RAPSON (John), Florence House, West Crook, and of 74. High-st, both in Margate, REID (Maurice), 436, Oxford-st, and of 6, Queen Anne-villas, Hendon, music publisher. SMITH (Thomas James), 10 and 11, North Church-side, Kingston-upon-Hull, and of 7, Wilton-ter, Hornsea, East Riding of York, wholesale druggist. Jan. 16; Fullilove and Co., solicitors, 120, Cannon-st. STIRLING (Patrick), Doncaster, Yorkshire, locomotive engineer. Jan. 10; Parkin and Co., solicitors, 23, Priory-pl, Doncaster. SADLER (Charles), Mitre hotel, Hampton Court. Jan. 9; A. Goodman, solicitor, East Molesey, Surrey. SAUNDERS (Gaius), Great Hampden, Buckinghamshire, farmer. Jan. 12; Parker and STEVENS (James), formerly of High-st. late of Glenthorne. Weston-rd, Strood, Kent, TURNER, otherwise WEATHERBY (William), Linaker-st, Southport, Lancashire, retired county police inspector. Jan. 19; T. E. Williams, solicitor, 8, London-st, Southport. TAYLOR (Charles), 5. Wedmore-st, Upper Holloway, contractor. Jan. 11; A. Hammond, solicitor, 25. Bedford-row. VINCENT (Eliza), 11, Alexandra-ter, Whitley, Northumberland, widow. Jan. 11; WARNER (Frederick Isaac), Winchester, Southampton, solicitor. Jan. 21; F. I. and Jan. 9; J. Freeman, solicitor, Queen Anne-chmbrs, Sunbridge-rd, Bradford. WILLIAMS (Catharine Sara Frances Addams), Penpark, Llangibby, Monmouthshire, widow. April 1; J. C. Llewellin, solicitor, 26, Stow-hill, Newport, Mon. WADLING (Charlotte Jane), 56, Folkestone-rd, Kent, widow. Jan. 22; J. G. Shearman, solicitor. 38. Gresham-st. WRIGHT (Sampson Bagnall), Shakespeare inn. Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, beerseller and carter, Dec. 19; R. W. Day, solicitor, 28, Glebe-st, Stoke-on-Trent. WILDERS (William Abraham), Valparaiso, Chili. March 1; Lewis and Lewis, solicitors, Ely-pl, Holborn. WENDOVER (Alfred Daniel), St. Alban's. Eridge-rd, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, and of Lavington Villa, Auckland-rd, East Southsea, Hampshire, gentleman. Jan. 25; Cousins and Burbidge, solicitors, St. Thomas's-st, Portsmouth. THE motion for debate on Friday, the 11th Dec., was, "That in the opinion of this House vaccination is necessary, and all boards of guardians ought to be compelled to enforce it." This was proposed by Mr. W. C. Copeland, and opposed by Mr. H. M. Guthrie. The following members also spoke: Major Greenwood, Messrs. M. R. Mehta, Edward Atkin, L. W. Bangley, E. T. Slater, N. W. Sibley, A. W. Sells, A. C. Arnold, S. P. Roy, W. F. Barrett, John Clarke. The opener then replied, and the motion was carried. UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. THE Society met at the Inner Temple Lecture-hall, on Wednesday, the 16th inst.; Mr. J. Arthur Price, president, in the chair. After the reading of the minutes and the disposal of private business, Mr. W. C. Copeland brought forward the motion on the agenda paper, viz. : "That the Government ought not to withdraw from the occupation of Egypt." Speakers for the motion, Messrs. Copeland, Ball, Sherwood, Jenks, and E. Atkin; against, Messrs. Price, Withers, Arnold, and Willson. The motion was carried. 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. Sir G. SHERSTON BAKER (Recorder of Barnstaple and Bideford) has been appointed by the Berchers of Lincoln's-inn a Member of the Board of Examiners, established by the four Inns of Court under rule 4 of the "Consolidated Regulations." Sir G. Sherston Baker was called to the Bar in 1871. Mr. RICHARD MARRACK has been appointed by the Benchers of Lincoln's-inn a Member of the Board of Examiners established by the four Inns of Court under rule 4 of the "Consolidated Regulations." Mr. Marrack was called to the Bar in 1870. Mr. JAMES WILLIAMS, D.C.L., has been appointed by the Benchers of Lincoln's-inn a Member of the Board of Examiners established by the four Inns of Court under rule 4 of the "Consolidated Regulations." Mr. Williams was called to the Bar in 1875. Mr. JAMES S. GREEN has been appointed by the Benchers of Lincoln'sinn a member of the Board of Examiners established by the four Inns of Court under rule 4 of the "Consolidated Regulations." Mr. Green was called to the Bar in 1885. Mr. WILLIAM HENRY HYNDMAN JONES, supernumerary resident magistrate of Jamaica, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements. Mr. Jones was called to the Bar in 1878. Mr. THEO. WALTER ELLISON has been appointed Clerk to the Glossop Reservoir Commissioners. Mr. Ellison was admitted in 1894. Mr. WILLIAM OTLEY JARRATT, solicitor, Driffield, has been appointed one of the Deputy Coroners for the County of York for the holding of Inquests in the East Riding District. Mr. Jarratt was admitted in 1887. Mr. H. A. DUDDING, solicitor, Wigton, has been appointed Secretary to the Governors of the Nelson School for the Higher Education of Boys, Wigton. Mr. A. ROGERS FORD, solicitor, Weston-super-Mare, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Ford was admitted in Aug. 1890. Mr. D. PALMER ANDREWS, solicitor, Sydenham, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Andrews was admitted in 1890. Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL, of the firm of Messrs. Day, Russell, and Co., has been appointed Solicitor in the United Kingdom for the Government of the Dominion of Canada. Mr. Russell was admitted in 1888. 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. MR. A. BIRRELL, Q.C., M.P., AND SAMUEL JOHNSON.-When delivering his introductory lecture to the Quain law lectures, Mr. Birrell said, as reported in the Times: "Dr. Johnson was nearly alone in his admiration either of English law or lawyers." But the learned doctor would seem to have dissembled his admiration on one occasion at least, since, as Boswell wrote, he gave "a sudden satirical stroke to the character of an attorney." The incident is thus related: "Much inquiry having been made concerning a gentleman who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained, at last Johnson observed that he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney": (Life of Johnson, chap. xxii., p. 178). Mr. Birrell observed that "Lord Bolingbroke, Dean Swift, and Jeremy Bentham-representatives of the fashionable world, the wits, and the jurists-had directed their sneers at lawyers." But perhaps the unkindest cut of all came from Junius, who wrote in a style, Mr. Lecky says, not inferior to even either that of Bolingbroke or Swift. Junius wrote to Wilkes: "Though I use the terms of art, do not injure me so much as to suspect I am a lawyer. I had as lief be a Scotchman. It is the encouragement given to disputes about titles which has supported that iniquitous profession at the expense of the community:" (Woodfall's Edition of the Letters of Junius, Private Letter No. 70). PHALARIS. CANADA THE COLONIES.