March 10, at cleven, at office of Sol. Wright, Norwich MORLEY, RICHARD, carpenter, Rounton-rd, Campbell-rd, Bow. Pet. Feb. 24. March 12, at three, at office of Sols. Wood and Hare, Basinghall-st

MORONEY, WILLIAM, millwright, Bradford. Pet. Feb. 17. March 5, at ten, at office of Sol. Rhodes, Bradford

MORRIS, EDWARD, victualler, Tornyrefail, near Pontypridd. Pet, Feb. 21. March 10, at one, at the Angel hotel, Cardiff MORRISS, LAURENCE, butcher, Rotherham. Pet. Feb. 24. March 11, at four, at office of Sol. Gee, Sheffield

MORTON, WILLIAM, sen. and MORTON, EDMUND, fruit merchants Pet. Feb. 21. March 9, at two, at office of Sols. Messrs. Joel, Newcastle

NEWMAN, HENRY, out of business, Ramsgate. Pet. Feb. 23. March 11, at three, at office of Sols. Treherne and Wolferstan, Ramsgate

NICHOLLS, RICHARD, volta medicated cloth manufacturer, High Holborn. Pet. Feb. 24. March 17, at one, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sols. Reed and Lovell, Guildhallchmbs, Basinghall-st

NICHOLLS, WILLIAM, grocer, Willenhall. Pet. Feb. 21. March
11, at eleven, at office of Sol. Cresswell, Willenhall
O'NEILL, JOHN, grocer, Church-st, St. John's, Horsely down.
Pet. Feb. 24. March 11, at twelve, at 4, Dyer's-bldgs, Holborn.
Sol. Drake
Pet. Feb. 23.
March 12, at three, at office of Bennison and Co. accountants,
Middlesbrough. Sol. Dobson, Middlesbrough
PATTRICK, CHARLES, commercial traveller, Bedford-gdns, Camp-
den-hill-rd, Kensington. Pet. Feb. 20. March 12, at three, at
office of Sols. Harper, Broad, and Battock, Rood-la
POTTER, HENRY, shoemaker, Barnet. Pet. Feb. 24. March 12,
at three, at office of Sol. Wells, Paternoster-row
POWELL, HENRY JOHN, Comedian, Clerkenwell. Pet. Feb. 25.
March 16, at eleven, at the Sadlers' Wells theatre, Clerkenwell.
Sol. Goatley

OWEN, ISAAC, out of business, Middlesbrough.

PRAGER, HENRY, steel manufacturer, Sheffield. Pet. Feb. 25. March 11, at twelve, at the Cutlers'-hall, Sheffield. Sol. Tattershall, Sheffield

PRATT, DAVID, thimble manufacturer, Birmingham. Pet. Feb. 23. March 10, at eleven, at office of Sol. Davies, Birmingham RALPH, GEORGE, coal merchant, Sandwich. Pet. Feb. 24. March 14, at two, at the Fleur-de-Lis hotel, Sandwich. Sol. Edmonds, Deal

READE, RICHARD, clerk in holy orders, Tregunter-rd, South Kensington. Pet. Feb. 24. March 19, at two, at office of Sols. Tilley and Liggins, Finsbury-pl-south

REAY, JOSEPH, grocer, Cockermouth. Pet. Feb. 24. March 12,
at eleven, at office of Sol. Wicks, Cockermouth
REDFEARN, JOE WILLIAM, and REDFEARN, JOHN SHAW,
woollen manufacturers, Huddersfield. Pet. Fet. 21. March 11,
at three, at office of Sols, Clough and Son, Huddersfield
REED, HENRY, corn chandler, Bethnal-green-rd. Pet. Feb. 19.
March 6, at ten, at office of Sol. Hope, Serle-st, Lincoln's-inn-
fields

REYNOLDS, JOHN JAMES, dyer. Peterborough. Pet. Feb. 21.
March 9, at twelve, at office of Sol. Gaches, Peterborough
ROE, THOMAS, potato dealer, Bristol. Pet. Feb. 25. March 7, at
eleven, at office of Sol. Essery, Bristol
ROGERS, GEORGE, grocer, Osney, and Oxford.
March 16, at two, at office of Sol. Cooper, Oxford
SANDERSON, HENRY, grocer, West Hartlepool. Pet. Feb. 24.
March 11, at twelve, at office of Sols. Dobing and Simpson, West
Hartlepool

Pet. Feb. 20.

SAUNDERS, MARY PRUDENCE, ladies' outfitter, Liverpool. Pet. Feb. 23. March 11, at two, at office of T. T. Rogers, 16, Lord-st, Liverpool

SHIELD, HENRY WILLIAM, barrister's clerk, Westmoreland-pl, Westbourne-pk. Pet. Feb. 24. March 19, at three, at offices of Sol. Kilsby, Cheapside

SIMMONS, JOHN, earthenware dealer, Manchester. Pet. Feb. 23. March 10, at three, at office of Sol, Shippey, Manchester SLAYMAKER, ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, Centre-row, Covent-gdnmarket, and James-st, Covent-gdn. Pet. Feb. 17. March 9, at twelve, at office of Sols. Bartlett and Forbes, Bedford-st, Coventgdn SLEE, WILLIAM, mason, Braunton. Pet. Feb. 24. March 14, at two. at office of Sol. Bencraft, Barnstaple SMITH, SAMUEL, publican, Burton-on-Trent.

Pet. Feb. 25. March 14, at two, at office of Sols. Stevenson and Smith, Burtonon-Trent

SODEN, JOHN, nurseryman, Oxford. Pet. Feb. 17. March 9, at twelve, at office of Stocken and Jupp, solicitors, Leadenhall-st. Sol. Swearse, Oxford

TATE, JAMES, and TATE, ALFRED, boot manufacturer, Leeds. Pet. Feb. 24. March 11, at one, at office of Sols. Rooke and Midgley, Leeds

TAYLOR, ALFRED COCKRELL, chemist, Westbury. Pet. Feb. 24. March 17, at one, at the Lopes Arms hotel, Westbury. Sols. Chapman and Ponting, Warminster

THOMAS, THOMAS DAVID, and THOMAS, JOHN, drapers, Liverpool. Pet. Feb. 24. March 16, at three, at office of Sols. Barrell and Rodway, Liverpool

THOMPSON, JAMES, stone mason, Aylesbury. Pet. Feb. 24. March 16, at eleven, at Reader and Son's Auction rooms, Aylesbury Pet. THOMPSON, WILLIAM FREDERICK, grocer, Manchester. Feb. 23. March 13, at three, at office of Sol. Sampson, Manchestér TURNER, WILLIAM, bootmaker, Bury St. Edmunds. Pet. Feb. 21. March 17, at twelve, at office of Sols. Messrs. Salmon, Bury St. Edmunds VERTUE, PHILIP ALGERNON, and GOODING, FREDERICK HENRY, hop merchants, Borough High-st. Pet. Feb. 23. March 12, at three, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sols. Sandon and Kersey

VIRGO, JOHN BRUMBLE, butler, York. Pet. Feb. 25. March 13, at three, at office of Sols. Messrs. Holtby, York WALKER, HENRY, baker, Manchester. Pet. Feb. 23. March 17, at three, at office of Sol. Diggles, Manchester WARD, THOMAS, basket maker, Bradford. Pet. Feb. 24. March 13, at eleven, at office of Sol. Burnley, Bradford WARDLEY, JOSHUA, grocer, Blackburn. Pet. Feb. 23. March 10, at eleven, at office of Sols. Messrs. Radcliffe, Blackburn WATKINS, JONATHAN FOWLER, butcher, Weymouth. Pet. Feb. 25. March 16, at twelve, at the Auction Mart, Weymouth Sol. Howard, Weymouth

WILLIAMSON, THOMAS, fishmonger, Pembroke Dock. Pet. Feb. 21. March 9, at a quartet past ten, at the Guildhall, Carmarthen. Sol. Parry, Pembroke Dock WRIGHT, THOMAS, woollen warehouseman, Manchester. Pet. Feb. 25. March 16, at three, at office of Sols. Addleshaw and Warburton, Manchester

Gazette, March 3.

