Page images

specimen is that of the Legal and General. Here you have a premium for the first five years which, while lower than a wholelife premium, is higher than the convertible term premium, but which gives the compensating advantage that the ultimate premium is considerably lower than that applicable to first-class lives five years older. Furthermore, the Legal and General grant these ascending scale policies on the with as well as the without profit basis, and, although this once again means a heavier payment, and may not suit everyone's pocket just now, the advantage to the policy-holder of with-profit insurance as opposed to without-profit insurance is so great that the figures should receive

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

THE opinion may be expressed-indeed, it has been expressed in some quarters-that at the present time it is wiser to insure on the without-profit basis, paying the lower rate of premium and receiving a guaranteed policy, giving no hostages to fortune in the way of profit premiums entitling to share in bonuses which may never ensue. If the person contemplating insurance is already an old man there may, perhaps, be something in this reasoning, for undoubtedly the profits of the immediate future will be impaired, although, in the best offices, probably not to anything like the extent that might be expected. Capital depreciation must entail immediate losses, death claims falling upon young lives must curtail mortality profits; but there the adverse story, if you are dealing with an office in the really Dreadnought class, stops; and you have on the other side an enormous increase in the rate of interest earned, far outweighing even the heavy extra income tax. The very writing down of investments, costly as it is in the immediate present, raises the rate of interest earned where, as is so much the case in life insurance investments, the income is a fixed quantity. Where the valuation rate of interest is low the courageous writing down of securities increases that largest source of profit, the margin of interest earned over interest assumed. The very falling off in new business is often an actual saving to the office, and acts as a kind of Nature's remedy. For, startling as it may be to the ordinary commercial mind, it is true of life offices which stand in the premier rank and which are fortified with a stringent valuation basis that if they closed their doors altogether and worked out their own history, the existing policyholders would, before long, find themselves faced with such unwieldy surpluses that unless the rate of bonus was steadily increased they would never be able to keep pace with them. There are, in fact, many peculiar compensations in life assurance finance, and, for any but the old entrant, the with profit policy is by far the best policy, and, in the long run, will, in the future as in the past, outdistance all non-profit contracts so long as the office be selected with a carefulness commensurate with the gravity of the times.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. ANKER (Charles), son of John Green Anker and grandson of William Anker, of March, Cambs, or his children, if any, or next of kin, or their respective legal personal representatives claiming under inquiries made in an action re William. Anker, deceased, to come in, by March 1, at chambers of the Judge, Room 699, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing March 3, at 12, at said chambers, Room 700. CLARKSON (Joseph), Sowerby, who died Oct. 28, 1864. Children, if any, of his brothers Thomas and John, and his sisters Elizabeth and Rachel or their issue or legal personal representatives claiming under inquiries made in an action in the matter of the estate of Joseph Clarkson, deceased; the Public Trustee v. Clarkson, to come in, by March 2, at chambers of Joyce and Eve, JJ., Room 696. Hearing March 9, at 12, at said chambers.




BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors send in, by Feb. 27, to H. A. Maw, 4, Harrington-st, Liverpool. COTTON GINNING SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 25, to G. S. Pitt, liquidator.

DAY AND NIGHT SCREENS LIMITED.-Creditors to send forthwith or by
Feb. 28, to P. W. Straus, 7, Great Winchester-st, E.C.
F. H. POWELL AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 27, to
H. A. Maw, 4, Harrington-st, Liverpool.

winding-up subject to supervision of the Court to be heard Feb. 9,
at Royal Courts of Justice. Edgar and Co., 9-10, Fenchurch-st, E.C.,
sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by Feb. 8.
March 15, to J. E. Costello, 90, Cannon-st, E.C.

GRAVITY CLOCK COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 20, to F. J. Sheen, Caxton House, Westminster, S.W.

JOHN BACON LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 27, to H. A. Maw, 4. Harrington-st, Liverpool.

LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC PACKING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in. by March 1, to J. S. Meikle, Leeds-st, Liverpool. MIDDLESEX STORES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Feb. 19, at Brentford County Court, at 10. A. Walsh, Gray, and Rose, 35, Bedford-row, W.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by Feb. 18. NORTHAMPTON CORN EXCHANGE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 15, to F. S. Jeffery, 1, Guildhall-rd, Northampton. OLYMPIA TYRE COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Feb. 9, at Preston County Court. T. H. and T. Dodd, Preston, agents for Tanfield and Tanfield, Dudley, sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by Feb. 8.

PREMIER LIGHTING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED. By an order made by Mr Registrar Manson, dated Jan. 19, Ebenezer Henry Hawkins, 4, Charterhouse-sq, was appointed an additional liquidator to act jointly with John Palmer Willis Goodwin,

PAYNE AND KING LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by March 6, to R.
Rhodes, 18, Low-pavement, Nottingham.

by June 30, to W. L. Ellis, 30, Moorgate-st, E.C.
Feb. 13, to C. Turner, 155, Norfolk-st, Sheffield.

SUPREME FILM COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard
Feb. 9, at Royal Courts of Justice. F. O. Chinner and Co.,
32. Maddox-st, W., sols. to pet. Notics of appearance by Feb. 8.
STOEWERS (LONDON) LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard
Feb. 16, at Royal Courts of Justice. J. Bransbury, 3, Pancras-la,
Queen-st, E.C., sol for pets. Notices of appearance by Feb. 15.
be heard Feb. 11, at Birmingham County Court, at 10.30. Philip
Cohen and Slater, Birmingham, sols. for pet. Notices of appearance
by Feb. 10 to the sols., or their London agents, McKenna and Co.,
31 to 34, Basinghall-st, E.C.
WATCHFUL STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Feb. 27,
to H. A. Maw, 4, Harrington-st, Liverpool.

WM. SMITH AND SONS (CONTRACTORS) LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by
March 1, to W. Peet, Bank-bldgs, 1, High-st, Croydon.
WM. KILBY AND CO. LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard
Feb. 18, at Wolverhampton County Court. E. R. Still, Bedminster,
Bristol, sol. for pets. Notices of appearance by Feb. 17.


