without being in any way dependent upon the health of the insured at the time. From the individual point of view, the advantages of such transactions need little demonstration, but, if the cumulative economic force of thousands of such transactions be considered, it will be realised that, in the wider adoption of life insurance, the nation has at hand all the machinery for a sinking fund the reconstructive value of which it is difficult to over-estimate.

[ocr errors]

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. GEORGE (Daniel), Penarth. Next of kin living on April 7, 1902, or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by Jan. 18, at chambers of Joyce and Eve, JJ. Hearing Feb. 1, at 2.15, at said chambers,, Room €92.

[ocr errors]

WALLACE (William), who married Primrose Lewis, widow of John Lewis, His next of kin to prove their claims in the matter of the trusts of the residue of a sum of £3000 bequeathed by the will of the Rev. George Legh, LL.D., and in the matter of a fund in court to the credit The account of John Lewis, one of the children of Chambre Lewis, subject to duty," and other accounts, by Dec. 1. at chambers of Registrar of Preston District of Chancery of Lancaster. Hearing Dec. 7, at 11, at said chambers. WOOD (Herbert William), nephew of the intestate Reginald Walter Heysham Wood, or his legal personal representatives, to come in. by Feb. 15, and enter their names at Room 705, Royal Courts of Justice, and prove their claims by Feb. 24 at chambers of Astbury, J. Hearing Feb. 24, at 11.30, at said chambers.


ALBION RECORD COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 31, to
S. C. Brown 22-24, Tabernacle-st, E.C.
BLAKOE WHEEL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 7, to
J. Stevens, 2, Broad-st-pl, E.C.
CHARLES J. FORWARD AND SON (1914) LIMITED.-Creditors to send forth-
with, or by Nov. 20. to H. Hackett, 44, Bedford-row, W.C.
DOBSON LIMITED.-Ebenezer Henry Hawkins, 4, Charterhouse-sq. E.C.,
incorporated accountant, has been appointed an additional quidator
to act jointly with William Henry Peruzzi Gibson.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

E. ALLEN AND CO. (BRISTOL) LIMITED.--Petition for winding-up to be
heard Nov. 27, at Bristol County Court, at 11. G. L. Matthews and
Co., 26, Cannon-st, E.C., sols. to pet.
Notices of appearance by
Nov. 26.
HENRY FINKLER AND CO. LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by Nov. 20, to
A. F. Whinney and G. Ballard, at 4B, Frederick's-pl, Old Jewry,
JAGO AND MELHUISH LIMITED. -Creditors who have not already done so,
to send in, by Nov. 30, to C. P. Type, 87-89, Edmund-st, Birming-
ham, Johnson and Co. Birmingham; sols, for liquidator..
ANYSNA FOREST COMPANY LIMITED.- Creditors to send in, by Nov. 30, to
G. C. T. Parsons, 120, Colmore-row, Birmingham.
Atkins, and Price, Birmingham, sols, for liquidator.
C. F. Price,
Dec. 31, to G. R. Freeman, 66, Coleman-st, E.C.

OIL ENTERPRISE SYNDICATE LIMITED.--Creditors to send in, by Nov. 30, to
A. E. Rigden, 51, New Broad-st, E.C.

Nov. 30, to J. R. Kinnis, care of A. J. Downs, Wabys-chmbrs,
Cleethorpe-rd, Grimsby.
Nov. 14, to J. W. Barratt, 19A, Coleman st, E.C Nicholson,
Graham, and Jones, 24 Coleman-st, E.C., sois, for liquidator.
WILLIAM WIBBY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 30, to F. W.
Smith, New Inn-chmbrs, King-st, Gloucester.
Gloucester, sol. for liquidator.
H. W. Grimes,

WILSONS (WOBURN) LIMITED. -Creditors to send in, by Nov. 3. to E. H.
Fletcher, Bank-chmbrs, Yeovil. R. Hobourn, Woburn, Beds, sol.
for liquidator.


ELLIS (Sir John Whittaker. Bart.), Wormley Bury. Broxbourne, and
Cowes I. of W. Dec. 2; A. R. Prideaux, of Prideaux and Sons,
sols., Goldsmiths' Hall, E.C. Dec. 9; Astbury, J., at 11.30.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.

ADKINS (Thomas Henry), Bournemouth. Dec. 4; Ashurst, Morris, Crisp,
and Co., 17, Throgmorton-av, E.C.

