« EelmineJätka »
believe, as follows: From time to time various important bodies passed resolutions condemning the system and asking for the rescission of the order applying compulsion to London. Notices of these resolutions appeared from time to time in the Press. As a result of the pressure the Press brought to bear the London County Council, at the instance seemingly of the authorities, passed on the 28th Jan. 1908 a resolution, of which I will speak later, recommending an inquiry, and shortly afterwards the Lord Chancellor replied to that council (not, it will be noticed, to our council) that an inquiry would be held. It was not until the end of July 1908 that a Royal Commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Lord St. Aldwyn "to consider and report upon the working of the Land Transfer Acts, and whether any amendments are desirable." The terms of the reference were freely criticised as being too narrow. The one and only matter of vital importance to the public was whether the registration system was a good one and whether it should be compulsorily enforced. This question was, however, carefully removed from consideration. The inquiry being thus stunted at the outset could not, it was foreseen, deal adequately with the subject. If the scope of the reference was of grave importance, the constitution of the commission was, if possible, more important. I have already pointed out that since Lord Cairns' Acts of 1881 the work of conveyancing had fallen almost exclusively into the hands of solicitors, and they consequently possessed an intimacy with the work, both as regards registration and non-registration systems, not possessed by any other class in the community. Yet, although the number of members on the commission was twelve, one and one only was a solicitor. The date of his admission went back to 1855. There was, therefore, apparently not a single member the reon possessing a practical knowledge gained at first hand of the present-day conveyancing work. The position was, indeed, a strange one. For ten years solicitors had over and over again passed resolutions urging the need for an inquiry, and when at last a commission was appointed, solicitors found the one material question was not to be investigated, and that their right to be adequately represented on the commission was wholly ignored. At our provincial meeting held in Birmingham in Sept. 1908 resolutions were unanimously passed urging the addition of solicitors to the commission, the enlargement of the terms of reference, and that the evidence on the inquiry should be taken in public. The strong representations that were subsequently made to the Lord Chancellor to meet the views embodied in the resolutions did not, unfortunately, have any result.
The Report of the Royal Commission.
The commission commenced the inquiry in Oct. 1908. The fact has to be noted that the commission decided to take the evidence in camera. It is difficult to conceive how this determination could be in the interests of the public. Between Oct. 1908 and Nov. 1909 the commission held thirty-six sittings and examined eightyfour witnessess. In Feb. 1909 they published a preliminary report setting out the evidence given on behalf of the Land Registry. The final report was not published until the 11th Feb. 1911. Two of the commissioners had died before the issue of the report, one being Mr. Pennington, the only solicitor on the commission. The public and the Profession are under a deep_debt of gratitude to his memory for undertaking at his advanced age the onerous work entailed upon him, especially as his views on the subject were, it is known, diametrically opposed to the views of a preponderating majority of his colleagues on the commission. The public have been told that the opponents of registration had a full and fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. I feel bound to say that the representation does not accord with the experience of many of the witnesses. They certainly were impressed with the view that the commissioners, as a body, were out of sympathy with everyone who did not favour the registry. I attended as a witness, representing the Kensington Borough Council, on the 18th Feb. and the 4th March 1909. I was not allowed to refer to many matters that were undoubtedly material, and I was denied the right to read the correspondence that had passed between the registry and my firm in connection with various questions that had arisen in practice. I subsequently wrote a letter to the secretary of the commission on these points. The letter was reproduced in a report to the Kensington Council. When everything is considered, particularly the restricted terms of reference, and the unsatisfactory constitution of the commission, we may congratulate ourselves that the report is less unsatisfactory than it might have been. The position was undoubtedly saved by the fact that there were two or three men on the commission who were not prepared to take every official statement for granted, and who considered the evidence with an open mind. The great drawback was the absence of men possessing a personal and practical knowledge of both the registration and nonregistration systems of conveyancing. They would have been able to have brought out the vital points in probably onefifth the time that was actually spent over the inquiry. In their presence it would have been impossible for the registrar's evidence to have taken up nearly thirteen days out of thirty-six days on which oral evidence was taken. Anyone who reads the report with some knowledge of the subject will recognise how greatly the commissioners as a body sympathise with the registry. I may perhaps be allowed to note here the curious and significant fact that within the last month Mr. J. Felix Waley, who acted as secretary to the commission, has apparently under inspiration written more than one letter to the Times championing the registry. It was
truly an unfortunate circumstance that when the report came to be settled there was not a single member of the commission who had ever had the slightest actual experience of every-day conveyancing. The concluding part of par. 54 illustrates the contention that in the absence of actual experience it is not possible for anyone to deal practically with the subject. The question as to what deeds can and what deeds cannot be put on the register is a very difficult one to answer. Deeds containing notice of a trust cannot be registered. Those containing covenants are on the border line; the decisions as to whether they can or cannot be registered is left to the uncontrolled discretion of the registrar. To meet the difficulty solicitors prepare two deeds, one to meet the requirements of the transaction and the other to satisfy the registrar. This duplication of documents is recognised by everybody as absurd. The commissioners advise as a way out of the difficulty that the second deed should not be prepared until the registrar has refused to register the first deed." Consider for a moment what the advice comes to. After a matter has been