ANCHOR PRESS LIMITED.-Holders of debentures or other incumbrances,
to come in by March 2, at chambers of Joyce and Eve, JJ. Hearing
March 9, at 12, at said chambers.
ASHWORTH (John Henry), Tramere and Birkenhead. Creditors and
creditors of Mary Ann Ashworth, his legal personal representative,
as regards debts incurred by reason of his business being continued
after his death by her. Feb. 9; J. T. Thompson, of Thompson and
Mathison, sols., Birkenhead Feb. 18; Registrar of Liverpool District
of Chancery of Lancaster, at 11.
BERTHOUD (Alphonse Henry), Kensington, partner in the firm of Coulon,
Berthoud, and Co., Basildon House, Moorgate-st, E.C. His
creditors and creditors of the firm as on Nov. 5, 1913. March 1
W. B. Girling, col., 1, Wool Exchange, Basinghall-st, E.C. March 5;
the Master, at chambers of the Judge, Room 700, Royal Courts of
Justice, at 12.

BRITTAN (Ann), King's Heath Feb. 27; J. F. Butlin, sol., Birmingham. March 10; Warrington, J., at 12. ELWORTHY (Joseph Williamson), Broadstairs. March 2; E. W. Essell, sol., 25, Bedford-row, W.C. March 9; Warrington, J., at 12. Lowood John Grayson), Swinton. March 2; W. B. Esam, sol., Sheffield. March 12; Sargant, J., at 12. PRICHARD (Dariel).-Persons claiming to be interested in the hereditaments and premises passing under the will of Daniel Prichard, Pencarth, Llany stumdwy, dated May 27, 1843, to which the action of Parry v. Williams relates, to come in, by June 8, at chambers of Joyce and Eve. JJ. Hearing June 15, at 12, at said chambers. SMALLEY (James), Liverpool. Creditors or creditors of Elizabeth Smalley, the executrix of his will, as regards debts incurred by her in carrying on the business of James Smalley, under style of "Smalley, Rice, and Evans," since his death. Feb. 16; E. Leach, sol., Liverpool. Feb. 26; Registrar of Liverpool District of Chancery of Lancaster, at 10.30.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ALDERSON (Ridley). Harrogate. March 31; H. Soden Bird and Sons, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

ARTHUR (Susanna), Lowestoft. Feb. 26; the executors, at the office of Tippetts, 11, Maiden-la, Queen-st, E.C.

AUFHOLZ (August), Highbury New-pk, and Cotton-st, E.C. Feb. 26; the executors, at the office of Tippetts, 11, Maiden-la, Queen-st, E.C. BAREHAM (Susan), South Hackney. March 6; Stock and Slater, 19. Walbrook, E.C.

BOSTOCK (Francis Charles, otherwise Frank Charles), Earl's Court, Kensington. Creditors, also creditors of the executors since the date of the death (Oct. 8, 1912) of the deceased. Feb. 26; Tippetts, 11, Maiden-la, Queen-st, E.C.

BAKER (Henry George Tungs), Eastbourne, trading as Lansdell and Aldridge. March 10; H. H. Wells and Sons, 17, Paternoster-row, E.C.

BURGESS (George). Frodsham. March 25; R. Innes, Manchester. BURTON (Col. William Henry), Shirley Holmes, Sway. Feb. 18; Heppenstall and Clark, Lymington. BRADSHAW (Capt. Frank Seymour), 13th Regiment, Somersetshire Light Infantry March 3; Holloway, Blount, and Dake, 24, Lincoln's-innflds, W.C. BRICKA (Helené), West Brompton. Feb. 16; Loxdales, 93, Gloucester-rd,

South Kensington,

BAGLEY (James), Beaconsfield, and Kirdford.

March 1; J. Pitfield,
BARKER (Capt. Richard Vincent), Royal Welch Fusiliers.
March 1;
Birch, Cullimore, and Co., Friars, Chester,
BESLY (Capt. Barton Hope),' Honiton, March 1; Holt, Beever, and
Crowdy, 1, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury-sq. W.C.
BOOTH (Mary Anne), Hazelholme, Stockport. Feb. 23; Aston, Harwood,
Somers, and Entwistle, Manchester.

BOULTER (Lilian Ann), sometimes known as Mrs. Cox, Tunbridge Wells.
Feb. 27: Wedlake, Letts, and Birds, 3, Serjeants'-inn, Temple, E.C.
BOULTON (Fred), Isham. March 1, Walker, Sons, and Rainey, Spilsby
BRANDON (Hubert de Bathe), East Sheen.
Brown, 22, Chancery-la, W.C.

Feb. 28, Indermaur and

[blocks in formation]

BROWNE (Harriett Louisa), Worthing. March 1; Oldman, Cornwall, and Wood Roberts, 3, Harcourt-bldgs, Temple, E.C.

CECIL (Henry), Bournemouth. March 1; J. Westcott and Sons, 140, Strand, W.C.

CLATWORTHY (William), Paddington. March 6; the executrices, at the offices of Simpson, Cullingford, Partington, and Holland, 85, Gracechurch-st, E.Č. COCKERTON (Edith Emily Marian Coulthurst), Clissold Park. March 10; J. A. M. Popple, 14, Great St. Thomas Apostle, E.C. COMPTON-THORNHILL (2nd Lieut. Richard Anthony), Moreton Lodge, Buckingham. March 1; Peters and Ellis, 2A, Guildhall-chmbre, 32, Basinghall-st, E.C. CORNOCK (William), Aust. Feb. 27; Crossman and Co., Thornbury. CRAMENT (Mary), Thorner. Feb. 13; Hewson, Goodall, and Dobson, Leeds.

CROCKER (William Walter), Camberwell, and Milk-st, E.C. March 1; E. W. Haines, 10, Serjeants'-inn, Fleet-st.

COLE (Charles Livesey), Oxford, or COLE (Catherine). Feb. 27; Crossman and Co., Thornbury, Glos.

CLARKE (Arthur Thomas), Walton-on-Thames, and St. James-sq. March 8;
Letts Brothers, 8, Bartlett's-bldgs, E.C.

