Page images
PDF
EPUB

EWART (John), 182, Upper Kennington-la. Dec. 31; A. E. Green and Co., accountants, 17, Coleman-st.

FORESTIER-WALKER (Sir George Ferdinand Radzivill), baronet, Castleton, Monmouthshire. Dec. 23; Carlisle, Unna, Rider, and Heaton, solicitors, 8, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn.

GIBBS (William), Culm Davy, Hemyock, Devonshire, licensed hawker. Jan. 1; W. T Booker, solicitor, Wellington, Somerset.

HEAVEN (Hester Sophia), 3, Osborne-villas, Cheltenham. Gloucestershire. Dec. 25; A. G. and N. G. Heaven, solicitors, 9. John-st, Bristol.

HEAVEN (Harriett), 3, Osborne-villas, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. Dec. 25; A. G. and N. G. Heaven, solicitors, 9, John-st, Bristol. HOOPER (Joseph), Newport, Monmouthshire, carpenter.

tor, Albany-chmbrs, Newport. Mon.

Dec. 31; T. B. Jones, solici

HARRISON (Sarah), Colwell near Barrasford, Northumberland, spinster. Dec. 31; Cooper and Goodger, solicitors, 27, Grey-st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. HARRISON (William), Colwell College, Colwell, near Barrasford, Northumberland, gentleman. Dec. 31; Cooper and Goodger, solicitors, 27, Grey-st, Newcastleupon-Tyne.

HOLMES (Margaret), Huntingdon, widow. Dec. 28; Hunny bun and Sons, solicitors, Huntingdon.

HOLAH (William). Birmingham, Warwickshire, formerly of Willington-pl. Stoke Newington, gentleman. Dec. 23; Maples, Teesdale, and Co., solicitors, 6, Frederick's-pl, Old Jewry.

ISAACS (Barnard), 89, Canfield-grdns. South Hampstead, financier. Jan. 1; F. GrahamEmanuel, solicitor, Portland House, Guildhall.

JONES (Richard), Albert House, Rhyl, Flintshire, grocer. Jan. 9; J. Pierce-Lewis, solicitor, Townhall-bldgs, Rhyl.

JONES (Robert Barrow), High-st Whitchurch, Shropshire, printer and stationer. Jan. 4; Etches and Lee, solicitors, Whitehurch, Salop.

JENKINS (Henry), 34, Holland-pk. Bayswater, gentleman. Jan. 1; Peters and Bolton, solicitors, 2A, Guildhall-chmbrs, Basinghall-st.

JOHNSON (William Edward), trading as W. Jones and Co., 399 and 400, Farm-st, Hockley, Birmingham pitch paper manufacturer. Jan. 1; D. Davis, solicitor, 26, Corporation-st, Birmingham.

JONES (Henry), formerly of 30. Sotherby-rd, Highbury. late of 103, Queen's-rd, Finsbury Park, and of 30. Great Saffron-hill, Farringdon-st. Jan. 1; B. Webb, solicitor, 16, St. Helen's-pl, Bishopsgate-st.

KELLETT (Mark). 74, Binbrook-st. Bradford, Yorkshire, ironmoulder. Dec. 31;
Gaunt, Hines, and Bottomley, solicitors. Tanfield-bldgs. Bradford.
KEMP (Mary), formerly of Hose, near Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, late of 62,
East Lamartine-st, Nottinghamshire, widow. Dec. 26; Mair and Blunt, solicitors,
2, King Edward-st, Macclesfield

KENNARD (Howard John), 20, Hyde Park-ter, and of 67, Upper Thomas-st, gentleman. Dec. 31; Carlisle, Unna Rider, and Heaton. solicitors, 8, New-sq, Lincoln's-inn.

LONGBOTTOM (James), Upper Laith Farm, Bradley. near Huddersfield, Yorkshire,
farmer. Dec. 15; G. Furniss, solicitor, Bank-bldgs, Brighouse.
LAMACRAFT (Nicholas), 1, Higher Belmont-rd, Exeter, retired maltster.
E. J. Brutton, solicitor. Exeter.

Dec. 25;

LUSCOMBE (Laura), 1. Salcombe-villas, Merton Park, Surrey, widow. Dec. 28; H.
White, solicitor, 7, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury.
LAURENCE (John Zachariah), 44, Holland-rd. Kensington, and of 27, Gracechurch-st,
formerly of 165, Queen Victoria-st, and afterwards of 210, Strand, solicitor
Dec. 27; Paice and Cross, solicitors, 6, Furnival's-inn.

LEMAN (Frances Henrietta Flora Eliza), Skirbeek, near Boston, Lincolnshire. spinster. Jan. 1; Jebb and Son. solicitors, Boston, Lincolnshire.

MOORE (James), Hayes, Atworth, Wiltshire, gentleman. Feb. 1; Keary and Stokes, solicitors. Chippenham, Wilts.

MARSHALL (John), Artichoke Inn, Orpington, Kent, licensed victualler. Jan. 6; Barraud and Jupp, solicitors, 7, St. Mildred's-et, Poultry.

MEAKIN (Richard), Coreley. Shropshire, retired farmer. Dec. 31: Mrs. A. K. Aston, acting executor, Elmoresend, Whitbourne, near Worcester. E. L. Cave, solicitor, Bromyard.

NICHOLLS (Mary Maria). Rowden Hill House, Chippenham, Wiltshire, spinster.
Feb. 1; Keary and Stokes, solicitors, Chippenham, Wilts.
NICHOLLS (Charles Jarvis), Sundridge, Kent, house decorator. Jan. 1; Carnell and

Son, solicitors, 150, High-st, Sevenoaks, Kent.
OAKES (Mary Elizabeth), Umballa, India, widow, who died at 54, the Drive, Brighton,
Sussex. Jan. 25; Burton Yeates, and Hart, solicitors, 23, Surrey-st.
ORRELL (James), 333, Bolton-rd, Darwen, Lancashire, contractor and innkeeper.
Dec. 12; F. G. Hindle, solicitor. 3, Bolton-rd, Darwen.
ORGILL-LEMAN (Thomas), Brampton. Essex, clerk in holy orders; or his widow,
Orgill-Leman (Emily Antonia), late of Chargrove House, Cheltenham, Gloucester-
shire. Dec. 12: Meyler and Sheppard, solicitors, 8, Hammet-st, Taunton.
PARPOTT (Robert Benson), Margaret st, Poole, Dorset, aërated-water manufacturer.
Dec. 19; Druces and Attlee, solicitors, 10, Billiter-sq.