ANSTY, THOMAS, coach builder, Southampton. Pet. Feb. 25.
March 13, at two, at the Guildhall coffee-house, Gresham-st.
Sol. Stanton
BAKER, EDWIN, grocer, Bride-st, Liverpool-rd, Islington. Pet.
Feb. 26. March 23, at three, at offices of Holloway, accountant,
Ball's Pond-rd, Islington. Sol. Heathfield, Lincoln's-inn-fields
BARRETT, JAMES, boot maker, Buckfastleigh. Pet. Feb. 27.
March 14, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Curteis, East Stonehouse
BENSON, CHARLES, farmer, Bloxham. Pet. Feb. 28. March 17, at
eleven, at offices of Sols. Kilby and Son, Banbury
BOOTES, RICHARD, hosier, Bradford. Pet. Feb. 26. March 13, at
cleven, at office of Sols. Watson and Dickons, Bradford
BRADLEY, WILLIAM, draper, Brompton Regis. Pet. Feb. 26.
March 14, at two, at the London and South-Western hotel,
Exeter. Sol. Rogers, Exeter

BROOKS, DAVID, builder, Ash-grove, Hackney. Pet. Feb. 18.
March 11, at twelve, at offices of Hudgell, Gresham-st. Sol.
Gray, Greshamn-st
BRYDE, THOMAS, stevedore, Liscard. Pet. Feb. 18. March 16, at
three, at office of Braithwaite, accountant, Liverpool. Sol.
Anderson, Birkenhead

BULLOCK. THOMAS, commission agent, Birmingham. Pet. Feb. 24. March 11, at three, at offices of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham BURTON, WILLIAM, licensed victualler, Little Sutton. Pet. Feb. 28. March 9, at four, at office of Sol. Parry, Birmingham CHAPMAN, CHARLES, wheelwright, Little Hay, Shenstone. Pet. Feb. 27. March 16, at eleven, at office of Sol. Stanley, Walsall CHURLY, JAMES, marine store dealer, Spring-place, Wandsworthrd. Pet. Feb. 24. March 12, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Hunter, London-wall. Sol. Ede, Ludgate-hill

CLARKE, THOMAS, fruiterer, Holt. Pet. Feb. 27. March 11, at three, at offices of Sol. Tree, Worcester

COOK, JOHN, painter, Dunstable. Pet. Feb. 25. March 17, at twelve, at the magistrates' clerk's office, Dunstable. Sol Middleton, Dunstable

COOPER, THOMAS, rural post messenger, Kirbymoorside. Pet Feb. 26. March 17, at one, at the White Horse inn, Kirbymoor site. Sol. Pearson, Helmsley

COURTEILLE, EUGENE, hair dresser, Upper Baker-st, Marylebone. Pet. Feb. 27. March 20, at three, at offices of Sol. Cordwell, College-hill, Cannon-st

CROWTHER, THOMAS EDWARD, music seller, Leeds. Pet. Feb. 26. March 12, at eleven, at 6, John-st, Bedford-row, London. Sol. Storey, Halifax

DODRIDGE, THOMAS MITCHELL, out of business, Lilleshall-rd, Clapham. Pet. Feb. 26. March 13, at one, at office of Sol. Perry, Ludgate-hill

DORE, THOMAS JAMES, carrier, Waterloo-rd, Surrey. Pet. Feb. 14. March 11, at two, at office of Sol. Gowing, Coleman-st EDWARDS, WILLIAM, farm steward, Blofield. Pet. Feb. 28. March 16, at twelve, at office of Sols. Emerson and Sparrow, Norwich

ELBA, THOMAS JAMES, gas manufacturer, Llanllechid. Pet. Feb.
23. March 12, at one, at the Castle hotel, Bangor. Sols. Barber
and Hughes, Bangor
EVANS, ENOCH HUGH, agent for the sale of artificial food, Lampe-
ter. Pet. Feb. 27. March 14, at one, at offices of Sols. Green and
Griffiths, Carmarthen

EVANS, THOMAS, builder, Swansea. Pet. Feb. 25. March 13, at
eleven, at office of Sols. Davies and Hartland, Swansea
FENTON, ALBERT, and WILSON, SAMUEL, needle manufacturers,
Redditch. Pet. Feb. 24. March 13, at three, at the Swan hotel
Birmingham. Sol. Simmons, Redditch

GAUNT, JOSEPH HENRY, draper, Pudsey. Pet. Feb. 27. March
17, at twelve, ut office of Sol. Pullan, Leeds
GEORGE, THOMAS DANIEL, painter, Swansea. Pet. Feb. 28.
March 19, at two, at the White Lion hotel, Broad-st, Bristol.
Sol. Woodward

GOULD, JAMES, grocer, Sandy-hill, Plumstead. Pet. Feb. 19.
March 13, at three, at offices of Sol. Cooper, Charing-cross
GREEN, FREDERIC, woollen draper, Long Eaton. Pet. Feb. 28.
March 20, at twelve, at offices of Sols. Parsons and Bright, Not-
tingham

GRIFFITHS, WILLIAM, greengrocer, Birmingham. Pet. Feb. 26. March 13, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham GROOM, EBENEZER, cheesemonger, Auckland-st, Vauxhall. Pet. Feb. 16. March 12, at three, at offices of Sol. Cooper, Charing

cross

HALLETT, FRANCIS HENRY, brickmaker, Trowbridge. Pet. Feb. 26. March 16, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Rodway, Trowbridge HAMBRIDGE, CHARLES, surveyor, Guildford-st, Russell-sq. Pet. Feb. 27. March 16, at eleven, at offices of Sols. Chorley and Crawford, Moorgate-st HAMMOND, WILLIAM, upholsterer, Lewes. Pet. Feb. 21. March 10, at twelve, at the London Warehousemen's Association, Gutter-la, London. Sol. Stuckey, Brighton

HARRIS, EDWIN DOUGLAS, butcher, Southampton. Pet. Feb. 24. March 12, at four, at offices of Sol. Paice, Landport. Sol. King, Portsea

HARRIS, FRANCIS JOSEPH, ironmonger, Kentish Town-rd. Pet. Feb. 26. March 21, at three, at offices of Sol. Boydell, South-sq, Gray's-inn HARRISON, PHILIP, grocer, Ipswich. Pet. Feb. 27. March 14, at eleven, at office of Sol. Watts, Ipswich HARTLEY, EZRA BROWN, and WALKER, JAMES, woollen manufacturers, Leeds and Morley. Pet. Feb. 26. March 16, at two,

at offices of Sols. Simpson and Burrell, Leeds HARVARD, ROBERT APPLETON CHARLES, toy merchant, Houndsditch. Pet. Feb. 28. March 21, at twelve, at office of Sols. Flux and Leadbitter, Leadenhall-st HEAP, JOHN, flock merchant, Shoreditch, and Crabtree-rd, Hackney-rd. Pet. Feb. 27. March 21, at eleven, at office of Sol. Hutson, Clifton-st, Finsbury