DUNN (Alice), Frome. Feb. 16; W. P. De Gex, Weymouth.
DAVISON (John), Micklegate. March 23; J. H. Turner, York.
DEWEY (Elizabeth), Sale. March 1; J. H. Lea, Manchester.

DE BEAUMONT (Madame Stella Fernande). Highgate. Feb. 28; Lowe and
Co.. 2, Temple-grdns, E.C.

DOUGHTY (Roger), Moston. Feb. 28; L. A. Challinor, Manchester. DOWSING (Elizabeth Jane), Chiswick. March 1, W. R. Millar and Sons, 22, St. Thomas'-st, London Bridge, S.E.

EVANS (William), Llandudno. March 1; Chamberlain and Johnson, Llandudno.

EDNEY (Emma), Bristol. Feb. 27; Danger and Cartwright, Bristol. FRAMPTON (Alfred James), Southampton. March 10; Swayne, Havers, and Harfield, Southampton.

FERGUSSON (Fergus), Johannesburg, South Africa, and Chesham-st. March 12; Ramsden and Co., 85, Gracechurch-st, E.C.

FORD (William). March 1; H. G. Ford, Nottingham.

FRASER (Lieut. the Hon. Simon), Baker-st, and Stock Exchange. Feb. 28;
Watkins, Baylis, and Chidson, 11, Sackville-st, Piccadilly, W.
GILL (George Topham Strangways), Hampstead, and Shiplake-on-
Thames. March 1; Burgess, Taylor, and Tryon, 1, New-sq, Lincoln's-

HARJEE (Ramchandra), Bombay, India. Feb. 27; Maddison, Stirling,
Humm, and Davies, 33, Old Jewry, E.C.

HAYDEN (George), Southsea and Portsmouth. March 1; Biscoe, Smith, and Blagg, Portsmouth.

HOULDSWORTH (Mary), Southport. Feb. 27; W. and R. Hodge, Southport.

HAUTON (Mary Ann), Southsea. March 1; Hamlins, Grammer, and Hamlin, Surbiton.

HALES (Henry), Kenley.

E C.

March 15; Whitford and Thorp, 28, Budge-row,

HARROWER (Thomas Gordon). Liverpool. March 2; Norris and Sons, Liverpool.

HILL (Charles Alexander), Liverpool and Hoylake. March 8; Sampson and Co., Liverpool.

HAMMOND (Phineas), Stoke Newington, and Bunhill-row. Feb. 26; the executors, at the office of Tippetts, 11, Maiden-la, Queen-st, E.C. HAYNES (Barbara), Bristol. Feb. 26; E. H. Haynes, at the office of Tippetts, 11, Maiden-la, Queen-st, E.C.

HUDSON (Thomas), Leeming. March 17; E. D. and B. W. Swarbreck, Bedale.

JAMES (Anne), Balham. March 1; S. James, 3 and 4, Clement's-inn. JONES (Susannah), Colney Hatch Asylum, Friern Barnet. Feb. 27; Farmans, Bank-chmbrs, 329, High Holborn. W.C.

JONES (Ellen), Liverpool. March 15; C. W. Tibbits, Liverpool. JUDGE (Matthew Ebenezer), New Brighton. March 16; Gradwell, Abercromby, and Co, Liverpool.

JONES (Margaret), Abergwili. Feb. 20; Picton, Evans, and Jones,


[blocks in formation]

Buckingham-gate, S.W.

MORAN (Mary), Poland-st, Oxford-st. March 1; Ingpen and Armitage,
4. Raymond-bldgs, Gray's-inn.
MARKHAM (Major Ronald Anthony), Guards Club, Pall Mall, and Mayfair.
March 10: Burch. Whitehead, and Davidsons, 29. Spring-grdns. S.W.
MAWER (Hedley). Spilsby. Feb. 26; W. S. Carter, the Grange, Midville,
or the sols.. Walker, Sons, and Rainey, Spilsby.
MULHOLLAND (Cant, the Hon. Andrew Edward Somerset), Irish Guards.
March 12; Bischoff and Co., 4. Great Winchester-st, E.C.
MYERS (William), Bradford. March 15; Rawnsley and Peacock, Bradford.
OXLEY (George), Burnham Westgate, or OXLEY (James). Feb. 20; E. B.
Loynes and Son, Wells. Norfolk.

OLDENBOURG (Sophia Carolina), Plymouth.

March 3; Webster and

Watson, Newton Abbot, Devon. OGDEN (Charles Richard), Charing. March 1; Harrison, Powell, and Tulk, 5. Raymond-bldgs, Gray's-inn, W.C.

PARKER (Charles John Bullivant). Stonebridge, Grantham. Feb. 27: Peake Snow, and Son, Sleaford.

PARNELL (Thomas), Scarborough. March 24; Cook, Fowler, and Outhet, Scarborough.

PETHICK (William Arthur), Purton. March 6; Maxwell and Dampney,

52, Bishopsgate, E.C.

POULTER (Charles Kelson), Langport.

Henley, Yeovil.

Feb. 28; Watts, Watts, and

PEARKS (Tom William), Earl's Court. March 8; Wild and Collins, St. Lawrence House, Trump-st, E.C.

PRETTY (George Bragge). West Norwood. Feb. 27; Burn and Berridge, 11, Old Broad-st. E.C.

PRIESTLAND (Rev. Edward), Spondon. Feb. 13; L. M. Priestland and Rev, H. Gascoigne, at the offices of Simpson, Bowring, and Smith, Derby. RICHARDS (Charles Edward), Harrogate; Bradford; and Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. March 15; Wade, Tetley, Wade, and Scott, Bradford.

ROWELL (Harriet), Leeds. March 6; Peckover, Scriven, and Co., Leeds.
ROBERTS (Emma), Leeds. March 8; T. Piercy, Leeds.
RAMSBOTHAM (Cyril), Cotmandene, Dorking. March 12; Simpson and
Bowen, Egypt House, 36, New Broad-st, .C.

