« EelmineJätka »
MULTIPLE INNER SELVAGE MACHINE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by
Jan. 2, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to Mr. P. Gregson, 57, Princess-st, Manchester, the liquidator of the company. Sampson and Price, 1, Princess-st,
Albert-sg, Manchester, solicitors to the liquidator. METEOR INCANDESCENT LIGHTING COMPANY LIMITED. --- Petition for winding-up to
be heard Dec. 7, before Mr. Justice Romer, sitting for Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams. Phelps, Sidgwick, and Biddle, 22, Aldermanbury, solicitors for the petitioning company. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their
solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on Dec. 5.
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOFS. HAYWARD (Richard Henry), Marks Barn House, Crewkerne. Somersetsbire, gentleman.
Dec. 20: M. F. Tweedie, solicitor, 5, Lincoln's-inn-flds. Jan. 8; Mr. Justice
Chitty, at twelve o'clock. OVERELL (John), Yardeley, Hertfordshire. Jan. 7; H. A. Phillips, solicitor, 6, Eldon
st, Finsbury. Jan. 21; Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock, PHILLIPS (John Robert), Trevaughan, near Whitland, Carmarthenshire, gentleman.
Dec. 14: J. Roberts, Registrar of the Pembrokeshire County Court, holden at Marberth. Dec. 17; the registrar aforesaid, at hall-past ten o'clock.
the year was between ten and eleven millions, and that capital represented on the average between sixteen and seventeen years' purchase of the gross annual value. Houses, whether private residences or business premises, reached a capital value of nearly twenty-one millions, representing on the average between fourteen and fifteen years' purchase of the gross annual value. Ground and chief rents, feu-duties, and other charges of the like nature amounted to a capital of between two and three millions, being an average of nearly twenty-four years' purchase of their annual value.
The amount of Settlement estate duty paid during the year shows a great increase. This was anticipated in our report of last year. The yield of this duty was £125,720, as compared with £19,680 in 1894-95.
In our report of last year we called attention to the great falling off in the amount of “ Personalty situate in the United Kingdom passing by will or intestacy,” whether subject to estate duty or to probate duty. The amount of such property in 1894-95 was only £141,421,000, as compared with £159,688,000 in 1893-94. At the same time we combated the notion that this falling off was due mainly to evasion of the duty consequent upon the higher rates imposed by the Finance Act of 1894, The correctness of our contention appears to be borne out by the results of the past year, in which the amount of personalty of this description has once more risen to £162,569,000, being £21,148,000 in excess of 1894-95, and £2,881,000 in excess of 1893-94. These figures show that the fears of evasion, based on the great falling off in the total of this kind of property in 1894-95, were exaggerated. The principle causes of that falling off were the low death-rate of the last-named year and the delay in charging and collecting the duty, inevitably resulting from so complete a revolution is the system of death-duties as that produced by the Act of 1894. This letter influence is still to some extent operative, and it is one reason why the amount of this property paying duty in 1895-96, though greatly in excess of the figures of 1894-95, did not make up for the deficiency which manifested itself in that year. We are, however, far from contending that, even after making every allowance for other causes of diminution, the figures of the two years, taken together, do not indicate it, and that impression is confirmed by other evidence. In our report of last year we said, with reference to this subject :-“It is a safe generalisation that every increase in the rate of a tax is followed by some decrease in the amount of the property, or the articles subject to it. The results of the Finance Act, 1894, will certainly not constitute an exception to this most universal of fiscal experiences. But there is as yet no evidence to show that the new Estate duty is being avoided to a greater extent than was anticipated or allowed for at the time when it was imposed.” The experience of another year gives as no reason for modifying this opinion either in one direction or the other.
TEMPLE CHURCH. The order of the morning service for to-morrow will be as follows : First Lesson, Isaiah i. Second Lesson, 1 Peter ii. v. 11 to chap. iii. v. 8. Versicles, &c. : Ferial, pp. 1-3. Te Deum Laudamus : Boyce in A. Jubilate Deo : Boyce in A. Apostles' Creed: Harmonised Monotone, E. J. H., pp. 4 and 5. Preces and Responses : Ferial, pp. 6-8. Anthem : “ Comfort ye.” (Handel, No, 77, p. 35). Litany and Suffrages : Pages 9-15. Hymn before Sermon: No. 177.
HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. LOCKINGTON (Mary), deceased. Persons claiming to be entitled to the £75 cash in
court to the credit of " In the matter of the trusts of the will of Mary Lockington deceased, so far as relates to an annuity of £50 payable to the issue of Thomas Ironmonger, deceased," or a share or proportion thereof, and the persons claiming to be entitled to receive the above-mentioned annuity of £50 or a share or proportion thereof, to come in, by Jan. 8, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kekewich. Jan. 20, at two o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and
adjudicating upon the claims. PLATT (William), and Henry Platt, nephews of Hannah Cook, deceased, if living,
or if either of them is dead, then bis or their legal personal representatives to come in, by Dec. 23, at the chambers of Mr. Justice North, and prove their claims in the matter of the trusts of the will of the said Hannah Cook. Jan. 8, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudi.cating upon such claims. Note.—The said W. Platt and H. Platt were the sons of William Platt, who was born at Sunninghill, Berks, in 1765, and died at Winkfield, Berks, in 1853.
