mitted to the magistrates, they declined to approve of the recommendation.

The question although at that time apparently settled was not really so, for complaints were from time to time made in the council and other public places of the excessive amount the clerk was receiving for the work done.

Sheffield was not the only place where this system was found to exist. The question had for some years been agitated in other large towns in England.

A Parliamentary Commission was appointed in 1858, and evidence taken upon the subject, the whole tenor of which was that it was desirable to pay magistrates' clerks by salary rather than by fees. Since that time most of the large towns have adopted the principle of payment by salary instead of fees: Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol, and Newcastle being amongst the earliest to carry out that improvement, and Sheffield is about the only large town that has not done so.

On the 12th February, 1873, the council passed a resolution recommending that the clerk to the borough justices should be paid by salary, in lieu of fees. The following is a copy of the resolu

tion:

"Resolved-That in the opinion of this council, the clerk to the justices of the borough of Shef. field should be paid by salary, in lieu of fees and other payments, and that a salary of £2000 per annum be paid to Mr. Albert Smith, the present clerk, he thereout defraying the expenses of clerks, printing, stationery, and all other expenses incidental to the office. That a copy of this resolution be laid by the mayor before the justices of the borough of Sheffield, for their consideration and approval, and that subject thereto another copy of the said resolution be forwarded by the mayor to Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, for his ap

proval."

The above resolution was laid before the borough justices on the 13th March 1873, aud the following resolution was passed by them approving of the recommendation ::

"Resolved: That this meeting, after mature consideration, approves of the recommendations contained in the resolution of the town council now read, and that the mayor be requested to certify the same to the Secretary of State, and inform the council of the approval by this meeting."

The resolutions also received the approval of Mr. Albert Smith.

The mayor forwarded the resolutions of the council and the justices to the Home Secretary, who requested that a statement showing the average amount of fees received by the clerk during the last five years should be furnished to him, and Mr. Smith made the following return: Receipts of Fees, showing the average for five years, by Albert Smith, magistrates' clerk in petty and special sessions for Borough of Sheffield, and Disbursements. £ . d. 3159 17 2 2939 16 4 3668 15 8 3527 5 4 3030 18 4 £16,326 12 10 3265 66 544 4 5

1867 Total fees received 1868

Ditto

1869

Ditto

1870

Ditto

1871

Ditto

...

...

Gross average per year
Deduct West Riding fees, estimated

at one- sixth

Your committee find that the average net income of Mr. Smith for that period has been at least £2000 per annum.

On the 6th May 1873, the Home Secretary transmitted to the council a new table of fees, which had been prepared by the Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts, and recommended the same for adoption by the council, in the place of the table of fees in force, a copy of which had been forwarded to him at his request.

Unfortunately, Mr. Smith was taken ill, and Mr. Thorpe, his chief clerk, having died, Mr. Smith resigned the office of magistrates' clerk, and the council were compelled to begin again de

пого.

On the 13th Oct. last the council appointed a deputation to confer with the Home Secretary in reference to the correspondence which had taken

place relative to the new table of fees, and that depu-
tation had an interview with Mr. Winterbotham,
the Under Secretary of State, and conferred with
him on the subject of the resolution passed by the
council on the 12th Feb. last, and also to the new
table of fees to be made by the council and as
to the salary to be paid to the clerk to be appointed
in the place of Mr. Albert Smith, who had resigned
the office; when Mr. Winterbotham informed
them that he should be glad to receive and sug.
gestion from the council as to the proposed new
table of fees, and would be prepared to consider
and sanction any reasonable recommendation
which the council might make as to the amount of
salary to be paid to the clerk. Mr. Winterbotham
considered that £1800 per annum would be ample
remuneration for the duties the clerk had to
perform, including payment of clerks and office
expenses, and he had no hesitation in saying that
the Home Office would sanction such remunera-
tion.

On the 29th Oct. 1873, the council passed the
following resolution :-

Resolved: That in pursuance of the 14 and 15 Vict. cap. 55, this council recommends to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the clerk to the justices of the peace for this borough be paid by salary in lieu of fees and other payments, and that a salary of £1800 per annum be paid to the clerk to be appointed in the place of Mr. Albert Smith, who has resigned such office, provided that the clerk devotes his whole time to the duties of his office, and defrays the expenses of clerks, printing, stationery, and all other expenses incidental to

his office."