PLATT (Frances Sarah), Hotspur House, Hotspur-st, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, spinster.
Jan. 4: Sale, Seddon, and Co., solicitors, 29, Booth-st, Manchester.
POTTS (Peter), Priory Mount, Broad-rd. Sale, Cheshire, gentleman.
Marriott and Co., solicitors. 12, Norfolk-st, Manchester.

Dec. 31;

PRIOR (Eller), 21, Brunswick-st. Yeovil. Somersetshire, widow. March 1; R. Knight, solicitor. Allithwaite, Grange-over-Sands, Lancashire.

PARKER (Thomas), Beighton, Derbyshire. Jan. 1; Alderson, Son, and Dust, solicitors, 40, Bank-st, Sheffield.

PARDON (John), 20, Pindock-mews, Maida Vale. Dec. 31; Wilson and Son, solicitors, 20, Basinghall-st.

PRIDE (John Edmond), 93 and 95, Camden-rd, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, harness maker. Dec. 31; W. J. Pratt and W. F. Trowell, executors, 93 and 95, Camden-rd, Tunbridge Wells.

PACKE (Charles). Stretton Hall, Leicestershire, gentleman. Jan. 1; E. Lawson,
solicitor, 25, Lincoln's-inn-flds.
PARKER (Reginald Amphlett), 25, Cannon-pl, Hampstead, formerly of Wedderburn
House. Hampstead, also formerly of 12, New-ct, Carey-st, and previously of 41,
Bedford-row, solicitor. Dec. 31; W. A. Sharpe, solicitor, 12, New-ct, Carey-st.
PROCTOR (Eliza Jane). Portmore House, Weybridge, Surrey. Jan. 1; Bloxam,
Ellison, and Co.. solicitors, 1. Lincoln's-inn-flds.
RAWLINGS (James), Victoria-st, Paignton, Devonshire, photographer. Dec. 31; T. C.
Lindop, solicitor, 74, Fleet-st, Torquay.
SANDERS (William). Grimsbury, Northamptonshire, gentleman. Dec. 31; H. F.
Bennett, solicitor. 46, High-st, Banbury.

STREET (William Stafford), Derby House, Trewsbury-rd, Sydenham, Kent, gentleman, formerly carrying on business at New Inn-yd, Shoreditch. Jan. 18; H. E. Herman, solicitor, 92. Bartholomew-close.

SINGTON (Frances), 5, Westbourne-cres, Hyde Park, widow. Dec. 31; A. and G. W.
Fox. solicitors, 53, Princess-st. Manchester.
SHELDON (Edward). 10. St John's Wood-pk. Dec. 31; Parker, Garrett, and Holman,
solicitors. St. Michael's Rectory, Cornhill.

SLATER (William), Holmses, near Bolton, Lancashire, gentleman. Dec. 31; Holden and Holden, solicitors, 20. Mawdsley-st, Bolton.

STONE (Charles Henry), 219, Chapel-st, Salford, Lancashire, jeweller. Dec. 21; T.
Chorlton, Son, and Hamer, solicitors, 32, Brazennose-st, Manchester.
SMOUT (Arthur James), 31. Connaught-st, Hyde Park, formerly a butcher, late of no
occupation. Jan. 1; H. W. Christmas, solicitor, 42A, Bloomsbury-sq.
SHIELD (Robert Spencer), Norwood House, 12, Westbourre-grove, formerly of 4,
Montpellier-ter, both in Scarborough, Yorkshire, retired surgeon. Dec. 31; Watts,
Kitching, and Donner, solicitors, S, Queen-st, Scarborough.
STAFFORD (John), Jesmond Vale, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, agent. Dec. 31; Cooper
and Goodger, solicitors 27. Grey-st, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
TANNER (Thomas). Stocks Farm, Burley, Southampton, farmer. Dec. 26; Davy and
Jackson solicitors. Ringwood, Hants.
WILKINSON (Isabella), 9, Victoria-st, Stockton-on-Tees, Durham, widow.
Jan. 9;
Faber, Fawcett. and Faber, solicitors, Stockton-on-Tees.
WHITE (Susanna Maria), 18, Regent-st, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, ladies' outfitter.
Dec. 31; Ley, Wood, and Rickcrby, solicitors, 2, Ormond-pl, Cheltenham.

WATTS (Frederick William), Bracknell, Clarendon-rd, Watford, Hertfordshire, trading under the style of Fred. Watts and Co., as hosiers and outfitters, at 136, Tottenham Court-rd, 256, Edgware-rd, and 7 and 9, Seven Sisters'-rd. Jan. 28; Sismey and Sismey, solicitors, 11, Serjeants -inn, Fleet-st.

COMMERCIAL FAILURES AND BILLS OF SALE. According to Stubbs' Weekly Gazette, the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending the 28th Nov. was 133. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 159, showing a decrease of 26. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales, registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 28th Nov. was 147. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 171.

LAW SOCIETIES.

BARRISTERS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.-
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.

THE annual general meeting of the Barristers' Benevolent Association was held in the Middle Temple Hall on Tuesday. Present: the AttorneyGeneral, M.P., G.C.M.G., in the chair; the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Solicitor-General (Sir R. B. Finlay, M.P.), Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., Sir W. W. Karslake, Q.C., Sir W. G. F. Phillimore, D.C.L., his Honour Judge Sir Alfred George Marten, his Honour Judge Lumley Smith, Mr. J. Shiress Will, Q.C., Mr. T. Henry Baylis, Q.C., Mr. F. O. Crump, Q.C., Mr. Herbert H. Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., M.P., Mr. A. R. Jelf, Q.C., Mr. C. H. Hopwood, Q.C., Mr. R. A. McCall, Q.C., Mr. A. Hopkinson, Q.C., M.P., Hon. Alfred Lyttelton, M.P., and others.

