To surrender in the Country. BARTLETT, ROBERT HENRY, attorney-at-law, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 3. Reg. Hime. Sur. Jun. 14

DOUST, STEPHEN, miller, Easthothly. Pet. Jan. 3. Reg. Blaker. Sur. Jan. 17

HOYLE, RICHARD, innkeeper, Proston. Pet. Dec. 19. Reg. Myres. Sur. Jan. 24

HUGHES, CHARLES MAURICE, gentleman, Harlow-Carr, Oakfieldrd, Croydon. Pet. Dec. 2). Reg. Rowland. Sur. Jan. 19 LAURIE, HENRY ALEXANDER, linen draper, Wigan. Pet. Jan. 2. Reg. Part. Sur. Jan. 17

PARR, WILLIAM, grocer, Patricroft. Pet. Dec. 27. Reg. Hulton. Sur. Jan. 17

SKOYLES, BENJAMIN HOWARD. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. Chamberlin. Sur. Jan. 23

WHITE WILLIAM, grocer, Chiddingly. Pet. Jan. 1. Reg. Blaker. Sur. Jan. 17

Gazette, Jan. 9.

To surrender in the Country. HOYLAND, JAMES, tobacconist, Sheffield. Pet. Jan. 2. Reg. Wake. Sur. Jan. 25

MAGILL, HUGH, travelling draper, Carlisle. Pet. Jan. 5. Reg. Halton. Sur. Jan. 23

PITT. WILLIAM ROBERT, inn keeper, West Malvern. Pet. Jan. 6. Reg. Crisp. Sur. Jan. 27.

ROOKE, HENRY, shoemaker, Rockborne. Pet. Jan. 4. Reg. Wilson Sur. Jan. 2

BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED.
Gazette, Jan. 5.

HOWS, ALFRED COY, poulterer, Alford. Nov. 3, 1870

Liquidations by Arrangement.

FIRST MEETINGS.

Gazette, Jan. 5.

ALLEN, EDWARD, paper stainer, Jan. 23, at three, at the Cla-
rence hotel, Manchester. Sol., Leigh, Manchester
AUSTIN, SAUEL grocer, Northwich; Jan. 20, at eleven, at office
Sol., Cheshire, Northwich

BANKS, HENRY, iron merchant, Edgbaston; Jan. 24, at twelve,
at office of Sols., Duignan, Lewis, and Lewis, Walsall
BARTLETT, ROBERT HENRY WILLIAMS, solicitor, Liverpool;
Jan. 27, at two, at office of Sol., Barrow, Wolverhampton
BOOL, HENRY, and BOOL, ALFRED, wheelwrights, Railway-arch,
Salamanca-st, Vauxhall-walk, and Langley-la, South Lambeth-
rd: Jan. 22, at two, at office of Sois., Tilley and Shenton,
Finsbury-pl-south

CADYWOULD. HENRY GEORGE, upholsterer, Great Yarmouth;
Jan, 20, at twelve, at office of Sol, Palmer, Great Yarmouth
CARTER, GEORGE, innkeeper, Newton Abbot; Jan. 18, at eleven,
at the Queen's hotel, Exeter. Sol., Feyer

COLLINS, WILLIAM HENRY, publican, Cardiff; Jan. 16, at twelve, of Sol.. Stephens, Cardiff

COOKSEY, JOHN, grocer, Maidstone; Jan. 17, at half-past twelve, at the Bridge-house hotel, London-bridge, Southwark. Sol., Goodwin, Maidstone

COOMBE, SAMUEL, builder, Tenby-villa, Harvest-rd, Holloway; Jan. 23, at one, at office of Sol., Boulton, Northampton-sq, Clerkenwell

CORBETT, CHARLES, out of business, Adisham; Jan. 23, at four, at the Victoria hotel, Dover. Sol., Minter, Dover DICKER, JOy, staymaker, Newington-causeway; Jan. 23, at three, at 33, Gutter-la. Sol., Davis, Old Jewry

DOAK, ROBERT, draper, Wokingham; Jan. 20, at three, at office of Sol, Beale, Reading

DORMER, WILLIAM HENRY, assistant relieving officer, Bandonrd, Bethnal-green; Jan. 29, at two, at office of Sol., Hutson, Finsbury

DURRANT, THOMAS, fishing boat owner, Gorleston; Jan, 16, at
twelve, at office of Sol., Cufaude, Great Yarmouth
EDWARDS, FREDERICK STUART, merchant, Crown-wharf, Lower
Shadwell; Jan. 19, at two, at office of Sol., Morris, Liverpool.
Sol., Venn, Paper-bldgs, Temple

FARAM, SAMUEL. grocer, Astbury, Jan. 29, at eleven, at office of
Sol., Sherratt, Kidsgrove

GRAND, JOHN, boot maker, King's-rd, Chelsea; Jan. 29, at three, at offices of Godfrey, solicitor, Basinghall-st. Sol., Watson, Basinghall-st

GRAY, JAMES, ship block maker, King-st. St. George's-east, and
Old Gravel-la; Jan. 22, at three, at office of Sol., Salaman,
King-st, Cheapside
GREEN, WILLIAM, grocer, Bristol: Jan. 17, at twelve, at office of
Sols., Henderson and Salmon, Bristol

HALL, JOHN BARNES, jeweller, Moreton-st west, Pimlico; Jan.
22, at twelve, at office of Sol., Hales, Clifford's-inn, Fleet-st
HEWITSON, JOHN, Ironmonger, Cockermouth; Jan. 17, at two, at
office of Sol., Wick, Cockermouth
HILL, SAMUEL, cabinet bar fitter, St. George's-rd, Southwark
Jan. 18, at twelve, at office of Sol., Foster, Chancery.la
HORROCKS, JAMES, manufacturing chemist, Over Hulton, near
Bolton; Jan. 17, at two, at office of Sol, Ryley, Bolton
HUTCHINSON, WILLIAM, grocer, Bingham; Jan. 22, at twelve, at
office of Sol., Cowley, Nottingham

JACKSON, ROBINSON, and HARDY, THOMAS, sail makers, Hull; Jan., 17, at twelve, at office of Sols., Stamp, Jackson, and Birks,

Hull

JACKSON, THOMAS, draper, Old Accrington; Jan. 19, at three, at the Clarence hotel, Spring-gardens, Manchester. Sol., Barlow, New Accrington

LACKEY, THOMAS, milkseller, Manchester; Jan. 22, at half-past three, at office of Sol., Richardson, Manchester

LAW, JOHN BROUGHTON, fronfounder, Leicester; Jan. 16, at one, at office of Sol., Owston, Leicester

LEWIS, EDWARD, printer, Worship-st, Finsbury; Jan. 22, at two. at the Masons' Hall tavern, Mason's-avenue, Basinghall-st. Sols., Blackford and Riches, Great Swan-alley, Moorgate-st LOCKE, HENRY, victualler, Great Wilde-st, Lincoln's-inn-fields; Jan. 15, at two, at the Mason's-hall, Mason's-avenue, Basinghall-st. Sol., Gowing, Basinghall-st

