« EelmineJätka »
he was not a “councillor” within the meaning of sect. 14 (3) the Act, and therefore was not eligible for election as alderman or mayor. Held, that, the respondent having been elected a councillor and having served for more than twelve months as a councillor before the date in question, he was
“ councillor” within the meaning of sect. 14 (3), inasmuch as by sect. 73 bis election as councillor not having been called in question within twelve months was to be deemed to all intents a good and valid election. Petitions dismissed.
[Forrester v. Morton. K. B. Div. : Channell and Bankee, JJ. July 12.-Counsel: Willoughby Williams ; Dickens, K.C. and Graham Trapnell. Solicitors : Busk, Mellor, and Norris, for Burridge, Kent, and Forrester, Shaftesbury; w.W. Boz, for Robert Hall, Salisbury.}
OUR LITERARY COLUMN.
KING'S BENCH DIVISION. Estoppel-Action on written Agreement made without Consideration
Admission of Liability by Defendant - Judgment-Second Action on same Agreement—Right of Defendant to set up Want of Consideration.
-- Appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Gye, sitting at the Newport and Ryde County Court. By an agreement dated the 12th July 1907 the defendant, who was the daughter of the plaintiff, agreed to pay to the latter the rest of certain houses for the plaintiff's life. The agreement upon the face of it showed do consideration for the defendant's promise. The payments having
become in arrears, a writ was issued by the plaintiff on the 17th Deo. : 1910. Proceedings were taken under Order XIV., in the course of
wbich the defendant swore an affidavit in which she admitted that she w28 liable for tho repts claimed, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for å som which included the rents in question. In 1911, the payments having again fallen into arrears, an action was brought by the plaintiff in the County Court upon the agreement of the 12th July 1907 for their recovery. At the trial it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the agreement was not enforceable by reason of the fact that it was made without consideration. For the plaintiff it was submitted that, as in the previous action the defendant had not set up the defence that there was no consideration, she was estopped from doing so upon the second trial. The learned judge held that there was no estoppel, and gave judgment for the defendant. Held, that the decision of the learned judge was wrong, and that the defendant, not having raised the defence of want of consideration in the former action, was precluded from raising it in the second action.
[Cooke v. Rickman. K. B. Div. : Bray and Bankes, JJ. July 12. -Counsel : E. G. Mears ; Du Parcq. Solicitors : H. C. Lamport, for Lamport, Basselt, and Hiscock, Newport, Isle of Wight; G. H.
King and Franckeiss, Portsmouth.] Municipal Corporation-Councillor - Disqualification - Contract with
Council–Councillor having held Office for more than twelve Months — No Objection taken within that Time—" Councillor or qualified to be a Councillor ”—Municipal Corporations Act 1882, 88. 12, 14, 15, 73.Special case stated in two election petitions by order of Channell, J. One petition was presented by the petitioner F. against the respon. dent N. in reference to his election as alderman for the borough of Shaftesbury held on the 9th Nov. 1910; and the second was a petition presented by other petitioners against the respondent N. in reference to his election as mayor of the borough on the same date, the 9th Nov. 1910. The facts were as follows: Prior to the 9th Nov. 1910 F. (the petitioner) was an alderman of the borough, having been elected on the 9th Nov. 1909. N., the respondent, was on the 9th Nov. 1910 a councillor of the borough and had been a councillor from a date prior to 1897. At a meeting of the corporation held on the 9th Nov. 1910 N. (the respondent) was unanimously elected mayor of the borough, and after he had been elected mayor tbe council proceeded to the election of aldermen. There were two vacancies for aldermen, and a Mr. B. and the respondent and petitioner were nominated for the two vacancies. B. received eleven votes, the respondent six, and the petitioner five votes, and B. and the respondent were declared elected aldermen. The respondent as mayor presided at the election and as a councillor voted for himself as an alderman. In both the petitions the allegation was that N. (the respondent) was disqualified for being elected on the ground that at the time of his election as mayor and as alderman he bad, directly or indirectly, a sbare or interest in a contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of the council of the borough. The facts in relation to the alleged contract were shortly these : Prior to 1903 the council bad taken no steps to remove the road scrapinge from the streets; in that year the council resolved to contraot for the removal of such sora pinge, and tenders were invited, but no tendere were sent to the council. As no one was willing to take them, the respondent agreed to take them paying to the coupoil the sum of £2 29., and in the years from 1903 onwards the respondent took these road scrapings, pay, ing £1 108. for a part of the time and £l wben they were deposited in bis garden. The petitioner had been a member of the council for sixteen years prior to the year 1910. The question was whether N., the respondent, by reason of bis having such a contract with the council of the borough, was disqualified for being elected and for being mayor and alderman at the time of his election to those offices. By sect. 12 (1) of the Municipal Corporations Act 1882: “A person shall be disqualified for being elected and for being a councillor, if and while he-(c) Has directly or indirectly. any share or interest in any contract or employment with, by, or oz bebalf of the council.” By sect. 14 (3): “A pereon shall not be qualified to be elected or to be an alderman unless be is a councillor or qualified to be a councillor.” By sect. 15 (1): "Tho mayor sball be a fit person elected by the council from among the ald ermen or councillors or persons qualified to be such.” By seot. 73: “Every municipal election not called in question within twelve months after the election, either by election petition or by information in the nature of a quo warranto, shall be deemed to bave been to all intents a good and valid election.” It was contended for the petitioner ibat as the respondent had this contract with the council,
STRIKING FIGURES IN THE LEGAL HISTORY OF
LORD ELLENBOROUGH. THERE are certain personalities which impress themselves on us, whether we like it or not, by the sheer force of their mental and pbysical vigour. Lord Ellenborough was one. Serjeant Talfourd once described him as rushing through his cause ligt like a rhinoceros through & Bugar plantation.'
