Liquidations by Arrangement. FIRST MEETINGS. Gazette, Feb. 9. ABBOTT, JOHN, merchant, Great Winchester-st; Feb. 26, at two at the Guildhall tavern, Gresham-st. Sol., McDiarmid, Old Jewry-chmbs AKERS, HENRY WILLIAM, hotel keeper, Stow-on-the-Wold; Feb. 23, at two, at the Unicorn hotel, Stow-on-the-Wold. Sol., Brookes Stow-on-the-Wold ALLCOCK, WALTER, grocer, Birmingham; Feb. 21, at three, at the BENNETT, CHARLES STERNDALE, no occupation, Porchester-ter, BUBBINGS, ROBERT FRANCIS, beer housekeeper, Hull; Feb. 21, at eleven, at office of Sol., Spurr, Hull mingham The motion was lost by a majority of five. The Davis Prize 1871," was presented to Mr. N. Hanhart, LL.B., the writer of the best essay on "The Law Relating to the Property of Married Women." LEGAL OBITUARY. BUCKINGHAM, CHARLES WILLIAM, out of business, Sylvan-rd, Essex; Feb. 16, at twelve, at office of F. W. Morphett, accountant, Moorgate-st. Sol., Payne, Finsbury-pavement CHAFFER, ALFRED, smallware dealer, Barnsley; Feb. 28, at ten, at office of Sol., Dibb, Barnsley CHECKLEY, WILLIAM GREGORY, plumber, Warwick; Feb. 23, at COLLIVER, THOMAS, quarry proprietor, Llanllechid: Feb. 22, at J. L. R. KETTLE, ESQ. THE late Mr. John L. Ross Kettle, barrister-atlaw, whose death at Guernsey was announced in our last number, was formerly for some years judge of the County Courts for Herefordshire. His opinion was much respected and extensively consulted in the world exterior to the profession, EDWARDS, MORGAN, butcher, Aberdare; Feb. 22, at eleven, at and at the time of his decease he engaged to act as one of the judges of some essays on an abstruse subject connected with political economy, sub. mitted for public competition for a prize offered by a gentleman of high standing in London. PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS [N.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature of advertisements, are charged 2s. 6d. each, for which postage stamps should be inclosed.] MR. NICHOLAS DONNITHORNE, solicitor, Fareham, has been appointed clerk to the justices for the Fareham division of the county of Hants, and to the Fareham petty sessional Bench. He has also been appointed clerk to the commissioners of taxes and inhabited house duties, and clerk to the Company of Proprietors of Bursledon-bridge and Roads, on the resignation of those appointments by his late partner Mr. Thomas John Provis. Mr. Donnithorne is a commisioner for affidavits. Mr. Fegen of Lincoln's-inn, has been appointed secretary to a committee named by Her Majesty's Government to investigate certain of the American Claims. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. AFRIAT, MOSES, merchant, now out of England. Pet. Feb. 7. Reg. Pepys. Sols. Messrs. Lindo, King's Arms-yd. Sur. Feb. 20 FITZMAURICE, THOMAS, auctioneer. Moorgate-st, and Colemankt. Pet. Feb. 6. Reg. Roche. Sol. Scott, South-sq, Gray's-inn. Sur. Feb. 2 STEWART, WILLIAM HENRY, barrister-at-law, Oakley-sq. Pet. Jan. 26. Reg. Roche. Sol. Vearsey, Old Jewry. Sur. Feb. 22 To surrender in the Country. BUCK, PHILIP, machinist, Framingham Earl. Pet. Feb. 7. Reg. Polmer. Sur. Feb. 21 BURGESS, SILAS, millwright, Lewes. Pet. Feb. 7. Reg. Blaker. Sur. Feb. 21 COPPINGER, CHARLES, tailor, Lewes. Pet. Feb. 5. Reg. Blaker. Sur. Feb. 21 CROSBY, WILLIAM. victualler, Leicester. Pet. Feb. 7. Reg. Ingram. Sur. Feb. 26 LAVINGTON, GEORGE RIDER, hotel keeper, Great Witley. Pet. Feb. 5. Reg. Crisp. Sur. Feb. 20 SKELTON, WILLIAM, commission agent, Leamington Priors. Pet. Feb. 3. Reg. Campbell. Sur. Feb. 24 TURNER, GEORGE, blacksmith, Sutton Scotney. Pet. Feb. 5. Reg. Thorndike. Sur. Feb. 22 WRIGHT, THOMAS, tailor, York. Pet. Feb. G. Reg. Perkins. Sur. Feb. 26 Gazette, Feb. 13. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. BENNITT, JOSEPH BOURNE, gentleman, Powis-sq, Bayswater. Pet. Feb. 10. Reg. Roche. Sur. Feb. 29 BURTON, SABAH GOUNDRY, widow, Edinburgh. Pet. Feb. 8. Reg. Roche. Sur. Feb. 29 EDWARDS, FREDERICK STUART, merchant, Crown-wharf, Lower Shadwell. Pet. Feb. 8. Reg. Pepys. Sur. March 5 MARSH, JOHN MOSES, stockbroker, Inns of Court Hotel, and Throgmorton-chmbs, Throgmorton-st. Pet. Feb. 8. Reg. Pepys. Sur. Maren 5 MUNRO, LEWIS, Lime Tree-villas, Dulwich. Pet. Feb. 8. Reg. Pepys. Sur. March 5 QUINTON, GEORGE HARRIS, France. Pet. Feb. 8. Reg. Pepys. WOMBWELL, FREDERICK, Bryanston-st, Bryanston-sq. Pet. office of Sols., Rosser and Phillips, Aberdare EDWARDS, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Bromley; Feb. 19, at eleven, at office of Sols., Day and Ivens, Kidderminster ELGAR, GEORGE FREDERICK, farmer, Crockshaw, par Wingham; Feb. 24, at two, at Mr. Slater's rooms, High-st, Canterbury. Sol., Wilks, Hythe ELLIOTT, JOHN, fishmonger, Upper Whitecross-st, St. Luke's; Feb. 19, at three, at the George and Dragon tavern, Beech-st, Barbican. Sol., Hicks, Lansdown-ter, Victoria-pk ELLISON, RICHARD, flour dealer, Liverpool; March 1, at two, at office of Sols., Toulmin, Carruthers, and Lawrence, Liverpool FORREST, SAMUEL, builder, Liverpool; Feb. 25, at three, at office of Sols., Barrell and Rodway, Liverpool GAMBRILL, THOMAS BOYS, miller, Petham; Feb. 27, at three, at the Queen's Head, Canterbury GEEVES, HENRY, broker, Red Lion-st, Wandsworth; Feb. 21, at two, at 1, Bank-bldgs, Wandsworth. Sol., Jones, Love-la, Wandsworth GEORGE, ROBERT, chain manufacturer, Worcester; Feb. 26, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Corbett, Worcester GERRI-H, ISAAC, lodging-house keeper, Melksham; Feb. 26, at twelve, at office of Sol., Rawlings, Melksham GREY, FREDERICK, lamp maker, Birmingham; Feb. 16, at three, at offices of Sol., Kennedy, Birmingham GREENSHIELDS, HENRY DAVID, chemist, Dalston: Feb. 20, nt eleven, at the Hop and Malt Exchange, Borough. Sol., Arnold, Southwark exchange, Southwark-st GRIFFITHS, JOHN STAFF, out of business, Stepney-green: Feb. HOWLETT, JOHN, greengrocer, Deptford; Feb. 19, at twelve, at JACOBSON, LEWIS JACOB, out of business, Spring-st, Paddington; JEFFERIES, EDMOND, statuary, Lancaster-rd, Notting-hill; Feb. 21, at two, at office of Sols., Tilley and Shenton, Finsbury-plsouth JONES, MORGAN, painter, Marylands-rd, Harrow-rd; Feb. 26, at three, at office of Sol., Wright, Bedford-row JORDAN, JOHN ISRAEL, baker, Tredegar-row, Bow, and Kirby.st, Poplar, Feb. 23, at three, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Young, Mark-la KENYON, HARTLEY, chemist, Manchester; Feb. 26, at three, at office of Sol., Sampson, Manchester LANGTREE, JOHN, WHALLEY, JOSHUA, STEPHENSON, THOMAS, and STEPHENSON, ADAM, manufacturers, Nelson-in-Marsden, near Burnley; Feb. 23, at eleven, at offices of Sols., Boote and Edgar, Mar.che-ter LAWRENCE, JOHN, victualler, Stafford; Feb. 22, at three, at office of Sol, Rowlands, Birmingham LEWIS, HENRY, gold refiner, Long-la, Smithfield; Feb. 19, at three, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sols., G. and A. Lindo, King's