ASHMAN (Sir Herbert, Bart.), Stoke Bishop. Dec. 15; Barry and Harris,

BARKER (Gen. Sir George Digby, G.C.B.), Clare. Nov. 30; Elwes and
Miller, 8 and 9, Essex-t. Strand, W.C.

BENSON (Samuel Herbert), Sydenham-hill, and Kingsway Hall. Jan. 1;
G. C. Topham, 19, Borough High-st, London Bridge.
BLOWER (Henry), Shrewsbury,

Dec. 6; E. Clothier, 7. The Square,

Shrewsbury. Sol., J. S. Marsden Popple, 14, Great St. Thomas
Apostle, E.C.

BROADHURST (Reuben, the elder), Stockport.

Brooks, Stockport.

BROWN (Ann),


Nov. 14; Smith and

Cirencester. Dec. 7; Steel, Millard, and

BURT (Laura Helen Knyvett), Hove. Dec. 5, Cockburn, Gestling, and
Cockburn, Hove.

CAIN (Benjamin). Bootle. Nov. 30; J. Quinn, Monkhouse, Dixon, and
Quinn, Liverpool.

CHAPPELL (Harry), Lower Broughton and Manchester. Dec. 1; Doughty

and Fraser. Manchester.

COTTERRELL (Alfred Henry), Charlton. Nov. 30; F. Duke and Son, 18-19.
Ironmonger-la, E.C.

COVERLEY (James Stewart), Penmaenmawr.


Dec. 19: J. E. Jones.

DAVIES (James), Bedford. D c. 3; C. J. Ven ey. Faldeek.
DILLON (Elizabeth), Tottenham. Dec. 7; J. B. Lander, 45, Chancery l


DIXON (Mary Ann), Blachocol, Nov. 26; T. W. Kay, Blackpool.
FOLEY (Patrick James). Lewisham Park.

High Holborn, W.C.

Dec. 3; J. M. Storer, 272,

GRAVES (Elizabeth), Hove. Dec. 1; Cockburn, Gostling, and Cockburn,

GREENWOOD (Dr. Frederick), Chesterfield.


Dec. 19; H. S. Gratton,

HADLOW (William Francis), Dover. Dec. 5; Lewis and Pain. Dover,
HARDY (Anne Maria). Edgbaston.
HARPHAM (George, the elder), Jacksdale. Nov. 30; F. Searby, Alfreton.
Dec. 12; G. P. Locker, Birmingham.
HARRISON (William), Monchester and Gatley. Nov. 30; J. W. Harrison
and W. H. Jones at 48 Upper Brook-st, Manchester. Sols., Goulty
and Goodfellow, Manchester.

HART (Jessica). Coventry. Nov. 30; B. A. Rotherham, Coventry.
HAYWOOD (Wilford). Sheffield. Dec. 14, Rodgers and Co., Sheffield.
HEALEY (William), Southport.
HEATON (Elias Vose), Pemberton. Nov. 28, Barlow, Jackson, and Gee,
Nov 28; B. H. Richardson, Brighou..

HOLMES (Caroline). Sutton. Nov. 30, Spencer, Gibson, and Son, 3, 4,
and 5, Queen-st, E.C.

HOLROYD (Sarah Jane Mary), Leed.

[blocks in formation]

HOWDEN (Alexander), Lindfield, and Lime st. E.C.
borough, Gedge and Co. 23. Au fin-friars. E.C.
HOWELL (Helen Mary, otherwise Ellen), Waterloo.
Houstoun, Duchy of Lancaster Office, London.
HowSE (Sir Henry Greenway), Cudham.
Pearson, and Co. 22 College-hill, E.C.
JACKSON (Margaret) Selby, Nov. 25; J. H. Bantoft. Selby.
JENKINSON (Mary Ann), Miles Platting.
Dec. 7; W. Ponks and Co.,

JENNISON (Alderman Charles), Manchester and Port Erin. Nov. 30; C.
Lord, Manchester.
JONES (Rober), Birkenhead. Dec. 31; Matthew Jones and Rees, Liver-

[blocks in formation]

Bank of

MOORS (Frances), Hyde Dec. 10. G. F. Drinkwater, Hydy
PLACE (Henry Johnston), Felixstowe, and care of the Notion
India Limited, Bishopsgate. Dec. 2; E. E. and H. G. Place, at the
offices of D. J. Kennedy, Billiter-sq bldgs, E.C.
POOLEY (Caroline), Wallasey. Dec. 4; A. M. and I. J. Pooley, et te
office of Bartley, Bird, and Co., Liverpool.

