become expert swimmere. By spending money in this way they would get a uniform development of the whole body. Mr. Trevelyan said no one regretted the fact that the Holmes Circular was circulated more than his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Education, and himself. They were sorry that an entirely false impression had been created by its publication, and they deeply regretted the soreness which it had quite naturally aroused in the minds of the teachers. It was impossible for anyone acquainted with the policy and action of the department to argue that in the appointment of inspectors elementary school teachers or people of humble origin were barred. He quite agreed that the teachers must have their chance of being made inspectors, but it had been said that, only teachers should be appointed to that position. The policy of the department, however, is to open it to all. To his mind one of the worst dangers possible for democracy and progressive legislation is that there should be a campaign in this country against retaining for the Civil Service men of all classes who had the highest educa. tion. The line of advance must be to widen the universities of the country to all classes of the people. Even at present people of humble origin were carrying away most of the prizes at the universities. Concluding, he asked the House to judge the right hon. gentleman not by one single unfortunate publication, but by the real value of the whole of his administration during the past three years.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord Southwark moved the second reading of the Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Bill, the object of which, he explained, was to assimilate the law of Scotland with that of England and Ireland, by providing that the whole estate, if under £500, should go to the widow of an intestate dying without issue. The second reading was agreed to.

The Protection of Animals Bill, which has passed the House of Commons, was read a second time.

The House of Commons was again in committee on the National Insurance Bill. There was a long discussion on the question whether "sickness benefit" should commence on the fourth day of disablement, as proposed by the Government, or on the first day, as suggested by Mr. Goulding. An amendment by Mr. Goulding on the point was defeated by a majority of forty. Mr. Lloyd George promised to insert words which would give medical as well as maternity benefit to the insured wife of an insured person. The Government accepted an amendment giving sickness and disablement benefit to insured persons under the age of sixteen, and providing that at the age of seventy the right to sickness, disablement, and additional benefits should cease.

Captain Murray asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that drivers of motor vehicles in London not infrequently open the cut-out and allow the exhaust gases to escape without first passing through the silencer; and whether, in view of the noise caused by this practice, he can suggest steps to bring it to an end.-Mr. Churchill: I am sorry to say that the facts are as stated, and that some motorists are so grossly inconsiderate as to drive in London with open cut-outs. Motor-cabs licensed in the Metropolitan Police district are absolutely prohibited from using cut-outs, but I have no power to make regulations for motor vehicles generally either in London or elsewhere.

Viscount Wolmer asked the Home Secretary how many persons had been released from prison during his tenure of office at his special order, and how many of these bad subsequently been reconvicted.Mr. Churchill: The total number of persons to whom remission of imprisonment was granted between Feb. 1910 and the present date, a period of about eighteen months, was 395. The total for the year 1909 was 322, and the average for a period of eighteen months during the years 1907 to 1909 was 432. It must be remembered that these figures include a large number of remissions granted on medical grounds and on other grounds in no way affecting the propriety of the conviction or sentence. I have no information as to the number reconvicted. Except in the case of persons convicted while on licence, under the Penal Servitude Acts, convictions are not reported

to me.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Lord Eversley's Bill to simplify the law relating to the proof of public rights of way passed through committee with some slight amendments.

The Lord Chancellor said he was sorry that the County Courts Bill continued to drag on, but owing to the absence of Lord Halsbury he had no option but to postpone taking it until Tuesday next.

In the House of Lords, on Wednesday, the Earl of Halsbury asked the Lord Chancellor whether he could give the House any information as to the steps which His Majesty's Government had in contemplation for utilising the labours of the Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts, and whether their recomendations for the improvement of the Land Registry would be carried out with a view to the extension of the system.-The Lord Chancellor said the country owed a great debt of gratitude to the members of the Royal Commission, who had investigated a most intricate and difficult matter relating to the subject of land transfer. The report of the commission was of great value, and he had practically got into shape a Bill for the purpose of giving legislative effect to the substance of their recommendations, and which, he boped, would be presented to Parliament as soon as possible. The present condition of the law in regard to the title of landed property and its transference was little short of a scandal. It was almost unique, considered from the point of view of obscurity and costliness. It was impossible to say with precision what the present

system cost those interested in land, but a very high authority had estimated that, apart from stamps and Government duties, the solicitors' costs and charges out of pocket in relation to the transference of landed property, amounted to about £4,000,000 a year. He believed that this was within the mark. The people who suffered were primarily the landowners and the purchasers of land. It was a clog upon landed property, and came especially hard upon poor people who desired to purchase their houses or small pieces of land. It was rather difficult for those who desired to encourage the acquisition of land by large numbers of people to bring public opinion to bear upon the matter, owing to the extreme complexity and technical character of the subject. There was also the opposition of vested interests concerned in the maintenance of the present condition of affaire, and the aversion to learning a new system, which fortunately, or unfortunately, was a characteristic of the Legal Profession. For the evils now existing he believed it was possible to find a remedy. The Government might set up registries all over England, under which not the deede, but the actual ownership or right of possession, could be recorded, together with all other rights attaching to the land, and the Government could offer to any purchaser a guarantee of the title which he acquired. A system of this kind was in existence in Australia and New Zealand, and it had been partially set up in London, but its extension had been opposed by the Legal Profession. The Royal Commission was appointed at the instance of the Law Society, and undoubtedly it was hoped that it would condemn the registration of title. This the commission had not done, but had recommended the gradual extension of the compulsory registration of title after sufficient experience had been obtained of its working. The Earl of Halsbury remarked that the great blot on the present system of land transfer was that there was no finality. A fresh investigation of title was necessitated by every transfer of land.— Viscount Haldane pointed out that land transfer was not altogether so simple a matter in this country as it was in Australia and New Zealand. The question of boundaries formed the basis of considerable difficulty here. It was a matter for congratulation that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Halsbury were agreed upon principle.-Viscount St. Aldwyn, who was the chairman of the Royal Commission, said the success of the labours of that body was due to the valuable assistance received from the Legal Profession. They had been able to arrive at a unanimous report on this very complicated subject. He was glad to hear that the report was likely to be of some use to the noble earl on the Woolsack in the Bill he proposed to introduce. What they wanted in this matter was finality. He hoped something would be done to utilise the new system of land valuation under the Finance Act 1909 so as to work with the land registries.-The Lord Chancellor said the suggestion made by Viscount St. Aldwyn that registration of title might be worked as part of the system of valuation was well worthy of consideration. He would certainly call the attention of those responsible for the finances of this country to it, with a view to their advancing a good system of that kind.