& humorous and happy comparison. But if Nature had given him the strength, the ferocity, and the tough bide of that remarkable pachyderm, she had also given him an understanding of extraordinary vigour, great powers of reasoning, and an awe-inspiring presence on the Bench, and, to set these gifts off to the best advantage, a deep, sonorous voice and an impressive elocution.
Charterhouse and Cambridge. “A bluff, burly boy at once moody and good-natured, ever ready to inflict a blow or perform an exercise for his schoolfellows." That is tbo picture of him as it is sketched by a schoolfellow. Capel Loffts, and what Law was as a boy he remained as a man, Cha terhouse was his alma mater—the school of Addison and Steele, of Wesley and Blackstone, of Thackeray and Leech--and here he achieved the highest bonours, being captain of the school in 1768. In after years he used to say that as captain Charterbouse he felt himself a greater man than ever he did as Lord Chief Justice of England.
In those days sports had not monopolised school life. Learning was still regarded as a desideratum, and young Law shone both in classics and mathematics. So brilliantly, indeed, in tho latter that on going up to Peterbouse, Cambridge (of which college his father was then Master), he was fully expected to come out Senior Wrangler -two brothers had already been Second Wranglers; but, muob to his chagrin, the future Chief Justice was only placed third in the listan honour which he affected to think as incommensurate with his merits as if he had been “Wooden Spoon.” However, he had the matbematical mind, and the mathematical mind has certainly an affinity with law-it is remarkable how many of our judges have been high Wranglers; and in those days of special pleading, with its nice and curious subtleties, its arbitrary and fantastic rules, its declaratione, pleas, replications, rejoinders, surrejoinders, rebutters and surrebutters, the mathematical faculty-connoting clearheadedness and the power of close reasoning-was an invaluable auxiliary. So, at least, it proved in Law's case. His excellence as a special pleaderinglorious dradgery as it was-built up for him a reputation with attorneys which served bim well when in due time he was called to the Bar (1780). His father had by this time become Bisbop of Carlisle, for which reason Law chose the Northern Circuit, and family influence, backed by his own solid merits, obtained him a
fair share of briefe. But he might never have emerged, as far as London was concerned, from comparative obecurity had it not been for a lucky accident-an event which fixed the eyes of the whole nation upon him—the impeachment of Warren Hastiogs in 1788.
The Warren Hastings Trial. It came about in this way: The friends of Mr. Hastings were anxious to obtain for him the best counsel at the Bar, and, of course, tbeir choice fell on Erskine, thep in the hey-day of his career-the first of living advocates. While Law had been toiling 88 a special pleader below the Bar, Eskine bad rusbed up like a rocket to the highest heaven of forensic fame. But Erskine was an ardent Whig. He had just come back from Paris with buttons on bis coat bearing the revolutionary motto, Vivre libre ou mourir, and, though nothing would have pleased him better than to figure as one of the protagonists in such a scene, he was strongly a verse to engaging in a battle royal with intimate political friends like Burke, Fox, and Sheridan In this difficulty Sir Thomas Rumbold, who was married to Law's youngest sister, Joanna, suggested the name of Law -- who had just obtained a silk gown through Mr. Justice Buller's influence---and the suggestion was adopted. The result was that one morning Law found lying on his table a brief marked 500 guineas to appear on behalf of Mr. Hastings. Westminster Hall has witnessed Do more impressive scene than the trial of Warren Hastinge, unless it be the trial of Charles I. "There”-in the eloquent words of Macaulay—“ were gathered together from all parts of a great, free, enlightened, and prosperous Empire, grace and female loveliness, wit
ard learning, the representatives of every soience and of every art.
In the manager's box was collected an array of speakers such as had not appeared since the great age of Athenian éloquence.” There were Fox and Sheridan, the English Demosthenes and the English Hyperides. There was Burke, in amplitude of comprebension and splendour of imagination superior to every orator, ancient or modero. There was the chivalrous Wyndham, and there, beginning his great career, Charles Earl Grey.
Law v. Eloquence. * Even the bold and strong-minded Liw may very well have quailed before such an assemblage and such an array of oratore, "Is it not uotair, said Miss Burney, an ardent admirer of Hastings, to Wyndham—"Is it not unfair that Mr. Hastings should see on his side only fee'd hirelings and men little experienced and scarcely known, and on the other all the talent of the nation ? “Oh! no, cried Wyndham, “have no apprehension from that! A lawyer with his quirks and quibbles and his cross-questions and examinations will overset and master the ablest orator, un practised in their waye." “I hoped,” adds Miss Burney, “ there was some truth in this.” There was. At the very outset Law scored a victory over the managers of the impeachment by insisting that the whole of the charges (instead of being taken separately) should be proceeded with before Mr. Hastings was called upon for his defence. The Lords held that this course was the right one, and great was the wrath of the managers thereat; and well it might be, for it was really decisive of the issue. It gave time for party passion to subside, and for the court to take a calm review of the whole conduct of Hastings'administration. One result was that Law had not to commence his epeecb for the defence till 1792– four years after the trial opened. The speech lasted three days, and provoked Miss Burney greatly by "tho a pologies for his demerits which Law made, and his “ begging for quarter from the managers.'
" But do you not think,” said Wyodbam, “ Mr. Law spoke wellthat he was clear, forcible ?”
“ Not forcible,” cried I ; “I would not say not clear.”