-Which is the best law magazine in Canada for advertising in? The law in this country is represented by the LAW TIMES for such purposes as the one I have named above. Is there a similar publication in Canada, in India, or in British Columbia? Finally, does the law (solicitors' branch) offer any inducements in any of the British colonies or dependencies, such as Canada, India, Burmah, the Straits Settlements, British Columbia, New Zealand ? H. S. CERTIFICATE DUTY.-I have again paid the sum of £9 Government duty for taking out my certificate, for which sum I have received in exchange an acknowledgment given under the hand of the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, and dated the 16th Nov. 1896, wherein it is certified that I am entitled to practise as such solicitor "on this certificate being duly stamped as required by law." The words in inverted commas are printed in italics. The £9 paid by me as aforesaid of course represents the sum I paid for the stamp. I further had to pay a fee of 5s. for registration. Every year I have to make this payment, and as Christmas approaches I always wonder whether prior to the next Christmas the Law Society, or solicitors as a body, will have done anything to abolish what I consider an unfair and unjust tax. The members of other professions escape free of any similar duty, and why solicitors should have to bear the burden of such an imposition I fail to see, especially as members of the higher branch of the Profession escape scot free. The members of the committee of the Law Society hitherto have ignored the outcry of solicitors against this tax, and done nothing to ameliorate the hardships thereof, thus proving that in this respect, whatever they may be in other respects, they are not practical. Let them now become sentimental, and follow this suggestion, viz., petition the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in commemoration of Her Most Gracious Majesty having reigned for a longer period than any other English sovereign, he be pleased to abolish the duty of £9, and that in future a registration fee of only 5s. be paid. This would answer all practical JUSTICE. purposes. I think all young solicitors, and the majority of the older ones, will agree with "S. P. C.'s" letter inserted in last week's Law TIMES. Why should solicitors, who have to pay more to the Government than any other profession in order to get qualified, have to pay this iniquitous tax, when all the other learned professions are exempt from it? £9 5s. a year is not of much consequence to an old-established practitioner with a lucrative practice, but it is a very serious matter to a struggling solicitor who is trying to build up a practice. Take, for instance, the case of a solicitor who has taken out three certificates while acting as clerk to another solicitor; or a solicitor who has taken out three certificates in the country. He opens an office in London with a capital of £200 or £300, and the promises of a few friends to give him work. Before he can commence he must pay £9 58., a very large sum out of his small capital, for a certificate or licence to practise. This is an annual tax which comes round with disgusting regularity, and if he only earns £5 a year he will still have to pay £9 5s. If, at the end of the first year, he has exhausted his small capital, and has not sufficient left to enable him to renew his certificate, he will not be allowed to continue his practice. He must either throw up his profession altogether, or endeavour to get a clerkship, and he will find the latter no easy task. It is time this unjust state of things was remedied, but if the Law Society will not take it up, who will? I think a petition, signed by a large number of solicitors, should be presented to the Law Society praying that steps be at once taken to get the annual certificate duty abolished, and if the society do not then take steps to get the evil remedied, that men should be elected on the council who will take such steps. The tax was first levied for an improper purpose, and has been allowed to continue simply through the impotence of the profession that pays it. G. M. H. TRIAL OF ACTIONS WITHOUT PLEADINGS.-It may be of interest to your readers to know with what expedition an action without pleadings can be tried. In an action for commission the writ was issued on the 26th Aug. of the present year, and at the hearing of a summons under Order XIV., r. 1, on the 29th Sept., the action was ordered to be set down for trial without pleadings, the defence being that the defendants were not the parties liable. The action was entered for trial the next day, the 36th Sept., and was in the list for trial on the 9th Dec. inst., when it was disposed of by consent. Between the issuing of the writ and the summons under Order XIV. there was some delay, owing to the Long Vacation, but between the date of entry for trial and the trial itself a little over two months elapsed, so that the ideal limit was nearly attained. Of course, the action was a simple one, and the issue clearly defined. A SOLICITOR. INNS OF COURT.