KENDRICK, THOMAS, furniture dealer, Birmingham; Nov. 13, at

three, at office of Sol., Maher, Birmingham KINGSLAND, MARK WILLIAM, miller, Cudham; Nov. 15, at eleven, at the Harrow Inn, Knockholt. Sol., Palmer LANCEFIELD, GEORGE FREDERICK, wine merchant, Fulham-rd, and Egham; Nov. 27, at three, at offices of Sols., Lawrance, Plews, Boyer, and Baker, Old Jewry-chmbs

Dartford; Nov. 25, at three, at office of Sol., Boydell, South-sq, Gray's-inn

LUTTMAN, JOHN, jun., accountant, Noel-st, Islington; Nov. 16, at three, at office of Sol., Philp, Pancras-la

LYNCH, THOMAS, tobacconist, North Shields; Nov. 18, at twelve, at office of Sol., Duncan, South Shields

MARTIN, JAMES, captain in the army, Bath; Nov. 17, at eleven at office of Sol., Wilton, Bath

THE WINTER CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES.

The following are the arrangements for the winter circuits of the judges, as far as settled :CIRCUIT NO. 1.-Lancashire-Mr. Justice Willes and Mr. Justice Blackburn.

CIRCUIT No. 2.- Cumberland, Newcastle-onTyne, Durham, York (West Riding)-Mr. Baron Pigott.

CIRCUIT NO. 3.-Worcester, Gloucester, Stafford, Chester, Shropshire.

CIRCUIT No. 4.-Warwick, Derby, Leicester, Lincoln, Glamorgan-Mr. Justice Lush.

offices of Sols., Reddish and Lake, Stockport

MAYO, DAVID, baker, Seymour-st, Euston-square; Nov. 20, at twelve, at office of Sol., Pope, Great James-st, Bedford-row MEIRS, JOHN WILLIAM HENRY, grocer, Sandown, Isle of Wight; Nov. 7, at two, at 14, Union-st, Ryde. Sol., Hooper, Newport and Ryde, Isle of Wight

MITCHELL, LEMUEL, boot manufacturer, Upper-st, Islington; Nov. 17, at two, at offices of Sols., Blachford and Riches, Great Swan-alley, Moorgate-st

PATCHETT, JOHN, stonemason, Hipperholme-cum-Brighouse, par Halifax, Nov. 13, at ten, at office of Sol, Hargreaves, Bradford PECKHAM, ROBERT, farmer, Maidstone; Nov. 16, at eleven, at office of Sol., Goodwin, Maidstone

PULLING, GEORGE, upholsterer, High Holborn, and Grove-endrd, St. John's-wood; Nov. 23, at half-past one, at the Auction Mart, Tokenhouse-yd REID, ROBERT, grocer, Bradford; Nov. 18, as half-past ten, at office of Sol., Hutchinson, Bradford RODGERS, HENRY, butcher, Goswell-rd. and Buckingham-palace

rd, Pimlico; Nov. 10, at twelve, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sol.. Chidley, Old Jewry

THE GAZETTES.

Bankrupts.

Gazette, Nov. 3.

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. CARSON, JOHN, no occupation, out of England. Pet. Oct. 30. Reg. Pepys. Sols., Shaen and Co., Bedford-row. Sur. Nov. 21 HATCH, STEPHEN, builder, Asylum-rd, Old Kent-ra. Pet. Oct. 30. Reg. Roche. Sols., Treherne and Co., Ironmonger-la. Sur. Nov. 23 PHILLIPS, R., no occupation, Piccadilly. Pet. Oct. 24. Reg. Hazlitt. Sur. Nov. 17

ABLETT, WILLIAM HENRY, manufacturer of silk goods, Queen'shead-passage, Newgate-st, and Foleshill near Coventry, and Frensham, near Fanham; Nov. 20, at two, at office of Sols. Phelps and Sidgwick, Gresham-st

AFFORD, FREDERICK, shoe manufacturer, Norwich; Nov. 18, at eleven, at office of Sols., Messrs. Miller, and Stevens, Norwich BONTOFF, HARRISON, printer, Alford; Nov. 18, at eleven, at office of Norris, Allens, and Carter. Bedford-row BROWN, MICHAEL, clogger, Stockport; Nov. 14, at three, at office of Sol., Johnston, Stockport

BURRELL, GEORGE, importer of Dtuch yeast, Horton, par. Bradford; Nov. 20, three, at office of Sol., Gant, Bradford

BUSH, WILLIAM, carpenter, Charlton Kings; Nov. 15, at four, at 1 office of Sol., Smith, Cheltenham

BUTCHER, GEORGIANA EMMA, fancy wool dealer, Grove-ter, Notting-hill; Nov. 17, at three, at office of Sol., Scarth, Welbeckst, Cavendish-sq

CAIN, EDWARD, JOHN, and CAIN, EDWARD JAMES, timber merchants, Bermondsey; Nov. 10, at two, at the Guildhall Coffeehouse, Gresham-st. Sols., Chipperfield and Short, Trinity-st, Southwark

CARD, JOHN, wholesale shirt manufacturer, Aldermanbury; Nov. 14, at three, at offices of Foreman and Cooper, Gresham-st. Sol., Mason, Gresham-st

CARRODUS, WILLIAM JAMES, and ASTIN, WILLIAM, stuff manufacturers, Bingley, Nov. 16, at eleven, at office of Sols., Terry and Robinson, Bradford

CHARLESWORTH, WILSON, grocer, Netherthong, par. Almond-
bury, Nov. 16, at three, at office of Sol., Booth, Holmfirth
CLAYDON, GEORGE, boot manufacturer, Kingsland-rd, and Sey-
mour-st, Euston-sq; Nov. 16, at twelve, at offices of Nicholson,
accountant, Gresham-st. Sol.. Montagu, Bucklersbury
COOKE, THOMAS, sadler, Monks Coppenhall; Nov. 15, at three, at
the Royal hotel, Crewe. Sol., Sheppard Crewe
CORTI, PAUL, jun., watchmaker, Exeter; Nov. 17, at three, at the
Chamber of Commerce, Cheapside

DRAPER, RICHARD, chemist, New Brighton; Nov. 17, at two, at
Joffice of Sols., Grocott and Browne, Liverpool
ELLISON, EVAN, cowkeeper, Liverpool; Nov. 15, at three, at
office of Sols., Cobb and Sawton, Liverpool
FARMER, RICHARD, jun., gardener, St. James' End, Duston;
Nov. 7, at twelve, at office of Sol., White, Derngate, Northamp
ton
FARR, GEORGE THOMAS ADAMS, out of employ, Clarence-rd, Bow;
Nov. 10, at two, at office of Sol, Marshall, Hatton-garden
FILDES, WILLIAM, mill warper, Stockport; Nov. 16, at three, at
office of Sols., Reddish and Lake, Stockport
FRENCH, GEORGE, grocer, Walsall; Nov. 21, at three, at office of
Sol., Rowlands, Birmingham