The report of amendments to the Rights of Way Bill was received.

In the House of Commons, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, Mr. Hodge said that by a recent decision of the House of Lords the taxi-cab drivers had been ruled out of the benefits of the Act; and the object of this Bill was to bring them within those benefits. A taxi-cab driver was unquestionably a workman in the real sense of the term.-Leave was given, and the Bill was brought in and read a first time.

Mr. Newman asked the Prime Minister whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce this session any legislation founded on the report of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace.-Mr. Asquith: No, sir. No legislation is required to carry the recommendations of the Royal Commission into effect. Mr. J. Pease, replying to Mr. Snowden, said twenty-one magistrates had been appointed to the borough Bench at Blackburn since Jan. 1906; eight were Liberals, one a Conservative, and three representatives of Labour. He had no information as to the politics of the nine others, who were appointed in 1906. As regarded the Bench as a whole, he understood that, so far as was known, there were twenty-six Liberals, thirty-two Conservatives, six Labour representatives, and one Nationalist.

The House went into committee on the National Insurance Bill, Mr. Emmott in the chair, and having finished with clause 10, which relates to reduced rates of benefits where contributions were in arrear, proceeded to consider clause 11, which deals with insured persons who are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 and the Employers' Liability Act 1880, or under common law. The clause provides that no sickness or disablement benefit shall be paid to such persons if their compensation under those Acts equals, or exceeds, the amount of the benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled under the Bill. If the amount of their compensation is less than the benefits, then they shall be paid the balance, so as to make the compensation equal the benefits.-Mr. J. Ward moved to postpone the clause. It would be absurd, he said, to determine the way in which compensation should be paid to persons insured under the Bill until the committee knew the whole of the conditions to be provided against in the other sections of the Bill. -Mr. Holt supported the postponement of the clause, which would enable the promoters of the Bill to consider whether they could not bring up another clause abolishing workmen's compensation altogether, and making employers pay an increased contribution, which would cover their responsibility in regard to that compensation and their obligations in respect to the Bill.-Mr. Lloyd George said it would be impossible to introduce such a gigantic scheme into the Bill, which

had not been altogether free from difficulties even from his own side of the House, and if he were to add insurance against accidents be could not see any prospect of the Bill getting through this side of Christmas. There were several important amendments the Government proposed to move to the clause, and he thought it would be well for the committee to see first what it would then be like.-Sir F. Banbury declared that the clause ought to be postponed until it was known what benefits were going to be received-On a division, the motion to postpone clause 11 was rejected by 197 to 124, a majority of seventy-three.

The following is the text of the Motor Traffic (Street Noises) Bill which Captain Murray has introduced to amend the law in respect of warning instruments on motor vehicles: 1. (1) The Local Govern ment Board may, by regulations made under sect. 6 of the Locomotives on Highways Act 1896, prohibit or restrict the use by drivers of motor cars within any special areas of any particular kind of warning instruments, and prescribe the kind of instruments to be carried and used as warning instruments on motor-cars during any particular hours. (2) For the purposes of this provision the expression "warning instrument means the instrument capable of giving warning of the approach or potion of the motor-car required to be carried on a motor car under sect. 3 of the Locomotives on Highways Act 1896. 2. (1) This Act may be cited as the Motor Traffic (Street Noises) Act 1911, and shall be construed as one with the Motor Car Acts 1896 and 1903, (2) This Act shall not extend to Ireland.

FOREIGN LAW.

SUCCESSION OF A FOREIGNER IN FRANCE. WE have received the following letter:

Dear Sir,-May I communicate to you a very interesting decision on a point of international law, rendered by the French Court of Appeal of Aix on the 8th July of this year, and relating to the succession of a foreigner in our country?

The points at issue were the following:

A Dutchman called Van Manen, domiciled in Holland, bad real and personal property at La Garde, near Toulon. The real property was composed of freehold land, together with a dwelling-house. The personal property, on the other hand, consisted of furniture and different articles belonging to the dwelling house. Van Manen died on the 8th Aug. 1907 at La Garde (France), leaving two grandsons, under age, of Dutch nationality.

The question was to determine which law should apply to his estate-French law or Dutch law.

The tribunal of Toulon decided on the 26th Oct. 1909 that the law of the country where the real and personal property was situated applied; that the two grandsons, as Van Manen's heirs, were entitled to a certain part (one-half) of the estate, called in French law reserve," and that the legacies were subject to this "reserve."