HELLIWELL, GEORGE, Scythe manufacturer, Hackenthorpe. Pet. Feb. 28. March 12, at twelve, at office of Sol. Machen, Sheffield HOLLAND, RICHARD, bookkeeper, Salford. Pet. Feb. 26. March 19, at four, at offices of Sol. Best, Manchester HUTCHINS, CHARLES, fish merchant, Birmingham. Pet. Feb. 26. March 13, at three, at office of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham JEFFREYS, JOHN, dairyman, Upper Grange-rd, Bermondsey, and Balaclava-rd, Bermondsey. Pet. Feb. 24. March 11, at eleven, at the Five Bells coffee-room, Bermondsey-sq, Bermondsey. Sol. Bilton, Renfrew-rd, Kennington-la, Lambeth JONES, JOHN ALLIN, jun., earth closet manufacturer, Birmingham, and Smallheath. Pet. Feb. 27. March 13, at eleven, at offices of Sols. Webb and Spencer, Birmingham LAMBERT, SARAH, baker, Chipstead, Chevening. Pet. Feb. 27. March 12, at twelve, at offices of Sols. Holcroft, Knocker, and Holcroft, Sevenoaks

LANGDON, JAMES HENRY, commission agent, Hart-st, Mark-la, and Charlotte-villa, Woodford. Pet. Feb. 23. March 20, at two, at offices of Sol. Hilbery, Crutched-friars LAWRENCE, ALEXANDER, wholesale saddler, Moseley, and Birmingham. Pet. Feb. 27. March 16, at twelve, at the Hen and Chickens hotel, Birmingham. Sol. Eaden, Birmingham LAWTY, JOHN, butcher, Burlington. Pet. Feb. 25. March 16, at three, at the Black Lion inn, Burlington. Sols. Jarratt and Turner, Driffield

LETT, BARNABAS, coal merchant, Worcester. Pet. Feb. 27.
March 20, at eleven, at offices of Sols. Corbett, Worcester
LOVE, THOMAS, builder, Barrow-in-Furness. Pet. Feb. 25. March
11, at three, at offices of Sol. Gooden, Manchester
LUCAS, GEORGE, outfitter, Sittingbourne. Pet. Feb. 25. March
18, at eleven, at the Masons' Hall tavern, Masons'-avenue. Sol.
Winch, Chatham

MARSDEN, HARRY ALEXANDER, draper, Leeds. Pet. Feb. 25.
March 13, at twelve, at office of Sol. Pullan, Leeds
MAUGHAM, THOMAS, mineral water manufacturer, Clapham-rd.
Surrey. Pet. Feb. 25. March 13, at three, at offices of Sols,
Nicholls and Leatherdale, Old Jewry-chmbs., Old Jewry. Sol.
David Howell

MCARTHUR, PETER, licensed victualler, East Ham. Pet. Feb.
25. March 17, at two, at office of Sol. Rawlings, Bishopsgate-st
Within
MCPHERSON, ROBERT, tobacconist, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Pet.
Feb. 25. March 24, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Johnston,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne

MORRIS, THOMAS, tailor, Bangor. Pet. Feb. 26. March 14, at twelve, at the Liverpool Arms hotel, Chester. Sol. Roberts, Chester

MOULDS, JOSEPH, joiner, Grantham. Pet. Feb. 23. March 17, at one, at the Angel hotel, Grantham. Sol. Belk, Nottingham MUDDYMAN, WILLIAM, greengrocer, Birmingham. Pet. Feb. 27. March 19, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham NICE, HENRY EDWARD, cheesemonger, High-st, Stratford. Pet. Feb. 24. March 12, at ten, at offices of Sol. Hope, Serle-st, Lincoln's-inn-fields

PERRY, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS, provision dealer, Westbromwich. Pet. Feb. 27. March 17, at two, at offices of Sol. Travis, Tipton POOLE, THOMAS GEORGE BRUCE, builder, Hastings. Pet. Feb. 27. March 17, at eleven, at office of Sol. Howell, jun., Hastings POOLEY, ALEXANDER GOPSELL, financial agent, Bush-la, Can" non-st. Pet. Feb. 27. March 16, at twelve, at office of Sols Taylor and Jaquet, South-st, Finsbury-sq POTTER, THOMAS, painter, Matlock Bridge. Pet. Feb. 24. March 17, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Hextall, Derby PUGH, JOHN, baker, Wichenford, near Worcester. Pet. Feb. 25. March 11, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Foster, Birmingham REDFEARN, JOE WILLIAM, and REDFEARN, JOHN SHAW, woollen manufacturers, Huddersfield. Pet. Feb. 26. March 16, at half.past two, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Clough and Son, Huddersfield

REED, HENRY WILSON, surgeon, Cleveland-sq, Hyde-park. Pet. Feb. 24. March 13, at three, at office of Sol. Wetherfield, Gresham-bdgs, Basinghall-st

REED, JOHN SHERWILL, inn keeper, Newton Abbot. Pet. Feb. 27. March 20, at twelve, at offices of Sols. Carter and Son. Torquay

REES, DANIEL, grocer, Ystrad, near Pontypridd. Pet. Feb. 26. March 14, at one, at offices of Sols. Simon and Plews, Merthyr Tydfil

RHYS, CHARLES CURETON, law student, Hill-st, Rutland-gate. Pet. Feb. 26. March 13, at twelve, at offices of Sols. Beyfus and Beyfus, Lincoln's-inn-fields

ROBERTS, JOHN, draper, Redruth. Pet. Feb. 27. March 14, at half past two, at office of Sol. Downing, Redruth. Sol. Dendy, Redruth.

RODDY, OWEN, hatter, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Pet. Feb. 3. March 23, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Johnston, Newcastleupon-Tyne

ROWLANDS, HENRY, and COWIE, CHARLES EDWARD, chandelier manufacturers, Birmingham. Pet. Feb. 26. March 12, at three at the Great Wes tern hotel, Birmingham. Sol. Rooke, Birming ham

RYDER, THOMAS, boot maker, Cheltenham. Pet. Feb. 18. March 9, at twelve, at the offices of Sol. Potter, Cheltenham SEED, JAMES, farmer, Habergham Eaves. Pet. Feb. 28. March 20, at three, at 10, Nicholas-st, Burnley. Sol. Hartley

SKINNER, SAMUEL, contractor, Harrogate. Pet. Feb. 27, March

19, at two, at offices of Sol. Harle, Leeds

SMITH, CHARLES, builder, Cold Harbour-la, Brixton. Pet. Feb. 27. March 17, at eleven, at offices of Sols. Tippetts, Son, and Tickle, Great St. Thomas Apostle

SUCKLING, SAMUEL, butcher, Birmingham. Pet. Feb. 28. March 16, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Parry, Birmingham TAYLOR, HENRY GEORGE MOFFATT, of no occupation, Grevillerd, Kilburn. Pet. Feb. 23. March 17, at three, at offices of Sols. Lumley and Lumley, Conduit-st, Bond-st

THOMAS, JAMES, grocer, Chalford. Pet. Feb. 27. March 16, eleven, at the Swan inn, Stroud. Sol. Smith

THORP, THOMAS EDWARD, and SWAINE, JOSEPH HENRY, dyers, Leeds. Pet. Feb. 26. March 17, at half-past three, at office of Sols. Messrs. Middleton, Leeds

TURNER, ANN, grocer, Halifax. Pet. Feb. 26. March 13, at three, at office of Sol. Rhodes, Halifax

TURNER, JOHN, farm bailiff, Goybrey. Pet. Feb. 28. March 19, at eleven, at office of Sol. Watkins, Pontypool

TYAS, AMOs, fancy woollen manufacturer, Huddersfield. Pet. Feb. 27. March 16, at eleven, at office of Sols. Messrs. Barker, Huddersfield