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. C. 35.
LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ARROWSMITH (Sarah), Lime Tree House. Aldridge, near Walsall, Staffordshire, widow.
Jan. 1; H. Russell, solicitor, 5, Market-st, Lichfield. ARKWRIGHT (James Charles), Cromford, Derbyshire, gentleman. Jan. 5; Small and
Talbot, solicitors, Burton-on-Trent. ASOWELL (George Thomas), 73, Rivington-st, and of 94, Curtain-rd, Shoreditch,
furniture manufacturer. Dec. 2; A. Ashley, solicitor, 9, Charles-sq, Hoxton. ARCHER (Henry James), Rock House, Halberton, Tiverton, Devonshire, gentleman.
Dec. 31 ; Nickinson, Prall, and Nickinson, solicitors, 51, Chancery-la. BLOOR (Louisa Caroline), St. Helier, Leam-ter, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire,
widow. Dec. 24; J. H. Stubbs, solicitor, 13, Dormer-pl, Leamington. BELLINGHAM (William), formerly of Dalston Distillery. Queen’s-rd, Dalston, distiller,
late of Knowle, The Drive, Walthamstow, Essex. Dec. 30; J. Brunskill, solicitor,
13, Great James-st, Bedford-row. BALDOCK (Benjamin), Stanstead Abbots, Hertfordshire, farmer and wood dealer.
Dec. 25 ; G. H. Gisby. solicitor, Ware, Herts. BAILEY (Frederick), Burleigh House, Newmarket-rd, Cambridge, gentleman. Dec. 21;
J. F. Symonds, solicitor, 9, Benet-st, Cambridge. BUSSON DU MAURIER (George Louis Palmella), 17. Oxford-sq, gentleman. Jan. 5;
Harwood and Stephenson, solicitors, 31, Lombard-st. BRAID (Alexander), Rose Cottage, 11, Hadassah-grove, Toxteth Park, Liverpool,
gentleman. Dec. 28; Hill, Dickinson, and Co., solicitors, 10, Water-st, Liver
pool. Borton (Mary), Newmarket, All Saints, Cambridgeshire, widow. Dec. 19; d'Albani
and Ellis, solicitors, Newmarket. BOREHAM (Jane Chalklen), the Mount, Haverhill, Essex, widow. Dec. 12; O. H.
Vincent, solicitor, 20, High-st, Haverhill, Suffolk. BOXER (Ann Elizabeth), Willowmoor, Stodart-rd, Penge, Surrey, widow. Jan. 4 ;
Anderson and Sons, solicitors, 17, Ironmonger-la, Cheapside. BROWN (Eliza Ann), High-rd, Leytonstone, Essex, widow. Dec. 18; Maples, Teesdale,
and Co., solicitors, 6, Frederick's-pl, Old Jewry. BRITNELL (Cranley), Athol Villa, 24, Aberdeen-pl, St. John's Wood. Dec. 29; Inder
maur, Clark, and Parker, solicitors, 1, Devonshire-ter, Portland-pl. BARON (Alice), 147, Oldham-rd, Manchester. Dec. 24; E. Heath and Sons, solicitors,
48, Swan-st, Manchester. CASTLE (Henry Thomas), Newport, Isle of Wight, gentleman, doctor of medicine,
justice of the peace for the borough of Newport. Dec. 21; James Eldridge and
Sons, solicitors, Newport, Isle of Wight. CLEARY (Catherine). Convent of Sion, Chepstow-pl, Bayswater, formerly of 23, Upper
Gardiner-st, Dublin, spinster. Dec. 17; Wastell and Ruddock, solicitors, Eldon
chmbrs, 30, Fleet-st. CALF (William), City Bank, Tottenham Court-rd Branch, bank manager.
Dec. 7; Foster, Spicer, and Foster, solicitors, 7, Queen-st-pl. COLQUHOUN (Elizabeth Ann), Morbriggs, Lytham, Lancashire, wife of Peter
Colquhoun, married woman, having separate estate. Dec. 21; J. H. Lea,
solicitor, 8, Sussex-st, Manchester. DASTON (Samuel James), Coach and Horses, Ealing D. an, licensed-victuallers. Dec.
12; Ruston, Clark, and Ruston, solicitors, High-st, Rrentford. DAVIDS (Mary), Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, widow. Dec. 1; Burton and Son, solici
tors, 2, King-st, Great Yarmouth. EVANS (Thomas), 111, Sowerby-st, Moss Side, near Manchester, milk dealer. Dec. 15;
Stuart and Travers, solicitors, 14, Brown-st, Manchester EVANS (Fanny), Highfield, Aldridge-rd, Perry Barr, Staffordshire, wife of Robert
Lloyd Evans, tobacconist. Dec. 31; F. M. Burton, solicitor, Warwick-chmbrs,
16A, Corporation-st, Birmingham. FRANCIS (Frederick John), St. Michael's Vicarage, Lower Sydenham, and of
Palmerston-bldgs, Old Broad-st, formerly of 14, Warwick-cres, Paddington.