Arms-yd, Moorgate-st LEWIS, RICHARD, and PREECE, ALFRED, painters, Wolverhamp ton; Feb. 26, at three, at office of Sol., Stratton, Wolverhampton LOVE, JOHN, draper, Kingston; Feb. 19, at two, at office of Sol., Haigh, jun., King-st, Cheapside LUCKINGS, JOHN, publican, Lewes: Feb, 28, at half-past twelve, at the Brewer's Arms, Lewes. Sol., Holman, Lewes MACARTY, WILLIAM, jun., wholesale confectioner, Pendleton; Feb. 22, at three, at office of Sol., Hardy, Manchester MACE, THOMAS KIMP, hatter, Birmingham; Feb. 21, at twelve, at office of Sol., Griffin, Birmingham MANHAM, SAMUEL, jeweller, Leeds; Feb. 22, at three, at office of Sol., Ferns, Leeds MANNERS, JESSE, farmer, Mile Elm, near Calne; Feb. 26, at twelve, at the White Hart inn, Calne. Sol., Wilton, Bath MANSFIELD, DANIEL, and BOOTH, ALBERT JOHN RAVENSHEAR, builders, London-rd, Buckingham; Feb. 23, at ten, at the Swau and Castle hotel, Buckingham. Sols., Messrs. Kilby, Banbury. MATTHEWS, RICHARD ROBERT, watch maker, Bishop's Castle; Feb. 29, at two, at Church Stretton hotel, Church Stretton. Sol., Walker, Church Stretton MCCARTHY, JAMES, sawyer in Chatham Dockyard, Manor-st, Brompton: Mar. 3, at three, at office of Sol., Stephenson, Newrd, Chatham MILLICAN, JAMES, victualler, Maryport: Feb. 20, at one, at office of Sols, Hayton and Simpson, Cockermouth MILTON, HENRY, and MILTON, JOSEPH, anchorsmiths, Grange and Gillingham; Feb. 26, at three, at office of Sol., Prall, Rochester MITCHELL, WILLIAM, farmer, Brandon: Feb. 19, at half-past three, at the Guildhall coffee-house, City. Sol., Wilkin, King's Lynn, and Furnival's-inn, Holborn MOODY, THOMAS HUGGANS, grocer, Southsea; Feb. 23, at twelve, at office of Smith, King-st, Cheapside. Sol., King, Portsea MOORE, WALTER, merchant, Bradford; Feb. 19, at eleven at office of Sols., Terry and Robinson, Bradford MUTTEEN, JOSEPH HOLTEN, draper, Plymouth; Feb. 22, at twelve, at office of Sols, Messrs. Edmonds, Plymouth NICHOLSON, JOHN STUART, out of employ, Inkerman-ter, Kensington; Feb. 16, at three, at office of Sol., Howell, Cheapside NORBURY, GEORGE, grocer, Marple; Feb. 21, at twelve, at the Vernon Arms, Stockport. Sol., Hand, Macclesfield NOWELL, THOMAS, and COATES, JOHN, tailors, Bristol; Feb. 20, at twelve, at office of Messrs. Parsons, accountants, Bristol. Sols, Benson and Elletson, Bristol PEARSON, THOMAS JENNETT, linen draper, Gorleston; Feb. 26, at twelve, at office of Sol., Palmer, Great Yarmouth PEIRCE, ALFRED EDWARD, engineer, Oxford-st; Feb. 22, at two, at office of Sol., Lewin, Southampton st, Strand PHELAN, JOHN, egg dealer, Bristol: Feb. 19, at twelve, at office of Collins, jun., accountant, Bristol. Sols., Benson and Elletson, Bristol PRICE, JOHN ALFRED, plumber, Ealing; Feb. 19, at three, at 9, Lincoln's inn fields. Sol., Marshall RICHARDS, JOHN, cigar importer, Liverpool; Feb. 23, at two, at office of Sols., Duke and Goffey, Liverpool ROBERTSON, WILLIAM STEWART, draper, Twickenham; Feb. 16, SCHOLFIELD, AMOS, beerhouse keeper, Jamaica-rd, Bermondsey, STEPHENSON, ADAM, manufacturer, Nelson-in-Marsden, near Burnley: Feb. 23, at half-past four, at office of Sols., Boote and Edgar, Manchester STEPHENSON, THOMAS, manufacturer, Nelson-in-Marsden, near Burnley, Feb. 23, at four, at offices of Sols., Boote and Edgar, Manchester STIRK, JOHN, commission agent, Merton rd, Wandsworth; Feb. SYNNET, JOHN, builder, Gun-rd, Battersea; Feb. 17, at twelve, at TEMPLEMAN, GEORGE JAMES, timber merchant's foreman, THOMAS, WILLIAM, wholesale grocer, Swansea: Feb. 21, at two, at office of Barnard, Thomas, Tribe, and Co., accountants, Bristol. Sol., Jones, Swansea TOMLINSON, BENJAMIN, gunlock manufacturer, Wednesbury; Feb. 23, at eleven, at office of Sol., Slater, Darlaston TUCKER, WILLIAM, brewer. Albion-pl, Hyde-pk-q, Three Coltst, Limehouse, and Minories; Feb. 24, at three, at the Masons'hall, Masons'-avenue. Sol., Dobie, Basinghall-st WHALLEY, JOSHUA, manufacturer, Marsden, near Burnley: Feb. 23, at half-past three, at office of Sols., Boote and Edgar, Manchester WHITTAKER, THOMAS, builder, Heanor; Feb. 28, at three, at office of Sol., Heath, Derby WOODIER, ROBERT, builder, Widnes: Feb. 26, at two, at office of Gazette, Feb. 13. ABBOTT, MARY ANNE, schoolmistress, Framlingham; Feb. 27, at ASKEY, WILLIAM, DRYDEN, grocer, Durham; Feb. 23, at eleven, of Sol., Salkeld, Durham BIANCHI, FRANCIS, wholesale ironmonger. Birmingham: Feb. 23, at twelve, at the Queen's hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Griffin, Birmingham BRADBURY, JOSEPH HENRY, clothier, Weston super-Mare; Feb. 27, at three, at the White Lion hotel, Bristol BRESTBARTD, CHARLES, generai dealer, Nottingham: March 1, at two, at the Assembly Rooms, Low Pavement. Sols., Cranch and Rowe BREWSTER, WILLIAM, relieving officer, Hoddesdon: Feb. 28, at eleven, at the Salisbury Arms inn, Hoddesdon. Sol., Gisby BUTT, JAMES, fronmonger, Stroud; March 2, at half past eleven, at the Unicorn hotel, Worcester. Sol. Winterbotham. Stroud CALVERT, JOSEPH, commercial traveller, Yarm; Feb. 23, at eleven, at office of Sols., Fawcett, Garbutt, and Fawcett, Stockton-on-Tees CAMBELL, WILLIAM, no business, Leeds: Feb. 21, at three, at the Trevelyan hotel, Manchester. Sol., Hope, King's-rd, Bedford-row CARMICHAEL, JAMES DODDINGTON, Colon 1 in her Majesty's army, Waterloo; Feb. 25, at two, at office of Sols., Linklater, Hackwood, Addison, #nd Brown, Walbrook CARTER, CHARLES, and CARTER, JABEZ, iron girder makers, Darlaston Feb. 27, at eleven, at office of Sol., Slater, Darlastoa CLARBROUGH, JAMES, Coal agent, Sheffield; Feb. 26, at two, at office of Sol., Taylor, Sheffield COLEY, JAMES, h sier, Wolverhampton; March 2, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Barrow, Wolverhampton CORNELL, EDWARDS JAMES FRANCIS, grocer, Cretingham; Feb. 27, at three, at office of Sol, Hill, Ipswich DICKINSON, HENRY, farmer, Bedmond, near St. Alban's; Feb. 23 at three, at office of Sol., Annesley, St. Alban's DORMER, WILLIAM HENRY, assistant relieving officer, Bandonrd, Bethnal-green; March 6, at two, at office of Sol., Hutson, Upper Clifton-st, Finsbury DUNN, JOHN, licensed victualler, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Feb. 29, at two, at offices of Sols., J. G. and J. E. Joel, Newcastle-uponTyne ECOB, JUSTINIAN, innkeeper, Huddersfield; Feb. 24, at ten, at office of Sol., Sykes, Huddersfield FRANKISH, THOMAS, hop merchant, High-st, Southwark, and Kingston-upon-Hull; March 5, at two, at the Guildhall Tavern, King-st, Cheapside. Sols., Plews and Irvine, Mark-la GARDNER, WILLIAM, seedsman, Cannock; Feb. 26, at three, at offices of Sol., Ebsworth, Wednesbury GIBBS, WILLIAM, cheesemonger, New North-rd, and Nile-st, Hoxton Feb. 29, at three, at office of Sols., Messrs. Pearce, Giltspur-st GILDER, FRANCIS, Clarendon rd. Notting hill: Feb. 26, at two, at office of Sol., Barker, St. Michael's House, St. Michael's-alley Cornhill GOLDTHORP. WILLIAM, cabinet