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, Birming ham, 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 approval." 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 6 6 544 4 5 1867 Total fees received 1868 Ditto 1869 Ditto 1870 Ditto 1871 Ditto 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 place relative to the new table of fees, and that depu-ditional on the clerk devoting the whole of his On the 29th Oct. 1873, the council passed the his office." The resolution was forwarded to the Home Secretary, who stated that finding, from communications which had been made to him from the Sheffield borough justices, that they and the town council were not agreed upon the recommendation the town council, and considering all the he would not be giving effect to the provisions of The mayor laid before a meeting of the borough The justices present were: Joseph Hallam, The resolution having been read, it was pro- "That the justices of the said borough at this Proposed by Sir John Brown, seconded by Mr. Your committee deeply regret that the magistrates 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. At Leeds, the clerk is also paid by salary and receives £1500 per aunum, which sum includes borough fund, and the surplus of the amount of 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. "That the justices present at this meeting wish JUSTICES OF THE SAID BOROUGH. Of Special Constables under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. (No more than £2 2s. to be charged for ... Commitment.-(See "Warrant.") Conviction. words... Copy. £ s. d. 030 010 0 10 0 026 Of Alehouse Licence, under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 44... 0 2 6 Of any other Document, per folio of 72 words Every Licence to a Theatre (6 & 7 Vict. c. 68) for each calendar month Every Licence to deal in Game and Notices. Every Licence consent or authority not otherwise provided for, including registration when the same is necessary 050 050 040 To provide carriages under the Mutiny Act... Every warrant to arrest, detain, or commit, to include the name of every person included in the same charge not otherwise provided for 026 ... 030 0 1 0 010 010 01 0 Every other warrant Return to warrant or backing warrant, including oath, in each case... Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorise the demand of any fee contrary to the provisions of any Act of Parliament now or hereafter to be passed. No fees to be taken in indictable offences, in adjudications under the Criminal Justice or Juvenile Offenders Acts, or in summary convictions in addition to the fixed fees above-mentioned, nor for reswearing any person to any examination, nor for any oath, affirmation, or declaration, to obtain pay, pension, or allowance from Govern. ment, a friendly society, or charitable fund. BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. When holden. Tuesday, Jan. 13 Friday, Jan. 16 Thursday, Jan. 15.. Monday, Jan. 12 Thursday, Jan. 15. Monday, Jan. 12 Wednesday, Jan. 28.. Recorder. C. S. Whitmore, Esq., Q.C REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING. THE LANDS CLAUSES ACT. AT a meeting of the Institution of Surveyors, held last Monday evening at its rooms, Great George-street, Westminster, Mr. F. A. Philbrick, read an important paper on "The Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act, with some suggestions for their amendment." In the course of his remarks he said that the Lands' Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, with the amended Acts of 1860 and 1869, presented a tolerably complete code of law on the subject. It was formerly held that no subject could be compelled to part with his property; but as the wealth of the country increased, and the population also, the wants of the community became greater, and hence it was necessary for Parliament to grant compulsory powers for the taking of land for building, railway, and other purposes. The earliest Act of this character was the New River Act of 1605, which was framed for the purpose of bringing a free stream of running water to the northern part of London. The necessities arising for the making of streets, roadways, docks, and other works of an important public nature, specifics for these objects were sought for and obtained through Parliament; and these applications had been of late years very numerous, especially towards the latter part of the last century. The Lands Clauses Act was pretty general in its provisions. The power of purchase by agreement was expressly limited to those lands which were authorised to be taken. The taking of land involved the purchase, though the purchase of the land might involve damage or - injury to the former owner of the land who required compensation. The Act had to deal with various intricate and involved points; they had to consider positive law, or law laid down by enactment. Obviously, therefore, they should know exactly what they intended to effect, so as to be clearly understood, and to devise proper machinery to the results desired to be attained. It was very necessary that the principles of compensation should be clearly laid down. The purchase of the real estate involved, amongst other things, (1) parties able and