TYERMAN, JOHN, box maker, Nottingham. Pet. Feb. 25. March 17, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Brittle, Nottingham WALDY, CHARLES RICHARD WILLIAM WALDY, clerk in holy orders, Gussage All Saints. Pet. Feb. 26. March 23, at eleven, at office of Sol. Rawlins, Wimborne Minster WALSH, HENRY, game dealer, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manches. ter. Pet. Feb. 26. March 16, at three, at offices of Sols. Heath and Sons, Manchester

WATSON, WILLIAM, iron shipbuilder, Sunderland. Pet. Feb. 18.
March 16, at twelve, at the Queen's hotel, Sunderland. Sol.
Robinson, Sunderland

WATTS, WILLIAM, tobacco pipe manufacturer, Norwich. Pet.
Feb. 26. March 16, at twelve, at offices of Sols. Emerson and
Sparrow, Norwich.
WELLS, THOMAS, china dealer, Collingwood-st, Mile-end. Pet
March 2. March 17, at ten, at office of Sol. Goatley, Westminster
bridge-rd

WHITEHEAD, WILLIAM, boot maker, Barnet-st, Hackney-rd,-
Bethnal-green. Pet. Feb. 26. March 24, at two, at office of SoL.
Lind, Beaufort-bdgs, Strand

WHITEHOUSE, JOHN, farmer, Northfield. Pet. Feb. 27. March
16, at twelve, at offices of Sol. Fallows, Birmingham
WHITFIELD, SAMUEL, farmer, Sutton. Pet. Feb 27. March 20,
at three, at the George hotel, Shrewsbury. Sol. Richards,
Shrewsbury
WIESSNER, LEOPOLD MORITZ, jeweller, Churton-st, Pimlico.
Pet. Feb. 26. March 17, at eleven, at office of Sol. Thorp,
Cranbourn-st, Leicester-sq

WIGHTMAN, SAMUEL RADFORD, hosiery manufacturer, Nottingham, and Kirby-in-Ashfield. Pet. Feb. 25. March 16, at twelve,

at office of Sol. Hogg, Nottingham WILLIAMS, JOHN NICHOLAS, mariner, Ramsgate. Pet. Feb. 27. March 16, at three, at office of Sols. Treherne, and Wolferstan, Ramsgate WILLIAMS, ROBERT, hotel_keeper, Llanrwst. Pet. Feb. 24. March 11, at twelve, at the Eagles hotel, Llanrwst. Sol. James, Llanrwst

WILLIAMSON, GEORGE, butcher, High-st, Hoxton. Pet. Feb. 27. March 16, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Plunkett, Gutter-la, E.C. WILSON, WILLIAM, licensed victualler, Stokes Croft, Bristol. Pet. Feb. 24. March 14, at twelve, at offices of Hancock, Triggs, and Co., accountants, Bristol. Sol. Bowles, Bristol

Dibidends.

BANKRUPTS' ESTATES.

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

Cooper, E. F. H. of Widdecombe-in-the-Moor, further 18. 3d. Daw, Exeter.-Riron, A. W. solicitor, first 1d. Paget, Basinghallst.-Snow, P. T. lieutenant-colonel, third Is. 73d. and 68. 4d. to new proofs. Paget, Basinghall st.-Titherington, W. cotton broker, Liverpool, third 28. 2d.- Woodgate, E. electro-plate manufacturer, first 198. 12d. Paget, Basinghall-st

Aiken, W. and W. A. merchants, 5d. At Sols. West and King, 66, Cannon-st.-Cheetham, T. hosier, first and final 3s. At Sols. Man and Son, 1, New-st, York.-Drury, C. V. victualler, 58. At Sols. Munn and Mace, Tenterden.-Gardner, J. grocer, first 108. At Trust. S. Chetwood, Sun-st, Waltham Abbey.-Gicht, C. glass dealer, first and final 1s. 6d. At Sols. Saunders and Bradbury, 41, Cherry-st, Birmingham. - Hinchclife, E. silk manufacturer, first and final 1s. 8d. At Trust. W. Cross, 17, Duke-st, Maccles field.

Jeffery, J. R., Jeffery, W.S., Jeffery, F. J., Barnard, J., Watts,W. H., and Heard, W. silk mercers, third 5d.; first sep. of 18. 8d. of J. R. Jeffery first and final sep, of 24d. of W. S. Jeffery; first and final sep. of 1d. of F. J. Jeffery; first and final sep. of 1-5d, of Barnard. At offices of Baggs, Clarke, and Josolyne, 28, King-st, Cheapside. Mitchell, T. C. chemist and druggist, first, 58. 2d. At Trust. J. Routh, Royal Insurance-bdgs., Park-row, Leeds.-Powell, H. of Bathampton, first and final, 1s. 10d. At Trust. W. M. Wilson, Bridge-st., Salisbury-Roberts, T. farmer, first 48. At Sols. P. Llanwarne, 8, St. John-st, Hereford.--Rolleston, S. clerk, second At Trust. S. Wills, Wadebridge.-Taylor, H. B. wine merchant, first 38. At offices of Minton, Boyes, and Child, accountants, 2, Carey-la.

38.

Orders of Discharge.

Gazette, Feb. 24.

HODES, GEORGE, and HODES, WALTER, engineers, Worthing MATTHEWS, JAMES, bricklayer, Upper James.st, Golden-sq THOMPSON, RICHARD, grocer, Scarborough

THORPE, RUPERT WILLIAM, commercial traveller, Wolverhampton

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS

BIRTHS.

BLAKE.-On the 26th ult., at 20, Stanley-gardens, Notting-hill, the wife of Charles Henry Blake, Esq., of a son. EVERITT.-On the 1st inst., at 27, Cleveland-square, Hyde-park, the wife of F. W. E. Everitt, of Lincoln's-inn, barrister-at-law,

of a son.

GLENN. On the 23rd ult., at South Norwood, the wife of R. G.
Glenn, Esq., LL.B., barrister-at-law, of a son.

STARLING. On the 6th ult., at Malabar Hill, Bombay, the wife of
M. H. Starling, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a son.
WALKER.-On the 2nd inst., the wife of James Douglas Walker
barrister-at-law, of a son.

MARRIAGES.
JONES-LAVER.-On the 28th ult., at St. Andrew's, Well-street,
Francis Augustus Jones, solicitor, Chelmsford, to Bessie, widow
of the late Samuel Laver, Carlisle.
DEATHS.
ANDERSON.-On the 24th ult., at Long Benton, near Newcastle-on-
Tyne, Joseph Anderson, Esq., solicitor, Westgate-street, New-
castle-on-Tyne.
BROWNE-On the 27th ult., at The Park, Nottingham, age 41
Walter Browne, solicitor.

Cox. On the 26th ult., at Putney Park Lodge, Putney, age 79,
George Cox, of 4, Cloak-lane, London, solicitor.
HOLMES. On the 27th ult., at 20, Sunderland-terrace, Bayswater,
age 44, Charles Arbuthnot Holmes, barrister-at-law.
KING. On the 21st ult., at Grantham, Lincolnshire, age 89, John
Poore King, solicitor.

MACANDREW.-On the 2nd inst., at Randolph-crescent, Edinburgh, J. Macandrew, solicitor before the Supreme Courts of Scotland.

NICHOLS. On the 26th ult.. at Farnham, Surrey, age 68, Ben
Nichols, for many years a solicitor in that town,
SCOTT. On the 3rd inst., at 32, Eccleston-street, age 49, William
Carmalt Scott, Esq., judge of County Courts.
SHIPTON. On the 1st inst., at Chesterfield, Derbyshire, Frances
Catherine, wife of Thomas Shipton, solicitor.
SILVESTER On the 26th ult., at Worthington, near Wigan, age
74, Edward Edge Silvester, Esq., J.P.