POWER (James Ferguson), Eccles, Manchester, and Bolton. D.c. 29;
F. W. Ogden, Manchester.

PRIOR (Rev. Jonathan Charles), Ou den. Nov. 30; Partridge and
Wilson, Bury St. Edmunds.

RALPH (Henrietta), Truro. Nov. 30; C. Hancock, Truro.
REYNER (Alice), Epsom, Nov. 30, C. Lord, Manchester.

ROBINSON (Stephen), Stockport. Nov. 13; Lake, New, and Hadfield,

ROWLAND (William Richard). Fenny Stratford. Dec. 8; W. H. Sanders,
4, Lincoln's-inn-flds, W.C.

ROWLATT (Frederick Willim), Surbiton. Nov. 30; Torr and Co., 38,
Bedford-row, W.C.

SEDDON (Ellen), West Hull, Dec. 21; R. Davis, Hull

SHEPHERDSON (William Thorney), Sheffield. Nov. 20; J. H. Glenn, at
the office of H. and A. Maxfield, Sheffield.

SHERLAW (Adam), Northumberland, Nov. 28, C. Banbridge, Newcastle-
Dec 15;

SHRUBSOLE (Sarah Alicia Eliza), Kingston-upon-Thames.

Nicholson, Patterson and Freeland, 46, Queen Anne's gate, S.W.
SIMMONS (Lance Tapiey) Watford. Dec. 1; Camp, Ellis, and Kelly,

SMART (David), Peckham Rye. Nov. 30; Ward, Perks, and Terry, 85,
Gracechurch-st, E.C.

SMITH (Edgar), Testerton Hall, Fakenham. Dec. 4; E. E. Blyth,

SMITH (Sir Charles Garden Assheton, Bart.), Vaynol. Dec. 1; Hasties,
65, Lincoln's-inn-flds. W.C.

SMITH (William Arthur), Edgbaston. Nov. 30; Lee, Musgrove, and Co.,

STEARNS (Joseph Phillips). Copthall-ct, E.C., and Slough. Dec. 1; Weir,
Ford, and Leach, 65, London-wall. E.C.

SYDENHAM (Sydney), Bath. Dec. 1; Timmins and Timmins, Bath.
TURRELL (Henry William). Great Yarmouth

[blocks in formation]

A SPECIAL general meeting of the Hardwicke Society was held on Wednesday, at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall, when Mr. Pembroke Wicks brought forward a motion to the effect that the meetings of the society should be suspended until the first Friday in Hilary Dining Term; the committee to have power further to postpone such meetings, provided that a special general meeting might be convened under the rules after the 1st Jan. next for the purpose of fixing the date of the next meeting of the society. The motion was negatived. Owing to so many members, including the committee, being engaged in military duties, difficulty is found in carrying on the work of the society, in obtaining subiects for debate, and in securing attendance at the meetings. The annual general meeting has been fixed for Friday, the 20th inst.


THE thirty-third annual meeting was held at the society's rooms
in Imperial Arcade on the 30th ult. Mr. Hely Owen (president)
occupied the chair, and there was a large attendance of

The report of the committee recorded with regret the death
of Mr. Thomas Drake, one of the first members of the society.
The president, in his annual address, expressed his apprecia-
tion of the kindness and support which he had invariably received
from all members of the society during his year of office. After
referring to the loss of the two distinguished hon. members, Mr.
Owen went on to speak of the war, and concluded by saying that a
juster estimate of this war would be obtained if one likened it
to the great racial upheavals of the early middle ages, such as
the migrations of the Goths, the Vandals, the Huns, and the
Ottomans, than if one compared it to mere wars of ambition
like those carried on by Louis XIV. and Napoleon. It seemed
to him that the special significance of Kaiserism in relation to
this war was that a great racial war of conquest and aggression,
involving as it did years of patient preparation and co-ordination
of effort, could be more effectively prepared for and organised
by an autocratic Government than by a democratic one. The
Kaiser was the War Lord of a willing people.

« EelmineJätka »