Jan. 7; Thrupp and Chidell, solicitors, 89, New Bond-st. FAVELL (Thomas), George-st, Sheffield, wine and spirit merchant, trading as Thomas
Favell and Co. Feb. 1; Broomhead, Wightman, and Moore, solicitors, George-st,
Sheffield. FOXHALL (John), 22. Turin-st, Bethnal Green. Dec. 20; A. Double, solicitor, 25 and
27, Jewin-cres, Cripplegate. GRAY (Frederick), Greyhound inn, Weston Green, Thames Ditton, Surrey, licensed
victualler. Dec. 19; Durham and Carter, solicitors, Kingston-on-Thames, Surrey. GRAY (Matthew), the Willows, West Hartlepool, Durham, steel and iron manufac
turer. Dec. 19; S. H. Belk, solicitor, Commercial-bldgs, West Hartlepool. GLASSE (William Bulkeley), Chettle, Dorsetshire, gentleman, Q.C. Jan. 1; Collyer
Bristow, Russell, Hill, and Co., solicitors, 4. Bedford-row. GRASETT (Charles), Allensmore Vicarage, Herefordshire, gentleman. Jan. 4; Lovell,
Son, and Pitfield, solicitors, 3, Gray's-inn-sq. HEATON (William), Rotherham, Yorkshire, brassfounder. Jan. 5; Oxley and Coward,
solicitors, Rotherbam. HODSON (Anthony), 20, Ewart-rd, Seaforth, Lancashire, chief engineer.
Jan. 4; Watts and Carr, solicitors, 13, Investment-bldgs, 65, Lord-st, Liverpool. HOSKING (Richard), Brook Cottage, Madron, Cornwall, accountant, formerly of Bay
view-ter, Penzance. Dec. 31; Frythall and Bodilly, solicitors, Penzance. HILL (Theodosia), Hemswell, Lincolnshire, widow. Jan. 21; Iveson and Son, solici
tors, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. HAWTHORN (Mary), 1,' Ruskin-st, Liverpool, Lancashire, widow. Dec. 22; J. M.
Quiggin and Brothers, solicitors, 8, Harrington-st, Liverpool. ISAACS (Alexander), 111, Highbury New Park, gentleman. Dec. 31; Bentwich,
Watkins, Williams, and Co., Corporation-chmbrs, Guildhall-yd. JAMES (William), 14, William-st, Booth-st, Handsworth, Staffordshire, labourer.
Dec. 7; T. E. Silvester, solicitor, 8, Church-st, Birmingham. KERSEY (Harry), 13, Plumstead-rd, Plumstead, Kent, upholsterer. Dec. 23 ; Watts
and Habershon, solicitors, 29 and 30, Green's-end, Woolwich. LANGHORNE (Mary Ann), Bawtry, Yorkshire, widow, formerly carrying on business at
Bawtry, with James Rumble, as wine and spirit merchants, under the style or firm of Langhorne and Rumble. Dec. 18; Kenyon and Son, solicitors, Thorne,
via Doncaster. LANCEFIELD (Ann Maria). Priory Villa, West Cliff-rd, Ramsgate, Kent, widow.
Jan. 1; 0. and A. Daniel, solicitors, 1, Effingham-st, Ramsgate. LUDLAM (Benjamin), 110, Wilmslow-rd, Withington, Lancashire, butcher. Nov. 28;
Sampson and Price, solicitors, 1, Princess-st, Albert-sq, Manchester.
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. BRITISH ASSOCIATION OF SHARE AND DEBENTURE HOLDERS LIMITED.-Creditors
to send in, by Dec. 16, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. P.
Mason, 64, Gresham-st, the liquidator of the company. CARTWRIGHT AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 24. their names
and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. Boothey, 27, Bersham-rd, Wrexham, the
liquidator of the company. CHIPPING NORTON TEMPERANCE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT COMPANY LIMITED.
Creditors to send in, by Jan. 4, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. S. Pryer, Lee Holt, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, the liquidator of the company.
T. Mace, Chipping Norion, solicitor to the liquidator. DIETZ DAVIS AND CO. LIMITED.---Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up
subject to the supervision of the court made by Mr. Justice Williams on Nov. 11. Linklater, Addison, Brown, und Jones, 2, Bond-ct, Walbrook, petitioners'
solicitors. INMAN'S YACHT AND SHIPYARD LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Dec. 1,
at eleven o'clock, before the County Court sitting at the Court-house, Castle-st, Southampton. Robinson and Jefferis, 3, Gosport-st, Lymington, solicitors for the petitioners. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the
above-named not later than six o'clock on Nov. 30. LIVE CATTLE IMPORTATION SYNDICATE LIMITED -Creditors to send in, by Dec. 31,
their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. F. P. Rose, 25, Chesterton-rd, North Kensington, the liquidators of the company. J. A. Maxwell, solicitor to the liquidator.
LUMLEY (Isabella Anne), Ripon, Yorkshire, widow. Jan. 1; S. Wise and Son,
solicitors, 77, North-st, Ripon. MILLER (Harriett Sarah), Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, spinster. Dec. 1; Burton and
Son, solicitors, 2, King-st, Great Yarmouth. McCoy (Thomas), 196, Brooke-rd, Upper Clapton. Dec. 20; A. Double, solicitor,
25 and 27, Jewin-cres, Cripplegate. MACKINTOSH (Charlotte), Bloxham, Oxfordshire, widow. Dec. 17 ; Stockton and Sons,
solicitors, Banbury. MILLINGTON (Ann), Dollmen-st, Vauxhall, Birmingham, Warwickshire, widow.