TREHERNE.-On the 25th inst., Martha, the beloved wife of John Thomas Treherne, solicitor, of 20, Ironmonger-lane, Cheapside; also of Acton and Ramsgate.

WALTER-On the 22nd ult, at Ember Grove, Thames Ditton, and of 11, Newgate-street, age 5o, William Walter, solicitor.

M

Now ready, price 58. 6d., VOL. II., Part 2, of

ARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). By J. P. ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in all the Superior Courts, with a Selection from the Decisions of the United States Courts, with Notes by the Editor. The First Series of "Maritime Law" may now be had complete in Three Volumes, half bound, price £5 5s. for the set, or any single volume for 22 2s. Back numbers may be had to complete sets,

London: HORACE Cox, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C.

SOME interesting points of election law have arisen during proceedings at chambers in connection with the pending election petitions. Of one we give a report elsewhere, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE having ordered particulars to be given by the petitioners eight days before the day of hearing, with leave however to add any fresh particulars of cases coming to their knowledge after the commencement of the eight days. This is a considerable modification of the old practice, and we understand that the order will be appealed to the court. The other case to which we refer raises VOL. LVI.-No. 1615.

the question from what period the twenty-one days within which a petition must be filed is to run-from the posting of the return by the returning officer, or from its receipt by the Clerk of the Crown ? The fate of a member may depend upon the way in which this point is decided. It would be well if an Election Judge were sitting at chambers, the pressure of business having been serious during the last few days.

THE railway companies are being hit hard by barristers in the matter of unpunctuality, the example of Mr. FORSYTH, Q.C., at Reading, having been followed by Mr. C. H. TURNER, of the Chancery Bar, at Marylebone. The plaintiff sued the Great Western Railway Company, not only for expenses entailed by having to sleep at an hotel when he had a return ticket by which, if the trains had carried him according to the time bills, he could have returned to town the same night, and for loss of time, but for loss of his franchise, the object of his journey being to vote at the recent election. Owing to delay on the railway he arrived at the booth two minutes late, and was consequently unable to vote. Mr. Serjt. WHELLER has reserved his judgment until the 14th of April. In another case, heard and decided at Salisbury, by Mr. LEFROY, the South-Western Railway Company was held guilty of negligence in delaying a train until the arrival of a train on another line. This is important, as trains on one line (if not competing) frequently wait in trains on another line. The learned Judge said that negligence of one company did not excuse another, and that there was no sufficient explanation of the failure to be at the destination at the time advertised in the time bill.

THE growing pressure of work thrown upon the Education Department of the Privy Council by the working of the Elementary Education Acts of 1870 and 1873 has again necessitated an increase of the permanent staff. Many of the existing Inspectors of Schools have found it difficult, even with the help of the assistants who were assigned to them in 1870, to keep pace with their work, as every month adds new schools to their lists. In many cases managers are prevented from placing their schools under Government supervision and obtaining annual grants, solely by the impossibility of procuring the services of a certificated teacher, and it may be expected that the number of successful candidates at the last Christmas examination, the results of which will be published in a few days, will not be found nearly sufficient to supply the demand. Five additional Inspectors of Schools are at once to be appointed, and will shortly be gazetted. It is believed that the nominations have already been made by the Lord President, the Duke of Richmond. In addition, the staff employed in the office of the department at Whitehall has been increased by the addition of three examiners, Messrs. Pooley, Robertson, and Ritchie, of whom the two former gentlemen had previously acted as Inspectors of Returns under the Act of 1870.

IN a pamphlet, the main features of which we notice at length elsewhere, Lord Justice CHRISTIAN discusses the relative positions of law and equity, and arrives at the conclusion that to appoint a common law lawyer to an equity court involves a radical misconception. It follows necessarily from this that he considers that for the purposes of the Judicature Act, equity lawyers should be raised to the Bench in preference to professors of the common law. At the same time, however, he admits that "to be a good equity lawyer one must begin by being a good common law lawyer." Admitting this, we do not quite see how it is possible to follow his lordship, when he objects to the appointment of common law lawyers to the Equity Bench. There are very few lawyers in the present day who do not know a good deal of equity, and it is the practice of the Court of Chancery which makes it difficult for a member of the Common Law Bar to administer equity satisfactorily. But even on this ground we question whether an eminent common law lawyer would refuse an equity judgeship, and we doubt whether Lord Justice CHRISTIAN is right in his facts when he says that Sir JOHN COLERIDGE refused the Mastership of the Rolls from a want of confidence in his capacity to deal with the work of the court. Again, in his comments upon the present constitution of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, we do not think that the LORD JUSTICE is reasonable in his inferences. He notices quite properly that Lord Justice MELLISH in cases of pure equity observes a discreet reserve, leaving his colleague to deliver judg ment, and contenting himself with simple concurrence. What would happen, asks Lord Justice CHRISTIAN, if the common-law member of the court were the senior Lord Justice? The reply is that he would be worked harder than a Judge familiar all his life with equity jurisprudence; but that he would deliver luminous and sound judgments we have not the smallest doubt. This is not Lord Justice CHRISTIAN'S opinion; he considers that "the equity Lord Justice would be compelled in every case of difficulty or importance to deliver a second full judgment for the purpose of dispelling the confusions or supplying the shortcomings of his undisciplined leader." What idea can be entertained by the LORD JUSTICE of the capacity of the

But

eminent men practising at the Common Law Bar that he should consider them absolutely "nescient" of the principles of equity jurisprudence or incapable of solving a problem in equity? the LORD JUSTICE throughout his pamphlet is driven to extremes, and in this instance he uses one of his wildest suppositions. "And let me," he says, "add this further proposition, that this selfasserting (sic) Common Law Justice instead of being a MELLISH, were merely some declaimer from the Old Bailey or the Guildhall, and I ask how long then the Court of Appeal in Chancery in England would continue to justify the great name that has come down to it ?" What possible object is there in supposing utter impossibilities ? We might as well ask, supposing the O'DONOGHUE were made Lord Chancellor of Ireland, what would happen to the court of Lord Justice CHRISTIAN? We are willing to admit, however, that as a Court of Equity the English Lords Justices' Court was stronger in the days of their Lordships' predecessors; but that as at present constituted, dealing largely as it does with jointstock and bankruptcy cases, it is an excellent Court of Appeal no one can dispute; and we certainly cannot agree that it affords any argument against the appointment of common law lawyers to the Equity Bench, or to any division of the future High Court.

It is the proverbial wish of the vindictive that their enemy should write a book; and we regret that Dr. KENEALY should have voluntarily placed additional weapons of destruction in the hands of those who desire to see him degraded, by writing to the newspapers: first, a letter amounting almost to a challenge; and, secondly, a letter of explanation and quasi apology. We regret it the more because it is perfectly evident that the learned gentleman has been, as we stated last week, led away by his peculiar temper, and by the force of circumstaces, and we believe him when he says that he means no disrespect to the Judges who presided at the recent trial. The first of his two letters was altogether of a piece with his speeches, full of rhetorical sarcasm and covert abuse, whilst it was intended to be an exculpation and justification. One portion of the letter deserves particular notice, because it refers to proceedings believed to be pending. Why, asks Dr. Kenealy, did not the judges commit him for contempt, instead of waiting until after the trial to persecute him and crush him in some hole and corner investigation? The great majority of the learned counsel's indiscretions and improprieties possibly were not contempts in the technical sense, and it would have been exceedingly inconvenient to have dealt with them as such while the trial was proceeding. Further, it must not be assumed that the conduct of an advocate which is not punishable as contempt is therefore not a matter to be taken cognizance of by the governing bodies of the Bar. The serious question which the Benchers if they do their duty must investigate is whether a member of an inn of court has been guilty of any offence against the rules of conduct which must be strictly observed if the Bar of England is to maintain its reputation, and further, whether by violating those rules he has proved himself to be a person who cannot be safely entrusted with the high and responsible privileges of an English barrister.