GLOVER, JAMES, iron founder, Walsall; Nov. 15, at half-past
eleven, at office of Sols., Wilkinson and Gillespie, Walsall
GRAHAM, JAMES, hawker, Bangor, Nov. 27, at two, at the Oak
Farm inn, Crewe. Sol, Foulkes, Bangor

HARRIS, JAMES, builder, Reading, Nov. 16, at eleven, at office of Sol., Beale, Reading

HARRIS, JOHN, grocer, Canterbury-rd, New Brompton, and Chatham dockyard; Nov. 23, at three, at office of Sol., Stephenson, Chatham

HARROP, HINCHCLIFFE, plumber, Dewsbury; Nov. 17, at eleven, at the Royal hotel, Dewsbury. Sol., Sutcliffe, Halifax HARWOOD, HENRY, grocer, Leeds; Nov. 16, at two, at office of Sols., Messrs. Emsley, Leeds

HODSON, CHRISTOPHER, boot maker, Manchester; Nov. 16, at three, at office of Sols., Smith and Boyer, Manchester

HOLDEN, ARCHIBALD, house decorator, Lamb's Conduft-st; Nov. 18, at three, at office of Sols., Evans, Laing, and Eagles, Johnst, Bedford-row

HOLLINGS, EDMUND, assistant druggist, Burley Lawn, near
Leeds: Nov. 21, at eleven, at office of Sol., Harle, Leeds
JEFFS, WILLIAM, boot maker, Northampton; Nov. 14, at three,
at the Chamber of Commerce, Northampton. Sol., Jeffery,
Northampton

JOHN, THOMAS, hammerman, Swansea; Nov. 13, at eleven, at
office of Sols., Davies and Hartland, Swansea
JONES, CHARLES, builder, Swiss-cottages, Balaclava-rd, Ber-
mondsey, Nov. 17, at three, at the Roebuck tavern, Great
Dover-st, Borough. Sol., Bilton, New Bridge-st, Blackfriars

office of Sol,, Holman, Lewes

SCHUMACHER, FREDERICK, baker, Golden-la, Finsbury; Nov. 10, at twelve, at the Blackwall Railway Hotel, London-st, Fenchurch-st SIMMONS, EDWARD, cabinet maker, Portsea; Nov. 16, at three, at offices of Cooper, Craig, and Co., Cheapside. Sols., Ashurst, Morris, and Co., Old Jewry

SMITH, WILLIAM, draper, Birmingham; Nov. 14, at three, at office of Sol., Rowlands, Birmingham

SNUGGS, CHARLES, wheelwright, Crondall; Nov. 15, at three, at office of Sol, Bayley, Aldershot

STEVENS, MARTHA, butcher, Swansea: Nov. 14, at three, at office of Sol., Morris, Swansea

TUSON, HENRY, and TUSON, CHARLES, printers, West India Dock rd, Limehouse; Nov. 21, at two, at offices of Sols., Ashley and Tee, Frederick's-pl, Old Jewry

WALKER, JOSEPH, wine merchant, Keswick; Nov. 17, at three, at the George Hotel, Keswick. Sol, McKelvie, Whitehaven WATSON, JOHN, gas fitter, Earl's-ct-rd, Kensington; Nov. 20, at twelve, at office of Sol., Pullen, Cloisters, Temple WHITTAKER, ISAAC, grocer, Padiham; Nov. 22, at three, at office of Sol., Hartley, Burnley

WILSON, WILLIAM, felt agent, Liverpool; Nov. 16, at two, at office of Sol., Bellringer, Liverpool

WOODMAN, GEORGE WILLIAM, victualler, Walmer-rd, Nottinghill; Nov. 15, at three, at office of Sol., Tilley, Finsbury-plsouth YOXALL, EDWARD, commission agent, Alsager; Nov. 27, at eleven, at office of Sol., Sherratt, Cidsgrove

Gazette, Nov. 7.

ATKINSON, JOSEPH, blanket manufacturer, Heckmondwike;
Nov. 20, at three, at office of Sol., Ibberson, Dewsbury
BAKER, JOHN, builder, Sunderland; Nov. 23, at eleven, at office
of Sol., Skinner, Sunderland

BLANKSBY, HERBERT, tinman, Nottingham; Nov. 27, at twelve, at office of Sol., Acton, Nottingham

BLISS, THOMAS, clerk to an insurance broker, Ladywell, near Lewisham; Nov. 22, at two, at offices of Sol., Roberts, Moorgate-st

BLOOR, THOMAS, grocer, Longton; Nov. 17, at half-past two, at the North Staffordshire Railway hotel, Stoke-upon-Trent, Sol., Paddock, Hanley

BOWER, JOHN DAWSON, corn dealer's clerk, Stockport; Nov. 20, at three, at office of Sol., Johnston, Stockport BRABBINS, GEORGE WILLIAM, hairdresser, Wolverhampton; Nov. 16, at eleven, at office of Sol., Cresswell, Wolverhampton BROMFIELD, WILLIAM, chemist, Monks Coppenhall; Nov. 18, at three, at the London and North Western Railway Hotel, Crewe. Sol., Sheppard, Crewe

BROWNE, HENRY JOHN, corn factor, Nottingham; Nov. 21, at twelve, at office of Sols., Thorpe and Thorpe, Nottingham CAWKWELL, JOHN, shopkeeper, Marton; Nov. 22, at eleven, at office of Sol., Bladon, Gainsborough

CLARK, CHARLES FREDERICK, joiner, Louth; Nov. 17, at eleven at office of Sol., Hyde, jun., Louth

COCKER, ALFRED RICHARD, solicitor, Gower-st, Bedford-sq; Nov. 23, at two, at offices of Sols., Linklater, Hackwood, Addison, and Brown, Walbrook

CRAPS, MARY, and BALDWIN, EBENEZER, drapers, Lincoln; Nov. 25, at eleven, at office of Sels., Toynbee and Larken, Lincoln

DANIELS, MARY, widow, Hurst Green, par. Salehurst; Nov. 18, at half-past two, at 1A, Robertson-st, Hastings. Sol., Philbrick, Hastings