The resolution was forwarded to the Home
Secretary, who stated that finding, from communi-
cations which had been made to him from the
Sheffield borough justices, that they and the town
of the town council, and considering all the
council were not agreed upon the recommendation
he would not be giving effect to the provisions of
circumstances of the case, he was of opinion that
the 9th section of the Act 14 and 15 Vict. cap. 55,
if he made an order upon such recommendation,
approved of it.
until he had been satisfied that the justices

The mayor laid before a meeting of the borough
justices, convened for that purpose, and held on
the 21st Nov. last, a copy of the resolution passed
by the council on the 29th Oct. 1873.

The justices present were: Joseph Hallam,
Esq., mayor; John Fairburn, Esq., ex-mayor;
J. E. Davis, Esq, Sir John Brown, Henry E.
Hoole, Esq, William Fisher, Esq., Edward Vickers,
Esq., Mark Firth, Esq., and W. K. Peace, Esq.

The resolution having been read, it was pro-
posed by Sir John Brown, and seconded by Mr.
H. E. Hoole, and resolved-

"That the justices of the said borough at this
meeting disapprove of the recommendation con-
tained in the said resolution of the said town
council."

Proposed by Sir John Brown, seconded by Mr.
William Fisher, and resolved-

ditional on the clerk devoting the whole of his time to the performance of the duties of his office, that being a matter entirely for the justices to determine. Neither can the town council make any stipulation as to what expenses shall be defrayed by the clerk. All that a town council can do is simply to recommend that a certain sum shall be paid instead of fees. If that recommenda tion is adopted by the justices and by the Secretary of State, the Act of Parliament defines for what duties the salary is to be received. It cannot be for anything more or for anything less."

Your committee deeply regret that the magis. trates should have thought it necessary to retire from the principle they had laid down, as to the desirability of paying their clerk by salary rather than by fees, as it must be admitted by all that the remuneration which the new clerk will receive will be out of all proportion to the work he has to do. In order that the council and the public may be properly informed upon this head, Mr. Jackson, the chief constable, at the request of your committee, has carefully prepared an estimate of the fees that would be received by a clerk, assuming that the clerk took all the fees to which he is entitled-that estimate is based upon the quantity of business actually done in 1871; and from it your committee find that the total amount of fees that would be received under the table of fees now in force will be £3616 10s. 6d., and under the new table £3123 168., showing a difference of £492 148. 6d.

The fees increase year by year, and it may be estimated that in twenty years time the income from fees will amount to £5000 per annum, at the

least.

Your committee have ascertained that at Birming. ham the two clerks to the magistrates are paid by salary, and are allowed £2100 per annum, which sum includes the cost of clerks, stationery, &c. receives £1500 per aunum, which sum includes At Leeds, the clerk is also paid by salary and sionery, &c. the cost of clerks; the corporation provides sta

borough fund, and the surplus of the amount of The fees in those boroughs are paid into the fees over the salary of the justices' clerk relieves the rates to that extent; and it is, in the judgment of your committee, far more to the interest of the public, and much less of a scandal, that funds should fructify in the pockets of the rate. payers, than be handed over to public servants in amounts greatly out of proportion to the value of their services.

But this excessive remuneration is not the only evil attendant upon payment by fees, for such system has a very serious effect on the administration of justice; it frequently happens that the merits of a case would be met by a nominal fine, but then the consideration of the clerk's perquisites in the shape of fees obtrudes itself. The magistrate is often influenced by that consideration, and the general good is perverted by the question of fees or costs in which the interest of the clerk predominates. "Discharged on payment of costs "is naturally a conclusion which would relieve the defendant from any liability but for the clerk's vested right; but its real reading is "discharged so far as the interest of order, justice, and morality are concerned, but you must settle with the clerk, whose interests and those of public policy are conflicting and incompatible."

Your committee can only express again their great regret that such a favourable opportunity of effecting so desirable a change should be lost. It is continuing a practice that has been universally condemned and abandoned whenever an opportunity presented itself: however, the council and the public will see from this report that the entire responsibility of perpetuating this most pernicious state of things rests solely upon the borough justices and uot upon the council.

JOHN FAIRBURN, Chairman.
Council Chamber, Sheffield, 4th Dec. 1873.
A TABLE OF FEES TO BE TAKEN BY THE CLERK TO THE
£ s. d.

JUSTICES OF THE SAID BOROUGH.
Appointment.

