Page images

other purpose, his duty would have been clear, but there was none; as it was, he must s notion the scheme.

Re Bulawayo and General Exploration Company (1906) Limited and Reduced. Ch. Div. Neville, J. July 18.-Counsel: Jenkins, K.C. and H. E. Wright; Chubb. Solicitors: Burn and Berridge; Regge and Ackroyd.]

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 rent of certain houses for the plaintiff's life. The agreement upon the face of it showed no consideration for the defendant's promise. The payments having become in arrears, a writ was issued by the plaintiff on the 17th Dec. 1910. Proceedings were taken under Order XIV., in the course of which the defendant swore an affidavit in which she admitted that she was liable for the rents claimed, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for a sum 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, Bassett, 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 MonthsNo 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 respondent 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 the 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 had, directly or indirectly, a share 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 had taken no steps to remove the road scrapings from the streets; in that year the council resolved to contract for the removal of such scrapings, and tenders were invited, but no tenders were sent to the council. As no one was willing to take them, the respondent agreed to take them paying to the council the sum of £2 28., and in the years from 1903 onwards the respondent took these road scrapings, paying £1 108. for a part of the time and £1 when they were deposited in his 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 his 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 on behalf of the council." By sect. 14 (3): "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or to be an alderman unless he is a councillor or qualified to be a councillor." By sect. 15 (1): "The mayor shall be a fit person elected by the council from among the aldermen or councillors or persons qualified to be such." By sect. 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 have been to all intents a good and valid election." It was contended for the petitioner that as the respondent had this contract with the council,

[ocr errors]

he was not a "councillor" within the meaning of sect. 14 (3) oʻ the Act, and therefore was not eligible for election as alderman of 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 a "councillor" within the meaning of sect. 14 (3), inasmuch as by sect. 73 his 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. Norton. K. B. Div.: Channell and Bankes, 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. Box, for Robert Hall, Salisbury.]





THERE are certain personalities which impress themselves on us, whether we like it or not, by the sheer force of their mental and physical vigour. Lord Ellenborough was one. Serjeant Talfourd once described him as rushing through his cause list like a rhinoceros through a sugar plantation." It was a humorous and happy comparison. But if Nature had given him the strength, the ferocity, and the tough hide 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 the picture of him as it is sketched by a schoolfellow. Capel Loffts, and what Law was as a boy he remained as a man, Charterhouse was his alma mater-the school of Addison and Steele, of Wesley and Blackstone, of Thackeray and Leech-and here he achieved the highest honours, being captain of the school in 1768. In after years he used to say that as captain of Charterhouse he felt himself a greater man than ever he did as Lord Chief Justice of England.

[ocr errors]

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 the latter that on going up to Peterhouse, 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, much 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 mathematical 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 declarations, 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 pleader— inglorious drudgery as it was-built up for him a reputation with attorneys which served him well when in due time he was called to the Bar (1780). His father had by this time become Bishop 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 briefs. But he might never have emerged, as far as London was concerned, from comparative obscurity had it not been for a lucky accident-an event which fixed the eyes of the whole nation upon him-the impeachment of Warren Hastings 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, their choice fell on Erskine, then in the hey-day of his career-the first of living advocates. While Law had been toiling as a special pleader below the Bar, Eskine had rushed 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 his 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 averse 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 no 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

[ocr errors][merged small]


Law v. Eloquence.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Even the bold and strong-minded Law may very well have quailed before such an assemblage and such an array of orators, "Is it not untair," 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, unpractised in their ways." "I hoped," adds Miss Burney, there was some truth in this." There 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 speech for the defence till 1792four years after the trial opened. The speech lasted three days, and provoked Miss Burney greatly by "the apologies for his demerits which Law made, and his begging for quarter from the managers." But do you not think," said Wyndham, Mr. Law spoke wellthat he was clear, forcible?"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'Not forcible," cried I; "I would not say not clear." "He was frightened," said Wyndham, "and might not do himself justice. He looked pale and alarmed, and his voice trembled."