RYDING (Charles), Standish. Feb. 17; Price and Jackson, Wigan.
ROBSON (Alexander), Berwick-upon-Tweed, trading as "Alexander Robson
and Son," at Tweedmouth. Feb. 27; the executors at the offices of
Sanderson, Tiffen, and Henderson, Berwick-upon-Tweed.
REDHEAD (Mary), Kendal. Feb. 15; F. Taylor and Son, Barrow-in-

Ross (Neil Anderson), Southport. March 2; Stanley Stroud, Southport,
or Brighouse, Jones, and Co., Southport.
ROBERTS (Charles), Balham. March 1; Crosse and Sons, 7, Lancaster-pl,

ROBB (Helen Dick), Tunbridge Wells. Feb. 26; Buss and Levett. Tunbridge Wells.

STEVENTON (Maria), Wellington. Feb. 26; R. A. Newill, Wellington, Salop.

SMITH (William), Farsley. Feb. 22; S. Smith and A. Bryant, at the offices of Bulmer, Lawson, and Ward, Leeds.

SMITH (William Doolan), Hove. March 1; E. M. Marx and Colbourne,
SHALLCROSS (Agnes), Llandulas. March 1; Tyrer, Kenion, Tyrer. and
Simpson, Liverpool.

SAWYER (Charles), New Oxford-st, W.C., trading as "The Autotype
Company." March 14; Collyer-Bristow, Curtis, Booth, Birks, and
Langley. 4, Bedford-row, W.C.

SHERLOCK (Frederick), Charing Cross, and Hornsey. March 1; M. H. Sherlock. Churchman Publishing Company, Craven-st, Charing Cross, W.C.

SOWRAY (George), Bishop Thornton. March 25; W. H. Hutchinson, Ripon.

SWAYNE (William Henry), West Marlands. March 10; Swayne, Havers, and Harfield, Southampton.

STURGIS (Robert Owen), Richmond. Feb. 26; the executors, at the office
of Tippetts, 11 Maiden-la, Queen-st, E.C.
SPRIGENS (Horace Percy), Bedford-pl. Russell-sq. Feb. 26; the executors,
at the office of Tippetts, 11, Maiden-la, Queen-st, E.C.
TULLY (Andrew Plummer), Evistones, Rochester. March 15; R. Brown
and Son, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

TAYLOR (Joseph), Oldham March 15; Ascroft,

TEMPLEMAN (Major-Gen. Alfred), Budleigh Salterton.
Barnes, and Bazeley, Bideford.
THOMPSON (Joseph), St. James's. Feb. 22; A. M.
inn, E.C.

Maw, and Shimeld,

March 15; Bazeley, Lister, 17, Thavies

THORP (Martha Maria), Heaton Park. Feb. 28; E. Heath and Sons,

TOBIN (Rev. Frederic), Charicote, and Folkestone. March 1; Burgess,
Taylor, and Tryon, 1, New-sq. Lincoln's-inn.
TRYTHALL (Mary Jane), Brixto 1. March 1; S. James, 3 and 4, Clement's-


TURLE (Charles Philip), Wimborne. Feb. 18; H. W. Dibben and Co., Wimborne.

URWICK (William Henry), Clapham Common. March 3, S. F. Miller, Vardon, and Miller, 12, Savile-row, W.

VINALL (Sarah), Dover. March 13; Lewis and Pai. Dover.

VIRGO (William James), Shamley Green. March 1; W. M. Maud, Guild-
WAINWRIGHT (John Charles Rawlinson), Maida-vale, W.; Tilehurst;
Reading, and Shepton Mallet. March 25; A. E. Nalder, Shepton

WALLACE (James), Warkworth. March 27: A. Douglas, Alnwick.
WHITWORTH (William), Wishaw. March 6; Pinsent and Co., Birming-


WILLIAMSON (William), Stirton. March 1; M. R. Knowles, Skipton. WOOD (Elizabeth Ann), Blackpool. March 1; H. Worden, Blackpool. WERE (Edward Kennet), Botha's Drift, Albany, Cape of Good Hope. Feb 18; Thorold, Brodie, and Bonham-Carter, 4, Regent-st, S. W. WHERRY (Elizabeth). Balham Park-rd. Her creditors to send in, and descendants of Edward Wherry, who died at Nottingham in 1903, are requested to communicate by March 1 with H. O. Moore, Derby.

[blocks in formation]

SIR CHARLES E. LONGMORE, K.C.B. (president), who wore the
uniform of the regiment of which he is the colonel, the 1st Reserve
Battalion Herts Regiment, presided at a general meeting of the
Law Society on Friday, the 29th ult. The following members of
the council were among those present: Messrs. Richard Stephens
Taylor (vice-president), Charles Edward Barry (Bristol), John
Field Beale, Edward Bramley (Sheffield), John Wreford Budd,
Lewin Bampfield Carslake, Richard Stewart Cleaver (Liverpool),
Alfred Henry Coley (Birmingham), Cecil Allen Coward, Sir Home-
wood Crawford, Messrs. Weeden Dawes, Robert William Dibdin,
Walter Dowson, Thomas Eggar (Brighton), Walter Henry
Foster, Sir Edward Henry Fraser, D.C.L. (Nottingham),
Messrs. Samuel Garrett, Herbert Gibson, Charles Goddard, Sir
Henry James Johnson, the Hon. Robert Henry Lyttelton,
Messrs. Frank Marshall (Newcastle-upon-Tyne), John Wessley
Martin (Reading) Philip Hubert Martineau, Robert Chancellor
Nesbitt, William Henry Norton (Manchester), Ernest Fitzjohn
Oldham, Arthur Copson Peake (Leeds), Kenrick Eyton Peck
(Devonport), Richard Alfred Pinsent (Birmingham), William
Arthur Sharpe, Sir Walter Trower, Messrs. William Melmoth
Walters, Norris Alfred Ernest Way (Chester) Robert Mills
Welsford, and William Howard Winterbotham; also E. R.
Cook (secretary) and H. E. Jones (assistant secretary).


The PRESIDENT said that he was afraid his thoughts had been recently far apart from legal matters, so he was not in a position to address the meeting upon the general position of the

324-Vol. 138.]