“ He was frightened,” said Wyodham, "and might not do bimself justice. He looked palo and alarmed, and his voice trembled.”
However, on the second occasion Mr. Law was far less nervous and more animated, and acquitted bimself so as to win high praise from the exacting Miss Burney, though there was no pretence of rivalling the splendid eloquence of Burke or the brilliancy of Sheridad. Brougham, no mean critic, saw the shorthand notes of Law's defence, and highly extols the lucid order, the plain, manly sepse, and the frequent bursts of eloquence that marked his defonce.
Eight years after it had commenced the trial ended in a verdict of acquittal for Hastings on all the charger. It was a signal victory for law over oratory, and it illustrates very strikingly the jolly of laymen, however able and eloquent, conducting legal proceedings.
The Beautiful Mi88 Towry. Fame had come to Law through the trial. Beauty also was to be his reward. He bad little of the lady-killer about him. He never sacrificed to the Graces. His figure was ponderous and upgainly-90 clumsy, indeed, was he that he was turned out of the awkward squad of the Lincolo'sinn corps as a hopeless caso, the drill sergeant remarking tbat Mr. Law was the only person he could never teach to marcb.(a) His eyebrows were shaggy ; his forehead prominent. In Kiog Richard III.'s words of bimself, he was “rudely stamped . wanting love's majesty." He was verging, too, on the unromantic age of forty, yet, with his accustomed self-confidence, he entered the lists as a suitor for the band of a Miss Towry, the daughter of a Commissioner of the Navy, a reigning beauty and an heiress. He was refuged. He persevered. He was retuged again. Still be persevered, and finally, like King Richard-despite his personal defects—his devotion, the charm of his conversation, his rising fame in Westminster Hall, won the day and he was accepted. So lovely was Miss Towry that, like the Miss Gunnings of an earlier generation, she was followed about by crowds at balls and assemblies ; and paesers-by would linger to see her watering her flowers on the balcony of their house in Bloomsbury. square. “I, myself, romember her,” says Lord Campbell, “ become a mature matron, still a very fine woman with regular features and a roseate complexion."
Very happy the marriage proved-bleesed with a numerous and comely progeny. Life, indeed, could never have been dull when it was diversified by such incidents as the following, related by Samuel Rogers : Once, when Lord Ellenborough was about to go on circuit, Lady Ellenborough said she should like to accompany him. He replied that he had no objection, provided she did not incumber the carriage with band boxes, which were his utter abhorrence. During the first day's journey, Lord Ellenborough, happening to stretch his lege, struck bis foot against something below the seat. He discovered that it was a bandbox. Up went the window and out went the bandbox. The coachman stopped, and the footman, thinking that the band box had tumbled out of the window by some extraordinary chance, was going to pick it up, when Lord Ellenborough furiously called out, “ Drive on!” The band box was accordingly left by the ditob side. Having reached the county town where he was to officiate as judge, Lord Ellenborough proceeded to array himself for his appearance in the courthouse.“Now," said be,
is where's my wig-where is my wig ? · My Lord,” replied his attendant, “it was thrown out of the carriage window !”
(a) Toe reason was that he moved to bio objective with a semi-rotatory kind of step, in a section of a parabole. Mr. Benpet (W. H.), the reporter, says that as a boy be often saw this remarkable corpe marching ana counter-marcbiok in Lincoln's-inn Gardens, and observed tbat, wbenever the word was given for the company to " stand it ease," the greater part of them invariably " sul doun on the grass "
The Rivals. Erekine and Law were now the great rivale at the Bar. Each was supreme in his own way. Law was not equal to Erskine in dazzling a jury, but given a case bearing the stamp of sincerity, given a client plainly wronged, and no one could state his injuries with more indignant energy_"lighten” and “thunder" in the Greek phrase ; no one could extract the truth more skilfully or press it homo more forcibly on the consciences of the jary. In one respect Law was at a disadvantage. Lord Kenyon, the Chief Justice, bad contracted a special dislike to him and took no pains to conceal it. One day wben Erekine had been declaiming against him and Lord Kenyon bad been more than usually discourteous, Law caught up and fluog back at Erskine with the happiest effect the words of Turnus to Æneas : “ Non me tua fervida terrent, dicta, ferox! Di me terrent (glancing at the Bench) et Jupiter bostis.” Why, ob! why, do we never hear these scholarly retorte now?
On the trial of one Walker, 4 merchant of Manchester, for sedition in 1792, on Erskine as counsel pressing for the admission of some evidence which was objected to by Law, Erskine theatrically exclaimed :
“Good God! Where am I?"
Law: "I am equally before the people of England for the protection of the people of England ; if you rise in this tone, I can speaks as loudly and as emphatically!”
It reminds one of the dispute between the learned Dr. Parr and Dr. Johnson on the liberty of the Press. “Dr. Johoson,” says Parr,
was very great. Whilst he was arguing I'observed that he stamped. Upon this I stamped. Dr. Johnson said, “Why do you stamp, Dr. Parr?' I replied, 'Because you stamped ; and I was resolved not to give you the advantage even of a stamp in the argument.''
Luck bas much to do with legal advancement, and Law was certainly lucky. Without pushing. like Campbell and Brougham and other ambitious lawyers, the avenues of success seemed to open before him. Sir John Mitford, Attorney.General, afterwards Lord Redesdale, had been mado Speaker ; Sir William Grant, Solioitor. General, bad become Master of the Rolls; Pitt resigned, and Mr. Addington offered the vacant Attorney. Generalship to Law. When Law attended the King to be knighted, George III. eaid to him: “Sir Edward, Sir Edward, have you ever been in Parliament ?” and Law answering "No," Right, Sir Edward,” said the King, quite right; for now when you become my Attorney General you will not eat your own words as so many of your predecessors have been obliged to do, Sir Edward.” Ten months only he held the Attorney-Generalsbip, and then, on the death of Lord Kenyon, stepped into the vacant ibrone of the Chief Justicesbip.
