« EelmineJätka »
LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE.
THE rapidity with which during recent years pioneer work has advanced in the colonies, and the consequent development of land, has brought into notice the desirability of considering whether the time has not arrived for some drastic amendments in the law relating to the qualifications of surveyors. Much importance is attached to the outcome of the work now being done by surveyors, and the future of some colonial area may largely depend on the judgment displayed in choosing the course of railways, bridges, and roads. There is at present a shortage of competent surveyors, and there is no definite standard as to what constitutes a competent surveyor, nor, again, is there an Imperial opening for a person who can be said to be a competent surveyor. In consequence of these defects and inconveniences, an effort has been made to arrive at some reciprocity within the Empire. It is being proposed that a common system of examinations should be arranged, and that surveyors who pass the very practical tests set them should be authorised to practise in one part of the Empire and, after a time of probation in another part, should be privileged to practise there when they have satisfied the examining authority as to their acquaintance with local surveying affairs, and with the law obtaining in that locality as to the survey, registration, and transfer of land. Some such arrangements as these would prove of great benefit to all parties. Surveyors would not have to pass new examinations where the original one is recognised imperially; the colonies would enjoy a greater number of men to carry on the work in hand or under contemplation, and the whole Empire would advance along the path of rapid development. The law may require sɔme amendment to carry out these proposals, and, in any event, the Profession can scarcely fail to be effected by any movement which is so likely to lead to a general improvement in business matters connected with the use of the land.
THE Bill relating to national insurance is based on the foundation of the Oddfellow returns of sickness, but subject, as actuaries have shown, to several adjustments of a by no means certain character. They deal with selected lives under the conditions to be found in a very strong society most strictly managed, and where women's uncertain health does not enter to complicate the calculations. If a limited company were to issue a prospectus asking for public support for such a scheme, it would be interesting to learn the amount of working capital it would receive, and, on its collapse to hear the official commentary upon it. Again, there is grave doubts whether the scheme is going to be successful from the medical point of view. Again, it is hard to say what the working expenees of the Bill will eventually be, and how the functions of health committees will avoid collision with those of medical officers of health,
to what extent Poor Law institutions dovetail into all these arrangements. It is no good blinking the certain fact that the cost of this scheme will be something entirely different to that estimated. The expense of disablement in the sixteenth year of the scheme is set out at £3,329,000, but comparison with the German scheme would treble this. The country has before it a mass of materials and the need for a strongly built palace of defence against certain ills, but it would be time well spent to have those materials carefully examined and tested for the strains they must withstand. As it stands, the Bill is hardly describable as an "insurance scheme; it is more accurately a Bill for the State provision of medical relief.
Two motions of censure on the Government were moved, on the 7th inst. by Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons and on the 8th inst. by Lord Curzon in the House of Lorde, and were framed in identical terms. The motion in the House of Commons was defeated, and that in the House of Lords was carried. The carrying of such a motion in the House of Commons would entail the resignation of the Government or a dissolution of Parliament, which, if followed by a defeat of the Government at the polls, would secure the resignation of the Government either at their own instance or on the carrying in the House of Commons of a motion of censure or want of confidence. The motion of censure on the Government which was carried in the House of Lords has, however, no such consequences. Mr. Gladstone, writing in 1878, thus referred to this great distinction in the power of the House of Lords as contrasted with the power of the House of Commons: "The Ministry," he writes, "has a relation to sustain to the House
of Lords which need not be one, however, of entire unity, for the House of Lords, though a great power in the State and able to cause great embarrassment to an Administration, is not able by a vote to doom it to capital punishment. Only for fifteen years out of the last fifty has the Ministry of the day possessed the confidence of the House of Lords. On the confidence of the House of Commons it is immediately and vitally dependent": (Gleanings of Past Years, i, pp. 235-236). Sir William Harcourt, speaking as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons, on the 24th Jan. 1894 enunciated this position still more forcibly. "It is the House of Commons," he said, "and not the House of Lords which decides who shall be charged with the government of our mighty Empire. If the House of Lords by a majority of 400 to-morrow voted want of confidence in the Government, no notice would be taken of it. If it censured a Minister, no regard would be paid to such censure." Sir William Harcourt then stated incidentally the reason of the existence of this great power in the House of Commons, and of its absence from the House of Lords. "The House of Lorde," he averred, "has no voice in the taxation of the people." This proposition was thus stated by Lord Chatham more than a century previously: "Taxation is no part of the governing or legislative Jower. The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation, the three estates of the realm are concerned alike, but the concurrence of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it in the form of a law. The gift and grant are of the Commons alone": (May's Constitutional History, ii., P. 104).