maker, Wakefield; Feb. 28, at two, at office of Sols.. Harrison and Smith, Wakefield GRIMES, JAMES jun., bullder, Kirkdale, near Liverpool; Mar. 1, at two, at office of Sol, Cooper, Liverpool GROSS, HENRY GLENN, and FOX, GEORGE EDWARD, shoe manufacturers, Northampton; Feb, 23, at half-past two, at office of Sol., Becke, Nottingham HALL, WALTER farmer's miller, Gayton; Feb. 26, at twelve, at office of Sols., Coulter and Beloe, King's Lynn HEARNE, WILLIAM, wholesale tea dealer, Tavistock; March 1, at eleven, at office of Elworthy, Curtis, and Dawe, Plymouth. Sol., Dawe, Plymouth HILL, RICHARD, general shop keeper, Heywood; Feb. 24, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Orton, Manchester HINTON, ATKINS. jun., grocer, Tipton; Feb. 29, at twelve, at the Queen's hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Baker, Birmingham HIRST, EDMUND, and FIRTH, DAVID, and GREENWOOD, ALFRED, Clayton, manufacturing chemists; Feb. 26, at ten, at office of Soi., Gant. Bradford HODGSON, JOHN BASSETT, tailor, Cotton-st, Whitechapel, and Sandgate; Feb. 20, at eleven, at office of Sol., Dobson, Qualityct, Chancery-la HOPKINS, WILLIAM GRAFTON, grocer, Kidderminster; Feb. 28, at the Atheneum Rooms, Temple-row, Birmingham. Sol., Prior, Kidderminster HORNE, ALFRED, grocer, Spa-rd, Bermondsey; Feb. 23, at twelve, at office of Sol., Geaussent, New Broad-st HORNSEY, HENRY, jun., draper, Leeds; Feb. 26, at two, at office of Sols., Rooke and Midgley, Leeds HUMPHREYS, THOMAS, tailor, Hastings; Feb. 26, at twelve, at office of Lawrance, Plews, Boyer, and Baker, solicitors, Old Jewry-chmbs, Cheapside. Sol., Laagham, Hastings HUNT, ARTHUR JOHN, wine merchant, Camberwell-rd, Lambeth; Feb. 29, at four, at office of Sol., Osborn, Clifford's inn, Fleet-st HUNT, THOMAS WILLOMATT, and SMITH, JAMES, provision merchants, High-st, Stratford, and High-st, Bow; Feb. 21, at two, at office of Messrs. Foreman and Cooper, accountants, Greshamst. Sol., Holmes, Fenchurch-st INGRAM, SAMUEL, provision dealer, Balsall Heath; Feb. 26, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Allen, Birmingham JEFFERIES, THOMAS CHARLES, oil merchant, Kidderminster; March 1, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Prior, Kiderminster JEFFERSON, JOHN, farmer, Pickering Carr; Feb. 21, at two, at office of Sol., Parkinson, Pickering JONES, ALFRED CHARLES, schoolmaster, Finsbury-park College, JONES, HENRY WILLIAM, dealer in glass, Wardour-st, Oxford-st; JOY. ALEXANDER, HENRY, baker, Lancing; Feb. 29, at three, at office of Sol., Webb, Brighton LEWIS, RICHARD, and PREECE, ALFRED, painters, Wolverhamton; Feb. 2, at three, at offices of Sol., Stratton, Wolverhampton MCKENNA, PETER, grocer's assistant, Wigan; Feb. 25, at three, at office of Sol., France, Wigan MILES, WILLIAM, jun., and MILES, THOMAS, carriers, Kingstonon-Thames; Feb. 21, at twelve, at office of Sols., Wilkinson and Howlett, Kingston-on Thames MITCHELL, THOMAS, boot maker, Cardiff; Feb. 27, at two, at office of Barnard and Cc.. Cardiff So!, Griffith, Cardiff NUNN, PHILIP GOWLETT, gentleman, Caversham-rd, Kentishtown; Feb. 9, at three, at office of Sols., Lewis, Munns, and Longden, Old Jewry ORMOND, HENRY, farmer, Enville; Feb. 26, at eleven, at the Stewponey Ina, Stourton, near Stourbridge. Sol., Price, Stour bridge OSBORNE, DINAH, and FULFORD, ALFRED RENDLE, bakers, Bristol; Feb. 22, at two, at office of Sols., Abbot and Leonard, Bristol PAGE, JAMES, provision dealer, Bilston; Feb. 24, at eleven, at office of Sol., Fellows, Bilston PARDOE, JOHN, shopkeeper, Oldbury; Feb. 28, at eleven, at office of Sol., Shakespeare, Oldbury PARKER, WILLIAM, builder, Eccleshall; March 5, at two, at the Railway Inn, Chebsey. Sols., Robinson and Dempster, Eccleshall PICKERING, WILLIAM JOHN, coal merchant, New Barnet: Feb. 28, at two, at 14, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury. Sols., Routh and Stacey PICKERSSILL, SAMUEL, baker, Rowley Regis: Feb. 26, eleven, at office of Sol, Shakespeare, ubury RANSON, JOHN, licensed victualler; Epsom Feb. 23, at two, at office of Sol., Apps, south-sq, Goz's-inn REES, JOHN, and REES, EVAN, watchmakers, Machynleth, Feb. 24, at one, at the Crown hotel, Shrewsbury. Sol., Williams, Newtown SANDERS, GEORGE JOLLEY, soda water manufacturer, Northampton; Feb. 23, at eleven, as office of Sol., Jeffery, Northamp ton SANFORD, JOHN, photographic dealer, Red Lion-sq, and Willis. rd, Kentish-town; Feb. 2, at twelve, at office of Sol., Smith, Great James-st, Benford-row SELWYN, CONGREVE, clerk in orders, Welshampton: Feb. 23, at twelve, at the George hotel, Shrewsbury. Sol., Blackburne, Ellesmere SHARMAN, THOMAS, butcher, Saint Neot's: Feb. 26, at a quarterpast three, at the Cross Keys hotel, Saint Neot's. Sol., Conquest, Bedford SHERRIFF, JAMES, shaft manufacturer, Hovingham; Feb. 26, at two, at the Crown hotel, Malton. Sol., Spurr, Scarborough SKAFTE, NEILS PETER HANSEN, timber merchant, Kingstonupon-Hull; Feb. 29, at twelve, at office of Sols., Messrs. Rollit, Kingston upon Hull SMITH, JOHN, grocer, Bridgwater; Feb. 27, at twelve, at office of Sols., Reed and Cook, Bridgwater SMITH, WILLIAM, outfitter, Scarborough; Feb. 19, at twelve, at the Station hotel, York. Sols., Drawbridge and Rowntree, Scarborough SPALL, DANIEL, gas fitter, Brill-row, Saint Pancras, and Greenst, Bethnal-green; Feb. 27, at three, at 88, Green-st, Bethnalgreen. Sol., Hicks, Coleman-st STEAD, EMMA HARDMAN, shopkeeper, Leeds, Feb. 23, at eleven, at office of Sols. Pullan, Leeds SWANN, SAMUEL, upholsterer, Nottingham; March 6, at ten, at office of Sol., Acton, Nottingham SYCKELMOORE, JAMES, tailor, Tunbridge; Feb. 26, at three, at office of Mr. Benjamin Nicholson, Gresham-st. Sol., Montagu, Bucklersbury TALBOT, ELIZA, lodging-house keeper, Dover; Feb. 28, at four, at office of Sol., Minter, Dover TAYLOR, GEORGE, builder, Bishopsgate-rd, Bromley: Feb. 26, at three, at 7, Wilmington-sq, Clerkenwell. Sol., Lewis THIMPTON, SIMEON ROBINSON, grocer, Penge; Feb. 27, at two, at office of Broad, Pritchard, and Wiltshire, Poultry. Sols., Carter and Bell, Leadenhall-st THIRKETTLE, MARGARET, fishmonger, Sheerness; Feb. 23, at one, at office of Sol., Copland, Sheerness VILLANUEVA, FERNANDO LORENZO PEDRO, out of business, Edgbaston; Feb. 24, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Jaques, Bir. mingham VIPOND, RICHARD ROBINSON, laceman, Manchester; Feb. 29, at three, at office of Sol., Walmsley, Manchester WELLER, ANN, provision dealer, Brierly hill: Feb. 23, at two, at the Acorn hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Clulow, Brierley-hill WILLETTS, CHARLES, forgeman, Sutton Coldfield, Feb. 26, at three, at office of Sol., Beaton, Birmingham WITHERS, GERGE, grocer, Market-pl, Sevenoaks; Feb. 26, at twelve, at office of Sols., Carter and Bell, Leadenhall-st WOLNO, NATHANIEL, farmer, Burgh; Feb. 28, at three, at office of Mr. Moulton, Woodbridge. sol., Welton WOOD, HENRY HALL, milliner, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Feb. 28, at two, at office of Sol., Bousfield, Newcastle-on-Tyne WOOD, THOMAS, draper, Wakefield: Feb. 27, at three, at offices of Messrs. Fernandes and Gill, Cross-sq, Wakefield WRIGHT, CHARLES, retailer of beer, Harrow; Feb. 27, at two, at office of Sol., Marshall, Hatton-gdn Coupland, J. H. cotton broker, second, 2d. Stone, Liverpool.Grifiths, W. H. of Chipping Campden, first, jd. Harley, Bristol. -Guest, J. cotton manufacturer, further, 9d. McNeill, Marchester.