Dec. 15; F. Baildon Wright, solicitor, 5, Union-st. Birmingham. MOON (Elizabeth), Gwy's Cliffe, Deganwy, Carnarvonshire, widow. Jan. 1 ; Chamber
lain and Johnson, solicitors, Llandudno. MCDONNELL (John), 7, Nicholas-st, Burnley. Lancashire, cabinetmaker. Dec 22;
J. C. Waddington, solicitor, Imperial-chmbrs, 2, Grimshaw-st, Burnley. NORRIS (Robert), 20, Carburton-st, Great Portland-st, Marylebone, formerly cab
proprietor. Jan. 18; W. T. Boydell, solicitor, 1, South-sq. Gray's-inn. NEGRIN (Elia Joseph), 253, Cheetham Hill-rd, and carrying on business as a commis
sion agent at 2, South-st, both in Manchester. Dec. 31; Holt and Risque,
solicitors, 25, Booth-st, Manchester. CWEN (Ann), Pen-y-Gwryd hotel, Pen-y-Gwyrd, Carnarvopshire, hotel keeper,
Jan. 1; the administrator at the Pen-y-Gwryd bctel. Bremner, Sons, and Corlett,
solicitors, 1, Crosshall-st, Liverpocl, O'CONNELL (William Bligh), Clifton House, Woking, Surrey. Jan. 1; Nisbet, Daw,
and Nisbet, solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-f]ds." PIPER (Jane), Grove House, 13, Southville-pl, Bristol, widow. Dec. 31; H. C. A. Day,
solicitor, 59, Broad-st, Bristol. PARKER (Emma). 38, Cox-st, St. Paul's-sq. Birmingham, Warwickshire, widow.
Dec. 20: E. Westwood, solicitor, 36, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. RIDGE (William Heale), Wedmore, Somersetshire, saddler. Dec 31 J. C. Smith,
solicitor, Wedmore, Somerset. SMITA (John), Watlands Cottage, Wolstanton, Staffordshire, gentleman. Dec. 31 ; R.
Urry, solicitor, Pride Hill.chmbrs, Shrewsbury. SIKES (Harriet Hirst), Birkby Lodge, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, spinster. Dec. 19;
Laycock, Dyson, and Laycock, solicitors, Huddersfield. SHAKESHAFT (Thomas), 18, Seymour-st, Tranmere, Cheshire. Dec. 21; T. Pugh,
solicitor, 9, Duncan-st, Birkenhead. SHAW (Elizabeth), Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leicestershire, spinster. Dec. 25; Smith, Mam
meth, Hale, and Quarrell, solicitors, Ashby-de-la-Zouch. SHEPLEY (James), 90, Belgrave-rd, Oldham, Lancashire, gentleman. Dec. 18; C. Clegg,
solicitor, 10. Clegg-st, Oldham. SANDERSON (Rer. Robert Nicholas), Wyverstone, Suffolk, clerk in holy orders,
Dec. 1 ; Haywards and Peecock, solicitors, Stowmarket. SPRECKLEY (Eliza). Sunnyside, Bathford, Somersetshire, widow. Jan. 2; Maule ard
Robertson, solicitors, 7, Northumberland-bldgs, Bath. STERN (Julius), 14, Old Change, and of 1 and 3, Carter-la, and Temple-chmbs, Temple
Jan. 8: Emanuel, Round, and Nathan, solicitors, 26, Walbrook. TAYLOR (Ann), Oak-villas, Stockport-rd, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, widow.
Dec. 31; Brooks, Marshall, and Co., solicitors, 97, Stamford-st, Ashton-under
Lyne. WARD (John), Brightlingsea, retired oyster merchant. Dec. 19; Wittey and Denton,
solicitors, Colchester. WESTCOTT (George). Aisholt, Somersetshire, coachman. Nov. 28; F. W. Bishop,
solicitor, High-st, Bridgwater. WARHAM (John), Fern Cottage, Rhode Heath, Cheshire. Dec. 16; F. S. Waddington,
solicitor, 11, Poultry.
UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON. THE society met at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall on Wednesday evening, the 25th inst., Mr. Sidney W. Clarke in the chair. After the reading of the minutes and the disposal of private business, Mr. Robert Brown brought forward the motion on the agenda paper, viz., “That advocacy of spiritualism is to be condemned.” Speakers : for the motion, Messrs. Brown, Glasgow, Copeland, and Willson : against the motion, Messrs. Kinipple and Arnold. The motion was carried.—The society will meet at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall, 3 (North) King's Bench Walk, on Wednesday evenings, Dec. 2, 9, and 16 at eight o'clock. The following are the subjects for debate : For Dec. 2, “That the House rejoices in the prospect of a political separation between the Church of England and the Conservative party;" opener, Mr. Arthur J. Price. For Dec. 9, “ That, in the opinion of this House, private property shall be exempted from capture at sea ; opener, Mr. Haythorne Reed. For Dec. 16, “ That the Government ought not to withdraw from the occupation of Egypt; opener, Mr. W. C. Copeland. The Hon. Secretary will be obliged if members will enter subjects for debate in the book provided for that purpose. Members of the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, the Juridical Society of London, the Historical Society of Dublin, and the Speculative Society of Edinburgh are elected without ballot.