Mr. E. MACRORY (hon. sec.) read the report for the year ending the 30th June 1896, in which it was stated that the committee regretted that, owing to the numerous applications for relief, which were increasing yearly without a proportionate increase of income, they had been compelled to part with some of the invested funds. They had, therefore, sold the Portuguese Bonds, as, owing to the repudiation of the Portuguese Government to carry out their undertaking, the dividends received thereon had decreased. Notwithstanding this sale, the account at the bankers was overdrawn on the 30th June by £78 1s. Since the date of the closing of the accounts a further sacrifice had had to be made to meet the demands for relief, and £265 Great Western Railway Ordinary Stock had been sold for £500 6s. 6d. The donations received during the year amounted to £511 3s. 6d., and a legacy of £100; the annual subscriptions were £1389 16s. Fourteen members had been added to the list of annual subscribers, and thirteen members had increased their subscriptions, making a total of £79 16s. Five members had died, six withdrew, and three had reduced their subscriptions, a total loss of £18 18s. thus being made. The association now consisted of 780 members. At the request of the trustees of a fund raised on behalf of the widow of a member of the Profession, the committee had taken over such fund, amounting to £1020, and by arrangement had granted an annuity of £112 4s. £665 Great Eastern Railway 4 per cent. debenture stock had been purchased for £1019 12s. 3d. to meet the annuity. During the year the committee had received 115 applications for relief, of which seventeen had been refused and one adjourned for inquiries. The total amount distributed (including £56 2s., six months of the annuity previously mentioned) was £2785 15s. 4d. This amount had only once before been exceeded, viz., in 1885. Sir William W. Karslake, Q.C., who from the commencement of the association had been a most active member of the committee, and for many years its vice-chairman, had resigned his seat, and the committee had elected Mr. Vernon Russell Smith, Q.C., in his place. Mr. James R. Mellor had also resigned his seat on the committee, and Lord Robert Cecil had been elected to fill the vacancy. The committee suggested that the following should be elected as Committee of Management for the ensuing year: The Trustees, the AttorneysGeneral past and present, the Solicitors-General past and present (all ex officio), Mr. Arthur R. Jelf, Q.C., Mr. John Shiress Will, Q.C., Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore, Bart., D.C.L. (pat. prec.), Mr. Edward Cutler, Q.C., Sir Harry B. Poland, Q.C., Mr. C. E. H. Chadwyck Healey, Q.C., Mr. Ernest Laurence Levett, Q.C., Mr. James Perronet Aspinall, Q.C., Mr. Vernon Russell Smith, Q.C., Mr. Thomas Rolls Warrington, Q.C., Mr. Matthew Ingle Joyce, Mr. Sefton W. Strickland, Mr. Henry Sutton, Mr. F. W. Hollams, Mr. Henry B. Hans Hamilton, Mr. Boydell Houghton, the Hon. Alfred Lyttleton, M.P., Mr. John F. P. Rawlinson, Lord Robert Cecil, and Mr. Edward Boyle. The committee, while thanking those members who had supported the association, in some cases most munificently, were compelled, as on several previous occasions, to regret the small amount contributed by the Bar generally.

The CHAIRMAN, in moving the adoption of the report and balance-sheet. said he proposed to point out to those present that the committee had this year somewhat departed from the practice hitherto followed of inviting as many of the judges as could do so to attend, and of inviting ladies to be present. They had done so for the reason that an opinion had been expressed by many of the old supporters of the association, whose belief was entitled to great weight, that, until the association could obtain a larger and more representative support from the members of the Bar, it was scarcely justified in holding the kind of meeting previously convened, and asking ladies and those to be present whom the committee had invited on former occasions. When he was asked whether he would take the chair at this purely business meeting, as he might call it, he determined to put before the members of the association what was its exact position.

Therefore, he did not propose to make any appeal to the meeting, upon the grounds upon which eloquent speeches had been made in years gone by, as to the duty of all of them to support the members of the Profession and the wives and families of members of the Profession who had fallen out of the ranks or who had been unsuccessful, and who had strong claims upon the more successful members of the Profession for assistance. He had known intimately the working of the association for upwards of twelve or thirteen years, and he quite indorsed, from his personal experience, all that had been said by previous chairmen as to the nature of the cases the association had to relieve. But he would like to say a word upon the position of the society, because, honestly, it did not seem to him that it did represent in any shape or form the amount of support which such a society ought to be able to command from the Bar of England. He said it perfectly frankly and perfectly openly, and hoped that in some way or other they might be able to improve the condition of things next year. There had been a great deal of criticism-and the committee invited criticism-but, of course, it must be understood that the responsibility of managing the affairs of such a society as this was no light responsibility. The cases which came before the committee had been investigated with great care. They had been personally investigated, and the members of the committee had made themselves largely responsible for ascertaining the accuracy of the statements made and the thoroughness, if he might use the expression, of the cases which were presented to them, so that they might see that the resources of the association, which were by no means too large, might be expended in the best possible way. While, therefore, the committee invited criticism in the sense of wishing to receive and consider most favourably any suggestion which would improve the influence of the association and earn it larger support, he did not believe that those who criticised knew perhaps very much what was done by the responsible committee, to whom the members intrusted the discharge of their very important duties. He would point out to the meeting, in the first place, that the association numbered only 780 members. When the number of practising barristers was remembered, and the number who were able to assist the association, and when one looked through the list of subscribers, and thereby had their minds recalled to the absence of many namesmany conspicuous names-one did feel that it was rather hard upon those who had done their utmost to support the association and who had, in many cases, increased their subscriptions when, he had no doubt, they had had many other claims upon them. Those present knew this as well as he did, but it was absolutely necessary that it should be understood that the trustees and the committee and those connected with the management of the association, who were, as the meeting knew, drawn from all classes of the Bar, from all branches of the Profession, felt that they must do something to increase, if possible, the number of the subscribers to the association. This year there had been a very concrete example. The committee had expended £2785, and the subscribers' income was only £1389, & deficit of practically £1400. In addition to that the committee had been compelled to trench to a considerable extent on the association's somewhat small capital, because the invested funds were now only £10,000. So that they had, practically speaking, to use up nearly all that amount of capital. He thought that there was a small balance from the previous year, so that the total deficit did not represent capital. Although it was true the committee had considered 115 cases, which, with the exception of seventeen, they had been able to relieve, yet he could speak from personal knowledge of many instances where they would have been only too thankful to have been able to give larger amounts than those actually granted if they had had the funds. It was, indeed, a painful duty for the members of the committee to be obliged to say that an amount which had been previously granted should be reduced, or that they would be unable to continue or to make an allowance in cases in which they felt that the claims upon the Profession were such that if they had had the money they would certainly have given liberally. He was not saying this for the purpose of using arguments such as anyone might use at a meeting of this kind, but because he knew from the practical work of the association what the needs were, and that the committee had not been able to relieve where they felt they ought to have done so. He should like to enforce what was the strong feeling of the most respected members of the Profession in the matter, and who remembered, as he did, what was the system. in the old days. When cases where relief was needed had to be considered, the relief came from the pockets of personal friends, members of the Bar who had known the recipients in the Profession in the days before they had fallen into misfortune. That system was accompanied by the drawback that in many cases those who needed help had not acquired sufficient position to make them generally known to the Profession. The association had done a very considerable work in relieving members of the Bar personally from appeals for much larger amounts than was asked from them by the association. He said this because he had known both systems, the one in vogue when he first came to the Bar, and that since the establishment of the association, and he could assure them that the association had relieved him from many painful claims, many personal claims on the part of friends of his own; and in addition it ensured that deserving cases which were not the cases of public men, or men who had had great misfortune having had previously a very successful position, also received attention. He said it because he hoped that none of those present would think he had said one word more than was necessary on the subject. Passing for a moment to that which was a much pleasanter duty, he asked them to join with him in passing a very hearty vote of thanks to Sir Wm. Karslake for the services he had rendered to the association. He did not want to use language of exaggeration, but it was impossible to overrate what Sir Wm. Karslake had done for it, and he had been most ably assisted on many occasions by Lady Karslake. He (the chairman) had been seldom, comparatively speaking, to the committe