MELLOR, THOMAS, grocer, Altrincham; Jan. 22, at eleven, at the Navigation inn, Altrincham. Sol., Diron

MOSS, EMANUEL, looking-glass manufacturer, St. Mary-axe; Jan. 19, at eleven, at the Guildhall tavern, Guildhall-yd. Sols., Rooks, Kenrick, and Harston, King-st, Cheapside NORWOOD, Rev. SAMUEL, clerk, and head master of the Royal Grammar School, Whalley; Jan. 18, eleven, at the White Bull hotel, Church-st, Blackburn. Sol., Eastham, Clitheroe PILCHER, THOMAS, coach proprietor, Margate; Jan. 13, at two, at the Queen's Head tavern, Margate. Sol., Marshall, Hatton-gdn PREBBLE, FREDERICK THOMAS, builder, Benhill-rd, Camberwell; Jan. 15, at two, at office of Slater and Pannell, Guildhallchmbs, Basinghall-st. Sol., Mileham, Poultry PRICE, FRANCES ANN, provision dealer. Liverpool; Jan. 18, at three, at office of Sol., Nordon, Liverpool

PRICE, JOHN, builder, Albert-ter, Clapham-rd: Jan. 15, at two at office of Sols., Dalton and Jessett, St. Clement's house, Clement's-la, Lombard-st

RENALS, WILLIAM, station master, Leagrave, in Luton; Jan. 21 at two, at offices of Mr. Cogswell, 72, Gracechuurch-st RHODES, WILLIAM THOMAS, grocer, Harrogate; Jan. 18, at one, at office of Sols., Hirst and Capes, Harrogate

RICHARDSON, BREARLEY, bookseller, Halifax; Jan. 17, at eleven, at office of Sols., Norris and Foster, Halifax

SARAH, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Teignmouth; Jan. 18, at two, at the Queen's hotel, Queen-st, Exeter. Sol., Fryer

SLATTERIE, JOHN JAMES, commission agent, Landport, par. Portsea; Jan. 71, at four, at office of Sol., King, Portsea SPENCER, JOHN FRANCES, and BROWN, WALTER HENRY, grocers, Birmingham: Jan. 16, at three, at office of Sol., Parry, Birmingham

TALBOT, GEORGE, grocer, Wacton; Jan. 15, at three, at offices of Sol., Stanley, Norwich

THORNE, JAMES, milliner, St. George's-pl, Knightsbridge; Jan. 25, at eleven, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sols., Ashurst, Morris, and Co., Old Jewry

TOMBS, EDWARD, trimming manufacturer, Cow Cross-st, Saint
Sepulchre's; Jan. 13, at two, at 36 and 37, Cow Cross-st, Saint
Sepulchre's. Sol., Drake, Basinghall-st
TOMKINS, CHARLES, architect, Rusholme; Jan. 18, at twelve, at
office of T. Crowther, 16, Booth-st, Manchester. Sol., Smith,
Manchester

TREMAIN, HENRY JOHN, turner, Ashcroft-rd, Mile-end; Jan. 23, at three, at office of Sol., Green, Cannon-st

TRIPP, HENRY HOWARD, ale merchant, Bristol; Jan. 15, at twelve at offices of J. and S. P. Parsons, accountants, Athenæumchmbs, Bristol. Sol., Atchley, Bristol

WHITE, JOHN, and SELKIRK, JOHN, coal merchants, Eastbourne; adjourned from Jan. 1 to Jan. 10, at one, at offices of J. T. C Stiff, Cornfield-ri, Eastbourne

WINDSOR, JAMES, farmer, Bathealton; Jan. 18, at eleven, at the London hotel, Taunton. Sol., Lovibond, Bridgwater WOODWARD, JAMES, plumber, Gloucester; Jan. 19, at twelve, at office of Sol., Jaynes, Gloucester

Gazette, Jan. 9.

ADAMSON, RANFORD, ironmonger, Redcar: Jan. 22, at eleven, at offices of Sols., Brewster and Stubbs, Middlesborough BEMISTER, FREDERICK GEORGE, draper, Eastleigh; Jan. 18, at one, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, King-st. Cheapside, London. Sol, Killby, Southampton

BEEVERS, CHARLES, provision dealer, Linthwaite; Jan. 22, at
eleven, at office or Sol.. Bottomley, Huddersfield.
BENNITT, JOSEPH BOURNE, gentleman. Powis-sq, Bayswater;
Jan. 2 at three, at office of Lovell Keays, Charles-st, Saint
James'-sq

BLICK, JOHN, carpenter, Birmingham: Jan, 25, at twelve, at
offices of Sols, Beale, Marigold, and Beale, Birmingham
BONNER, ROBERT, plumber, Brighton; Jan 24, at three, at offices
of Sols, Black, Freeman, and Gell, Brighton
BRIDEN, LOUISA and BRIDEN, JOHN, machinists, Birmingham;
Jan. 23, at twelve, at office of Sol., Griffin, Birmingham
BRIGHT, JOHN, draper, Queen's-rd, Bayswater; Jan. 26, at
three, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sols., Messrs.
Piesse, Old Jewry-chmbs

BROOKS, WILLIAM JOHN, farmer, King's Norton; Jan. 20, at twelve, at office of Sol., Rowlands, Birmingham BURGESS, EDWIN, fish salesman, Tunstall; Jan. 25, at eleven, at office of Sol., Cooper, Tunstall

BUTLER, WILLIAM, boot maker, Great Yarmouth; Jan. 23, at twelve, at offices of Sol.. Cufaude, Great Yarmouth CHALMERS, JOHN TEMPLETON, draper, Penzance; Jan. 20,"at two, at offices of Sol., Trevena, Truro

CHARLES, WILLIAM TAYLOR, and CHARLES, JOHN ANDREW, merchants, Sheffield; Jan. 18, at one, at Old Council Hal!, Sheffield. Sols., Broomhead, Wightman, and Moore, Sheffield CHETHAM, JOHN, and SANDYS, WILLIAM JOHN, earthenware manufacturers, Stoke-upon-Trent; Jan. 18, at eleven. at Railway Hotel, Stoke-upon-Trent. Sol., Litchfield, Newcastle COE, JOHN ELIJAH, cork manufacturer, King's Lynn; Jan. 17, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Nurse, King's Lynn COLLEY, ROBERT, builder, Victoria-ter, Hammersmith: Jan. 22.