-In your issue of Saturday, Dec. 12, you notice the interesting debate at the Hardwicke Society concerning the Inns of Court. Mr. Cavanagh very properly emphasised the fiduciary character of the relations existing between the Benchers and the cestuis que trust, with regard to the mansions which are held "for lodgings, reception, and education of the professors and students of the laws of this realm." He also very usefully directed attention to the unjust secrecy maintained regarding finances. Now, although I would be inclined to regard the nation at large, and not merely the barristers, as the cestuis que trust, I am entirely with Mr. Cavanagh when he insists upon strict adherence to the fiduciary relation. I therefore ask your attention towards the express duty of the trustees to afford lodging and reception for students and professors. It seems to me that no steps are taken to secure and maintain in good order residential rooms available at reasonable rents to the large numbers of provincial and colonial students who would be glad to make use of them in preference to town lodgings if the authorities were to adopt in this respect methods similar to those of the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges. A COLONIAL STUDENT. NAPIER AND STEPHENSON'S PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE BAR.-The Guide commences with a Chapter on the Prospects at the Bar, and the advantages of being called, and contains a Sketch of the ordinary legal career of a Bar Student. Special practical advice is given on such matters as reading in Chambers, and also on all the different matters connected with the Examinations; advice as to the best books to be read, &c. The book also contains full particulars as to the Fees, &c., payable at the different Inns, and a few considerations as to the selection of an Inn, &c. Price 2s. 6d.-HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.-[ADVT.] JENNINGS'S ANECDOTAL HISTORY OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT.With Additions, from the Earliest Periods to the Present Time, with Notices of Eminent Parliamentary Men and Examples of their Oratory. Third Edition. Price 15s.-HORACE COX, "Law Times "Office, Windscr House, Bream's-buildings, E.C.—[ADVT.] FIRST CLASS (in order of merit).—Arthur Farquhar Chilver, B.A. (Mr. Marshall Pontifex, of the firm of Pontifex, Hewitt, and Pitt, of London). SECOND CLASS (in alphabetical order). Edwin Dodshon, LL.B. Messrs. Pomeroy and Tanner, of Bristol, and Messrs. Woodcock, Ryland and Parker, of London); William George Earengey (Mr. Robert Edward Steele, of Cheltenham); William Pritchard Elias, B.A. (Mr. Richard Hughes Pritchards, of Bangor, and Messrs. Simpson and Co., of London); Harry Ross Giles (Mr. Alfred Charles Dowding, of London); Edmund Huntsman (Mr. Griffith Caradog Rees, of Birkenhead); John Henry Robinson (Mr. Frederic William Hardman, LL.D., of Deal, and Messrs. Hare and Co., of London); Frank Herron Stevens (Mr. Edgar Alexander Baylis, of London); Hugh John Vinall (Mr. Isaac Vinall, of Lewis). THIRD CLASS (in alphabetical order). William Stobo Andrew (Mr. Richard White Beor, of Swansea); Herbert John Berry (Mr. Henry Charles Raby, of the firm of Messrs. Hockin, Raby, and Beckton, of Manchester); George Fowler Carrington Brown (Mr. George Fowler Brown, of Ashby-de-la-Zouch); Henry Wordsworth Clemesha, M.A. (Mr. Thomas Reveley, of the firm of Messrs. Houghton, Myres, and Revely, of Preston); Harry Neild Collis, B.A., LL.B. (Mr. Charles William Collis, of Stourbridge, and Messrs. Walker, Son, and Field, of London); Leonard Cotman, B.A. (Messrs. Cotman and Son, of Preston); Bernard Withers Dowson (Mr. Walter Grey, of Manchester, and Messrs. Bush and Mellor, of London); Charles Ekin, B.A. (Messrs. Johnson and Co., of Birmingham, and Messrs. Burton, Yeates, and Hart, of London); Herbert Francis (Mr Arnold Trinder, of the firm of Messrs. Capron and Trinder, of London); James Hall Smith (Mr. Robert Cresswell Burrows, of Cambridge, and Mr. Henry Reid, of London); Arthur Claude Havers, B.A. (Messrs. Morley, Shirreff, and Co., of London); Harry Holt (Mr. Alexander Molesworth, of Rochdale, and Messrs. Walker and Rowe, of London); George Livsey, LL.B. (Mr. Henry Harwood, M.A., of the firm of Messrs. Aston, Harwood, and Somers, of Manchester); Guy Matthews. (Mr. Sydney Matthews, of Swaffham, and Messrs. Crossman and Prichard, of London); Harry Pfahl (Mr. Harry James Lewis, of London); William Edward Pryce (Mr. Charles George Scott, of London); William Augustus Cassin Raper (Mr. William Augustus Raper, of Battle, and Rowcliffes, Rawle, and Co., of London); Charles Robinson (Mr. Richard Robinson, of Watton); Christopher Wesley Shimeld, (Mr. James Henry Ascroft, B.A., of the firm of Messrs. Robert and James Ascroft, of Oldham); Percy Hazell Smith (Mr. Briscoe Hooper, of Torquay, and Messrs. Woodcock, Ryland, and Parker, of London); George Frederic Tanner (Mr. Frederick William Roe Rycroft and Mr. James Hislop, both of Manchester, and Messrs. Pritchard, Englefield, and Co., of London); Francis Joseph Weld (Messrs Weld and Thomas, of Liverpool, and Messrs. Rowcliffes, Rawle, and Co., of London). The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly given class certificates and awarded the following prizes of books:-To Mr. A. F. Chilver-Prize of the Honourable Society of Clement's-inn, value about £10, and the Daniel Reardon Prize, value about 20 guineas. To Mr. Edmund Huntsman, who served under articles of clerkship to Mr. Griffith Caradog Rees, of Birkenhead-" The John Mackrell Prize," value about £12. The council have given class certificates to the candidates in the second and third classes. Ninety-eight candidates gave notice for the examination. STUDENTS' SOCIETIES. LEEDS LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. MR. JUSTICE VAUGHAN WILLIAMS ON "LAW AND LIBERTY." THE annual dinner of the Leeds Law Students' Society was held at the Great Northern Railway Station Hotel, on the 10th inst. Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams (president for the year) was in the chair, and the company also included Mr. Justice Grantham, the Mayor of Leeds (Sir James Kitson, Bart., M.P.), his Honour Judge Bompas, Q.C., Mr. C. M. Atkinson (stipendiary magistrate), Mr. John Harrison (town clerk), Mr. John Bowling (official receiver), Mr. A. Copson Peake (clerk of the peace), Mr. F. W. Grantham, and Mr. L. E. Vaughan Williams (judges' marshals), Mr. Thomas Piercy (ex-president of the society), Mr. James Beaumont, Dr. Chapman, Mr. Walter Foster, Mr. Arthur Willey, and the hon. secretaries (M. F. G. Jackson and Mr. William Bowling). Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, on rising to deliver his presidential address, was cordially greeted. He said he proposed to make a few observations on "Law and Liberty." In England, liberty was not a law. What he meant was, that there was no law or proclamation declaring that the people of this realm should be free. The truth of the matter was that one started with a sort of instinctive national axiom of liberty and freedom. As they knew, the French at one period of their history proclained" Liberty, equality, and fraternity." We in England had no need to proclaim "Liberty, equality, and fraternity," and if they looked at the history of the English Constitution they would not find proclama tions of liberty. What they would find was a series of statutes passed from time to time to prevent infractions of liberty. They would also find a series of statutes which, though not passed to prevent infractions of liberty, were the strongest assertions of liberty, because the only reason for the existence of such statutes was that they legalised that which was an exception to the ordinary rule of liberty. They would further find that the liberty of England was proclaimed in the decisions of the judges in the Law Courts, When liberty was proclaimed in that way it was called common law. But there was no such thing as a written common law which could be studied as a whole. The common law was really a national instinct, and that national instinct, as he had said, was sometimes expressed in the shape of statutes and sometimes in the shape of judgments. He proposed to call attention to one or two examples of this recognition of liberty by the English law. In the first place, let him take the statutory recognition that took the shape of prohibition of anything that was an infraction of this unwritten right of liberty of the subject. Of course, one began with Magna Charta. He took it for granted that they knew that Magna Charta, or rather the principle of habeas corpus embodied in Magna Charta, was not unknown even in times before Magna Charta. The principles of Magna Charta were reaffirmed several times in the times of the Edwards and of Henry VIII. Then they came to the time of the Stuarts, when the deliberate infractions of personal liberty of the subject by the Stuart kings led to the necessity for a new expression of the right of liberty of the English people. That first took form in the Petition of Right; then followed the Habeas Corpus Act, and afterwards the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. And then as time went on care was taken by the Legislature to extend the right of habeas corpus - which under the original statute was practically only available in case of detention for crime, or detention under political process so as to make it apply to every process, and then the Legislature also took care that the mode of applying for it should be very much improved-in fact, made so easy that no one who found his personal liberty restrained could fail to obtain a writ of habeas corpus if he had any prima facie case whatever. He was afraid that to a certain extent there was a sluggishness about the judges in giving effect to the Habeas Corpus Acts which led to the necessity of some later statutes. He thought Fox's Libel Act was really as great a legislative assertion of liberty as there had ever been. It was true that in a technical sense the Libel Act had nothing to do with the freedom of our bodies, but it did secure to us, if he might use the expression, freedom of written speech. And they all knew at this time, with the spread of education, what an important thing it was for liberty that we should enjoy freedom of speech. He had stated that there were some statutes the very necessity of which was a strong affirmation of our right of liberty, and a particular class of statutes which he took as an illustration of that were the Mutiny Acts, in which he had a double recognition of our right of liberty. We could not have a grander assertion of liberty than the institution of trial by jury. No man was to be imprisoned or put to death excepting upon the verdict of twelve of his peers. In earlier days if a man had a bad character he had an extra chance of being hanged, because the fact was always brought out. Lord Holt was the first person who declared that that was illegal. Another good thing Lord Holt did was not to allow anybody to be tried in fetters. Even now a prisoner was occasionally brought into court in handcuffs-on the ground, it was said, of his violence and then the judge, if he knew his opportunity, ordered them to be taken off as it was contrary to Act of Parliament. His Lordship proceeded to refer to certain prerogatives of the Crown to show how the expression of them or, to speak more accurately, the limitation of them---was the strongest evidence of English liberty. The first was that "the King can do no wrong," and that, therefore, he could not authorise a wrong, and it followed that the authority of the Crown could not afford a defence to an action brought for an illegal act committed by an officer of the Crown. The outcome of that doctrine, as handled in the law courts, was an immense protection of the subject. Another prerogative was that the King was bound by his own and his ancestors' grants, and could not therefore by his mere prerogative take away vested immunities and privileges. Though a corporation created by a charter of the Crown might be dissolved on scire facias, yet when the corporation had been guilty of an abuse of the power vested in it, it could not be dissolved at the mere will of the Crown; if the king created a corporation he could not dissolve it except for good cause. The next prerogative was of more general interest; the king could not by proclamation do more than command the performance of existing laws. For that reason, inasmuch as by the existing laws there was absolute right of free speech and absolute right of public meeting, the Crown could not by proclamation prohibit public meeting. Perhaps it might be said that the Crown had done so during the last few years. If they would look a little further they would find that that was in Ireland and with the express authority of the Coercion Act. But apart from that Act it could not have been done. The next prerogative was the prerogative of pardon. The king had the prerogative of pardon, but he could never so pardon as to affect any legal right or benefit vested in the