meetings. The committee met certainly once a month, and special meetings where held whenever necessary. Practically Sir Wm. Karslake had always been present at these meetings, and he had undertaken the personal investigation of many cases, and his knowledge and memory of details had been of the greatest service. He (the chairman) was sure there would be the greatest difficulty in replacing him. He (the chairman) had received a most kind letter from Lord James of Hereford, who, as they knew, had been a most true and staunch member of the association. He had expressed his great regret that he could not be present by reason of a Cabinet meeting which he must attend. He (the chairman) had also received a letter from an eminent member of the Bar at Cambridge, sending his subscription, and suggesting that a systematic canvassing by members of the committee, during the summer, of the circuits, would be the means of increasing the support given to the association, as they had not the same means of getting at those members of the Bar who resided and practised locally as they had of approaching those practising in London. He (the chairman) thought this was a suggestion which should be borne in mind, not only by members of the committee, but by the members supporting the association, with a view of obtaining fresh subscribers and increased subscriptions. The report before the meeting was the only report the committee could make, a report which stated what was required, and he did most earnestly appeal to the meeting, small as it was in numbers, to make known to the members of the Profession, young and old, and particularly the rich and successful members of the Profession, what the association had been doing, and what its needs were, and that those needs ought to be better supplied in the future. About two years ago a special appeal was made which was largely responded to by a certain number of members of the Bar, but that could not go on perpetually. They could not always be asking a few members of the Bar to give large sums. That was not the system intended when the association was founded as that upon which it should work. The association was not to be the dispenser of the charity of the few, but the almoner of the entire Profession, distributing funds supplied by the whole of the Profession in cases which had a right to command the charitable feeling of the whole of the Profession.

Sir FRANK LOCKWOOD, Q.C., M.P., seconded the motion. He did not do so because it was a pleasant report, or because he liked it. It was a most unpleasant report he ventured to think, but it was absolutely and entirely true. It was true that the association found itself in the position of distributing more than it had received either by way of subscriptions or investments coming to it annually, and he quite agreed with the Attorney-General that this was not the time or the occasion on which to make an appeal, because he (Sir Frank Lockwood) believed that the gentlemen who were present were not these to whom it was necessary to make such an appeal. They were the friends of the association, and they had testified to their friendship by their work for it and their contributions to it. He had heard it advocated over and over again at the meetings of the association that there should be an attempt made in some way to canvass amongst the Profession, the canvass to be carried on by members of the Profession. He thought particularly that this should be addressed in the direction of the local Bar. He did not know whether any better suggestion could be made than that which was made by the AttorneyGeneral, namely, that they should approach the local Bar by means of the circuits, but he thought it might be possible perhaps to establish a system of local committees in great centres, such as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol, and other places, where there were a large number of members of the Bar engaged in what was called local practice. To elect such gentlemen upon the central committee did not appear to him to be a course which really would be followed by any practical results, because as a rule it would not be possible for members so elected to attend the central committee; but, if the local Bars could be persuaded to establish local committees to work hand in hand with the central committee, he thought that in that way perhaps they might be able to spread the name of the association and to increase its subscription list. He was very glad that the Attorney-General was present. He had spoken of their good friend Lord James of Hereford, who had done so much for the association. He (Sir Frank Lockwood) ventured to think that his mantle had descended upon the shoulders of the Attorney-General, who, notwithstanding his many engagements, had found time to do a great deal more than he had indicated in the way of attending the meetings of the committee. He need say no more in seconding the report. The benefits of the association were well known to them. The greater portion of the money expended was not distributed even amongst men who had not been so fortunate as others in the pursuit of their profession. The larger portion of the money which was paid away from year to year was paid to the widows and children, and he therefore hoped that by this time next year the committee, who felt such a deep interest in the affairs of the association, would find that they had a more pleasant and cheering balance-sheet to submit to the meeting. As it was, he said it was a truthful, although it was not a pleasant one. The motion was unanimously adopted.

Sir EDWARD CLARKE, Q.C., M.P., moved the election of the committee for the ensuing year as suggested in the report. He hoped it would not be thought inappropriate that he should do so, although he was himself one of the ex officio members. He could only say that they had the greatest confidence in the management and in the way in which they would discharge their duties. The report stated that the committee had considered about 100 applications, and that seventeen or eighteen of these had been refused assistance. Anyone who knew the character of the majority of the cases brought before the committee would realise the pain it was to the members who took part in the proceedings to have to limit to a small sum the relief given. It often was the case that the urgency of a claim was such that it made the grant of a sub

stantial sum of money at the moment the only way by which it was possible to prevent a great deal of suffering, and it was very hard for the commmittee to find itself limited by such narrow lines, narrower than should be the case, having regard to the numbers and resources of the Profession, in respect to its grants. He hoped the meeting would not only express their confidence in the committee, but that, so far as could be, in passing the resolution they would make them the promise that they would try to give them a little more scope in awarding the grants, and thus make their task a little easier.

His Honour Judge LUMLEY SMITH seconded the motion, which was agreed to nem. con.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved a vote of thanks to his Honour Judge Snagge and to Mr. H. V. Davidson for auditing the accounts, and that they be re-appointed auditors till the next general meeting. He expressed a hope that in the course of the next year they would find their work more arduous, owing to the increase in the number of the subscriptions. He felt with the Attorney-General that it was hardly to the meeting that one should speak as to the association not worthily representing the Bar, because they were there as supporters of the association; but he wished it could be brought home to those who were not present, and who were not supporters of the association, that it was hardly worthy of the Bar that the association should not more adequately represent it. It would be quite easy, if a general interest were taken in the association by the Bar, to put it in a pecuniary position which would enable it to deal more adequately with the many claims which were made upon it. He hoped it would be found that there was a considerable increase of members when the general meeting next year was held.