-Hassel, G. N. auctioneer, first, 6d. Harley, Bristol.-Isacke, J. J. brush manufacturer, second, 3d. Harley, Bristol.-Jones, J. hotel keeper, first, 1s. ed. Harley, Bristol.-Knowles, Messrs. cotton spinners, first, 111d. McNeill, Manchester.-Newmans, W. J. horse dealer, third, id. Harley, Bristol.-Nurse, J. C. coal merchant. first, 11d. Harley, Bristol.-O'Beirne, B. wine merchant, second, 24d. Harley. Bristol. Bill, J. saddler, first and final, 1s. 4d. At Trust, S. B. Icke High st, West Bromwich.-Blythe, Moors, and Moore, merchants, 2s At office of Trust., H. W. Banner, 84, North John-st, LiverpoolDavies, J. W. tobacconist, Is. 8d. At Sol., C. E. Strong, 44, Jewinst, Cripplegate. Harkes, J. grocer, first and final, 4s. At Sol, J. B. Coaks, Norwich.-Horley, T. R. first, 9d. At Trust., C. Garlant, 56, King William st.-Jump, J. builder, first, 2s. 6d. At office of Sol., Lupton, Liverpool-Mills, A. telescope maker, first and final, Is. 4d. At 8, Giltspur-st. Trust., G. Onwhyn.-Sper, M. A. widow, first and final, 4s. At Sol., J. B. Coaks, Norwich.-Upright, G. victualler, 20s. At office of Trust., H. Blanchford, 39, High-st, Exeter. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. COLTMAN-On the 10th inst., a 24, Hyde-park-gate south, the wife of Francis J. Coltman, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter. LAWRANCE. On the 11th inst., at 12, Kent-terrace, Regent's park, the wife of George Woodford Lawrance, of Lincoln's-inn, barrister-at-law, of a son. SWARBRECK.- On the 7th inst., the wife of Charles M'C. Swarbreck, Esq., solicitor, Thirsk, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. LEWIS-KINGLAKE.-On the sth inst., at St. Saviour's Church, Pimlico, Richard Lewis, barrister-at-law, to Eliza Mary, eldest daughter of the late Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, M.P. for Rochester, and Recorder of Bristol. DEATHS. CARLINE. On the 11th inst., at Lincoln, aged 28, Henry S. Carline so icitor. SHAW. On the 12th inst., at 36, Charlotte-square, Edinburgh, Patrick Shaw, Esq., advocate, aged 75. YONGE. On the 10th inst., at Islington, aged 67. Mr. John Yonge, solicitor; of the Strand, for many years vestry clerk of the parish of St. Mary-le-Strand, and precinct of the Savoy. PARTRIDGE AND COOPER DRAFT PAPER, 48. Gd., 68., 78., 7s. 9d., and 9s. per ream. THE NEW "VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE" NOTE, 9s. 6d. per ream. "We should direct particular attention to their New Clubhouse Paper: in our opinion it is the very best paper we ever wrote upon." "-London Mirror. INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled, to hold twenty or thirty folios, is. 8d. and 1s. 9d. per skin, 20s. per dozen. SECONDS OF FOLLOWERS, Ruled 18. 6d. cach, 178. per dozen. RECORDS OF MEMORIALS, 6d. each, 5s. per dozen. LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER OF MINUTE-BOOKS An immense stock in various bindings. ILLUSTRATED PRICE-LIST of Inkstands, Postage Scales, Copying Presses, Writing Cases, Despatch Boxes, Oak and Walnut Stationery Cabinets, and other useful articles adapted to Library or Office, post free. NATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR MEADOWS.-Patients attended at 277, Gray's-inn-road, King's-cross, on Mondays and Thursdays, and at 1", Mitre street, Aldgate, on Wednesday and Friday mornings at ten, evenings from six till nine. Average number of cases under treatment 1000 weekly.-THOMAS ROBINSON, HON. Sec. HE COLD FEET. PATENT THERMOPODION, or of the extremities or languid circulation should test this neat and improved article for imparting heat, surpassing the antique water bottle, inasmuch as a uniform heat for an indefinite period can be retained at an infinitesimal cost. Especially valuable for railway travelling, the carriage, or study. Light, portable, and ornamental.-To be obtained of all leading Furnishing Warehouses, Drapers, Chemists, in imitation sealskin, Price 218. Sole Manufacturers, SPENCE and CO., 6, Leather-lane, E.C. THE 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," withont which none is genuine. See decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood, the Times, July 16, 1864. From Lord Francis Conyngnam, Mont Charles, Donegal, 11th December 1968:-"Lord Francis Conyngham, who this time last year bought some of Dr. J. Collis Browne's Chlorodyne from Mr. Davenpors, 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, 1. 1d.. 28. 9d., and s. 6d., by all chemists Sole manufacturer, J. T. DAVENPORT, S, Great Russellstreet, London, W.C. TRAD LAMPLOUGH'S PYRETIC SALINE By Vitalising and Invigorating the Blood has peculiar and remarkable properties in Headache, Sea or Bilious Sickness, preventing and curing Sinall 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. HOLLOWAY'S OINTMENT and PILLS. -BILIOUSNESS and DYSPEPSIA.-There is no organ in the human body so liable to derangement as the liver-food, fatigue, climate, and anxiety all disorder its action and render its secretions-the bile-more or less depraved, superabundant, or scanty. The first symptoms should receive attention. A pain in the side or the top of the shoulder, a harsh cough, and difficulty of breathing, are signs of liver disease which are removed without delay by friction with Holloway's inestimable Ointment. The Pis should be taken without delay. For all diseases of this vital organ, the action of these conjoined remedies is a specific, by checking the over-supply of bile, regulating its secretion, and giving nervous tone. Just published, in demy 8vo. (pp. xxxii., 780), cloth, price 25s., THE STATUTES RELATING THERETO, FORMS OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN AUTHORS, By OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, ESQ., BARRISTER-AT-LAW; LL.B., 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. LORD CAIRNS has consented to take the chair at the ensuing anniversary festival of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association, on the 13th June next. The annual report of the association has just been issued, and it appears that since the association commenced its beneficent labours in 1861, it has dispensed in relief no less a sum than £3844 10s. Such a society deserves all support. VOL. LII.