completed the deed carrying out the transaction is left for registration. If the registrar is not satisfied one, two, or three months may be spent in trying to satisfy him. An appeal to the judge is out of the question-we dare not ask a client to incur this expense. The deed having been definitely rejected, the commissioners say the second deed can then be prepared. How are we to explain to our clients the need for reopening the matter without conveying the impression that we were mere bunglers or that the suggestion was an ingenious device to make costs? Or assume that in the meantime one of the parties has died or gone to the other end of the world, how is the second deed then to be obtained and the registration effected? I can only say that a solicitor who conducted his business in the way the commissioners advise would in a very short time have no business to conduct. The fact that questions such as those indicated must for all time continue to exist is surely sufficient of itself utterly to condemn the system. The registrar's professional association with the Land Registry dates from 1888. He was then a pronounced opponent of compulsory registration. The case he makes out in his work published in 1886 against compulsion is conclusive to an impartial person. No one will question the truth of his statement that: Prima facie, it would certainly appear that no system really beneficial to landowners would require to be forced upon them, and, of course, to apply compulsion to any system not really beneficial would be a wild injustice. Or, again, in view
of past experience, is it wise to make any Act compulsory before it is proved that it works well? The present compulsory schemes: assume that if the primary difficulty of getting titles on to the register can be removed, the speedy and cheap dispatch of business in the office can be confidently hoped for from certain alterations which it is proposed to make in the office practice. This may be so, but is it sufficiently clear that it will be so to justify its compulsory enforcement? It was confidently hoped that certain alterations in the procedure would render initial registration speedy and cheap under Lord Cairns' Act, and with what result?" There is another unanswerable argument against compulsion which the registrar in his book brings out very clearly. After giving several reasons to prove that there was not any justification for attributing the failure of the Acts of 1862 and 1875 to the opposition of solicitors, he continues: "Apart from the hostility of solicitors,' what excuse for compulsion remains? On what ground can it be justified for a moment? Is it part of a man's public duty to improve the selling value of his own property? Are a man's own successors in title to be clothed with a corporate existence, and endued with rights against him, enforceable by risk of dispossession should he ignore them? Whom does it hurt if a man cannot readily prove that his property is his own? Does it damage the neighbours? Is it a public nuisance? Does it offend against the general morality? Does it deceive anyone to his hurt? Does it prejudice posterity any more than many another unbusinesslike thing that a man may lawfully indulge in, such as neglecting his shop, or not weeding his garden? Why should the landowner or the purchaser of land (belonging, as he usually does, to a class which is better educated and more enlightened than any other in the community) require to be taught his own interests by pains and penalties when all other people are trusted to find them out for themselves? Or, if to register be not to his own interest, why should he be forced to confer benefits on strange and unascertained persons against his will, at his own expense, and probably at a very appreciable amount of immediate inconvenience? If the new system is really a good one, it may rely on its own merits to promote it, the demand for any other promoter sounds far more like a confession of weakness than an assertion of strength. In short, either compulsion is unnecessary or it is unjust." Almost every page of the report indicates the extent of the registrar's domination over the proceedings, but even he found it impossibl to displace the enormous mass of evidence directed against com pulsory registration by authorised representatives of the Law Society, the provincial societies, the Auctioneers' Institute, the Association of English Country Bankers, and the Building Societies' Association, and by leading conveyancing counsel. We can without difficulty form our own conclusions as to what the result of the inquiry would have been if freedom from predilections had been a guiding principle in the selection of the commissioners and if a commission so selected had been left free to deal with tho whole subject on its merits. The fact that not a single recognised conveyancing expert in either branch of the Legal Profession could be found to support the compulsory system was brought out
strong relief an the inquiry. With all their opportunities and resources, the Land Registry officials had great difficulty in making. out even the appearance of a case. The absence of expert evidence could not fail to strike the commissioners, and the registrar was asked to submit the names of some firms of solicitors in London and in the country who would give evidence of their experience. This request undoubtedly placed the registrar in a position of the greatest difficulty from which there was no escape. Being so placed, he put forward the names of six solicitors. The evidence given by five out of the six so selected was wholly hostile to the system. The only one who would say anything in its favour referred only to its operation in the case of a building estate, and he complained of, delay and that the solicitors' remuneration on transfers was inadequate. In these circumstances it is perhaps not a matter for wonder that the registrar was driven to attribute the breakdown of his case to the "unfortunate hostile attitude of the Legal Profession." The fact that many Lords Chancellor have been captured by the view that a system of registration of title is the one thing necessary is undoubtedly calculated to influence many minds. It appears, for instance, to have deeply affected the mind of Lord St. Aldwyn, the chairman of the Royal Commission. The questions he put to me in the course of the evidence I gave on the inquiry on this point are, I consider, of interest, so I have in an appendix reprinted from the official minutes of evidence extracts from the questions and answers. Another point upon which a spirited encounter took place between Lord St. Aldwyn and myself was with regard to Lord Cairns' views on registration. I quoted freely from the evidence he gave in 1879 to prove that he had no faith in the registry and that he was wholly opposed to compulsory registration. In further proof I urged that, although he lived until 1885, he never attempted to amend the Act of 1875, which had become a dead letter, but, on the contrary, he had carried out his ideas of reform on wholly different lines by his Acts of 1881. The chairman, however, stated he differed entirely from my views. He had been, he said, Lord Cairns' colleague for a good many years, and he therefore knew I was wrong. He, in fact, afforded ample proof of the need that existed for the application of the warning the French chemist gave to his pupils. The questions and answers (4947 to 4962) are too long to embody in this paper, but they are highly instructive with regard to the attitude of mind that influenced the commissioners in conducting the inquiry. Lord Cairns' views on the matters in controversy are of such serious import that I have set out in an appendix extracts from the evidence he gave in 1879. From these it is clear that, if he had the power to do so, he would repudiate the unjustifiable use of his name as favouring the registry or compulsory registration. The extracts also prove how utterly his views differ from those now influencing our ruling authorities.