Profession, except that he should like to tell them the part which the solicitor branch of the profession was filling in the present war. According to the information before him, there were 1831 solicitors serving in His Majesty's forces, many, he was glad to hear, actually at the front, and there were 981 articled clerks, which gave a total of 2812. This was a very fine total, and no doubt, if the list were complete up to date, the number would be enlarged. There were a great number of solicitors, in fact almost all of them, serving His Majesty in some shape or another for the advancement of our dear country. They had every reason to be proud of their profession for the position it had taken. As to the brigade in which he had the honour to serve, which consisted of two battalions and 300 men, three of the commanding officers were solicitors. His own adjutant was Mr. Harcourt Rose, of Norton, Rose, Barrington, and Co., Old Broad-street, and no commanding officer ever had a better. Another officer was Mr. George Whately, the son of Mr. Whately, of Rooper and Whateley, Lincoln's-inn-fields.


He wished to convey to the members of the society his most sincere thanks for the magnificent response they had made to his circular on behalf of the Red Cross Society. He had been able to send over £3017 18s., a very handsome contribution from the Profession. At one time it had been contemplated that the money should be earmarked for special purposes, but Mr. Charles Russell, who was so closely identified with the Red Cross Society, said it would be more convenient to devote it to the general purposes of the society. The expenses had amounted to only £2 10s., and that was chiefly for postage. They had to be very thankful to the secretary and staff of the Law Society for giving their gratuitous work.


There was one other matter which he felt he ought to mention. He should like, on behalf of the Profession, to congratulate Sir Walter Trower upon the great honour which had been conferred upon him, and which they were all glad to see in the New Year's honours list. They felt that in honouring him His Majesty had honoured the whole Profession. They congratulated him most sincerely, and, on behalf of the Profession, he might say it gave them all great pleasure to hear of it.


Mr. BRINSLEY HARPER moved: "That in the interest of the public the Law Society take all necessary steps to get altered the existing rules of practice that: (1) The fees payable to junior counsel must necessarily be in all cases from three-fifths to twothirds of the fees payable to the leading counsel. (2) Clients pay the fees of clerks to counsel." He said he was deeply sorry to note that the council had not been able to come to some arrangement with the Bar Council in regard to this matter. The report of the Bar Council on so important a subject had come rather as a disappointment and also as a surprise to him in view of the statement which had been made at general meetings of the society to the effect that the council of the society would not come to any arrangement without first submitting the question to a general meeting. At the end of July the council forwarded to the Bar Council a formal resolution which they had passed as their ultimatum. It was to the effect "that in all cases in which a leader and a junior are briefed, the fee payable to the junior shall be two-thirds of the fee which would ordinarily be marked for the leader, having regard to the importance of the case and the amount of the papers, but the junior shall not be entitled to an increased fee owing to the leader claiming an exceptional fee." That was not the view taken by a general meeting of the society as expressed by the resolution moved by him (Mr. Brinsley Harper). He was very sorry that the council of the society should have been seduced by the Bar Council, on a side issue, from dealing with a matter with regard to which many solicitors felt very strongly as being the principle for which they were contending. The rule as to the two-thirds fee was only a rule of practice, but it was a rule which the Bar Council stated the barristers themselves could not break without the liability of punishment by their Benchers, and it was a rule which solicitors felt ought not to be adhered to. He did not know what the members of the Bar and the members of the council said at the interview which took place-that was not stated in the reportbut it seemed extraordinary that the council should not have suggested to them that the members of the Bar Council themselves should not allow fees, as a rule, to be marked as special fees. Lord Alverstone, in his recent book of Reminiscences, said: "I have referred to the fact that I was taken several times on special retainer to conduct cases on circuits other than my own; this was chiefly after I was Attorney-General. Of course, it is only in really heavy cases that the services of a special leader can be afforded, and my fees for each case were 300 guineas on the


brief. In the interests of the barristers on the circuit, I never
allowed my brief fee to be reduced in consequence of my
receiving special fees." Lord Halsbury also, in his work on
The Laws of England, said: "A fee, which is really a
case in order to conduct
brief fee given for getting up a
it in court and for conducting it there, ought in no case to be
divided and marked in part as a special fee, merely for the purpose
of paying a less fee to other counsel engaged in the case.
theory of these two learned leaders in the Profession was that a
junior counsel was entitled to a two-thirds fee, and that must
include the spec al fee. It seemed most extraordinary that the
council of the society should have gone to a discussion with the
Bar Council, and that the Bar Council at the very first meeting,
he understood, should have said that they would discuss only
cases where the fee marked was more than 100 guineas.
The majority of cases which went into court did not justify a fee
of 100 guineas upon the brief. He wondered whether the council
had appeared as representing the lower branch of the Profession
at this interview, because it seemed to him that the proper course
would have been to put solicitors in the position of leading the
Bar Council in the discussion on this point. Solicitors felt that
it was not necessary nowadays to adhere to an old rule, which
was laid down many years ago at a time when the fees marked
upon the briefs of counsel did not in any way approach those that
were paid at the present time. In the olden days, a fee of
fifty guineas was quite a high fee. He was but fifty-three years of
age and he could well remember that, when he was first articled,
and it was with a good firm, it was an extraordinary thing in that
particular office to mark a brief with fifty guineas. He recollected
that Mr. (afterwards Mr. Justice) Chitty never got more than
fifty guineas in the cases given him by the office, and that the brief
of his junior was marked with £10 108.; but no leader at the Bar
to-day would appear for anything like that fee. It had been
intimated to him that an amendment was to be moved to his
motion, but he did not want an amendment; he wanted his
motion to be accepted or rejected, as being either right or wrong.
He might be wrong, but, at any rate, he had no doubt that the
practice of which he was speaking ought, in the interest of the
Profession and the public, to be abolished. In the olden days of
which he had spoken, nobody objected to the two-thirds fee to the
junior, for fees were not at that time very large, but the fees were
now very high, and the matter was, therefore, one of great
importance. It was no use saying that this was only a rule of
practice, for the junior would not accept a brief unless the proper
proportion of the fee paid to his leader was marked upon it. At
a general meeting of the society two years ago he had referred
to a case in which his firm had marked the leader's brief with 100
guineas and the junior got sixty five guineas. The leader became ill,
and another had to be briefed at the last moment. He insisted
upon a fee of 150 guineas and it had to be paid, as the firm could
not help itself. Then the junior required his fee to be increased
to 100 guineas and would not go into court unless that was done.
The junior had been perfectly satisfied, at the time he received his
first brief, with the sixty-five guineas, and why, simply because the
leader became ill and the fee on the brief of the new leader had
to be increased, he should get more for doing the same work that
he would have done, passed one's comprehension. How the
members of the council, who were supposed to look after the
interests of the solicitor branch of the Profession, could remain
satisfied with this state of affairs he could not understand. All
the Bar Council said was that they would discuss with them
about exceptional and special fees; but that was not the point
he had had in his mind when he had moved his resolution at the
general meeting two years ago. It was rather disheartening
for the members of the society that the matter should be treated
in this way.
They would ask themselves why they should
trouble about it at all when the council were so lukewarm.
movement to put an end to such a state of affairs ought to
have come from the council. The members of the council were
members of distinguished firms, but one would think that they
never gave a brief marked with over 100 guineas, The majority
of the members of the Profession with large practices felt,
however, that the matter was a serious one.
A taxing master
had told him quite recently that he sincerely hoped that those
who could use their influence with the Law Society to alter the
present practice would do so; and he said that if the members
of the council could sit in his chambers a single day they would
never hesitate about the matter. A King's Counsel had told him
that he could not understand why solicitors did not make a
stronger stand about it. He said: "You pay your counsel a big
fee to be in court, and not to put the responsibility on the junior
to take his place." Junior barristers had told him that they hoped
the practice would be altered, as it would be all the better for
them. It was perfectly absurd to have to give two or three guineas
to a junior to settle a claim or to advise in evidence when five
or ten guineas at the most would be a proper fee, and then to
have to increase it. He would not put it more strongly than that,
but he thought they would all have had experience of it and were