-No. 1508. WE are glad to hear that arrangements are to be made for dividing the business of the Liverpool County Court, the present Judge, Mr. Serjt. WHEELER, disposing of Admiralty, Equity, and Bankruptcy business, whilst his colleague, yet to be appointed, takes Common Law cases. Very general complaints have lately prevailed respecting the manner in which the want of arrangement interferes with the dispatch of business. A COMBINATION of newspaper proprietors is contemplated for the purpose of amending the law of libel and defeating vexatious actions. This movement has apparently arisen out of the decision, or rather difference of judicial opinion, in the recent case of Jenner and another v. A'Beckett. A clearer expression of the law" is asked for "as to the nature of privileged communications," and "a reform in that section," whatever that may mean, “which renders newspapers responsible for the reported utterance of speakers at public meetings." We should advise those engaged in promoting these objects to put themselves at once in communication with a lawyer of ability who can advise what to ask for and what to avoid. SOMEWHAT to the discredit of the prominent lawyers in Parliament, they seem to have been divided on the Collier question. In the minority which condemned the conduct of the Government we find Mr. AMPHLETT, Sir R. BAGGALLAY, Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS, Mr. CHARLEY, Mr. DOWDESWELL, the Hon. G. DENMAN, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Mr. LOPES, Mr. STRAIGHT, and Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS. In the majority we find Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Sir J. D. COLERIDGE, Mr. T. HUGHES, Sir G. JESSEL, Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. MCMAHON, Mr. Serjt. SIMON, Mr. Serjt. SHERLOCK, and Mr. HENRY JAMES. Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS, Mr. DENMAN, and Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS deserted their party to satisfy their consciences, for which we desire to give them all honour. ONE of the several remarkable theories concerning judicial appointments propounded by the present Government, is that to which, according to Lord HATHERLEY, the County Court Bench is indebted for the acquisition of Mr. BEALES. That learned Judge was deprived of a revising barristership by Chief Justice ERLE, on the ground that, by active political agitation, he had disqualified himself for the office, which is one, of course, intimately con nected with political matters. Deeming him an injured man, Lord HATHERLEY makes him a County Court Judge. This is the ostensible reason for an appointment which at the time we condemned most emphatically, disregarding altogether the question of personal merit; but we confess we should not be inclined to go into other motives which may have influenced the Government. We now simply desire to record our most energetic protest against County Court Judgeships being used as crumbs of comfort for hardly used barristers. AN important point as to foreign securities has been decided by Vice-Chancellor MALINS in Holmes' Claim. This was a claim to prove against the Marseilles Extension Railway and Land Company in respect of unstamped debentures or obligations of rather a peculiar form. Each debenture was given under the hands of two directors and the company's seal, and commenced :-" This obligation is redeemable at the sum of £30, the payment of which is guaranteed out of the produce of the sale of the company's land." They purported to be redeemable by annual drawings, and had coupons for interest attached, but were not made payable to anyone, or to order, or bearer. After a good deal of discussion as to what they should be considered, the VICE-CHANCELLOR held that they should be treated as promissory notes, and could not be put in evidence without being stamped. The effect of this decision is that debentures similar to those issued by the Marseilles Company are not, for stamping purposes, foreign securities," but come under the category of bills of exchange or promissory notes drawn or made out of the kingdom, and must have the proper adhesive stamp affixed before being presented, negotiated, or paid in this country, in accordance with sect. 51 of the Stamp Act 1870. 66 THE case of the Imperial Anglo-German Bank decided a few days since, throws much light on a moot point-the extent to which the formation of a company must be carried before it becomes subject to the Winding-up Acts. The bank had been formed for the purpose of carrying on business in North Germany and England, with a principal place of business at Berlin and a joint German and English directory. The prospectus stated that it was proposed to obtain the incorporation of the company under the law of the North German Confederation, that before this could be done a certain proportion of the capital should be paid up, but that in case the company was not incorporated the money paid upon shares would be returned in full to the subscribers. The provisional directors took offices in London and incurred debts, but did not succeed in getting the company incorporated in Germany. In accordance with the terms of the prospectus they were about to return the money paid on the shares subscribed for, when a petition was presented by a creditor and an order made to wind-up the company by Vice-Chancellor MALINS. This order, however, was discharged by the LORDS JUSTICES on appeal; the grounds of the decision were that under the circumstances the company had never come into existence at all. It had been intended that it should have been incorporated under the law of the North German Confederation, but this had not been done, and as the scheme had simply fallen through, there was no company to wind-up. As the petition was against the company the LORDS JUSTICES did not feel it necessary to consider whether the provisional directors could be treated as an unregistered company; but Lord Justice JAMES intimated that he always doubted whether provisional directors could be made jointly liable for debts contracted in forming a company. This case goes just sufficiently far to make it a matter of great regret that it does not go a little farther. It settles that a company must be actually formed before it can be wound-up; but it leaves the liability of provisional directors to be wound-up under sect. 199 of the Companies Act 1862, still very doubtful-indeed, more doubtful than ever by reason of the obiter dictum of the Lord Justice JAMES. A CASE before the LORDS JUSTICES, reported in another part of our paper, incidentally raises a very important question which deserves public attention. Ex parte Luckes, re Wood, was an appeal from Sir JAMES BACON, the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, with respect to what constitutes an act of bankruptcy. The County Court Judge at Hereford, it seems, had held that a non-trader who conveyed the bulk of his estate to a