The Practical Result of the Report. From the tenor of the observations made in the recent discussion it might be thought that the report of the Royal Commissioners proved that the registration system was a beneficial one, and that its early extension was a matter of vital importance to the country. There is, I submit, nothing to be found in the report that on close investigation can support this view. The one vital practical conclusion arrived at by the commissioners is embodied in clause 95. After referring to the fact that they had been unable to find proof of the existence of any really strong public feeling in favour of the compulsory registration of title, they continue: "But, apart from this, the system as it stands is in our judgment imperfect; and we cannot recommend the compulsory extension of an imperfect system." They go on to say: "We think that it should first be amended in the manner we have proposed, and that if" (please observe the "if ") "after sufficient experience the amended system is found to work satisfactorily within the present compulsory area of the county of London, a Bill for the gradual extension of compulsion on sales to the rest of the country by the establishment of local centres and branches in the manner suggested by the registrar should then be considered by Parliament.' The commissioners add that in their opinion the matter is a national rather than a local question, and they indicate that in the suggested Bill the right of veto which the county councils at present possess should be taken away. One provision contained in the Act of 1897 to which at the time the utmost importance was attached was the provision giving the Privy Council the power to rescind any order made applying compulsion to any county. It has, however, been since made clear that the Privy Council is in reality in this connection simply another name for the Lord Chancellor for the time being. Had the Privy Council been an independent body, it is impossible to imagine that they could now hesitate to rescind the order applying compulsion to London. The council would surely recognise the scandal of forcing property owners to use a system that has thus been pronounced defective by a body wholly in sympathy with the system. The continuance of the order completely meets the registrar's definition of "a wild injustice. It is hardly necessary, it appears to me, to deal with the suggested amendments in the practice. So far as I can see, they might one and all be met by another set of new rules that the Lord Chancellor can issue whenever he pleases. One may well inquire if he, too, has lost his faith in new rules. In view of our past experience, it is obvious that if every one of the proposed amendments were in operation to-morrow they would not remove a single one of the fundamental defects. The commissioners really abandon the whole case for the system when they are forced to find that the registry is not suitable for such an ordinary and
every-day transaction as a mortgage. They recommend (clause 104, sub-clause 10) that Mortgages of registered land to be effected in the same manner as if the land were unregistered.". A more striking tribute to the value of the present system of conveyancing in contrast with the registration system could not be given.
The suggestion is a hoary one that the failure of the registry system is due to the interested hostility of solicitors. It appears and reappears whenever the authorities or the officials find it necessary to explain and re-explain why the system has broken down. On the first inquiry in 1868 the suggestion was truly stigmatised as "a calumny invented by the authors and abettors of a bad piece of legislation with a view to finding a plausible excuse for its failure." The calumny has, as a result of the discussion in the House of Lords in August, taken a new lease of life. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, and Lord St. Aldwyn each asserted in his own way that the non-success of the system was due to the interested opposition of solicitors in resisting what the Lord Chancellor termed "this most beneficial system." Once more we have to deplore that our hypothetical speaker was not present to have reminded the noble Lords that this charge, when investigated, has always fallen to pieces. He would have called attention to par. 20 of the report of the Royal Commission of 1869, from which the following is an extract: We will first set aside two explanations of the phenomena, for which we think there is no foundation. One is that the body of solicitors are hostile to the system. This suggestion does not proceed from the registrar, but is one of common occurrence. It would certainly be strange if there were any truth in such an explanation as this. ..It is clear that in this case the dislike of the existing system proceeds from men who have tried honestly to work it, and who wish for some workable system.' Again, the speaker would have referred to the views of the Select Committee of 1879, who thus expressed themselves: "Various causes have been assigned for the reluctance of landowners and mortgagees to avail themselves of the Act. Its unpopularity has been ascribed ... to the disinclination of solicitors to recommend to their clients a course of dealing with their property which may tend eventually, if not immediately, to curtail their own profits; even if it could be shown that
it was to the interest of solicitors to evade the Act, and that every solicitor in England acted from purely selfish motives, there must have been among the many thousands who have bought land since the 1st Jan. 1876 some persons, at least, in a position to judge and act for themselves, who, if they really thought they would gain anything by placing their titles on the register, would not scruple to do so. So far from the Act becoming more popular in proportion as it was better known, the applications under it have been steadily diminishing, until at last they have dwindled down to nil." Lord Cairns' views are of special value, as he did not deem it inconsistent with his position to hold frequent conferences with solicitors. In his examination before the Select Committee of 1879 he made the following answer when asked whether in his view solicitors brought about the failure of the Act of 1875 as it might interfere with their profits: "I cannot divine people's motives, but I am bound to say that of all the solicitors that I have the pleasure of being acquainted with, I do not think any one of them would be actuated by a feeling of that kind if they thought that registration would be useful." The registrar in his book in 1885 is equally emphatic. He asks: "Whence comes the cry for com pulsion? There is not the slightest doubt that it had its birth in a belief that once prevailed extensively that the failure of the system was due to the selfish hostility of solicitors. But there is no excuse for persons holding this opinion' now. The evidence given before the Royal Commission of 1868 and Mr. O. Morgan's Committee completely disposes of all such explanations as the hostility of solicitors.' The commissioners themselves say
