Page images
[blocks in formation]

Excused the general examination for the ordinary B.A. Degree.J. R. Gower, Trin. H.; H. H. Griffith, Christ's; R. P. Humphrys, Clare; B. L. Muir, Trin.: F. B. Reece, Joh.; J. P. Stimson, Pet. Approved for the LL.B. Degree.-Mag. R. T. Jenkine, Trin.; Ds I. Kaplan, Trin. H.

George Long Prize -D. G. Hopewell, Trin. H.

The schools of the men in the first class were: Mr. Hopewell, Nottingham High Sobool; Mr. Picciotto, St. Paul's; Mr. Jarvis, St. Paul's; Mr. Reid, Edinburgh Academy.

[blocks in formation]

Allowed the Ordinary B.A. Degree.-A. H. Holman, Jesus; A. Mellor, Trin. H.; C. E. Morier, Emm.; W. G. Stevens, Cath.; C. E. Torrey, Trin.; J. Wood, Jesus.

Approved for the LL.B. Degree.-Mag. J. C. A. Borrowe, Cath. ; Da V. G. Dalvi, Joh.; Ds. J. L Deuchar, King's; De A. L. Drew, Trin.; Da K. W. Elmslie, King's; Da G. J. Hunter, Trin. H.; Ds J. C. Lidgett, Emm.; Da J. M. Oakey, Trin.; Ds C. F. Tatham,


The Chancellor's Medal is not awarded.

The men in the first class were educated at the following schools: Mr. Black, Campbell College, Belfast; Mr. Darch, Chigwell; Mr. Evans, University College, Aberystwith; Mr. Naylor, Eton; Mr. S. H. Smith, The Leys, Cambridge.

The Special Board of Indian Civil Service Studies have appointed Sir Edward Candy, C.S.I., Caius, Teacher in Indian Law for one year from the 1st Oct. next.


Mr. ROBERT JOHN PORCHER BROUGHTON, solicitor, died on the 15th inst. at his residence at Chipperfield, Herts, aged ninety four. Born on the 11th July 1816 at Farnham, Surrey, he was the son of Captain Robert Edwards Broughton, who served through the Peninsular War in the 9th Foot, and was afterwards for thirty-two years a metropoli an police magistrate. Educated at Harrow, where he was head of the school, and Cambridge, Mr. Broughton read for the Bar, but eventually became a solicitor, being admitted in 1844, and joining the firm of Messrs. White, Broughton, and White. He was for nearly sixty years solicitor to the Coldstream Guards. He played his first match for Harrow against Eton in 1832, and so made his first appearance at Lord's nearly a month before Alfred Mynn. He was well acquainted with all the great players of those far-off daye, and as he never lost his interest in the game he was in close touch with cricket for over seventy years. Mr. Broughton was one of the founders of I Zingari, and for about sixty years a member of the M.C.C. Committee, as well] as one of the original trustees. He married in 1847 Louisa Diana, eldest daughter of Mr. Charles Heaton Ellis, of Wyddial Hall, Herts, and had seven sons, one of whom is rector of Wyddial. Mr. Broughton was a member of the Law Society, the Law Association, and the Solicitors' Benevolent Association.

Mr. CHARLES SIMPSON SAMUELL, barrister-at-law. died recently in Liverpool, aged eighty-seven. Mr. Samuell was called by the Inne r Temple in 1862, and practised on the Northern Circuit for many years. He had formerly acted as deputy stipendiary at Birkenhead and deputy coroner and deputy recorder in Liverpool.


CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES.-SUMMER ASSIZES. THE following judges will remain in town: The Lord Chief Justice of England, Darling, J., A. T. Lawrence, J., and Hamilton, J., during the whole of the circuits; the other judges till their respective commission days.

Notice. In cases where no date in parentheses is appended, both civil and criminal business must be ready to be taken on the first working day; in other cases the date appended indicates the day before which civil business will not be taken. In the case of circuit towns to which two jadges go there will be no alteration in the old practice.

Newcastle (2), Monday, June 26
York (2), Tuesday, July 11
Durham (2), Mouday, July 3
Leeds (2), Monday, July 17.
J., 1; BUCKNILL, J., 2).
Shrewsbury, Tuesday, July 4
Stafford (2), Monday, July 10
Saturday, July 15.


