conscience to such an enterprise, I want him to realise what it means. First of all, there is the fundamental principle of the foreign policy of this country-a very sound one-that you should never interfere with the internal affairs of another country, however badly governed, and whether Russia is Tsarist or Republican, whether it is Nevshevist or Bolshevist, whether it is reactionary or revolutionary, whether it follows one set of men or follows another, that is a matter for the Russian people themselves, and we cannot interfere, according to any canon of government, to impose any form of government upon another people, however bad we may consider the present form of government. The people of this country thoroughly disapproved of the Tearist Government, its principles, its methods, its corruption, its oppression. But it was none of our business to interfere. It was a question for Russia to decide for herself." The policy of non-interference with the internal affairs of foreign countries, so unreservedly defined by Mr. Lloyd George as the settled policy of this country, is subject to several exceptions in the history of Great Britain. Lord Castlereagh as Foreign Secretary, in his well-known circular dispatch of the 19th Jan. 1821, in reply to a circular issuing from Austria, Russia, and Prussia alleging the existence of "a vast conspiracy against all established power and regarding as disavowed by the principles which constitute the public right of Europe all pretended reform operated by revolt and open hostility," while plainly maintaining on behalf of Great Britain the doctrine of non-intervention, clearly intimated that intervention may be made necessary by selfpreservation. Moreover, Great Britain has interfered, in the interest of the world at large, in the internal affairs of other States when associated in that interference with the general body of the Great Powers. In 1827 the right of intervention in favour of Greece was emphatically asserted in a treaty signed on the 6th July in that year between Great Britain, France, and Russia, whose preamble declared that "the three contracting parties were actuated by the necessity of putting an end to the sanguinary contest which, by delivering up the Greek provinces and the isles of the Archipelago to all the disorders of anarchy, produces daily fresh impediments to the commerce of the European States." By a similar exercise of intervention by Great Britain and the other Great Powers the independence of Belgium was in 1839 extorted from the King of Holland. "Unanimity of the Great Powers is," it has been well said, "the best guarantee against individual self-seeking." It would not be a deviation from the general policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries adopted by Great Britain if with the other Great Powers she took part in an intervention in the internal affairs of Russia on one of the grounds of the intervention by the United States in the internal affairs of Cuba in 1898 thus defined by President McKinley: "In the cause of humanity, and to put an end to the barbarities, bloodshed, starvation, and horrible miseries now existing there which the parties in the conflict are unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate. It is no answer to say this is all in another country belonging to another nation, and it is therefore none of our business. It is especially our duty, for it is right at our door. We owe it to our citizens in Cuba to, afford them that protection and indemnity for the life and property which no Government there can or will afford, and to that end to terminate the conditions that deprive them of legal protection." Intervention in the in'ernal affairs of another State seems to be permissible, according to the practice and policy of Great Britain and notwithstanding her adherence to the doctrine of non-interference, on the occurrence of either of two contingencies —(1) when it is made necessary by self-preservation; (2) when it is undertaken by the general body of Powers. As international public law professes to deal solely with the relation of States to each other, and as such immoral acts of a particular State in its internal dealings with its own subjects as result in massacres, brutalities, and religious persecutions do not fall within the scope of such relations, it is contended that the right of intervention cannot be legally invoked for their redress or suppression. It is, however, sometimes suggested that a nation is on humanitarian grounds justified in intervening to prevent practices shocking to humanity within the territory of another. Professor Lawrence maintains that "should the cruelty be so long continued and so revolting that the best instincts of human nature are outraged by it, and should an opportunity arise for bringing it to an end, removing its cause without adding fuel to the flames of the contest, there is nothing in the law of nations that will condemn as a wrongdoer the State which steps forward and undertakes the necessary intervention." Sir William Harcourt has described humanitarian intervention as a high act of national policy over and beyond the law," and Mr Hall maintains that "from the point of view of law it is always to be remembered that States so intervening are going beyond their legal powers. Their excuse or their justification can only be a moral one." Mr. Hannis Taylor asserts that such artificial distinctions become vain and unmeaning when the fact is remembered that inter. national law is not positive law at all, only a body of rules that dominate, in the words of President Wilson, "a province halfway between the province of morals and the province of positive law." Interventions in the internal affairs of another country on grounds exclusively humanitarian are of rare occurrence. Bismarck's cynical remark that he placed the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier above all Armenia has been often reprobated and is offensive in expression, but the general principle, of which it was only a particular application, is commonly acted upon by statesmen of every country, and even Mr. Bright strongly denounced the views of those who would make England the knight errant of nations. 66 The clear and emphatic declaration of Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons on the 16th inst., that there is and has been and can be no recognition of Bolshevism, was based on wholly unassailable grounds of international morality. There is," he said, "no Russia.' That terse expression conveys the knowledge that the great area to which we refer under the comprehensive term Russia, cannot be regarded as a State within the meaning of international law-which is, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, "a permanently organised society belonging to the family of nations, represented by a Government authorised to bind it, and possessing fixed territories." The Prime Minister's statement declares that not one of the conditions essential for a permanently organised society belonging to the family of nations is at present iu existence in Russia. "There is no body," he declares, "who can say it is a de facto Government for the whole of Russia, and, apart from any question of whether you could in any circumstance recognise Bolshevism, you could not recognise it as the de facto Government of Russia, because it is not. And there is no other Government which you could call a de facto Government of Russia. You have got to face a country in a state of complete chaos, confusion, and anarchy. There is no authority which extends over the whole area. Boundaries and provinces advance and boundaries recede, and on any day a large territory is governed by one authority and the next day by another." International personality must be represented by a Government which receives a de facto allegiance from its subjects, and recognition of a society as an international State may be postponed owing to internal instability. The absolute necessity of having a de facto Government with whom to deal is thus explained and enunciated: "The new organisation is reported," writes Mr. Hannis Taylor, "to have such a de facto political existence and such resources as to enable it if left alone to constitute a State capable of maintaining a permanent place in the family of nations." "The stability," writes the Lord Chancellor, 66 and even the existence of international relations would come to an end if negotiations with a Government were liable to be interrupted by assumptions of direct control on the part of its subjects. With the refinement of de jure claims international law is in no way concerned. Revolutionary committees, absolute monarchs, constitutional assemblies, all these are treated alike by the practice of nations provided they appear to rest upon a stable basis. This reservation is necessary, and is only an application of the caution so familiar in private law now that negotiations are unsafe with an imperfectly accredited agent." Mr. Lloyd George, however, adduced yet another reason which places an insuperable barrier to a recognition of a Bolshevist Government even if it were de facto established: "The Bolshevist Government has committed crimes against allied subjects which make it impossible to recognise it as a civilised Government." Russia under a Bolshevist Government would, in the Prime Minister's judgment, be necessarily excluded from the membership of the family of nations on the assumption that each State composing the family of nations is a moral being and as such clothed with moral duties and responsibilities, and that Russia as represented by a Bolshevist Government would be excluded by her conduct from the body of States considered as a single society. A statement of Mr. Lloyd George in his speech in the House of Commons on the 16th ult. is replete with interest as evidence of the trend of constitutional development towards the bringing of the treaty-making power, in pursuance of the adoption of the system of open diplomacy, directly within the control of Parliament. The Prime Minister, speaking in reference to the treaty of peace, said: "Whoever goes there [to Paris as representative of these countries in the negotiations regarding this treaty] must go knowing that he has the fullest confidence of Parliament behind him I know that Parliament could repudiate the treaty when it is signed, but it will be difficult to do that once British signa. tures are attached to it. It can be done. Parliament can do it; but it would be most difficult." This express declaration of the Prime Minister that Parliament can, if so disposed, repudiate the peace treaty is, of course, tantamount to a fresh pledge that the opinion of Parliament will be taken on that treaty after it has been signed, but before its ratification. When a treaty is concluded it is signed and sealed in duplicate by the Ministers representing their respective countries with their own seals. If the treaty contains, as is usual, a clause that it shall be ratified and ratifications exchanged at some future date and specified place, then until ratification neither side is bound by it. If there is no such clause, the treaty may take effect in accordance with the terms therein contained. It may, however, be safely assumed that the Peace Treaty will contain a clause in reference to ratifi. cation. The power of ratification or rejection of a treaty is vested in different parts of the sovereign power according to the Constitution of different countries. In this country that power is vested in the executive as the Crown. Before, however, this ratification takes place, the treaty will be laid before Parliament for its approval. The limitation thus involved on the discretion of the executive in foreign affairs, if taken at the very lowest estimate, can be appreciated by the law, and, to a very great extent, the practice of the Constitution, in reference to the treaty. making power. Blackstone, indeed, writing in 1765, states without reservation : "A King may make a treaty with a foreign State which shall irrevocably bind the nation." Blackstone is, however, careful to say that a pernicious treaty may render Ministers liable to impeachment. Mr. Todd, writing in 1887, thus enunciates the power of Parliament in respect to treaties : "The constitutional power appertaining to Parliament in respect to treaties is limited. It does not require their formal sanction or ratification by Parliament as a condition of their validity. The proper jurisdiction of Parliament in such matters may be thus defined: First, it has the right to give or withhold its sanction to those parts of a treaty that require a legislative enactment to give it force and consent, as, for example, when it provides for an alteration in the criminal or municipal law or for the extradition of criminals, or proposes to change existing tariffs or commercial regulations. Secondly, either House has a right to express to the Crown, by means of an address, its opinion in regard to a treaty or any part of a treaty that has been laid before Parliament. Thirdly, it is in the power of either House, if it disapproves of a convention or treaty, to visit the Ministers of the Crown who are responsible for the same with censure or impeachment as the case may be." Sir William Anson, writing in 1908, without the experience derived from the late war, before whose commencement he did think that the responsibility for the exercise of the treaty-making power should appertain solely to the Cabinet. "Parliament," he writes, " can always express its disapproval of a treaty, or Ministers can, if they are strong enough in Parliamentary support, obtain an expression of approval. It may be doubted whether Ministers ought not to be prepared to accept the responsibility of the exercise of the treaty making power by the Crown, and whether the ratification of a treaty should be dependent upon the goodwill of a popular assembly. Mr. Bagehot, writing so long ago as 1865, has no doubt whatever on the advisability of obtaining Parliamentary assent to treaties. "If we require," he said, "that in some form the assent of Parliament shall be given to treaties, we should have a real discretion prior to the making of such treaties." the Sovereign in the House of Commons, of which there is only IRISH NOTES. EASTER TERM was opened on the 24th ult. with the old pre-war SIR EDWARD CARSON paid his second visit to the Four Courts in THE Court of Appeal on the 25th ult., consisting of the Lord The presence of the Prince of Wales in the Peers' Gallery of 66 POOLING INSURANCE.-The Licenses Insurance Corporation and COUNTY COURTS, EQUITY, AND BANKRUPTCY CASES.-Published GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. INSURANCE NOTES. THERE are some people who consider that life insurance should not be left to commercial or mutual enterprise, but should be made a monopoly of the State. Choosing their ground cleverly enough, they are bringing the first attack against the industrial companies, and in the near future there will be a good deal of attention drawn to this question. It is to be hoped that, while such faults as there may be in the existing forms of industrial insurance are discussed at large, attention will also be drawn to the way in which the life insurance department of the State has been conducted. Life insurance has been granted by the State for many years past, and every post-office in the kingdom has been a branch office for the furtherance of the business, and every policy has of course behind it the incomparable security of a State guarantee. Government life insurances are available through the agency of the Post Office for sums up to £100 on the lives of persons between fourteen and sixty-five years of age. Premiums may be paid annually through a savings bank account, or quarterly by means of postage stamps affixed weekly by the insured person within a premium book. At the end of each thirteen weeks the stamped page containing the quarter's premiums is exchanged for a full receipt. Unless the sum insured exceeds £25, medical examination is not necessary. There is a surrender value after two years' premiums have been paid. Clearly there is nothing the matter with the article which is thas put on sale; so let us see what success is met with in selling it: year. No industrial office possesses half the advantages which are at the disposal of the State. Picture to the mind what would be the power of any commercial undertaking which enjoyed the agency of every postmaster and postmistress in every city, town, village, and hamlet throughout the realm, with their local office built in the most commanding position, with ample window space for advertisement purposes, and millions upon millions of documents published broadcast, upon which a few lines of advertisement could carry their propaganda into the most remote corners of the country without any appreciable increase in expenses. Then examine the almost puerile results which have come from all these unique opportunities. Life insurance, as conducted by the State, has been a ridiculous exhibition of failure, and, if we are to have an investigation into industrial insurance, it will be just as well to inquire at the same time into the causes of the notorious conditions into which State life insurance has drifted. Anyone who has failed to realise that the principal ingredient in the retail price of most articles is what may be summarised as the cost of selling, using that term in the widest possible sense, will be ready enough to deplore the employment by our industrial offices of thousands of collecting agents, peddling from house to house, and to deprecate the agency commission by means of which those men are remunerated, and which is so readily spoken of as a percentage of the premiums. No one is likely to contend that the system is perfect, or that there are no faults in its working, but, in justice to it, look at the results. The Prudential in the year 1918 wrote 84,453 policies in the ordinary branch alone, insuring £13,846,213. Although technically these are "ordinary" policies, the average amount, some £164, proclaims them to be in the main the insurances of the industrial class; when it is added that this new business is double that transacted in 1917, the dynamic energy of this great company is evident. The cause of this huge increase is easy to explain; the average annual premium for each new policy exceeds £9 per cent.; in a word, these thousands of small people have been enabled by this industrial office to invest in War Bond policies. No less than 84,453 persons are putting by on the average, £14 15s. a year in order to pay for War Bonds on the easy instalment system In this section of the company's business, and it is here that the essential difference between "ordinary" and "industrial" is brought out, the expenses of management and commission absorb less than 10 per cent. of the premium income. The ordinary funds are now over 52 millions sterling, the valuation is made at 3 per cent., and the actual rate earned, after deduction of tax, is over £4 per cent. Turning to the purely industrial section, we find that the premium income has increased by £359,545 to just under 10 millions sterling. Claims paid almost touched 5 millions, and the fund 50 millions. The expenses here were over 37 per cent. of the premium income. It is in this latter figure that the whole question at issue lies. Is it possible to induce twenty-two or twenty-three million people to insure their lives without the army of canvassers now employed; is it possible to persuade them to bring their own weekly premiums to the nearest office, or to save them up so as to take advantage of the far more economical system of paying premiums by quarterly, half-yearly, or annual instalments, rather than by the wasteful weekly system? Life insurance, as granted hitherto by the State, has never succeeded in attracting even thousands where the Prudential attracts millions; there is clearly, therefore, something in the Prudential system which is lacking in the State system, and the two most conspicuous things would appear to be the house-tohouse canvass and the payment of commission to agents. To enforce the point, without advocating the step, the writer would hazard the opinion that, given Government rates of premium identical with those of the industrial offices, if every letter carrier were given agent's commission on premiums which he collected, with a bonus commission on all new policies effected, and if the local postmasters were given a small overriding commission on all the premium income passing through their hands, State life insurance would be a serious rival to the industrial companies to-morrow. But, on this hypothesis, it would only be achieved by adopting much the same cost of selling, and without the efficiency which whole-time agents afford. Until life insurance is made compulsory it is difficult to see how things can be much amended, and compulsory life insurance is scarcely in the range of practical politics to-day. Before closing these notes, mention should be made of the London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Company and the success with which the bold policy of the management is meeting. The company has been, as is well known to readers, buying up other offices with a view to widening the base of its transactions, the purchase of the Law Union and Rock shares being a recent instance. The underwriting of the last two years has been unusually remunerative, and by the end of 1917 the remainder of the cost of purchasing the Marine Insurance Company was defrayed out of fire profits. Out of the profits of 1918 no less than half a million has been allocated towards the cost of more recent purchases. The totals transferred to profit and loss, including interest from the funds, were :— £514,648 436,369 135,271 £1,086,289 Atlas shareholders are rejoicing. In 1917 the dividend was 88. per share, of which 5s. was tax free and 3s. less tax. Now they are getting 12s. tax free. The present price of the shares only looks high to those who do not realise the great possibilities which there are in the fine old business in Cheapside. Goodwill is of immense importance in insurance business; the name of the Atlas is respected all over the world, and the connections of the Atlas are of that old-fashioned, loyal type which is the envy of the management of all newly established companies, however ambitious their programme may be. The newly rich, however rich, always cast envious eyes at the broad acres and heirlooms of the old-established families. JUDICIAL REFORM IN CHINA. To the casual observer of events China would appear an unlikely sphere for legal reform. Yet such is not the case, for many young Chinese have received their education in the University of Paris, among other continental seats of learning, and it will no doubt surprise not a few to learn that one of the best English translations of the German Civil Code is the work of a Chinaman, if we mistake not afterwards Ambassador as Washington. From the beginning of the present century China has A commission of undertaken in earnest the work of judicial reform codification was set up in the year 1906, and in 1907 the first modern tribunal was at work in Peking. Among the important legal reforms accomplished at the outset may be mentioned in the first place certain fundamentals such 88 the law upon judicial organisation, which established the basis and the working of the modern tribunale. The provisional regulation for superior and inferior tribunals serves as the codes of procedure pending their promulgation, and several chapters of the codes have been adopted, after having received the sanction of the President of the Republic. The new Penal Code came into force in 1912. Among the commercial laws which have been promulgated may be mentioned the ordinance relating to procedure, that of commercial companies, and the regulation for a court of arbitration in commercial matters. Other laws have been promulgated-for example, the Forests Code, the law relative to hunting, and the law upon contraventions of police. Besides the Penal Code already in force may be added the projects of the Civil Code, the Commercial Code, and the codes of civil and criminal procedure. In virtue of the law upon judicial organisation, three classes of modern tribunals have been set up. At Peking there has been established a Court of Cassation, the principal duties of which up to now have been the unification of the interpretation of the laws. In the metropolitan capital and in each provincial capital has been established a Court of Appeal. In addition to the Court of Appeal there is to be a district court, the powers of which resemble the courts of first instance in France. These latter courts are as yet few in number, finance being the difficulty in making them general. Altogether there are forty-six such courts. In the ports open to foreign commerce and in several of the principal towns they have been established. Each court has a public prosecutor or representative of the Government. Passing to procedure, it is dominated by two principles-publicity and freedom of expense, except in civil cases. Publicity is assured by art. 55 of the law on judicial organisation. The proceedings are published, except in the case where publicity is deemed inadvisable in the interests of peace and public order. In this event the tribunal has powers to order that the proceedings be in camerâ, but even then the judgments must be given in open court, and any person is entitled to obtain a copy of any judgment from the clerk of the court. On the other hand, the judgments of the Court of Cassation are published regularly and in their entirety in numbers for the benefit of the lawyers. In civil cases the fees are paid in State stamps proportionate to the sum at issue, and according to a table fixed by law. As to individual or persor al liberty, it is carefully protected by art. 6, pars. 1 and 2, of the Constitution, and is thus worded: "Citizens, save in the cases provided for by law, cannot be apprehended, incarcerated, judged, or punished. The domicil of citizens, save in the cases provided for by the law, cannot be violated or made the object of search." Corporeal punishment to extract evidence from witnesses has been forbidden since 1906. From the foregoing it will be seen that the administration of justice in China is no longer what it formerly was, and from the progress that has been made it is claimed that in the near future the legal organisation of the Celestial Republic will compare favourably with that of any European Power. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M CHRISTMAS REEF (RHODESIA) DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED.-By order of Mr. Registrar Manson, dated March 26, Julius Wilson Hetherington Byrne, 81, Gracechurch-st, E.C., chartered accountant, has been appointed liquidator in place of Frank Hall Kingham. CHURNET VALLEY ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for appointment of George Graham Poppleton, of Corporation-st, Birmingham, chartered accountant, to be an additional liquidator to act jointly with George Hiddelston Hay, and for the appointment of a committee of inspection, to be heard May 8, at Macclesfield County Court, at 11.45. P. J. McKnight, Hanley, Staffs, sol. to pet. Notices of appearance by May 6. COTTERIDGE CINEMA LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 15, to J. S. Hancock, 57, Surrey-st, Sheffield. S. E. Blackburn, Sheffield, sol. for liquidator. ENGINEERING PROPRIETARY LIMITED-Petition for winding-up to be heard May 6, at Royal Courts of Justice. Cameron, Kemm, and Co., Gresham House, Old Broad-st, E.C. 2, sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by May 5. FOLKESTONE TAXICAB COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 7, to G. H. Chapman, 84, Guildhall-st, Folkestone. FULTONS LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard May 16, at Liverpool County Court, at 10. T. F. Gaskell, Liverpool, sol. for pets. Notices of appearance by May 15. GREEN AND GREEN LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard May 6, at Royal Courts of Justice. Hyman Isaacs, Lewis, and Mills, 31-34, Basinghall-st, E.C. 2, sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by May 5. I. LEVIN LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 10, to E. Cooper, 30, Moorgate-st, E.C. 2. INLAND TRANSPORT AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 30, to C. A. Neal, 7. Tithebarn-st, Liverpool. LONDON COUNTY COMMERCIAL RE-INSURANCE OFFICE LIMITED-Creditors to send in, by June 16, to L. Maltby, 5, London Wall-bldgs, E.C. Wansey, Stammers, and Co., 52, Coleman-st, E.C. 2, sols. to liquidator. PLAYHOUSE (GALASHIELS) LIMITED-Petition for winding-up to be heard May 6, at Royal Courts of Justice. King, Wigg, and Brightman, 11, Queen Victoria-st, E.C. 4, agents for Keenlyside and Forster, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by May 5. ROBERT MEREDITH AND CO. LIMITED -Petition for winding-up to be heard May 6, at Royal Courts of Justice. Spyer and Sons, Austin-friars House, Austin-friars, E.C. 2. Notices of appearance by May 5. S.A. PROSPECTING AND CONCESSIONS SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up, subject to supervision of the court, made by Astbury, J., dated April 8. Wansey, Stammers, and Co., 52, Coleman-st, E.C. 2, sols. for pets. SOUTH END SPINNING COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 31, to J. Todd, National-bldgs, St. Mary's Parsonage, Manchester. Sale and Co., Manchester, sols. for liquidator. SKELMERSDALE MASONIC HALL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 31, to J. Wild, 5, Brown Moor-la, Great Crosby, Liverpool. STEAM TUG CONDUCTOR LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 8, to W. T. Wensley, 19, Sweeting-st, Liverpool. T. HELM AND SON LIMITED (in voluntary liquidation consequent upon the sale of the company's business).-Creditors to send in, by May 31, to W. H. Hughes, Station-st-bldgs, Huddersfield. Ramsden, Sykes, and Ramsden, Huddersfield, sols. to liquidator. TYNEDALE COAL COMPANY LIMITED-Creditors to send in, by May 31, to T. Harrison, 31, Mosley-st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Dees and Thompson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, sols. to liquidator. UNIVERSAL STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 26, to W. H. King, 13, Basinghall-st, E.C. YOUNGS AND OLD LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 10, at Canterbury County Court, at 11. C. J. Smith and Hudson, 5, Fenchurch-st, E.C. 3. Notices of appearance by June 9. TRADING WITH THE ENEMY, WINDING-UP THIERRY (ADOLPH) LIMITED, of Guildhall Annexe, 23, King-st, E.C. 2 (in the matter of Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act 1918).— Creditors to send in, by May 27, to C. Fox, 11, Old Jewry-chmbrs, E.C. 2, to whom persons having any property or effects of the said business must deliver them up and debts due to the business must be paid. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. DE BEAUREGARD DE BECHEVET (Diana Countess), Cavendish-sq, W. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. BARKER (Emma), Hockley. May 22; E. Jaques and Sons, Birmingham. Heath. May 29; H. P. Russell, Bexley BILLING (Mary) Tunbridge Wells. May 31; Seagrove, Woods, and BOND (William), Ramsgate. May 31; Robinson and Allfree, Ramsgate. CHAPPLE (Frederic Northcote), Great St. Helens, E.C., and Kensington. CUTLER (Ellen Mona), Eaton-pl, S.W. May 31; Nicholson, Patterson, CLEMENTS (Annie), Bishopston. May 14; Wansbroughs, Robinson, DAVIS (Lieut. George Leigh Blakeman), 7th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, and Manor Park, Essex. May 30; Public Trustee, at the offices of Kilsby, Son, and Edwards, 193, High-st, East Ham, E. 6. DOBIE (John Robert, M.D.), Teddington. May 29; Deacon and Co., 9, Great St. Helens, E.C. DAVIES (Charlotte Rose), Edgbaston. May 10; B. Davies, 61, Avenuerd, Regent's Park, N.W., or his sols., Thomas, Guest, and Pearson, Birmingham. DAWS (Septimus), Clacton-on-Sea. May 31; T. F. Peacock and Co., 3, Field-ct, Gray's-inn, W.C. 1. DODDS (Capt. Walter Melbourne), 23rd Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers, and Shorncliffe. Corbridge. May 31; Criddle and Ord, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. DONALDSON (Rosa Emma), Upper Gloucester-pl, N.W. June 9; Agar- GOULD (Frederick), Wincanton. May 22; Nalder and Littler, Shepton HEPTINSTALL (Mary Ann), Newton-le-Willows. June 6; R. Bygott and HANDRUP (Rasmus), Cheshunt. June 6; Duffield, Bruty, and Co., Broadst-av, E.C. 2. HAMILTON (Henrietta Isabella), South Lambeth. May 31; I. S. Hamilton and Public Trustee, at the offices of Kinsey, Ade, and Hocking, 71, Great Russell-st, W.C. 1. HARLAND (Major Robert Thomas), Hove. June 16; Cushman and Cunningham, Brighton. HARDIMAN (Harry), Kidderminster. May 30; J. H. Thursfield, Kidder HOBSON (Elizabeth), Sheffield. May 31; Head and Hill, 3, Raymondbldgs, Gray's-inn, W.C. HODGKINSON (George Arthur), Bognor. May 30; Yarde and Loader, 1, Raymond-bldge, Gray's-inn, W.C. 1. HEAP (Richard Rankin), Aylesbury. May 31; Weightman, Pedder, and Co., Liverpool. HANSARD (Katherine), Ealing. May 31; Leighton and Savory, 61, Careyst, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. 2. HOLBROOK (Louisa), Acton, June 5; Chester, Broome, and Griffithes, 36, Bedford-row, W.C. HUMBER (Margaret Annie), St. Annes-on-Sea. May 23; J. Ogden Hardicker and Hanson, Manchester. INKSTER (Robert), Wallasey June 2; J. W. Cocks, at the offices of Bartley, Bird, and Co., Liverpool. JAMES (Frances Florence Marie), Chard. June 1; the executors, at the offices of Tucker and Forward, Chard. JONES (Alice), Orrell Post, Wigan. May 31; L. Kennedy and Glover, Ormskirk. KENNARD (Major Willoughby Arthur), 13th Hussars, D.S.O., and KELLY (John Joseph), Seething-la, E.C., and Swiss Cottage, N.W. LARNACH (James Walker). East Grinstead and Newmarket. June 2; LOWE (James Walter), Chapel-en-le-Frith. May 17; A. and G. W. Fox, LORD (Mary Elizabeth), Bowdon. May 27; the executrix, at the offices LETCHER (Mark Jameson), Bournemouth. May 8; Mooring, Aldridge, and Haydon, Bournemouth. LAWN (John), Wissett. May 19; Sprake and Co., Bungay. MARSH (John), Middlesbrough. May 17; Cochrane, Belk, and Smith, Middlesbrough. MEADES (Annie), Eastbourne. May 31; Hillman, Burt, and Warren, Eastbourne. MURRAY (William). Leinster-sa, W., and Temple, E.C. June 11; Murray, Hutchins, and Co., 11, Birchin-la, E.C. MARSHALL (William Brown), Monton, Eccles. May 31; E. L. Wilson, Manchester. MILLER (Harriette Louisa). Emsworth. July 1; Gunner and Sons, Bishop's Waltham, Hants MULLINS (William Edward), Hampstead, and Wadhurst. July 1; Public Trustee, Kingsway, W.C. 2. Sols., Gunner and Sons, Bishop's Waltham, Hants. OGILVY (Alice Margaret). Isle of Wight. May 31; the executors, at the office of Rider. Heaton, Meredith, and Mills, 8, New-sq, Lincoln'sinn, W.C. ORME (William), Macclesfield. May 5; J. Cumberbirch, Macclesfield. OLIVIER (Charlotte Ann), Kensington. May 31; the executors, at the office of Rider, Heaton, Meredith, and Mills, 8, New-sq, Lincoln'sinn, W.C. OWEN (Catherine). Clynnog. May 20; D. G. Jones, Carnarvon. PAYNE (George), West Ealing. May 10; Fielder, Jones, and Harrison, 1, Raymond-bldgs, Gray's-inn, W.C. 1. PUGHE (Robert Jones), Oswestry. May 25; Yorath and Jones, Cardiff. PARKIN (George Frederick), Headingley. May 31; W. Bateson, Leeds. PATTEN (Charles Arthur), Ealing. May 25; W. Gipps Kent and Son, 11. Gray's-inn-pl. W.C. 1. PRESCOTT (Thomas), Birkdale. May 26; G. M. Peck, Wigan. POPE (John Henry), St. Mary Church. May 31; Hooper and Wollen, Torquay. QUANT (John Hedley), Weston-super-Mare. June 24; J. H. King, Bristol. ROCHE (Eliza Lanyan Clements), Peckham Rye. June 10; Baddeleys and Co., 77, Leadenhall-st. E.C. 3. RUNTON (Henry), Hull and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. May 22; Shackles, SPINK (Frederic Walter), Bridlington and Hull. May 29; W. J. Stuart, Hull. SULLIVAN (Bartholomew James), Wallsend. June 1; E. Clark, New castle-upon-Tyne. SMITH (Capt. Herbert George, R.A.S.C.), Chester-sq, S.W. May 26; SYMONDSON (Vernon Francis), Carlton Hotel, Pall Mall, S. W. May 31; WRIGHT (Edith Lilian Marguerite), Abinger. May 31; Ince, Colt, and WETTON (George), Hampstead, N.W. May 31; S. B. Cohen, Dunn, and WILLS (Edgar John, M.A.), Marseilles, France. 10. Bartlett's-bldgs, Holborn-cir, E.C. June 24; Langhams, WILLETT (Albert), Staines. May 31; Horne, Engall, and Freeman, WILSON (Mary). Watford. May 31; Christopher and Son, 5, Argyll-pl, LAW SOCIETIES. THE LAW SOCIETY. POOR PERSONS RULES. THE question of whether it would be desirable to recommend any change in the procedure and practice under these rules was referred by the council of the Law Society to a special committee for consideration, and on the report of the committee it was resolved: "That in the opinion of the council the payment of out-of-pocket expenses under Order XVI., r. 29, should be regarded as limited to actual cash disbursements made by the solicitor for the poor person for whom he was acting." Subsequently Mr. Charles Goddard, a member of the council and also of the Lord Chancellor's Departmental Committee, reported that that committee desired the views of the council as to what assistance they can give towards the easy working of the rules. PUBLIC TRUSTEE. At a recent meeting of the council, Mr. Samuel Garrett stated that he had been requested to join a departmental committee about to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the organisation of the Public Trustee Office. He requested the members of the council to transmit to him any suggestions which might occur to them. ENGLISH AND BELGIAN JUDGMENTS. A letter was read from M. Smeeters, the Belgian advocate, requesting the council to give some consideration to the formation of a committee to study the preparation of a treaty for the mutual enforcement of English and Belgian judgments. M. Smeeters was requested to communicate with Lord Sumner, who had been acting as chairman of a departmental committee appointed to consider this and kindred subjects. SOLICITORS' WAR MEMORIAL FUND. As a result of the president's appeal which was issued to the Profession at the end of February, a sum of £16,201 had up to the 2nd ult. been received for the solicitors' war memorial fund, in additior to sums promised amounting to £8534. UNITED LAW SOCIETY. A MEETING was held at the Middle Temple Common Room on Monday evening, the 28th April. Mr. T. Hynes moved: "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a measure for the nationalisation of mines should be carried through Parliament without delay." Mr. Sydney Ashley opposed. There also spoke: Messrs. C. H. Gurney, N. Tobbatt, S. E. Redfern, R. Walker, and H. V. Rabagliati. The motion was lost by four votes. TAYLOR (John), Milnrow. June 14; C. B. Hudson, Rochdale. WALTERS (Matthias), Stratford-upon-Avon. May 25; R. Lunn, Stratfordon-Avon. WOOLLON (Louisa), Bath. June 9; Eyres and Whitty, Bath. WILLIAMS (Richard Joseph), Clynnog. May 20; D. G. Jones, Carnarvon. WORTHINGTON (Thomas), Clayton Bridge. May 20; J. Ogden Hardicker and Hanson, Manchester. Advances upon Stocks and Shares will be entertained upon favourable terms by the LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY. The transactions can be carried out expeditiously and cheaply, and full particulars will be sent upon application to No. 10, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. 4. MEDICO-LEGAL SOCIETY. THE POSITION OF MEDICINE IN THE STATE. A MEETING of the Medico-Legal Society was held on Tuesday at 11, Chandos-street, Cavendish-square, Sir John Tweedy, ex-president, taking the chair. Among the members of the Legal Profession present were Messrs. Ernest Goddard, T. D. Harvey Hartley, Walter William3, and W. G. Cooper King. Lieut. Col. Nathan Raw, R.A.M.C. (T.F), C.M.G, M.D., delivered an address upon "The Position of Medicine in the State," in the Course of which he said that the great problem of health was one of colossal importance; practically, the whole success or prosperity of any country depended upon it. The most important object to which the medical, legal, and other professions could devote them. selves was the conserving the lives of the inhabitants of the State; the making the people fit to equip themselves for any sudden emergency, such as a military campaign or a great war; the saving as much as possible the waste of life, both infantile life and adult life; and the preventing, as far as possible, any great diseases which caused suffering and death to the members of the community. In our Empire an enormous variety of diseases had to be dealt with, diseases which caused an immense amount of suffering, which destroyed life, and which reduced the power of the native populations of the different colonies which we con. trolled. These great problems affected the coloured populations, the races of India, Africa, Canada, Australia, and other parts of the Empire. Yellow fever, the ordinary tropical diseases, and the other devastating diseases, such as beri-beri, sleeping sickness, plague and snake bite, and incidentally, that terrible disease, cholera, claimed their hosts of victims. These great problems had been attacked by the medical profession in & very excellent and competent way; individual research |