competent to contract, and (2) the price to be paid. With regard to the fixing of the price, there were lands of such value that it was impossible to fix a price so as to tempt the owner; but the law was a fixed principle in all cases, though it should be borne in mind that hard cases made bad law. With regard to the Statute of 1845, he objected to the careless manner in which the Legislature had framed the Act, giving rise as it did to so many contentions. Speaking of the question of arbitrations, he thought that it was a useless formality for an arbitrator to make a declaration before proceeding to award. The question, too, of the taxation of costs involved many difficulties which, he trusted, would be taken into account, causing as it did great inconvenience. But when the different clauses were framed, they were not so well understood as they were at present. He would suggest the amendment of the 47th section of the Act, which referred to the jury proceedings. He would also advocate the creation of a court which should be presided over by judges and subject to a high court of appeal, which court should be charged with the duty of deciding all things arising out of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act; the funds would, he thought, be easily obtainable by all claimants paying a certain percentage towards it, which money, he was of opinion, would be well spent and would effect a great saving. In conclusion, he said that the Act had now been in operation for many years, and under it property to the value of millions had changed hands under compensation for damages, and he trusted that while venturing to suggest some amendments of the Act, the main principles of it would receive the consideration which their practical utility and good work demanded. Mr. Clark briefly proposed a vote of thanks to the reader of the paper. Mr. Ryde, in seconding the proposition, said that with regard to the amendment of the Lands Clauses Act two important suggestions had been thrown out by Mr. Philbrick. In the first place he advocated that the law should be amended, so as to give the opportunity of first contesting the right of the land to compensation before proceeding to the amount of compensation. To any such view he (the speaker) would have the greatest objection; and whether in the interest of com. panies or not, nothing should be done to increase the hardship upon the claimant. If the law were amended, it would give to the company, not prepared to pay the money, opportunity for delay, which some companies would be certain to avail themselves of. This was one question, of which the judgment of the institution would be serviceable. The other important alteration was that there should be a court of appeal. It was very desirable that mistakes of all kinds should be corrected, but were there after all many mistakes made? They must not cavil at the judgment; and taking a broad view, when the companies took a proper course, were there any mistakes made, and did many companies pay on the whole very much more than they ought to pay? The great objection would be that more liti gation than was necessary would consequently take place; and a company, not liking a decision, would appeal against it, and the matter would go on till all the money would be spent in litigation. One of the clauses of the amended Act of 1869, which dealt with the question of costs, did nobody any good, he thought, and injured companies more than anybody else. Arbi. trators considered, according to this clause, that their clients would have to pay the costs of the action if they did not recover from the company, and so the objectionable clause was bad in principle, and was a miserable failure, and it urgently required amendment. Mr. Philbrick explained that it was never his intention to suggest that any alteration of the system should be effected when once the amount of compensation was fixed, but as to errors of principle he intended his remarks to apply. On the motion of Mr. Ryde, the further discussion of the paper was adjourned till the 19th inst., and the proceedings then terminated. COMPANY LAW. EUROPEAN ASSURANCE ARBITRATION. Tuesday, Jan. 6. (Before LORD ROMILLY.) THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN COMPANY'S CASE. Rights of Companies inter se-Liability to indem nify-Limitation-Deed of Settlement. THE question in this case was whether the liability of the British Provident Life and Fire Assurance Society to indemnify the Anglo-Australian and Universal Family Life Assurance Company was limited or unlimited. These two companies were registered and incorporated under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. In 1858 the Anglo-Australian Company transferred its business to the British Provident Society. This transfer was carried out by means of an amalgamation deed, dated the 1st June 1858, and another deed of the 28th Oct. 1858, whereby the whole of the property of the Anglo-Australian Company was assigned to the British Provident Society. The former deed contained a covenant by the British Provident Society that the shareholders of the Anglo-Australian Company should, out of the funds and property of the British Provident Society, be absolutely held