However, on the second occasion Mr. Law was far less nervous and more animated, and acquitted himself 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 Sheridan. Brougham, no mean critic, saw the shorthand notes of Law's defence, and highly extols the lucid order, the plain, manly sense, and the frequent bursts of eloquence that marked his defence.

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 tolly of lay men, however able and eloquent, conducting legal proceedings.

The Beautiful Miss Towry.

Fame had come to Law through the trial. Beauty also was to be his reward. He had little of the lady-killer about him. He never sacrificed to the Graces. His figure was ponderous and ungainly-so clumsy, indeed, was he that he was turned out of the awkward squad of the Lincoln's-inn corps as a hopeless case, the drill sergeant remarking that Mr. Law was the only person he could never teach to march. (a) His eyebrows were shaggy; his forehead prominent. In King Richard III.'s words of himself, 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 hand of a Miss Towry, the daughter of a Commissioner of the Navy, a reigning beauty and an heiress. He was refused. He persevered. He was refused again. Still he 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 passers-by would linger to see her watering her flowers on the balcony of their house in Bloomsbury. square. I, myself, remember 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-blessed 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 legs, struck his foot against something below the seat. He discovered that it was a bandbox. Up went the window and out went the band box. 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 ditch 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 he, "where's my wig-where is my wig?" My Lord," replied his attendant, "it was thrown out of the carriage window!"

[ocr errors]

(a) The reason was that he moved to his objective with a semi-rotatory kind of step, in a section of a parabola. Mr. Bennet (W. H.), the reporter, says that as a boy he often saw this remarkable corps marching and counter-marching in Lincoln's-inn Gardens, and observed that, whenever the word was given for the company to "stand at ease," the greater part of them invariably sat down on the grass'

The Rivals.

Erskine and Law were now the great rivals 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 home more forcibly on the consciences of the jury. In one respect Law was at a disadvantage. Lord Kenyon, the Chief Justice, had contracted a special dislike to him and took no pains to conceal it. One day when Erekine had been declaiming against him and Lord Kenyon had been more than usually discourteous, Law caught up and flung 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 hostis." Why, oh! why, do we never hear these scholarly retorts now?

[ocr errors]

On the trial of one Walker, a 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:

[blocks in formation]

Erskine: I stand before the people of England for justice."

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 speak as loudly and as emphatically!

[ocr errors]

It reminds one of the dispute between the learned Dr. Parr and Dr. Johnson on the liberty of the Press. "Dr. Johnson," 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 has 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 made Speaker; Sir William Grant, Solicitor 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. said 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-Generalship, and then, on the death of Lord Kenyon, stepped into the vacant throne of the Chief Justiceship.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Lord Ellenborough's career, especially as Chief Justice, synchronises -and that is its real significance-with a period of great political excitement in this country. England was feeling the shock of the volcanic upheaval in France, and there was a widespread alarm that the same scenes were to be re-enacted here. The agitation for constitutional reform was stimulated by much distress among the lower classes and by the 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 the 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 his 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 the 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, sincs the Revolution, the successor 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 disaffected to our Sovereign Lord the King and to his administration of the government of the Kingdom, and most unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously designing 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 him in the administration of the government of this kingdom into great and public hatred and contempt among all his liege subjects, and to alienate and withdraw from our said Lord the King the cordial love and affection, true and Que obedience, fidelity, and allegiance

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: If 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 blessings which 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 had been taken of public affairs he was not prepared to say it was a libel. Verdict -Not guilty.

"A Thousand Lashes."

[ocr errors]

But the Chief Justice's indignation blazed up when Leigh Hunt in an article in the Examiner, under the sensational title of A Thousand Lashes," denounced the brutality of flogging in the army. "Gentlemen," he said to the jury, we are placed in a most anxious and awful situation. The liberty of the country-everything that we enjoy-not only the independence of the nation, but whatever each individual among us prizes in private life, depends upon our fortunate resistance to the army of Buonaparte and the force of France, which 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 other purpose than to excite disaffection? Can it have any other tendency than that of preventing men from entering 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 them less ready at this awful crisis to render the country that assistance withont which we are collectively and individually undone. I have doubt that this libel has been published with the intention imputed to it, and that it is entitled to the character given to it by the information." Verdict-Not guilty.