subject, and he could not by pardon defeat a subject's right of action. There was an analogous right in the Crown-and one that was more likely to be exercised namely, the right of entering a nolle prosequi. It must be borne in mind, however, that a nolle prosequi could not stop an impeachment. In any impeachment by the House of Commons the Sovereign was not the prosecutor, and could not therefore stop it. The Sovereign could pardon, but, as in the case of Lord Strafford, he could not pardon before the impeachment-it must be afterwards. The nolle prosequi was not used nowadays for political purposes, although a case might conceivably arise in which it might be so used. All he could say, however, was that he did not like the flavour of a nolle prosequi. It seemed to him not to have a true English smack about it. Reverting to the English instinct of liberty to which his Lordship had previously alluded-he said he could not help thinking that it was due to this instinct that wherever we came in contact with any races in the world-it mattered not whether they were subject races or conquered races-we immediately extended to them the great right of personal liberty and freedom, the great right of equality of the law, and the greater right of the superiority of the law to the Executive. As an illustration, he quoted the case of India. What, he asked, afforded us our best defence in India? He was not for one moment forgetting or depreciating the services of men like those who fought at Chitral when he said that our best defence in India was that we had so governed the peoples of that land with such wisdom, with such liberty, with such equality, and with such control of the Executive, that the Indian people would prefer to be governed by us than by any other nation in the world. Another illustration is the case of Egypt. In Egypt there was an unmanly, irresolute crowd of men hardly worthy of the name of soldiers, and English officers had converted these men into a gallant, resolute army, who the other day had performed great feats. These English officers could not help teaching the Egyptians this lesson, because they could not help teaching them that they were free men and not slaves. The learned judge called attention to the fact that, as far as he knew, the writ of habeas corpus only existed amongst English-speaking people. In this connection his Lordship referred to the Frenchman Arton, and asked his hearers to observe how different the case was when we asked the French Government to give up Tynan. The French Government refused to hand over the prisoner, and, as far as he (Mr. Justice Williams) could judge, they were as a matter of law quite right. If the cause had been tried-if the case had been heard and argued in the Court of Queen's Bench-Tynan would not have been given up. That, however, did not alter the fact that the question whether he was to be given up or not was not decided by law. It was decided as a political matter by a Secretary of State with a portfolio. At the same time it appeared to him that when they wanted to appreciate the full bearing of the habeas, they would see it very well illustrated in the difference in procedure under which we could obtain the extradition of a prisoner. We ought to be thankful for our criminal procedure. If a case was tried in the English courts the only question that would be triedafter we had determined the factss-was a question of pure law. But we always kept the two things separate; we did not mix up any outside sentimental considerations with questions of law. Quoting the judgment in the case of Major Lothaire, his Lordship said that in that judgment it was held that judicial errors, as far as proved, did not affect the legality of the judgment under which Stokes was condemned, apparently because the judgment was guided by motives of conscience and probity. In England, if a few judicial errors were made which made the trial no trial he was afraid that, if anyone said, "Oh, but I did it with the best of intentions," the excuse would not be accepted. Did not they feel a sense of pride that England, having, for the sake of good neighbourly feeling with other countries, passed a Foreign Enlistment Act, and a breach of it having been committed-although the persons charged under the Act happened to be persons to whom the country owed much in the past, persons who erred from an excess of what they supposed to be patriotic feeling-still in our law courts there was no acquittal upon the ground that these men acted from patriotic motives, or that their past was a guarantee of their honour and probity? In conclusion, the President said that if he had been able to bring before his hearers more broadly the fact that the English law was indissolubly bound up with English liberty, being really based upon it, if he had brought to their minds that this was not only true of the great unwritten common law, but also that it was true of the history of our statutes, and if he had aroused in them an interest in this particular subject, then he should be more than repaid. The President then proposed the toast of the Leeds Law Students' Society, which was coupled with the name of Mr. F. G. Jackson, hon. secretary. In responding Mr. Jackson said the past session had been the most successful in the society's history. The income had been the largest yet experienced, and although the balance in hand was not so large, the society had got good value for money expended in the formation of a law students' library, which had been of great service to the members. Mr. W. Bowling having read a number of letters of apology, including two from the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Justice Henn Collins, Mr. John Harrison (Town Clerk) gave "Her Majesty's Judges." Mr. Harrison said the question was often discussed as to whether the press or the pulpit had the greater influence in this country; but he thought it would be admitted that nothing gave greater confidence to the country than the law, upon which the prosperity and development of our realm depended. Passing on to speak of the respect with which the English law was regarded in other countries, Mr. Harrison reminded his hearers that nobody contributed more to the settlement of