An accusation of partiality in the Chair made against the Speaker of the House of Commons, which on the 31st ult. was brought before the House as a matter of privilege, the motion declaring it to be a breach of privilege being withdrawn at the suggestion of the Speaker himself after a full and ample withdrawal and apology for the words had been made by the member, who expressed his conviction that the charge was absolutely without foundation, will direct attention to the fact that the authority of the Speaker is, in the words of Professor Redlich, "securely based on his absolute and unvarying impartiality, which is the main feature of his office, the law of its life": (Procedure of the House of Commons, ii., p. 132). We must recollect that until the eighteenth century was well advanced the Speaker was a nominee or Minister of the Crown, and that the use of committees of the whole House in the seventeenth century is not wholly unconnected with the desire to transact business under the chairmanship of an independent member : (Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution, i., Parliament, p. 252). When the office falls vacant during the existence of a Parliament, the new Speaker is the nominee of the party which possesses for the time a majority in the House. Ever since 1835 the Speaker of the last Parliament has been accepted by the next without of opposition. Commons is now an established principle, because the need of impartiality created by the judicial duties of the office makes the House of Commons shrink from investing the Speakership with the character of a party appointment. The only case in the last century in which the principle of re-election to the Chair was violated occurred in 1835. The Liberal Party, who were then in a majority, passed over Mr. Manners Sutton, whom, although he was a member of the Conservative party, they had re-elected in 1832, and chose a Liberal, Mr. Abercromby, who had been Lord Chief Baron of Scotland in his place. Their conduct, however, finds an explanation in the fact that the Speaker himself, during the violent conflicts over the Reform Bill, had failed in observing the strict impartiality required of him. though not, it is true, in the House of Commons. The attitude of a Speaker was well defined by Mr. Speaker (Viscount) Peel in respond. ing at a provincial gathering in 1884 to the toast of the House of Commons. He said he knew no politics or party; he was no longer a partisan, and, so long as he had the honour to preside over the councils of the House of Commons, his desire would be to act impartially between the great parties which govern this country.
Re-election to the
THE Speaker, in the breach of privilege incident in the House of Commons on the 31st ult., said he did not object to criticism of his conduct. The Speaker's rulings are, however, virtually subject to no appeal. These rulings can only be impugned in one way and under definite conditions. The rules prescribe that due notice of motion must be given that on some future day a vote of censure on the Speaker will be moved. Sir Fletcher Norton (Lord Grantley), who had filled the office of Attorney-General, was elected to the Chair in 1770, and occupied it for ten years. Soon after his election he was
exposed to a vote of censure by Mr. Dowdeswell, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground "that the words spoken by Mr. Speaker from the Chair in reference to Sir William Meredith are disorderly, imputing an improper reflection on a member of this House, and dangerous to the freedom of this House." A long debate ensued, but the Speaker was supported by Ministers, and the motion was negatived without a division. The latest case of the kind was that which was brought up on the 7th May 1902. Mr. Dillon had been censured by Mr. Speaker Gully on the 20th March 1902 and suspended for an offensive remark to Mr. Chamberlain, which was a reply to an observation of Mr. Chamberlain's to which he had taken exception. As the Speaker declined to accede to a request that he should rule Mr. Chamberlain out of order and demand the withdrawal of his words, a motion was made from the Irish benches for a vote of censure on the Speaker, which was, however, defeated.