On appeal, the court of Aix modified this judgment on the following grounds:

When a foreigner dies in France leaving real and personal property there, it is necessary to distinguish between the two kinds of property. In fact two different estates have to be considered, the real estate and the personal estate. Real estate is governed by the law of the country where it is situated (art. 3 of the French Civil Code), and personal estate pursuant to the national status of the deceased. Therefore French judges are only competent with regard to his real estate. The judgment of the tribunal of Toulon was accordingly wrong in deciding that the heirs were entitled to the half of the personal and real estate. It exceeded its powers. It is allowed to consider the reserve" for the real estate only, and is not competent to judge on all questions relating to personal estate, which must be left to the competence of the Dutch courts. I am, &c., P. GIDE, Avocat à la Cour d'Appel, and of Lincoln's inn, barrister-at-law. 32, Rue La Fontaine, Paris XVI.

A LADY who has visited the Reformatory Prison for Women at South Framingham, near Boston, U S.A., gives an attractive account of it The prison, managed by Mrs. Morton, is "an excellent example of an institution conducted on the lines laid down by criminologists." It stands in the midst of fields which are cultivated by a part of the convict population. There are no walls around the building, nor is it watched by guards. "A broad avenue leads to the entrance, where

. . I was welcomed by neat white-clad attendants, and shown into a charming room looking out upon a lovely garden. I passed through corridors, unmolested by the sound of keys grating in locks, from this room to the dining-rooms, dormitories, recreation and workrooms." Prisoners entering the reformatory are carefully examined by a physician of their own sex, and the selected ones are passed into one of the work-rooms to learn the trade they are considered best suited to. When tasks are finished for the day prisoners are allowed either to work for themselves or to read books from the library. An

unskilled prisoner "receives instruction in some manual work, and the payment for her labour is put aside and handed over to her on her release, with the small outfit she has prepared and sewed during detention." A series of trifling rewards encourage moral improvement, and those who show good conduct during the first two months "are transferred to the first class with its accompanying privileges, a better and more spacious cell, a smart collar, the right to correspond with friends and to receive visitors more frequently, to have an hour's recreation in company with other good-conduct prisoners, and to receive relatives in a pretty sitting-room, instead of in the common visitors' room." Sentences are of the indeterminate kind. Release is granted as soon as the directress considers a prisoner competent to earn an honest living, but discharged women are not left to their own devices. A commission of ladies finds employ ment for them and keeps in close touch with them during a considerable period.

THE same correspondent writes a very interesting account of what is known as the George Junior Republic, at Freeville, near Ithaca. It is a species of reformatory founded on his estate at Freeville, by Mr. George, "for unruly and turbulent boys who are beyond their parents' control." Mr. George began by inviting a hundred such lada to his country home, but "soon realised that however easy it is to exercise a beneficial influence on one or two boys by adopting gentle methods, it is extremely difficult to manage hundreds in this way." Then he conceived the notion of making his charges look after each other. A miniature republic was founded, for which the lads, in their capacity of citizens, were obliged to make a complete set of laws.

The republic proved a great success, the temporary colony became a permanent one capable of reforming wild, unruly boys, who if allowed to wander about the streets would possibly have been ruined. A recent census of the republic showed that it possessed 150 citizens, eighty-two boys and sixty-eight girla, 300 acres of land, twenty-four buildings, a chapel, prison, school, and court of justice.

The organisation of the colony is that of a town on a small scale. Agriculture is the chief industry, but the arts and crafts proper to a civilised community are fostered, and the colony not only coins its own money, but possesses "a bank run by the boys themselves, where the colonists can deposit their savings." The republic has solved the problem of government by both sexes, for the parliament is composed of boys and girle, who decree the holidays, organise the games, and provide for public expenditure, revenue, and taxes. The republic has been in existence now for about fifteen years, and most of the ex-colonists are said to turn out well. No children under twelve are admitted, and they stay for some three years.

LITTLE by little it is interesting to note that the authorities are being compelled to face the facts of modern locomotion and to alter their regulations accordingly. The proposal for raising the speed limit for motors in the London County Council parks is another instance of this, and there has been the analogous case of a speed limit being raised in a rural area once subjected to the same. Eight miles an hour is a ridiculous speed for the modern motor with its ample brake power, and it is exceeded by light and brakeless dogcarts drawn by young and comparatively uncontrolled horses every day. It is further recognised that there is great confusion caused by an eight miles per hour limit in London County Council parks, and by the twelve (lately ten) miles per hour in the Royal parks. It is even more absurd to subject bicycles and tricycles to such a funereal speed. The Home Cffice is understood to be willing to approve the alteration.

COUNTY OF LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. GUARDIANS OF PARISH OF PADDINGTON (apps.) v. GUARDIANS OF PARISH OF ST. MATTHEW, BETHNAL GREEN (resps.). Poor Law-Settlement-Married Woman deserted by Husband-Capacity to acquire Settlement of her own-Sufficiency of Grounds of RemovalPoor Removal Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 55), s. 3-Poor Law Amendment Act 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 113), 8. 17-Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61), 88. 34, 35. THIS appeal, which was heard on the 14th inst., was against an order of Mr. H. C. Biron, a metropolitan magistrate, adjudicating the parish of settlement of Hetty Gosling (alias Theobald), aged forty-one years. and her child Walter-paupers chargeable to the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green-to be the parish of Paddington, and ordering the removal of the paupers to the parish of Paddington.