Monmouth, Saturday, June 24
Hereford, Thursday, June 29

Birmingham (2),

Derby, Wednesday, June 28
Nottingham (2), Wednesday, July 5

J., 2; PICKFORD, J., 1).
Warwick, Monday, July 10
Birming. am (2), Saturday, July 15,


[blocks in formation]



ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE WEEK ENDING JULY 1. Monday. Tuesday. Wednesday. Thursday. Friday. Saturday. EXERGENCY ...... Beal. Greswell..... Goldschmidt Synge APPEAL CT. II.... Borrer...... Beul Greswell... Goldschmidt Synge Churcu JOYCE. J........... Goldschmidt synge... Church ........ Theed Bloxam Farme SWINFEN EADY, J. Leach Borrer. Bel Goldschmidt Synke WARRINGTON,J Theei....... Blova Farmer .... Borrer........... Leal NEVILLE J......... Greswell...... Goldach nidt 8ynge Theed Bloom PARKER J ... Church 'I need Leach Borrer EVE, J... Le scu Greswell... Guluschmidt


.... ioxam Borrer

Gre-well Leach Church.. Farmer Beal

HALLILAY'S CONVEYANCING.-A concise Treatise on the Law and Practice of Conveyancing, together with the Solicitors' Remuneration Act 1881, and General Order 1882, and the Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897, and the Rules and Orders thereon. Second Edition, price 188., 750 pages.-HORACE COX, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's buildings, E. C.-[ADVT.]


Professional Partnerships Disse v2.


DRINKWATER, GEORGE FREDERICK, and DRINKWATER, GEORGE WILLIAM. solicitors, Ridling-la, Hyde. March 31. Debts by G. F. Drinkwater, who will carry on business at Port-st, Hyde. G. W. Drinkwater will continue at the old address.





To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. GADOGAN, GERALD OAKLEY, VISCOUNT CHELSEA, Park-la. June 13. CROSS, ARTHUR, late, High-st, Marylebone, licensed- victualler June 13. LEE, LIONEL (otherwise Leibler), Windsor-ter, City-rd, furrier. June 10. MATKIN, FREDERICK GEORGE, Wigmore-st, house decorator. June 14. READ, JAMES FREDERICK, Bethnal Green-rd, butcher. June 12. RISTORI, EMANUEL, Parliament-st, Westminster, civil engineer. June 12.1 TULLY, WILLIAM (trading as. William Tully and Co.), Water-la, Great Tower-st, mica merchant. June 13...

WALKER, LIEUTENANT-COLONEL J. PYRWHITT, Wellington-mansions," Queen's. Club-grdns. June 12:

WEAVER, ALBERT ASTLEN, Angella, Stratford, clothier. June 12..

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

Jane (14.

[ocr errors]


CURLEY, THOMAS J., Salford, egg merchant... Ct. Salford: June 13.
THEOPHILUS SAMUEL (trading as Clarke and Haynes), Raunds, boot,
manufacturers: Ct. Peterborough. June 12.

DAVIES, HUGH ELLIS, Corwen, grocer. Ct. Wrexham and Llangollen.
June 10.

DARRALL, WILLIAM HENRY, late Stourbridge, manufacturer of rounds. Ct. Stourbridge. June 12.

DOUGHTY, MABEL LAURA (late trading as Mabel L. Mee), Nottingham, stationer. Ct. Nottingham. June 14.

EVANS, WILLIAM MOUNTSHIRE (trading as Evans and Son), Manchester, estate agent. Ct. Manchester. June 13.

EDWARDS, DAVID, Pentyrch, assistant schoolmaster.
June 13.

FAIRCLOTH. WILLIAM COOPER, late Bradfield, grocer.
June, 13.

Ct. Cardiff. Ct. Colchester.

[ocr errors]

FILMER, ALBERT EDWARD, Rochester, butcher. Ct. Rochester, June 13.
GWYNN, KINGSMILL DOUGLAS HOSEASON, Bath, lieutenant in the army.,
Ct Bath. June 12.
GRIFFITHS, FREDERICK Louis. Erdington, commercial traveller.
Birmingham. June 14.


GREEN, EDWIN ARTHUR, Bristol. ironmonger. Ct, Bristol. June 12. GRIFFITHS. WILLIAM' POWELL, Old Southgate, grocer Ct. Edmonton: June 12.