But the severest rebuff which Lord Ellenborough received was at Hone's trial. Hone was a bookseller who had published three parodies: The Late John Wilkes' Catechisms, The Political Litany, and The Sinecurist's Creed. These were charged as profane and blasphemous libels. Hone defended himself with great boldness and ability. The first day's trial was, before Mr. Justice Abbott, and resulted in an acquittal. On the second day Lord Ellenborough resolved to preside, though worn and ill. "I am glad to see you here, my Lord Ellenborough, shouted Hone. "I know what you are come here for; I know what you want." "I am come to do justice," replied Lord Ellenborough; " my only 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 Hone was acquitted amid a scene of great excitement. Hone's trial is popularly supposed to have 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 six."

Romilly's Reforms.

The same 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 philosophy." 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 not know whether we are on our heads or our feet. If you repeal the Act which 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 the penalty of death for stealing 58. in a dwelling-house, there being no person therein —a law, your Lordships must know, on the severity of which and the application of it stands the security of every poor cottager who goes out to his daily labour. He, my Lords, can leave no one behind to watch his 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 labours, trusting that on his return he shall find all his property safe and unmolested. 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-in The Vicar of Wakefield-Miss Arabella Wilhelmina Amelia Skeggs and Lady Blarney talked "high life" at each other, Mr. Burchell rather rudely interjected at intervals the word 66 Fudge." Some such word might well have 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 his name-added ten capital felonies to our criminal code,

Fair Criticism.

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

of a book called The Stranger in Ireland sued a newspaper for holding it and the author up to ridicule and spoiling the sale. "The critic,' said Lord Ellenborough, "does a great service to the public who writes down any vapid or useless publication such as ought never to have appeared. He 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 such a purpose." Witness Lord Macaulay on Mr. Robert Montgomery's poetry. But oh! fallibility of human nature, how did the Chief Justice himself like ridicule? When Mathews, the inimitable 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, requiring his interposition, and declaring that since the "Clouds" of Aristophanes, in which Socrates was idiculed, there had not been such an outrage on public decency.


Some Anecdotes.

Espinasse, the reporter, tells us that the Chief Justice soon after taking his seat on the Bench 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, he paused-"My unfortunate client, my Lord," and again he stopped. Go on," said Lord Ellenborough, "so far as you have got the court is entirely with you."

[ocr errors]

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 hear you and shall do so on Friday, 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 England." "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 highest 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 Eilen borough had a great dielike to being "treated rhetorically." A counsel of the declamatory order, proceeding in this way, said: My Lord, it is written in the Book of Nature."

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

Lord E. "Please let me have the page, sir"-holding nis pen uplifted as if to 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 assumed an air of great solemnity, and, in addressing the jury, used several times such phrases as "I call Heaven to witness,"" As God is my judge," &c., 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!"

[ocr errors]

A storm of wind and rain had driven a regiment of Westminster volunteers to seek shelter in the hall. Lord Ellenborough'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 unmilitary speed. Perhaps the Chief Justice remembered the awkward squad, and was not sorry to pay off old scores. E. M.

[ocr errors]


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 not usually met with save in technical anatomical treatises. If, however, for the mere student, Dr. Mott occasionally proves too much, his pages will be of undoubted use to the teacher of voice production.

The Chairman's Manual, by Mesere. Gurdon Palin and Ernest Martin (Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Limited), is a guide to the management of meetings in general and of meetings of local authorities, with separate and complete treatment of the meetings of public companies. 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 Messrs. Gee and Co. The Promotion and Accounts of a Private Limited Company, by M. Webster Jenkinson, which begins with a 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 with Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement and some of the steps in a company liquidation. The tables can also be had in map form suitable for hanging up in the office.