T'he Rising Tile of Democracy. Lord Ellen borough's career, especially as Chief Justice, synchronises —and tbat is its real significance- with a period of great political excitement in tbis country. England was feeling the shock of the volcanic upheaval in France, and there was a widespread alarm that the game scenes were to be re-enacted here. The agitation for constitutional reform was stimulated by much distress among the lower classes and by tbe high “war prices, and together they created a dangerous body of discontent, manifesting itself in rioting and seditious plots. At such a crisis, when even men like Burke were alienated from the cause of liberty, is it to be wondered at that men whose minds were cast in a Conservative mould, like Lord Ellenborough and Lord Eldon, should have felt that the hands of the Government, as representing the cause of order, needed all the strengthening they could get, and that it was no time to be dallying with sedition-mongers, or relaxing the salutary strictness of the law ? The State Trials from 1780 to 1820 reflect very clearly this struggle of the two great social forces then at work. They are filled with prosecutions for treason, sedition, and libel, in tbe greater part of which Lord Ellenborough figures either as accusing counsel for the Crown or as Jupiter Tonans on the Bench ; and very formidable on such occasions bis political bigotry and his violent temper, backed by an extensive knowledge of the law, made him. The prosecutions take various forms. Now it is the King who is the subject of tbe alleged attack; now the Constitution, now the administration of justice, anon the discipline of the army, or the Church and its venerable formalaries. Let us take a few samples : “ What a crowd of blessings rush upon one's mind”-thus concluded an article in the Morning Chronicle on the Catholio question—“ what a crowd of blessings rush upon cne's mind that might be bestowed upon the country in the event of a total change of system ! Of all monarchs, indeed, since the Revolution, the succesøor of George III. will have the finest opportunity of becoming nobly popular." For this ebullition of sentiment a criminal information was launched against the unfortunate editor, Mr. Perry, alleging that he “ being a malicious, seditious, and evil.disposed person, and being greatly disa ffected to our Sovereigo Lord the King and to his administration of the government of the Kingdom, and most unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously dee igning as much as in him lay to bring our said Lord the King and his administration of the government of this kingdom and the persons employed by bim in the adminis. tration of the government of this kingdom into great and public hatred and contempt among all his liege subjects, and alienate and withdraw from our said Lord the King the cordial lore and affection, true and aue obedience, fidelity, and allegiance
of a book called The Stranger in Ireland sued a newspaper for bolding it and the author up to ridicule and spoiling the sale. “ The critic,' said Lord Ellenborough,“ does a great service to the public wbo writes down any vapid or useless publication sucb_as ought never to have appeared. Ho checks the dissemination of bad taste and prevents people wasting their time and money on trash. I speak of fair and candid criticism. Such loss is not an injury, because it is one which the plaintiff ought to sustain. Ridicule is often the fittest weapon that can be employed for sucb a purpose.” Witness Lord Macaulay on Mr. Robert Montgomery's poetry. But oh! fallibility of human Dature, how did the Chief Justice bimself like ridicule? When Mathews, the inimitablo mimic, took him off on the stage, in a piece called “ Litigant v. Camphor," he was in a towering passion, wrote in a fury to the Lord Chamberlain, requiriog his interposition, and declaring that since the Clouds ” of Aristophanes, in which Socrates was ridiculed, there had not been such an outrage on public deoency.
of the subjects of our said Lord the King, did print and publish a certain scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel”-to wit, the above. Lord Ellenborough summed up to the jury very elaborately, and, on the whole, very fairly : It the paragraph meant to represent that the reign of His Majesty was the only thing interposed between the subjects of this country and the possession of great blessidys wbich were likely to be enjoyed in the reign of his successor and thus to render His Majesty's administration of his government odious, it was a calumnious paragraph and to be dealt with as a libel. If it only meant to express regret that an erroneous view bad been taken of public affairs he was not prepared to say it was a libel. Verdict -Not guilty.
“ A Thousand Lashes." But the Chief Justice's indignation blazed up when Leigh Hunt in an article in the Examiner, under the sensational title of " A Thousand Lisbes,” denounced the brutality of flogging in the army. “Gentle mon," he said to the jury, “we are placed in a most anxious and awlul situation. The liberty of the country-everything that we enjoy-oot only the independence of the nation, but whatever each individual among ug prizes in private life, depends upon our fortunate resistance to the army of Buona parte and the force of France, wbioh I may say is the force of all Europe combined under that formidable foe.
At such a moment, when everything depends on the zeal and fidelity of the soldier, can you conceive that the exclamation •One Thousand Lashes, with strokes underneath to attract attention, could be for any otber purpose than to excite disaffection ? Can it bave any other tendency than that of preventing men from entoriog into the army ? : .. This publication is not intended to draw the attention of the Legislature or of persons in authority with a view to a remedy, but seems intended to induce the military to consider themselves as more degraded than any other soldiers in the world, and to make thom less ready at this awful crisis to render the country that assistanco withont which we are collectively and individually undope. I have
doubt that this libel has been published with the inten. tion imputed to it, and that it is entitled to the character given to it by the information." Verdict-Not guilty.