[ocr errors]


agreed with regard to the matter. There was no doubt about the fact that this was an old rule. It was to be found in the White Book, in the rules of practice, but it ought not, under the altered circumstances of the present day, to be allowed to continue. The subject had been mentioned by Mr. C. L. Samson, the then president, in his address at the annual provincial meeting in 1912, and the members had been discussing it ever since. The result after all that time was that the Bar Council said, practically, "We absolutely decline to go below the case of a fee of over 100 guineas," and the council of the society said, "We can do nothing more." It was very difficult to know what was to be done, but his own opinion was that it would be better for the meeting to pass his resolution, because, as Mr. Samson said at the time of which he was speaking, "This is a subject which must be altered"; and Sir Walter Trower told him at a general meeting not to withdraw his resolution, but to keep it on the paper, and that it would be of value in any negotiation. He (Mr. Brinsley Harper) was sorry it had not helped in the matter at all. council had made a tactical blunder altogether. Why should they have entered into any discussion with the Bar Council on any question of the amount when it was the principle which ought to have been considered? The practice was against the interest of the public. The Bar made certain rules and said, These are our rules of practice and you have to submit to them." This was a matter which ought not to be allowed to rest in its present state, and he, therefore, intended to press his resolution. The second part of his resolution related to another absurditynamely, the payment of the barristers' clerks' fees. Lord Alverstone, in the work from which he had already quoted, dealt with the matter. He said: "The position of barristers' clerks is anomalous and interesting. They are paid by the clients by fees of half-a crown for consultation and 5 per cent. on the brief fees. I know of no other instance where the personal attendant on a professional man is paid indirectly by the clients." Lord Halsbury again, in the book to which he had already referred, said, "Where fees are paid to counsel it is usual to include therein certain fees to which his clerk is entitled, and which can be recovered from counsel by the clerk in an action for money had and received. The clerk, however, is not entitled to demand as of right any fee or remuneration whatever from his master's clients, but the fee is a mere gratuity, though it is allowed, on taxation, according to a fixed scale." Now, they as practitioners knew that they had to pay the clerks' fees. He remembered a recent case where a distinguished leader got 100 guineas refresher each day, and the taxation fee for attendance allowed to the solicitor on the other side and himself for an anxious day's work from half-past ten to four was three guineas-they had arranged among themselves for four guineas. Would it be believed that each of their leaders' clerks got £5 a day for bringing up the papers from the leaders' chambers to the court? He really thought that this was a perfect disgrace. They were members of the Legal Profession and they did not get much out of itone of the judges had said that three hundred a year was all the solicitor ought to make-but it was an expensive profession and there was a good deal of risk attached to it, and to think that after sitting in court for six hours they were only to get three guineas for it, whilst the barrister's clerk got £5, was something which the Law Society ought to get altered. He moved his resolution in the hope that the council would be able to get these anomalies removed. They were nothing more than matters of practice at the Bar, and he thought it was time they were put an end to.

Mr. PATRICK SHAW seconded the motion. He said he felt very strongly with Mr. Brinsley Harper that something ought to be done by which the perfectly anomalous conditions existing between the barristers and barristers' clerks and solicitors who employ them should be altered. It was truly desirable that the matter should be taken in hand, and taken in hand with great vigour. He had great respect for the council of the society, and he believed in their ability to carry whatever they determined should be carried, and he sincerely trusted that they would take the matter up seriously, because it was one which affected many practising solicitors. In addition, it was very difficult to explain it to one's clients, for the client often selected as his leader someone with exceptional abilities, or someone who was his particular fancy, whose fees were high; but that was no reason why the jun or, who might have been satisfied with ten, twelve, or fifteen guineas, should immediately ask for eighteen, twenty, or thirty guineas, as the case might be, for the reason simply that that was a certain proportion of his leader's fees. Surely it was a question of the labourer and his hire, and, because the solicitor desired to serve his client, who was insisting upon briefing some particular leading counsel with a fee of, say, 1000 guineas, there was no reason why the junior, who would ordinarily not have received more than 100 guineas should have 700 guineas. He was sure that most of their professional brethren were with them in spirit in this matter, though the members of the society were most of them too busily occupied

to be able to come to a meeting held at two in the afternoon and thus show the public and the Bar generally that there was a particular desire on their part to serve their clients by saving their pockets whilst securing for them at the same time the best services that money would buy.