DAVIES, SAMUEL, linendraper, Tottenham-ct-rd; Nov. 20, at two, at offices of Messrs. Ladbury, Collison, and Viney, Cheapside. Sols., Linklater and Co., Walbrook

DEAN, JOSEPH, plumber, Rochdale; Nov. 17, at three, at the White Swan inn, Yorkshire st, Rochdale. Sol., Standring, jun, Rochdale

DEARDEN, JOHN EDWARD, and DEARDEN, JOSEPH THOMAS, cotton manufacturers, Edgworth, and Turton; Nov. 21, at three, at Clarence hotel, Manchester. Sol., Dawson, East

Bolton

DOUGLAS, JOHN, wine merchant, Wolverhampton and Oaken, par. Codsall; Nov. 21, at eleven, at office of Sols., Bolton, Waterhouse, and Bolton, Wolverhampton DOWERS, CORNELIUS, carman, Chippenham-mews, Harrow-rd; Nov. 20, at two, at offices of Sol., Lewis, Cheapside EDWARDS, DAVID, carpenter, Landovery; Nov. 16, at two, at the King's head inn, Llandilo. Sol., Bishop, Llandilo FAGE, EDWIN, stationer, Landport; Nov. 23, at three, at office of Sol., Way, Portsea

FARRER, HENRY WARD, wine merchant, Queen-st, Cheapside and Cumberland-ter, Pentonville; Nov. 21, at two, at office of Sols., Hillearvs and Tunstall, Fenchurch-bldgs FELLOWS, WILLIAM, provision dealer, Bilston; Nov. 18, at twelve at office of Sol., Fellows, Bilston

FEILD, THOMAS, no occupation, Saint Luke's-rd, Paddington; Nov. 15, at three, at office of Sol., Marshall, Lincoln's-inn-fields FLANAGAN, DAVID JOHN, stuff printer, Old Fish-st, and Rouelrd, Bermondsey; Nov. 23, at twelve, at the rooms of the London Warehousemen's Association, Gutter-la. Sol., Tatham, Great Knightrider-st, Doctors'-commons

FOX, HENRY THOMAS, corn merchant, Queen's-rd, Bayswater; Nov. 22, at four, at offices of Sols., Halse, Trustram, Philpott, and Co., Cheapside GIBBONS, HENRY, shirt maker, Leadenhall-st, and Frederick-pl, Mile-end-rd; Nov. 23, at three, at offices of Sols., Halse, Trustram, Philpott, and Co., Cheapside GIPSON. WALTER EDWARD, plumber, Ashford; Nov. 22, at twelve at office of Messrs. Furley and Co., solicitors, Ashford. Sol,, Furley, Ashford

GOSTLING, ELIZABETH, schoolmistress, Market Rasen; Nov. 18, at eleven, at office of Sols., Toynbee and Larken, Lincoln HARRIS, JOHN, accountant, Wainwen, near Swansea; Nov. 14, at eleven, at office of Sol., Morris, Swansea

HEWITT, ABRAHAM, innkeeper, Potovers, near Wakefield; Nov. 20, at two, at office of Sol., Barratt, Wakefield HOBSON, WILLIAM, butcher's assistant, Stockport; Nov. 21, at three, at office of Sol., Lake, Stockport HOLLOWAY, HENRY, tobacconist, Bilston; Nov. 18, at two, at office of Sol., Bowen, Bilston

HOLMES, HENRY GEORGE, cabinet maker, Wolverhampton; Nov. 17, at four, at offices of Sol, gtratton, Wolverhampton HOMBERG, OTTO, and HAAS, GUSTAVUS, wine merchants, Eastcheap: Nov. 30, at two, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sol., Langton, Walbrook-house, Walbrook HUDSON, JOSEPH, ironmonger's assistant, Stockport; Nov. 20, at three, at office of Sol., Lake, Stockport IVEY,WILLIAM PEARCE, jun., commission agent, Colchester-st, Pimlico; Nov. 22, at two, at offices of the London Warehouse. men's Association, Gutter-la. Sol., Plunkett, Gutter-la

JACKSON, JOSEPH, miller, Dawley; Nov. 20, at three, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Knowles, Wellington JACOBSON, SEELIG, and JACOBSON, ABRAHAM, manufacturers of stays, Manchester: Nov. 20,,at three, at office of Sols., Garner and Horner, Manchester

JACOBY, ABRAHAM, clothier, Langley-pl, Commercial-rd; Nov. 15, at three, at offices of Sol., Holmes, Eastcheap.

JAY, THOMAS, blacksmith, Blandford Forum: Nov. 18, at eleven at office of Sol., Fincham and Bellyse, Blandford Forum KENNEDY, HUGH, oil merchant, Bristol, Nov., 16, at twelve, at office of Sols., Abbot and Leonard, Bristol

KUNER, ISIDOR, journeyman watchmaker, Blaenavon; Nov. 20, at three, at 9, Park-ter, Pontypool

LATHAM, EDWARD, and LATHAM, JOSEPH, builders, Wakefield; Nov. 28, at eleven, at office of Sols., Janson, Banks, and Janson, Wakefield LEADBEATER, JOSHUA, joiner, Liversedge: Nov. 17, at three, a t the George hotel, Heckmondwike. Sol, Scholefield, Batley LEATHERS, THOMAS, butcher, Store-st, Bedford-sq, and Chapel. st, Somer's-town; Nov. 14, at two, at the Guildhall Coffeehouse, Gresham-st. Sol., Chidley, Old Jewry MARTIN, EDWIN, innkeeper, Hawkhurst; Nov. 22, at two, at offices of Lovering and Minton, public accountants, Greshamst. Sol., Hughes, New-sq, Lincoln's-in 1

MILLS, HENRY CHARLES, navigating sub-lieutenant in the roya, navy, Portsmouth; Nov. 21, at three, at office of Sol., Walker Portsea MUNDELL, FREDERICK CHARLES, contractor, Southport; Nov. 22, at two, at office of Sol., Etty, Liverpool MYERS, JACOB, and MORRISON, LIPMAN, LOUIS, hat manufacturers, Leeds, Nov. 20, at three, at office of Sol.. Ferns, Leeds PAULL, JOSEPH, no occupation, Ringwood; Nov. 18, at three, at the Crown Inn, Ringwood. Sol., Johns, Ringwood PIKE, JAMES, sign writer, Wigmore-st, Cavendish-sq; Nov. 21, at two, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sols., Merriman, Powell, and Co., Queen-st