The notice of chargeability and grounds of removal accompanying the order of the magistrate were in the following form: "Parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green. -To the Guardians of the Parish of Paddington in the county of London.-I, the undersigned, being the clerk to the Guardians of the Parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green,

in the county of London, do hereby give you notice that Hetty Gosling (alias Theobald), aged forty-one years, now residing at the workhouse, Waterloo-road, in the said parish, has with her child Walter, aged twelve years, become and now is actually chargeable to, and is receiving relief from, the said parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, and that an order under the hand and seal of one of the magistrates of the police-courts of the metropolis has been obtained for their removal to your said parish, as the place of their last legal settlement. And I do also give you notice that the following are the grounds of the said removal, including the particulars of the settlement relied upon by us in support thereof: For that the said paupers, who have come to inhabit, and are now inhabiting, in the said parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, not having gained a legal settlement here, nor produced a certificate acknowledging a settlement elsewhere, nor become irremovable by any provision of the law, are now actually chargeable to, and receiving relief from, the said parish; that prior to 1910 the said Hetty Gosling (alias Theobald) resided for the term of three years at 205, Droupestreet; 720, Harrow-road; and elsewhere in the parish of Paddington, in such manner and under such circumstances, in each of such years, as would in accordance with the several statutes in that behalf render her irremovable. And you are further required to take notice that unless application be made for a copy of the depositions upon which such order has been granted, or unless notice of appeal against the said order be received by us within twenty-one days from the sending hereof, the said paupers will be removed to your said parish in pursuance of the said order, and no appeal against such order will afterwards be allowed. As witness my hand this Sth Oct. 1910.-D. THOMAS, Clerk to the Guardians of the Parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, in the County of London." The grounds of appeal were (inter alia) as follows: That the order of removal and also the notice of chargeability and grounds of removal accompanying the same were bad and defective on the face thereof; that the said Hetty Gosling (alias Theobald) was a married woman, but that the order did not state this fact; that the said child Walter was the illegitimate child of Hetty Gosling, but that the order did not state this fact; that Hetty Gosling was not last legally settled in the parish of Paddington; that Hetty Gosling never acquired a status of irremovability in the parish of Paddington; that Hetty Gosling was in the year 1895, being then a spinster, married to one Arthur Gosling; that Arthur Gosling was still alive; that Arthur Goeling was not last legally settled in the parish of Paddington; and that Arthur Gosling never acquired a status of irremovatility or a legal settlement in the parish of Paddington. The following facts were agreed to by the parties: That Hetty Gosling and her illegitimate child Walter were at the date of the order of removal, and were still legally chargeable to the guardians of the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, and were removable therefrom according to law; that Hetty Gosling was the lawful wie of Arthur Gosling; that Hetty and Arthur Gosling resided together from their marriage in June 1895 until about April 1897; that Hetty and Arthur Gosling had not resided together since about April 1897; that Arthur Goeling was last legally settled in the parish of Portslade-by-Sea, in the Steyning Union, in the county of Sussex; that Hetty Gosling cohabited and resided in various parishes with one Henry Theobald from about April 1897 until about Feb. 1909; that Hetty Gosling and Henry Theobald cohabited and resided together continuously in the parish of Paddington from about Oct. 1902 until Feb. 1909 without receiving relief therefrom; and that the child Walter named in the order of removal was the illegitimate child of Hetty Gosling, and was born on the 11th Feb. 1898 in Shoreditch, and that he thereafter resided with his mother except that he was a patient in the Great Ormondstreet hospital for children from the 29th May 1905 to the 1st June 1905. from the 26th Jan. 1907 to the 6th Feb. 1907, and from the 23rd Feb. 1907 to the 23rd March 1907.

Sect. 3 of the Pocr Removal Act 1861 (amended by sect. 17 of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1866) provides as follows: "Where a married woman shall have been or shall be deserted by her husband, and shall after his desertion reside for one year in such manner as would, if she were a widow, render her exempt from removal, she shall not be liable to be removed from the parish wherein she shall be resident, unless her husband return to cohabit with her." Sect. 34 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act 1876 provides that "Where any person shall have resided for the term of three years in any parish, in such manner and under such circumstances in eich of such years as would in accordance with the several statutes in that behalf render him irremovable, he shall be deemed to be settled therein until he shall acquire a settlement in tome other parish by a like residence or otherwise "'; and eect. 35 of the same Act provides that No person shall be deemed to have derived a settlement from any other person, whether by parentage, estate, or otherwise, except in the case of a wife from her Lusband, and in the case of a child under the age of sixteen, which child shall take the settlement of its father or of its widowed mother, as the case may be, up to that age, and shall retain the settlement so Laken until it shall acquire another. . .

The respondents contended in the first instance that the pauper Hetty Goeling was "deserted" by her husband in April 1897 within the meaning of sect. 3 of the Poor Removal Act 1861. There was a conflict of evidence upon this point, and the same was eventually decided in favour of the respondents.

