it should be mentioned that, under the heading of Natal: Political History, the date 1834 would probably be more correct than 1830, as there given. In 1834, in consequence of reports brought back by Dr. Smith and his party as to the fertility of Natal, Piet Uys and other Dutch Colonials went there and settled. There were undoubtedly English colonists settled in Durban Bay at the time, but Piet Uys and his party are the people evidently intended to be described as "Cape Colonists discontented with the Cape Government." Appeals to the Privy Council are treated of in the third Part, and a table is attached giving the conditions under which appeals from the Dominions beyond the Seas are possible. This table should prove of the greatest possible assistance to practitioners before the Privy Council. The list of Assistant Editors comprises many well-known names, including that of Dr. Bisschop, the recently appointed lecturer in Roman-Dutch law. Undoubtedly this volume will be used by those who cannot afford the luxury of the more pretentious Burge's Commentaries, as it gives much the same information in a very condensed form. That the information is reliable is proved by the long list of gentlemen, versed in the different laws in force in all parts of the Empire, who have revised or assisted in the preparation of the text.

Second Edition. The Merchant Shipping Acts. By ROBERT TEMPERLEY, M.A., and H. STUART MOORE, assisted by A. BUCKNILL, M.A. London: Stevens & Sons. 1907.

The law of Merchant Shipping, or at any rate the legislation relating thereto, was in 1894 consolidated in the Merchant Shipping Act of that year, which reached the portentous length of 748 sections, making it one of the longest, if not the longest, of Statutes. After this effort, as might be expected, the subject was allowed to rest for a while, and though Acts were passed in 1897, 1898, and 1900, they only dealt with a few isolated matters. However, now the Merchant Shipping Act 1906, introduced by Mr. Lloyd George, has made such extensive changes, a new edition of this work became necessary. Something like a hundred cases on the subject had also been decided since the passing of the 1894 Act, and the vast number of cases before that Act were and still are for the most part of authority, and have therefore to be considered in each new edition. The work consists mainly of the two Acts to which we have referred, with a very careful system of notes and cross-references; and a prominent feature, and one we consider of great value and importance, is the

Appendix, which contains Orders in Council and Rules and Regulations of various sorts and of various authorities. These last must be of great practical value, and not always very accessible. A useful addition is the Comparative Table of Sections and Schedules of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and the Acts consolidated with it. There seems to be a curious omission in the 16th section of the Act of 1906. The section, which apparently replaces the repealed section 291 of the 1894 Act, imposes a penalty of £500 for each offence on the master of any ship who carries passengers on more than one deck below the water line, but does not provide any procedure for the recovery of this fine. The procedure under section 680 of the 1894 Act cannot apply, as it is limited to offences punishable by fines not exceeding £100, and there is no provision incorporating it with section 357 of the same Act, so it would appear as if summary proceedings were inapplicable to this case. The only omission we have noticed in this carefully edited book is the absence of reference to R. v. Hinde under section 684 of the Act of 1895.

Second Edition. The Law of Mortgage. By W. F. BEDDOES. London Stevens & Sons. 1908.

Mr. Beddoes calls this work " a concise treatise on the Law of Mortgage," and the term is quite justified. We were a little anxious before we examined it to discover how he had been able to get his subject into so compact a form when we thought of the size of Fisher. We find this has been done by eliminating the part of the subject associated with the Companies Acts and the Bills of Sale Acts, and of course by a concise treatment of the remainder of the subject. Mr. Beddoes in the Preface to the present edition calls attention to what he considers the two principal difficulties of this law. These are what may be called the question of priorities, and the Statute of Limitations as between mortgagor and mortgagee. Neither of these subjects is easy, and they well deserve the attention the Author has paid to them. In many points the law seems unsettled, and the learned Author can only offer us submissions. An important and necessary addition is the chapter on the Land Transfer Acts, the Act of 1897 having been passed since the issue of the first edition in 1893. A very good feature that we have noticed is the giving of the date of each case with the reference to it in the body of the work. In the Preface to the first edition it was stated that "the date of each decision is given in the Table of Cases," so we suppose the present system is an alteration.

Third Edition. Sohm's Institutes of Roman Law. By J. C. LEDLIE, B.C.L., M.A., with an Introduction by ERWIN GRUEBER, Dr. Jur., M.A. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. 1907.