PILLAR, THOMAS HENRY, licensed victualler. Devonport; Nov. 23, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Beer and Rundel, Devonport PINCHES, RICHARD, plumber, Sedgley; Nov. 18, at eleven, at office of Sols., Bolton, Waterhouse, and Bolton, Wolverhampton POOLE, THOMAS, manufacturer of earthenware, Stafford; Nov. 14, at eleven, at the Union hotel, Longton. Sol., Hawley, LongREED, WILLIAM, tailor, West Hartlepool; Nov. 17, at three, at the Raglan Hotel, West Hartlepool. Sol., Hopper, West Hartlepool RICHARDSON, ROBERT, grocer, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Nov. 17, at two, at office of Sols., Hoyle, Shipley, and Hoyle, Newcastleupon-Tyne

ton

ROBINSON, FREDERICK, grocer, Southowram, par. Halifax; Nov. 16, at eleven, at office of Sol., Storey, Halifax

ROLFE, JOHN, farmer, Hensham; Nov. 20, at one, at the King's Arms, hotel, Halesworth. Sol., Wiltshire, Great Yarmouth RUDDERFORTH, THOMAS WILLIAM, shipping agent, Fenchurchst; Dec. 1, at twe, at offices of Sol., Salamar, King - st, Cheapside

SHARP, HENRY, smith, Kingsgate.st, Holborn; Nov. 15, at one at office of Sol., Scott, Powis-pl, Queen's-sq

SHORE, JACOB, woolsorter, Rochdale; Nov. 17, at three, at office of Sols., Messrs. Roberts, Rochdale

SIMPSON, FRANCIS, and LAWTON, WILLIAM, drapers, both Leeds; Nov. 22, at eleven, at office of Messrs. Hunt, accountants, Manchester. Sols., Messrs. North, Leeds

SMITH, ALFRED, Cromwell-ter, New Wimbledon, and GARDNER
JOHN, Amherst-rd, East Hackney, and both of Upper Thames-
st, Birmingham and Sheffield factors; Nov. 17, at two, at the
Guildhall Coffee house, Gresham-st. Sol., Smith, Poultry
SMITH, JOHN, farmer, Frensham; Nov. 24, at two, at the White
Lion hotel, Guildford. Sol., Soames, Petersfield
STAFFORD, ROBERT, builder, Sunderland; Nov. 23, at eleven, at
offices of Sol., Haswell, Sunderland
STORKEY, JOSEPH, builder, Bristol: Nov. 15, at two, at the White
Lion hotel, Broad-st, Bristol. Sols., Benson and Elletson,
Bristol

STORMER, WILLIAM, tailor, Regent-st; Nov. 16, at three, at offices of Sol., Chidley, Old Jewry

TAYLOR, CHARLES WILLIAM, printer, Birmingham; Nov. 16, s eleven, at offices of Sol., Fitter, Birmingham

WAGG, MICHAEL, beer-house keeper, Bristol; Nov. 16, at twelve, at office of Messrs. Hancock, Trigg, and Co., public accountants, Bristol WALLER, JOHN, shoe dealer, Darlington; Nov. 18, at one, at offices of M. P. Thompson, public accountant, Stockton-onTees. Sol., Draper, Stockton-on-Tees

WARREN, CHARLES, builder, Deptford, Nov. 22, at three at office of Sol., Bristow, Greenwich

WEBB, ISAAC, and WEBB, SAMUEL ISAAC, stonemasons, Walsall; Nov. 17, at eleven, at Post-office-chambers, Walsall. Sol., Barnett

WILLIAMS, WILLIAM WAINWRIGHT, out of business, Erdington; Nov. 17, at eleven, at office of E. A. Wenham, accountant, Birmingham. Sol., Harrison, Birmingham

WORSELL, GEORGE TODHUNTER, butcher, Caledonian - rd; Nov. 16, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Dobson, Quality-ct, Chancery-la

Dibidends.

BANKRUPTS' ESTATES.

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

Barter, W. R. leather dealer, first, 1s. 6d. Kinnear, Birmingham.-Wall and Jokuson, druggists, second, 134. (second sep. of Johnson, 18, 0d.) Kinnear, Birmingham.- Woodall and Warmington, iron merchants, second, 64. 13-32nds (first sep. of Goodall, 24. 3-16ths.-Kinnear, Birmingham.

Cruttenden, R. farmer, 6d. At office of Sol.. Holman, Lewes. Trust. C. Russell.-Edwards, J. timber dealer, second, 2s. At Trust. H. G. Nicholson, 7. Norfolk-st, Manchester.-Griffiths, M. of Porthcawl, first and final, 54. At offices of W. H. Williams and Co., Exchange, Bristol. Trust. J. H. Smith.-Jackson, L. bookseller, first and final, 2s. Id. At offices of Sols., J. and J. H. Cooke, Kinderton-st, Middlewich.-Junnings, H. ironmonger, first, 18. At 1. Gresham-bldgs, Basinghall-st. Trust. H. S. Pain.Marshall, B. farmer, 98. At office of Trust. R. L. Staniland, Highst, Boston-More, S. ironmonger, first and final, 2. Id. At offices of Hancock, Triggs, and Co., accountants, 13, John-st, Bristol.Phillips, M. draper, second, 6. At offices of Benson, Eiand, and Co., accountants, Neville-chmbs, Westgate-st, Newcastle.-SimpRon, D. C. and Simpson, C. C. merchants, second, 9. At offices of Trust. H. W. Banner, 24, North John-st, Liverpool.-Thomason, J. undertaker, first and final, 8. At office of Trust. G. Strongitharm, 1, Pilgrim-st, Birkenhead.

MARSHALL.-On the 24th ult., at East Retford, the wife of George
Marshall, jun., Esq., Mayor of Retford, of a daughter.
PEACOCK. On the 2nd inst., at Hollywood House, Croydon, the
wife of Richard Henry Peacock, of Gray's-inn, solicitor, of a
daughter.

PRICHARD.-On the 9th ult, at Madras, the wife of H. G. Prichard,
Esq., Government solicitor, Madras, of a son.
WARMINGTON.-On the 3rd inst., at 34, Somerleyton-road, Brixton,
the wife of C. Marshall Warmington, of Lincoln's-inn, of a son.
MARRIAGES.

SCOTT GRAY.-On the 4th inst., at St. Mark's, Regent's-park,
Thomas James, son of the late William Scott, Esq., of Great
Tower-street, to Alice, youngest daughter of John Gray, Esq.,
Q.C., solicitor to the Treasury.
THOMAS-SYKES.-On the 2nd inst, at the Cathedral, Manchester,
Theodore Thomas, Esq., of the Middle Temple, barrister-at-
law, and Professor of Law, Canning College, Lucknow, to Anne
Gaskell, second daughter of the Rev. J. Sykes, Old Trafford,
Manchester.