Mr. E. A. BELL thought that in times of stress such as the present, when they ought to regard the Profession as one profession, controversial matters should be avoided. He did think that the maxim Inter arma silent leges should apply here. He thought there should be some indication that every member of the society did not agree with the drastic statements made by Mr. Brinsley Harper, who had said that he moved the resolution in the interests of the public. If that were so, why should they strike at the junior counsel? The junior counsel had generally done the hardest part of the work, and they were generally regarded as properly earning their fees. Mr. Brinsley Harper had admitted as much by stating that he considered that the fees allowed to settle statements of claim and other documents prior to trial should be increased. What did it matter whether a fee were increased or whether the proportion which was allowed to the junior counsel should be allowed to stand? But whether the resolution were passed or whether it was negatived he did not believe it would have the slightest effect on what was

really the practice. After all, it was a question of negotiation between the members of the Bar and the solicitors who instructed them; and, if the client was in a sufficiently good position to be able to pay an expensive fee for a learned and able counsel, why should not the junior, who, no doubt, had done a great deal, if not the majority, of the work, be allowed a fair and equitable proportion of his leader's fee? The matter had been before the Bar Council, and they had seen the members of the council of the society in 1890, in 1900, in 1913, and in 1914, and on each of those occasions, if he might judge by the annual statement of the Bar Council, efforts had been made to arrive at an agreement. In each of the last two years, 1913 and 1914, special direction had been drawn by the Bar Council to the rule which existed—namely, that whenever there was any question between solicitor and counsel relating to the Profession it was, as a matter of course, within the power of both parties to that particular question to refer it for decision to the chairman of the General Council of the Bar and to the president of the Law Society. He thought that there was not one case in fifty in which any real dispute arose as to the junior counsel's fee, and he asked whether, for the sake of the fiftieth case, they were to put on record a rather offensive resolution such as that which they were debating? If there was any friction between members of the Bar and solicitors as to the question of the proper proportion of a fee, here was a rule ready for them of which they could take advantage, so that there was no need for raising any controversial resolution of that kind. With regard to the miserable half-crown or five shillings paid to the clerks, he did not think any answer was required to the remarks which had been made except that it was beneath the dignity of the meeting to consider the matter.

Mr. CHARLES FORD expressed his surprise at the extraordinary speech to which they had just listened. They were very much indebted to Mr. Brinsley Harper, who had taken an infinite amount of trouble about the matter, and it was to be hoped the meeting would support him in the excellent work he sought to do. It would be of great service to the members of the solicitor branch of the Profession, as well as to the public at large, if an alteration could be brought about. But it would be necessary, according to his experience, to peg away at the subject for another two or three years at least, and then they would get the Bar to take a reasonable view of this very simple question. The origin of this extraordinary proposition that, because a firstrate man was paid a very big fee, a certain proportion of that fee was to be paid to a very ordinary mortal was very difficult to imagine. He could only suggest that the leader, in order to induce the junior to do as much work as possible, said he must have this proportion, and so he hoped he would do the work that was expected. He hoped that someone would enlighten the meeting as to the origin of the practice. They did not want to speak direspectfully of the Bar; they all admired the ability of its members, but they really could not much longer allow these extraordinary conditions between the Bar and solicitors and the public to exist, and he hoped that the meeting would not hesitate to support the resolution. As to the clerks' fees, he quite admitted that this was a trivial matter, except that it was a ridiculous thing that solicitors, or the public, should pay these wretched half-crowns. He hoped that before long some of the men at the Bar would be sufficiently independent to say that it was a state of things to which they themselves must put an end.

Mr. H. J. ADKIN moved an amendment to the effect that in the opinion of the meeting there was no existing rule entitling a junior counsel to require his fee to bear any fixed proportion to the brief fee of his leader. He did not move the amendment for the reason that he differed from Mr. Brinsley Harper's motion, or

that he objected to the attitude he had taken up in the matter. On the contrary, he thought the Profession were very much indebted to him for the vigour with which he had dealt with it. In substance he quite agreed with him, but he differed in the matter of method, and he thought that, as a question of tactics, it would not be advisable to pass the motion in its present form. His objections were mainly two. In the first place, there was a certain appearance in the motion of prodding the council; he thought they ought to avoid that, and he believed they would be more likely to gain their object by avoiding any appearance of that sort. He did not think it was necessary to dictate to the council that they should take steps. He had confidence that they would take steps such as they considered advisable, and he wanted, not to force their hands, but to strengthen them. In the first place, in his opinion the resolutiou put the case of the Bar much too high. It spoke of "the existing rules of practice There were no existing rules of practice. He knew that most solicitors-he for one-were under the impression that this was a very ancient custom indeed, but that was not so. It was a custom which had become general in comparatively recent years, and it was a custom of comparatively recent origin. Even now, though it was general, it was not universal. He had heard only on the preceding day of an important case in which the junior counsel received a fee of only one-third of the large fee paid to his leader. That it was the general custom he did not dispute, but it could not plead long prescription What they ought to do was to emphasise that fact in the form of a resolution of the society, and that would very considerably strengthen the hands of the council when they resumed their negotiations with the Bar Council. The present custom seemed to have originated and to have become fairly general after the coming into operation of the Judicature Act. It was certainly not a rule. In the handbook of The Law, Practice, and Usage in the Solicitors' Profession, published by the society, appeared the following: "In the opinion of the council no rigid rule exists that the amount of the fee on a junior's brief is to bear a certain proportion to that marked on the leader's brief, though in practice some such proportion as three-fifths or two thirds, no doubt, is generally adopted. The council consider that the fee in each case should be marked by the solicitor on his own responsibility, and if the brief with the fee so marked is accepted by the counsel, he has no right to claim a higher fee or to refuse to appear in the case, should he discover that his leader has received a fee to which the fee he has accepted does not bear the proportion stated. In expressing this opinion the council has not overlooked the case of Brown v. Sewell (1880, 16 Ch. Div. 517)." That was dated the 27th March 1889. In his opinion that was tolerably convincing to the minds of most solicitors. The opinion of the council in 1889 was that no such rule existed, and it did not exist at the present time. It was a mere custom of recent origin, and he wished to emphasise that. Of course, he would not attempt to support his statement by details, neither would it be possible to give the figures of actual cases. But he might say that he had reason to believe that certain figures and facts had been communicated to the council, and he was quite sure that research in other directions would have the same result. He might mention three cases as showing the sort of division of fees which prevailed in 1878 and 1879. In one case the leader received £11-he would speak in pounds-and the junior £5 10s.-one-half. In a case in 1879 the first leader received £27, the second leader £32, the junior £13-one-half. Another case, to which he would call special attention, was in the same year, and there the first leader received £66, the second leader £55, the junior £11-one-sixth. Then they came to this result, that there existed a general custom, of very recent origin, which had no claim to long prescription. He could understand what the Bar wished. They would very much like to transfer this recent and dubious custom to a fixed rule, and he had no doubt whatever that that was their main object in these negotiations. But that was exactly the point where the society should resist them, and he thought the meeting would best fortify the hands of the council by passing a resolution in some such terms as those he had suggested.