HARDING, MARY ANNA, South Petherton, grocer, widow. Ct. Yeovil.

June 13.

HASSNIP. WILLIAM THOMAS, Sibsey, tailor. Ct. Boston. June 14. JONES, JOHN HUGH (otherwise John Jones), Bethesda, quarryman. Bangor., June-12.


JONES, JOHN, Swansea, licensed victualler. Ct. Swansea. June 14.
KINGSHOTT, ARTHUR, Littlehampton, dairyman. Ct. Brighton. June 12.
LANSDOWN, JAMES, Sydenham, licensed victualler. Ct. Greenwich.
June 13.
water manufacturers. Ct. Sheffield. June 13.
LAWTON, CHARLES GEORGE, Manchester, wire drawer: Ct. Manchester.
June 13.

MITCHELL. WALLACE, Triangle, teamer. Ct. Halifax. June 12,
MEEDS, WILLIAM, Luton, undertaker. Ct Luton. June 12.
PARKER, WILLIAM FRANCIS, Birmingham, fish salesman.


ham. June:12.

QUICK, T., late Tunbridge Wells, licensed victualler. Wells. June 9.

Ct. Birming

Ct. Tunbridge

[blocks in formation]

SHEPPARD, WALTER SYDNEY, and WRIGHT, WILLIAM WAITE, Northampton,, leather dressers. Ct. Northampton. June 14.

SMITH, HENRY, Castleford, assistant checkweighman. Ct. Wakefield.
June 13.
THOMAS ROYLE AND BROTHER. Eccles, corn dealers. Ct. Salford.
June 14.

THOMAS, GWILYM, Cwmavon, collier. Ct. Neath and Aberavon. June 14. Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, May 12. WILSON, ALBERT EDWARD, late Liverpool, commercial traveller for a firm of stationers. Ct. Brentford (by transfer from Liverpool). May 9. Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, June 13. FISH FRIDAY LAST CUMBY (otherwise known as Friday Last Cumby), ! late Gorleston, market gardener. Ct, Great Yarmouth. June 10.



ATRINSON CHARLES PERCIVAL,, Dewsbury, fellmonger. Ct. Dewsbury,
June 14.

BAGSHAW, JOHN. late Compstall, butcher. Ct. Stockport. June 12.
BUBB, GEORGE, Dudley, ironmonger. Ct. Dudley. June 13

BROCK, ALBERT EDWARD, Torquay, builder. Ct. Exeter.. June 12.

BIRD CHRISTOPHER, Great Grimsby, late fish curer. Ct. Great Grimsby. June 12.

BOWNES, JAMES EDWARD, Ashover, grocer. Ct. Derby and Long Eaton. June 14.

CARLYLE, FRANCIS JOHN, Sunderland. solicitor. Ct. Sunderland. Jure 14. CROSS, ARTHUR, late High-st, Marylebone, licensed victualler. Ct. High Court. June 13.

DAVIES, HUGH ELLIS; Corwen, grocer. Ct. Wrexham and Llangollen.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

HASSNIP, WILLIAM THOMAS, Sibscy, tailor, Ct. Boston. June 14.
HEDGES, FREDERICK (trading as Allen, Evans), North Finchley, builder.
Ct. Barnet. June 14.

JONES, JOHN HUGH (otherwise John Jones), Bethesda, quarryman. C2.
Bangor. June 12.

KINGSHOTT, ARTHUR, Littlehampton, dairyman. Ct. Brighton. June 13. LOFTHOUSE, WILLIAM, and LOFTHOUSE, JOHN CHARLES, Sheffield, mineral water manufacturers. Ct. Sheffield. June 13.

LATIMER, THOMAS FREDERICK, (trading as Fred. Latimer and Co.), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, timber merchant. Ct. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

[blocks in formation]

PARKER, WILLIAM FRANCIS, Birmingham, fish salesman. Ct. Birnius, ham. Jun. 13.

READ, JAMES FREDERICK, Bethnal Green-rd, butcher. Ct. High Court. June 12.

ROBERTS, HENRY THOMAS, Weymouth, wholesale fish merchant. Ct.
Dorchester. June 14.