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.
Mr. MURPHY, Q.C., has been elected Treasurer of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple for the ensuing year, in succession to Mr. Hopwood, Q.C.
Mr. P. C. Gates, Q.C., has been elected Treasurer of the Inner Temple for the ensuing year, in succession to his Honour Judge Waddy, Q.C.
Mr. INDERWICK, Q.C., has been appointed Master of the Inner Temple Library for the ensuing year.
Mr. HARVEY CASTLEMAN CURRY, of the firm of Messrs. Mills and Curry, of 11, Queen Victoria-street, E.C., has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Curry was admitted in 1887.
Mr. JAMES SYKES, of the the firm of Armitage, Sykes, and Hinchcliffe, Huddersfield, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Sykes was admitted in 1889.
Mr. WALTER H. Day, of 42, Earl-street, Maidstone, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Day was admitted a solicitor in July 1890.
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 21st Nov. was 148. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 153, showing a decrease of 5. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales, registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 21st Nov. was 152. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 151.
CORRESPONDENCE. This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor
does not holů himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.
BARRISTERS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. THE general meeting of this association will be held in the Middle Temple Hall, on Tuesday, the 1st Dec., at half-past four o'clock in the afternoon ; the Attorney-General., M.P., G.C.M.G., in the chair. All members of the Inns of Courts are invited to attend. The following twenty members of the association are eligible and willing to serve on the committee of management for
the ensuing year : The Trustees, ex officio; the Attorneys-General, past and present, ex officio; the Solicitors-General, past and present, ex officio; Mr. Arthur R. Jelf, Q.C. ; Mr. John Shiress Will, Q.C.; Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore, Bart., D.C.L.; 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. His Honour judge Snagge and Mr. Henry Davidson will be proposed for re-election as auditors for the ensuing year.
PROBATES OF Wills.-In his letter to the Law Times last week, Mr. Thomas Cousins raises a number of theoretical objections to the engrossment of probates in bookwise form. I am able, however, to affirm, from actual experience, that not only do no “ insuperable practical objections' exist to that form of probate, but that it is of great utility, besides having the great advantage of the will being so much more legible. Some years ago I had to prove a lengthy will at the principal registry, the estate being a large one, there being several trustees, and the estate not being finally divisible for many years.
It occurred to me that it would be convenient to have the probate in bookwise m, printed, and after a few interviews with the registrar he agreed to seal the probate in that form. The copy of the will was accordingly printed on parchment, with a wide stitching margin, and the seal, at my suggestion, was affixed so as to fold between the last two leaves neatly. Ample space was left on the last page (or skin) for all the company registration stamps. When the probate was obtained from Somerset House, it was neatly bound in purple leather (gold lettered “Probate of the will of,” &c.), with about thirty blank parchment skins of the same size following the probate, and when the estate accounts were made up, debts and duty paid, and money invested, a list of the investments, cash, &c., was engrossed on the first of these skins, showing the precise estate subject to the trusts; and all subsequent changes of investment, the original deeds appointing new trustees, receipts and releases, &c., were engrossed in order of date on the following skins. I may add that a printed paper copy, similarly, but more plainly, bound (with marginal notes to the will added), were supplied to every trustee, and the accounts and deeds, &c., copied on the following sheets from time to time so as to be a true copy of the original. Another printed copy of the will was supplied to every cestui que trust and legatee. I think the facts above stated meet all Mr. Cousins's objections, and may possibly suggest to solicitors a few things worth remembering for future use.
GEO. GODFREY. With reference to the paragraph in a recent issue of the Law TIMES, the senior registrar of the principal probate registry informs me, in answer to my inquiry, that wills engrossed bookwise are constantly brought into the registry and have for many years been allowed to pass in that form. Care, however, must be taken to leave sufficient room for the seal.
UNITED LAW SOCIETY. The society met at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall on Monday, the 23rd inst; Mr. C. W. Williams taking the chair. Mr. P. H. Edwards opened a debate on the motion, “ That it is the duty of England to offer her services to the contending parties in Cuba, for the purpose of mediation and arbitration.” Mr. C. Kains-Jackson opposed, and the subsequent speakers were : Messrs. R. E. Noble, C. Herbert Smith, H. C. Hamilton, A. W. Marks, W.MC. Burnett, H. E. W. Grant, N. Tebbutt, A. H. Richardson, and R. M. Begg. On the division which followed, the motion was carried by one vote.-The subject for debate at the next meeting of the society is, “That it is desirable to further amend the Company Laws in the direction of greater stringency as against promoters, directors, and other officers.”
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. 11. PRACTICE-COUNTY COURT. — Sub-bailiff arrests debtor. His solicitors are sent for, and they pay the judgment debt and costs, amounting to £6 11s. 60. The sub-bailiff declined to give a receipt or acknowledgment for the money. Was he justified in doing so ? Authorities will oblige.