WE believe that the "Railway Travellers' Protection Society" will shortly put forward its full prospectus. The minimum subscription is to be fixed at 10s. annually for the general, and 3s. 3d. annually for the mercantile public. In return for this small amount subscribers are to be entitled to the assistance of the society in obtaining redress of railway grievances. Besides the attainment of a reasonable prospect of safety in travelling, the society is to do its best to secure remedies for inconvenient arrangements at booking offices, unpunctuality of trains, inadequacy of train and station accommodation, and defects of comfort in railway carriages and stations. As regards goods traffic, terminal charges, special rates, and the clearing house classification, are to be carefully scrutinised. Reports of railway cases, whether heard before the railway commissioners, or the courts cf law, reports of the Board of Trade on railway companies, and the halfyearly reports are to be collected and registered, while the companies are to be supported in any improvements which they may show a disposition to introduce. The attention of the Government is to be called to the shortcomings of particular companies, and fresh railway legislation is to be promoted when found desirable. The whole forms an ambitious programme, and one which, if judiciously carried out, is likely to be widely useful. Those companies who conduct their business properly will be gainers rather than losers by it, inasmuch as they will have grievances brought before them with the deliberation and calmness of a public prosecutor. As for those companies who conduct their business improperly, the sooner they are prosecuted and punished the better. The present special modes of proceeding against railway companies appear to be three, either (1) by means of the Board of Trade, under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, whenever it shall appear to the Board of Trade that a company is either contravening a statute or acting "in a manner unauthorised" by statute (as to which see Attorney-General v. Great Northern Railway Company, 29 L. J. 794, Ch.); or (2) by an application to the Railway Commissioners (under 36 & 37 Vict.

c. 48) to enjoin a railway company to give "reasonable facilities for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of traffic, or to cease giving an undue preference (as to which see Baxendale v. Great Western Railway Company, 5 C. B., N. S., 336; 32 L. T. Rep. 128); or (3) an action for damages. The consciousness of belonging to a society which will at all events know which of these three reme dies to select will inspire a new vigour into railway passengers. And if a grievance be discovered which the law cannot remedy, the companies, well aware of the significant clause which is to be found in every special railway Act passed since 1845, to the effect that "nothing herein contained shall exempt the railway

by this Act authorised to be made, from the provisions of any general Act relating to railways or from any future revision

or alteration under the authority of Parliament, of maximum rates and charges," will no doubt hasten of their own accord to provide a remedy.

THE great weight of Lord ST. LEONARDS' authority makes any extra-judicial statement of his almost as binding as the decision of a Judge, and his works are constantly quoted as deci sive upon any point to which they refer. We would therefore respectfully urge that the statement on p. 301 of his work on Powers, relative to the interpretation of the 27th section of the Wills Act, requires modification, both in view of the end and scope of the statute itself, and of actual decision explanatory of it. That section provides that unless a contrary intention appear by the will, a general devise or bequest will include property over which the testator has a power to appoint in any manner he may think proper. The important question in interpreting this clause is, What is meant by a general power or a power to appoint "in any manner the testator "may think proper? The words of Lord ST. LEONARDS are, "General powers only therefore are within the statute, and a general power of disposition is for this purpose deemed equivalent to a fee." That is to say, the power must be one exercisable either by deed or will in favour of any person whom the testator may select, the words "in any manner relating not only to the objects of the power, but also to the instru ments by which it may be executed. A general testamentary power, therefore, according to this view of the clause, would not be legally executed by a general devise or bequest. This seems, however, to be a very artificial construction of the Act, and is entirely opposed to its spirit, which was to facilitate rather than impede the execution of powers. And the statute, relating exclu⚫ sively to the making of wills and other testamentary instruments, contemplates no other than a testamentary execution of a power, and cannot be supposed to lay down rules, even constructively, in respect of the execution of powers by deed. The words "in any manner are sufficiently satisfied by explaining them to mean" in favour of any objects whom he may select" in contradistinction to a power to appoint to children or any other limited class; and indeed, the above quoted dicta of Lord ST. LEONARDS may now be regarded as practically overruled. And the case of Moss v. Harter (2 Sm. & G. 458), quoted in Powers 8th edit., p. 305, scarcely justifies the narrower construction. In that case there was a power to appoint by instrument in writing and gift over in default of appointment. The donor of this power appointed part by deed, and afterwards made his will, by which he gave all his personal estate not otherwise effectively disposed of, and all that the decision amounted to was that the testator did not intend to deal with property which was otherwise effectually disposed of. The cases of Bush v. Cowan (32 Beav.); Prover v. Hassel (1 J. & H.), and Minton v. Kirwood (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 781), seem to be decisive in favour of the more liberal interpretation.

THE case of Hatton v. Heywood, which came lately before the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices, clearly defines and places in a satisfactory position the relative rights and duties of judg ment as compared with simple contract creditors. The law was previously perfectly clear as to judgments which affected the legal estate in land. This, however, was a case which only affected an equity of redemption, the debtor having previously mortgaged the property. A judgment was obtained, but as the legal estate was outstanding in the mortgagee, the land could not be delivered in execution. The law on the subject is embodied in three statutes, viz., 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, according to which judgments are to operate as a charge on all the debtor's interests in land; 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, which requires that all judgments shall, in order to take effect, be duly registered in the manner provided by the Act, and enforced within three months of registration. Unless these conditions be complied with, the judgment is null and void as against purchasers and mortgagees with or without notice. Hence the inconsistency has been avoided which is to be found in some of the decisions concerning the registration of deeds in places where there is a Land Registry, requiring registration for the validity of an instrument, and yet holding that notice of an unregistered, that is, of an incomplete and invalid instrument, shall affect purchasers. The third statute is 27 & 28 Vict., which provides that no judgment shall affect any land which has not been actually delivered in execution by writ of eligit or other lawful authority. These statutes exhibit a varying tendency on the part of the Legislature, and the

rights of judgment creditors have been considerably curtailed by the two last-named statutes, which expressly refer only to legal interests, whereas 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 declares that judgments shall operate as a charge on all the debtor's interests in land, that is, we may presume, legal or equitable. The decision in this case furnishes an admirable instance of the ratio decidendi as applied to the interpretation of a statute. It establishes an equitable as well as a legal remedy in cases of this class, and lays down the rule that when the interest is equitable, and the sheriff returns nihil, and the bill is not filed till the debtor becomes bankrupt, no charge is established before the bankruptcy which can be set up against the trustee; but that e contra (according to Lord Justice MELLISH's judgment) whilst legal interests may be reached by the judgment creditor by means of an action at law, equitable estates may be vested in the creditor by a decree of a court of equity, "which therefore does in respect of equitable interests that which the sheriff's return does as to legal interests;" the decree in equity being the "other lawful authority," referred to in addition to the writ of elegit in the statute 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112, which therefore leaves the earlier statutes in force except in so far as they are expressly repealed.

LORD JUSTICE CHRISTIAN ON IRISH APPEALS. THE Irish Lord Justice (Christian) has published some observations upon the pending changes in the appellate system of the United Kingdom, and with his usual vigour he points out what he conceives to be the dangers attending the abolition of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. The Judicature Act does not deprive Ireland of the right of appeal to that House, but Lord Justice Christian foresees that this remnant of judicial power will soon be taken away, and he predicts that the consequences will be most disastrous. The grounds upon which he arrives at this conclusion are not altogether flattering to Irish lawyers, whilst, on the other hand, they must be very gratifying to English lawyers. Looking at the provisions of the Act, and the importation of Irish judges into the Court of Appeal, our learned author considers it likely that in course of time Irish appeals will be heard by a band of Irish judges sitting in Dublin. We cannot agree that this catastrophe is at all probable, and we, indeed, recently published, on what we deemed to be sufficient authority, a rumour that the disposition of the Conservative Government was rather in favour of restoration than of further demolition. The views of such a judge as Lord Justice Christian must, at a time like the present, carry considerable weight, and if there was foundation, in fact, for the rumour we have mentioned, his pamphlet should influence ministers and induce them to stop at the point now reached if they cannot see their way to giving back the jurisdiction which the Lords have already abandoned.