Macmorran, K.C. and W. L. L. Bell (instructed by Alfred Double and Sons), for the respondents, then contended that Hetty Gosling, being a deserted wife, became irremovable from the parish of Paddington by reason of the provisions of sec. 3 of the Poor Removal Act 1861 (as

amended by sect. 17 of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1866), and, further, that as she resided there from Oct. 1902 to Feb. 1909 she became settled there by virtue of sect. 34 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act 1876. In Reg. v. Cookham Union (1882, 9 Q. B. Div. 522) Field, J. said: "The object of the Act [the Poor Removal Act 1861] is this, that, where a husband has by his desertion of her reduced the wife to the condition of a feme sole, he shall not be deprived of the advantage of gaining a settlement as a feme sole, or be liable to be removed to the place of settlement of a husband who has treated her in that way.' This passage was quoted with approval by Vaughan Williams, LJ. in Southwark Union v. City of London Union (94 L. T. Rep. 763; (1906) 2 K. B. 112); and Moulton, L.J. in the latter case said: "I think the question whether the desertion was rightful or wrongful has nothing to do with the matter. If we held otherwise, it would make the right of the married woman to a settlement or a status of irremovability, as the case might be, depend upon the rights and wrong? of a matrimonial quarrel which might have taken place years before." All these judges accordingly recognised that a deserted married woman could acquire a settlement. Moreover, in Woolwich Union v. Fulham Union (1907) A. C. 255) Lord Loreburn, L.C. said: "To my mind, sect. 34 of the Act of 1876 was intended to say, and did say, that all persons, of whatever age and whether legitimate or not, who had a status of irremovability should also be endowed with a settlement." They also referred to the case of Reg. v. Maidstone Union (1880, 41 L. T. Rep. 586; 5 Q. B. Div. 31).

Rawlinson, K C. and Herbert Davey (instructed by Collins and Co.); for the appellants, said that in no case hitherto had it been held that a deserted wife could gain a settlement apart from her husband. The provision of sect. 35 of the Act of 1876 was an overriding provision showing that a wife was always to take the settlement of her husband. Moreover, in the case of Parish Council of Rutherglen v. Parish Council of Glasgow (1902) A. C. 360) it was expressly decided that a deserted married woman could not get a settlement. Loid Brampton said: "It is, in my opinion, against every principle of the la w affecting parish relief, both in England and in Scotland, to recognise the ability of a married woman having a living husband, from whom she has derived a settlement in the county in which she is residing, and which settlement he still retains, to abandon that settlement and gain a new and independent settlement in her own right-and for herself orly-for certainly neither husband nor children could share it with her. Not a single judgment can be cited in which prior to the present case such a settlement has been directly held to be valid, either in England or in Scotland. No statute can be found to sanction it, and we have been referred to no work of authority which declares the recognition of the few dicta and, as I think, erroneous opinions which have been called to our attention." And Lord Lindley said: "Gray v. Fowlie (1847, 9 D. 811), decided by the Court of Session, is a clear and unmistakable decision that by the law of Scotland a deserted wife cannot, while her husband is alive, acquire by residence an independent settlement of her own. The law of England is clearly the same: (see Burn's Justice of the Peace, title 'Poor," chap. 19, s. 3, vol. 4, p. 322, ed. 1869). As in England, so in Scotland, the husband's settlement, if he has one, is his wife's." Lord Loreburn, in the case of Woolwich Union v. Fulham Union, was dealing with children only, not with married women. Counsel further contended that the notice of chargeability and grounds of removal were bad and defective on the face of them as they did not show that Hetty Goeling was a married woman and that her child Walter was illegitimate-facts of the utmost materiality in determining the settlement of the paupers.

Macmorran, K.C. said that, as regards the defective character of the notice of chargeability and the grounds of removal, it was clear from the agreed statement of facts that no injury was done to the appellants and that the point was purely technical. The defect could be cured under sect. 4 of the Poor Law Procedure Act 1848. With regard to the case of Parish Council of Rutherglen v. Parish Council of Glasgow, that was a Scotch case, and the Scotch statutes were materially different from the English.

Mr. LOVELAND LOVELAND, K.C. (deputy-chairman), in giving the judgment of the court, said that with regard to the alleged defects in the notice of chargeability and grounds of removal, although they might have been badly drawn, he did not think at the end of a case, or, indeed, at any time in the case, that point should be taken. The admitted facts, agreed on before the parties came to the court, showed that Hetty Gosling was the wife of Arthur Gosling, that she became separated from him, and that her child Walter was illegitimate. Bat for the admitted facts the point might have been a strong one, but under the circumstances it would not influence the court. With regard to the main point, it was admitted that there was no authority of the High Court upon the point, but there were the statements in the Scotch case that had been referred to, although, of course, they did not bind the court. The court were of opinion that a married woman. could not acquire a settlement in her own right. The appeal must accordingly be allowed and the order quashed.

Brentford, Friday, at 10

Bridgend, Thursday and Friday
Bridlington, Monday

Brighton, Thursday (R. By) and
Friday (J.S. at 11.30), at 10
Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wed-
nesday, and Thursday, at 10;
Friday (By), at 11.
Bromsgrove, Monday, at 10

Burnley, Friday (R. By), at 10.30 Cambridge, Tuesday, at 11; Wednesday, at 10

Cheltenham, Thursday and Friday

Clerkenwell.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday

Cockermouth, Friday, at 9.30
Congleton. Tuesday, at 10

Crewe, Wednesday, at 10

Darwen, Friday, at 10

Derby, Wednesday, at 10; Thurs

day (J.S. & A.O.), at 10.30

Dereham, Tuesday, at 10
Dover, Wednesday, at 10
Durham, Tuesday (R. By)

Eastbourne, Tuesday (R. By), at 2.30

Edmonton, Thursday, at 10
Epsom, Wednesday

Evesham, Saturday, at 10
Folkestone, Tuesday, at 10

Gainsborough, Wednesday, at 10
Glossop, Wednesday, at 10
Grantham, Friday, at 10.30
Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30

Halifax, Tuesday and Friday, at 9.30

Hastings. Monday

Hayward's Heath, Thursday

Hexham, Friday, at 10

Holywell, Wednesday

Howden, Wednesday

Huddersfield, Thursday

Hythe, Monday, at 12

Ilkeston, Tuesday, at 10; Friday
(J.S. & A.O.), at 11
Kettering, Tuesday, at 10
Kidderminster. Tuesday, at 9
Kingsbridge. Monday, at 10.30
Kingston-on-Thames. Friday
Leeds. Monday (J.S. & A.O.),
Wednesday. Thursday (J.S. &
A.O.), and Friday, at 10

Leck, Monday, at 9.30
Leicester. Tuesday,

Wednesday,

and Thursday. at 10; Saturday, at 9.30

Liverpool, Monday (By at 11), Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday (B., A., & W.C.), at

10

Llangollen Monday
Manchester, Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, and Friday, at 10
Market Rasen, Monday, at 12
Melton Mowbray, Friday, at 10
Middlesbrough, Monday, and Wed-
nesday (C.S.), at 9.30
Mildenhall, Monday
Newcastle-on-Tyne, Thursday (R.
By), at 10

Newport (I. of W.), Wednesday, at 10

Northampton, Wednesday, at 10 North Walsham, Thursday, at 1 Northwich, Thursday, at 10 Nottingham, Wednesday, at

10;

Friday (A.O. at 10, By at 12) Petersfield, Monday, at 10.15 Pocklington, Tuesday Portsmouth, Thursday (C.S.), at 10.30

Preston, Tuesday, at 9.30

Reading, Thursday (R. By at 2),

at 10

Redditch, Friday, at 10
Rhyl, Friday

Rugby, Thursday, at 10
Ruthin, Tuesday

Saffron Walden, Thursday, at 11
St. Albans, Monday, at 10
Salford Wednesday
Sheerness, Thursday, at 10
Sheffield, Thursday (By at 2) and
Friday, at 10

Shoreditch, Tuesday and Thursday

Sittingbourne, Friday, at 10.30
Sleaford, Thursday, at 10
Southampton, Tuesday, at 10;
Wednesday (R. By), at 12
Southport, Tuesday, at 10
Southwark, Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30
Stockton-on-Tees.* Tuesday (By at
11) and Thursday (C.S.), at 9.30
Stourbridge, Wednesday and
Thursday, at 10
Stroud, Tuesday

Sunderland, Thursday (R. By)
Swansea, Monday, Tuesday, and
Wednesday
Tewkesbury, Monday
Totnes, Tuesday, at 10.30
Uppingham, Monday, at 2
Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10
Walsall, Wednesday (J.S.)
Wandsworth, Monday and Tues-
day

Watford, Thursday (J.S.), at 9.30
Watton, Monday, at 1
Wellingborough, Monday, at 10
Westbromwich, Tuesday (J.S.)
and Friday

West London (Brompton). Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 Westminster, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Thursday, and Friday Whitechapel, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday Whitehaven, Thursday, at 9.30 Winchcomb, Wednesday Wolverhampton, Monday and Thursday

(J.S.)

Wood Green, Monday, at 10.30 Woodstock, Friday, at 11.30 Wooler, Wednesday, at 10 Woolwich, Wednesday, at 10.30. Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary.

Lincoln, Tuesday, at 10

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

GROTIUS, AND THE MOVEMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE.

By R. WALTON MOORE, President of the Virginia Bar Association, 1910, in Case and Comment.

THAT Hugo Grotius filled a very large space in the eye of his contemporaries is beyond question. Those of his own and succeeding generations best qualified to judge are almost unanimous in ranking him as one of the foremost characters of modern history. But it seems to be beyond question also that, with the lapse of time, he has come to be regarded vaguely-perhaps even rather vaguely by the members of that Profession of whose glory his career is a part.

It is because he is worthy of very definite remembrance, and never more so than in our day, that I am now venturing to speak briefly of his career and of the effect of his work on the movement for international peace.

He was born in Holland in 1583. He came upon the scene when armed conflict was so constant and universal as to seem inevitable. There was not an hour in his life when Europe was free from it.

His Education.

From his youth he was sc conspicuous that the record of his life, which has come down to us, is very complete, and the figure which it presents very distinct. There even survive portraits of him depicting, as the historian Motley says, a man "of singular personal beauty, tall, brown haired, straight featured, with a delicate aquiline nose and piercing dark blue eyes." His mental endowment was quite as striking. There have been other minds as vigorous and versatile, but few more so, and there has hardly been a mind more precocious. The story of his youthful achievements would be incredible without the convincing evidence which is supplied from many Entering the University of Leyden at the age of eleven, he attracted the attention and won the friendship of the leading men of the faculty, one of whom at least was a scholar who is not yet forgotten. It was quickly predicted that he would rival, if not excel, that other remarkable Hollander, Erasmus, the memory of whose extraordinary gifts and learning was then fresh.

Becomes a Lawyer.

sources.

When he received his degree at the age of fifteen, his powers were mature, his general education as ample as the university could efford, and his preparation complete for the Profession which he had selected. In making that selection he followed the example of his father and grandfather, both of whom were lawyers.

Confident and eager, his hands filled with early laurels, but stretched out for those more to be desired, he at once went to the front. He tried his first case in 1599, and at the age of seventeen he was in full practice before the courts of The Hague.

Diplomatic Service.

Meanwhile, just after his graduation, he had accompanied the leading statesman of his country, John of Barneveld, Advocate of Holland, on a diplomatic mission to Paris. There, while in his sixteenth year, he was welcomed to the brilliant circle of which Henry IV., gathering about him the most gifted intellects of France, was the chief. It was then that he received from the University of Orleans the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.

Authorship.

As a boy, a university student, and a young lawyer, his scholarly tastes and his talent for research and literature were displayed in a variety of original productions and translations. The critics comment upon the extent of his knowledge, which was that of an expert in many subjects, including astronomy and mathematics, upon the strength of his reasoning, and upon the elegance and animation of his style, which adorned whatever he wrote. Among his youthful writings was a history of the struggle of the Provinces with Spain. The States General of the Republic chose him over many others for this task when he was only twenty, and not offering for the appointment.

In the light of this recital, we do not wonder that an age when most men are barely standing on the threshold of the serious business of life, Grotius was spoken of as the miracle of Holland" and the "pride of Europe."

His reputation as a lawyer grew rapidly, and he was still very young when he was elevated to an office which, discarding its local name, we may think of as that of Attorney-General of Holland and Zealand. Already he had been engaged in great cases. One of these was of vital interest not only to his client, but to more than one nation, and started currents of thought and action perhaps unexampled in the annals of litigation. His client was the Dutch East India Company, which, in its commercial ventures, was forcibly opposed by the Portuguese Government by virtue of its prescriptive claim of dominion over the eastern seas. One of the vessels of the company, using force against force, had captured a rich Portuguese galleon in an encounter in the straits of Malacca. It was contended in Holland, in behalf of the Portuguese, that the company could not lawfully make such a capture, and the broad question was raised of the right of all to navigate and fish in the open seas without being limited or restricted by such claims as that of Portugal. The brief, so to speak, of Grotius on this question was prepared in 1604, when, as we would say, he had just attained his majority. The brief was not published, and the manuscript was not discovered until 1868, when it was found that one of the chapters of the brief was identical with the work entitled Mare Liberum, which was published by Grotius in 1608. The Mare Liberum was afterwards answered by the work entitled Mare Clausum, the author of which was none other than the famous lawyer John Selden, of the Inner Temple, London. The English were making, in respect to the northern seas, a claim similar to that of the Portuguese with respect to the eastern seas, and Grotius's argument applied as well to the one claim as the other. The proposition for which he stood was that the ocean is free to mankind for the purposes mentioned. This proposition is now conceded as a principle of international law, but it had not yet been conceded by England when, prior to the war of 1812, the British government exercised the right of searching vessels on the high seas. The proposition was, however, successfully urged by Great Britain in the Behring Sea arbitration of 1893 against the claim of the United States in respect to the Alaskan waters. Thus his employment as counsel led Grotius to a careful study of maritime law, which resulted in his argument in favour of a principle which was then considered novel, and which, reluctantly accepted by great nations, is at last in our time approved by all,

Adept in Maritime Law.

A master of maritime law, and a leader in that branch of his profession, it is not a mere fancy to suppose that Grotius was the adviser of the merchants and mariners of his country, whose memory lingers in the early history of America. They were the men who, seeking chances for colonisation and commerce, made the flag of the Netherlands as well known along our Atlantic sea board as that of England, and not at New Amsterdam alone, for the ships which they owned and manned were familiar sight as far south as the harbour at Jamestown, where the right of the Dutch to trade freely was secured by a statute of our colony. It was not in such a ship, however, but, as if the event must have an ominous circumstance, in a war vessel flying the same flag, that the first negroes were brought by his countrymen to Virginia.

A Foreign Mission.

In the flush of his labours and successes at the Bar, the public demand for his services began to draw Grotius away from his profession. He was sent by his government on a mission to England that had reference to the same question which was the subject of the Mare Liberum. So the lawyer and author entered the field of diplomacy. As in his youth he had impressed Frenchmen, so now, according to information which can be regarded as accurate-for letters remain from distinguished men with whom he came in contact -he stirred the admiration of Englishmen. This is significant evidence of his unusual personality, for his visit fell in that period when the English intellect was in its full flower-the period which would be always memorable had it produced only Shakespeare, Bacon, and Raleigh

Representative in the Assembly.

While still a busy lawyer, he was chosen to sit as a representative in the Assembly of the States of Holland, and afterwards as a representative in the Assembly of the States General of the Netherlands. Entering the field of statesmanship, he took his place as one of the leaders of the Dutch Republic beside his patron and friend, Barne veld.

Theological Controversy.

At thirty-five he was eminent as author, lawyer, diplomat, and statesman. His private life was stainless, his genius had brought renown to his country, and he had proved himself an efficient servant of Holland and the Republic. And yet it was then that his good fortune having reached its height, the ebbing of the tide set in. It was a time of theological controversy, and into that field also Grotius entered under the mandate which seemed to impose itself upon everyone of prominence. The issue in Holland was between the followers of Calvin and the followers of Arminius. The debate was carried on by those who reasoned interminably

"Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate.
Fixed fate, freewill, foreknowledge absolute."

Grotius 'was a friend and adherent of Arminius, who had been a professor in the University of Leyden. His views he put forward in essays, which, as those who have read them tell us, were marked by a conciliatory tone then most rare. It was in fact his tolerance-a sort of sweet reasonableness that marked all the workings of his mind-that brought on the crisis of his career. With Barneveld he was instrumental in having an edict enacted forbidding ministers to handle disputed dogmas. There was agitation. Popular disturbances took place. There was even rioting. In 1618 the authorities of the Republic, hostile to the cause which Barneveld and Grotius espoused, had them arrested and imprisoned. They lay in prison until the spring of the next year, when they were brought to trial at The Hague.

Trial and Conviction.