the vexed Venezuelan question than the Lord Chief Justice and those members of the Bar who accompanied him to America. Mr. Justice Grantham, who had a hearty reception, responded to the toast in a witty speech. Speaking of the interesting address of the President, he said his learned brother had had one great advantage over him in the judicial race. Although each was the husband of one wife, yet whereas he (Justice Grantham) had only one "father-in-law," Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams had two, having been the son of one of the most eminent judges this country had ever possessed. The late Mr. Justice Williams was held in the greatest esteem by every member of the Bar in his own days, as well as by his brother judges. He was indeed a pundit one of the greatest pundits the English law had ever known. Again, a great difference between himself and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams was that whereas he (the speaker) had inherited some few poor acres of clay, which absorbed everything he could make at the Bar as well as a certain amount of his time, his learned brother inherited mines of gold in the shape of Williams's "Law of Executors." Mr. Justice Grantham went on to speak of the kindly reception accorded to Her Majesty's judges wherever they went. Their duties were not light, and their responsibilities were great. The weight of those responsibilities was not lessened by the fact that their duties were always performed in public and under the full blaze of the sun-at least, he took it there was a sun in Leeds. At any rate, they were subjected to the cool blaze of criticism, not only of the Press, but also of everyone who was concerned in the cases with which they had to deal. When it was remembered that the whole of their judicial lives was spent either in sending some of their neighbours to durance vile for greater or lesser periods, or in giving judgment against some unhappy client, which would probably cost him hundreds of pounds, and considering that they were thus making enemies every day, it was extraordinary how few enemies they met with. The explanation must be found in the good will and good fellowship and kindly feeling of those for whom they administered justice, and he hoped also that the judges as a body endeavoured to live up to the great position which was given them by their Queen, and that they always tried to be worthy of the noble office they held. In proposing the toast of the "Leeds Law Society," his Honour Judge Bompas, Q.C. said he had come to Leeds a comparative stranger, knowing little of the work of the society. No one, however, could be among the solicitors of that district even for so short a time as he had been amongst them without feeling that they did credit to that and to other kindred societies. There were few professions, continued his Honour, which had made so much progress within the last thirty or forty years as that of the solicitor, and this result, he thought, was largely due to the action both of the Incorporated Law Society in London and to the local societies, which had aided it in the study of the law and in keeping up the character of the Profession. Mr. Thos. Piercy, ex-president of the Leeds Law Society, acknowledged the toast. Mr William Bowling, hon. secretary, proposed "The Visitors," the Mayor suitably responding. The health of "The President was submitted by the Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr. C. M. Atkinson).—In reply Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, after expressing his pleasure at being able to preside over the gathering, went on to speak a few personal words. He was deeply impressed, as were also his brother judges, with the responsibility of the office which they held. When a judge was in court it was his duty to make up his mind upon any question that was presented to him, and to deliver his judgment fearlessly and with confidence. He should be sorry, however, if anybody supposed that a judge ever was or ever could be satisfied with his own administration of justice. He should pity a judge and his conception of duty if he supposed that he could possibly administer justice well even according to his own conception. Fortunately, in the performance of their duties the judges had one enormous advantage, and that was that their conduct was open to criticism, and particularly to the criticism of the Press. It was an absolute rule among the judges that they should never answer criticism. At the same time, seeing that the country formed an opinion of its judges' conduct from the criticism to which they were subjected, a wise judge, so far from being vexed by criticism, would be pleased by it, and if he felt in his own conscience that it was just would try never again to offer an occasion for that particular criticism. The proceedings were then brought to a close. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.-The usual weekly meeting at the above society was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Tuesday, the 15th inst.; chairman, Mr. J. S. Wilkinson. The subject for debate was: "That this society regrets the decision in Reddaway v. Banham' (74 L. T. Rep. 289; (1896) A. C. 199). Mr. Neville Tebbutt opened in the affirmative, and Mr. F. H. Stevens seconded; Mr. Hamilton Fox opened in the negative. The following members also spoke : Messrs. A. Dickson, S. Miall, J. A. Burns, Haseldine Jones, Archibald Hair, W. Hudson, Arthur E. Clarke, Augustus Anderson. The motion was lost by six votes. BIRMINGHAM.-A meeting of this society took place on the 15th inst in the Law Library, Bennett's-hill; Mr. H. A. McCardie, barrister, presided. The subject for debate was: "That a married woman should be placed on the same legal footing as a feme sole." The speakers were: for the affirmative, Messrs. C. H. Smith, G. E. T. Edalji, F. Minton, F. H. Argyle, and F. O. Hopson; and for the negative, Messrs. H. Eaden, E. A. Crump, M. F. Parish, A. F. Lovatt, H. S. Clapham, and F. W. Green. The Chairman having summed up, the question was put to the vote, and decided in the negative by a majority of fourteen votes. LEEDS.