"That the justices present at this meeting wish
to place upon record the following summary of
the grounds of their disapproval of the resolution
of the town council. First: That none of the
evils which under some circumstances attend
upon and outweigh the advantages of payment of
magistrates clerks by fees have hitherto existed in
Sheffield, and the only reason avowed by the town
council for effecting a change is the desire to
appropriate a portion of the fees for the purpose
of increasing the borough fund. To sanction any
such attempt appears to the justices to involve &
direct infringement of the doctrine emphatically
laid down by the present and late Secretaries of
State that such an application of fees involves a
public scandal; and that if the fees are more than
sufficient for the purpose of remunerating the
clerk, they should be reduced. Further, the jus-
tices, for whose assistance the clerk is appointed,
have no means of increasing a salary once fixed,
in case they should find that the duties or expenses
of his office are increased (and with an increasing
population they must increase); so also a fixed
salary must operate as a bar to the advancement
of subordinate clerks-a point of very consider.
able importance in the efficience of all adminis
trative duties; moreover, the payment of a fixed
salary instead of fees leaves unprovided for a con-
siderable amount of labour and expenditure con-
nected with the police office, heretofore defrayed
by the clerk, although not incidental to the dis-
charge of his strict duties. Secondly, that the Return to and filing...
amount of salary recommended by the council is
inadequate, considering the numerous staff of
skilled and experienced clerks required to attend
on two courts, and in the clerk's office concurrently,
and the large expenditure for payment of printers,
stationery, books, and other matters. Thirdly,
that apart from the above reasons influencing the
justices in withholding their approval, the resolu-
tion of the town council is in its terms objection:
able if not bad on its face. The town council
have no power to make any recommendation con

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS.

Recorder.

C. S. Whitmore, Esq., Q.C
R. H. Hurst, Esq., M.P.
D. Brown, Esq., Q.C.......
A. M. Skinner, Esq., Q.C.
R. H. Hurst, Esq., M.P....
T. Gunner, Esq..
J. Catterall, Esq..

June 1858, and to pay the debts of the AngloAustralian Company. In June 1861, the British Provident Society filed a cross bill against the Anglo-Australian Company, praying that it might be declared that the deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and that it should be delivered up to be cancelled. On the 13th Jan. 1862, Stuart, V.C. made a decree that the British Provident Society was bound, according to the terms of the deed of the 1st June 1858, out of the funds and property of the British Provident Society, absolutely to hold harmless and to indemnify the Anglo-Australian Company against all liabilities. The decision was subsequently confirmed on appeal by Lord Chancellor Westbury. On the 22nd April 1864, on the petition of persons claiming to be creditors of the British Provident Society, Kindersley, V.C. declared that the Anglo-Australian Company was entitled to stand as a creditor of the British Provident Society in respect of the debts undertaken by the deed of the 1st June 1858. In pursuance of this order, the whole of the liabilities of the AngloAustralian Company were paid by the British Provident Society, except those on certain policies contained in the schedule of the deed of amalgamation. Mr. Harman and Mr. Pratt held two of these policies and were declared by Lord Westbury in June last to be entitled to prove on their policies against the Anglo-Australian Company. This company now applied that the British Provident Society might be ordered to pay Messrs. Harman and Pratt the claims they had on the Anglo-Australian Company. The case was heard on the 3rd Dec. In the argument,

Shebbeare appeared for the Anglo-Australian Company and contended that these claims must be paid in full by the British Provident Society, inasmuch as they had in express terms covenanted to indemnify the Anglo-Australian Company absolately.

Napier Higgins, Q.C., and Montague Cookson appeared for the official liquidator of the British Provident Society. They did not dispute the liability under the covenant, but contended that the terms of the British Provident Society's deed of settlement were such as to limit the liability of the shareholders to the subscribed capital of the company; and that, consequently, it was not competent for the directors to cast upon the share. holders an unlimited liability in respect of the indemnity of the deed of the 1st June 1858. Reference was made to the following cases, in which the liability was held to be limited: Re Indemnity Claims (Reilly's Alb. Rep., p. 17; 15 L. J. 141); Re British Nation Indemnity Claims (Reilly's Europ. Rep. 3; Law Times' European Reports, p. 4).