[ocr errors]

Mr. J. M. HASLIP, in seconding the amendment, said that he agreed with a very great deal that had been said by Mr. Brinsley Harper, but he differed on the point, to which Mr. Brinsley Harper had continually referred, as to the proportion of twothirds or three-fifths being an old rule, whereas the mover of the amendment had distinctly stated, and he himself cordially agreed with him from investigations he had made, that it was quite a modern practice and by no means an old rule. He thought that, if the members of the society had the opportunity of investigating the fee books of a considerable number of solicitors of the City of London who in the seventies and eighties had very large and litigious practices, they would find that the cases where the fees were less than two-thirds were probably in the majority. A member of the junior Bar had that day told him that just lately he had had three cases where a leader was briefed and his own fee marked on the brief was two-thirds. The real trouble


with the Bar was largely due to the excessive fees which had been demanded by the leaders during later years. There would have been no trouble with regard to the proportion of the fee to the junior if the fees paid to leading counsel to-day were at all proportionate to those which were paid in the seventies and eighties. It was the extraordinary increase of the fees to leaders which was causing the trouble. It was perfectly true, as Mr. Brinsley Harper had pointed out, that enormous pressure was placed upon every solicitor to mark the fee of the junior twothirds of that of the leader, and the pressure was difficult to resist, for the junior in a case knew the work, and the brief could not be taken away from him because he demanded a large fee, so the solicitor had to mark it. That, in his opinion, was largely the cause of the trouble. He happened to know, from having been largely behind the scenes, what were the facts, and he did not think the council had quite dealt with the matter in so businesslike a way as might have been expected He did not think they were adopting sufficiently the position of leaders in dealing with the bar. It was eminently to the interest of the Bar to have a fixed arrangement, and eminently against the interest of the Profession and the public not to have it. Ths custom was not one which the Bar Council really relied upon, and he therefore thought that it would be the greatest mistake if any arrangement were made with the Bar whereby the solicitor was bound down to a fixed fee, whatever it He desired to quote a paragraph from a report made by the Professional Purposes Committee of the City of London Solicitors' Company upon the subject of excessive fees to counsel, which report was made after considerable investigation. It was as follows: "The committee are of opinion that during the last thirty to thirty-five years fees to counsel, other than in minor and small cases, bave very largely increased, and this increase has been specially marked during the last ten years. Some thirty or thirty five years since twenty to thirty guineas to a leader was considered adequate remuneration in the vast majority of cases, and at the time when Sir John Karslake was Attorney-General a fee of 100 guineas was considered very large indeed. Counsel's fees commenced to increase about twenty-five years since. In order to lessen the amount of their work, certain counsel made a rule not to take a brief unless a special fee of fifty guineas was marked upon it, this being payable by the client and exclusive of party and party costs." He might explain that point; it was really the commencement of the trouble. When Lord Alverstone -he was then Sir Richard Webster-became very busy, he made it a rule that he would never take any brief unless thirty guineas was specially marked upon it, and that really was the main cause of these heavier fees being paid. That rule, of course, very nearly approached the practice of the present day in the Chancery Division, and he did not think anybody would have any objection to that, because the ordinary fee was marked on the brief and the junior got his proportion of the fee, and if one wanted a special man one paid him for it. Then the report when on: This rule very nearly approaches the rule in the Chancery Division among the K.C.s who go 'special.' Within the last few years fees have increased beyond reasonable proportions, taking into consideration the amount of work done or the time involved. The committee are of opinion that every effort in the interests of the public should be made to bring fees within reasonable proportions and commensurate with the work required to be done, and that it is not in the interests of the Bar as a body, or of solicitors, that unnecessarily large fees should be demanded."


Mr. T. H. DEIGHTON said he had come to the meeting with the intention of supporting Mr. Brinsley Harper's motion, except that he had intended to offer the objection to it that it spoke of "the existing rules." A few days since he had had a discussion with one of the judges upon the matter and had shown him the resolution. He stated that he was very glad the subject was being dealt with by the society, because he considered the rule unjust and absurd. He further said that when on circuit he had discussed the matter with the late Baron Huddleston, who had remarked that it was then a practice which was creeping up, but which had no foundation or justification in any shape whatever. That was the view of one of His Majesty's judges of the day, and he thought it ought to receive some consideration. He hoped that solicitors would not be content to rest quietly under the present conditions, but that they would be prepared to deal vigorously with the matter. He believed that if the other branch of the Profession knew that they were not prepared to adopt this rule

some alteration would be made.

Sir HOMEWOOD CRAWFORD (City Solicitor), speaking as a member of the council, said it was not quite fair that the remarks which had fallen from Mr. Brinsley Harper should go unanswered, because they amounted really to a reflection upon the council. He wanted to bear his testimony, as the senior member of the City of London Solicitors' Company, to the immense amount of attention and time and the great courtesy which had been shown by the council to the representations which had been made to

« EelmineJätka »