The Law Quarterly Review for July contains articles on Mr. Pike'sa Latest Year Book, by W. S. Holdsworth, 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 Persons, 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.; Recovery, also Extinguishment of Rentchargee, by W. Strachan; and The Origin of the Petty Jury, by Charles L. Wells.


Ranking, Spicer, and Pegler on Mercantile Law. H. Foulks Lynch and Co., 9, Fenchurch-street, E C. Price 10s. 6d. net.

Leake in Cmtracts. Sixth Edition. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-'ane. Price 328.

Rastorgcueff on the Legal Position of English Companies in Russia. Jordan and Sons Limited, 116 and 117, Chancery-lane, W.C. Price 2e. 6d. net.


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 have necessarily 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 larder, 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 ie, 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 regulations. The Continental abattoir has much to teach us. The statement of the Mayor of Worcester as to the insanitary condition of slaughter-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 cure 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 drafted without unnecessary delay.

[ocr errors]

a re

one of

THE Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill presented by Mr. EDMUND HARVEY is the outcome of the labours 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 consideration of its proposals so that this vexed question may be the subject cf some sort of settlement. The Bill contains some fifteen clauses, and its main objects are to make the council schools 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 direct provision made to ensure equality 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 nomination 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.

Another clause 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 a definite time must be allotted. Where voluntary schools are transferred 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 determination by the Board of Education of any question arising 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.

THE Trustees (Bodies Corporate) Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Lords by Lord AVEBURY and read a second time confers 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 that 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 the 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 iesue probate to a corporate body which 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. If 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 enjoys perpetual succession. Further, the Bill proposes to empower an officer of the corporation appointed by it to take all necessary oaths, make affidavite, give personal attendance at any court, 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 transact all necessary business in connection with a trust estate of which his company is an executor or trustee. Moreover, the proposals for permitting the trust funds to be invested in the securities and capital of the trustee corporation constitute a very dangerous situation, 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.


WE have not infrequently directed attention to the inaccuracy of the 8 tatement that the veto of the Crown has become obsolete by desuetude, or has become, to use the words of an eminent jurist, "as dead as Queen Anne," by whom it was last exercised, and shown that in strictness this expression, though a convenient form of description for all practical purposes, cannot be regarded as a correct enunciation of the law. This view finds a somewhat remarkable corroboration in the following passages from speeches 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. Ear Granville, in opposing the contention of Lord Lyndhurst that the

prerogative of creating life as distinct from hereditary peerages had become obsolete by desuetude, said: "If such unlearned lips as mine may be allowed to cite legal maxims, 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, and 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 exerc ised 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 cannot become law. Upon every occasion the answer may be La Reine le veult or La Reine s'avisera."

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 cases 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 Rufus 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 which 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 prevailed extensively in the constituency. I would remind the House that when the judges do report that 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 in 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.

LORD HALSBURY, speaking in the House of Lords on the 13th inst., enunciated 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 absolute 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 therefore 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 case it should still continue to be a Bill which ought not to pass. If, after all the amendments had been introduced which could be introduced, any of their Lordships should conscientiously believe that the Bill ought not to pass, they would still have the power to vote for its rejection, and it would be their

duty to assert that power, and he would not scruple to exercise his right." Lord Wharncliffe in the same debate said he would vote for 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 useless. The Duke of Wellington quoted a remark made by Lord Wharncliffe in the debates on the Reform Bill of 1831: "Let him remind his noble friend of what he 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 was 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 ?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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 Lords 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 rise to discussions in both Houses, and it is certain that 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."

[ocr errors]

The report stage of the Parliament Bill was taken in the House of Lords on the 13th inst. Only two additional changes were made. On 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 Bille 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 hope that the House would adhere to it. The Earl of Halsbury stated that he would not undertake to vote for the third reading of the Bill. The third reading was fixed for the 20th inst.

In the House of Commone, Sir E. Grey, in reply to Major AnstrutherGray, 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 should not be kept in prison without trial, and that particulars of the charge against her should be furnished, and to urge the desirability 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-phthisical. If the public schools had swimming baths they would do more to prevent phthisis than anything 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 children would

« EelmineJätka »