Lord ROMILLY delivered judgment. After

tiff, and the remainder of which she had paid in instalments.

that until such memorial were enrolled the trans-
feror should continue liable to all judgments and
executions. In 1859 negotiations were commenced W. Mann, who appeared for the plaintiff, said
for transferring the business of the British Com- the defendant was a married women, living apart
mercial Company to the British Nation Life As- from her husband, supporting and maintaining
surance Association. This association had power herself by her own industry, and receiving no
to take a transfer of, or to purchase, or to acquire assistance from her husband, whom she had not
the business of any other companies of a similar seen for five years. The question which would
nature, upon such terms as might be thought fit. arise in the case was whether she was liable for
The negotiations for the transfer were commenced debts apart from her husband. She was carrying
by a letter sent by the secretary of the British on a separate business of her own in Southport,
Nation Association to the directors of the British and he might take it that she was carrying on that
Commercial Company, proposing a "union of the business in accordance with the first section of
business" of the two companies upon certain the Married Women's Property Act, and that all
terms, one of which was "that the shareholders the property which she had become entitled to
of the British Commercial should be paid off at since she had been carrying on the business sepa-
the rate of 25s. per share, and their shares trans-rately would be her separate property, held for
ferred." This proposal was subsequently approved her separate use, independently of her husband.
by extraordinary general meetings of both com- She was therefore, clearly possessed of property
panies. The arrangement was carried out in this independently of her husband, and the 11th
way: By a deed dated the 8th Feb. 1860, a large num-section of the Married Woman's Property Act
ber of the shareholders covenanted with Messrs. gave her the power to sue for any debts that
Bemingham and Lake to transfer their shares into might be owing to her in respect of that property.
their names or into the names of their nominees, There was certainly no section in the Act imposing
and in the meantime to hold the shares in trust on a wife a liability to be sued in her own name,
for Messrs. Bemingham and Lake. A very large but he suggested that the fact of the Act having
number of shareholders executed this deed, and vested property separately in her and given her
subsequently transferred their shares. A few the exclusive control over it, implied a liability in
neither executed the deed nor transferred their her to pay debts in respect of that property or the
shares. By a deed dated the 7th June 1860 business by which she acquired it. Taking it as a
Messrs. Bemingham and Lake declared themselves matter of contract, he contended that the fact of
to be trustees of all shares transferred to them for a husband allowing a wife to carry on business
the British Nation Association. Finally, by a separate and apart from him impliedly conferred
deed dated the 31st Dec. 1864, after reciting inter upon her a power to contract debts in her own
alia that the shares transferred into the names of name. It was clear that in equity a married
Messrs. Bemingham and Lake were all the shares woman might bind her separate estate by a con-
of the British Commercial Company except some tract, and it was a question whether she had not
few shares, the owners of which were unknown, it power to do so by law, This property in her
was witnessed that the holders of 11,880 shares business was vested in the defendant, and it was
(out of 12,000 shares) transferred them to the only a reasonable inference that a wife should be
British Nation Association "to the intent that the enabled to bind her separate estate by a contract.
British Commercial Company and the capital and
Smith (of the firm of Smith and Boyer) argued
business thereof might thenceforth be amalga-that as far as the Married Women's Property Act
mated and merged in the British Nation Associa
was concerned, there was no implied liability such
tion." Mr. Chatteris held five shares in the
as that contended for, because if there had been
British Commercial Company, and on the 7th any intention to set aside a long-established prin-
March 1860 he executed the deed of the 8th Feb. ciple of law, there would have be.n an expressed
1860 in respect of his shares. Nothing further provision to that effect. There was no question
was done by him. He never received any con-
of separate estate in this case, and no pretence
In 1872 an
sideration in respect of his shares.
order was made to wind-up the British Commer- that the wife had pledged her separate estate.
cial Company, and the official liquidators now
applied to have Mr. Chatteris's name placed on the
list of contributories.

Napier Higgins, Q C., contended at some length that to free Mr, Chatteris from all liability would be in effect to undo the decision of Lord Westbury in Blundell's Case (L. T. Eur. Rep. 39). It was true that Mr. Rivington had been freed from all liability (Rivington's Case, L. T. Eur. Rep. 57),