ROUCH, WILLIAM JAMES, Deal, tobacco dealer. Ct. Canterbury. June 12.
SCHOLFIELD, WALTER CLEMENT (trading as Ollivier and Brown), Sackville-
st, Piccadilly, tailor. Ct. High Court. June 13.
SMITH, HENRY, Castleford, assistant checkweighman.
June 13.

Ct. Wakefield:
leather dressers. Ct. Northampton. June 14.
STEWART, WILLIAM, Carlisle, draper. Ct. Carlisle. June 12.
TIMBRELL, WILLIAM ANDREW, late Regent-st. Ct. High Court. June 14.
THOMAS, GWILYM, Cwmavon, collier. Ct. Neath and Aberavon. June 14.
VOLLAM, EDWARD JAMES, Little Munden, nurseryman. Ct. Hertford.
June 13.

WEAVER, ALBERT ASTLEY, Angel-la, Stratford, clothier, Ct. High Court. June 14.

WEINBERG, JOHN (late trading as Ray and Sons), late Fulham-rd, ces. tumier. Ct. High Court. June 10.

WILSON, ALBERT EDWARD, late Liverpool, commercial traveller for a fran of stationers. Ct. Brentford (transferred from Liverpool). June 12. Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, June 5. BAKER, JOHN SYLVANUS STEPHEN, Halesowen. Ct. Stourbridge. June 2. Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, June 13. FISH, FRIDAY LAST CUMBY (otherwise known as Friday Last Cumby), late Gorleston, market gardener. Ct. Great Yarmouth. June 10.





[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

To Readers and Correspondents.

All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected.

All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the "EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES."

Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, progided that a stamped addressed wrapper is inclosed for that purpose.

The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirable. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only received and considered on these conditions. Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct. and addressed to the Publisher, Mr. HOBAUH OOX, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream'sbuildings, E.O.

United Kingdom.

TO SUBSCRIBERS.-PREPAYMENT TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION. WITH BEPORTS. WITHOUT REPORTS. For One Year ...................£2 14 0 For One Year...........................£1 2 1 1 For Half-Year.......................... 1 7 0 For Half-Year........................... Foreign.

WITH REPORTS. WITHOUT REPORTS. For One Year...........................£3 0 0 For One Year...........................£ 4 4 1 2 3 For Half-Year.......................... 1 10 0 For Half-Year.. Portfolios for preserving the current numbers of the LAW TIMES, price 5s, 6d. LAW TIMES REPORTS, price 38. 6d. The Publisher undertakes the binding of the LAW TIMES and LAW TIMES REPORTS at PER VOLUME. the following rates: LAW TIMES in half calf, office pattern...................................................................................... 58. 6d. ditto, LAW TIMES REPORTS, 58. Od. LAW TIMES REPORTS, ditto, ditto, with Statutes at end............ 68. 6d. Parcels of Volumes for binding should be sent to the Publisher, LAW TIMES Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.O.


TO ADVERTISERS.-SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines of 30 words or less B. d. One page.................................................................... 10 0

than 30 words in body type ... Each additional line.......

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Advertisements ordered for a series of three insertions are charged 10 per cent, under scale, and for six or more insertions 20 per cent. under.

Paragraph Advertisements 18. per line, minimum 58. No series discount. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office, should remit 6d, additional to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Advertisements.

Advertisements must reach the office not later than five o'clock on Thursday afternoon and must be accompanied by a remittance.

Post-Office Orriers payable to HORACE COL.

Vol. CXXXI.-No. 3561.




PITMAN r. CRUM EWING AND OTHERS. -Law of Scotland-Doctrine of approbate and reprobate " Election................................................


ROSE v. HYMAN, Landlord and
tenant-Forfeiture- Relief-Terms
-Waste-Structural alterations-
Covenant to repair-Breach

[ocr errors]




Re BEHREND; SURMAN v. BIDDELL Bankruptcy-Choses in action-Undischarged bankrupt.