IF the motion declaring that the Ministers had been guilty of a gross violation of constitutional liberty had been carried in the House of Commons, it would, as we have said, entailed the resignation of the Government if not successful at the polls at a General Election on the dissolution of Parliament. In that motion the Government were not charged with any illegal act-with any act which could be made the subject of a prosecution in a lower court or of impeachment in the High Court of Parliament, which, as Professor Dicey well says, "has grown rusty by disuse, and is laid aside among the antiquities of the Constitution never again to be drawn from its scabbard": (Law of the Constitution, p. 371). When an Englishman speaks of the conduct of a public man being constitutional or unconstitutional, he means something wholly different from what he means by his conduct being legal or illegal. If a Premier were to retain office after a vote of censure passed by the House of Commons, or, on getting the Crown to dissolve Parlia ment, were to be again censured by the newly elected House of Commons and still to retain office, he would act unconstitutionally, but no court of law would take notice of his conduct. How, then, are constitutional understandings, which are admittedly not laws, enforced? Professor Dicey supplies the answer. "The dread of impeachment," he sɩys, “may have established and public opinion certainly adds influence to the prevailing dogmas of political ethics. But the sanction which constrains the boldest political adventurer to obey the fundamental principles of the Constitution and the conventions in which these principles are expressed is the fact that the breach of these principles and of these conventions will almost immediately bring the offender into conflict with the courts and the law of the land": (Law of the Constitution, pp. 373-374; see also Freeman's Growth of the English Constitution, pp. 114-122). The retention of office by a Ministry in defiance of the House of Commons would be met by a refusal to pass the Appropriation Act, a course which would render it impossible to carry on the government of the country, except by dircot violation of the law.
THE question 88 to whether violent conduct in the House of Commons is an offence against the ordinary law of the land, to which reference was made in the LAW TIMES in connection with recent disorder in the House of Commons and the celebrated decision in the case of Eliot, Holles, and Valentine, may be further elucidated by the fact that the courts have more than once intimated that a crime committed in the House of Commons, or by its order, would not thereby be considered outside their jurisdiction. Sir William Anson agrees with Hallam in the conclusion that the case of Eliot, Holles, and Valentine does not decide that an assault upon a member of the House, committed within its walls, might not be dealt with in a court of law (Law and Custom of the Constitution, i, Parliament, p. 176,, while Lord Ellenborough in Burdett v. Abbott (14 East, p. 128) guards himself by saying that it will be time to consider such a case when it arises. Mr. Justice Stephen is still more confident in expression of opinion as to offences against the law perpetrated in Parliament. In Bradlaugh v. Gosset (12 Q. B. Div. 280) he declares that he knows no authority for the proposition that an ordinary crime committed in the House of Commons would be withdrawn from the ordinary course of criminal justice."
THE recent refusals of a hearing in the House of Commons, which were effected not by the House as a whole, but by organised interrup tion of a small section of the members, draw attention to the question as to whether a member of that assembly is entitled as of right to be heard. It is reported that Mr. Speaker Compton replied to a member who called on him to make the House quiet for he had
a right to be heard: No, sir, you have a right to speak, but the House has a right to judge whether it will hear you." In this, says Hatsell, the Speaker certainly erred; the member has a right to speak, and it is the Speaker's duty for that purpose to endeavour to keep the House quiet. Notwithstanding this great authority, it is very doubtful as to whether a member has a right to be heard. It is still provided by the rules that if two members rise at the same time, and, on one of them being called by the Speaker, the House being desirous of hearing the other, if neither give way, no alternative remains but a question that one of them be now heard or do now speak. On the 20th March 1782 Lord North and the Earl of Surrey rose together, and, on Mr. Fox moving that the latter be now heard, Lord North adroitly spoke to that motion and announced his resignation, which he had been anxious to communicate to the House (Memorials of Fox, i., p. 295). A similar contest arose between Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt on the 20th Feb. 1784. It is, however, scarcely to be doubted that under present conditions the Speaker of the House of Commons would regard this rule as obsolete, and would insist, so far as he could control the House, on a hearing being accorded to the member who had caught his eye. The rule itself and the occasions on which it was put into operation Beem to indicate that the House itself in strictness is enabled to exercise a discretion as to the members to be heard in debate.