His HONOUR said he was not aware that this question had ever been raised before. The defendant was a married woman, living separately from her husband and carrying on business separately from him, and the goods in respect of which she was sued were goods supplied to her in the way of her trade. Certain payments had been made on account of those goods, and she was now sued for the balance remaining due. In of coverture, and the question was whether that a good defence. It was perfectly plea was clear that in

stating the facts of the case, his Lordship but that case differed from this in several impor. answer to the claim the defendant set up the plea

said that Lord Cairns's decision in the former of

these two cases turned upon the terms of the contract, and all his argument tended

to

tant particulars. Here there was no transfer of
the shares, and consequently no enrolment. Mr.
Chatteris still appears as a shareholder in the last

common law it would be a

show that in this case his decision would have enrolled memorial. Moreover he never received good defence for a married woman had no

compelled the British Provident Society to pay the liabilities on the policies of Messrs. Harman and Pratt. Moreover, there was an express deci. sion to this effect by Stuart, V.C., and confirmed on appeal by Lord Chancellor Westbury. Lord Cairns's decision was grounded on the fact that there was not in the case before him any power to amalgamate, and that the directors acted ultra wires when they attempted to alter the fundamental principle of the original deed of settlement by giving to the directors a new authority to cast on the shareholders a liability exceeding that which would arise from the amount subscribed on the original shares. The cases before Sir John Stuart, Sir Richard Kindersley, Lord Cairns, and Lord Westbury all substantially pointed in the same direction, and tended to show that the liability of the British Provident Society under the deed of the 1st June, 1858, was an uncondi tional liability not limited to the subscribed capital of the company.

CHATTERIS'S CASE.

Contributory-Amalgamated companies-Release of shareholder of amalgamated company. THIS case involves the curious question as to whether, in the British Commercial Insurance Company, which has been ordered to be woundup, there shall be more than one contributoryviz., one of the amalgamated companies, the British Nation Life Assurance Association. The British Commercial Company was established under a deed of settlement, dated the 1st May 1821. This deed contained no provision enabling the company to transfer its business to, or to amalgamate with another company. It contained various provisions prescribing the method of transferring shares from one proprietor to another. Subsequently an Act of Parliament was passed enabling individual partners in the company to transfer their shares, and providing that on every transfer of shares a memorial thereof should be enrolled in Chancery within three months, and

any consideration in respect of his shares. All he
did was to execute the deed.

F. C. J. Millar appeared for Mr. Chatteris, and
contended that the case was governed by Riving-
ton's case, where Lord Westbury laid it down
that the formalities of transfer were necessary
only in the case of a going company, and that the
ultra vires, and after this lapse of time could only
transaction between the two companies was not
be disturbed as a whole, not by fragments.
After hearing Higgins in reply,
Lord ROMILLY reserved judgment.

COUNTY COURTS.

MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT.
Tuesday, Jan. 6, 1874.
(Before J. A. RUSSELL, Q.C., Judge.)

M'GOVERN v. HINKEY.
Married Women's Property Act-Liability of mar
ried woman to be sucd.
H., a married woman, carried on business at S.,
apart from her husband, and received no assis-
tance from him. The property acquired in the
business so carried on was admitted to be her
separate property, under the first section of the
Married Women's Property Act. She was sued
for a balance of money due for goods supplied to
her in the way of her trade.

Held, that the 11th section of the Act does not
impose a liability to be sued, but only enables a
married woman to maintain an action in her
own name to recover earnings or other property
declared by the Act to be her separate property.
W. Mann, solicitor for the plaintiff.

Smith, solicitor for the defendant.
The plaintiff, John M'Govern, haberdasher,
Union-street, Manchester, sued the defendant,
Margaret Hinkey, draper, 95, Lord-street, South-
port, for a sum of £15 128., the balance of a debt
of £35, which she had contracted with the plain-

power to contract such a debt as that in question by the common law. But it was suggested that under the Married Women's Property Act, sects. 1 and 11, the liability contended for in the present case was imposed upon a married women, not expressly, but by implication. From the language of the 1st section it struck him that it was clearly enabling. It gave a married woman the power to acquire property for

her separate use, and it did not impose any liability on her that she was not subject to before. By the 11th section a married woman was empowered to maintain an action in her own name to recover earnings or other property declared by the Act to be her separate property. That was clearly an enabling enactment, and such being the case the question was whether he was to infer that not only had this ability been created, but that a liability had been likewise imposed. Inasmuch as the statute did not impose any liability in respect to the property mentioned in sects. 1 and 11, the liability of the woman stood just as it did at common law. But did not the statute itself show that, in expressly making her, in sect. 12, liable in respect to debts contracted before marriage. He could not, therefore, go beyond the letter or the spirit of the Act, which was clearly enabling to a woman, but not rendering her subject to any liability except such as was expressly imposed upon her. He thought the liability of the defendant stood just as it did in common law, and sho was not, therefore, liable in this action. He dismissed the case.