But the severest rebuff wbich Lord Ellenborough received was at Hone's trial. Hone was a bookseller wbo bad published three parodies : The Late Jobp Wilkes' Catechisms, The Political Litany, and The Sioeourist's Creed. These were charged as profane and blaephemous libels. Bone defended himself with great boldness and ability. The first day's'trial was, before Mr. Justice Abbott, and resulted in an ao quittal. On the second day Lord Ellenborough resolved to preside, though worn and ill. “ I am giad to see you here, my Lord Ellenborough, shouted Hone. “I know what you are come here for ; I koow what you want.” “ I am come to do justice," replied Lord Ellenborough ; "my oply wish is to see justice done." Is it not rather, my Lord,” said Hone, " to send a poor bookseller to rot in a dungeon ?" In vain Lord Ellenborough told the jury the Litany was an impious and profane libel, and hoped if they were Christians they would agree with him. The jury would not, and Hono was acquitted amid a scene of great excitemeat. Hone's trial is popularly supposed to bave killed Lord Ellenborough, but Bishop Turner, who went home with him, says that he laughed at the hooting and tumultuous mob which surrounded his carriage. Suddenly be pulled the check-string at Charing Cross. “ It just occurs to me that they sell the best red herrings at this shop of any shop in London. Buy
Some Anecdotes. Espinasse, the reporter, tells us that the Chief Justice soon after taking his seat on the Benoh declared that his feelings as a barrister had been so often outraged by the insults of Lord Kenyon that no gentleman should be compelled to submit to indignity without the power of repelling or punishing it, and to his credit it may be added he did cultivate courtesy on the Bench; but at times his innate propensity to sarcasm was too much for him. A young counsel appearing before him began : “My Lord, my unfortunate client,' and there, oppressed with nervousness or loss of memory, be paused—“My unfortunate client, my Lord,” and again be stopped. • Go on," said Lord Ellenborougb, so far as you have got the court is entirely with you.”
A. learned but very dry real property lawyer, the late Mr. Preston, having spent the day and wearied the court in developing a technical argument, asked the Chief Justice when it would be their pleasure to hear the remainder of his argument. “ Mr. Preston," answered the Chief Justice, "we are bound to bear you and shall do so op Fridas, but pleasure has long been out of the question.” This same Mr. Preston on that or another occasion, thinking it necessary to instruct the court in the first principles of real property law, began his speech with the words : “ An estate in fee simple, my Lords, is the highest estate known to the law of Eogland.” Stay, stay,” said the Chief Justice with profound gravity, “ let me take that down." He wrote and read slowly and emphatically : “ An estate-in fee simple--is the bighest estate-known to-the law of England,” and added, “Sir, the court is much obliged to you for the information.” The irony, it is to be feared, was lost on counsel.
Like a good many other judges, Lord Ellen borough had a great dielike to being "treated ihetorically.” A counsel of the declamatory order, proceeding in this way, said: My Lord, it is written in the Book of Nature."
Lord E. : “ What book ?"
Lord E.: “Please let me have the page, sir ”-holding dis pen uplifted as if tɔ note it down.
James Allan Park—known as “Green Park," to distinguish him from Parke, the great black-letter lawyer-having in a trumpery case a9gumed an air of great solemnity, and, in addie asing the jury, ased several times such phrases as “ I cail Heaven to witness,'.
" As God is my judge,” &o., Lord Ellenborough at last buret out: "Sir, I cannot allow the law to be thus violated in open court. I must proceed to fine you for profane swearing 53. an oath.” This pleasantry had its due effect on Mr. Park's florid oratory.
Jekyll told Tom Moore a story of Lord Ellenborough's remarks to a witnees who was in the box and remarkably dull. Why, you are an industrious fellow ! You must have taken pains with yourself ! No one was ever naturally so stupid !”
A storm of wind and rain had driven a regiment of Westminster volunteers to seek shelter in the hall. Lord Ellen borough's attention was attracted by the clatter of the musketry. “What is the cause of this disturbance, usher?” vehemently demanded Lord Ellenborough. "My Lord, it is a volunteer regiment exercising, your Lordship."
Exercising! we will see who is best at that. Go, sir, and inform the regiment that if it depart not instantly, I shall commit it to the custody of the tipstaff.” The battalion filed off forthwith with uomilitary speed. Perbaps the Chief Justice remembered the awkward squad, and was not sorry to pay off old scores.
Romilly's Reforms. The game antipathy to innovations which made Lord Ellenborough a declared enemy of all political changes made him also an enemy to all reforms of our criminal law, which he scoffed at as “speculative and modern pbilosophy.” Sir Samuel Romilly had brought in a Bill to abolish the penalty of death for stealing to the value of 53. in a shop
"My Lorde," said the Chief Justice, “ if we suffer this Bill to pass we shall not know where we stand; we shall pot know whether we are on our heads or our feet. If you repeal the Act whicb inflicts the penalty of death for stealing to the value of 53. in a shop, you will be called upon next year to repeal a law which prescribes i he penalty of death for stealing 58. in a dwelling house, there being do person therein ---a law, your Lordsbips must know, on the severity of which and the application of it stands the security of every poor cottager wbo goes out to his daily labour. He, my Lords, can leave no one bebind to watch bis little dwelling and preserve it from the attacks of lawless plunderere. Confident in the protection of the laws of the land, he cheerfully pursues his daily la bours, trusting that on bis return be sball find all his property sale and upmolested. Repeal the law and see the contrast. No man can trust himself for an hour out of doors without the most alarming apprehensions that on his return every vestige of his property will be swept away by the hardened robber.' When the ladies from town-ia The Vicar of Wakefield-Miss Ara. bella Wilhelmina Amelia Skeggs and Lady Blarney talked “bigh life" at eacbother, Mr. Burcbell rather rudely interjected at intervals the word “Fudge.” Some such word might well bave punctuated the Lord Chief Justice's periods in the above oration. So far from mitigating the rigour of the law in the smallest degree, Lord Ellenborough-in the Act known by bis name--added ten capital selonies to our criminal code,
Fair Crilicism. When Lord Ellenborough's mind was not warped by political prejudice he was capable of taking a thorough sane and sensible view. Carr v. Hood (1 Camp. 355) is an instance where the author
To Harper's Library of Living Thought has been added a small treatise entitled The Brain and Voice, by Dr. Mott, Fullerian Professor of Physiology, &c. It is a difficult subject to present accurately without the use of a good many terms that none but physiologists are really familiar with, and a good many others pot usually met with eave in tecbnical anatomical treatises. If, however, for the mere student, Dr. Mott orcasionally proves too muob, his pages will be of undoubted uso to the teacher of voice produotion.