Albion-pl, Leeds.-Grant, W. R. farmer, first and final, s. 4d. on and after Jan. 2. At offices of E. S. Foster, 11, St. James'-row, Sheffield.-Lloyd. E. Holywell, first and final, 37. on and after Jan. 5. At office of Sol. Cartwright, Chester.-McIntosh, D. Colchester, third and final, 3s. 3d. on and atter Jan. 4. At office of Trust. H. Leaning, Long Wyre-st, Colchester.-Mudd, F. C. surgeon, first and final, 5. 6d. on and after Jan. 4. At office of Sol. Hillman, Lewes.-Munrow, T. hosier, first, 78. 54d. on and after Jan. 3. At office of Sols. Dobinson and Watson, 5, Bank-st, Carlisle. Trust. W. Topping.-Northrop, Tetley, Tetley, and Ward, manufacturers, first, 11s. 34. on and after Jan. 8. At office of Trust. C. J. Buckley, 43, 011-market, Bradford.-Rowlands, C. J. victualler, first, 34, on any Wednesday on and after Jan. 3. At offices of Gibson and Bolland, accountants, 10, South John-st, Liverpool.-Verity, 8. stone merchant. 15s. 74. At Sol. Simpson, Leeds.-Walter, W. Long Sutton, first and final, 5. on Jan. 8, or any subsequent Monday. At offices of James, Edwards, Cash, and Stone, 1, Tokenhouse-yd, London.

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS

BIRTHS.

ANDERSON.-On the 8th inst., at Roseneath, Cambridge-puk, Twickenham, the wife of James T Anderson, Esq., barrister at-law, of a daughter.

a son.

STOKER.-On the 9th inst, at No. 46, Alexandra-road, St. John's wood, the wife of W. C. Stoker, Esq., of Gray's-inn, solicitor, of WILLIAMS.-On the 6th inst.. at 1, Queen-square, S.W., the wife of R. G. Williams, bairister-at-law, of a daughter.

MARRIAGES. BOSWELL-WRENCH.-On the 4th inst., at St. Michael, Cornhill, George Morss Boswell, Q. C., and County Judge of Cobourg, Canada, to Mary, daughter of the Rev. T. W. Wrench, M.A., rector of the parish. HOPPER-RAIMONDI.-On the 8th inst., at St. Clements Danes, Richard James Everett, second son of Richard Hopper, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, to Myfanwy Mary Anfe, eldest daughter of Willoughby Raimondi, solicitor, of Surrey-street, Strand.

church-st

CONNOR, JAMES, watchmaker, Mountain Ash, near Aberdare; Jan. 22, at three, at Queen's Hotel, Birmingham. Sol. Griffith, Cardiff

COOPER, JOSEPH, hat manufacturer, Burton-on-Trent; Jan. 22, at half-past three, at White Bear hotel, Manchester. Sol., Simpson

Cox, Joux, grocer, Welshpool: Jan. 23, at three, at offices of Sols.,
Howell, Jones, and Howell, Welshpool
CUMBERS, CHARLES ALFRED, cowkeeper, Romford; Jan. 22, at
twelve, at offices of Sol., Preston, Mark-la

DAVEY, THOMAS, builder, Rupert-rd, Upper Holloway; Jan. 22,
at three, at office of Sol., Layton, Gresham-st
DAVIES, ROBERT, innkeeper. Holywell; Jan. 29, at eleven, at
office of Sol., Davies, Holywell

DEAN, RANDALL, licensed victualler, Milford-la, Strand: Jan. 23. at three, at the Chamber of Commerce, Cheapside. Sols., Armstrong, Old Jewry

DUTTON, MARY, grocer, Huddersfield; Jan. 22. at eleven, at office of Sols., Hesp, Fenton, and Owen, Huddersfield DUXBURY, EDWARD HOULTON, tripe dealer, Bacup; Jan. 22, at three, at office of Sol., Tattersall, Bacup

FENTON, THOMAS, butter factor, East Ardsley; Jan. 18, at one, at office of Sol., Barratt, Wakefield

FINCH, WILLIAM PEAL, butcher, Canterbury; Jan. 24, at twelve, at office of Sol., De Lassaux, Canterbury

GORNALL, JOHN, plumber, Berriew; Jan. 24, at half-past twelve, at office of Sol, Jones. Newtown

GRIFFITHS, EDWARD, joiner and builder, Little Bolton; Jan. 22, at three, at office of Sol., Murray, Manchester

HARTLEY, GEORGE, brewer, Llangollen; Jan. 20, at two, at
Royal Hotel, Llangollen. Sol., Marshall
HARTLEY, THOMAS, mason, Tudhoe Grange, Durham; Jan. 31, at
twelve, at offices of Sol., Brignall, Durham
HEATH, HENRY, butcher, Burton-on-Trent; Jan. 26, at three, at
County Hotel, Derby. Sols., Cranch and Rowe.
HOGARD, ABRAHAM FREDERICK, provision dealer, Woolwich;
Jan. 22, at three, ut offices of Sol, Nind, Basinghall-st
HUDSON, JOHN and WALMSLEY, THOMAS, joiners and builders,
Burnley; Jan. 23, at cleven, at office of Sol., Hartley, Burnley
JOHNSTON JOHN ALEXANDER, and Roos, GUSTAF EHRENREICH,
commission merchants, Leadenhall-st; Jan. 30, at two, at the
Corn Exchange Tavern, Mark-la. Sols., Willoughby and Co.,
Clifford's-inn
JORDAN, CHARLES, cordwainer, Blaenafon: Jan. 17, at three, at
the Lion hotel, Blaenafon. Sols., Greenway and Bytheway
Pontypool
KERSHAW, ROBERT EDMUND, innkeeper, Salford; Jan. 24, at
three at office of Sol., Guest, Manchester
LLOYD, THOMAS; LLOYD, HENRY; and LLOYD, FREDERICK
JAMES, steel mill makers, Goodman's-yd, Minories; Jan. 22, at
one, at office of Sol., Rice, Lincoln's-in-fields
LOWE, ANDREW, draper, Bradford; Jan. 25, at three, at offices
of Sol., Lees, Senior, and Wilson, Bradford

MACKAY, COLIN JAMES, iron merchant. Liverpool; Jan. 23, at
three, at office of Sol., Forrest, Liverpool
POWELL, HENRY, commercial traveller, Manchester; Jan. 19, at
two, at office of Sol., Ward, Manchester

WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS,

192, FLEET-STREET, AND 1 & 2, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, E. Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 208.