We must confess, however, that we are somewhat surprised to find the Lord Justice taking such remarkably strong views in favour of the old jurisdiction of the House of Lords. Overlooking entirely the inherent weakness of the tribunal, and its haphazard constitution, he finds in it an object not only of his veneration and respect, but of his unbounded enthusiasm. He speaks of it as having preserved the unity of jurisprudence, and thereby given strength and substance to the parchment bond of union between the two countries, "for happily," he says, "it is not in the way of paper ordinance merely that the law of England has been the law of Ireland; the Anglican spirit and genius have hitherto, as a rule, inspired the Irish tribunals in their administration of that law." This we willingly concede-it is desirable that the law of the United Kingdom should come from one source; but the question is whether the two or three law lords who have been in the habit of sitting on appeals could be considered from an imperial point of view a satisfactory tribunal. As an English court of appeal from the Lords Justices and Lord Chancellor, and the Court of Exchequer Chamber, it was inefficient; but it must be acknowledged that whilst inefficient as a court of appeal from English courts, it may be, and probably is, an excellent court of appeal from Irish Courts. At any rate it would seem to be the opinion of the Lord Justice that an appeal to even inferior English Judges sitting at Westminster would be better than an appeal to the ablest Irish Judges sitting in Dublin. He tells us, indeed, that "Her Majesty's Court of Appeal," as constituted under the Judicature Act, when extended to Ireland, may be found as satisfactory to that country as the House of Lords has been, but more so it cannot by any possi bility prove. He adds, "The contentment of Ireland, with that House as its court of last resort has, in fact, been boundless." The Lord Justice, in his experience of nearly forty years, has "never heard a murmur against it." "The Judges whose decisions may have been reversed, even the unsuccessful parties or their counsel, however disappointed by the result, never reclaimed against that tribunal"-which, if true, shows the Irish to be a much maligned race- -"and even when, as would sometimes happen, the reasoning of the Law Lords might seem a little bald and inconclusive, it was still the same; no one cared to look beyond the mere factum of their conclusion. In short, the House had won for itself that fulness of acceptance which is the truest touchstone of desert for a court of last appeal, when all would be

We venture to think that no condemned tribunal-and condemned out of its own mouth-ever possessed a blinder panegyrist, and we fear that the excess of the zeal of the Lord Justice must detract from the cogency of his remarks. We find it very difficult to believe that no murmur has ever arisen within the last forty years from Irish Judges whose decisions have been reversed, and from unsuccessful counsel and parties. Possibly such murmurs would not reach the ears of so devoted an admirer of the tribunal as Lord Justice Christian; but if the fact be as he states it, there must have been a predisposition to consider Irish Judges as likely to be in the wrong. With a strong Bench in Ireland, and a Bench in the ability of which the people believed, it seems to us impossible_that, the decision of two English exChancellors and a Scotch Law Lord reverisng a decision of that Bench should be received without discontent. The Lord Justice evidently does not desire to cast any reflection upon the Irish Bench as a body, and we must assume that it is regarded with respect. This being so, the absence of discontent is an extraordinary circumstance, and proves either that the Irish people accept the decisions of a tribunal on its reputation without regard to its constitution, or that they possess very limited power of discernment. The important question is, however, whether the tribunal, such as it is, should be retained or be abolished, and a new court created which by possibility so far as Ireland is concerned, may become a purely Irish Court of Appeal-that is a court composed exclusively of Irish judges. The first point to be agreed upon is this supposing the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to be extended to Ireland, is it probable that Irish cases will be relegated to an Irish division of the Court of Appeal? The Lord Justice does not seem to have any doubt on the matter. "It may be anticipated with tolerable certainty," he says, "that, as a rule, the divisional courts that would sit for Irish appeals would be, in the whole or in the majority, composed of Irish judges." Why? Because, says the Lord Justice, the English members of the court would find themselves burdened with English business, and would say to the Irish members "mind your own business and leave us to ours." To find a man of the ability and capacity of Lord Justice Christian arriving at such a conviction is certainly amazing. To believe in a result of that kind is to underrate the common sense and conscientiousness of English judges; moveover, such a division of labour would be altogether opposed to existing notions of what a Supreme Court of Appeal ought to be and how it should do its work. But according to Lord Justice Christian, not only the English Judges would be anxious to promote the relegation of Irish business to the Irish members. Depend upon it," he says, they would be supported in maintaining that distribution by the English suitors and the English Bar. These two classes would not only grumble at any delay in their own affairs, but they would energetically reclaim against any active interference of the Irish element with themselves." Could anything be more preposterous or absolutely baseless? There have been delays enough in the House of Lords, but it has never been urged, to our knowledge, that Irish and Scotch business should be put on one side. Before suitors or the Bar could have a voice in the matter, however, the Judges would have to initiate the division of business. This we are satisfied they never would do, and consequently it becomes unnecessary to discuss the possible action of other persons interested. It also becomes unnecessary to consider further whether the appellate court would be likely to be transferred to Dublin.

66

We cannot help thinking that the Lord Justice has been oppressed by the thought of what might happen if Irishmen were left to manage their own affairs. A passage which he puts in italics is very significant. It is this: "The inevitable outcome of it all would be that the function of supreme appeal for Ireland would eventually fall into the hands of a little band of Irish Judges located in Dublin." From this fear oppressing the mind of the Lord Justice arises all that he imagines-first, the division of the Court of Appeal into as many departments as there are countries from which appeals come (certainly, if the Lord Justice's theory is correct as to Scotland and Ireland); and, secondly, local apellate courts-hence the degradation of the law, damage to society, and, lastly, the loosening of the bonds of union between the countries.

The answer to all this is perfectly simple. In the first place it is by no means certain that the Irish and Scotch appeals will be taken away from the House of Lords. Supposing they were, what says the Judicature Act? That in the absence of rules or orders of court the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal shall be exercised as nearly as may be in the same manner as the same might have been exercised by the respective courts from which such jurisdiction shall have been transferred, or by any of such courts: (s. 23.) No order of court could possibly be made by which particular business should be disposed of by Judges who came from the same country as the business, and the Judges could not venture to arrange matters amongst themselves so secure such a result Whilst, therefore, we repeat that the observations of Lord Justice Christian are entitled to high consideration, we are driven to the conclusion that, impelled by his dread of Irish legal business being entirely localized, he

as

to

has unduly exalted the virtues of the House of Lords, and bases his regrets for the possible abolition of its Irish jurisdiction entirely upon his fears. If his fears are quieted, if it appears that the Court of Appeal for the empire will treat all business alike, the whole of his argument falls to the ground. On the other hand, however, his Lordship makes some suggestions which are well worth considering. One is that the Judges of England and Ireland should be Judges of both countries, English Judges going Irish circuits, and vice versa. This, perhaps, might be better for Ireland than England. Another is that the Bars of both countries should be thrown open and have free inter-communication. This the Lord Justice regards as likely to lead to the abolition of a Lord Chancellorship in Ireland. He concludes his observations by recurring to the proposal of last July to hand over the Irish appeals to the new court. "That proposal," he says," if carried into effect, would make the first step towards a disastrous partitioning by nationalities of the supreme pronouncements of the law, a dislocating of our one living unity, the unity of jurisprudence, and a slackening of our best curb upon the disintegrating forces which underlie the Irish policy of these latter years. The 'fusion of law and equity is very well in its way, but the fusion of England and Ireland is a greater subject still; and if the so much vaunted Judicature Act should be found so to work as to obstruct or retard by even a little that noblest consummation, it will have done a mischief for which not all the good that the most devout of its votaries could anticipate for it, within its own more narrow sphere, would be an adequate equivalent."