harmless, and indemnified against all liabilities in respect of the Anglo-Australian Company by reason of their execution, as shareholders, of that company's deed of settlement. Some time after a shareholder of the Anglo-Australian Company presented a petition to the Court of Chancery for winding-up the company, but Kindersley, V.C. dismissed the petition with costs on the 20th Jan. 1860, one of the grounds for his decision being that the British Provident Society would, under the deed of the 1st June 1858, have to pay all the debts of the AngloAustralian Company in exoneration of the shareholders of that company. In June 1860, the AngloAustralian Company filed a bill against the British Provident Society, praying that that society might be compelled to perform specifically their contract of indemnity contained in the deed of the 1st 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. tiff, and the remainder of which she had paid in instalments. that until such memorial were enrolled the trans- 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 Mr. Chatteris held five shares in the the terms of the British Provident Society's deed British Commercial Company, and on the 7th of settlement were such as to limit the liability of March 1860 he executed the deed of the 8th Feb. the shareholders to the subscribed capital of the 1860 in respect of his shares. Nothing further company; and that, consequently, it was not comwas done by him. He never received any conIn 1872 an petent for the directors to cast upon the share-sideration in respect of his shares. holders an unlimited liability in respect of the order was made to wind-up the British Commerindemnity of the deed of the 1st June 1858. cial Company, and the official liquidators now Reference was made to the following cases, in applied to have Mr. Chatteris's name placed on the which the liability was held to be limited: Re list of contributories. 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). Smith (of the firm of Smith and Boyer) argued that as far as the Married Women's Property Act was concerned, there was no implied liability such as that contended for, because if there had been any intention to set aside a long-established principle of law, there would have been an expressed provision to that effect. There was no question of separate estate in this case, and no pretence that the wife had pledged her separate estate. His HONOUR said he was not aware that this question had ever been raised before. The defendant was a married woman, living separately Napier Higgins, Q C., contended at some length from her husband and carrying on business sepathat to free Mr, Chatteris from all liability would rately from him, and the goods in respect of be in effect to undo the decision of Lord Westbury which she was sued were goods supplied to her in Blundell's Case (L. T. Eur. Rep. 39). It was in the way of her trade. Certain payments had true that Mr. Rivington had been freed from all been made on account of those goods, and she was liability (Rivington's Case, L. T. Eur. Rep. 57), now sued for the balance remaining due. In but that case differed from this in several impor answer to the claim the defendant set up the plea tant particulars. Here there was no transfer of of coverture, and the question was whether that a good defence. It was perfectly the shares, and consequently no enrolment. Mr. plea was to common law it would be a Chatteris still appears as a shareholder in the last clear that in had no enrolled memorial. Moreover he never received good defence for a married woman any consideration in respect of his shares. All he power to contract such a debt as that in question by the common law. But it was suggested did was to execute the deed. 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 Lord ROMILLY delivered judgment. After stating the facts of the case, his Lordship 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 show that in this case his decision would have compelled the British Provident Society to pay the liabilities on the policies of Messrs. Harman Moreover, there was an express decision 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 vires when they attempted to alter the funda and Pratt. F. C. J. Millar appeared for Mr. Chatteris, and contended that the case was governed by Rivington'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 transaction between the two companies was not mental principle of the original deed of settlement ultra vires, and after this lapse of time could only her separate use, and it did not impose any 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 unconditional 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 wound. up, 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 be disturbed as a whole, not by fragments. COUNTY COURTS. MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT. M'GOVERN v. HINKEY. H., a married woman, carried on business at S., Smith, solicitor for the defendant. 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 defen dant stood just as it did in common law, and she 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, 88. 