DRAFT PAPER, 48. 6d., 6s., 78.,78. 9d., and 9s. per ream.
BRIEF PAPER, 158. Gd., 178. 6d., and 23. 6d. per ream.
FOOLSCAP PAPER, 108. 6d., 138. 6d., and 18s. 6d. per ream,
CREAM LAID NOTE, 38., 4s., and 58. per ream.
LARGE CREAM LAID NOTE, 48., Cs., and 78. per ream.
LARGE BLUE NOTE, 38., 18., and 6s. per ream.
ENVELOPES, CREAM OR BLUE, 4s. 6d., and 6s. 6d., per 1000.
THE TEMPLE" ENVELOPE, extra secure, 9s. 67. per 1000.
FOOLSCAP OFFICIAL ENVELOPES, 18. 6d. per 10.
THE NEW "VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE "NOTE, 98. 6d. per

PRICE, JAMES, builder. Maidenhead; Jan. 20, at the White Hart Inn, Maidenhead. Sol., Soames, New Inn, Strand ROBINSON, MARGARET, hosier, Liverpool; Jan. 24, at three, at offices of Sols., Masters and Fletcher, Liverpool SMYTH, ROBERT, egg merchant, Leeds; Jun. 19, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Pullan, Leeds

SQUIRES, HENRY, gun barrel manufacturer, George-yd, Soho. and Leverton-street, Kentish-town; Jan. 28, at 2, at office of Sol., Truefitt, Essex-ct, Middle Temple

TERREL, HENRY, builder, Ashford; Jan. 18, at three, 'at offices of Mr. Mussabini, Basinghall-st

THEOBALD, JOHN, gentleman, Cornwall-rd, Bayswater; Jan. 22, at twelve, at offices of London Warehousemen's Association, Gutter-la. Sol., Plunkett, Gutter-la

THORNTON, CHARLES JOSEPH, draper, Middlesborough; Jan. 17, at eleven, at offlees of Greener and Co., Middlesborough TURNBULL, JAMES, grocer, Crouch-end, Hornsey; Jan. 22, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Carter and Bell, Leadenhall-st WARD, SETH, porter, Bradford Jan. 24, at three, at offices of Sols., Lees, Senior, and Wilson, Bradford

WALKER, JOHN, commercial traveller, Salford Jan. 19, at twelve, at office of Sol., Thompson, Oxford-chmbs, Manchester WEBB, JOHN, cattle dealer, Brimpton; Jan 16, at eleven, at the White Hart Inn, Newbury. Sol., Cave, Newbury WHITE, GEORGE WALTER, out of business, Parkstone; Jan. 18, at ten at the New Inn, Wimborne Minster. Sol., Moore, Wimborne Minster

WYATT, WILLIAM, licensed victualler, Great Chapel-st, Oxfordst; Jan. 23, at two, at offices of Sols., Blachford and Riches, Great Swan-alley, Moorgate-st

Orders of Discharge.

Gazette, Jan. 2.

MORRIS, GEORGE, pig feeder, East Acton, par. Hammersmith.
NORTON, PATRICK, oilman, Brick-la, Spitalfields, and Town-quay,
Barking
RICHARDS, WILLIAM, builder, Oxford-ter, Upper Hoollway, and
Canterbury-rd, Kilburn

Dibidends.

BANKRUPTS' ESTATES.

The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the

Dividends.

HE GREAT REMEDY of the day is Dr. J. COLLIS BROWNE'S CHLORODYNE. A few doses will cure all incipient cases. Caution.-The ex traordinary medical reports on the efficacy of Chlorodyne renders it of vital importance that the public should obtain the genuine, which is now sold under the protection of Government, authorising a stamp bearing the words "Dr. J. Collis Browne's Chlorodyne," without which none is genuine. See decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood, the Times, July 16, 1864. From Lord Francis Conyngham, Mount Charles, Donegal, 11th December 1868:--Lord Francis Conyngham, who this time last year bought some of Dr. J. Collis Browne's Chlorodyne from Mr. Davenport, and has found it a most wonderful medicine, will be glad to have half a dozen bottles sent at once to the above address." Sold in bottles, 18. 1d.. 28. 9d., and 48. 6d., by all chemists. Sole manufacturer, J. T. DAVENPORT, 33, Great Russellstreet, London, W.C.

Ricketts, S. Liverpool, first, 20%. Stone, Liverpool

Calow, W. J. cornfactor, 18. 6d. on and after Jan. 9, at office of Trust. W. Butcher, 34, Cooper-st, Manchester.-Clarke, T. grocer, second and final, 18. 9d. At offices of Lomas, Harrison, and Starkey, accountants, 37, Cannon-st, Birmingham.-Dickerson, J. C. butcher. 28. on and after Jan. 11. At offices of Sol. Chesshyre, Cheltenham.-Giany, C. Leeds, 48. 6d. At Trust. J. Mayall,

remarkable properties in Headache, Sea or Bilious Sickness, preventing and curing Small Pox, Hay, Scarlet, and other Fevers. It is admitted by all users to form the most agree able, portable, vitalising Summer Beverage. Sold by most chemists, and the Maker.

H. LAMPLOUGH, 118, Holborn-hill, London.

NOTICE. NOW PUBLISHING.

A GENERAL INDEX to vols. 11 to 20 of the LAW TIMES REPORTS, New Series, will be published in ten parts, price 1s. each. Sent free of postage to subscribers. The General Index to vols. 1 to 10, N. S., may still be had, price 7s. 6d. in cloth.

The Law and the Lawyers.

WE understand that it is proposed by the members of the Northern Circuit to give a dinner to Mr. Justice QUAIN in celebration of his elevation to the Bench. It is not an invariable rule on the Cir. cnits to give dinners to those members who may be created Judges, and the honour is to be bestowed upon Mr. Justice QUAIN in recognition of his popularity among all the members of his Circuit. VOL. LII.-No. 1503.

A MOVEMENT has been set on foot to establish a national society of public accountants. The object of the proposed society is to raise the status of the Profession by weeding from it those whose discreditable practices have brought it into disrepute. In England the Legal Profession have regarded accountants as a species of hedge lawyers, who prey upon the public by undertaking legal business for which they are not qualified. It was only on a recent occasion that Mr. Justice BRETT ordered out of court" an accountant " as a person not qualified to practise as an attorney. We must confess we entirely approve of the course pursued by the learned Judge, and think the class of accountants who thus trench upon the business of the attorney ought to be exterminated. If that object can be effected by the proposed society, we heartily wish it success.

MR. JOSHUA WILLIAMS has been giving his attention to the pro tection of title by registration, and he informs us that he has reluctantly come round to the opinion that in this country registration of title alone will not produce the beneficial effects which many people hoped for, but that the best thing that can now be done for lands in England is to establish an effectual registration of deeds. Mr. SPENCER FOLLETT, who furnished some valuable suggestions to the Land Transfer Commissioners of 1869, is of the same opinion, and his plan is to divide the whole county of Middlesex into blocks of moderate size, to be marked and numbered on a key plan. Mr. WILLIAMS considers it desirable that there should be a Landed Estates Court, where heavily encumbered estates might be sold, and where those who have confidence in their titles might have them officially investigated and registered as indefeasible. With a registry as above described, Mr. WILLIAMS would abolish long terms of years without any rent-the usual machinery for securing pecuniary charges upon settled property. These recommendations deserve the attention and support of the Profession.