The Chairman's Manual, by Mesere. Gurdon Palin and Ernest Martin (Sir leaao Pitman ard Sons Limited), is a guide to the manage. ment of meetings in general and of meetings of local authorities, with eeparate and complete treatment of the meetings of public com pan.es. It is only a chairman's duties in relation to meetings that
are dealt with, not his duties with regard to other matters which his office may entail upon him.
We have received from Meears. Gee and Co. The Promotion and Accounts of a Private Limited Company, by M. Webster Jenkinson, which begins with # note on the advantages and disadvantages on the conversion of a business into a private limited company. Also a pamphlet, Time Tables of some of the Principal Matters in Connection urth Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement and some of the steps in A company liquidation. The tables can also be had in map form guitable for hanging up in the office.
The Law Quarterly Review for July contains articles on Mr. Pike's Latest Year Book, by, W. S. Holdswortb, D.C.L. ; Abridged Prospectuses, by Frank Evans ; Principles of Liability for Interference with Trade, Profession, or Calling, by Sarat Chandra Basak ; Contracts of Insane Pereons, by W. J. Leoíric Ambrose; Discretion in Penalties, by R. S. de Vere ; Gifts Inter Vivos of Choses in Action, by Geo. P. Costigan, jun.; Ricovery, also Extinguishment of Rentcharger, by W. Straoban ; and The Origin of the Petty Jury, by Charles L. Wells.
Apother clau e imposes on the local authority an alternative duty either to provide religious instruction in council schools or to give facilities for its provision, and for this purpose definite time must be allotted. Where voluntary schools are trang: ferred there are to be adequate opportunities afforded for giving the instruction contemplated in the trust deed, and the offer for facilities must be a real and effective one. All assistant and head teachers in transferred schools may give religious instruction if they so desire. A religious instruction committee is to be formed by every local education authority, and to it are to be submitted questions arising as to the religious instruction provided by the local authority. Finally, there is to be an appeal to the High Court from any deter. mination by the Board of Education of any question ansing under the Education Acts, and it can scarcely be said, after recent experi. ences, that this is an unnecessary safeguard. As the religious instruction committee can be chosen by the local authority among such persons as they think fit, and not merely amongst their own members, they should be able to secure adequate strength, but it would probably be better to lay down in clear terms that a certain definite proportion should be chosen from outside such bodies.
(BOOKS RECEIVED. Ranking, Spicer, and Pegler on Mercantile Law. H. Foulks Lynch and Co., 9, Fenoturcb.street, EC. Price 103. 6d. pet.
Leake in Contracts. Sixth Edition. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-'ane. Price 328.
Rastorgcueff on the L gal Position of English Companies in Russia. Jordan and Sons Limited, 116 and 117, Chancery.lane, W.C. Price 2e. 6d. Det.
LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE.
It would be quite impossible to exaggerate the importance of the recent report on tuberculosis, and it should most certainly lead to the immediate preparation of some strong Bill. Such a measure will bave necegearily to affect many interests, and it would be desirable that in fairness it should be prepared at once, and that time should be afforded for a detailed examination of its proposals. The whole
ubject of the milk trade requires consideration from the cow to the Tarder, and, where such national issues are involved, farmers must be prepared to accept such inspection as will make the legislation real. It is known that in Manchester there is special local legislation which enables the local supply to be closely watched and guarded, and it je, moreover, known that milk rejected there finds its way to London. Our colonies are also ahead of us, for in New South Wales and Victoria there are some stringent provisions. Yet again there is need for reform from the top to the bottom of our slaughter-house regu. 1ations. The Continental abattoir has much to teach us. The statement of the Mayor of Worcester as to the in sanitary condition of slaugh ter-houses in his own district and the lack of control exercisable by the city authorities has been echoed from other centres of population, and these constitute a standing peril to health and a reproach on our civilisation. It is obviously idle for a country to spend millions in endeavouring to oure this national scourge of tuberculosis, and to take no effective steps to check it at its various sources. Mr. John Burns has already shown that he appreciates the gravity of the milk question, and, now that his views fortified by this report, it is to be hoped that legislation may be diafted without unnecessary delay.