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: (Ex 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 For, 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 PRIMO- IN the course of his speech at the Oxford Druids' he can, and to pay as little as he can help. (Hear, please, without abolishing entail altogether, sus. been emancipated from that wholesome control which might have saved their inexperienced youth from becoming the slave of its own passions, the victim of its own vices. To me, at least, the law of entail seems to be not only an economical error, but a social mistake, too often a domestic calamity. If a man has a worthy eldest son let him by all means leave him his estate; but if he is not worthy why should the law lend its aid to arrangements which compel such a destination? What father would not desire himself to have control of his estate, however willing some fathers may be that their sons should be limited? (Cheers.) I speak as a father myself. If I were the possessor of a great estate I should like to have the power to leave it at my death to a child who was worthy of it. I should like to be able to provide for those for whom I ought to provide. What I should most deplore would be to see the home I had cherished pass against my will into the hands of those who would discredit it (cheers) -to be compelled to consign a tenantry and a peasantry I had loved to the charge of one whom I knew would neglect them both. Believe me, this is a reform which ought not and which cannot be long delayed. (Cheers.) It is not an invasion of the rights of property, it is an enfran. chisement, an enlargement of those rights. The French writer, to whom I have already referred, and who is a great admirer of the English character, who contrasts with mournful envy the stability of our institutions with the political fortunes of France, makes the following observations. Allud. ing to this very subject of the law of entail, which he regards as the one great blot upon the rural economy of England, the speedy removal of which he confidently anticipates from his study of English political habits-says, "It must not be supposed that the English make no revolutions; on the contrary, they revolutionize to a great extent. They are always at it, but in their own quiet way. Thus, they attempt only what is possible and really useful, and one may be sure that at the close there will be complete satisfaction without the entire destruction of the past." (Cheers.) Don't be frightened by the word revolution. There are good revolutions and there are bad revolutions. A bad revolution is the worst, and a good revolution is the best thing in the world. (Hear, hear.) The constitution of this country is founded on a good revolution—a revolution which rejected everything that was bad, and maintained everything that was good. That is the sort of revolution which England loves. (Cheers.) I believe that such a revolution is possible in your land laws. (Cheers.) By freeing the land from the impediments which hinder its development you would greatly increase the produce of the soil-you would improve the condition of the people by procuring for them cheaper food-you would raise the wages of the agricultural labourer -you would enlarge the profit of the farmer-you would enhance the rent of the proprietor-you would augment the national fund from which the taxation of the State is fed-and the statesman who shall accomplish such a task by a just, an enlightened, a conciliatory policy, will consult the universal interests of the nation which shall confide to his prudence and his patriotism so great and beneficent a work. (Loud cheers.) THE IRISH BENCH. THE economic question which has been raised with respect to the appointment of a successor to the late Chief Baron Pigot is still the chief subject of discussion in the journals and in professional circles. Various arguments, some of them rather plausible, but having little substantial weight in them, others possessing greater force, are urged against the proposed reduction of the judicial bench. The national sentiment is appealed to, and an effort is made to stir up popular feeling against the measure as part of a general policy of centralisation, the effect of which, it is apprehended, would be to dismantle the Irish capital of all that gives it official dignity and social influence, and reduce the country still more into the position of an inferior province. It is not to be inferred that there is not an inde pendent public opinion in favour of retrenchment of the national expenditure, but there is an unwillingness that Ireland should be singled out for the trial of financial experiments. It is asserted that the time is not opportune for making such a change, and that if any reform be needed it should be carried out, not impulsively or with precipitation, but deliberately and after full inquiry. The Freeman returns to the subject to day, and writes in an anxious tone about the "ominous rumour." It suggests that the city members should address a direct query to the Government as to the course which it intends to take, and that should the reply point to an intention not to fill up the vacancy requisition protesting against the decision should at once be set on foot." It observes that "the people of Ireland behaved with a fatal apathy