Ir is really supremely ridiculous for journalists to fall foul of a verdict of a jury which is expressly indorsed by an experienced Judge who tries the case. Baron MARTIN said in plain terns that he considered that the jury in the case of CHRISTIANA EDMUNDS could not have done otherwise than convict. The Daily Telegraph does not agree with the learned Judge or the jury. "It is a maxim of law," says that sapient journal, "that, in case of doubt, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit; but, according to Baron MARTIN'S ruling, when the plea of insanity is brought forward, it is the prosecution, not the prisoner, that is entitled to the advantage of any doubt as to the complete and absolute proof of madness. That may be law, but it is not justice." The plea of insanity is a special plea, which the prisoner undertakes to prove. There is no question as to the benefit of a doubt one way or the other, and to say that it is not justice because the prisoner fails to prove a case raised by himself is simply absurd. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable that where a prosecution falls short of conclusive proof, the benefit should fall on the prisoner. Further, as to the conduct of journals, there seems to us to be a grim and inappropriate humour in discussing the scholarship of a man condemned to death. The signification of "Olim" can have no possible bearing on the issue as tried by the jury, or the fate of the unfortunate gentleman. To crown everything, a brother cleric writes to say that it would be a refinement of cruelty not to hang the convict. All this shows how wise is the principle which curbs the licence of the press in referring to pending causes.

A curious question relating to the jurisdiction of magistrates where title to property is in dispute came before the Bath magistrates last week. A defendant was charged with an assault, which was committed in an attempt to regain possession of a key of a desk on premises of a person to whom he had assigned his business and in whose employment the complainant was at the time of the alleged offence. In addition to the transfer of his business the defendant had filed a petition for liquidation. For the complainant it was contended that the defendant had no property in the key, and therefore the justices had jurisdiction. We are inclined to think that the clerk was right in advising the magistrates not to hear the case, but he appears to have advised them to this effect too abruptly. The defendant simply said "Well, the key is my property, and I did not use more force than was necessary to obtain possession of my own property." The clerk at once said that this settled the case. Now it was laid down in Reg v. Stimpson, 32 L. J. 208, M. C., that "in all these cases the nature of the title must be shown before it can be permitted to have the effect of arresting the case in its progress; it must be made to appear that it is not a mere cobweb title that is set up, but that it is such as to raise a real and substantial doubt to whom the property belongs," and in Cornwall v. Sanders, 32 L. J. 6, M. C., it was said that the magistrate should be satisfied that there is some reasonable ground for the defendant's assertion of title; and in Reg v. Blackburn, in the same volume (p. 41), it is laid down that the magistrate should require that the point on which the defendant relies should be stated specifically. We judge

of the Bath case from a newspaper report, and our only objection is that the clerk should consider that the bare statement of a claim of title is sufficient to oust the jurisdiction. Further, we may remark that the complainant's attorney urged that a claim to property in a chattel could not oust the jurisdiction; but it is the rule of the common law that where property or title is in question" the jurisdiction is ousted, and we are not aware that the word property is confined in its meaning to landed property. It is desirable that wherever it is possible, the summary jurisdiction should be exercised, and a defendant should be made to come up to the point indicated in Reg v. Blackburn, and state his claim specifically. It is said that a mandamus is to be applied for to compel the Bath magistrates to adjudicate.

Ir is dangerous to play at reforming legal abuses; but it is infinitely worse to make a Quixotic raid upon them, in desperate earnest wrestling with phantoms. This attitude was assumed by Mr. G. O. TREVELYAN, when he went before his constituents of the Border Burghs. To begin with, he says, that "under the heading of law and justice was gathered together all the jobbery of the day;" that there are too many County Court Judges by half, and that we give " innumerable incomes" of 12001., 15007., and 20007. a year to sinecurists. There is a little in these assertions, perhaps, and the great blunder lies in the statement or insinuation that over 4,000,000l. annually finds its way into the pockets of lawyers. We shall not claim the credit of utterly confounding the hon. member, the Times having already completed the operation. In this sum is included police expenditure, no less than one million being applied for the maintenance of the Irish constabulary, and another million for the support of convict and county prisons and reformatories. There is one other point on which Mr. TREVELYAN'S ideas are confused. He reproaches the Government for not having appointed pensioned bankruptcy "regis trars to County Court Judgeships. He probably meant missioners," one or two of whom might have been made County Court Judges with considerable advantage. The Times recommends Mr. TREVELYAN to search out and attack the few remaining legal sinecures, but reminds him that this function would only be accessory to those of the true law reformer. We conceive that such proceedings are calculated to bring law reform into contempt.

66

com

THE question of the Treasury disallowance of costs in prosecutions as regards the Borough of Bolton, was brought before the last Court of Quarter Sessions. It appears that a very voluminous correspondence had been carried on with the Government, which however resulted in nothing. Taking the accounts for the halfyear ending Dec. 31, 1870, upon taxed costs for assize cases, amounting to 1371., the Treasury disallowed 441. 3s. 8d. According to Mr. CoTTINGHAM, who brought the matter forward, in one of these items there was a case of considerable importance sent from the borough of Bolton to be tried at the Manchester Assizes, in which there were two indictments, one being for conspiracy, and the indictment was submitted to counsel; but the settlement of the indictment, the consultation of counsel, and two counsel in this important case, were disallowed—so that, in point of fact, that which always fell to the lot of counsel in difficult cases at assizes, was considered wholly unnecessary, and the taxed costs entirely disallowed. Not only that, but the Treasury actually descended to disallowing postages, and in certain cases they disallowed the travelling expenses of the borough prosecutor when he went to look after the case. With regard to sessions claims, in the halfyear ending December 1870, upon a taxed bill of 1857. 5s. 6d., there had been a disallowance of il. 12s. 6d. ; for the half-year ending June 1871, upon a bill of 2027. Ss. 5d., the disallowance was 97. 98. Id., and amongst these the postages were disallowed, and the table of fees, which were certified by the Secretary of State, was actually disregarded and overlooked by the officials of the Treasury. It is hardly necessary to say that these proceedings on the part of the Treasury excited the astonishment of the learned Recorder and everybody else.

In his paper on the Transfer of Land, read before the Social Science Association, Mr. JACOB WALEY makes six suggestions: (1) To shorten the time allowed by law for the assertion of dormant claims to five years, with the addition of ten years in cases of infancy and absence. (2) That adverse possession should operate against the estate-that is to say, not merely against the limited owner, during the currency of whose interest the adverse possession takes place, but against the whole series of owners having successive interests, who for this purpose should be considered as represented by the owner entitled to the possession and barred by the non-assertion of his rights. (3) To require as a condition of the validity of settlements of lands against a subsequent purchaser, that the settlement should be enrolled at the Common Pleas. (4) That the protection given to estates tail should be abolished, and that they should exist only for the purpose of defining and limiting the devolution of land so long as not disposed of by the act of the tenant in tail, and that the tenant in tail, whether in session or reversion, should have in all cases the full power of disposing (subject to prior interests) of the fee simple. (5) To enable

pos

the personal representative in all cases to sell or mortgage real estate of the deceased, and to recover the money. (6) That a power of leasing, as extensive as the Court of Chancery can exercise under the Settled Estates Act, should be exercisable as a matter of course and without the intervention of the court by a limited owner in possession. As regards a sale, he said, it may be reasonable that the limited owner in possession should be required to make an ex parte application to the Court of Chancery for leave to sell, and as he could not be allowed to receive the purchasemoney, he might, on the same application, obtain the appointment of trustees to receive the money and hold it upon trusts corresponding to the interests in the land.