creditor for an antecedent debt thereby committed an act of bankruptcy. On appeal the CHIEF JUDGE ruled that the County Court Judge was wrong, and animadverted strongly upon the conduct of the trustee, but for what reason does not appear, unless it was for resisting the appeal. The LORDS JUSTICES, on the case being brought before them, in most emphatic terms, held the CHIEF JUDGE to be wrong, and, without expressing any direct opinion as to the trustee, said, their judgment being throughout in his favour, he required no further justification for the course he had pursued. What a comment upon the censure of the CHIEF JUDGE! A trustee in bankruptcy acts under a committee of inspection, and when they direct him to take the opinion of a higher court he has no alternative. In a recent case of Ex parte Bolland, re Laurie, the learned CHIEF JUDGE held that, although the trustee was perfectly justified in appealing from the court below, as it had not given any decision upon the merits of the question, yet if it should turn out upon the case being further investigated that the trustee was wrong, he should not allow him a penny of costs out of the estate. We would venture to ask what right a court of appeal has to hold out such a threat to a suitor whom it admits was justified in appealing? Creditors, as a rule, are not fond of dissipating in litigation their chance of a dividend, and much less are trustees auxious to diminish their chance of remuneration by squandering the estate amongst lawyers, and it may therefore be safely taken that the CHIEF JUDGE would not be troubled with appeals unless there was some good and sufficient ground. Assuming the threat of the CHIEF JUDGE were put into effect, there is nothing so simple for the creditors as to pass a resolution that the costs shall be paid out of the estate. They can do as they like with their own property, and with great respect to the CHIEF JUDGE we think his order as to costs under such circumstances would be so much waste paper. It is to be regretted that the primary court of appeal in bankruptcy should overlook the fact that there is a final appeal, that the antiquated notions of the law of bankruptcy, which prevailed some fifty years ago, no longer exist, and that in its zeal to cut down the costs of bankruptcy proceedings, it may be the innocent medium of obstructing the channels of justice. THE suit of Prosser v. The Governor and Company of the Bank of England, before VICE-CHANCELLOR WICKENS on the 19th inst., was instituted for the purpose of compelling the Bank authorities to recognise the provisions of the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 99, which they have hitherto declined to do. That Act provides that extracts from parish registers, verified by the proper person, to whose custody the original register is entrusted, shall require no further verification, but shall be admissible in evidence in any court of justice. Before this Act was passed the practice of the AcCOUNTANT-GENERAL in Chancery and the Bank of England agreed. Both required as evidence of the death of a stockholder, first, a burial certificate; secondly, an affidavit or (in the case of the Bank) a statutory decla ration, proving the examination of the burial certificate with the original register; thirdly, an affidavit or declaration of identity. But since the passing of the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 99, the Court of Chancery has admitted burial and other certificates without any further verification than the signature of the rector, curate, or other person entrusted with the custody of the register. On the other hand, the Bank of England has refused to depart from its former practice, and still requires in each case where a death is proved in respect of a joint account, that the burial certificate should be accompanied by a declaration proving its examination with the register. The expense occasioned to the public by this refusal of the Bank to recognise an Act of Parliament passed thirty years ago may be estimated from the evidence furnished by the Bank in this suit. The principal clerk in the register office at the Bank states that the number of deaths proved at the Bank upon accounts of stock by means of burial extracts is on an average about 3000 annually. As the additional costs of the declaration required by the Bank to verify the burial extract, involving, as it does in many cases a long journey to the place of burial, does not fall below an average sum of two guineas in each case, it follows that this requirement of the Bank has cost the public upwards of £180,000 since the Act was passed which rendered it unnecessary. Moreover, if the Court of Chancery allows its funds to be tranferred on the production of burial extracts without any other evidence than that of identity, it seems absurd that any further safeguard should be required by the Bank. Notwithstanding these arguments VICE-CHANCELLOR WICKENS did not feel himself at liberty to compel the Bank to alter its practice, and accordingly dismissed the bill with costs. The VICE-CHANCELLOR, indeed, expressed a wish that the practice of the Bank could be assimilated to that of the Court of Chancery, but would not interfere to produce this result. We shall be anxious to see if this decision will be upheld in case of an appeal. DURING the last session of Parliament two Bills were introduced for the purpose of amending the law with regard to the registration of Parliamentary voters in counties and boroughs, and which threatened to put an end to the existing method of appointing revising barristers, and to change the system of paying such as should, had the Bills become law, thereafter be appointed. The law of registration doubtless is capable of improvement, but we have hitherto doubted and do still doubt the prudence of effecting any change in the manner of appointing revising barristers. With a few exceptions, the appointments hitherto have been so fair as to pass unquestioned; and we should long ago have heard of it had the men appointed failed in doing their work efficiently. The proposals contained in the Bills alluded to were looked upon with disfavour by the whole Profession-not so much because the remuneration was likely to be interfered with, as that the mode of appointing them was not so equitable as the present method. The statute which now regulates the appointment, duties, and remune ration of revising barristers is the 6 Vict. c. 18, whereby it is enacted that the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of the Court of Queen's Bench shall, in July or August in every year, appoint so many barristers (who must be of three years' standing) as he shall deem necessary to revise the list of voters for that year for the county of Middlesex, the city of London, the city of Westminster, and the several boroughs in the county of Middlesex; and