LIMITED: SMYTH v. THE COMPANY. Company Winding-up Creation of floating charge within three months of winding-up ......... 627 Re GREEN'S APPLICATION AND Re PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT 1907.Patent-Revocation by comptroller Company owning patent not present at hearing of petition Re LITCHFIELD (deceased); HORTON JONES.-Will-Limitation 10 grandchild E. S. and her children ... MILLS v. UNITED COUNTIES BANKMortgage Contingent reversionary interest-Purchase of equity of redemption by first mortgagees...... 632


[ocr errors]



[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]


Topics .................................................................... 195 PARLIAMENTARY SUMMARY.— Topics 196 ORIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDIOTION OF MAGISTRATES.—Borough Quarter Sessions-Topics......................... COUNTY COURTS.-Sittings of the Courts....... GENERAL INTELLIGENOB. — Imperial Conference-Reclaimed Stock and Dividends in the Bank of England -Heirs-at-Law and Next of Kin -Appointments under the Joint Stock Winding-up Acts-Creditors under Estates in Chancery Creditors under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35 230 LAW SOCIETIES.-The Law Society: Annual Report of the Council Medico Legal Society-Manchester Bar Council-Gray's inn Society ...................................................................... 201 OORRESPONDENCE ............................................... NOTES AND QUERIES..........




[blocks in formation]

................ ............................................. 64: MONTAGUE. DAVIES, BENACHI, AND Co.- Execution-Sheriff's fees Writ of fi. fa.-Execution withdrawn pursuant to order of court... 645

Sebastian Bazley -Mr. Samud
Henry Jeyes-The Hon. Thomas
Mayne Daly, K.C.-Maitre Charles
Martini-Mr. Ralph Simey............ 2Ɛ8
Circuits of the Judges: Summer
Assizes-Rots of Registrars .........
THE GAZETTES....................................................................

The Law and the Lawyers.



THE annual report of the council of the Law Society to be presented to the general meeting of the members on the 7th inst. shows a distinct increase in the number of s members. There are now 9039 members, of whom 4908 practise in the country. The number who joined the society during the past year is 543, as compared with 299 in the previous year, the membership showing an increase for the year of 245, and is the largest since the foundation of the society.

DURING the past year the council have issued two memoranda dealing with the financial legislation of 1910 and 1911. We have already published (130 L. T. Jour. 187) that one which dealt with the various questions of practice arising under the Acts, but in the present report it is reissued slightly revised to incorporate certain provisions of this year's Revenue Act. Subsequently the council were requested to express an opinion as to the duties of solicitors in advising trustees and other mortgagees as to their position with regard to valuations and other securities under the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910. There will be found in an appendix the report of the scale

committee of the council on this question, and it is pointed out that what a mortgagee should do after inspection of the provisional valuation must depend upon the circumstances of each case. The committee state that certain considerations should be borne clearly in mind by solicitors advising mortgagees as to the action which should be taken on obtaining copies of provisional valuations, for the valuation by the Government valuer at a low price may lead the mortgagee to doubt whether the valuation he has been relying on is correct or whether the view of the Government valuer may not be more accurate, and it may make the property liable, on a subsequent sale at a price considerably in excess of the Government valuation, to heavy increment duty, which in effect is a prior charge on the estate.

We note that the report of the Royal Commission upon the working of the Land Transfer Acts, the chief recommendations of which are set out in the report of the council, is receiving the consideration of a committee of that body, but at present they are not yet. in a position to present their report. As to summary foreclosure procedure, this question has been considered by a special committee, who in a schedule to their report set out certain suggested rules which in s'mple and clear cases would assist mortgagees to obtain absolute orders of foreclosure in a summary manner. Another question which has come under the notice of the council during the past year has been the recent decisions under the Moneylenders Act 1900 invalidating agreements made by registered moneylenders, not only as against them, but also against their bona fide assignees. We quite agree with the recommendation of the committee to whom the matter was referred that the protection afforded to an innocent third party under sect. 1 of that Act ought similarly to be extended under sect. 2, and that the statute should be amended to effect this protection. As is truly pointed out, an examination with the most scrupulous attention and care might never enable an innocent purchaser or his legal adviser to ascertain whether the formalities required by sect. 2 of the Act had in fact been complied with.