THE Trustees (Bodies Corporate) Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Lords by Lord AVEBURY and read a second time copfers considerable powers upon corporations which undertake the business of a trustee and act in that capacity. The provisions of the Bill include power to a corporation to make profit charges for its services ; to advance money with interest for the purposes of the trust; and to invest the trust money in its own capital stock, shares, or securities. The Bill proposes to enact tbat when a corporation is a trustee jointly with any person or persons, the name of the corporation shall be placed first in the register of any company, corporation, State, or Government in whose capital or obligations the trust funds are invested ; and also that a corporation may be appointed a sole trustee notwithstanding that the trustees originally appointed by tho disposition creating the trust were two or more. The provisions of the Bill which most closely affect solicitors are those which propose to empower the Court of Probate to grant representation to a corporation in its corporate name either alone or jointly with any other executor appointed by a will. Hitherto the court has refused to iegue probate to & corporate body wbich has been appointed an executor. In such a case the court has required the corporation to appoint under its seal a syndic to whom probate has been given. It these proposals become law, the effect will be that when probate is given to a corporation in its corporate name there will never be a second grant in the estate as the corporation eojogo perpetual succession. Further. tbe Bill proposed to empower an officer of the corporation appointed by it to take all necessary oaths, make affidavite, giv: personal attendance at any coort, and do any act or thing required for the purposes of or in connection with such grant of representation. It is also proposed that if a corporation, being a trustee or executor, enters into liquidation of its affairs, the liquidator may by deed appoint, with the leave of the court, another corporation to act in the trust as its successor. It is evident from the foregoing that if the Bill should become law a very considerable amount of business will pass away from the Profession, seeing that an officer of the corporation will be able to tradeact all necessary business in connection with a trust estate of which his company is an executor or trusiee. Moreover, the proposals for permitting the trust funds to be in vested in the securities and capital of the trustee corporation constitute a very dangerous eituation, and it is clear that for this and other reasons the further stages of the Bill should be carefully watched and its provisions subjected to the closest scrutiny.
The Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill presented by Mr. EDMUND HARVEY is the outcome of the labours of
one of several “conciliation” committees, and its purpose is to find some common platform for the two main divergent lines of thought. It is not likely to be pressed this session, but the coming months might well be marked by some serious oonsideration of its proposals so that tbix vered question may be the subject of some sort of settlement. The Bill contains some fifteen clauses, and its main objects are to make the council schocls accessible to all children alike in town and country, and to empower the local education authority to decide whether it will take over on terms a voluntary school or provide a new council school. There is a direot provision made to ensure e quality of treatment between council and voluntary schools, and no teacher on the staff of a council school may be subjected to any religious test or required to give religious instruction. Another clause alters the existing arrangements as to appointments of teachers in voluntary schools. Such appointments are to be transferred to the local authority on the nomioation of the managers. Children are to be required to attend school (subject to the conscience clause) during the time allocated for religious instruction, but a child can be allowed, on the parent's application, to receive instruction in religion elsewhere than on the schoolhouse premises during the time so assigned.
We bave not infrequently directed attention to the inaccuracy of the statement that the veto of the Crown bas become obsolete by desuetude, or bas become, to use the words of an eminent jurist, dead as Queen Apre,” ky whom it was last exercised, and shown that in strictness this expression, though a convenient form of descrip. tion for all practical purposes, cannot be regarded as a correct enunciation of the law. This view finds & somewhat remarkable corrobo ration in the following passages from epeeches delivered by Earl Granville as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords ard Lord Campbell in debate in the Wensleydale Peerage case in the House of Lords on the 7th Feb. 1856. Eac Granville, in opposing the contention of Lord Lycdburet that the
prerogative of creating life as distinct from hereditary peera ges bad become obsolete by desuetude, said : “If euch unlearned lips as mine may be allowed to cite legal maxime, I would mention this one, Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, as showing that the prerogative of the Crown does not suffer from lapse of time. The principle asserted by the noble and learned Lord [Lord Lyndhurst] is one of very great importance, a nd certainly, if sound, it might be carried to very extraordinary lengths. Take, for instance, the undoubted right of the Crown to veto an Act of Parliament. That right, however, has not been exercised for over 150 years. Does that circumstance constitute it illegal, or is it necessary that the Sovereign should now be advised to take an early opportunity of vetoing some Bill for the sake of saving her prerogative ?” Lord Campbell, who spoke in support of Lord Lyndhurst's motion, agreed with Earl Granville that the veto of the Crown had not become obsolete. “What he [the Lord President) said upon the veto of the Crown upon Bills passed by two Houses is easily answered. This prerogative is kept alive by every Bill that passes being offered to the Sovereign for approbation, and till such approbation is expressed it oannot become law. Upon every occasion the answer may be La Reine le veult or La Reine s'avisera.”