DEATHS.

CHALMERS. On the 3rd inst., at Ruby Cottage, Aberdeen, aged 41, Alexander Henderson Chalmers, Writer to Her Majesty's Signet, eldest surviving son of Charles Chalmers, Esq., of Monkshill, advocate, Aberdeen.

GREENWOOD. On the 1st Nov. at 14, Westbourne-terrace, Hydepark, aged 80, Thomas Greenwood, Esq., M.A., Camb., F.R.S.L., a Bencher of Gray's-inn and Fellow and Reader in History in the University of Durham.

administration of the law. The "mysterious" suspension of the Order in Council to which our contemporary refers was, we believe, the result of the action of a large number of professional gentlemen who found that it would be extremely inconvenient to have business scattered in different courts within a very short distance of one another. Accordingly the order was suspended, and very properly, in our opinion. The probability is that if admiralty jurisdiction is conferred upon another court for the port of London, that court will be the court of the Lord Mayor.

WE have before us in the Chicago Legal News, which has reappeared in its entirety, the opinion of Judge MCKEAN, of the District Court of Utah, on the motion to quash the indictment. One objection to the indictment had reference to the vagueness of the counts, and the other was as follows:-"That in the said indictment, as appears upon the face thereof, this defendant is charged with sixteen distinct and different felonies alleged to have been committed at sixteen different times and places, with sixteen different persons; the same not being different parts of one offence, nor different statements of the same offence, or such alleged felonies being in anywise connected with each other." This did not prevail, primarily because there is a statute of 1853 which says that two or more acts or transactions of the same class of crimes or offences which may be properly joined, may be joined in one indictment. On the authority of cases the joinder of the offences was upheld. In one of those cases the indictment consisted of 100 counts, each one being for a distinct felony, but of the same class, and it was sustained. Concerning the offence of Brigham Young the learned Judge was emphatic and impressive. He called attention to the uncommon character of the case, which, being entitled The People v. Brigham Young, he said ought to bear the title of Federal Authority v. Polygamic Theocracy; and he concluded thus:-"The Government of the United States, founded upon a written constitution, finds within its jurisdiction another government claiming to come from God -imperium in imperio-whose policy and practice are, in grave particulars, at variance with its own. The one government arrests the other in the person of its chief, and arraigns it at this bar. A system is on trial in the person of BRIGHAM YOUNG. Let all concerned keep this fact steadily in view, and let that government rule without a rival which shall prove to be in the right. If the learned counsel for the defendant will adduce authorities or principles from the whole range of jurisprudence, or from mental, moral, or social science, proving that the polygamic practices charged in the indictment are not crimes, this court will at once quash this indictment and charge the grand jury to find no more of the kind."

as now come

WE have received Mr. HARCOURT'S address to the Social Science Congress at Leeds, published in the shape of a pamphlet with a preface. In that preface he gives important testimony as to the superior accuracy of thought and expression displayed by the judgments of the great common law Judges as compared with those of the equity Judges, and this he attributes to the fact that at common law the issues of fact and of law are tried by different tribunals, whereas in equity they are mixed up. Mr. HARCOURT says:-" When the fusion of law and equity takes place I should much prefer to see the practice of the common law courts in this respect pursued. I contemplate, therefore, that the Judges of issues of fact should fulfil similar functions to those now discharged by the Judge at Nisi Prius, only, instead of confining the jurisdiction of the Judge to such cases within the province of Nisi Prius, I would extend it to every case in which disputed questions of fact arose. Thus it seems to me that, in the infinite variety of cases in which such questions as fraud, malice, quantum of damages, &c, are involved, it conduces to clearness and precision that these facts should be distinctly ascertained, and then that the legal consequences of the facts should be determined. In the case of fraud and malice the question of fact precedes the question of law; in that of damages they are consequent upon the legal liability. Whether a testator did or did not make a particular will is, of course, a pure matter of fact. What the effect of that will is, is a pure question of law. The two things are perfectly separable, and it seems to me that it is advantageous to separate the method of their determination, Questions of law, arising in trials where the matter at issue is one of mixed law and fact, I should propose should be tried as they now are, at Nisi Prius, the Judge giving his decision on the points of law (or rather, as is too often the case, not giving his decision at the trial), subject to an appeal, not as now, to the court in banco, but directly to the Court of Appeal. For the Judges who are to try issues of law I would reserve all questions where the facts are either not in dispute or are admitted, and the legal effect of them only is in issue. Such are questions upon the interpretation of deeds, contracts, articles of association, wills, settlements, demurrers, special cases, and the like." Equity men will say that this is the view of a common lawyer. But Mr. HARCOURT is more than this. He is a jurist, and his mind has not been warped by a large practice before either tribunal. Therefore we consider his opinion entitled to greater weight than could be accorded to that of Queen's Counsel generally.

THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES. THE correspondence between Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN and the LORD CHANCELLOR, followed by letters from Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, and others, once more directs attention to the system upon which the Judges of tribunals of growing importance are appointed. Whether a County Court Judge for Wales should be expected to know Welsh when appointed is a question about which there may fairly be a difference of opinion. The LORD CHANCELLOR considers that it is quite sufficient that the registrar should know Welsh, but if this were conceded, it does not appear that the Welsh registrars are, as a rule, acquainted with the language. Mr. MORGAN, on the other hand, contends that the argument which applies to the registrar, applies, under existing circumstances, with equal force to the Judge, and we think he is right. And the objection of the LORD CHANCELLOR that a Judge having a knowledge of Welsh would inspire distrust in English litigants appears to us unfounded and not at all to be anticipated. On this head Mr. MORGAN points out that both Mr. JOHNES and Mr. RICHARDS understood Welsh, and they discharged their duties to the entire satisfaction of the suitors within their districts, and further, according to Mr. MORGAN, "when the County Courts were first established, a knowledge of Welsh was regarded as a sine qua non on the part of all the Welsh County Court Judges," though the rule has since been relaxed in the English-speaking districts of Wales. The upshot is, however, that the LORD CHANCELLOR declines to depart from established practice-which must be taken to mean the modern practice under the relaxed regulations; and if the Welsh people want to fight satisfactorily in County Courts they must learn English, as they ought to have done long ago.

All this is beside the main point, which is this. The CHANCELLOR'S judgment in his selection of County Court Judges is hampered and controlled. Had not a necessity existed for providing for the faithful and industrious secretary of the Judicature Commission, would Mr. BRADSHAW have been selected out of the whole Bar to fill a County Court Judgeship? And can it be said that Mr. BEALES and Mr. HOMERSHAM COX were appointed because they were the barristers of all others best acquainted with the several jurisdictions which have now to be administered by the County Courts? We venture to give a distinct negative to this, and as regards the most recent appointment, it is not only a hardship inflicted upon the district concerned, but a slight to the able working Bar. As we pointed out last week, the peculiarities of men are not considered when they are selected for Judgeships-private or political expediency alone governs promotion. And this applies to all judgeships alike, and were it otherwise Sir ROBERT COLLIER would not at present be the most unenviable member of the legal Profession. This is not our view only. What did Mr. HARCOURT say in his address at Leeds? After paying a well-deserved tribute to the Judge of the Bradford Court, he said that such learning and position as that learned Judge had achieved could not be the rule. "When you have an inferior office," he added, "with a lower salary, you must expect, and you do in fact get, as a rule, men of a less distinguished order." And, mark this, "I must also beg pardon for observing that this judicial class seems to have been particularly exposed to the baneful influence of political patronage and personal favouritism."

And what is the feeling pervading the Bar? There are many men of first-class abilities who absolutely decline to do the necessary amount of toadying, or to lay themselves out to bore noble lords and political notabilities for places which ought to be the free offering of a Government to acknowledged professional eminence. And this, notwithstanding the Bar is not what it was, notwithstanding there are men who, by recent legislation, and by no fault of their own, find much of their previously remunerative occupation gone. And who can fail to admire the spirit of independence and the self-respect of these men who prefer to end their days where they are to thrusting their qualifications down the throat of a Lord-Chancellor, in competition with a set of candidates who are not sufficiently endowed with legal knowledge and experience to claim the privilege of lighting his way to the audience chamber. We write strongly, because we feel how scandalous it is that men fit to serve their country so admirably are flung aside to allow ill-qualified men to be provided for. And the effect of this upon the County Court Bench is most serious. Instead of raising the tone of it the contrary result is attained, and there is a general and widespread disinclination to carry suits before these tribunals, save in the exceptional cases where the Judges are of established reputation and proved ability.

Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS says that the recent appointments must necessarily be keenly scanned and canvassed in the House of Commons. We hope that he will not leave the duty of calling attention to the matter to anyone, but that he will himself vigorously pursue it. We have frequently expressed the opinion that County Court Judges should be selected with a view to promotion to the Superior Courts. If this were done such appointments as we have recently heard of could not have been made. The functions of County Court Judges are in many instances equal to those of Judges of the Superior Courts, and their qualifications should be as nearly as possible the same. If promotion from the County Courts to the Superior

Courts were adopted, and Judges of County Courts had such a possible reward before them, they would, as a body, be largely encouraged and stimulated in the discharge of very arduous duties. But whether this be so or not, we do trust that we have seen the last of those appointments which reflect most unfavourably upon the government, and are a scandal in the Profession.

MERCHANT SHIPPING CODE.-WRECK AND SALVAGE. ONE of the greatest flaws in the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 was sect. 432, which left it in the discretion of the receiver of wreck of a district to institute an inquiry into any loss, abandonment, or damage happening to a vessel within his district. It must be evident to all that if anything has happened to a ship by the misconduct of her officers or crew that the truth is much more likely to be ascertained by inquiry following immediately upon the landing of those persons, than where the inquiry is postponed indefinitely, and it has been found in practice that receivers are only too willing to avoid acting on their own responsibility. If they are to wait until they receive instructions from the Board of Trade, it is obvious that an opportunity is thereby given to the officers and men to avoid investigation of the circumstances by going to sea. This defect we are glad to see the Code proposes to remedy by enacting (s. 445) that where a casualty happens within his jurisdiction the receiver "shall, subject to instructions from the Board of Trade, and in the manner provided by this Act, make a preliminary inquiry respecting such shipping casualty, and the causes thereof and the circumstances attending the same." We presume that the proviso, "subject to the instructions of the Board of Trade," can only mean that it shall be the duty of that department of the government to give general directions to the receivers in what cases inquiries shall be made, for if it means that in all cases appli cation is to be made before they may institute inquiries, the new enactment will be worse than the former, and we should therefore suggest that the intention be more clearly expressed. On reading s. 447 it will be seen that no reference to the Board of Trade is expected before such examination, for by that section it is provided that whenever a casualty happens to a British vessel the master shall attend the office of the receiver within twenty-four hours for the purpose of making a deposition, and no communication could take place with the Board of Trade within that time. The importance of this provision will be seen at once, when it is considered how many fraudulent claims are made by unscrupulous masters and owners. By requiring immediate evidence of facts to be given before a receiver a great check will be placed on such frauds. The receiver is empowered by sect. 416 to examine any member of the crew or other person able to give him information as to the ship and cargo, and may order the production of the logs and other documents relating thereto, and such evidence, when taken down in writing and purporting to be signed by the person taking the same, and also any copy purporting to be certified by the Board of Trade, is to be before any tribunal "evidence of any matter contained therein relative to the casualty and the causes thereof, and the circumstances attending the same, whether or not such matter was material to the inquiry by the receiver." This last provision is clearly intended to meet the difficulty which has so often arisen in the Admiralty Court as to the reception of receivers' depositions, and to obviate the necessity of bringing up those officers to prove that the depositions were taken before them. Sect. 449 meets the case of casualties happening to ships outside British jurisdiction by providing that, with the consent of foreign governments, the provisions of the Act may be applied to foreign vessels which put into a British port. The reasons which make the immediate examination of British masters desirable apply equally to foreign masters, and, by enactments of this description, we can obtain reciprocal advantages from foreign governments. An alteration is made in the tribunal which is empowered to hear inquiries directed by the Board on the report of the receiver. Formerly the officer making the preliminary investigation or the Board of Trade, might direct an inquiry before a stipendiary magistrate or two justices, but now it is proposed that the presiding officers should be the Judge of the local Court of Admiralty, a court of summary jurisdiction (which is the same as before), or such person or persons as the Board of Trade appoint, and where nautical or engineering skill and knowledge are required, the Chief Court of Admiralty is to have power on the application of the Board of Trade to appoint assessors to assist the court of inquiry. This latter change is probably for the purpose of removing from the minds of the persons interested any suspicion that the assessors can in any way be influenced by their appointment. Hitherto the appointment has rested with the Board of Trade, and as they usually appear also in the character of prosecutors, it is better that the Judges should derive their authority elsewhere.

Difficulties have often arisen as to the duties of a receiver when he takes charge of a shipwrecked vessel. The Merchant Shipping Act 1854, s. 441, enacts that he shall take charge of such a vessel, and give directions, &c., but that "it shall not be lawful for such receiver to interfere between the master of such ship or boat and his crew in matters relating to the management thereof, unless he is required to do so by such master." This section has often been interpreted to mean that the receiver may not interfere with

the vessel unless requested to do so by the master, and this has given rise to much loss. The obvious meaning of the words is that the master alone is to retain the command of the crew, and the discipline is to be left in his hands, but that the receiver is to take supreme command. To have the powers of the receiver clearly enacted is of the utmost importance, as frequently the interests of ship, cargo, and underwriters depend entirely on his prompt action, and if he is fettered by the ambiguous words of an Act of Parliament he cannot expect the ready obedience requisite in such emergencies. The Code alters the form of this provision, · but as it appears to us not sufficiently decisively. Sect. 453, after conferring on the receiver the power he before had in terms more explicit than in the former Act, proceeds to say: "Any person disobeying such directions of the receiver shall incur a penalty not exceeding 501.; but the receiver shall not interfere between the master and crew of the vessel in reference to the management or preservation thereof, unless he is requested to do so by the master." No doubt this is intended to express that if the receiver has any orders to give, they must be transmitted through the master, so that the master may continue in his place of authority in which he has been placed by the owners of the property, but if it is so intended, why is it not so expressed that no mistake can possibly arise? It is evident that the master is bound to obey the receiver, and if he is bound to do so, he must transmit the necessary orders to the crew. Very few words would be necessary to express the exact relative positions and might be the cause of saving much valuable property.

The Code further proposes to make certain alterations with respect to "wreck." Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, s. 450, the owner of any wreck finding, or taking possession of it, was bound to give notice to the receiver, but any person not the owner was bound to deliver it to the receiver, under a penalty. It is proposed (s. 460) to make it compulsory on all persons, owners or not, to deliver all wreck found within the limits of the United Kingdom to the receiver except in such cases where the Board of Trade dispenses with delivery, and the penalty for default will be inflicted on all. This alteration is no doubt for the protection of those persons who have contributed to the salvage of vessels, and also to protect underwriters from the concealment of goods brought ashore, by which means the owners are enabled to get both. the goods and the insurance by representing such goods to have been lost. The next proposed provision is of much importance, both to English and foreign owners. By that section (s. 461), wherever a master of a British vessel finds wreck at sea he is bound to report the finding to the British consular officer of any port at which he may touch if abroad, and if at home he inust deliver the wreck to the receiver of the district in which the port or place at which he first arrives is situate, and if he has disposed of the wreck before arrival in the United Kingdom in any way whatsoever, he must make a report of such disposal to the receiver. Neglect to obey these provisions will be punished by heavy penalties. The powers of receivers as to the seizure of wreck will be increased, for it is propose 1, whilst still compelling him to obtain a warrant to search a house, to give him the power without warrant, and with or without the assistance of a constable, to seize and detain any wreck, not being in a house. This is, of course, a provision of great importance, as it will enable the receiver in many instances to act with a decision and promptitude which would be impossible if a warrant were required, and in districts where wrecking is carried on, any application of the receiver to a magistrate is sure to be known by the wreckers, and his object will be frustrated. When wreck comes into the possession of a receiver, he is now bound to give notice, where the value of the wreck exceeds 201., to the committee of Lloyd's. This provision is very defective; if any wreck comes into a receiver's hands it is manifest that by giving information at Lloyd's it may lead to further inquiries, and moreover, underwriters, if entitled to any notice, are entitled to all that can be given them, so that they may be able to ascertain any losses which might otherwise be unknown. This the Code will effect by enacting that the information shall be given in all cases to Lloyd's, and that the secretary of Lloyd's shall post the information in some conspicuous place for inspection, by any persons desirous of examining the same. Sect. 466 will enact that Her Majesty and her royal successors are entitled to all unclaimed wreck found in any part of Her Majesty's dominions, except in places where Her Majesty or any of her royal predecessors has granted the right to such wreck to any other person." Disputes as to the ownership of unclaimed wreck will be heard under the Code by the local Admiralty Court, instead of by two justices as heretofore. A curious provision in a modern Act of Parliament is contained in sect. 473, which tranfers to the Board of Trade all the rights of Her Majesty in and to royal fish found or taken within the limits of the United Kingdom, and the Board of Trade are to have power to grant these fish to other persons.

66

We have now noticed all the proposed new provisions as to wreck, and whilst welcoming them as decided improvements, we should wish to see some more effectual means found for suppressing wreckers. Unfortunately offences of this character occur in unfrequented parts of our coast where it is difficult to bring offenders to immediate justice, and where the local magistrates

having imbibed some of the prejudices of our coast inhabitants are very loth to punish for what they scarcely look upon as a crime. What we want in every district is a stipendiary magistrate, who will act upon the law as it is enacted, and not upon what he thinks ought to be the law. This is the only means of suppressing what is little else than stealing, and what should, in our opinion, be punished as such.

FORENSIC AMENITIES IN DUBLIN.

If there is one place more than any other in the world where calmness and reason should reign, it is surely in a court of justice, and of all times there is none when they should bear more powerful sway than when the issues to be tried are those of life and death. Temper, reckless assertion, violence, always in bad taste as they are, may then become a crime, by causing irreparable injustice. We think it a matter for deep regret that these obvious truisms seem to have been forgotten on many occasions during the recent trial for murder in Dublin. With the result of that trial we have nothing to do, and we would consider it presumptuous and unbecoming in anyone who has not heard the evidence to find fault with the verdict of

the jury. Our complaint is of the manner in which the counsel in the case conducted themselves, of their want of self-restraint, of their outbursts of temper, of their constant obtrusion of their own personal feelings and grievances before the court. The two learned Judges who presided at the trial, one at least of whom is noted for his mildness and his scrupulous care, were hardly allowed to speak when they had the misfortune to differ from the defending counsel on a point of law. We remember reading in one of the State Trials a dictum addressed to an obstreperous counsel by a Chief Justice, "Look ye, sir, you have our opinion; it has always been the practice heretofore, that when the court have delivered their opinion, the counsel should sit down and not dispute it any further." In this extraordinary case, however, the Judges were more than once unable to have their rulings complied with or even listened to until they threatened to call the sheriff into requisition, and in a court of justice in a civilised country, we were presented with the melancholy spectacle of eminent counsel, learned in the law, professing to uphold right and truth, and supposed to be assisting at the due administration of justice, endeavouring to compass their objects by noise and clamour, and only to be quieted by a threat of physical force. It is not an uncommon thing for a police magistrate in his court to threaten to have a noisy witness removed, and it is sometimes very necessary; but we certainly did not expect to find such a course necessary in one of the highest tribunals of the realm, and in the case of gentlemen wearing the silk of Queen's Counsel. When such treatment was accorded to the Bench, it could hardly be expected that antagonists at the Bar would be spared, and, accordingly, we find personalities of the grossest description freely interchanged, clever and amusing no doubt to everyone but their objects, and such as would gain immense applause if delivered from the hustings at a contested election, but perfectly nauseous when associated with the trial of a capital crime.