Ax important question has been raised in the Brighton County Court concerning the practices of agents. It arose on the construction of the 46th rule of the County Court Rules and Orders, which is to this effect: "At the time of entering a plaint the registrar shall give to the plaintiff, or his attorney, or agent, a note under the seal of the court, according to the form in the schedule, and no money shall be paid out of court to the plaintiff, or his attorney, or agent, unless on production of such note, provided that in the event of such note being lost or destroyed, no money shall be paid to any person unless it be proved on oath, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, that the person applying is the plaintiff, or his agent authorised in that behalf." The Registrar explained that under this rule it had been his invariable practice, when the plaint had been taken out by a solicitor, who had paid the fee and marked the charges to which he was entitled upon the summons (as was the case in this instance), for him to send the solicitor a notice of the fact whenever any money in respect of the claim was paid into court, and not to send to the plaintiff; and subsequently to pay out the money and the costs to the solicitor. In the particular case Mr. CHRISTIAN took out a plaint, on the back of which was placed the name of Mr. LAMB, a solicitor, and 128. and 11. 38. 6d., the costs of the plaintiff's solicitor. The debt and costs were paid into court, and paid out to Mr. LAMB's clerk. Mr. CHRISTIAN, however, complained of this, and said that, as he had the plaint note in his possession, he was entitled personally to take the money out of court; to which the learned Registrar replied that when a plaintiff chose to place his business in the hands of a solicitor, there it must remain from first to last. Mr. CHRISTIAN, it appears, has acted as an agent in the Brighton County Court for the last twenty years, and according to his own story he was in the habit of sending papers to be indorsed by Mr. LAMB, and thus recovering solicitor's charges. If Mr. LAMB was a willing party to such an arrangement, and allowed Mr. CHRISTIAN to retain the plaint note, we cannot help thinking that the latter should, under the rule, have been held entitled to receive the money. The only point is that the solicitor's fees are paid with the debt out of court; but if a solicitor allows a party to retain possession of the note, on production of which money is paid out of court, it seems to be his look-out, and has nothing to do with the registrar. The learned Judge referred to the prac tice in the Superior Courts, but there is no provision in the practice of those courts analogous to the County Court rule. From what we now know of the case, Mr. LAMB appears to have aided CHRISTIAN in carrying on practice in the County Court which is the proper business of an attorney, and he is to blame and not CHRISTIAN. The solicitors have presented a memorial to the Judge complaining of the irregular practices of agents. The first thing solicitors have to do is to discountenance agents, and give them no assistance; and they ought not to look to the registrars to protect them against the consequences of their own conduct. The Registrar very properly drew attention to the defendant's view of the case-that although no attorney's costs had been incurred, he had been compelled to pay them, by reason of an attorney's name being used, and that the County Court had been made the means of obtaining money by false pretences. The case altogether bears a very unfavourable aspect for all parties concerned save the unfortunate defendant.

THIS valuable privilege of a jury may very easily be abused, and opinions differ as to whether it was properly exercised in the case of Mr. WATSON. The ex post facto observations of a grand juryman in a letter to the Times, and the published certificate of medical men as to the sanity of the prisoner appear to us to be indecent attempts to interfere with the functions of the law, and to influence a tribunal, the HOME SECRETARY, always unhappily too susceptible to appeals of the nature likely to be made in favour of the condemned man. The plea of insanity was not made out. The only refuge of a tender-hearted jury is a recommendation to mercy.

Now a crime committed under extraordinary provocation has been always deemed by our law a legitimate case for the interposition of the prerogative. The case which perhaps most nearly approaches the present one, is that of ANNETTE MYERS, convicted about twenty years ago at the Old Bailey. She met her lover, HENRY DUCKER, a private in the Guards, by appointment in the Birdcage-walk, and shot him dead with a pistol in broad daylight. It was a crime

committed in a fit of irrepressible fury nerving a weak young woman to a deed of horror; and there was no pretence of insanity. The case excited great public sympathy, the press took it up, and the clemency of the Crown was eventually, and, we think, most beneficially, exercised in her favour. But hers was a case of great provocation; she had conceived a romantic and ardent attachment, and had attended and nursed her lover in the hospital during illness; he had repaid her with ingratitude, and transferred his affections to another. Again, the youth of a prisoner (and this was one of the extenuating circumstances in MYERS'S case) has always been held a just ground for mercy; but why? because the criminal has not known, or may charitably be supposed not yet to have known, better; and because human nature recoils from the idea of cutting off a young life without giving it the chance of a reclaimed and virtuous manhood. But advanced age, high education-much more the education of a clergyman-nay, previous good character itself, intensifies the crime, and removes the prisoner so many degrees from any claim to mercy. He has sinned against light and knowledge, against repeated warnings and opportunities for good; and to impute these circumstances to his favour is but to exercise capriciously a power which at the best should be only rarely and discriminatingly resorted to. The writer was present at Dr. WATSON's trial, and listened attentively to the evidence of insanity nothing could be weaker. It was urged gravely and repeatedly that because a man had had disappointments melancholia was to be inferred, and melancholia was madness. As well might Dr. JOHNSON, or anyone else whom a bad digestion and a weak stomach (that parent of low spirits) has depressed, be put down for a lunatic. Accordingly it was impossible for a jury to acquit on this ground.

But it is not with the individual case which we are considering that we are so much, or principally, concerned. The recommendation of the jury is as dangerous as it is illogical. We fear the effects it will have on society at large if not arrested by the strong sense of the Judge who will be consulted upon it, and by the HOME SECRETARY himself. The press is writing up the merciful view of the subject, not so much, we think, for the interest the public are supposed to be taking in the fate of the convict, as in order to do away, in one more class of cases, with capital punishment altogether. For, let the present sentence be commuted, and no crime committed under ungovernable but unpremeditated passion can ever hereafter, so far as we can see, be with any sort of consistency visited with the extreme penalty. It will remove that established definition or test of sanity which, though perhaps philosophically loose, has yet for practical purposes been found to work sufficiently well, that he who would avoid the consequences of a crime, otherwise amounting legally to murder, must show that at the time he could not discern right from wrong. It will, in effect, substitute the doctrine that every strong gust of passion removes from the human mind that power of discernment, and therefore places the agent in a state of irresponsibility, or which will be more dangerous still (for a madman may be shut up for life) constitutes such a ground for the prerogative as may at a more or less remote period let loose the infuriate again upon society. But it needs no metaphysician to tell a wrong-headed jury that the reason is always off its balance, clouded, or it may be eclipsed, whilst under the influence of any of the animal passions, of which rage is perhaps the strongest. So it has ever been, and yet the wholesome creed of the English law has been fixed and upheld--now for the first time to be called in question and imperilled-that this alone shall not exempt a man from the just consequences of his acts.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ANGLO-AMERICAN

ARBITRATION.