His Honour Judge MARTEN seconded the motion, which was agreed to. Mr. COZENS-HARDY, Q.C., moved a vote of thanks to the chairman, observing that he knew enough of the Attorney-General to say that there were few duties he discharged of greater pleasure than those connected with the association.

Sir WALTER PHILLIMORE seconded the motion, remarking that when the chairman was plain Mr. Webster he was a member of the committee, and had worked extremely hard upon it.

Mr. HOPWOOD, Q.C., supported the resolution, which was carried with acclamation.

The CHAIRMAN, in returning thanks, said, referring to Mr. CozensHardy's remarks, that he felt that in taking the chair at this meeting he was doing work that should be undertaken by whomsoever, for the time being, should fill the place he had the honour to occupy. But he did wish to impress upon the meeting that he felt most deeply that if the society was to do its work it must have stronger and larger support; otherwise, there would be a recrudescence of that system which had been found to be a great burden upon many in those instances where painful and distressing cases were brought to their notice. He hoped that on future occasions there would be a brighter and more cheering report to present to the .members.

LIVERPOOL INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

THE sixty-ninth annual general meeting of this society was held on the 25th ult. in the Lecture-hall of the society, Union-court. Mr. John Lawrence occupied the chair, and there was a large attendance. The annual report, which was taken as read, stated that the society now consisted of 390 members. The number of barristers and others, not being members, who subscribed to the society, was forty. The hon. treasurer's accounts showed a balance in hand of £589 18s. 3d., which would be available towards the expenses of furnishing the new library. The society has a sum of £1600 invested in securities of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The President, in the course of his address, said that the year that had passed had been in many respects an eventful one. It was often suggested that lawyers were averse to change, and clung tenaciously to old forms, and that they favoured the notion that legal procedure, to be lucrative, must also be expensive. If this idea was still prevalent he thought he was speaking the mind of all present when he said that, as a profession, they were convinced that the cheapening of, and expedition in, the conduct of legal business are two of the most needed reforms for satisfying their clients, and producing for them the best pecuniary advantages. He congratulated the members on the prosperity of the society, and the undoubted influence which it possessed. The society had now been in existence sixty-nine years, and he was glad to say they had again this year increased their numbers, and were within ten of reaching 400 members. They had completely outgrown the accommodation which their present habitation afforded, and expected to be located in their new premises in Cook-street in the early part of the year. The death of the oldest member of the society, Mr. Isaac Oliver Jones, could not be passed over in silence. This gentleman became a member in the year 1835, and held the offices of secretary and vice-president. He passed away at a ripe old age, esteemed by all who knew him. The Profession was to be congratulated on the election of Mr. Warr to a seat in Parliament. He was at once appointed a member of the Committee on Law, and the honour thus conferred on him was reflected upon the Legal Profession in Liverpool. They had already experienced in the case of the late Mr. Edward Whitley the advantage of having one of their body a member of the House of Parliament, to help to carry forward at St. Stephen's the work which was being done by the committee of the society. An important measure, affecting both the public and the Profession, had this year been placed on the Statute-book. He referred to the Judicial Trustees Act. The Act provided that application had to be made to the court by the person creating the trust, or by a

trustee or beneficiary, for the appointment of a judicial trustee, nominated in the application, and the court may appoint any fit person to be a judicial trustee, to act either jointly with any other person or as a sole trustee, and, if sufficient cause was shown, in place of existing trustees. The important question of rules for carrying out the Act, prescribing, for instance, the remuneration of the judicial trustee, were to be made by the Lord Chancellor. There was a section in the Act relieving trustees, but it must not be supposed that this section would bring about a golden age for trustees in giving relief to those who were negligent in the discharge of their duties, but it appeared to give to the court the opportunity of relieving trustees in cases where it had hitherto desired to do so, but bad not the power. It was to be noticed that this section came into operation at the passing of the Act on the 14th Aug. last. During the past year the committee had devoted much time and attention to the question of continuous sittings of the High Court of Justice in Lancashire. In the early part of the year the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce again approached the committee, expressing a desire that another effort should be made to promote a Bill to obtain continuous sittings. The Bill of 1895 was reconsidered by the committee, and it was thought advisable that it should be somewhat altered in form by eliminating all reference to Chancery administrative work, and in other respects shortened and simplified. A deputation waited on the Lord Chancellor in February last, and the case for the Bill was most ably opened by the president of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. It could not be said that the Lord Chancellor received the deputation with any predisposition in favour of the Bill, and, after hearing the views of the various speakers, he desired to be furnished with further particulars of the present condition of legal business at the Liverpool and Manchester Assizes. A committee of judges was appointed by the Lord Chancellor to consider the question, but the society had not been permitted to see the report. As a result, however, it had been officially notified that Mr. Justice Kennedy had been appointed the Lancashire judge for the year to take the four civil assizes at Manchester and Liverpool. So far it would appear that Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty causes were not to be tried out of London, except so far as Probate and Admiralty causes had hitherto been triable at the assizes. In this respect the society felt that the commercial and legal bodies of the county had cause for great disappointment, and it was certain that the efforts of Lancashire to obtain these objects would not be relaxed. Meanwhile, half a loaf was better than no bread, and it was to be noted that there would be a separate list, called the "Commercial List," in which commercial causes may be entered. Encouraged by the success of the Commercial Court in London, it was reasonably to be expected that leave would be given for causes entered in this list to be tried without pleadings. One great benefit was certainly gained by the proposed change, namely, that the judge would be enabled to finish the trial of actions without having to sit unreasonably late hours in order to hurry back to London. The Lancashire judge would, it appeared, still go circuit with his brother judge on the Crown side, and in this respect he would venture to remark that the circuit system, which was sufficient to meet the requirements of the country when it was inaugurated centuries ago, is now quite effete. The complete separation of civil and criminal work was desirable. Ancient usage had made the judges of assize consort together, who now,

Like ill-assorted man and wife, United jar, and yet are loth to part.

To relieve the lady on the civil side from the requirements of her spouse on the Crown side, that she should not leave home except in his company, and at periods according with his stately convenience, they would advocate an early divorce, and failing that, be content with a judicial separation. The report and statement were unanimously adopted.