L. AND R.
12. COLONIAL PARTNERSHIP.-Can you or any of your readers inform mean admitted English solicitor-as to the best course to adopt with a view to obtain a partnership or managing clerkship in a British Colony, preferably in Africa or Australia ? Also as to what qualification is necessary to enable one to practise there, and where information upon the subject can be obtained.
Answers. (Q. 8.) MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT-POLICY OF ASSURANCE-TRUSTEE. _“ Beverley” carefully omits to say whether his trustees were authorised to exchange the policy. If they were not authorised, A., whether a bankrupt or not, cannot give them authority.
ARTHUR M. SMITH.
SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES AT THE FINAL
EXAMINATION.--NOVEMBER 1896. The following 160 candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the Final Examination, held on the 3rd and 4th Nov. 1896:Aarons, Frank Henry Hadfield, Heywood G., 'Parker, John Clement, B.A. Aldridge, Percy Sutton B.A., LL.B.
Perham, Hamlyn Horwood Andrew, William Slobo Haigh, Hubert
Peskett, William D'Arcy Ashe, St. George Hall-Smith, James
Plahl, Harry Atkins, Arthur Shirley Hardy, Howard Meredith Piesse, Montagu Atkins, George Jam:8 M. Harford, Andrew A.
Pryce, Frederick Heath Balleine, Francis E., B.A. Hargrove, Herbert
Pryce, William Edward Barnes, James
Havers, Arthur C., B.A. Ram, Willett
Raper, William A. O.
Reade, Henry Lister
Roberts, Arthur Edward Besch, John George Q. Hill, Herbert Woodroffo Robinson, Charles Bindloss, William, M.A. Hilleary, Edward L., B.A. Robinson, Clement C. Blackford, Charles
Hird, James William Robinson, John Henry Boyce, Reginald John Holdsworth, Charles Stork Robinson, Roger H., B.A. Bradbury, Charles Alfred Holt, Harry
Rodway, Rowland Henry Bradley, William James Holt, Ronald Law
Rose, Wiiliam Hugh
Russell, Robert Stanley Brown, George Fowler C. Huntsman, Edmund
Salt, Isaac Harold Button, Alick James Sewell Ayde, Francis Garmston Salt, Thomas F., B.A. Bygott, Edward
Jacob, John Reginald Schroeter, Frank Julius Castle, William
Jones, Harold Vivian Schwann, Edward Bagehot Chilver, Arthur F., B.A. Jones, John Evans
Searl, Percy Bruce Olemesha, Henry W., M.A. Langworthy, Geoffrey P. Sharman, Arthur Frank Clogg, William Edgar Layton, Reginald George Shearman, Frederick B. Close, Charles Harold Leadley-Brown, J. B., B.A. Shimeld, Christopher W. Collis, Harry Neild, B.A., Lo Fleming, Edward R. Simpson, Francis Joseph LL.B.
Ley, Roland Howell, B.A. Singleton, Alfred Henry Copland, William S. Lickorish, Austin Aloysius Smith, Harry Swayne Cotman, Leonard, B.A. Livsey, George, LLB. Smith, Percy Hazell Cox, Thomas Allard Lodge, James William Stevens, Frank Herron Crabtree, James Fox, B A. Lucas, Samuel
Sturton, Arthur Jacob Crewe, Charles William Marlor, Fred
Tanner, George Frederic Dauncey, Richard
Marriott, John R., B.A. Taylor, Frederick George Lavies, R. (Dolwyddelan) Marsden, William H. Mills Thomas, Peregrine Davies, Robert (Carnarvon) Martinez-Danson, R. John Thorne, Arthur Dawson, Maurice John Mathews, Frederick John Tolhurst, Francis Joseph Dobell, Maurice Horace W. Matthews, Guy
Trangmar, Herbert E. Dodsbon, Edwin, LL.B. Maye, Jeffery Bowden Vinall, Hugh John Dovson, Bernard Withers Meller, Thomas
Wade, W. M., B.A., LL.B. Drew, Cecil Lancelot Mennell, George Henry Wah, Wei on, B.A. Earengey, William George Metcalfe, Reginald
Waller, Percy George Eastham, Thomas
Milner, James Henry Wallhead, Sidney Edwards, Martin George Mitchell, John Petty Walmsley, Arnold B. Ekin, Charles, B.A.
Moon, Richard Horace Warren, Herbert George Elias, William P., B.A. Mordle, Percy
Weld, Francis Joseph Farquhar, J. E. M., B.A. Morris, C. Haigh, B.A. Westcot, William Leonard Field, Arthur S, B.A. Morrison, Syduey Bruce Whittington, George Francis, Herbert
Moss, William James Wilkinson, Claud Giles, Harry Ross
Mumford, Harry George Williams, Edward Taunton Godfree, George Stanley Nelson, Horatio W., B.A. Williams, Richard Gilbert Godwin, Walter P., B.A. Newall, Walter
Wood, Francis Cecil John Grotrian, Harold H., B.A. Oates, Arthur
Young, Edward, B.A.
(Q. 9.) COMBINED RECEIPT AND CHEQUE.---This query is one of a good deal of interest, as I understand that some persons do act as alleged, and even go so far as to put a penny receipt stamp on a cheque, which is quite unnecessary, as the Stamp Acts carefully provide that a document which is properly stamped for the purpose for which it was drawn requires no further stamping because it is used for another purpose.