In the House of Commons, on Monday, Sir F. Banbury asked when the vote of censure on the Lord Chancellor would be taken.Mr. Asquith: If the hon. baronet refers to the motion standing in the name of my hon. friend the member for the Wisbech Division, I am afraid that there will be no opportunity for considering it at this stage of the session.
In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Old-Age Pensions Bill was brought up from the Commons and read the first time.
The Bill to amend the Salford Hundred Court of Record Act 1868 was considered on Wednesday by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Mr. R. A. McCali, K.C., Attorney-General for the duchy, and Mr. Cleave appeared to promote the Bill, and Mr. Rhodes, K.C., represented the Corporation of Manchester. The Bill embodies the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which was appointed in Oct. 1910 to inquire into the practice, procedure, and area of jurisdiction of the court, and of which Lord Mersey was the chairman.-Mr. McCall stated that a number of amendments had been introduced to meet the objections of several corporations representing areas interested in the court, and the Bill now came before the committee as an unopposed measure. The chairman said that in the judgment of the duchy the Bill would not only get rid of the abuses of which strong complaint had been made, but that it would lead to the increasing usefulness and popularity of the court.—The committee found the preamble proved, and ordered the Bill as amended to be reported to the House for third reading.
CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES.
COSTS IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INDICTABLE OFFENCES ACT 1848.
THE following circular has been issued by the Home Office :"Sir, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that his attention has been called by the Director of Public Prosecutions and other persons to questions arising under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1908 on which an expression of his opinion may be of assistance to magistrates in dealing with indictable cases.
"I am in the first place to point out that the Director of Public Prosecutions is in the same position, in respect of the allowance of costs from county or borough funds, as any private prosecutor.
The provisions for the payment of a prosecutor's costs out of local funds are expressly declared by sect. 2 (4) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1908 to apply to the Director of Public Prosecution, in the same way as to any private prosecutor.
"By the financial arrangements made at the time of the passing of the Local Government Act 1888, the costs of prosecutions fall on local funds the grants in aid of these costs, which were formerly made by the Treasury, having been discontinued, with other similar grants, in consideration of the large amount of revenue from Imperial taxes which was devoted by the Act to the relief of local rates.
As the director conducts prosecutions, by his staff, or through his agents, in all parts of the country, he has a wide and varied experience of the diversity of practice which exists in regard of the payment of costs; and while it is the general rule that magistrates are ready to give a certificate for the payment from local funds of the reasonable costs of a solicitor conducting a case before them, prior to its committal for trial, it appears that difficulty is sometimes experienced in obtaining one even in cases where the solicitor's services have been most necessary for putting the evidence fully and olearly before the court and where it would be unreasonable to expect
the police, or anyone not having legal qualifications, to conduct the proceedings unaided.
"The Secretary of State does not appreciate the reasons which give rise to this difficulty. The employment of a solicitor is often neces. sary not only to save the time of the court, but to present the true facts and so to prevent miscarriage of justice, or to assist in considerirg any points of law which may arise. Moreover, the needs of the case must not be judged by the actual proceedings before the justices alone. Regard must also be had to the preliminary work done out of court by the persons responsible for the conduct of the prosecution. This work is often of a difficult, prolonged, and costly character.
"The Secretary of State is of opinion that, when the magistrates are satisfied that the employment of a solicitor has resulted in a difficult or complicated case being put before them in a manner which has assisted them to come to a decision, or that it would not have been right to permit or expect the police or a private prosecutor to present the case unassisted, it is their duty to issue a certificate, in pursuance of sect. 1 and sect. 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act.
"The amount of the costs to be included in such a certificate is a matter as to which the Secretary of State does not, as at present advised, feel able to lay down any general rule-but he thinks that the language of sect. 1 of the Act previously referred to might very properly be taken as a guide.
"The cases taken up by the Director of Public Prosecutions are usually of special importance, or of a specially difficult nature, and in some instances the duty of prosecuting is imposed upon the director by statute. Where this is so certificates for costs should, in the Secretary of State's opinion, be issued without hesitation, and it seems to him that the amounts allowed in respect of them might be taken by justices as a useful guide in determining the smaller amount to be allowed to a private prosecutor in a less important, or a less difficult, prosecution.
"At the same time, the Secretary of State would urge that in cases where the director is unable to undertake the conduct of a prosecution, the magistrates should give full consideration to the difficulties that may be found by a private prosecutor in putting his case in a business. like way before them, and should not refuse to grant him a certificate for his costs, unless they are of opinion that the services of a solicitor were not necessary having regard to the nature of the case and the position of the prosecutor. This applies whether the prosecution is conducted by the police, or is in the hands of a private prosecutor.
"There may, of course, be cases where magistrates may not feel justified in issuing a certificate for costs, although they have been actually incurred by prosecutors. In such cases, Mr. Churchill would suggest that they should state freely and clearly the reasons that induced them to refuse to grant certificates, in order that the grounds of their decision may be available as a guide to action in future prosecutions before them. "EDWARD TROUP."
ASCERTAINMENT OF SITE VALUE ON " OCCASIONS." Firstly-Ascertain the value of the fee simple on the basis of the value of the consideration in accordance with section 2 of the Act. Secondly-By an independent calculation and without necessarily being bound by the actual consideration paid, ascertain the Gross Value at the time, i.e., on the occasion, in accordance with the definition contained in sub-section (1), section 25.
Thirdly-As an independent calculation and without necessarily being bound by the actual consideration ascertain the full site value at the time as defined in sub-section (2), section 25.
The difference between these two figures ascertained under subsections (1) and (2) of section 25 respectively will then give the amount of the first deduction to be made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 25.
Any other site value deductions must of course also be made. By this method the following results should be achieved :(1) The transferor will not be called upon to pay Increment Value Duty in respect of any recovery in the value of buildings.
2) Increment Value Duty would be collectible in all cases where there has been either
(a) an increase in the value of the site as compared with the original site value; or
(b) the unit of valuation (or an interest therein) has actually been sold for more than it is worth at the time.
Land Charges Act 1900, the Middlesex Registry Act 1708, and the Land Registry (Middlesex Deeds) Act 1891, and showing the amount of fees received, and the amount of salaries and expenses, in the Land Registry, from the 1st April 1906 to the 31st March 1911.
NOTE. A comparison of the particulars given in paragraph 3 (a) with those in the corresponding paragraph of the similar return of 1899, shows that from the 1st Jan. 1899, when the 20th section of the Land Transfer Act 1897 was first applied in the London area, down to the 31st Dec. last, 144,308 separate properties have been entered on the register. These have for the most part been registered with "possessory" title only, although in most cases an absolute title could have been easily obtained had the requisite application been made. The main object of possessory registration is to facilitate the subsequent entry of absolute titles, and arrangements have been made by which every purchaser of land, when applying for registration with possessory title, or on purchase of land already registered with possessory title, can apply also for absolute title, without any additional fee, and only a few shillings of incidental cost. Further, in many cases absolute titles are offered, entirely gratis, to persons who have asked for possessory titles (only. Considering these facilities it is difficult to understand why so few applications for absolute title are made, and still more difficult to account for the fact that out of about 1262 offers of absolute and good leasehold titles made on possessory applications between the 1st Jan. 1909 and the 31st Dec. 1910, no less than 469 have been refused, either for no reason at all, or for reasons which are entirely inadequate.
1. Under the Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897 :
(a) The number, value, and acreage (where known) of estates, the titles to which were registered, on first registration, (a) from the 1st Jan. 1906 to the 31st Dec. 1910, showing the numbers of estates registered with absolute, good leasehold, qualified. nd possessory title, and also the number of estates registered nder the Small Holdings Act 1892:FIRST REGISTRATION.
LAND REGISTRY. RETURN OF WORK.
RETURNS, in continuation of the Returns No. 276 of 1908 and No. 154 of 1908 of the work done in the Land Registry under the Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897, the Land Registry Act 1862, the Mortgage Debenture Acts 1865 and 1870, the Improvement of Land Act 1864, the Land Charges Registration and Searches Act 1888, the
In 1907 and 1908 there were two and fourteen registrations, respectively, under the Small Holdings Acts of 1892 and 1907, and in 1909 and 1910 there were 137 and 171 registrations, respectively,
(a) The expression "first registration" means the original entry of land on the register. It does not apply to the subdivision of a registered estate, or to any other transaction or entry relating to registered land,
company that I ad availed itself of the Mortgage Debenture Acts), an order was made for delivery to the liquidator of all the deeds of the company, and the deeds were delivered accordingly, Since that time Do work has been done under these Acts.
(ii) The Improvement of Land Act.-Under the Improvement of Land Act, memorials of improvement charges were directed to be registered in the Land Registry, and the register of them to be open to public inspection. These provisions have been virtually superseded by provisions contained in the Land Charges Registration and Searches Aot 1888 and Land Charges Act 1900.
33,852 32,763 30,456 29,824 27,777 17,478 16,868 15,286 14,020 12,909
Total value of the above (where ascertainable), £26,400,577, £27,963,109, £22,556,396, £23,586,514, and £17,760,455 respectively.
4. Under the Mortgage Debenture Acts 1865 and 1870 and the Improvement of Land Act 1864 no work has been done, for the following reasons:—
(i.) The Mortgage Debenture Debts. In the year 1900, under the winding-up of the Land Securities Company (which was the only
* First registration under this Act ceased to be possible after 1875,
Owing to the fact that many of the salaries are paid to officers who are engaged in working the Land Registry Act 1862, the Middlesex Registry Acts, and the Land Charges Acts, as well as the Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897, the apportionment required can only be approximately made.
In the salaries and expenses are included all costs of every description incurred by or on account of the Land Transfer Acts, and defrayed out of public funds, whether borne on the Land Registry Vote or not, including an annuity of £9348 a year, which will defray the whole cost of the new building in forty years. A good deal of the cost now being incurred is in the nature of capital expenditure, though defrayed out of income. In this class must be reckoned most of the work done on the original registration of each property, also a large part of the building annuity.
CHARLES FORTESCUE-BRICKDALE, Registrar. Land Registry, 30th June 1911. D'ARCY LITTLE, Scoretary and Clerk of Account.
THE LORD CHANCELLORSHIP. AN OVERWORKED AND ANOMALOUS OFFICE. A CORRESPONDENT writes to us as follows:The Lord Chancellor, speaking on the 1st inst. in the House of Lords, complained of the overwhelming burden laid on him by the duties of his high office in terms which are an echo, albeit unconscious, of the expressions used by Lord Herschell nearly eighteen years ago in reference to the pressure of work which devolved on the holder for the time being of the Geat Seal. We quote from the Times of the 2nd Aug.:
"Speaking for himself," said Lord Loreburn, "he would go on as long as he could doing his best, but he declared the time was coming and near at hand when the combination of the duties of Speaker of one of the Houses of Parliament, of a judge of the Court of Appeal, of 8 member of the Cabinet which had important and momentous matters to decide, to say nothing
of the administrative duties of lanacy, magistrates, and other matters, might be too much for the strength of anybody unless it was mitigated by the lightening of the burden in some direction." On the 15th Nov. 1893 the late Lord Herschell, speaking in a committee room of the House of Lords to a deputation of 250 members of the House of Commons who waited on him as Lord Chancellor to call attention to the question of the methods of appointment to the magistracy, then, as now, a subject of heated controversy, thus described the incidents of the daily life of the holder of the overworked office of Lord Chancellor. Having given an exposition of the various considerations and inquiries which necessarily entail delay and are essential preliminaries to the conferring of the commission of the peace, Lord Herschell proceeded thus (we quote from the Times of the 16th Nov. 1893) :
"The Lord Chancellor cannot confine his energies exclusively to this work. I daresay there is amongst many of those whom you represent an idea that the Lord Chancellor fills an easy place and gets a large salary. I wish I could convey to them some little picture of what his duties are before he enters into this work [of the appointment of magistrates] at all. You may perchance be able to form some impression, but I would like to say a word or two about it, because it is right that this should be understood. I do not say it is unnatural that some people are impatient because things do not move faster than they do. We like to get everything as quickly as we can; at all events, people will judge a little more patiently of the position which I occupy if I state a few facts. When Parliament is sitting, four days in the week I have to sit the whole day here judicially and very often another day at the Privy Council, and thus, whilst Parliament is sitting, I am occupied here during the whole of the afternoon. From the time I come in the morning till evening I have not a moment unoccupied. I am occupied with my secretaries while I am eating my lunch, and very often receive deputations when I am eating my lunch. I am engaged with my secretaries while I am dressing and undressing for the purpose of attending the House of Lords, and it is very often the case that I am at work till six o'clock in the evening and very often considerably later than that. During that time I have to discuss every conceivable question. You must remember that I receive constantly letters from lunatios to say they are not lunatics; you cannot put them aside, there may be something that deserves inquiry, and I have to ask for a report about it, and when I receive the report I have to consider it. And
I am receiving complaints of this or that thing done wrong by this or that County Court judge from all parts of the kingdom. There is something that a coroner has done, and there are questions about the administration of justice throughout the country, complaints of magistrates, and multitude of other matters, all of which have to be attended to by myself. During the whole of this year I have had no holiday at all. There is not a day-certainly not more than three days-literally in the whole year in which I have not been hard at work, and on many days of the year working ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen hours per day. I would ask gentlemen to consider there is a point beyond which human nature cannot endure."
While two distinguished holders of the Lord Chancellorship thus at periods distant from each other bear testimony to the multifarious and exacting nature of the duties of the office, Mr. Bagehot, writing five-and-forty years ago, criticises the Lord Chancellorship on constitutional grounds as bristling with anomalies.
"The whole office of the Lord Chancellor is a heap of anomalies. He is a judge, and it is contrary to obvious principle that any part of administration should be intrusted to a judge. It is of grave moment that the administration of justice should be kept clear of any sinister temptations, yet the Lord Chancellor, our chief judge, sits in the Cabinet and makes party speeches in the Lords. Lord Lyndhurst was a principal Tory politician, and yet he presided in the O'Connell case. Lord Westbury was in chronic wrangle with the bishops, but he gave judgment upon Essays and Reviews. In truth, the Lord Chancellor became a Cabinet Minister because, being near the person of the Sovereign, he was high in Court precedence and not upon a political theory wrong or right."
On the grounds alike of consideration for the preservation of the health and strength of the holder of the Lord Chancellorship and of constitutional morality, which insists on the severance of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, in the words of Lord Loreburn the burden of that office must needs be lightened."
HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. GRIFFITHS (David Jones). Next of kin living on Oct. 21, 1909, or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by Nov. 30, at chambers of Joyce and Eve, JJ., Room 689. Hearing Dec. 7, at 12.30, at said chambers. HARVEY (George), who died at Rickmansworth, Jan. 21, 1889. His nephews and nieces living at the death of his widow, Sarah Dorcas Harvey (Feb. 12, 1910), or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by Oct. 13, at chambers of Warrington and Parker, JJ. Hearing Oct. 20, at 12, at said chambers, Room 315. HAWKINS (Amelia Louisa), daughter of Richard Bidney Farrant Hawkins, if she survived either Elizabeth Bidney Farrant, who died Sept. 30, 1898, and Elizabeth Roberts Farrant, who died Oct. 28, 1900, or her legal personal representatives, to come in, by Oct. 31, at chambers of Joyce and Eve, JJ. Hearing Nov. 6, at 12.30, at said chambers, Room 689.
LONSDALE (Priscilla), The Asylum, Blackadon. Next of kin living on March 24, 1910, or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by Oct 9, and prove their claims at chambers of Swinfen Eady and
Neville, JJ., and enter their names at Room 286, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing Oct. 13, at 12, at said chambers.
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 PM ON TO
A.P.W. SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 11, to A. H.
AUX GALERIES DE PARIS LIMITED.-Creditors to send forthwith, or by
CARMEN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by
DARWEN SANITARY PIPES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 18, to
HEWER'S CAR BODIES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 22, to E.
NORTHENDEN PRIVATE CLUB COMPANY LIMITED.--Creditors to send in, by
ORD, GRAY, AND CO. LIMITED. -Creditors to send in, by Sept. 14, to
R JARRETT AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Aug. 19, to F. W.
WILLISONS EALING PARK FARM DAIRIES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Aug. 21, to W. S. Hogg, 7 and 8, Poultry, E.C.
ZEEHAN SOUTH COMSTOCK LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. BARRATT (Charlotte), Warwick. Sept. 29; Campbell, Brown, and Ledbrook, Warwick. BOWEN (Charles), Holloway. Aug. 31; James, Mellor, and Coleman, 12, Coleman-st, E.C. BATES (John), Hull.
Sept. 1; Laverack, Son, and Wray, Hull. BAILEY (Emma), Milton. Sept. 4; A. Rogers Ford, Weston-super-Mare. BAILEY (Edwin), Derby. Aug. 19; the executors, at the offices of Simpson and Meakin, Derby.
BURROWS (Catherine Ann), Belvedere. Sept. 1; T. G. Baynes, Bexley
BARLING (John), Hereford. Aug. 19; H. Easton, Hereford.
Creditors who have not already
done so, to send in, by Aug. 26, to A. E. Ray, Northampton. CONOLLY (Charles Hamilton), Wood Green, N. Aug. 31; W. Carpenter and Sons, 5, Laurence Pountney-la, E.C.
COWELL (Ralph Hugh), Evesham. Aug. 25; G. P. Fripp, Oldham. CROSSFIELD (Lonsdale), Fallowfield. Aug. 31; Sampson and Price, Manchester.
CSOMOR (Michael), Castle-st, Oxford-st. Sept. 11; Downer and Johnson,
DEEKS (Henry Golding), Acton. Sept. 29; Steed and Steed, Long Melford.
ELLIOTT (Henry), Leyton. Sept. 9; Carr, Tyler, and Overy, 23, Rood-la,
FLETCHER (Ann Amelia), Hyde. Sept. 2; F. Knowles and Son, Hyde.
GATLEY (Elizabeth Carpenter), Truro. Sept. 30; S. James, 60, Lincoln'sinn-flds.
GRAHAM (Thomas), Pimlico. Sept. 3; Yeilding and Co., 13, Vincent-sq, Westminster, S.W.
GEE (George), Modbury. Aug. 28; Crowther and Latimer, Modbury. GOODE (Frederick), Birmingham. Sept. 8; W. H. Stoddard, Birmingham. HUNT (Arthur William), Palmers Green, N. Aug. 31; W. Carpenter and Sons, 5, Laurence Pountney-la, E.C.
HODGKINSON (John Thomas), Nelson. Aug. S1; F. G. Lupton, Manchester.