-A joint debate between this society and the Yorkshire College Medical Society was held on Wednesday, the 9th inst., in the Medical Hall, Leeds; Mr. J. Basil Hall, M.B., in the chair. There was a good attendance. The subject for debate was, "That a knowledge of right and wrong is not a sufficient test of the criminal responsibility of the insane." Mr. J. Holmes, of the Medical Society, opened in the affirmative. He said the test was not sufficient because it was quite possible for an insane criminal to know the difference between right and wrong, and yet not be responsible for his actions. For instance, it sometimes happened that a lunatic planned and perpetrated a murder, knowing all the time that it was a wrong thing to do, and yet feeling impelled to do it by some irresistible impulse. The affirmative was seconded by Mr. Victor Hartley. Mr. F. C. Jackson, of the Law Students' Society, in the negative, said that the present test had formed part of our system of medical jurisprudence for over fifty years. During that time no serious objection had been raised against it. It could not be said that the test erred on the side of severity, although it might be urged that it operated with uncertainty. Any fresh test that could be formulated would, however, be open to that objection. The negative was seconded by Mr. G. E. Foster, of the Law Students' Society. A lengthy and animated discussion ensued in which the affirmative was supported by Messrs. Thompson, Dunne, Clegg, Turton, Rowling, and Levi, and the negative by Messrs. Masser, Bowling, and Snowdon. The question was eventually decided in the affirmative by a majority of three. The last meeting of the half-session was held on Monday, the 14th inst., in the Law Institute, Albion-place, Leeds; Mr. Arthur Willey in the chair. The subject for debate was as follows: "A lady deposited a box containing valuables with her bankers for safe custody, they undertaking (in writing) to deliver up the box only upon production of an authority signed by the lady. The only consideration for this was the profit made by the bankers upon the lady's account with them. Eventually, the bankers delivered up the box upon an authority written upon the lady's note paper, and purporting to be signed by her, but which afterwards turned out to be a clever forgery. Can the lady maintain an action against the bankers for the value of the contents of the box? Mr. Richard Roey opened in the affirmative. He said the bankers were bailees of the box, and would be liable whether they were gratuitous bailees or bailees for hire, as they had been guilty of gross negligence in giving up the box. Mr. A. Hutley, in the negative, contended that the bankers had exercised all reasonable and proper care, and that the loss of the box was not the natural and direct consequence of their action. After an interesting discussion, the question was decided in the affirmative by a majority of five, and the proceedings terminated with a vote of thanks to the chairman. MANCHESTER.-The fourth meeting of the session was held in the Law Library on Tuesday, the 8th inst.; Mr. H. F. Crofton in the chair. The subject of debate, which ran as follows, gave plenty of scope for keen discussion: " Mr. Kodak takes without permission a snapshot of a lady and gentleman in a boat under some trees. The gentleman has his arm round the lady's waist. This photograph Mr. Kodak is in the habit of showing to his bachelor friends who visit him at his chambers. Major Sprightley has for some time past been very suspicious of a certain Mr. Brown, who, he considers, is too attentive to Mrs. Sprightley. A Mr. Smith, in company with Major Sprightley, calls at Mr. Kodak's chambers one evening, and Major Sprightley is introduced to Mr. Kodak. Eventually Mr. Kodak shows his collection of snapshots, including that of a lady and gentleman in a boat. Major Sprightley recognises his wife and Mr. Brown, and Mrs. Sprightley, when charged, has to admit that she has carried on a foolish but innocent flirtation with Mr. Brown. Major Sprightley declines to cohabit any longer with his wife. Has Mrs. Sprightley a right of action against Mr. Kodak?" Mr. P. Hibbert, for the affirmative, submitted that the photo had been taken with the express object of holding the unwilling sitters up to public ridicule; that the publication of such a snapshot was more libellous than the most pointed words; and that, finally, the policy of the law was to respect the person," and put a stop to promiscuous photography. Mr. W. A. Wilkinson, in reply, argued that Mr. Kodak was at liberty to take as many photos as he chose, and was not liable in contract or tort to the fair plaintiff; that he had not acted negligently in any single respect; and that, finally, it was the gross contributory negligence of the plaintiff in flirting with Mr. Brown that was the direct cause of her husband's refusal to live with her any longer. The following took part in the debate: Messrs. E. C. Pearson, A. Richardson, F. Hindle, H. Bury, Z. M. Lord, C. Pickstone, and F. Williamson in the affirmative; and Messrs. F. Preston, F. S. Oppenheim, J. Crofton, C. R. Allen, F. W. Watson, G. Buckley, and W. Booth in the negative. The meeting decided against a right of action by a majority of eighteen. LEGAL OBITUARY. Mr. THOMAS HULL TERRELL, died at Nice on the 7th inst., at the age of eighty-seven. He was the fourth son of the late John Terrell, solicitor, of Exeter. He was called to the Bar in 1835, and later on became judge of the Clerkenwell County Court, from which he was removed to South Wales Circuit No. 31. He retired from the County Court Bench in 1877 and was succeeded by his Honour the late Judge William Beresford. Three of his sons are at the Bar: Mr. Thomas Terrell, Q.C., Mr. Arthur A'Beckett Terrell, and Mr. Henry Terrell. Mr. L. C. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT, for many years one of the police magistrates of the metropolis, died from an attack of pneumonia, on Friday the 11th inst., at his residence in London. Mr. d'Eyncourt was the third son of Mr. Tennyson d'Eyncourt, M.P., of Bayon's Manor, Lincolnshire, and was born in 1814, being thus eighty-two years of age at the time of his death. The family name was originally Tennyson (Mr. d'Eyncourt was a cousin of the late Poet Laureate), but the father of the ex-magistrate assumed the surname of d'Eyncourt. Mr. Louis d'Eyncourt was educated at Westminster and King's College, London, was called to the Bar in 1840, and was for over forty years a metropolitan police magistrate, the latter portion of his term of office being spent at Westminster. On his retirement he took up his residence at Bayon's Manor, Lincolnshire, and was socially well known and highly popular in the district. He was a magistrate, and was, despite his advanced age, hale and hearty. About a fortnight ago he contracted a chill, and pneumonia set in, which ended fatally. Mr. d'Eyncourt married, in 1852, a daughter of Mr. J. A. Ashton Yates, of Dinglehead, Liverpool, who survives him, and he leaves three sons and two daughters. DE FALBE, CARL VIGANT, late Grosvenor-sq. Pet. Nov. 20. Order, Dec. 8. HYDE, LORENZO (trading as Hyde Brothers), Lugard-rd, Peckham, carriage builder. LOCKYER, CONRAD WILLIAM, St. Julian's Farm-rd, West Norwood, physician. Pet. Dec. 8. Order, Dec. 8. MIDDLETON. BENJAMIN, Topsfield-parade, Crouch End, china dealer. Pet. Dec. 8. PERRIN, CHARLES, late Plymouth, major in Her Majesty's service. Pet. Dec. 8. To surrender at their respective District Courts. BOND, MARGARET, Accrington, heald knitter, spinster. Ct. Blackburn. Pet. Dec. 7. Order, Dec. 9. BALLS, GEORGE, Great Yarmouth, fishing-boat owner. Ct. Great Yarmouth. Pet. Dec. 9. Order, Dec 9. BEESON, WALTER, Huddersfield, cloth merchant. Ct. Huddersfield. Pet. Dec. 7. Order, Dec. 7. BOYNTON, HARRY THOMAS, Ventnor, pork butcher. Ct. Newport and Ryde. Pet. Dec. 2. Order, Dec. 2. BELL, SAMUEL JOHN, Hargham, farmer. Ct. Norwich. Pet. Dec. 7. Order. Dec. 7. BLAKE, ARTHUR WILLIAM, Norwich, watchmaker. Ct. Norwich. Pet. Dec. 9. Order, Dec. 9. BOLTON, THOMAS, Bevois Hill, late licensed victualler. Ct. Southampton. Pet. Dec. 8. Order, Dec. 8. BULL, FREDERICK, Shirley, late builder. Ct. Southampton. Pet. Dec. 8. Order, Dec. 8. BYRNE FREDERICK (trading as Frederick Byrne and Co.). Wandsworth, cabinet manufacturer. Ct. Wandsworth. Pet. Dec. 5. Order, Dec. 5. CHILTON, ALFRED, late Brighton, clothier. Ct. Brighton. Pet. Nov. 23. Order, Dec. 8. CARLTON, JOSEPH, Leeds, late publican. Ct. Leeds. Pet. Dec. 4. Order, Dec. 4. DEW. WALTER, Gamlingay, veterinary surgeon. Ct. Bedford. Pet. Nov. 24. Order, Dec. 7. EVANS, EVAN HARRIS, Neath, draper. Ct. Neath. Pet. Nov. 26. Order, Dec. 9. EISENHOFER, ANTHONY AUGUSTUS, Twickenham, tutor. Ct. Brentford. Pet. Dec. 7. Order, Dec. 7. GREGORY, JAMES, Tintwistle, greengrocer. Ct. Ashton-under-Lyne and Stalybridge. Pet. Dec. 8. Order, Dec. 8. HASLETT, WILLIAM GEORGE (trading as Smart and Haslett), Singleton, grocer. Ct. Brighton. Pet. Dec. 9. Order. Dec. 9. HOLMES, WILLIAM REEVE, Old Normanton, market gardener. Ct. Derby. Pet. Dec. 7. Order, Dec. 7. HILL, SAMUEL, Widnes, butcher. Ct. Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 7. Order. Dec. 7. JOHNSTON, ROBERT, Chipping Campden, hosier. Ct. Banbury. Pet. Nov. 30. Order, Dec. 9. MELLING, EDWARD, Aighton Bailey and Chaigley, farmer. Ct. Blackburn. Pet. Dec. 9. Order, Dec. 9. MORRIS, RICHARD, Ryde, grocer. Ct. Newport and Ryde. Pet. Dec. 8. Order, Dec. 8. Pet. Nov. 27 Ct. Kingston-upon-Hull. Pet TINDALL, JAMES, Kingston-upon-Hull, cowkeeper. WINGROVE, JOHN GEORGE, Purfleet, hotel proprietor. Ct. Rochester. Pet. Dec. 9 The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the Gazette of Nov. 10. SCOTT, JOSEPH CONSTABLE MAXWELL, Wimbledon. Ct. Kingston, Surrey. Pet Sept. 14. Order, Nov. 6. The following amended notice is substituted for that published in the Gazette of Nor. 24. VERTEGANS, JOHN JAMES, Manchester, accountant. Ct. Manchester. Order, Nov. 19. GAZETTE, DEC. 15. To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. EARL, STEPHEN, late London-wall. Pet. Nov. 11. Order, Dec. 8. MULLEN, LUCY JEMIMA (trading as B. William), Ivy-la, Paternoster-row, music To surrender at their respective District Courts. ARRIDGE, JOHN, Bangor, boot dealer. Ct. Bangor. Pet. Nov. 28. Order, Dec. 11. ATKINSGN, HENRY JOHN, Great Grimsby, late secretary of a public company. Ct. Great Grimsby. Pet. Nov. 27. Order, Dec. 10. BIRTWHISTLE, LEWIS, Halifax, draper. Ct. Halifax. Pet. Dec. 11. Order, Dec. 11. BROADHEAD, FREDERICK WILLIAM (trading as F. W. Broadhead and Son), Leicester, photographer. Ct. Leicester. Pet. Dec. 9. Order, Dec. 9. BARBER, ARTHUR SAMUEL, Caston, baker. Ct. Norwich. Pet. Nov. 28. Order, Dec. 12. BARRELL, JAMES, Senghenydd, baker. Ct. Pontypridd. Pet. Dec. 11. Order, Dec. 11. BATTERSHELL, FRANCIS SPRAGG, New Wandsworth, wood engraver. Ct. Wandsworth. Pet. Nov. 17. Order, Dec. 10. CLARKE, CHARLES, Newquay, fish curer. Ct. Truro. Pet. Dec. 10. Order, Dec. 10. COLLET. EDWARD FRANCIS, late Worthing, solicitor. Ct. Brighton. Pet. Dec. 10. DURSTON, WILLIAM FREDERICK, Lympsham, farmer. Ct. Bridgwater. Pet. Dec. 2. Order, Dec. 12. DANDISON, WILLIAM, Torquay, lodging-house keeper. Ct. Exeter. Pet. Nov. 30. Order, Dec. 9. DAWSON, HARRY, Leeds, clerk. Ct. Leeds. Pet. Dec. 10. Order, Dec. 10. EVANS, DAVID, Maesycwmmer, journeyman carpenter. Ct. Newport, Mon. Pet. Dec 11. Order, Dec. 11. FURNELL, HENRY, Tisbury, late carrier. Ct. Salisbury. Pet. Dec. 10. Order, Dec. 10. GROVE, EDITH, Swansea, hotel-keeper, widow. Ct. Swansea. Pet. Dec. 11. Order, Ct. Southampton. Pet. OSBORNE, RICHARD FREDERICK, Southampton, hosier. RICHARDS, THOMAS, Ystrad Rhondda, grocer. Ct. Pontypridd. Pet. Dec. 11. Order, SLATER, JOHN CLEMENT (trading as Slater Brothers). Longton, leather dealer. Ct. as Lord Edward SALMON, SAMUEL, Abergwynfl, ale merchant. Ct. Cardiff. Pet. Dec. 11. Order, Dec. 11. SAVAGE, WALTER GEORGE, late Loughborough, watchmaker. Ct. Leicester. Pet. Dec. 3. Order, Dec. 10. TILLOTT, CHARLES, Leamington, baker. Ct. Warwick. Pet. Dec. 7. Order, Dec. 7. VINER, FRANCIS, West Hartlepool, innkeeper. Ct. Sunderland. Pet. Dec. 11. Order, Dec. 11. WHITE, FREDERICK, Biggleswade, tinman. Ct. Bedford. Pet. Dec. 10. Order, Dec. 10. FIRST MEETINGS AND PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS. ALLEN, CHARLES, Kemerton, baker. Ct. Cheltenham. Meeting, Dec. 22, at 2.30, at ANDREWS, WILLIAM THOMAS, Middlewich, coal merchant. Ct. Nantwich and Crewe. Meeting, Dec. 18, at 11, at Royal hotel, Crewe. Exam. Dec. 18, at 11.30, at Courtroom, Crewe. |