Mr. Warr, M. P., in moving a vote of thanks to the president for his address, said he had naturally given the chief place to the subject of continuous sittings, and he (Mr. Warr) heartily associated himself with all that the president had said with regard to the important subject. He was sure the society would see that an advance had been made in the direction which they had always considered the only true one. He thought they would all be grateful to Mr. Justice Kennedy, who knew their wants so well, for undertaking to be the pioneer in the new system which had been inaugurated. It was far from being all they wanted, but still it was certainly an advance, and it might tend speedily to demonstrate that to perfect the system à further advance was necessary to bring the administration of justice in Lancashire into harmony with common sense. Mr. Bellringer seconded the motion, which was carried.

[blocks in formation]

THE weekly meeting was held in the Inner Temple Lecture-hall, King's Bench Walk, at 8 o'clock p.m., last Friday week. Mr. D. T. Oliver proposed, and Mr. J. F. Iselin opposed, the following motion: "That a permanent Court of Arbitration should be established to which all International disputes be referred." The motion was carried.-Last evening (Friday) Mr. C. Cavanagh moved: "That it is to the interest of the Bar and of the public that the Benchers of each several Inns of Court should in future be elected by the suffrages of the respective barristers belonging to such Inn."

UNITED LAW SOCIETY.

THE Society met on Monday, Nov. 30, Mr. C. W. Williams taking the chair. Mr. C. H. Kirby opened a debate on the motion, "That it is desirable to further amend the Company Laws in the direction of greater

stringency as against promoters, directors, and other officers." Mr. A. H. Richardson opposed, and was followed by Mr. S. E. Hubbard. The supporters and opponents of the motion were equally divided, and it was decided by the Chairman giving his casting vote against it. The subject for debate at the next meeting of the society, on Monday, the 7th inst., is, "That this House condemns the hostile attitude of many amateurs towards professionalism in sport."

UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON.

THE Society met at the Inner Temple Lecture-hall on Wednesday evening, the 2nd inst.; Mr. Sidney W. Clarke in the chair. After the reading of the minutes and the disposal of private business, Mr. J. Arthur Price brought forward the motion on the agenda paper, viz.: "that the House rejoices in the prospect of a political separation between the Church of England and the Conservative party." Speakers: for the motion, Messrs. Price, Sherwood, Withers, and Glasgow; against, Messrs. Knipple, Eatkin, Jenks, Willson, and Clarke. The motion was lost.

CORRESPONDENCE.

This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.

BOSWELL'S LIFE OF JOHNSON.-As an illustration of the research which Mr. Birrell, Q.C., M.P., has exhibited in his recent edition of Boswell's Life of Johnson, it may be mentioned that Voltaire's celebrated passage of arms with Samuel Johnson, which eluded the diligence of all subsequent editors of the famous biography, has at last been brought to light. Boswell himself somewhat naively complained that" Voltaire, in revenge, made an attack upon Johnson in one of his numerous literary sallies, which I remember to have read; but there being no general index to his voluminous works, have searched for it in vain, and therefore cannot quote it": (Life of Johnson, c. 17, p. 142). The research of Mr. Birrell has at last been found equal to the task, and has identified it with an amusing passage of the Dictionnaire Philosophique, vol. 2, p. 10. Boswell says "Voltaire was an antagonist with whom I thought Johnson should not disdain to contend. I pressed him to answer. He said perhaps he might, but he never did." Though Johnson may never have answered this attack of Voltaire, he subsequently frequently employed his conversational powers against him. Though Johnson said of himself that he failed in conversation "for want of presence of mind, and a resolution not to be overcome by failures:" yet posterity has indorsed Dr. Percy's eulogy of Johnson's conversational powers-"that they might be compared to an antique statue, where every vein and every muscle is distinct and bold." Johnson's utterances against Voltaire are characterised with all his force and originality. When on his visit to Paris, ten years after the appearance of his Shakespeare, Johnson thus characterised Voltaire to Freron the journalist―" Vir est acerrimi ingenii et paucarum litterarum." Shortly after the appearance of the Shakespeare, Johnson, after saying that Rousseau was a very bad man, said that it was impossible to settle the proportion of iniquity between him and Voltaire. Voltaire is known to have placed Shakespeare below Corneille; and to have said that Shakespeare was " a savage with imagination." The research of Mr. Birrell has thrown a dry light on this rencontre of the two literary giants of the last celtu y. N. W. SIBLEY.

LAMBETH COUNTY COURT AND ITS SISTER COURTS.-We should like to point out certain peculiarities at the Lambeth County Court which surely might be remedied and the procedure of other courts adopted. On Friday last week we attended the court to issue a default summons against a defendant out of the jurisdiction. We were not allowed to issue it on the ground that the registrar's leave was necessary and he was not there. That was perfectly correct; but at nearly every other County Court the plaint clerk examines the affidavit to see if the cause of action is rightly stated, &c., and then issues the summons, leave being given afterwards by the registrar. It would, of course, be absurd to expect the registrar to attend daily merely to give leave in such cases. We were informed the registrar would not be there until "next week and that we could leave our summons till he came, when it might be issued. (The object of a default summons is that it is quicker than the ordinary summons!) The court afterwards refused to give leave to issue our summons on the ground that a written acknowledgment of a debt delivered by post at the plaintiff's address and promising payment, was not a cause of action. The court's refusal was based on the ground that the letter acknowledging the debt would not show that the exact amount claimed was admitted, but would be merely a general admission. The acknowledgment was not produced to the court, as the deponent to the affidavit of course swore to the facts. A few weeks back, at the same court, we applied for extension of time respecting a committal warrant that had been issued. Our application was granted. A few days later we had a letter from the court stating that, as we had not explained to the court that certain moneys received from the defendant had been passed through the court's books (this had been formally paid through the court), the warrant could not go out. WM. EDWIN AND SON.

PROBATE PRACTICE.- In your issue of the 14th ult. you called attention to Mr. Justice Kekewich's recent remarks on the subject of the present inconvenient practice of engrossing wills for probate on a large skin of parchment, and you expressed a hope that solicitors would adopt,

and the officials would not obstruct, the practice of engrossing wills bookwise. We certainly were under the impression that wills were not received in the Probate Registry engrossed other than in the ordinary way. A firm of country solicitors, Messrs. R. and R. C. Winder, of Bolton, for whom we act as London agents, sent to us last week a specimen of a will done book wise, and proved in the Manchester District Registry, which possessed the additional improvement that the will was printed instead of being engrossed. We read in Tristram and Coote's Probate Practice, 12th edit, 256, that wills must be engrossed and not printed, and we were therefore somewhat surprised to see here a print instead of an engrossment. Under the circumstance, with the view of ascertaining what the exact position was, we addressed a letter to the Senior Registrar, and have been favoured with a reply, from which it will be seen that there is no objection, not only to engrossments being book wise, but also to printing being substituted for engrossing. We annex a copy of our letter, and the Senior Registrar's reply, thinking they may be of some interest and use to practitioners who, like ourselves, may have been under a misapprehension. INDERMAUR AND BROWN.