Smith, on behalf of the defendant, applied for costs, which were granted.

MIDDLE TEMPLE HALL.-Mr. Watts, R.A., has been engaged by the Benchers to paint the portrait of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, which is to be placed in the Hall, with the consent of the Prince, who has complied with the request of the Benchers that his portrait should be painted for this ancient society.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. EVIDENCE-UNSTAMPED LETTER, OR ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY-WHETHER ADMISSIBLE-THE STAMP ACT 1870, ss. 16, 48, 54.-A letter or order directing the payment of a sum of money out of a particular fund is a bill of exchange within the meaning of ss. 16 and 48 of the Stamp Act 1870, and as such will not be received in evidence unless it has been properly stamped at the time of the making thereof: (Er parte Shellard; Re Adams and Kirby, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 621. Bank.) SHARES-ASSIGNMENT OF-DECLARATION OF TRUST-ORDER AND DISPOSITION-CHOSE IN ACTION-THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, s. 15, SUBSECT. 5.-A. was the registered owner of certain railway shares, which had been deposited with him by B. as security for advances. B. assigned the shares, subject to A.'s charge, by way of declaration of trust to C. for value. On B.'s bankruptcy, C. claimed the shares as his property, subject to the lien of A., but the registrar of the County Court decided against him. On appeal: Held (reversing the decision of the registrar) that the shares were not in the order and disposition of B., and that he held them in trust for C.: (Ex parte Barry; Re Fox, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 620. Bank.)

BILL OF EXCHANGE-POSTING IN LETTER ADDRESSED TO INDORSEE-ATTEMPTED STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU-RULES OF FRENCH POST OFFICE. -The rules of the French post office allow a person who has posted a letter to have it returned to him at any time before it has been dispatched from the office where it was posted, upon satisfying the functionaries that he is the person who posted the letter. C. posted at Lyons a letter, addressed to D. of London, containing certain bills of exchange on London, indorsed to D. On the same day C. received a telegram from D., stating that a foreign bill in exchange for which the bills on London were sent would be dishonoured, and requesting him not to remit. C. thereupon sent his clerk to the Lyons post office, from which the letter had not yet been dispatched, to reclaim the letter, but through the clerk's mistake the requisite formalities were not complied with, and the letter was dispatched and reached D. in due course. The day after he received the letter D. filed a petition for liquidation, and the bills of exchange contained in the letter came into the hands of the trustee in the liquidation. Held, that owing to the rules of the French post office, the property in the bills would not pass till the letter containing them was dispatched from the office where it was posted; and that as C. had with D.'s assent made a bona fide attempt to recover possession of the bills before the letter was dispatched from the post office, the property in the bills did not pass to D., and C. was entitled to have them delivered up to him: (Ex parte Cote; Re Deveze, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 598. Ch.)

LEGAL NEWS.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL ON FRIMO-
GENITURE, ENTAIL, AND LAND LAW
REFORM.

IN the course of his speech at the Oxford Druids'
dinner, last week, Sir Wm. Harcourt said: Before
going to the main question, let me dispose of a few
minor points. First, there is what is called the
Law of Primogeniture. (Hear.) That is a big
word, but it is not a large affair. To alter it
would neither effect such changes as some fear,
nor would it operate at all to the extent which
some hope. I don't know that any one wishes-I
am sure I do not-to prevent any man from dis-
posing of his own property at his death as he
pleases. The right to do this is one of the greatest
stimulants to industry and prudence-things in
which society is deeply interested. (Hear, hear.)
As you will presently see, what I desire is to make
the right still more absolute than it already is.
But when a man is unwise enough to die intestate
the law, in the case of his goods, makes for him
such a will as a just and fair man might be ex-
pected to make. In the case of land, on the con-
trary, the law makes a will which no conscientious
man in his sound mind would make. It accumu-
lates on one child the whole of the estate, without
regard to the interests of those for whom any
good man would feel bound to provide. Surely,
to reform such a state of the law would be a just
and a wise policy. (Cheers.) It need not lead to
subdivision, for in the case of small properties
the estate might be sold for the benefit of all.
Well, then, as to the transfer of land, every one
agrees that the present system of conveyancing
and charging is costly, dilatory, and vexatious.
(Cheers.) Who objects to an amendment of that
state of things? (Cheers.) Not, I suppose, the
proprietary class. (Hear, hear.) Every one who
buys or sells, I imagine, wishes to get as much as