It is to be hoped that means will be found of passing into law in the near future some of the exceedingly useful measures concerning conveyancing law which have been promoted by the society. Their Conveyancing Bill, having passed the House of Commons, only failed to receive its third reading in the House of Lords owing to the dissolution, but both that measure and the council's Settled Land Bill should be placed on the statute-book without delay. Another piece of desirable legislation supported by the society is the placing of after-acquired real property of a bankrupt on the same footing as his after-acquired personal property. The Board of Trade have stated that they hope to introduce a Bill to amend the bankruptcy law, and that this point raised by the council has been noted in connection with its preparation.—

THE only other matter to which we desire to refer is the County Courts Bill 1911, a report on which is to be found in the appendix to the report of the council. Although, as we have stated in these columns, some of the provisions of that measure will make more effective the procedure of the County Courts, the extension of the jurisdiction must affect the rights of the smaller suitors if such extension is made use of by litigants to any extent. The proposal also to extend the jurisdiction of the registrars is one to which we have strong objection, for in our view the smallest litigant should have the right to have his case disposed of by the judge if he desires. The report states that "the committee see no reason why the registrar should not by leave of the Fudge adjudicate up to £5," but this leaves the decision as to who is to decide the matter not in the hands of the litigants, but of the judge. At the present time, under sect. 92 of the

County Courts Act 1888, the registrar can hear a disputed claim up to £2 "on the application of the parties and by leave of the judge," as well as matters of account referred to him by the judge, but neither directly nor indirectly should any alteration be made which deprives a litigant of a hearing before the judge. Again the question of audience is referred to, together with a claim that one solicitor should be allowed to instruct another as advocate in the County Court. It seems a pity that this desire to encroach upon the rights of the Bar should be thus thrust forward officially by the society, and one cannot help thinking that the support given towards the extension of jurisdiction has not been entirely uninfluenced by this question.

ALTHOUGH we hold no brief for the HoмME SECRETARY, we think that the attack made upon him with reference to the advice tendered by him to the Crown as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was ill-advised. There has always been, as the HOME SECRETARY pointed out, a very steady and constant use of the prerogative, and there is little doubt that the duty imposed upon the Minister responsible is a very difficult one. No obligation exists to consult the courts passing the sentences in question, but in fact, as a matter of convenient and reasonable administration, the judges or justices are consulted where possible. In the case of the latter passing short sentences, if the prerogative is to be effectively exercised it is often impossible for the HOME SECRETARY to avail himself of such consultation, and the number of concrete instances brought forward where his advice tendered to the Crown could be attacked amount to a very small proportion of the whole, while the chief of these have been discussed ad nauseam in the past.

THE appointment of Sir RUFUS ISAACS, K.C., the AttorneyGeneral for England, to the position of Privy Councillor will remind us that for some generations past the AttorneyGeneral for Ireland is sworn, on his appointment to that office, of the Irish Privy Council, and that the Lord Advocate for Scotland-the Privy Council for Scotland having been abolished in 1708-is invariably sworn of the English Privy Council. Until 1885, when a departure in the practice was made by Sir HENRY (Lord) JAMES, whose example has been followed in every subsequent instance, it was customary for members of the English Bar when sworn of the Privy Council to retire from the practice of their profession owing to the dignity of the position. The late Right Hon. Serjeant Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bart., Q C., a distinguished member of the Irish Bar, was appointed in 1868 Judge-Advocate-General and sworn of the English Privy Council, but he continued to practise at the Irish Bar till his death in 1877. The late Right Hon. JAMES ARCHIBALD STUART WORTLEY, who had been Recorder of London and was a member of the Privy Council, held the position of Solicitor-General for England for a few months in 1856-7. He probably only appeared in court in Crown cases, in accordance with the arrangement under which FRANCIS BACON became a Privy Councillor. Since 1885, when Sir HENRY JAMES was made a Privy Councillor while Attorney-General, members of the Bar sworn of the English Privy Council, as in the cases of Mr. ASQUITH, Mr. HALDANE, Sir ROBERT FINLAY, and the. late Sir WILLIAM MARRIOTT, have continued to practise at the Bar, although the Attorney-General for England is not, like the Attorney-General for Ireland and the Lord Advocate for Scotland, as an accompaniment to his appointment to the office and as a matter of course made a Privy Councillor.