WHAT is the exact nature of International Law? what is to be included under this term? are questions to which many minds have turned their attention, but without arriving at satisfactory results. Hitherto, matters connected with the relations of States to each other, have very generally been settled by the arbitrament of war rather than by that of theorists and humanitarians; by an appeal to might and numbers, not to abstract principles of justice and morality. It would, however, now seem as if a time were approaching when, in the world's disputes, the voice of reason will be heard -not, indeed, because the millennium is at hand and the mantle of peice is descending upon the earth, as some fond Utopians imagine, but because modern warfare is too terrible and expensive a pastime even for absolute monarchs or social republicans. Whatever be the cause, there certainly is an increasing, and perhaps not unnatural, wish to determine international difficulties after instead of before, as has been the received method, shedding the best blood disputants. But in order that so desirable an end may be achieved, a basis must be laid down and principles enunciated by which the litigants are to abide and the tribunal to adjudicate. In other words we have to obtain some clear, however general, idea of International law. Is it "law" at all? A law implies not only parties subject to and bound by it, but a person usually styled a superior, who sets it and a sanction by which it is enforced. Are these elements present in International law? We have the

of the two

sanction undoubtedly-war and its disastrous effects, and thegreater or less probability that other nations may intervene. But where, or who is the superior to carry out the law, and to put in. force the sanction? There is no such determinate and definite being. States, whatever their size and population are, from the highest to the lowest, of equal weight and importance. Being such, they can acknowledge no superior. To obviate this difficulty the expedient might, and probably will at some future age,. be tried of summoning periodically a universal parliament composed of representatives from every nation, whereat international questions of all descriptions-mercantile, diplomatic, legal-can be discussed, and

When the common sense of most shall keep a troublous world in awe, And the kindly earth shall slumber lapped in universal law. Such an experiment has actually been carried out more than once on a small scale. The Amphictyonic Council, the TwelveCities of Etruria, were ancient examples, while the German Confederation, the United States, and our own Empire, are, in fact, modern examples. But what we have to consider now is not what may be, but what is, in existence, viz., the nature of that body of rules which, more or less generally recognised, regulate the dealings of sovereign communities with each other. This GROTIUS, BYNKERSHOECK, WOLFF, VATTEL, and HEFFTER distinctly assert to be law. The last, after an unmeaning assertion to the effect that "Law is the external freedom of the moral person," says (Das Europaische, Völkerrecht, s. 2) that "This law may be sanctioned and guaranteed by a superior authority, or it may derive its force from self-protection. The jus gentium is of the latter description. A nation associating itself with the general society of nations, thereby recognises a law common to all nations, . by which its international relations are to be regulated. It cannot violate this law without exposing itself to the danger of incurring the enmity of other nations, and without exposing to hazard its own existence. The motive which induces each particular nation to observe this law depends upon its persuasion that other nations will observe towards it the same law. The jus gentium is founded upon reciprocity of will. It has neither law giver nor supreme Judge, since independent States acknowledge no superior human authority. Its organ and regulator is public opinion; its supreme tribunal is history, which forms at once the rampart of justice, and the NEMESIS by whom injustice is avenged. Its sanction or the obligation of all men to respect it, results from the moral order of the universe, which will not suffer nations and individuals to be isolated from each other, but constantly tends to unite the whole family of mankind in one great harmonious society. AUSTIN on the other hand, an equally eminent authority, un equivocally denies it the character of law. Theoretically he is correct, because the being who sets the law is absent. Practically he is wrong and HEFFTER is right; but to say with the latter that "its supreme tribunal is history, and that its sanction results from the moral order of the universe" is to talk utter rubbish. Its tribunal consists of present, not past societies; and its sole sanction is found in the dread that war may ensue. This tribunal and this sanction are real and tangible, and they must be held to give to international rules and regulations the character of laws" in the strictest sense of the expression; and this position will be materially strengthened by the means now being adopted by this country and the United States of settling the "Alabama claims."

66

Our next question is, what are the subjects with which public international law deals, and what the conclusions hitherto arrived at and the principles generally admitted. The subjects are unmistakeable the relations of States as such, it is the conclusions and principles which are so very vague. This vagueness is due to many causes, especially to the fact that they have for the most part been enunciated at the close of wars, and so have been conditions imposed by the conqueror on the conquered, and acquiesced in by the latter only until the first favourable opportunity for repudiation, rather than conclusions arrived at after dispassionate argument. In the next place, there is no certain test of the authority of these principles, and no certain source from which to obtain them. Are they to be extracted from treaties? and, if so, from treaties that have never been kept, or from treaties that have been kept, simply because the victor has exacted-teste the present peace between Germany and France -perpetual security for his victim's good behaviour? Are they to be found in decisions of the prize-courts? and if so, how is the relative weight of such to be estimated? Would a Neapolitan court under the Bourbons, or an American Bench which numbers among its members Judge BARNARD, be put on a par with, say, Lord STOWELL? or must we content ourselves with the dicta of text writers and pamphleteers? and, if so, what is to be the standard by which to rate such dicta? German mysticism, French conceit, or English crudeness-HEFFTER, HAUTEFEUILLE, or HISTORICUS— which is the authority?

Finally, and this is all important but ever-forgotten by mere scribblers, as the world changes, as civilisation advances, so empires change, so international needs and necessities advance, and become more intricate and complex. From age to age the special laws of countries are modified, and not unseldom revolutionised: similarly with the progress of time

One

the world's code must be altered, amended, recast. era recognises a property in slaves, another says that all human being are equals. A few months even may suffice, under special circumstances, to bring about such an alteration in men's ideas. The American Civil War began with bondage legal existing over hundreds of thousands of square miles, it closed with the abolition of slavery. One era licenses private individuals to ravage and murder, another hangs all such depredators as pirates in all but the name. One era deems treaties and conventions to be personal arrangements between monarchs as sovereign lords of their countries and subjects, another looks upon them as solemn engagements between nation and nation. One era considers war as a pastime for the high-born, as a game with great stakes, and gives free vent to rage, rapine, and lust; another reluctantly engages in it only after all other proposals for compromise have proved fruitless, and holding it to be a means to an end, allows of all such destruction as may further that end, but styles other violence criminal, and punishes it accordingly.

We have deemed it advisable to call our readers' attention to these considerations, before proceeding to our subject, viz., the Anglo-American arbitration. In treating it we shall notice, First, very briefly, the events which led to the civil war, and to the QUEEN's proclamation of neutrality.

Secondly, the action of the British Government during the war, and the liabilities, if any, incurred by it.