of the solicitors, These gentlemen were not hostile to the plan of registration; on the contrary, they came into the office sincerely intending to use its machinery for the benefit of their clients,' and in the next eleven paragraphs they take the trouble to collect the evidence on this point which they rightly regard as most serious." Had anyone in the House read the report issued by the commission of which Lord St. Aldwyn was chairman, he could effectively have reminded the noble Lord of par. 52 of his report, headed, "Reluctance of Landowners to Register." The paragraph says: "This reluctance in the opinion of the registrar is mainly due to what he describes as the unfortunate hostile attitude of the Legal Profession, who are, he states, unaccustomed to the new procedure and disinclined to assist it or to recommend it to their clients. But the opposition of solicitors and the reluctance of land owners to register are not without other grounds than the solicitors' dislike of change, inexperience of a new and complicated" (nota the word “ 'complicated") "procedure, or fear of losing business by it. The evidence taken by us teems with proofs of what may be an unreasonable, but is a thoroughly English, dislike of the control by a public department of the procedure to be followed in transfers or other dealings with lands which is denounced as 'officialism.'" There is one matter that is habitually lost sight of that in itself proves that solicitors are not only not opposed to reform, but that, on the contrary, they are the first to promote and welcome it. Lord Cairns owed his inspiration for the Acts he passed in 1881 to solicitors. The Acts were, however, purely permissive. Solicitors were in consequence not under any obliga tion to adopt the simple and cheap system the Acts introduce i.
It is notorious that the system was immediately accepted as a vast improvement on the previous practice, and it was at once universally adopted. The fact that solicitors thus voluntarily adopted the Act, and so limited their costs to sums far less than they could, and can to-day, legally charge, is surely the strongest evidence that can be given that solicitors place their clients' interests in front of their own.
(To be continued.)
THE twentieth anniversary was observed on the 26th ult., when the annual meeting was held in the Council Chamber, Southampton, the chair being taken by the president, Mr. E. R. Ensor (Southampton). The minutes of the last annual meeting, which was held at Portsmouth, having been taken as read, the committee's report and the treasurer's accounts for the past year were received and adopted. Apologies for non-attendance were received from Messrs. W. Renny and A. C. Burbidge (Portsmouth), J. C. Moberly (Southampton), W. E. Foster (Aldershot), and others. The president referred to the loss the society had sustained by the death of Mr. G. W. Edmonds (Portsmouth), and a vote of sympathy with his family was passed. Mr. Ensor was re-elected as president, and Mr. E. J. Bechervaise (Portsmouth) was elected as vice-president in the place of the late Mr. Edmonds. At the suggestion of Mr. F. G. Allen (Portsmouth), it was agreed that in future the president should hold office for one year only, instead of for two years as heretofore. The four outgoing members of the committee-namely, Messrs. H. W. Chandler (Basingstoke), H. K. Grierson (Southampton), and A. Bowker and C. Shenton (Winchester)—were re-elected, as were also the two auditors, Mesers. F. Faithfull (Winchester) and E. T. Westlake (Southampton), and the hon. secretary and treasurer, Mr. A. W. Brain (Southampton). Mr. E. Hobbs (Portsmouth) was elected as a member of the committee in the place of Mr. Bechervaise, and Mr. H. M. Foster (Aldershot) was elected on the committee in the place of Mr. G. M. Footner (Romsey), who has resigned. A vote of thanks was accorded to Mr. Footner for his past services. The president then dealt with the County Courts Bill and the report of the Land Transfer Commission, and proposed: "That it is the opinion of the Hampshire Incorporated Law Society that, pending the introduction by the Lord Chancellor of his proposed Bill for the amendment of the Land Transfer Acts, it is not desirable to introduce into Parliament either of the Bills prepared on behalf of the Law Society.” This was supported by the vice-president and Messrs. Grierson and Allen, but opposed by Mr. T. H. F. Lapthorn (Portsmouth). On being put to the meeting, the resolution was carried by a large majority. The members subsequently dined together at the South-Western Hotel, when, after the toast of "The King," the president gave the health of "Our Visitors," for whom Mr. H. K. Pope (Southampton) responded. The other toasts were those of "The President," "The Vice-President," and "The Secretary."
DISENDOWMENT.-Mr. Gray Holmested invites us to compare the English Prayer Book with the Roman office of the Mass, and he says there is really hardly any substantial difference between the two. However, he will find that, in the former, everything in the nature of a sacrifice, which is the central factor of the Mass, is cut out. Does he deny that numbers of Catholic priests in the sixteenth century were hanged, drawn, and quartered for offering up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? And how does he reconcile his views (the outcome of his private judgment) with the 31st Article of Religion, which lays it down that the sacrifice of the Mass is " blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit." ANOTHER SOLICITOR.
To argue that, because all right to tithe had a common origin more than a thousand years ago, therefore any presentday legislation which embraces only a portion of the tithe is necessarily unjust appears somewhat foolish in view of the fact that under Henry VIII. Parliament divided the tithe into two different classes of property with different incidents. Mr. Gray Holmested must attempt a little clear thinking. Mr. Asquith has been born rather too late to be able to deal with tithe as it existed at its origin. He is proposing to legislate with regard to the Church of England as it exists in the time of George V. Arguments on lay tithe have no more relevance to his Bill than arguments on any other form of private property. Mr. Holmested would like to persuade himself that, after all, nothing in the way of substantial religious change took place under Edward VI. and Elizabeth. With opinions which he holds as articles of his religious faith I have nothing to do. I am only concerned with facts of external, objective human history so far as they have a bearing upon the present political position of the Established Church. Mr. Holmested tries to throw doubt upon the fact that under Elizabeth it was made a criminal offence to say or hear Mass. He will find the enactment in sect. 4 of 23 Eliz. c. 1. He cannot discover any real difference between the Anglican Communion office and the Catholic Mass. It would be waste of your space if I were to enter into any metaphysical discussion. But even
Mr. Holmested sees that there is some difference, and it is matter of historic fact that, under Elizabeth, Parliament showed its appreciation of the difference by forcing the clergy to use the Communion office and other services of the Prayer Book, and punishing them if they said Mass or became reconciled to the See of Rome. The public officers who enjoyed the public ecclesiastical endowments when Elizabeth came to the throne had to give up the Catholic Faith of Mary's reign and adopt "the religion now by Her Highness' authority established "—or be ejected. As the Rev. C. W. Emmet says in this month's Nineteenth Century: "Whether wisely or not, our Prayer Book and Articles were deliberately drawn up in such a way as to differentiate between the Anglican and Roman Churches.' If Mr. Holmested will only analyse the Acts, he will be able to discover that Parliament, putting its statutes in a frame designed to meet the needs of the time, did really (as Bishop Welldon aptly summarises the matter) take the funds from a Church in communion with the See of Rome and transfer them to a Church not in communion with the See of Rome. Mr. Holmested's fanciful theory offers no explanation of the fact that after Elizabeth's accession all the bishops save one refused to conform to the new laws and were ejected. I do not wish to argue theological points, or to shake Mr. Holmested's simple faith in some mystical, spiritual harmony transcendentally uniting Mass priests who acknowledged the jurisdiction of Rome and Prayer Book clergy who swore to the Royal supremacy and declared that the Church of Rome had erred and that sacrifices of Masses were blasphemous fables. But no man could humanly take both positions at the same time. And it is an undoubted historical fact, as Mr. Holmested may see if he studies the statutebook, that Parliament, regarding verbal contradiction and ceremonial distinctions as a test of difference of underlying bélief, did take away the endowments from the one body and transfer them to the other. It will have been evident to readers of the article that I am a follower of Mr. Disraeli when, speaking of the union of Church and State, he said: "I cannot bring myself to believe that the people of this country would ever consent to the severance of that tie and at the same time agree that the Church of England should retain the property which it now possesses. I think we must dismiss from our minds the notion that any such arrangement could ever be tolerated by a British Parliament : (House of Commons, 30th April 1868). If Mr. Holmested wants to shake my allegiance to Disraeli's view, it must be by argument really bearing on present-day proposals. Let me conclude with two examples of Mr. Holmested's inability to get at the real heart, of the question. (1) He says that to abolish tithe would be to make a present of its value to the landowners. This is true, but, as Mr. Asquith does not propose to abolish any tithe at all, the remark is irrelevant. (2) He says that even if tithe be a tax, its existence is taken into account in estimating the value of the land subject thereto. This elementary truism carries no conclusion with it, because it neglects the vital factor of the situation. Any permanent charge on land lessens the value of the land, quite regardless of the manner in which it arose or the purpose for which it is applied. An intending purchaser makes careful inquiry as to all outgoings, whether of a public or a private nature, and fixes his price accordingly. In the case of a charge created by a private deed, he knows he will have to pay the charge to the person entitled, but the question of how that person spends his private income is a matter of no concern to the purchaser of the property. If the charge be a public tax, he knows that it will equally have to be paid, and it equally lessens the price he will offer for the land. But as to the application of rates and taxes, the purchaser has. a further right which he does not possess with regard to the private income of a ground landlord or other charge owner. He has the right of a citizen to give his vote with regard to the manner in which all public rates and taxes (whether tithe tax, land tax, poor rate, &c., and whether levied upon himself or upon other citizens) shall be applied. Consequently it lies upon supporters of the present system of Establishment to show on what ground of justice the tithe tax, levied without regard to the creed of the taxpayer, can rightly be spent in support of one particular creed out of the many creeds which find adherents amongst the nation.
THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE.
MOTOR LICENCES.-In the Parliamentary Record on p. 465 of your current issue it is stated that Part 5 of the Revenue Act 1911 regularises the new arrangements under which local bodies are receiving such large sums out of motor licences." As this statement would to many minds convey a quite erroneous impression, may I point out the actual facts? Local authorities have for many years received from the Exchequer the whole of the carriage licences. Up to Jan. 1909 the duty was collected by the Inland' Revenue authorities and handed over to the local authorities, but since Jan. 1909 the collection has been in the hands of the local authorities themselves under an Order in Council dated the 19th Oct. 1908. It will be seen that the authorities had but little time to arrange the machinery for collecting the licence duty in the first few months of 1909, and, as a result, there were many arrears on the 31st March of that year, the amount of licence money collected for that year being less than it would have been in an ordinary year. Now, the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, as amended by Part 5 of the Revenue Act 1911, fixes the amount to be received by the local authorities for carriage licences at the amount. collected in the year 1908-9, which, as shown above, was a smaller figure than would ordinarily have been collected. The net result
is that local authorities are receiving less than they would ordinarily have done, and, moreover, lose all benefit they would have received from the normal increase of the amount of the duty, which in the year 1909-10 was about £70,000 for the whole country. DEPUTY CLERK.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM HAWKINS, of Upper Phillimore-gardens, late master of the Supreme Court, died on the 25th ult. at Coomte Corner, Porlock. He married a Miss Charlton, of Rochester, who predeceased him.
THE COURTS AND COURT PAPERS.
APPEAL COURT I.
Ex parte applications and appeals from the King's Bench Division (Interlocutory List) will be taken on Thursday, the 12th Oct.
King's Bench final and new trial appeals will be in the paper on Friday, the 13th Oct., and continued until further notice in the daily cause list.
APPEAL COURT II.
Er parte applications and appeals from the Chancery, Probate and Divorce Divisions (Interlocutory List) will be in the paper for hearing on the 12th Oct. Appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Acts will be in the paper and continued until further notice in the daily cause list.
High Court of Justice.
LORD CHANCELLOR's Court.-Before Mr. Justice JOYCE. Thursday, Oct. 12.-Motions Friday, Oct 13-Motions and nonwitness list
Saturday, Uc'. 14-Non-witness list Monday, Oct. 16-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Oct. 17-Short causes, petitions, further considerations, and non-witness list
Wednesday, Oct. 18. and Thursday,
Oct. 19-Non-witness list
Saturday, Oct. 21-Manchester and Liver-
Wednesday. Oct. 25, and Thursday,
Saturday, Oct. 28-Nen-witness list
Wednesday, Nov. 1,
Saturday, Nov. 4-Liverpool and Man-
Wednesday, Nov. 8, and Thursday,
Friday, Nov. 10-Motions and non-witness
Saturday, Nov. 11-Non-witness list
Friday, Nov. 17-Motions and noc-witness list
Saturday, Nov. 18-Manchester and Liverpool business
Monday, Nov. 20-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Nov. 21-Short causes, petitions, further considerations, and non-witness list
Wednesday. Nov. 22, and Thursday,
Saturday, Nov. 25-Non-witness list Monday, Nov. 27-Sitting in Chamb rs Tuesday, Nov. 28-Short causes, petitions. further considerations, and non-witness list.
Wednesday, Nov. 29. and Thursday, Nov. 30-Non-witness list
Friday, Dec. 1-Motions and non-witness list
Saturday, Dec. 2- Liverpool and Manchester business
Monday, Dec. 4-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Dec. 5-Short causes, petitions, further considerations, and non-witness list
Wednesday, Dec. 6, and Thursday,
Dec. 7-Non-witness list Friday, Dec. 8-Motions and non-witness
Saturday, Dec. 9-Non-witness list Monday, Dec. 11-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Dec. 12-Short causes, petitions, further considerations, and non-witness list Wednesday, Dec. 13, and Thursday, Dec. 14-Non-witness list Friday, Dec. 15 Motions and Witness list Saturday, Dec. 16-Manchester and Liverpool business
Monday, Dec. 18-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Dec. 19-Short causes, petitions, further considerations, and nou-witness list
Wednesday, Dec. 20-Non-witness list
Any cause intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the cause book at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard. Two copies of minutes of the proposed judgment or order must be left in court with the judge's clerk one clear day before the cause is to be put in the paper. In default the cause will not be put in the paper.
N.B.-The following papers on further consideration are required for the use of the judge, viz.:-Two copies of minutes of the proposed order, one copy pleadings, one copy judgment, and one copy master's certificate, which must be left in court with the judge's clerk one clear day before the further consideration is ready to come into the paper.
CHANCERY COURT I.-Before Thursday, Oct. 12-Motions (Ex parte) Friday, Oct. 18- Motions and nonwitness list Saturday, Oct. 14-Short causes, petitions, and ron-witness list Monday, Oct. 16-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Oct 17- Companies Acts and non-witness list
Wednesday, Oct. 18, and Thursday,
Saturday. Oct. 21-Short causes, petit'ons,
Mr. Justice SWINFEN EADY.
Saturday, Oct. 28-Short causes, pe:i-
Wednesday, Nov. 1, and Thursday,
Saturday, Nov. 4-Short causes, petitions,
Wednesday, Nov. 8. and Thursday,
Saturday, Nov. 11-Short causes, petitions, and non-witness list
Monday, Nov. 13-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Nov. 14-Companies Acts and non-witness list Wednesday, Nov. 15, and Thursday Nov. 16-Non-witness list Friday, Nov. 17-Motions and non-witness list Saturday, Nov. 18-Short causes, petitions, and non-witness list Monday, Nov. 20-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Nov. 21-Companies Acts and non-witness list Wednesday, Nov. 22, and Thursday, Nov 23-Non- witness list Friday, Nov. 24-Motions and non-witness list
Saturday, Nov. 25-Short causes, petitions, and non-witness list Monday, Nov. 27-Sitting in Chambers Tuesday, Nov. 28-Companies Acts and non-witness list
Wednesday, Nov. 29, and Thursday, Nov. 30-Non-witness list
Saturday. Dec. 9-Short causes, peti-
Wednesday, Dec. 13, and Thursday,
Saturday, Dec. 16-Short causes, peti-
Wednesday, Dec. 20-Motions.