he can, and to pay as little as he can help. (Hear, please, without abolishing entail altogether, sus.
hear.) I imagine that there are few vendors or pend its action so far only as it operates as a re.
purchasers actuated by the laudable desire to give striction upon the improvement of land-that is
a larger slice than they can help to their legal to say, as regards expenditure for such purposes
advisers. (A laugh.) If there be any such bene- and such purposes alone-you might with proper
volent people, I fear they are already in Littlemore protection open the entail and allow a man to act
Asylum, or are soon going there. (A laugh.) I as freely as if he were owner in fee. There would
know I am treading on dangerous ground; but not be much danger in that, for men are not apt
still I will venture to affirm that if a reform of to be spendthrifts in improvement. They are
this character is opposed, it will not be by the much more likely too spend too little than too
landed interest, but by a class of man far more much. Some such intermediate course as this
influential than Solicitors-General- I mean would appear to have been the adequate conclu
solicitors in particular. (Hear, and a laugh.) sion from the premises established by the House
But these things are only the fringes of a great of Lords' report; but this is only a partial and
question; there remains behind a far more material imperfect remedy. What is really wanted is to
topic. I hear very frequent denunciations of what unite the actual dominion more completely with
is called the feudalism of the land laws. I am bound the nominal possession-to give to each genera
to tell you that that is not an accurate description. tion a fuller control, and therefore a greater in-
With a few exceptions, to some of which I have terest in the improvements it may make to eman-
adverted, the laws which govern the devolution of cipate land from the restraints incident to a too
land are very much the same as those which limited ownership. (Hear, hear.) You need not
affect other kinds of property. But that does not fear for "the inheritance." The unlimited energy
settle the question. If a man misuses a large of the English people will do enough and to spare
personal estate, he alone is the worse for it. If for the protection of the inheritance." To make
he ruins a great landed estate, he damages hun- inen more completely masters of their own pre-
dreds of people who reside upon and are depen-perty, having due regard to rights already vested
dent upon it. That is in itself a reason why the
law which allows the limitation of the one should
not allow the same extent of limitation in the
other. Every one, I imagine, is agreed that the
great want in the case of land is the want of more
capital applied to the cultivation of the soil.
(Hear.) In the present state of agricultural
science capital can be applied with far more
advantage than formerly. In order to its proper
development a capital twice or perhaps three
times greater than that usually invested is neces
sary and profitable. It is only by an increase of
capital that we can increase that fund which will
yield a larger rent to the owner, a larger profit to
the farmer, larger wages to the labourer, and
which at the same time will give more abundant
and cheaper food to the public. (Cheers.) Surely
that is not a dangerous or mischievous object!
(Cheers.) Now, is there anything in the present
state of the law which discourages the application
of such an increased capital to the soil? It can-
not be disputed for a moment that the law of
entail, in spite of all the measures that have been
taken to mitigate its effect, is still a hindrance to
the application of capital to the land. Nobody
knows that better than the members of the House
of Lords. Their report states the case very fairly.
They say, "The case for parliamentary consider-
ation lies in this, that the improvement of land
in its effect on the price of food and on the dwell
ings of the poor is a matter of public interest, but
as an investment it is not sufficiently lucrative
to offer much attraction to capital, and that,
therefore, even slight difficulties have a power-
ful influence in arresting it." What are the
slight difficulties which have this powerful and
baneful influence? Why, the Lords admit that
it is the limited ownership created by the law of
entail, and they proceed to deal with it on that
footing. My only wonder is that, having under.
stood so clearly the evil, the remedy they offer is
so little adequate to the disease. It is quite true
that in great families, like the Devonshires, the
Sutherlands, the Bedfords, and the Leicesters,
the margin is so large that the pinch is not felt.
It is in the moderate estates, which form the bulk
of the land in England, that the evil reveals itself.
(Hear hear.) A tenant for life is in possession of
an estate say of £5000 a year, his income is little
more than sufficient for the wants of his station;
the entailed land must go to his eldest son. How
is he to provide for his younger children, the power
of charging being, as it often is, either insufficient
or already exhausted? Why, by saving for them
the money which ought to go to the land. Or,
suppose a man has a eldest son who has involved
himself irretrievably in debt- why should he
spend his savings on the estate only to benefit the
usurers who will absorb it by and by? Or sup-
pose he is childless, will he spend his money on
the land for the benefit of the heir of entail, or
will he keep it for those whom he desires to benefit
by his will? Why should he spend £20,000 to-day
on necessary farm buildings or drainage when the
benefit of the whole may go to-morrow to a man
he does not care sixpence about? Take another
case. A man has several daughters and no son.
The property is to go to some distant kinsman
whom for that very reason he probably does not
love-what will he do with his money? Will he
expend it on the estate for the benefit of the heir,
or will he save it for his children? Now, here are
four cases-I could give you fifty more-where
the law of entail beyond dispute diverts capital
from the land. It is said men desire to make
settlements for the benefit of their families. Of
course they do, but it is not necessary to make an
entail for that. You may charge your estate
without entailing it (hear, hear); and an estate
so charged may be freely dealt with subject to
the charge. I wish the system of charging were
made, as it might easily be made, simple, and less
cumbrous than it is. You might, perhaps, if you