That an indorsement is a receipt for the money no one, I suppose, will deny.
ARTHUR M. SMITH.
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.
SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES AT THE INTERMEDIATE
EXAMINATION.-NOVEMBER 1896. The following 180 candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the Intermediate Examination held on the 5th Nov. 1896 :Adam, Ernest Addington Grundy, Charles Sydney Peerozshaw, Noshirwan Allen, Charles Royle
Guedalla, Florance M. Pemberton, Charles Hubert Ansel, John Manley Hall, Frederick Ernest Penley, Richard H., B.A. Archer, Charles D. W. Hall, John, B.A.
Piper, Harry Burt Armstrong, Charles Guy Harrison, Godfrey Denis Piper, Robert Frederick Backhouse, Thos. James G. Harvey, Ernest Gillmore Pleadwell, William M. Balmer, Arthur
Haydon, Richard Evelyn B. Porter, John Copestake Barker, John Henry
Hodgkinson, Francis A. L. Purser, Henry Baster, Philip Wellesley Hodgson, George E., B.A. Read, Wallace Bate, Richard
Hope, John Percival Revis, Leonard Henry Bath, Robert
Risdon, Frank Bell, Tom George
Robertson, Edwin F. Blake, Charles Henry B. Jackson, Walter Francis Robertson, Wm. W., B.A. Bonsall, Arthur Edward Jeffries, Herbert
Robinson, John Henry W. Boocock, Herbert
Jones, John Colenso
Robinson, John Jas., B.A. Boucher, George Herbert Keeling, Charles
Rolt, Frederick Alfred Bracewell, James
Kent, William John Rushworth, Albert Lincoln Bradish, Henry Bell Kidgell, John Henry H. Rump, Frederic Brown, Herbert W., B.A. King, William Byatt Russell, Geoffrey William Bryden, Charles John Kingswell, William Henry Sankey, Wilfrid Vincent Bagler, Richard William Kirkconnel, Hirold
Saunders, Griffith Batler, Francis Noel
Saunders, Percy Charles, Henry Pendri J. Knight, Moreton Laing Shipton, William John Clelland, Alfred James Lamb, Jobn
Singleton, Charles Copley Cobbatt, Henry James Landon, Francis Palmer Smith, Clitherow Cole, Ebenezer Vincent Laughton, Reginald James Smith, Herbert George Cola, Sanford Darley Laundy, Arthur Philip Smith, James Robert Collier, Edward Ernest Lees, Arthur
Smith, Percy James Creerar, Alfred
Lewis, Charles David Stephenson, Harry Crook. Algernon
Lewis, Reginald B. S. Stone, John Penn Cross, Ambrose Betham Linton, Frederick
Stott, John Horace Crozier, Henry Darley Lobeby, Reginald Arthur Sugden, James William Cryer, Thomas Ely
Lowe, Douglas George Sutcliffe, Walter Francis Davis, David
Lowenthal, Sidney, B.A. Sutherland, John James Dawes, Frank
Mabane, Alfred Victor Sutton, Francis Dickson, Vincent Hamilton McBayne, Francis G. E. Teek, Henry Comer, B.A. Dixon, Ernest Toomas McMillin, William A. Thompson, Henry Doudney Dorte, Pierre F. J. D. Manisty, Edward A., B.A. Thomson, Arthur R ,BA Dutton, Harry
Marston, Charles Beale Thorn, Henry Gilbert Alex. Eastwood. Charles
Marston, Frederic Milward Thornhill, Henry Langion Edvards, Wm. Richard Mason, Guy Wilbar
Thorp, William Tudor S. Ellis, Ernest H. R., BA, Mason, John Richard Thorpe, Henry Entwistle, Frederick Mather, George Palin Tucker, John Michael Pairfield, James
Maunsell, Frederick B. L. Turner, William Triggs S. Ferguson. Robert Meaden, Louis
Turton, Thomas Alfred Fisher, Alfred S., B.A. Millward, Thomas
Upton, Archer M., B.A. Fisher, Henry James Moore, Arthur Harry, B.A. Vowles, Henry Hayes Forbes, Walter James Moore, John
Waller, George Albert Ford, Francis Walter Mourilyan, Walter E. I. Warburton, Richard E. Foster, George Edward Nash, Frank Beddoes Ward, Cecil Wellesley Fraser, Wallace
Nash, Leonard Rupert Watson, Charles Bailey Gamlin, Hubert James Neale, Charles Goodall Watson, Reginald Eric George, William Saville Neumann, Sydney C. T. Wells, Halifax Vyvyan Gepp, Henry Hamilton Newton, Harold
Whiskin, Alfred Edward Gepp, Nicholas Melciil Norris, William
Whittingham, Joseph P. Gofiey, Arthur
Nuttall, George Ernest Whittuck, Charles Fredk. Greig, William Fairchild Oldfield, Norman
Williams, Frederick Geo. Grellet, Ernest Hanscombe Ord, William Henry Willis, William Gravely W. Griffith, G. de Gorrequer Peace, Charles Ernest Wilson, Joseph Charles Griffiths, Rhys David Pearson, Thomas Edward Winser, Joseph Croydon.