22, Chancery-lane, W.C. Dec. 1.

22, Chancery-lane, London, W.C., 30th Nov. 1896.-Sir,-Probate Practice. Your attention will no doubt have been drawn to some remarks of Mr. Justice Kekewich with regard to the present form in which probates are granted (see LAW TIMES, 14th Nov. inst.). We would submit that it would be an improvement on the present practice if probates were engrossed book wise. We take it, this could be accomplished by a simple intimation to the Profession that engrossments would be received in this shape. But we desire to make a further suggestion, and that is that, instead of wills being engrossed, they may be printed, if so desired. It appears to us that this would be very convenient in the case of long wills. What we are suggesting has already been apparently occasionally done in district registries, and we have the pleasure to inclose you, for your inspection, a probate granted at Manchester. This you will see is done bookwise and printed, and we think you will agree that it compares favourably with the system at present in general use. We would ask that this matter may not only receive the attention of yourself and co-registrars, but that you will have the kindness to bring this letter with the accompanying specimen probate before the President, that his views on the subject may be ascertained. We shall be glad in due course to hear from you, and to receive back the probate now sent. We feel this is a matter of some practical importance, and that must be our excuse for troubling you and the President upon the matter.-We are, Sir, Your obedient servants, INDERMAUR AND BROWN.-The Senior Registrar, Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, Somerset House.

[Copy.] Reply.-Principal Probate Registry, Somerset House, London, W.C., 30th Nov. 1896.-Gentlemen,-I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date as to the form in which wills are usually engrossed. Wills engrossed book wise are constantly brought in to the Registry, and have for many years been accepted in that form. I see no reason for refusing to accept a printed copy of a will for probate, if so desired. I return the probate you sent herewith.-I am, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, D. W. OWEN, Senior Registrar.-Messrs. Indermaur and Brown.

NOTES AND QUERIES.

None are inserted unless the name and address of the writer are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of bona fides.

Queries.

13. FIRE POLICY-INDORSEMENTS. C. holds of A., the freeholder, under a lease in which he covenants to insure in the joint names of himself and A., and has effected a fire policy accordingly. A, mortgages to B. Will B. be sufficiently indemnified against fire by an indorsement on the existing fire policy to the effect that the interest therein is now vested in A., C., and B.; or ought there to be a fresh policy effected in the names of A. and B.? K. L.

14. AMERICAN HOLDING PROPERTY IN ENGLAND.-An American citizen has purchased freehold and leasehold property in England. It is clear he has a right to hold property in this country. Would it be advisable on his buying such property that same should be conveyed to a reliable trustee who lives here, so that he may act as his attorney? How should the American be advised as to making his will ? QUARRY.

Answers.

(Q.9.) COMBINED RECEIPT AND CHEQUE. Your correspondent, Arthur M. Smith, in his answer last week seems to have overlooked sect. 9 of 58 Vict. c. 16. J.

HALLILAY'S CONCISE VIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN AN ACTION IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, INCLUDING THE PRACTICE ON APPEAL. Also a Summary of the Proceedings in an Action in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, showing in what particulars the Practice in an Action in the Chancery and Queen's Bench Division differs. Price 8s.-HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Bream's-buildings E.C.-[ADVT.]

PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS. Information intended for publication under the above heading should reach us not later than Thursday morning in each week, as publication is otherwise delayed.

Lord DAVEY has been appointed Master of the Library at Lincoln's-inn for the ensuing year.

Mr. HEMMING, Q.C., has been elected Treasurer of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's-inn for the ensuing year, in succession to Mr. Pember, Q.C. His term of office will commence on the 11th Jan. next.

Mr. EDWARD DICEY, C.B., has been elected a Bencher of Gray's-inn. Mr. Dicey was called to the Bar in 1875.

Mr. B. FOSSETT LOCK has been appointed by the Council of Legal Education to be a Member of the General Board of Examiners. Mr. Lock was called to the Bar in 1873.

Mr. S. HENRY LEONARD has been appointed by the Council of Legal Education to be Assistant Reader in Roman Law, Jurisprudence, and International Law. Mr. Leonard was called to the Bar in 1880.

Mr. H. R. T. ALEXANDER, one of the chief clerks in Mr. Justice North's Chambers, has been appointed a Chancery Taxing Master in place of Mr. Longbourne, who has retired.

LEGAL OBITUARY.

Mr. WILLIAM FITCHETT BURRELL, solicitor, of Gosport, died on the 19th ult. Mr. Burrell had for a long period suffered from dropsy, to which he succumbed early on Thursday. He became a solicitor in 1844, and held the post of secretary to the Floating Bridge Company, Haslar Bridge Company, and Market House Company. Mr. Burrell was a prominent Freemason, and filled the office of Master several times. He was about seventy-five years of age. He was a member of the Incorporated Law Society.

Mr. SAMUEL TAYLOR, Q.C., died on the 25th ult., at his residence at Withington, near Manchester. He was the second son of the late Mr. Thomas Taylor, of Manchester, and was born in 1821. He was educated at Oxford, where he graduated M.A., and was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple on the 30th Jan. 1846. He was Deputy Recorder of Manchester from 1874. In 1885 he took "silk." He married Ada, daughter of the late Mr. James Lees. Mrs. Taylor died in 1887.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

BURNLEY AND DISTRICT LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. -THE LICENSING QUESTION. (Continued from page 94.)