Any cause intended to be heard as a short cause must be so marked in the cause book at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard. The necessary papers, including two copies of minutes of the proposed judgment or order, must be left in court with the judge's clerk not less than one clear day before the cause is to be put in the paper. In default the cause will not be put in the paper. N.B.-The following papers on further consideration are required for the use of the judge, viz.:-Two copies of minutes of the proposed judgment or order, one copy pleadings, and one copy master's certificate. These must be left in court with the judge's clerk not less than one clear day before the further consideration is ready to come into the paper.
CHANCERY COURT II.-Before Mr. Justice WARRINGTON. Except when other business is advertised in the daily cause list Mr. Justice Warrington will take actions with witnesses daily throughout the sittings.
CHANCERY COURT III.-Before Mr. Justice NEVILLE. Except when other business is advertised in the daily cause list Mr. Justice Neville will take actions with witnesses throughout the sittings. The court will sit at 10.15 and rise at 4.15 each day except Saturday, when there will be no sitting.
CHANCERY COURT IV.-Before Mr. Justice PARKER.
In this court the work will be taken as follows:
Mondays, 10.30 a.m.-Chambers summonses; 30 p.m.-Short causes.
Fridays-Motions and non-witness list.
There will be no Saturday sittings, but the court will sit till 4 30 on other days
KING'S BENCH COURT.-Before Mr. Justice EVE. Except when other business is advertised in the daily cause list actions with witnesses will be taken throughout the sittings.
During these sittiogs the court will sit each day until 4 30 p.m., except on Saturdays, when there will be no sitting.
High Court of Justice.
NOTICES RELATING TO THE CHANCERY CAUSE LIST.
Mr. Justice Joyce will take his Business as announced in the Michaelmas Sittings Paper. Manchester Business.-Mr. Justice Joyce will take Liverpool and Manchester Business on Saturdays, the 21st Oct., the 4th and the 18th Nov, and the 2nd and the 16th Dec.
Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady.-Will take his Business as announced in the Michaelmas Sittings Paper.
Mr. Justice Warrington.-Except when other Business is advertised in the Daily Cause List, Mr. Justice Warrington will sit for the disposal of His Lordship's Witness List daily throughout the Sittings.
Mr. Justice Neville.-Except when other Business is advertised in the Daily Cause List, Actions with Witnesses will be taken throughout the Sittings. The Court will sit at 10.15 a.. and rise at 4 15 p.m. each day except Saturdays, when there will be no Sitting.
Mr. Justice Parker will take his Business as announced in the Michaelmas Sittings Paper.
Mr. Justice Eve.-Except when other Business is advertised in the Daily Canse List, Actions with Witnesses will be taken throughout the Sittings. During these Sittings Mr. Justice Eve will sit each day until 4.30 p.m., except on Saturdays, when there will be no sitting.
Summonses before the Judge in Chambers.-Mr. Justice Joyce, Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, and Mr. Justice Parker will sit in Court every Monday during the Sittings to hear Chamber Summonses.
Summonses adjourned into Court and Non-Witness Actions will be heard by Mr. Justice Joyce, Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, and Mr. Justice Parker.
Motions, Petitions, and Short Causes will be taken on the days stated in the Michaelmas Sittings Paper.
NOTICE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CHANCERY WITNESS LISTS. During the Michaelmas Sittings the Judges will sit for the disposal of Witness Acrops as follows:
Mr. Justice Warrington will take the Witness List for Warrington and Parker, JJ.
CHANCERY CAUSES FOR TRIAL OR HEARING.
Retained Causes for Trial with Witnesses.
Re Treberne: Treherner. Treherne
Lever Brothers Limited v. Slaithwaite Equitable Industrial Co-operative
Society Limited Benjamin Brooke and Co. Limited . Same
Lever Brothers Limited . Cleckheaton
Lever Brothers Limited r. Wakefield
Lever Brotbers Limited v. Wrexham
Lever Brothers Limited v. Golcar Co-operative Society Limited
Benjamin Brooke and Co. Limited v. Same
Lever Brothers Limited v. Birmingham
Industrial Co-operative Society Limited Benjamin Brooke and Co. Limited v. Same
Lever Brothers Limited v. Nottinghamı Co-operative Society
Benjamin Brooke and Co. Limited r.
Lever Brothers Limited v. Derby Co-operative Society Limited
Benjamin Brooke and Co. Limited v.
Lever Brothers Limited v. Borstall Indus-
Lever Brothers Limited . Hyde Equitable
Lever Brothers Limited v. Gomersal
Same v. Preston Industrial Co-operative
Conway v. Charles Castle and Son.
Causes for Trial without Witnesses
Lillington v. Capern
Re Alton: Newbolt v. Alton
Lord Derby v. Ferguson
Re Walton Turner (deceased) bank r. Turner
Re George Herring (deceased); Strong v. Herring
Re Estate of Thomes John (deceased); Williams v. Crooke
Re Earl Cadogan Settlement; Richmond v. Lambton
Re Richard Cosslett (deceased); Coleman v. Attorney-General
Re Rigby; Rigby v. Rigby
Re Lane Fox's Settlement; Fairfax v. Lane Fox
Re The Enfield Autocar Company's Trade
Re Moore and Hulme's Contract and Re
Re Trade Marks Act 1905; Re L. J. Lea Limited Trade Mark
Re Webster: Pearson v. Webster Re Lambert (deceased); Lambeat r. Lambert
Re Liversidge's Settlement; Morrell v.