that the senior Judge for the time being in the commission of assize for every other county shall, during the summer circuit, appoint so many barristers as he shall deem necessary to revise the lists of voters of every such county, and for the several cities and boroughs in every such county: provided, however, except under circumstances of actual necessity when additional appointments may be made, that the number on cach circuit must not exceed the maximum number in the said Act contained. The remuneration is fixed at 200 guinens a year for every revising barrister, except the additional barristers above alluded to, whose remuneration is fixed at five guineas per day, and three guineas per day towards expenses, but in all not to exceed 200 guineas. The changes proposed by the two Bills to which we have already referred were to this effect. The Court of Common Pleas was appointed the Superior Court of revision. That court was empowered to appoint such number of barristers as it should, with the consent of the Commissioners of the Treasury, determine to hold local courts of revision in such manner as the court may direct. Such appointments were to be made in March in each year, and were to hold good for one year. Revising barristers. were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund upon the completion of the revision, such remuneration and expenses as the Commis sioners of the Treasury may from time to time allow. No barrister under seven years standing was to be eligible for such appointment. There was the same disqualification on account of being a member of Parliament, or holding an office or place of profit under the Crown, as was contained in the 6 Vict. c. 18.; but the temporary disqualification from acting as a revising barrister, after having been a Parliamentary candidate, was extended to two years instead of a year and a half. Considering that the existing mode of appointing and remunerating revising barristers has worked so satisfactorily for so many years, it did not seem to us at the time that any alteration or modification was necessary. It is therefore with pleasure that we observe in Mr. VERNON HARCOURT's measure, now submitted to the House, an excision of the objectionable provisions of last year's Bills. It is better that the patronage should be extended to all the Judges than that it should be restricted to one court; while, as to leaving the question of remuneration to the Treasury, recent experience is a sufficient ground for suggesting that thereby the efficiency of revision would be sacrificed to what is falsely called economy. THE DEBATES ON THE APPOINTMENT OF SIR ROBERT COLLIER. THE appointment of Sir ROBERT COLLIER as paid member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has at last been fairly brought before Parliament. It has been thoroughly discussed in both Houses, and both have declined to pass a formal vote of censure on the Government for the mode in which that appointment was made. We trust, however, the Government will not look merely to the numerical result of the divisions, but will pay some attention to the views expressed, and the arguments used in the course of the debates, and endeavour in that way to gather the real sense and feeling of Parliament with regard to the course they have pursued. To us the general results of the debate appear satisfactory, for they show that we still have very many able public men, who will neither sanction nor tolerate an evasion of the law by any Government, whatever its party may be; but, on the other hand, it is by no means reassuring to find the PRIME MINISTER and the LORD CHANCELLOR, after several months of cool reflection, after hearing the most invincible arguments against their view of the construction of the Act of Parliament, come forward and continue to maintain that view by arguments that show a sort of incapacity on their part to understand the distinction between an evasion of, and a full compliance with, the provisions of an Act of Parliament. It is a remarkable fact that neither of the present law officers of the Crown approve of the construction put upon the Act, for we may fairly presume that if they did they would have come forward and said so, and the Government failed to obtain the support of any lawyer of repute in either house except Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, who made a speech for them that was a model of forensic ingenuity, and a perfect epitome of all the fallacies known to logicians, but notwithstanding all this, neither Mr. GLADSTONE nor the LORD CHANCELLOR Said a word that could be construed to mean that they would not pursue exactly the same course as before if the thing had to be done over again. Now, what was the charge made against the Government, and what was their defence to that charge? In the last session of Parliament an Act (34 & 35 Vict. c. 91) was passed, enabling the Government to appoint four persons, qualified as in the Act mentioned, to be paid members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it enacts that "Any persons appointed to act under the provisions of this Act as members of the said Judicial Committee must be specially qualified as follows, that is to say, must at the date of their appointment be or have been judges of one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts at Westminster, or a Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, or Madras, or Bombay, or of the late Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal." In order to carry out this Act the LORD CHANCELLOR offered the appointments under it successively to four of the Common Law Judges, but without success, except in the case of Sir MONTAGUE SMITH. Mr. GLADSTONE then interposed, and, according to the LORD CHANCELLOR'S statement, prevented him from offering the appointment to any other of the Judges. Simultaneously with this it was found that Sir ROBERT COLLIER would be happy to accept the appointment, and it was determined by Mr. GLADSTONE and the LORD CHANCELLOR that he should have it. The slight difficulty presented itself that he was not within the words of the Act, but this was soon got over. There happened to be a vacancy on the bench of the Common Pleas. Sir ROBERT COLLIER, pro formá was made a Judge without the slightest intention on his part, or on the part of those who appointed him, that he should continue one, and accordingly after a few days' quarantine on the bench of the Common Pleas, he was quietly moved into the tranquil haven of the Judicial Committee, where he has finally come to anchor. The charge against the Government was, that this proceeding was an evasion of the Act, that it was an infringement of the plain meaning the Act bore in common sense and in relation to its subject matter, and further that an indignity had been cast upon the judicial office by making it a mere colourable qualification