LET us now turn to other countries, so as to know our own the better, for what know we of England who only England know? I propose to refer to Sweden, the land of the far-famed Gothenburg system; to Russia, as a country with autocratic government; to Switzerland, the land of the free; and to the United States of America, the land of our kith and kin beyond the sea. The Gothenburg system consists in granting the exclusive privilege of retailing spirits in any city to a private corporation or company, which is authorised to retain a net profit of only 6 per cent. on the paid-up capital, and is obliged to pay all the balance of income into the city treasury. The persons who are employed by the company to sell spirits are paid salaries for their services, and have no share in the proceeds of the sales. The distinctive feature of the system is that it aims to render disinterested all those who are concerned in dealing out the spirits as well as those who control the traffic. It also puts the whole business under the management and inspection of philanthropic people. It was in the year 1865 that this system was first adopted in Gothenburg, a prosperous city of 75,000 inhabitants, but it probably originated in the old university city of Upsala, where, at any rate, it was in operation before its introduction in Gothenburg. By the General Licence Law of 1877 it is now competent for any city government to turn over the whole business of retailing spirits within the city limits to a company organised on the Gothenburg plan. In 1878 the company acquired 291 licences in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. The manager of each shop, who is generally a woman, enters into a written contract with the company for the fulfilment of the required conditions. At all places where liquors are allowed to be drunk on the premises the manager binds himself or herself to have at hand well-cooked food, hot as well as cold. She receives a salary of about £25, and is also allowed on her own account to sell coffee, tea, chocolate, malt liquors, soda-water, and cigars. She binds herself to keep the place neat, orderly, ventilated, well-lighted and warm during the cold season; to see that the spirits which are received for sale are of pure taste and have the proper strength; to provide orderly help which will meet the wants of visitors politely and attentively; and not to sell intoxicating drink on credit, nor for pledge, nor on the security of any other person, nor to deliver any such liquor to any person under the age of eighteen years, nor to any person who is visibly under the influence of liquor. Such places are allowed to be kept open on week-days from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays from 6 to 8.30 a.m., and from 1 to 4, and from 7 to 10 p.m. The liquor can only be dealt out in glasses bearing the company's stamp. The prices of every kind are

fixed. Prices are low. For the common Swedish whisky, which is usually distilled from the potato, the price is one halfpenny per glass of 1 cubic inches. Such is the much-talked-of Gothenburg system. Save in one particular, the English licensing system does not differ much from the Gothenburg system. The difference, however, is sufficiently marked to be distinctive. One characteristic of the Gothenburg system is that the enormous profits which are to be earned in the liquor business go to enrich the community, and not private individuals. Moreover, it is deemed an advantage that the public-house is managed by persons who can have no desire to force a business, and no desire to adulterate their goods. On the vexed question whether this legislative interference has realised the two great objects of legislative interference, namely, the preservation of order and the diminution of drunkenness, there is much controversy. One thing, however, is admitted-order has been equally well preserved, and drunkenness has not increased under the Gothenburg system. Those in favour of the system assert that order has been better preserved and that drunkenness has considerably decreased. Others, on the other hand, contend that there is much public disorder and as much drunkenness under the Gothenburg system as under the system formerly in vogue. Each supports his contention by statistics. Perhaps both are right, or rather, perhaps, neither is wrong. Having regard to the social and moral progress of the people, there is comparatively as much public disorder through excessive drinking and drunkenness as before the introduction of the system. Disregarding social and moral progress, there is a substantial diminution of public disorder through excessive drinking and drunkenness, It seems idle at the present day to seek results and to quote statistics. Happy ye be, if statistics show improvement and progress. But if not, there is no substantial reason for complaint. The time for taking the reckoning has not yet arrived. For consider: If the state of public disorder and of drunkenness was so bad in Scandinavia that it required an almost revolutionary measure such as the Gothenburg system to cure it, the time has not yet arrived for looking backward. It is a trite but true saying, that you cannot make a man sober by Act of Parliament. Let us assume that a large proportion of the Scandinavians were given over to habits of intemperance, how are you to make them all sober and industrious men by your Gothenburg system? If it took generations to make them drunkards, will it not take a generation or two to make them sober and industrious? In Russia, legislation is directed solely against the sale of spirits. A new system is being gradually introduced. The system is practically a Government monopoly. Spirits are sold in shops and depots maintained by the Government; but in certain cases, it rests with the Ministers of Finance and of the Interior to issue or withhold licences for the sale of spirits to private individuals. In any case, the right of granting licences to private individuals is only authorised where they are trustworthy. The spirits for which a licence is required are vodka (corn brandy), i.e., the national drink, Scotch and Irish whiskey, gin, rum, liqueurs, and other spirituous drinks. No licence is required for wine, beer or porter. This system was first introduced in 1893, in the four Eastern provinces of Russia. In July last, it was applied to nine other provinces. In July of next year, it is to be applied to certain other provinces, and in January 1898 it is to be made universal throughout Russia. Our Consul-General at St. Petersburg reports: "It is too early yet to form a positive judgment whether the monopoly of the sale of spirituous beverages by the Government has answered financially all expectations. But the first essay in its application to four of the Eastern provinces of the Empire has proved so satisfactory in general effect as to justify the gradual extension of the system to other parts of the Empire. This gradual extension is now in progress." In Switzerland no intoxicating liquor can be sold without a licence. Licences are granted by the Government of the particular canton in which the house is situated. Licences cost from 40 to 1000 francs, which go to the benefit of the parish in which the house is situated. The regulations vary in different cantons. In some, the licence is granted for a full period of five years; in others, it is granted for only one year. The applicants for the licences must be respectable, and they must show that they are capable of conducting a business. Bankruptcy is a disqualification. The United States of America are generally regarded as being more advanced on the temperance or liquor question than England. American prohibition, as it exists to-day, finds its application in what is known as the Maine Law. It falls far short of that, however, as it is only directed against the production and sale within the particular State having such a law. This limitation is due, not to the voluntary action of the Legislature which enacted the law, but to the peculiarity of the Federal System or Government, which reserves to each State the widest powers of regulating matters affecting only its own citizens, but commits to Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among several States." The complete extent of the right inherent in each State to regulate or prohibit the liquor traffic within its own borders is now well established. Prohibition has, at one time or another, been the law in seventeen States, in some of which, however, it can hardly be said to have had any practical existence. At the present time it is the law in seven States: Maine, New Hampshire, Jowa, Vermont, Kansas, and the new States of North and South Dakota. Most writers on this subject declare that prohibition is not a success because it is not supported by popular feeling. Thorough-going prohibitionists in the States object to local option. They characterise it as being "too local and too optional." They describe it as being a "tissue of illusions, elusions, and collusions." Local option in the States means the power to close all liquor shops within a given area by votes of the inhabitants. It is thus the direct veto, and forms part of the liquor law in a large number of States in all parts of the country. Its chosen habitat, where it flourishes with greatest vigour, is in the South. In the Northern States where it is in force, it is not a success, and only works by fits and starts. In the South it has driven the open saloon out of a large proportion of the rural districts, and, in principle at least, if not in practice, it receives

[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »