COMMENT was recently made in these columns (132 L. T. Jour. 242) upon a decision of the justices, in the case of a prosecution under the Malicious Injuries to Property Act 1861, in which the information was preferred by an individual on behalf of" a corporation. As no express authority from the corporation to that individual to prosecute was produced, the summons was dismissed. We pointed out that a corporation can only issue a summons by its authorised agent. The Divisional Court in Duchesne V. Finch (ante, p. 82), on an appeal by the corporation, sent the case back to the justices to convict, on the ground that the words "on behalf of the corporation" in the information were surplusage, inasmuch as under the particular section of the Act in question any person might lay the information. The question that was discussed, in the note referred to above, was apparently not raised before the Divisional Court, and it would appear that, in cases where an Act of Parliament creates an offence and directs that "the person aggrieved" or any particular person shall prosecute, a corporation, if it happen to be such person, could only prosecute by its duly authorised agent. Thus a corporation would have so to prosecute in suing for penalties under a statute: (St. Leonard's Guardians, Shoreditch v. Franklin, 39 L. T. Rep. 122). In cases where a statute creates an offence which is an offence against the public as well as against individuals, any person may institute proceedings. Thus in Allman v. Hardcastle (89 L. T. Rep. 553) a summons taken out by a servant of a borough council "on behalf of" that council, under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, was held to be good, and the words " behalf of the borough council" were held to be unnecessary. In Giebler v. Manning (94 L. T. Rep. 580), in a prosecution for having unsound meat on the defendant's premises under the Public Health (London) Act 1891, an information laid by a sanitary inspector, "on behalf of the borough council," was held to be good, even though he had no authority from the council to prosecute.

Divis

ly res amage

Certiorari or Special Case.

AN attempt was made recently to review the decision of the justices at petty sessions upon the evidence of identification of a person charged, by means of a rule for a certiorari to quash a conviction. The applicant for the rule had been charged with two offences against the Motor Car Act 1903, and the proceedings in the court of petty sessions had been chiefly concerned with the question whether the applicant was the person who in fact was driving the motor-car in respect of which the offence was alleged. In the case of one summons, the justices dismissed the charge on the ground that there was no evidence of the identity of the applicant as the driver of the car, and on the second summons they convicted and held that the applicant had been identified as the driver of the car. It was suggested that a conviction by the justices made on improper evidence or upon insufficient evidence was a conviction made without jurisdiction, and that, therefore, the High Court would issue a writ of certiorari to bring up and quash such conviction. In showing cause against the rule, it was contended that if the matter was one which the justices had jurisdiction to entertain, the only remedy was by appeal to quarter sessions or by raising the point upon a case stated. The Divisional Court held that the matter could not be argued upon a rule for a certiorari. It is true that if the fact wrongly found by the justices is one that is essential to jurisdiction, or on which jurisdiction depends, an application for a writ of certiorari or habeas corpus may be an appropriate remedy: (Re Bailey and Collier, 3 E. & B. 607). But if the fact wrongly found by the justices was merely a fact in the case and a part of it, jurisdiction having attached, the finding of the justices is not reviewable except upon appeal, or on a case stated: (Reg. v. Huntsworth, 10 L. T. Rep. 374). The writ of certiorari was invented for the purpose of reviewing the orders and convictions of the inferior courts where the same were made

ble for

on

66

without sufficient or any jurisdiction, and for the purpose of correcting errors apparent on the face of the proceedings, the record of the inferior court being removed into the High Court, formerly into the King's Bench, for that purpose. Its uses have, it is true, been extended by statute, and in some cases the right of a private person to apply for a rule for a certiorari has been curtailed by the Legislature, but in general practice this form of procedure is confined to the cases above stated. The King's Bench, which had a general jurisdiction over other courts of criminal jurisdiction, whose proceedings it always claimed to correct, if necessary, by means of this writ, was itself, on the Crown side, the principal court of criminal jurisdiction in England.

The quarter sessions for the borough of Deal will be held on Thursday, the 6th June.

LEGISLATION.

Mental Deficiency Bill.

PRESENTED by Mr. McKenna, this is the Government proposal for dealing with the grave problem indicated. In a recent comment in these columns we laid stress on some of its characteristics, and it is now possible to gather to what an extent the special needs have been considered. The Bill is one of a most ambitious character, and in its general aspect is one to set up a central authority. This authority is a body, not exceeding six in number, to be appointed by the Home Office. One of these persons is to be a woman. They will be described as the Commissioners for the Care of the Mentally Defective and furnished with a common seal and a power to hold land without licence in mortmain for the purposes of their powers and duties. There are provisions for the usual officers, as secretaries, inspectors, and servants, but no commissioner or such officers or servants are eligible for appointment if interested in any certified institution for defectives or certified house, and on becoming so interested the person concerned will be disqualified. The general duties of the commissioners are those of supervision and control both of the patients and the local bodies, to which we shall refer; they will also inspect institutions existing, provide and maintain houses for defectives of criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities, make reports, and administer grants.

The Local Bodies.

THE Councils of counties and those of boroughs are to be intrusted with some new and grave responsibilities. Every such authority is to constitute a special committee, some of its members being outside the council, but persons specially conversant with the difficulties surrounding the care, control, and treatment of defectives. One of these, again, must be a woman. In the event of the council having a single visiting committee or an asylums committee under the Lunacy Acts 1890 to 1911, the council can decide to refer these problems to that committee. This local body will deal with all matters relating to the council's powers (except those of raising a rate), and, in respect to it, there is the same disqualification in connection with any interest either by way of office or place of profit, or share in a contract or employment. Passing by some clauses setting up machinery, we may compress the duties of the local bodies into a brief form. They will find out the persons who are defective in their areas; they will supervise them and see, where necessary or expedient, that they are sent to institutions or placed under guardianship; they will keep registers, provide accommodation, employ officers, and make reports to the commissioners. No obligation, however, rests to provide accommodation for a person where the contribubution from the State is less than 7s. a week. The Bill does not affect the duties of the local bodies under the Lunacy Acts or the Poor Law, or under the Acts concerning Education 1870 to 1911.

As regards Children.

OUR previous comments dwelt on the importance and hopefulness of adequate treatment of juvenile defectives. Mr.

McKenna proposes by clause 13 to impose on the local education authorities a duty to arrange, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, for the ascertainment of defective children in their area, and the prospects of educating them, for the notification of those not educable, and of those discharged from the special schools for defectives. These notified and discharged juveniles are by a later clause included in another part of the Bill expressly mentioned as amongst the persons whom the State is proposing to deal with. Such children can be sent to institutions or placed under guardianship by the education authorities. Parents of infant defectives can also so dispose of their children on complying with certain safeguards set out in clause 25, and the patient can be dealt with after attaining twenty-one years of age. The parent can exercise authority until the child attains twenty-one on the lines exercisable by a parent of a boy up to fourteen or of a girl up to sixteen years cf age.

Who are Defectives?

66

THE answer to this question involves a very long and exhaustive clause which sets out both a series of actions which will bring a person within the purview of the Bill and also describes classes of persons who are to be deemed defective. These persons "and no others" are the subject of this legislation. It is, therefore, all-important that clause 17 should be scanned with meticulous care. There are, then, two main categories of persons. First, there are persons who are defective and who wander about neglected, or are charged with an offence, or are in prison, or in a place of detention, or a reformatory, industrial school, or inebriate retreat, or who are habitual drunkards, or children such as already mentioned. A further and most valuable addition to the list is in these words: "Persons in whose case it is desirable in the interests of the community that they should be deprived of the opportunity of procreating children," and this wide sub-clause is further widened by the inclusion of those in whose case such other circumstances exist as may be specified in any order made by the Secretary of State, as being circumstances which make it desirable that they should be subject to be dealt with. The second category is one of classes to which descriptive labels are attached. Thus we find idiots with a description "persons so deeply defective in mind from birth or from an early age as to be unable to guard themselves against common physical dangers." Then come "imbeciles or persons who are capable of guarding themselves against common physical dangers, but who are incapable of earning their own living by reason of mental defect existing from birth or from an early age." Then come feeble-minded persons," whose description would include those who are not able to compete with their normal competitors and incapable of managing themselves and their affairs with ordinary prudence. Another class is that of "moral imbeciles" who have "strong vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment has little or no deterrent effect," and finally "mentally infirm persons who are described as those 66 who through mental infirmity arising from age or the decay of their faculties are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs." It is the duty of overseers, relieving officers, district medical officers, medical officers of health, and constables to report to the local authority on the existence of persons whom they have reason to believe to be defective. No legal practitioner can read the above descriptions without asking himself whether they are wide enough to bring the real patient within the net without at the same time entangling those whose mental state is in that shadowy region which separates the normal from the abnormal.

66

Manner of Treatment.

THE Bill contemplates, as has already been hinted, institutional treatment or alternatively a guardianship. The series of provisions on the subject are difficult to reproduce briefly and adequately, and we must refer readers to clause 20 et seq., where there will be found the arrangements whereby friends or relatives can apply for an order to any judge of County Courts, police or stipendiary or specially appointed justice being a judicial authority for the purposes of the Lunacy Acts 1890 to 1911. Powers are given to vary orders and to

remove persons to places of safety. There are powers enabling any court before which a person is being tried for any offence, other than homicide, to obtain a medical report as to his mental state when it appears to be defective, and to act accordingly. Orders last for a year unless continued. Part 3 deals with certification of institutions and regulations incidental thereto, the apprehension of fugitives, and with financial

concerns.

General.

SOME highly important provisions affecting the existing law in many respects may be found in the miscellaneous clauses with which the Bill draws to its close. It is made an offence after warning to supply intoxicants to a defective. It is a mis demeanour to intermarry with or attempt to intermarry with: person known to be a defective, or to solemnise or procurer connive at any marriage knowing that one of the parties is defective. There are provisions as to the carnal knowledge of female defectives, and "consent" is to be no defence. Defectives while detained in an institution, are disqualified for old age pensions. Clause 62 contemplates the remarkable plan of amalgamating the commissioners under this measure with the Lunacy Department. Such is in brief the Mental Deficiency Bill, applicable to Scotland, but not to Ireland, and to come into force, if passed, on the 1st Jan. next. It can scarcely be said that the prospects of success, at this season and amid the existing circum stances, are bright, but the Bill seems an earnest attempt to tackle a huge problem of national importance.

Bankruptcy Notice and Reduced Judgment Debt.

666

THE act of bankruptcy which is specified in sect. 4, subsect. 1 (g), of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52)— that is to say, non-compliance with a bankruptcy notice served on a debtor by a creditor-is thereby confined to a case where the creditor has obtained a final judgment against the debtor, and execution thereon has not been stayed. A "final judgment was defined by Lord Esher, M.R. in Re Riddell; Ex parte Earl of Strathmore (58 L. T. Rep. 838; 20 Q. B. Div. 512, at p. 516), after a careful consideration of what had been laid down by the learned judges who decided Ex parte Chinery; Re Chinery (50 L. T. Rep. 342; 12 Q. B. Div. 342) and Ex parte Moore; Re Faithfull (52 L. T. Rep. 376; 14 Q. B. Div. 627). His Lordship there said that a final judgment' means a judgment obtained in an action by which the question whether there was a preexisting right of the plaintiff against the defendant is finally determined, in favour either of the plaintiff or of the defendant." Immediate execution, as referred to in sub-sect. 1 (e) of the same section, must be able to be issued by the judgment creditor. And in Re Child; Ex parte Child (66 L. T. Rep. 204; (1892) 2 Q. B. 77), it was held by Justices Vaughan Williams and Collins that a creditor who has obtained a final judgment against a debtor is not entitled to serve a bankruptcy notice for any larger amount than that for which he is entitled to issue execution. The words of sub-sect. 1 (g) imply that a bankruptcy notice can only be served for such an amount as for which execution can issue. Therefore, a creditor who has been paid part of his judgment debt cannot serve a bankruptcy notice for the whole debt, but only for the balance remaining due after deducting any payments that have been made. The application of that decision by the Divisional Court, consisting of Justices Philli more and Bray, to the facts of the recent case of Re A Debtor; Ex parte Judgment Creditors v. The Debtor (132 L. T. Jour. 606) is of the widest interest. Rule 13 of Order XXIII. of the County Court Rules 1903 and 1904 enables a defendant to pay into court, for what it may be worth, any portion of what is due under a judgment. Thus, he may pay in less than the full amount owing. Rules 7 and 8 and the form of præcipe (163A) there referred to show that the amount for which execution is to be issued is required to be filled up by the clerk of the County Court office, and not by the execution creditor, by reference to

ista

yd

the ledger account. The County Court is itself to execute the judgment. Execution will not issue for more than appears in the account; and, according to Re Child; Ex parte Child (ubi sup.), the amount for which a bankruptcy notice is served must tally therewith. A bankruptcy notice founded on the original judgment debt, instead of the amount thereof as reduced by the payment into court, was, therefore, in the opinion of the learned judges of the Divisional Court, invalid. If the decision in Re Child; Ex parte Child (ubi sup.) is right, then clearly it follows that the present decision ought not to be otherwise than it is. The decision is based on an authority which has stood unchallenged in the books for twenty years-in the course of which period it has doubtless been acted upon again and again. That authority, therefore, is one not likely now to be disturbed by the Court of Appeal. On the contrary, very shortly after Re Child; Ex parte Child (ubi sup.) was decided, it met with the part express approval of the Court of Appeal in Re Raymond; owled Ex parte Raymond (66 L. T. Rep. 400). All the same, payment into court of money that reduces a judgment debt below the sum of £50 is obviously, if not avowedly, done with the precise object of defeating the creditor, so that it is against his interest that such partial payment should be permitted. Whether the registrar of the County Court was bound to accept the money paid to him in the present case was not actually determined by the court. And it is apparently on that point alone that relief on appeal can be expected to be obtained.

Defa ord

nge

atta

АСТ

De

sec

Vict

otice

case

the d

of

OCCASIONAL NOTES.

On Tuesday, the 4th June, the following will be in Mr. Justice Joyce's paper after motions, short causes, &c. :-A. I. Jones and Co. Limited v. Electric Palaces Limited (not before 11.30); Denman v. Finchley Urban District Council; Neal v. Beadle; and Re Silberrad; Silberrad v. Bowley.

On the 4th June the case of Attorney-General v. Horner will be in Mr. Justice Warrington's list for hearing at eleven o'clock. In the King's Bench Division the Special Paper will be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 4th and 5th June.

Mr. Justice Horridge will take the case of A. P. Brantley Company v. William Heaton and Sons on Tuesday, the 4th June.

Mr. Justice Horridge, who will act as Vacation judge during the Whitsun Vacation, from Saturday, the 25th inst., to Monday, the 3rd prox. inclusive, will sit in King's Bench Judges' Chambers to hear applications and summonses on Thursday, the 30th inst., at 10.30.

Mr. Justice Coleridge will leave London on Tuesday next for Aylesbury, on the Midland Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. At the conclusion of the business at ntal Nottingham on the same circuit (the commission day being fixed for Saturday, the 29th prox.) he will return to London, remaining until the end of the Trinity Sittings, and Mr. Justice Avory will continue the circuit.

Mr. Justice Lush will leave London on Tuesday next for Newtown, on the North Wales Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. He will return to town after the business at Mold is finished, the commission day for that place being fixed for Wednesday, the 12th prox.

Mr. Justice Ridley will leave London on Wednesday next for Haverfordwest, on the South Wales Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. He will not be able to return to town until after the business at Presteign is finished, the commission day being fixed for Thursday, the 13th prox.

Mr. Justice Bucknill will leave London on Wednesday next for Appleby, on the Northern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. He will go the circuit alone until Liverpool is reached, on Tuesday, the 11th prox., when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Darling.

Mr. Justice Phillimore will leave London next Friday for Reading, on the Oxford Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. He will go the circuit alone until Stafford is reached on Wednesday, the 3rd July, when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Horridge. At the conclusion of the business at this town Mr. Justice Phillimore will return to town, remaining until the end of the sittings, and Mr. Justice Horridge will continue the circuit and join Mr. Justice Avory at Birmingham on Wednesday, the 10th July.

The Incorporated Justices' Clerks' Society will hold their annual meeting at the Law Society's Hall, on Monday, the 3rd prox., at 3.30 p.m.

The Mayor's Court will sit twice during the month of June, the first court being fixed to commence on Monday, the 3rd prox., and the second court on Monday, the 24th prox., at eleven o'clock.

At a meeting of the Society of Chairmen and Deputy-Chair. men of Quarter Sessions, held on Tuesday, at the Caxton Hall Lord Cross was elected president and Mr. Montagu Sharpe vicepresident of the society for the ensuing year.

Sir John Macdonell will deliver the fourth and final lecture of his present series upon "Comparative Law as Illustrated by Historical Trials," at University College, Gower-street, W.C., on Wednesday next, at 5.30 p.m.

In the King's Bench Division on Wednesday, before Mr. Justice Darling, a juror complained of the frequent calls on the residents of the Muswell Hill district for jury service. His Lordship, in expressing sympathy with the applicant, suggested that a question on the subject should be asked in Parliament.

Mr. Stephen Pilgrim, of Hinckley, solicitor, for sixty-five years clerk to the Hinckley and Market Bosworth magistrates and Registrar of County Courts, who died on the 28th Feb., aged eighty-eight years, left estate of the gross value of £18,142 15s. 9d., of which the net personalty has been sworn at £12,735 12s. 7d.

The Duma Committee on judicial reforms has reported in favour of admitting women to the Russian Bar. Among the grounds given for its decision are the desirability of extending the scope of women, the belief that the proposed innovation would serve the interests of the population, and the anticipation of the improving influence of a new element on the Legal Profession.

The rules, orders, and scales of costs made by the committee of the Salford Hundred Court nominated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not having received the approval of the authority for the time being empowered to make rules for the Supreme Court, the Chancellor of the Duchy has revoked his order of the 22nd Feb. and has appointed Monday, the 3rd June next to be the day on which the said rules, orders, and scales of costs shall come into force.

As Charles Dickens was a member of the Middle Temple, although never called to the Bar, and as this is the centenary year of his birth, the Treasurer and Masters of the Bench, in honour of the occasion, held an 66 At Home to the members of the society in the Hall on the 17th inst. Mr. Henry F. Dickens, K.C. (who is a Master of the Bench of the Inner Temple), was present, and gave two recitations from his father's works. Among the members of the society who were present were the Treasurer (Mr. Balfour Browne, K.C.), Mr. R. A. McCall, K.C. (Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster), Judge Tindal Atkinson, and Dr. Blake Odgers, K.C. (Recorder of Bristol).

66

The twenty-fifth meeting of the session 1911-12 of the Union Society of London was held at 3, King's Bench-walk, on the 22nd inst. The president, Mr. A. A. Eustace, was in the chair. The subject for debate was : That this House, while viewing with concern the increase of expenditure upon the Civil Service, considers this expenditure and increase of servants is rendered necessary by the requirements of a modern State." Proposed by Mr. H. J. Cape; opposed by Mr. W. R. Willson. Other speakers were Messrs. Cremlyn, W. A. Bright, J. H. Coram, and J. G. Baker. Upon a division the motion was declared lost. There will be no meeting of the society on the 29th inst.

The following resolution was unamimously passed at a sitting of the larger committee for the control of foreign affairs on the 15th inst., at which the adjourned discussion on the means by which control over foreign affairs might be acquired was continued under the chairmanship of Professor L. T. Hobhouse: That this conference is of opinion that no cession, acquisition, or exchange of territory should be made and no treaties or commitments with foreign countries involving national responsibilities should be concluded except subject to the consent of the House of Commons." Mr. Bryce in his great work The American Commonwealth, when explaining the control of foreign policy by the Senate of the United States, thus writes: "The day may come when in England the question of limiting the all but unlimited discretion of the Executive in foreign affairs will have to be dealt with, and the example of the American Senate will then deserve and receive careful study." He further remarks that in 1886 a resolution was all but carried in the House of Commons desiring all treaties to be laid before Parliament before being finally concluded. This incident took place on the 19th March 1886. The resolution to which Mr. Bryce referred was defeated by four votes only. The question, so far as we are aware, has not since been specifically raised for discussion, but on many occasions in the intervening years the fact that Parliament has no effective control over foreign policy has incidentally been the subject of strong protest and complaint.

The managers of the Frederic William Maitland Memorial Fund give notice that they will meet during the course of the Michaelmas Term 1912 for the purpose of considering applications for grants to persons engaged in research in the history of law or of legal language or institutions, or for the delivery of lectures, the publication of works, or the promotion of any other under taking connected with these departments of study. The managers reserve the power of determining the objects for which grants will be made from the fund, irrespectively of any applications that may be made. The names of applicants, with a statement of the work they propose to undertake, should be sent to the secretary of the fund (Dr. A. Pearce Higgins, 5, Salisburyvillas, Cambridge) not later than Tuesday, the 1st Oct. 1912.

The Institute of France, or rather a constituent of that august body, the Académie des Sciences, is threatened with legal action. It seems that as far back as 1775, upon the proposition of Condorcet, it was resolved to refuse to consider any essay or treatise either upon the squaring of the circle or perpetual motion. Since that time the Académie has always acted upon this resolution, but the secrétaire perpétuel for the section of mathematics, M. Darboux, is constantly compelled to draw the attention of members to the resolution, in consequence of some notification that someone has resolved one or other of the problems. One Colonel Monteil is most persevering. He is under the impression that he has discovered the quadrature du cercle-that is to say, the geometric reduction of the circle to a square equivalent in surface. The Académie, as often as it receives the colonel's instruction and protest, sends the document to repose with others of a like nature in the archives. colonel has at last lost patience, and he has formally summoned the Académie to repeal the resolution of 1775. The president of the Académie, M. Lippmann, has received the summons, and the illustre compagnie is now considering what defence it shall lodge.

The

In charging the grand jury at Huntingdon Assizes on the 21st May, Mr. Justice Bray said Huntingdon was one of the places which those who opposed the present_circuit system fastened on as entailing a great waste of time. In his opinion it was not a waste of time for a judge to come to Huntingdon, small place though it was, and he had always thought it would be a great mistake if the assizes were taken away from any county which now had them. A return recently made showed that so far from there being a waste of time, although there might be a day or two wasted occasionally, in other cases judges sat late, and on the whole they sat more hours than they would have done in London. There were some places in Wales in a similar position to Huntingdon, and he hoped it would be long before any change was made. It was true they had arrears in London, and two years ago the Government were good enough to give them two additional judges, but they had lost two by the death of Sir William Grantham and the retirement of Mr. Justice Lawrance, and the vacancies could not be filled until the matter had been brought before Parliament. He sincerely hoped the Government would see their way to fill those vacancies, because they still had arrears, and in his opinion the sooner they were filled the better it would be for the administration of justice.

The case of Miss Malecka as a British subject alleged to be the victim of injustice and oppression in Russia_must recall to the student of political history the case of Don Pacifico, a Portuguese by extraction, a native of Gibraltar, and a British subject living in Athens. A quarrel of Don Pacifico with the Greek Government, whose claim for compensation the Foreign Office had made its own-the British fleet being sent to the Piræus and all Greek vessels being seized that were found within the waters-nearly brought on a European war, split up political parties in England, and established the reputation of Lord Palmerston and of Mr. (Lord Chief Justice) Cockburn in the ranks of the first Parliamentary debaters of their time, Don Pacifico's claim was eventually submitted to arbitration and thus settled, but, while the controversy was still proceeding, Lord Stanley proposed in the House of Lords a resolution which was practically a censure on the Government, and the resolution was carried by a majority of thirty-seven. To counterbalance the stroke of the House of Lords, a resolution was moved in the House of Commons on the 24th June 1850 by Mr. Roebuck which boldly affirmed the principles on which the foreign policy of the Government had been regulated were "such as were calculated to maintain the honour and dignity of this country and in times of unexampled difficulty to preserve peace between England and the various nations of the world.” The debate concluded on the 29th June 1850, when on a division the majority was carried by forty-six. Lord Palmerston made it appear as if the question between him and his opponents was that of the protection of English subjects abroad, while Mr. Cockburn defended the policy of Lord Palmerston in a speech which was the prelude to his eminent Parliamentary and judicial career. Lord Palmerston in the closing words of his speech expounded the position of a British

subject abroad. He asked for the verdict of the House of Commons" to decide whether, as the Roman in days of old held himself free from indignity when he could say 'I am a Roman citizen,' so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong.'

PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

The Crown and Welsh Disestablishment.

IN the debates on the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. the argument on which stress was laid at the time of the Catholi Emancipation agitation and of the agitation for the disestablis ment of the Irish Church, that the assent of the Crown to suc measures would be a violation of the oath taken by the Sovereign at his Coronation to preserve to the Church its rights and privileges, has not hitherto been advanced. The Coronation Oath was never meant to trammel the Sovereign in his legis lative capacity. In the debates on the Bill for the settling of the Coronation Oath in 1689, it was admitted that the oath, however worded, affected the King in his executive capacity only. "This was, indeed," writes Lord Macaulay, “evident from the very nature of the transaction. Any compact may be annulled by the free consent of the party who alone is entitled to claim the performance. It was never doubted by the most rigid casuist that a debtor who has bound himself under the most awful imprecations to pay a debt may lawfully withhold payment if the creditor is willing to cancel the obligation. And it is equally clear that no assurance exacted from a King by the estates of his kingdom can bind him to refuse compliance with what may at a future time be the wish of those estates": (Macaulay's History of England, i., p. 712). Lord Chancellor Selborne, when opposing the passing of the Irish Church Bill, as Sir Roundell Palmer, in the House of Commons, admitted that this view of the nature and binding obligation of the Coronation Oath was correct.

Prerogatives of the Crown.

66

of

MR. CAVE, K.C., in debate on the second reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill, referred to the taking away the nomination of the Crown to archbishoprics and bishoprics and Crown livings under the provisions of the Bill, and remarked: There is not in this Bill what was found in the last Bill-that is, a recital that the Crown has placed this patronage at the disposal of Parliament. I do not know whether the Government have obtained such a consent, but, if I understand the matter rightly, the precedent of the last Bill ought to be considered and followed in this." The King's consent is given by a Privy Councillor to Bills in any of their stages which concern the Royal prerogatives, the hereditary revenues, or personal property or interests of the Crown. When Bills have been suffered, through inadvertence, to be read a third time and passed without the communication to the House of the consent of the Crown, the proceedings have been declared null and void; but it is clear, from many precedents, that the House itself is reluctant to interfere to guard the interests of the Crown from being affected, before communication of the consent of the Crown has been received, until the very latest stages of the Bill. This point of practice arose nearly seventy years ago on a Welsh Church Bill, when, on the 1st July 1844, on the third reading in the House of Lords of the St. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses Bill, attention was directed to the fact that the House had not received any communication of the consent of the Crown to this measure which affected the prerogative. A Select Committee was appointed to search for precedents, who reported that there were no precedents, but that the Bill belonged to that class to which it had been the usage to give the consent of the Crown before passing the House, and that it had been the custom to receive such consent at various stages. The consent of the Crown was not obtained, and the Bill was accordingly dropped. In 1868, the Government being unwilling to advise Queen Victoria to place her interest in the temporalities of the

mit

Con

ding

ng an

bish

rem

Bil

bishoprics and benefices in Ireland at the disposal of Parliament, the House of Commons voted an address to Her Majesty praying that such interest should be placed at their disposal. In reply, the Queen desired that her interest should not stand in the way of the consideration of any measure relating to the Irish Church, and the Bill was proceeded with and passed by the Commons in opposition to the Ministers of the Crown: (see May's Parliamentary Practice, pp. 447-450). In March 1911 Lord Lansdowne moved an address to the King praying that in reference to legislation proposed for the reform of the House of Lords His Majesty's interest should be placed at the disposal of the House, the prerogatives of the Crown being affected. Lord Morley, on behalf of the Government, as Leader of the House of Lords, consented to the motion, which was carried. A communication was received from the King desiring that his interest should not stand in the way of the consideration of any measure dealing with the reform of the House of Lords.

PARLIAMENTARY SUMMARY,

IN the House of Commons on Monday there were eighteen questions on the order paper with regard to the trial of Miss Malecka and the sentence passed upon her. Mr. Acland, in a comprehensive answer, told inquiring members that the prisoner had a fortnight from the 17th May in which to decide whether to avail herself of any means of appeal. The Russian Government stated that there was incontrovertible proof of her Russian nationality, and that the court had made an error in the matter. Her counsel was preparing a petition to the Emperor, and pending a reply to the petition the sentence would be in abeyance. When the report of the trial had been received the whole case would be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government.

IRISH NOTES.

THE rising of the court on the 18th inst., at the end of the Easter Term, left business in the Court of Chancery in a somewhat unfinished condition. The action list in Mr. Justice Barton's court has fallen into considerable arrear, and something must be done if several important cases are not to be hung up during the Long Vacation.

THE Lord Chief Baron has caused an authoritative denial to be published of the statement that he intends to retire from the Bench. His Lordship, though he has been nearly forty years a judge, is mentally as vigorous as he ever was, and no one who saw him at work would come to the conclusion that there was any age occasion for his retirement. He has been for a considerable time Father of the Bench in the United Kingdom. There are four other judges on the Irish Bench well over seventy years—indeed, one is approaching his eightieth year. The longevity of Irish judges has always been remarkable. Long may Baron Pallas continue to adorn the Irish Bench.

Over

the

ven

IN the LAW TIMES of the 9th Dec. 1911, p. 127, reference was made to the objectionable practice of many corporate bodies nominating their own surveyor to be arbitrator in cases of disputes arising in the execution of engineering contracts, and the tendency of the courts in recent cases to break away from the rather strict lines laid down by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Jackson v. Barry Railway Company (68 L. T. Rep. 472; (1893) 1 Ch. 238). The engineer usually takes a strong view on behalf of the body he represents, and it does not seem the right thing to make him an arbitrator on matters to which he is so keen a party, and where, not unfrequently, his reputation and business capacity are involved. The English Court of Appeal in the case of Aird and Co. v. Lord Mayor, &c., of Bristol (28 Times L. Rep. 278)-one of the most recent cases-indicated the view that such an arbitrator should not be permitted to act where any conflict arises as to his own conduct or acts, but it was expressly stated, apparently in the same judgment, that the decision in Jackson v. Barry Railway Company was not intended to be departed from.

A CASE precisely in point is pending in the Rolls Court here' entitled M Kee and M'Nally v. Dublin Corporation and another, where disputes involving very considerable sums of money have arisen between the contractors and the corporation, the engineer to the corporation having been named in the contract as the person who was to arbitrate in reference to such matters. A

continual controversy between the contractors and the engineers seemed to have gone on for over two years, and the engineer appeared to have ruled upon numerous claims and to have declared in correspondence that he would not consider others. Eventually the corporation required the engineer to arbitrate upon the disputes, and he fixed a sitting, but the contractors commenced an action to restrain him from proceeding, on the ground that there was a reasonable probability that he would not act fairly in the circumstances, and applied for an interlocutory injunction. The Master of the Rolls refused to grant an interlocutory injunction, and relied mainly upon the judgment of the court in the Jackson case, which he held was not modified by any cases since decided.

Ir is really remarkable, in the universal consideration and criticism, to which the Government of Ireland Bill is being subjected and the crucial tests which are being applied to it, that it stands the examination so well. The drafting, as previously mentioned in this column, is wonderfully well done. The only point of some substance apparently not satisfactorily. provided for is that the power which undoubtedly will exist in the courts to declare statutes of the Parliament void can be exercised as the Bill stands without restriction or limitation. A petty sessions court sitting in a remote part of the country, administering an Act passed by the new Parliament, will be perfectly competent to declare that a particular provision was ultra vires, and the decision of the magistrates, if not appealed against, will be final. The dispute may be between two private persons, and it is safe to assume that neither of them would trouble to lodge an appeal in order that the question of jurisdiction might be settled, and the matter would go by default. This can hardly have been the intention of the framers of the Act, and it would certainly seem necessary that, before any law passed by the Parliament should be held to be void, notice should be given to a law officer of the Crown, and a power conferred upon him to bring up such determination for review before a higher

court.

THE Chief Secretary for Ireland, many people think, acted sensibly in reply to the request of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland to appoint a commission to inquire into and report upon Irish County Court reform. Mr. Birrell declined to do so, on the ground that the matter was throughly well understood, and that every section of the community was satisfied that reform was most urgently desired. The same points were urged in this column three months ago when the demand was made. The question has now been referred to the County Court judges to put forward their views, and perhaps at length a Bill will be produced which may have better fortune than its predecessors.

INTERNATIONAL, FOREIGN, AND COLONIAL LAW.

MARRIAGES IN JAPAN.

THE arrival of Japan as a civilised nation has created a little matrimonial difficulty, which is intended to be cured by a Bill, intituled "Marriages in Japan (Validity),' introduced into the Upper House by the Lord Chancellor. Being entirely uncontroversial, it will doubtless become an Act of Parliament in due course. Its purpose is to remove doubts with respect to the validity of certain marriages (both or one of the parties thereto being subjects or a subject of this realm) solemnised in the Empire of Japan since the 16th July 1899, being the date when a treaty between Her late Majesty Queen Victoria and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, signed the 16th July 1894, came into force.

By the treaty referred to, it was agreed (amongst other things) that, from the date of its coming into force, certain Conventions with respect to Her Majesty's jurisdiction in Japan should cease to be binding, and all the exceptional privileges, then enjoyed by British subjects, should absolutely cease and determine, and thereafter all such jurisdiction should be assumed by the Japanese

courts.

The operation of the treaty was in fact suspended until the 4th Aug. 1899, but the postponement of the effective date is immaterial for the present purpose, so that the 16th July 1899 may be deemed to be the birthday of the new Japan, and to mark its formal admission into the community of civilised nations, all of whom, about the same time, abandoned their