to give them a more direct and personal interest
in the improvement of the soil-that is not confis
cation. (Cheers.) I do not desire any coercive
legislation-all I wish is that the law should not
afford special facilities and direct encouragement
to arrangements which are injurious to the
community. The law which alone gives the
power to a man to do anything at all after
his death, may and ought to prescribe the
limits within which that power shall be ex
ercised. It has already done so to a great
degree, and it may do so with advantage yet
more. Much, perhaps the greater part, of what is
wanted, must be accomplished not so much by
legislation, as by convincing settlers that such
entails are not desirable. But if the law did not
offer the facilities, they would not be made. I do
not wish to exaggerate the matter. I do not tell
you this will do everything; but in my judgment
it will do much. If we can effect this, then the
land of England will be like a rich mine of wealth
under our feet, capable of being developed for the
advantage of the present and the coming genera
tions of a great and a growing people. (Cheers.)
It is not really a question at all of large or of
small estates. A man may be poor on a large
estate and rich with a small one. What is wanted
for the good of the community is that land should
not be artificially kept in the hands of persons
who are so impoverished that they cannot do jus-
tice to the soil or to those who live upon it. Any
law which helps to prevent land passing freely
from those who cannot to those who can do well
by it is economically a bad law. (Hear.) You
cannot hinder this happening in all cases, it is true.
You cannot make a man sell an encumbered estate
if he does not choose, but you can enable him to do
so. You can prevent the law being employed to
make it impossible for him to do that which is for
the good of the community. I know there are
those who, admitting that the economical results of
the law of entail, are injurious, maintain it from
social considerations. They think it tends to keep up
old families. I have no aversion myself to old fami
lies. If they are made of good stuff, like old wine,
they grow better by keeping. If they come of a
bad vintage, the longer you bottle them the worse
they grow. (Cheers.) If a man is fit to support
a great name, he will not want the law of entail
to sustain him in the station to which he is born.
If he is not fit, the worst thing that can happen
to his race is that he should be bolstered up in a
position which he discredits. (Cheers.) I have
known more families ruined by the law of entail
than ever were saved by it. (Hear.) To me the
ordinary settlement of a strict entail seems the
most unnatural domestic arrangement that ever was
conceived. A man has a son whom he has begotten,
whom he has educated, whom he knows, whom he
loves, whom he trusts; but it is not to him that he
confides the real dominion over that estate which is
his pride. It is the unborn grandchild, of whom
he knows nothing, who may be an idiot or some-
thing worse, who is made the real master both of
the father and the son. (Hear.) What is the
consequence of this state of things? It is the
cause of more domestic misery and dissension
than anything else in the world. It inverts the
relation of father and son, it makes the son the
proprietor and the father the tenant of the estate.
(Hear, hear.) It destroys parental influence, it
subverts filial respect, it makes the son the
natural antagonist of the father, it makes the
father too often the enemy of the son. Why is it
that we see fine boys, hardly out of their teens,
who might have been a credit to their race, an
honour to their name, doomed to early bankruptcy
and premature ruin? Why is it that they fall a
prey to the gambler, the blackleg, and the money.
lender ?. Why, because they have got an indefeasi
ble reversion to sell; because from their cradles
they have been made their own masters; because,
by a fatal entail of ruinous independence, they have