to save the letter of an Act of Parliament. The answer to these grave charges, so far as they were answered at all, is to be found in the speeches of Mr. GLADSTONE, the LORD CHANCELLOR, and Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, and we have every wish to do justice to their arguments and views. The propositions on which the arguments of Sir R. PALMER and the LORD CHANCELLOR were based, as far as we can understand them, were two. First, that the Act does not specify any definite period of judicial experience, therefore the Act is satisfied by appointing a person who has the name or status of a Judge when the appointment is made, whenever or however that name may have been bestowed; secondly, that Sir R. COLLIER was a fit and proper person to be made a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and therefore there could be no objection to give him that Judgeship as a qualification for the Judicial Committee. With regard to the first of these propositions its advocates evidently shrunk from the consequences it would lead to, and Sir R. PALMER abandoned his whole position in two several parts of his speech when he observed, "now if this thing were done wantonly, maliciously, or without a lona fide view to serve the public, or if it we lone over and over again, as the honourable gentleman suggested, I should not stand here to defend it;" and again, in reference to a remark previously made with regard to the Indian qualification, he said, "I think it would have been improper, though it might have been legal, to appoint to the Judicial Committee any person who was not really and truly such an Indian chief judge as to be in that respect a fit representative on the Judicial Committee of the Indian Judicature." But really to a lawyer, at least, it is hardly necessary to do more than state the first proposition in order to show its absurdity. The Act obviously provides, if its limitations are to be more than a mere nullity, that the person selected for the Judicial Committee shall be when the selection is made, a Judge, or ex-Judge, not that he may be made a Judge after he has been selected to become a member of the Judicial Committee. As to the second proposition it has really nothing to do with the matter. Sir R. COLLIER may morally and intellectually be the fittest man in the world to put in the Judicial Committee, but he certainly was not legally fitted for it, unless when selected for the appointment he had bond fide the qualification required by the Act. As to the views of Mr. GLADSTONE, who seems to have been the prime mover in the whole affair, we have some difficulty in understanding what his precise construction of the Act is. One part of his speech almost conveys the impression that he reads the qualification required by the Act not as literally meaning that the appointment should only be given to a Judge or ex-Judge but as a sort of figurative way of saying that the person appointed should be of a certain standard of fitness and capacity, and upon this view of the Act it would not have been necessary to pass SIR ROBERT COLLIER through the Common Pleas at all, before installing him on the Judicial Committee. From the speech, as a whole, we regret to gather, notwithstanding some fine flourishes in it, that MR. GLADSTONE is much more concerned about having raised a storm in the House, than having evaded the plain meaning of an Act of Parliament, and we still more regret the tone in which he, as well as the LORD CHANCELLOR, alludes to the Judges. MR. DENMAN said in the course of the debate, and we think truly, "that there was a desire to do something to render our courts less independent, to place them on a lower basis, to prevent them being able to stand between the Crown and the subject, between the Government of the day, or a popular majority in the House of Commons, and the rights of the individual subject and that there was a disposition on the part of persons now high in authority to destroy some of the securities which we possessed for the independence and high character of our courts of justice." These remarks we think were fully justified by much that was said on Monday night, and by what fell from the LORD CHANCELLOR on the previous Thursday, when the extraordinary avowal was made that a gentleman had been made a County Court Judge in order that "he should be restored to competence." If these are the principles upon which judicial appointments are to be made, and if Judges are to be attacked with sneers and insults whenever they lack subservience to the Government of the day, we fear there is a gloomy future before the bench of England. And we venture to predict that regard for the law will not long survive the decay, if it once sets in, of that feeling of honour and respect in which those who administer it have hitherto been held. 66 TRADE USAGES VERSUS LAW. A REMARKABLE illustration of the difficulty experienced in estab lishing the legal validity of a commercial usage is afforded by the course of litigation in the case of Mollett v. Robinson, which came before the Court of Exchequer Chamber for judgment on the 12th inst., on appeal from the Common Pleas. This case in the court below is reported 23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 185. The question involved is shortly this, viz., whether a broker purchasing for his client in the London tallow market is bound to make a separate contract with the seller for the precise quantity required by each client, or whether he may obtain the quantity as best he can in the market, making such contracts as he finds convenient for the purpose, setting off his purchases against his sales, and purchasing only so much as may be necessary to fulfil the orders of the purchasers. The ground of the defence in Mollett v. Robinson really was, that the plaintiff, whom the defendant had employed as a broker to buy,. had no principal, but was himself the vendor of the tallow for the nonacceptance of which the action was brought. This the plaintiff's counsel admitted, but relied on the fact that the tallow tendered was obtained by the plaintiff bona fide, according to the recognised usage of the market, and without any profit to the broker beyond his commission. The Court of Common Pleas was equally divided, Chief Justice Bovill and Mr. Justice Smith holding that the usage was valid, and Mr. Justice Willes and Mr. Justice Keating that it was not, the result being that the plaintiff, who had obtained a verdict subject to a rule nisi, afterwards granted for setting aside thesame, retained his verdict. The case in error left the matter precisely in statu quo, for there the court was also equally divided, the juniors, Baron Cleasby, Mr. Justice Hannen, and Mr. Justice Mellor deciding that the custom was not, and the seniors, Mr. Justice Blackburn, Baron Channell, and Chief Baron Kelly that it was, valid. |