THE advancement of members of the Bar to the dignity of a Privy Councillorship is no longer, as we have seen, regarded as incompatible with the retention of their practice at the Bar, although appearance in the courts involves

the pleading before judges to whom members of the Privy Council are entitled to precedence. BACON was, as everyone knows, offered in 1616 the choice of the Great Seal or to be made Privy Councillor. He preferred the latter, and on the 9th June 1616 was sworn of the Privy Council and took his place at the table, it having been at his own request previously arranged that, with permission to give advice at chambers to those who might consult him, he should cease to plead as an advocate at the Bar in private causes unless some weighty matter might arise in which he was to be allowed to be engaged under the King's express licence (Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors, ii., pp. 347-348). In 1686 the name of Mr. RICHARD NAGLE, an eminent member of the Irish Bar, having been inserted in the list of gentlemen to be sworn of the Privy Council in Ireland, the circumstance called for a remonstrance from the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to the Lord President in England. His Excellency admitted Mr. NAGLE to be a very learned and honest man, but he was a practising barrister, and it was not etiquette for such to be of the council.


It will not look well that a man who has the honour to be of the King's Privy Council should be crowdiag at the Bar of the courte of justice bareheaded and his bag in his hand. I have not heard that it was ever done but to Sir Francis Bacon when he was AttorneyGeneral, and to satisfy his ambition by the credit he had with the Duke of Buckingham, or, rather, by importunity, he was made a Privy Councillor, but he never appeared afterwards in Westminster Hall unless the King's business required him.

Mr. NAGLE himself solved the difficulty. When he was informed of the intended honour he expressed surprise, and told the Lord-Lieutenant he wondered his friends would move on his behalf without first consulting himself, and to leave his practice would be his ruin. He added "that to appear at the Bar after being of the council would be undecent (sic) even for the King's service" (Clarendon's State Letters, i., p. 234; Flanagan's Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland, i, pp. 418-419).


THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CORONATION OATH. THE contention that the Coronation oath binds the King not merely in his administrative but in his legislative capacity was urged as a barrier to Catholic emancipation and to the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. This interpretation of the oath is in direct antagonism to the clearly expressed intention of its framers. At the time of the Revolution, the House of Commons resolved itself into a committee for the purpose of settling the form of words of the oath, and a Bill, drawn up in conformity with the resolutions of the committee, was rapidly passed in the House of Commone through every stage. When a rider was proposed declaring that the oath was not meant to restrain the Sovereign from consenting to any change in the ceremonial of the Church, provided always that episcopacy and a written form of prayer were retained, it was opposed on the ground that such a provision would bind the King instead of setting him free, and that the oath was never intended to trammel the Sovereign in his legislative capacity.

Finch (who had been Solicitor-General and was afterwards Earl of Aylesbury) said: "The words established by law' hinder_not the King from passing any Bill for the relief of Dissenters. This proviso makes the scruple and gives the occasion for it." Sir Robert Sawyer (a former Attorney-General) said: “This is the first proviso of this nature that ever was in any Bill. It seems to strike at the legislative power." Sir Thomas Lee said: "It will, I fear, creep in that other laws cannot be made without such a proviso. I would lay it aside." These comments were felt to be unanswerable, the proviso was rejected without a (see Macaulay's History of England, i. p. 712), and the Bill by which the oath was settled passed the Upper House without amendment. "Unhappily," in the words of Macaulay, "more than a hundred years later a scruple, which these statesmen thought too absurd to be seriously entertained by any human being, found its way into a mind, honest indeed and religious, but narrow and obstinate by nature and at once debilitated and excited by disease: (History of England, i., pp. 712-713).


So far back as 1795 George III. consulted Lord Kenyon as to the obligations of the Coronation oath in respect to the passing of a Catholic Emancipation Bill, and, though Lord Kenyon did not express himself decisively on the point, the King was persuaded that he was morally restrained by that oath_from assenting to any further measures for the relief of Roman Catholice. "Where" he asked "is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that oath, particularly the one requiring me to maints in the Protestant Reformed Religion? Secona Sheet.

Was not my family seated on the throne for that purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No. I would rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe than consent to any such measure." He regarded his contest with his Ministers on this subject, in which he prevailed to the postponement for a generation of Catholic emancipation as “a struggle for his throne, saying he must be the Protestant King of a Protestant country or ro King": (Twiss's Life of Lord Eldon, ii., p. 34).