The fact that Professor Sohm's book, in the original German, has gone through twelve editions, clearly demonstrates the reputation of the learned Author. In England its merits have also been widely recognised. English law is based, to a large extent, upon Roman law, a fact which was, until comparatively recently, hardly recognised in the education of our lawyers. Now-a-days the importance of this branch of study is becoming more apparent. There will therefore be an increasing circle of readers of this treatise, the excellence of which must impress itself upon the most ordinary intellect. In arrangement it reminds us of the Institutes of Holland, the work of that great Roman-Dutch jurist, Van der Linden. The first part treats of the history of Roman law: Part II deals with the system of Roman Private law. In Part II we find another sub-division into Books 1, 2 and 3. The Law of Persons, the Law of Property and Family Law, and the Law of Inheritance, each have a book allocated to them respectively. The footnotes by Mr. Ledlie disclose a scholarly research and grasp of the various subjects dealt with. The translation is an accurate one, and it has the additional advantage of having been approved of by Professor Grueber of Munich, late Deputy Regius Professor of Civil law, and Reader in Roman law at Oxford. This gentleman also provides an Introduction which very clearly points out the difficulty the English tongue has in grasping the details of the Continental systems. This originates from the fact that the English law, although based on Roman law, has departed more widely from its principles than the Continental laws have. Whether this fact is in favour of the English system or vice versa is a matter which need not be discussed here. If one criticism might be offered, it would be in stating that there exists in the compilation of the Index considerable room for improvement. No doubt an Index should be condensed as far as possible, but the one under consideration has been abbreviated to an extent creating irritation. In conclusion, one is bound to say that every student who wishes to acquire a good working knowledge of Roman Private law could hardly do better than study the treatise written by Professor Sohm on that subject.

Third Edition.

Law and Custom of the Constitution Vol. II: The Crown, Part I. By Sir WILLIAM R. ANSON, Bart., D.C.L. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. 1907.

This book only contains the first four chapters of the second volume of Sir William Anson's work. These are respectively on Prerogative of the Crown, The Councils of the Crown, The Departments of Government and the Ministers of the Crown, and The Title to the Crown and the relation of Sovereign and Subject. The historical sketch given of the origin and development of each of these subjects is in the highest degree valuable, particularly that on the Councils of the Crown. The history of the changes in the natures and powers of the Royal Councils, their sub-division and ultimate solidification in our present Constitution, is one of great complexity and difficulty, and is treated by Sir William Anson with his well-known lucidity and learning. The history of Cabinets has been more particularly examined from their first inception in the reign of Charles II, and much attention paid to their relations to the Council itself and the Committees of the Council. It is impossible to over-estimate the improvement in Parliamentary government that ensued when there was at last established, not only individual responsibility of one Minister for his own acts, but also the collective responsibility of the Ministers for each other's acts. It is remarkable how late it was in the history of our Constitution before anything like the position of a Prime Minister was established. Walpole seems to have been the first who practically acted as such, and it is curious that it was the ignorance of the two first Georges of the English language, and their consequent absence from the meetings of the Cabinet, which produced the two-fold effect, that "the King lost initiative and control in discussing and settling the policy of the country," and the Prime Minister became a more definite person than heretofore. It is difficult to understand how the state of affairs caused by the existence of both efficient and non-efficient members of a Cabinet was allowed to exist; when "statesmen who had once been Cabinet Councillors considered themselves to remain within the outer circle of the Cabinet, even though their political opponents held the great offices of State," and to realise that Lord Loughborough asserted this right as lately as 1801. It is interesting to note that though the term "Prime Minister" is unknown to the law, and does not occur in any Act of Parliament, it has yet found its way into two formal documents. The first is the Treaty of Berlin,

and the second is the Warrant by which the present King gave the Prime Minister precedence. Here we wish to express our hearty gratitude to Sir William Anson for never once, as far as we have been able to observe, having used the odious term "Premier." It may be news, even to many lawyers, that it would be quite legal, though neither just nor politic, for an incoming Minister to apply the "Spoils System" and to obtain the dismissal of that large proportion of civil servants who hold office during pleasure. To our mind the most interesting, and perhaps the most important part of the work, is where Sir William, a Member of Parliament, who has held office under the Crown, points out the very important changes which have recently, in his opinion, taken place in the relations to each other of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the House of Commons, and the Constituencies. He compares Bagehot's view of the characteristics of the House of Commons when Palmerston was Prime Minister with those of the present one. This alteration may shortly be described as a change in the position of Members. "A Member is no longer sent to Parliament because it is thought that he can form a better opinion on the topics of the day than the voter who sent him there. He is sent to vote for the Minister, and for the measures acceptable to the Party organisation, by whose exertions he has been returned." Another change is a loss of control over the selection of Ministers, and last, and perhaps most important, the disappearance of "government by discussion." This last has been strikingly exemplified this last Session, though Sir William does not specifically refer to it, when an important measure containing provisions absolutely unexampled, was forced through the House of Commons by means of the "guillotine" with 13 out of its 15 clauses undiscussed. We think we might add to the learned Author's criticisms, that the House has ceased to be “ a deliberative assembly." For the causes of these changes, and how they are partly due to, and in their turn act on, the increased power of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, we must refer our readers to Sir William Anson's Introduction, and assure them they will find there both profit and pleasure. Unfortunately, Queen Victoria's Letters appeared too late to enable Sir William Anson to make use of them in the body of his work, but he refers to them for the purpose of illustration in his Introduction.