when the Landed Estates Court judgeship fell vacant," but trusts they "will adopt a prompt and manly course on the present question. It A Scotch member of the House of Commons, or, indeed, since the Cromwellian settlement, fully account for the necessity. In Scotland there are few judges, but sufficient in proportion to the legal business and population. In England there are not sufficient judges for the work, nor are they sufficiently paid, as is amply proved by the fact that in a late instance an English judge actually lost his reason from overwork; others have lost their health and lives from the same cause. Secondly, the business is much in arrear; and, lastly, the leaders of the Bar are not willing to accept the dignity with its emolument, in exchange for their professional income with its attendant exertion. We shall return to this subject next week in reference to the vacancy on the Bench created by the lamented death of the late Chief Baron.-Irish Law Times. SUICIDE OF A BARRISTER. Mr. Gilmore Evans, who has received, recently, a valuable Government appointment, committed suicide on the 2nd inst., at his chambers, in London. On Saturday afternoon Mr. W. J. Payne held an inquest at 3, Serjeant's-inn, Chancery-lane. Mr. Goodman, solicitor, of 89, Chancery-lane, having identified the body, Mrs. Wright, the housekeeper of 3, Serjeant's-inn, deposed that the deceased had been in ill-health for some weeks past, but on Thursday evening appeared more cheerful than usual, when she took him his dinner at a quarter-past 6. The next morning she went upstairs to call him about 8 o'clock, but getting no answer to her repeated knocks at the door, and being fearful that he might have become ill, she sent for Mr. Hall, the locksmith, of Fetter-lane, who broke open the door. Witness then went into the bed room, and discovered Mr. Evans lying dead in bed, with a small revolver grasped in his left hand, and a large pool of blood upon the floor, which had flowed from a wound in his head. She at once sent for a doctor and the police, but the services of the former were of course unavailing, for the poor gentleman had been dead for some six or seven hours. Mr. Hall, the locksmith, and Police-constable Woodman having given confirmatory evidence, and the surgeon having deposed that death had resulted from a pistol shot, Mr. M'Namara and Mr. Price, two of Her Majesty's Railway Commissioners, gave testimony that left little doubt upon the minds of the jury that the deceased had been suffering from extreme nervous depression and morbid agitation for some time past, and that his duties as Registrar of the Commission, although not very arduous, were somewhat novel to him, and very probably increased the agitation and depression to such an extent that his mind gave way under the unwonted strain, and he committed suicide. The jury, upon hearing this evidence, at once returned a verdict of "Suicide while of unsound mind." THE NEW LAW COURTS AT WINCHESTER.— The new law courts at Winchester are now virtually completed, and the restoration of the old gothic hall of Winchester Castle to its former design is nearly finished. The designs of the new courts and restoration were furnished by Mr. Digby Wyatt, architect, and the total cost of the whole work has probably been over £30,000. At the Epiphany Sessions on Monday, Lord Eversley presiding, Mr. Melville Portal, chairman of the Public Works Committee, announced that they could not yet present a complete financial report, but they hoped to be able to do so at the next sessions. The committee contemplated-and they hoped to have the support of the magistrates of the county in the matter-the filling the windows of the old hall with painted glass. This was not a kind of work which they would be justified in throwing upon the county rates, but they hoped the undertaking was one that would commend itself to the magistrates at large throughout the county, and that no difficulty would be experienced in obtaining funds sufficient to fill the whole of the windows. The committee proposed to illus. trate by this means the history of the county from its earliest period, by displaying the names, arms, and deeds of those persons who were either natives of Hampshire or immediately connected with the county in a remarkable manner. These would be chronologically arranged, and the windows from one end of the hall to the other would form so many pages of county history, which well-informed persons would be able to understand easily. They had consulted Mr. Hardman, who had furnished the designs now in the room, and the windows were estimated to cost 100 guineas each. The first was already promised, the noble chairman, the Earl of Carnnarvon, Sir William Heathcote, and himself having agreed to defray its cost. Two benches of magistrates had also signified their desire to help in the matter, and their architect, Mr. Digby Wyatt, had promised a donation of £25. Lord Henry Scott, M.P., said the scheme deserved the greatest possible encouragement, and he hoped all the support possible would be accorded to it, for no one could visit that noble hall without seeing that painted glass, supposing the colouring was not so deep as to obscure the light, would be a great |