At the Disestablishment of the Irish Church the construction of the Coronation oath, which was accepted with such momentous results by George III., was once more urged by the opponents of Church Disestablishment with great vehemence. There is one thing," said speaker" on which we should confidently throw ourselves-the Queen's Coronation oath. She should be reminded that one of her ancestors who swore to maintain the Protestant religion, forgot his oatb, and his Crown was kicked into the Royne." [He then read the oath and the questions put by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Coronation.] Will any Minister dare to ask the Queen to perjure herself?" (speech of the Rev. John Flanagan, reported in the Northern Whip. 21st March 1868). James II. broke the Coronation oath, not in assenting to an Act of Parliament introducing changes in the constitution of the Established Church, but in introducing changes in that constitution not only without legislation, but in contravention of existing legislation. The view of the Coronation oath expounded and explained by its framers was absolutely adopted in the Irish Church debates by Sir Roundell Palmer (Lord Chancellor Selborne), who, while opposing the Church Disestablishment measure, admitted that the Coronation oath in no respect bound the Sovereign in a legislative capacity, who was accordingly perfectly at liberty to give the Royal Assent to a Bill for the disestablishment or dieendowment of the Irish Church. It may be safely surmised that no Sovereign in the future will entertain the "fatal conscientiousness" of George III., who held that the obligations of his Coronation osth would compel him to put a veto on laws which his Parliament might think necessary to the well-being of the country.


THE great ceremonial of the Coronation will render it of interest to recall the relations of the Irish and Scotch Crowns to the Crown of England before the respective unions of the Legislatures of these countries in the case of Scotland to England in 1707, and in the case of Ireland to Great Britain in 1801. Although the Scotoh legislative union was antecedent by nearly a century to the Irish legislative union, it will be more convenient to deal with the case of Ireland first, because the Crown of Ireland was united to the Crown of England long before the establishment of the political relation which subsisted between England and Scotland in the interval between the union of the Crowns in the person of James I. and the union of the two kingdoms in 1707. Scotland in that interval was a legally independent State, the King of which was also the King of Great Britain. Ireland likewise, between the establishment of Irish Parliamentary independence in 1782, was also legally an independent State the King of which was also the King of Great Britain, but the great difference between the Crowns of Ireland and Scotland was that, whereas the Crown of Ireland was inseparably annexed to the Crown of Great Britain, the Crown of Scotland was essentially severable from the Crown of Great Britain, or, to speak with greater accuracy, from the Crown of England: (see Sir George Cornwall Lewis' Essay on Government of Dependencies, pp. 154-155).

[ocr errors]

The various relations between England and Ireland have been, with one exception, matters of controversy. The nature of the connection of the English and Irish Crowns has never been disputed. "It has ever been acknowledged," says Molyneux, "that the kingdom of Ireland is inseparably annexed to the Imperial Crown of England": (Case of Ireland Stated, p. 86). By the provisions of an Irish statute passed in the thirty-third year of Henry VIII's reign (33 Hen. 8. Ireland, c. 1) the King of England is ipso facto King of Ireland. By this statate Ireland is converted from a lordship into a kingdom.' The Kings of England, who were previously "Lords" of Ireland, are henceforth "Kings" of the Kingdom of Ireland "as united and knit to the Crown of England." The various statutes altering the succession of the Crown in England at and after the Revolution were not re-enacted in Ireland. When the English Parlia ment disposed of the English Crown it likewise disposed of the Irish Crown. The Irish Parliament by the Act of Recognition (4 Will. & Mary, Ireland, c. 1) practically acknowledged England's right in this respect. "The Crowns of both nations," said Mr. Flood in the Irish House of Commons, "are united by a strong bond, for by a law of our own it is declared that whosoever wears the Imperial Crown of England shall also wear the Imperial Crown of Ireland": (Irish Debates, i., p. 452).

The Crown of Scotland was not, like the Crown of Ireland, inseparably united to the Crown of England. At the Revolution, by a resolution of the Scotch Convention it was declared that James VII. had by bis misconduct forfeited the Crown of Scotland, and that the Crown of Scotland should be settled as the Crown of England had been settled, and William and Mary were accordingly proclaimed Sovereigns of Scotland. The new Sovereigne, however, were not put into possession of the Royal authority till after a formal tender of that authority and a formal acceptance had been made by commis. Eioners of the Scotch Convention at Whitehall in May 1689, when the oath of office was administered to them by the Duke of Argyl

« EelmineJätka »