It is always a mistake, to say nothing of the time it wastes, for a counsel to comment upon the manner in which opposing counsel conduct their cases, excepting so far as it directly bears on the issue to be tried. This was done on both sides, with a conspicuous absence of good taste, and at last, to cap everything that had gone before, one of the counsel for the defence, evidently much irritated by the tone of the learned Serjeant who prosecuted, jumped up and interrupted his speech by declaring that unless he withdrew something he had just said he would make him withdraw it elsewhere, intimating, not obscurely, his intention of forcing on a duel between himself, the aggrieved Queen's Counsel, and the learned Serjeant. Then a regular scene ensued, everyone spoke at once, both Judges and all the counsel on both sides, and the sheriff was again called for, upon which things quieted down. It was then discovered that the learned Serjeant had not been speaking of the aggrieved Queen's Counsel at all when the supposed offence was given, and therefore there was nothing to be withdrawn. These are some of the episodes in the KELLY trial; and we presume, from observations made by the defending counsel, that they would plead zeal for their client as their justification or excuse for the style in which they conducted their case. It seems to us, however, that zeal for a client, which in itself is a highly laudable feeling in an advocate, naturally shows itself by an intense application of the mind to his interests, by forgetfulness of self, by an earnest determination to keep the reason clear and the temper calm in order that every opportunity may be grasped and every means of persuasion made use of; while, on the other hand, if we see an advocate irritable, egotistical, noisy, aiming at vain rhetorical effects, jealous of his own dignity, fancying an insult in every contradiction, and disposing of his opponents' arguments by ignoring or shouting them down, we feel certain that if the client's interests can suffer, they will suffer by such a mode of advocacy, and we seek an explanation of it not in the zeal of the advocate, but in the vanity of the man. We do hope such scenes will not occur again,

for they are too apt to excite a sad reflection, that it is hopeless to look for love of order, truth, the calm exercise of reason, and mutual forbearance, in a country where eminent men in the highest branch of the legal Profession are found ready to set law and order at defiance.

SPECIAL JURIES IN CRIMINAL CASES.

WE have long been of opinion that special juries ought to be allowed in criminal procedure quite as freely as in civil. It is difficult to understand why the Legislature should consider that an issue involving a man's life or liberty should be invariably decided by a common jury, while the question, for example, whether A. or B. is the rightful owner of certain cheeses may require the undivided attention of twelve "bankers, merchants, esquires, or persons of higher degree." The regulation of the jury system, as now existing, depends in the main upon two statutes. The first of these is the County Juries Act 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 50), and the second is the Juries Act 1870, sect. 4 of which enacts: "This Act shall be construed as one with the County Juries Act 1825, and any Act amending the same; and such parts of the said Act, and of any other Act or Acts as are inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed." But it is the former of these enactments which determines the right of applying for a special jury. Sect. 30 (6 Geo. 4, c. 50) declares: "It shall be lawful for His Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench, &c., . . upon the motion of any prosecutor, relator, plaintiff, or demandant, or of any defendant or tenant, in any case whatsoever, whether civil or criminal, or on any penal statute, excepting only indictments for treason and felony, depending in any of the said courts, and the said courts and Judges respectively are hereby authorised in any of the cases before mentioned, to order and appoint a special jury to be struck, before the proper officer of each respective court, for the trial of any issue joined in any of the said cases, &c." Thus we; see that the very cases which involve the most serious consequences of all, are especially exempted from the cognizance of a jury of superior intellect. Why are special juries allowed at all? Is it not because certain cases are complicated and not easily understood? Is it not because some issues cannot be so readily decided by persons unacquainted with commercial usages and negotiable instru ments for example, as by bankers and merchants; or, to put it shortly, is it not because persons of superior intelligence grasp facts more quickly and surely than others of duller perception, and are therefore more likely to arrive at a right conclusion concerning them? If, therefore, the Legislature admits the principle that special juries are required in many civil cases, and, in certain misdemeanors, surely it follows that unless all felonies and all treasons are simple matters, involving no difficult or complicated questions of fact, the law-makers are illogical in declaring that they shall be tried only by common jnries. But is there any person conversant with the practice of our criminal courts, who will tell you the trial of an indictment for treason, for murder, for certain forgeries, or for embezzlement and other felonies, is invariably a very simple thing, involving neither great masses of evidence, nor difficult and delicate issues of fact? Surely, he would tell you the very opposite. Why, then, does the Legislature refuse to allow a special jury to try them in any case whatever? And when we consider that an error of judgment on the part of the jury may deprive a man of his life, or condemn him to lose his freedom and his good name, we cannot stop by accusing the law of being illogical; we say that justice, and a due regard for the welfare and liberty of the subject, imperatively demand legislation on the subject. Eminent writers on our jurisprudence have urged the propriety of allowing special juries in all criminal cases when required, and we have never seen any valid objection taken to such a course. We quote, for instance, from page 218 of Mr. STEPHENS's admirable General View of the Criminal Law of England. He writes: "All the objects which it is supposed to be possible to obtain by the appointment of experts might be gained by allowing special juries to be struck in criminal as well as civil cases, though some arrangements would be necessary to secure the prisoner's right of challenge. There is no reason why the public, as well as ordinary litigants, should not have the benefit of arrangements already made for securing, on particular occasions, the services of jurymen of more than average intelligence and education. Indeed, in cases of misdemeanor, a special jury may be struck, and there is no reason why they should not in felonies also." Other writers might be quoted who entertain similar views; and we very recently heard the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of England express the same opinion. It will be observed that in cases of misdemeanor a special jury is theoretically allowed; but in point of fact the mode of obtaining one presents serious obstacles, for it is only when the record is in the Queen's Bench that "leave of the court" will be granted, and in most instances certiorari is necessary before the Queen's Bench has the record before it. For instance, the majority of misdemeanors remitted for trial, are heard under commissions of Oyer and Terminer and gaol delivery, or at the Sessions of the Peace, and a special jury is not allowed at these tribunals. In order, therefore, to procure, in any such case, a jury of superior intelligence, the defendant is put to the expense and delay of certiorari. And should certiorari