duty to assert that power, and he would not scruple to exercise hie right.” Lord Wharncliffe in the game debate said he would vote fos the second reading in the hope that the Bill might be brought into such a shape as to render it fitting to pass it into a law, but it ought not to pass without considerable alteration. In that debate and at more length in his speech on the 10th April 1832 in debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill the Duke of Wellington expressed his absolute disagreement with Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe in their position, which he regarded as opposed to practice and wholly uselees. The Duke of Wellington quoted a remark made by Lord Whardcliffe in the debates on the Reform Bill of 1831 : « Let him remind his noble friend of what be said last year. It was this : •Many persons had voted for the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons in hopes of amending it afterwards in committee, but every person who had the slightest experience in Parliament well knew that when a Bill brought in by the Government was read a second time it wa® a matter of extreme difficulty to make any alterations in it in committee. His noble friend's Parliamentary experience reached to the House of Commons as well as that House, and he believed there was no instance of extensive alterations ever having been made in committee in that House in any Bill introduced and supported by Ministers. If this was the case generally, how was it to be effected when the alterations went to the very foundation of the measure ? Visccunt Morley's reply to Lord Halsbury was a terse summary of the objection of the Duke of Wellington to a similar course : “What,” he asked, “would be the position of the House if the action indicated by the noble earl in regard to the third reading was generally adopted ? "
The speech of Sir Rufus Isaacs, enunciating the practice of the House of Commons in reference to the issue of writs for the election of members for constituencies in caees where the members elected have been unseated on petition and its acceptance by the House of Commons, is of value as indicating the effect of the Election Petitions Act in constituting a complete transfer to the judges of powers once vested exclusively in the House of Commons. In opposing Mr. Moore's contention that a writ should not be issued for the East Cork Division Sir Rusus Isaacs said : “ It is contrary to the practice of this House to discuss what has taken place on the report of a judge in any case in wbich there is no foundation for asking this House to disfranchise the constituency. What the hon. member for North Armagh is asking this House to do by opposing the writ is to disfranchise this constituency of East Cork because the judges have found that the election was to be voided on the ground of illegal practices and not on the ground of corrupt practices, and in the face of the distinct and definite report by the judges that corrupt or illegal practices did not extensively prevail in the constituency, and that there was no reason to believe that either corrupt or illegal practices so prevailed, I am speaking within the knowledge of most of the members of the House when I say that there is no case on record in which this House has refused the issue of a writ when there has been a report that corrupt or illegal practices have not provailed extensively in the constituency. I would remind the House that when the judges do report tbat corrupt practices do prevail, then means are afforded to this House by a joint address of both Houses to the Sovereign to appoint a commission to inquire into the charges so that the constituency has an opportunity of being heard ia its defence. But this House never resorts to the course which is suggested by the hon. and learned member without at least first of all asking that such a commission should be appointed.” It would be difficult to formulate in plainer language an authoritative declaration that power with reference to matters arising out of contested elections has departed from the House of Commons.
An amendment to the Parliament Bill, moved in the House of Lords on the 13th inst. by Lord Oranmore and Browne, providing that every amendment inserted by the House of Lords in a Bill sent up to that House from the House of Commons in pursuance of the provisions of the Parliament Bill should be considered by the House of Commons severally and separately, was withdrawn on the representation of Viscount Morley that it was entirely inconceivable that the House of Lorde should pass a statute telling the House of Commons how to manage its business. As Coke, whom Blackstone quotes, has well said: “The whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its origin from this one maxim, that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that House to which it relates and not elsewhere?”: (Stephen's Blackstone, ii., p. 361). Amendments with regard to the privileges and jurisdiction of the Lords have given riee to discussions in both Houses, and it is certain at an amendment with reference to the method of procedure in matters of legislation of the House of Commons proceeding from the House of Lords would, in the words of Viscount Morley, cause great irritation.”
LORD HALSBURY, speaking in the House of Lords on the 13th inst., enuncia ted a principle on which a vote for the second reading of the Parliament Bill in the House of Lords could be given which seems in a bsolute contradiction to the opinion expressed by the Duke of Wellington in reference to the principle on which a vote in analogous circumstances on the Reform Bill of 1832 could be given. Lord Halsbury said it was a great mistake to assume that because the Opposition voted for the second reading of the Bill they were there." fore in favour of the principle of the measure. His object in voting for the second reading of the Bill was simply to have the opportunity of discussing fully the different clauses in committee. He would never have assented to the principle of the Bill, and he could not undertake to say now that he would vote for the third reading. In the debates on the Reform Bill in 1832, Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe adopted an attitude precisely similar to that of Lord Halsbury. On the 26th March 1832 Lord Harrowby said : “Although they should vote for the second reading (of the Reform Bill], they would not be bound to vote for the passing of the Bill in caze it should still continue to be a Bill which ought not to paeg. If, after all the amendments bad been introduced wbich could be introduced, any of their Lordships sbould conscientiously believe that the Bill ought not to pass, they would still bave the power to vote for its rejection, and it would be their
The report stage of the Parliament Bill was taken in the House of Lords on the 13th inst. Only two additional changes were made. OD the proposition of the Earl of Cromer an alteration was made in the wording of the amendment introduced by him in committee on the subject of tacking. A new clause proposed by the Earl of Camperdown, providing for an alteration in the form of the enacting words of Billo passed without the consent of the Lords, was also agreed to. The Marquis of Lansdowne declared that the Opposition leaders regarded Lord Cromer's amendment as “very vital," and Lord Ebury expressed the bope that the House would adhere to it. The Earl of Halsbury stated that he would not undertake to vote for the tbird reading of the Bill. The third readiog was fixed for the 20tb inst.
In the House of Commode, Sir E. Grey, in reply to Major Anstruther. Gray, stated that Miss Malecka is undoubtedly a British subject according to British law, though possibly not according to Russian law. His Majesty's Ambassador in St. Petersburg has been instructed to represent to the Russian Government that Miss Malecka sbould not be kept in prison without trial, and that particulars of the charge against her should be furnished, and to urge the desira bility of bringing her to trial, at which she would be represented by counsel, and Hie Majesty's Consul would be given facilities to attend, or that she should be released and required to quit Russia.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks called attention to the Swansea School case, and asked for some assurance from the President of the Board of Education that in future the department would act upon the interpretation of the courts in regard to the administrative duties of the board.—Dr. Chapple thought we should establish a system of physical education which enabled children to resist the invasion of disease. Nearly all cases of phthisis started in the apices of the Jungs, and these were undeveloped in the child who got no exercise. The exercise of swimming was anti.phtbieical. If the public schools had swimming baths they would do more to prevent phthisis than anytbing else. Children swam spontaneously if you only gave them plenty of water.-A Member : How would you get them there?Dr. Chapple said they could throw them in, and the obildren would