The court was made up of twenty-six persons, called commissioners, nominated by the States General. The defendants objected to the authority of the States General, claiming that they were amenable only to that of Holland. They objected to the jurisdiction of the court, claiming that it was illegally constituted, and they objected to its integrity, claiming that among its members were those who were their personal enemies. They objected to the statement of the charges, as we would say, to the indictment, a sample of the allega. tions being that "they were public disturbers of the tranquillity of the Republic," protesting that it should be more explicit in order that they might be advised of what they were really accused. All of their objections were overruled. They doubtless expected nothing else. They perhaps understood that the result been predetermined, the accusation had been framed in the most general language so that the discretion of the court might be untrammelled. They perhaps realised that they were in the midst of one of the long line of tragedies which ended only with those changes in criminal jurisprudence in later times which drew an impassable line of separation between the legislative and the judicial functions-such a tragedy as had for its victims the Athenian philosopher-such a tragedy as had the Divine Man for its central figure. They defended themselves with great ability and skill, Barneveld being tried first. Both were convicted. Grotius, upon being informed of the result, summarised the prosecution by declaring that he had been tried, convicted, and sentenced against all principles and forms of law.

Death of Barneveld.

It was on the 13th May 1619 that an officer visited the cell of Barneveld, who was confined apart from Grotius, to inform him that, according to the judgment of the court, he had only a few hours to

live. There was not then a more accomplished statesman in Europe than the man summoned to his death, or one more widely known. In the Netherlands there was no man more capable and patriotic, and none who had rendered such long and valuable service. He, next to William of Orange, deserved the gratitude of the people of the Dutch Republic, whose institutions the two men, labouring together, had raised and supported on the ruins of Spanish tyranny. His first inquiry of the officer was, "Have you heard whether Grotius is to die? When the officer could not tell him, Barneveld remarked that he would most deeply grieve if such were the the fact. "That great [rising light, Grotius. is still young." he said, "but a very wise and learned gentleman, devoted to his fatherland with all zeal, heart, and soul, and ready to stand up for her privileges, laws, and rights. As for me, I am an old and worn-out man. I have already done more than I was really able to do." In the early morning, after a night, as serene within his cell as under the stars without. Barneveld went to his execution. Among his last messages were words of farewell to Grotius.

Imprisonment.

Grotius's life was spared. His sentence was perpetual imprisonment and the confiscation of his property. Removed from The Hague to a castle near by, he was confined in two small rooms. For bodily exercise he spent a part of each day spinning a top which his jailer had allowed him to obtain. I again quote Motley, who describes his deportment in prison as a magnificent moral lesson: "And thus," says Motley," nearly two years wore away. Spinning his great top for exercise, soothing his active and prolific brain with Greek tragedy, with Flemish verse, with jurisprudence, history, and theology; creating, expanding, adorning, with the warmth of his vivid intellect, moving the world and doing good to his race from the depths of his stony sepulchre, Grotius arose to superior to his dcom, and took captivity captive." At the beginning he was in solitary confinement, and treated with rigour. Soon, however, the treatment was more lenient, and his wife was permitted to be with him. At last, with her aid, he made a romantic escape, concealed in a chest used for carrying books to and from the castle. He was transported in that way for some distance to a place where those waiting for him dressed him in the garb of a mason, with hod and trowel, and in that disguise he made his way southward, and finally to Paris.

Publishes his "Law of Nations."

A quarter of a century of his life still remained. He spent much of it in the service of the government of Sweden as its representative at the French Court. But before entering that service he published, in 1625, his work on the Law of Nations, which gives him his fame. It is interesting to know that this work, like the Mare Liberum, had its origin in his labours as counsel for the Dutch East India Company in connection with the case already mentioned. This has been made apparent by the comparatively recent discovery of his brief in that The brief, written when he was only twenty-one, simply foreshadows the greater work of his later years.

case.

Death in Exile.

Always yearning for his native land, he returned to Holland only to be sent into banishment. Towards the end, having severed his relations with Sweden, he started on a voyage in the direction of home. He was shipwrecked on the shores of the Baltic, and, travelling overland in an open vehicle in a heavy storm, reached the town of Rostock, weary and ill. There, among strangers, he died in 1645. In the unpretentious epitaph which he left he described himself as captive and exile.

A few miles from The Hague is the town of Delft. Delft was Grotius's birthplace, and there he now rests within the same church which contains the tomb of his compatriot, William of Orange.

De Jure Belli et Pacis.

It is because of his greatest work, which upon its publication was at once read and discussed throughout Europe, and which soon contributed to bring about, if indeed it did not inspire. the Peace of Westphalia, that Grotius is thought of as the pioneer and prophet of the modern development of the law of nations.

That law, like any other body of law, is, of course, the result of a process of evolution. The process up to the time of Grotius had, however, served only to produce what an American publicist has described as a chaos of opinion. Dealing with this crude and disorderly mass, Grotius wrote the De Jure Belli et Pacis.

Hallam, in his careful analysis, says: "The book may be considered as nearly original in its general platform as any work in an advanced stage of learning can be. No one had before gone to the foundations of international law so as to raise a complete and consistent superstructure; few had handled even separate parts or laid down any satisfactory rules concerning it." It is an exhaustive compilation of the views of statesmen, jurists, and philosophers, as well as everything in the way of precedent. But it is far more than thie. The work is an attempt to ascertain the principles which shonld control nations in their conduct towards each other, and which the author considered should guide the evolution of the law of that conduct.

Equality and Independence of Nations.

These principles he announced at the time when the knell of the world-empire idea was being sounded. Their steady application, as suggested at the outset, was conditioned upon the existence of the system of equal independent states. And their application has