THE LIABILITY OF INFANTS TO BANKRUPTCY. We have recently had occasion to advert to a decision of a learned County Court Judge to the effect that an infant against whom damages had been obtained in an action of tort might be adjudicated bankrupt. We expressed our doubts as to the soundness of his Honour's law, and the question raised, being undecided by any case under recent Acts of Parliament changing the operation of the law of bankruptcy is one of some interest.

The history of the bankruptcy law with reference to infants is somewhat curious. Early authorities, notably Lord Cowper and Lord Macclesfield, decided that a commission might issue against an infant, but in Ex parte Sidebotham Lord Hardwicke said that since those judges had pronounced their opinions the law had been declared to be the other way. It is not quite clear to what Lord Hardwicke refers, but it is evident that in his time it was considered as absolute law that a commission against .an infant was at any rate voidable, that is to say, that an infant might bring his action against his assignee, and, on proof of infancy, vacate the commission. Lord Holt also decided that an infant could not be a trader subject to a commission, and he said that though the debts of an infant are only voidable at his election, yet no man can be made a bankrupt for debts which he is not obliged to pay. These early decisions would appear so thoroughly to have settled the law that as stated in the argument in M'Lean v. Dummett (22 L. T. Rep. N.S. 710), it has ever since been considered that an infant could not be made a bankrupt unless he had induced persons dealing with him to believe him to be sui juris. Had there been no reform in our bankruptcy laws concerning the class of persons to be brought within their operation, no question could have arisen with a chance of being decided otherwise than in accordance with the decision of Lord Hardwicke. The Act of 1861, however, made all debtors, whether traders or non-traders, liable to bankruptcy, and the point now to be considered is whether the fact that nontraders are liable to be made bankrupt alters the position of

infants.

It is of course not open to question that in respect of contracts an infant's liability is not affected by the fact of his being a trader. For any debt due by virtue of any contract save for necessaries he is not liable, and inasmuch as (to use the words of Lord Holt) he cannot be compelled to pay his debts, he cannot be made bankrupt in respect of them. The question of trader or no trader is therefore immaterial, and under the Act of 1861 it was decided (in the cases of Smedley and Prosser), that infants might make themselves bankrupt on their own petition, whilst under a colonial Act "for the more effectual settlement of the debts of insolvent traders," an infant trader was held not liable to be adjudicated bankrupt on the petition of a creditor : (Maclean v. Dummett). A correspondent has submitted that this last case does not affect the ruling of the learned County Court Judge, having been decided upon a statute dealing with traders. It is, however, on that score none the less of an authority upon the general question; but we notice in the judgment delivered by Lord Justice Giffard, it is said "Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that if any action has been brought against Maclean, a plea of infancy would have been fatal to that action; and therefore upon that ground that these proceedings in bankruptcy ought to have been superseded." This observation is in favour of the view that where a debt is the result of an action to which infancy could not be pleaded, it may ground bankruptcy proceedings against an infant. But does it go the length of establishing that an infant can be made a bankrupt on a judgment in an action for unliquidated

damages? We shall be very glad if it can be so held, as in that event the adjudication by the County Court Judge was perfectly right. What then is the effect of the verdict and judgment? It would appear clear that the case would come within the section of the Debtors' Act which says that "any court may direct any person in pursuance of any order or judgment of that or of any other competent court to be paid by instalments," and in default of payment to commit to prison. If then an infant under such order might be committed, why might he not be made bankrupt?

As we have stated, the old authorities proceeding on the ground that no one could be made bankrupt upon a claim which he was not bound to satisfy, decided that an infant could not be made a bankrupt. Non-traders have been liable to bankruptcy since 1861, but during the thirteen years which have elapsed it has not been held that an infant could be compulsorily made a bankrupt. Mr. Stonor is the first Judge who has so held. He has more reasons in support of his view than at the first blush we thought he had, and, whether he is right or wrong, it is difficult positively to say. The question is one which some time or other must be settled by high authority.

THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THE RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.

A STATISTICAL and energetic article in the Railway News of Feb. 21 in favour of the repeal of the passenger duty contains the remarkable statement that for the year 1872 alone the amount claimed from the railway companies was £960,000, of which the companies have paid only £506,189, for reasons which we will examine presently, and that the Inland Revenue are now suing for the difference. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, it is added, complain of the great delays which the law allows the companies to interpose, and have reported that these delays will doubtless prove prejudicial to the shareholders when called upon for the accumulated arrears of duty. The sum of £300,000, to which the arrears must now amount, if our contemporary be correct (and there is no reason to doubt his correctness), is so enor mous, that it becomes of real interest to taxpayers to inquire whether it is likely to be recovered. The point is purely a legal one, and lies in a very narrow compass.

By 7 & 8 Vict. c. 85 (the State Purchase Act 1844) s. 6, after reciting that "it is expedient to secure to the poorer class of travellers the means of travelling by railway at moderate fares, and in carriages in which they may be protected from the weather," it is enacted that "all passenger railway companies... shall by means of one train at the least to travel along their railway from one end to the other .. once at the least each way on every week day. provide for the conveyance of third-class passengers to and from the terminal and other ordinary passenger stations of the railway," with statutory obligations and immunities, "and also under the following (seven) conditions, that is to say: . . . such train shall, if required, take up and set down passengers at every passenger station which it shall pass on the line The other conditions are, approval of the time by the Board of Trade, speed of twelve miles an hour, including stoppages, protection from the weather, maximum fare of one penny a mile, allowance of certain weight of luggage, and half fares for children. By s. 9, "no tax shall be levied . . . from the conveyance of passengers at fares not exceeding one penny for each mile by any such cheap train as aforesaid." These two sections of the Act of 1844 contain, we believe, the whole law of the subject. Now for the facts. We presume that the following extract from the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Amalgamation 1872, p. xvii., may be taken to be correct:

The differences in principle between the companies and the depart ment of Inland Revenue are serious. The companies claim exemption on all the trains they may run in the day which comply with the Parlia mentary condition of conveying passengers at fares not exceeding 1d. a mile, provided they are approved by the Board of Trade. The Inland Revenue denies their right to exemption unless the other conditions of the Act are complied with, as to taking up and setting down passengers, and so forth. The companies claim exemption on double journey tickets, where the aggregate fare is less than 1d. a mile. The department denies their right to exemption unless the single journey is also charged for at 1d. a mile, or less. The companies claim exemption where less than 1d. a mile is charged for the whole distance, although the trains may not stop at every station. The department deny the claim unless the train stops at every station throughout the whole journey. These questions are now (1872) being brought before the courts (sic.) of law....

Now which is in the right, the companies or " the department?" The whole question, we think, depends upon what meaning is to be given to the words "if required " in the condition as to stopping at every station which we have set out verbatim above. Do they mean that each of the exempted trains must be prepared to stop at every station if required there and then, or do they mean that the power to require the stoppage is exhausted when the passenger takes his ticket for a station beyond any station which is adver tised to be passed without stopping? Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto. Section 6, as the preamble shows, is for the benefit of the passenger, and why may he not waive a condition which may in some events be obviously prejudicial to him from the mere fact of delaying his journey? On the other hand it may