Thirdly, the extent of such liability, and the " damages.

measure of

Fourthly, the various attempts to adjudicate upon them. Fifthly, the present existing claims of British subjects against the Government of the United States.

Sixthly, the question of an International Supreme Tribunal.

INSANITY AT THE OLD BAILEY. IN Reg. v. Watson and Reg. v. Edmunds, the two cases involving charges of murder disposed of during the last few days at the Old Bailey, a plea of insanity was set up which the defence failed to sustain. The insanity which it was sought to establish was in each case peculiar. In Watson's case hereditary madness was not even suggested, and beyond the medical opinions there was no evidence at all; but it was urged that the loss of an appointment had affected the prisoner's mind, and that in a moment of ungovernable rage he committed the crime. In the case of Edmunds evidence was given of madness in the family, but her actions did not support the theory that she was thus affected. Here again, however, a grievance was suggested as having affected her reason so as to make her irresponsible.

It is very difficult to define accurately the line at which the law stops and declines to punish for crimes committed under the influence of a clouded reason. Lord Hale recognised a division, an "invisible line" between perfect and partial insanity, which has never been traced. In Hadfield's case, Erskine, who was counsel for the prisoner, admitted that delusion must be an element in the insanity to protect from criminal responsibility. "Delusion" he said, "where there is no frenzy or raving madness, is the true character of insanity; and where it cannot be predicated of a man standing for life or death for a crime, he ought not, in my opinion, to be acquitted; and if courts of law were to be governed by any other principle, every departure from sober, rational conduct, would be an emancipation from criminal justice." But in Macnaghten's case the existence of a delusion was held not to excuse a man, if at the time of committing the crime he knew that he was acting contrary to law; and that the question for a jury in such a case is whether he had a sufficient degree of reason to know that he was doing an act that was wrong.

The correct head under which both the cases recently tried at the Old Bailey must come, is that of "insane impulse." With reference to this, Mr. Stephen makes some remarks as sensible as any to be found in our text books. He says: "The case of what is called impulsive insanity is easily dealt with. It is said that on particular occasions men are seized with irrational and irresistible impulses to kill, to steal, or to burn, and that under the influence of such impulses they sometimes commit acts which would otherwise be most atrocious crimes. Many instances of the kind are collected in medical books. It would be absurd to deny the possi bility that such impulses may occur, or the fact that they have occurred, and have been acted on. Instances are also given in which the impulse was felt and was resisted. The only question which the existence of such impulses can raise in the administration of criminal justice is, whether the particular impulse in question was irresistible as well as unresisted? If it were irresistible, the person accused is entitled to be acquitted, because the act was not voluntary, and was not properly his act. If the impulse was resistible, the fact that it proceeded from disease is no excuse at all. If a man's nerves were so irritated by a baby's crying that he instantly killed it, his act would be murder. It would not be less murder if the same irritation and the corresponding desire were produced by some internal disease. The great object of the criminal law is to induce people to control their impulses, and there is no reason why, if they can, they should not control insane impulses as well as sane ones."

We have elsewhere considered the question whether, under certain circumstances, mercy should assume the seat of justice and reprieve where the law has condemned. We shrink from undue severity as much as any of our contemporaries, but we remember what Lord Hale said, that we should be careful that whilst avoiding a kind of inhumanity towards the defects of human nature, we do not give too much indulgence to great crimes. The preservation of human life is the highest duty of the law, and no feminine sympathy with age or misfortune should operate to prevent the solemn execution of a just sentence, for as Coke observes, “The execution of an offender is for example, Ut pona ad paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat."

COERCION UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT 1871.

Two cases have occurred within a few days calling for a construction of the Act to amend the criminal law relating to violence, threats, and molestation, in the one case a conviction having been quashed by the Recorder of Bolton, and in the other a workman having been convicted by Mr. Ingham, the police magistrate for Wandsworth. The facts must, of course, be attentively considered, so as to ascertain how the law should be applied. The appeal before the Bolton Quarter Sessions was preferred by James Wearden, stonemason, against a sentence of one month's im prisonment for having molested another stonemason, named Cooper, by besetting the place where he worked with a view to coerce him to pay a fine to the Operative Stonemasons' Society. The men were working at the same place, and Wearden, who was shop steward for the society, went in working hours to collect the fine from Cooper, who refused to pay. Wearden then returned to work, but at noon he represented to the master that a man was on the job who was objectionable, because he would not pay his fine. The master wished the matter to be left over till Saturday, but that afternoon the men did not return to work. Cooper's wages were paid, and he, we assume, discharged, and next morning the men resumed work.

Now the terms of the Act are precise. The form of coercion is threefold: (1) violence to person or property; (2) threat or intimidation of the person which would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the offender; and (3) molestation or obstruction in manner defined by the Act, "molest or obstruct" being defined to mean persistently following the person about from place to place; hiding his tools, clothes, or other property, or hindering the use of them; watching or besetting the house, or approaches to it, where such person works or carries on his business; or with two or more persons following such person about in a disorderly manner. Without looking at present to the object sought to be attained, what was done in Wearden's case? The payment of the fine was fairly and openly demanded from Cooper, who refused to pay. A representation was then made to the master, who, not at once complying with Wearden's request, the men left work. Such a proceeding cannot possibly come under any head of offence save the second, which relates to threats and intimidation, but nothing was done to justify a justice of the peace in binding over Wearden. There was no use of violence to the person, or molestation or obstruction as defined by the Act. The fact that the object sought to be attained, namely, that mentioned in the 4th clause of the second subdivision of the 1st section, coercing a workman to pay a fine imposed by a temporary, association, has no effect upon the nature of the offence, and no offence having been committed within the meaning of the Act, no punishment could be legally awarded, and the conviction was rightly quashed by the Recorder.

The question upon which the magistrates went wrong was as to the meaning of the word "beset." They held that to accost a man at his work, and to ask for payment of a subscription or fine is a besetting within the scope of the Act, provided it be done with a view to coerce. It is perfectly plain, for all purposes of construing the Act, that the offensive and improper act must be complete before anything can be alleged under it. If there be a threatening or besetting, then comes the question was it done to coerce? If the act does not amount to an act complete in itself as defined by the section to which we have referred, it matters nothing that the aim of the act was coercion, and to say that an imperfect act becomes completed for the purposes of a criminal law, because the end sought to be attained is one which that law forbids is obviously illogical.

Then as to the case before the Metropolitan police magistrate. The alleged offence was coercion of masters by besetting their premises. It was proved that the defendant had been seen "walking up and down in front of the premises of Messrs. Gwynne," and that he was seen following the men and distributing handbills recommending them to join in the strike then going on. It was a fact in the case that the defendant lived in the street opposite to the premises of the Messrs. Gwynne. Here we have on the face of it a much more likely case for a conviction than that at Bolton. The fact of the near residence of the defendant is clearly immaterial; for the purposes of intimidation a man may be even more mischievous who lives next door to the person intimidated than one who lives farther off, as he may the more securely "watch" the