Re Olivieri (deceased); Hamell v. Rusconi
Re Lucas' Settlement; Lucas v. Rimmington
Colman v. Cook and Co.
Re John Chambers (deceased): Stanton v Humble
Re Joseph Holson (deceased); Barwick ". Holt
Re Ormerod's Settlement; Haworth
Re R. M. Hope (deceased); Washington r. Coates
and Adjourned Summonses.
Re Crowley's Trust; Crowley v. Ecken stein
Balston v. Bower
Re Oram's Settlement; Howland v. Ora m Re Sarah Ann Greenwood (deceased);
Greenwood v. Sutcliffe
Re Beach (deceased); Bury v. Hardman Re A. Cohen (deceased); Nathan v. Cohen
Re Poultney Estate; Re The Trustee Act 1893; Poultney v. Poultney
Re Hoggart's Settlement; Hoggart V. Burnage
Crowley v. Crowley
Re L. L. Horsell (deceased); Meates v. Abel
Re Robert Hunt (deceased); Hoare and Co. Limited v. Hunt
Re Trade Marks Act 1905; Re William McEwan and Co.'s Trade Mark
Re Kirlews Brothers Limited; Wesencraft r. The Company
Re Southgate's Settlement; Southgate r. Southgate
Re O'Grady's Settlement; Coventry v. O'Grady
Re Charles Alexander (deceased); Rew r. Harrison
Re Collins (deceased); Heys Jones v. Duvall
Re Alder (deceased): Alder v. Alder
Re H. M. Gordon (deceased); Gordon v. Gordon
Re Charlesworth's Trusts; Tew v. Briggs Re Bryan (deceased); Re The Trustee Act 1893
Re Mules' Estate; Dickenson v. Penruddocke
Re A. Charles (deceased); Charles r. Charles
Re G. Clunies-Ross (deceased); Stubbings v. Clunies-Ross
Re J. Davidson (deceased); Davidson v. Lloyd
Re The Trade Marks Act 1905 and Re the Applications Nos. 321,882 and 321.883 of La Societé Anonyme Le Ferment to register a trade mark
Be The Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 Ke Reorganisation and Control Syndicate
Re Watkins (deceased); Payne v. Payne; Johnston r. Payne
Re G. Bowles (deceased); Loddiges r. Loddiges
Re Pritchard and The Trustee Act
e Levy Lichtenstein (deceased); Harrls r. Landsberg
Re Ridley's Agreement; Ridley v. Ridley
Re Sparrow (deceased); Downing v.
Re Williams (deceased);
Attorney-General v. Price
Re Clark (deceased); Endersby v. Overend Re Lawley (deceased); Jackson r. Leigh
R Wm. Daws (deceased); Sidwell v. Daws
Re Jackson (deceased); Turner v. Turner
Re Jesse Lee (deceased); Re Elizabeth
Re Atkinsons and Horsell's Contract and
Re Arthur Tooth (deceased); Tooth r.
Re Emily Colville (deceased); Colville r.
Re A. Maber (deceased); Ward r. Maher
Re Garratt; Ketlewell . Garratt
Re Reeve (deceased); Re Bunn; Riches
Re James Clifford's Estate; Mallam v.
Re Ann Sparkes (deceased); Kemp-Welch
Re Moss deceased): Room r. Cooper
(Spain) Limited Premier Mines Limited (pet. of Consolidated Preumatic Tool Company Limited)
Ind, Coope, and Co. Limited (pet. of C. Spalding)
Same (pet. of H. G. Da Costa)
Same (pet. of Shuters, Chippendales, and Colyers Limited)
H. A. Weltner and Co. Limited (pet. of
British Investment Syndicate Limited
Polycolor Syndicate Limited (pet. of Natural Color Kinematograph Company Limited)
Bushey Heath Brick and Tile Company
William Birks Patents Limited (pet. of
Henry Hermitage and Co. Limited (pet. of
South Sumatra Rubber Estates Limited
Shalo Copper Mines Limited (pet. of K. E Persse)
K. S. B. Syndicate Limited (pet. of J. and H. Gosschalk)
Cosy Cinema of Lambeth Limited (pet. of Happy Hours Limited) Burnards Limited (pet.of I. Cohen and Co.) Newfoundland Oil (Parent) Development Syndicate Limited (pet. of J. A. Greene and another)
Aerial Manufacturing Company of Grea
Grand Insurance Company Limited (pet
Cobo Company Limited (pet of Southern
New Motor and General Rubber Company
Bank of Egypt Limited (pet. of the Company)
Aowin Rubber and Produce Company Limited (pet. of J. McKerlie and another).
Houghton and others v. Tomlinson and others.
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) AND CHANCERY DIVISION.
Piccadilly Hotel Limited: Paul v. Picca
dilly Hotel Limited and another
Same Same r. Same.
Progressive Assurance Company Limited | Meter Cabs Limited
Brown and others r. British Natural Law Car and General Insurance Corpora
Egyptian Estates Limited
Home and Foreign Investment and Agency Company Limited
Dover Coalfields Extension Limited.
Joint Stock Trust and Finance Corpora- J. W. Gordon and Co. Limited