BURNLEY AND DISTRICT LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.
-THE LICENSING QUESTION. On the 5th inst., Mr. W. Mackenzie, barrister-at-law, gave a lecture to the members of the above society on “ The Licensing Question.” Mr. T. Nowell (Borough Justices' Clerk) presided, and amongst many members were Mr. Fullalove (Town Clerk of Burnley), Mr. R. M. Prescott (Town Clerk of Nelson), Messrs. R. Baldwin, W. Bollard, H. Bulcock, A. B. Clarke, E. F. P. Emmett, A. L. Garnett, J. S. Kay, T. B. Nowell, J. C. Pollard, A. E. Pollard, R. Proctor, T. H. Roberts, T. E. Rodgers, T. G. Sandy, jun., F. W. Steele, C. Thornton and P. H. Woodhouse (solicitors), and Messrs. W. Bunting, H. Collinge, H. Ogden, J. K. Pickup (Secretary), H. Riley, F. Roberts, A. Shaw, T. Snowden and L. Taylor (articled clerks).
At the outset the Hon. Secretary (Mr. J. K. Pickup) read the minutes of the last meeting and letters regretting inability to attend from the Mayor of Burnley (Alderman Collinge, J.P.), the Hon. Philip J. Stanhope, M.P., Judge Gates, Q.C., Mr. H. G. Shee, Q.C. (Recorder of Burnley) and Mr. J. O. S. Thursby, J.P. (Bank Hall, Burnley, and Lincoln's-inn).
Mr. Mackenzie said :--The Licensing Question is perennial. From the earliest times it has engaged the attention of the Legislature. The question is still unanswered and the problem is still unsolved. It is admitted on all hands to be more complicated and more difficult to deal with than any other question of modern politics. The secret of this is that it affects human nature. Most political questions do not affect human nature at all. The management of our highways, the establishment of parish councils and county councils, the extension of the franchise, even the disestablishment of the Church-all these questions do not touch human nature, or, if they do, they only touch its fringe. But it is otherwise with the liquor question. Intoxicating liquor affects man's taste; it is or has been regarded as part of his food. He has used it for generations and centuries. It is bound up in the national life and national sentiments of this country. The national sentiments have not sprung up in a night. They have been forming for ages. Each day has contributed something. The great river of social life, ever flowing onward, has been constantly fed by the tributaries of necessity, appetite, fashion, vanity, caprice, and imitation. Man is a bundle of habits. With some, it is true, life is mere routine, a round of conventionalities ; literally, one day telleth another.” With others, each day is a reality, has its fresh place, is a rational item in the account of life. To these, nothing is without its meaning ; there is a definiteness, a precision about its hours of action, of thought, of diversion, of ministering to the bodily claims of sustenance by eating and drinking. Around the latter, social life has fearfully encircled itself. The world was, and still is, on hospitable thoughts intent.” The
latter days are but a repetition of the former.
“ As it was ... it be also. They did eat, they drank.” I have often thought that is because sufficient attention has not been paid to the great part human nature plays on this problem that so many of the legislative provisions nave proved failures. But I do not intend to enlarge on this branch of the subject this evening. I propose to glance at the past legislation on the subject to see what view our forefathers took of it; then to give a summary of existing legislation ; and then to glance just for a moment at the Licensing Laws of other countries. A French philosopher, in a preface to his new work on Philosophy, once wrote: “I am desirous of treating philosophy in a manner which is not philosophical." In the same way I desire this evening to treat this legal subject in a way which is not legal--not that I intend or wish to treat it in an illegal or indecent way. Mr. Nowell will see to that; but I do not intend to explain the complex provisions of the Licensing Acts, or to expound the decisions of the courts of law. On another occasion, and in a different character, I should be only too pleased to do so. But this evening I only intend to place before you a bird's-eye view of what has been and of what is the law on this vexed question. This may the better enable you to form a correct view of the problem itself and its solution. In these observations I rely upon the legislation of the period as an index to the social condition of the people rather than on the observations of gossipy chroniclers--the inhabitants of monasteries and others. You all remember the dialogue in Walter Scott's “Ivanhoe" “ An please your reverence," said Dennet, “a drunken priest came to visit the sacristan at St. Edmund's.” “It does not please my reverence,” answered the churchman, “ that there should be such an animal as a drunken priest, or, if there were, that a layman should so speak of him. Be mannerly, my friend, and conclude the holy man only wrapped in meditation, wbich makes the head dizzy and the feet unsteady, as if the stomach were filled with new wine. I have felt it myself.” That is just it. Our individual observation is often what we want it to be. But when, in the Chronicles of Parliament, you get the expressed opinion of the Legislature, you have what is really the reflected opinion of the people of the country; whereas, with the mediæval chronicler, looking sometimes through his own spectacles, he gives you either his own personal observations or the information he derives from friends. On this account I propose to rely for the most part on what is to be found in the Statute. book itself. Looking into the Statute-book, what a strange medley presents itself! During the past four hundred years nearly every possible remedy has been tried. Free trade in licences, local option, limiting the number of public-houses in towns and populous places, the granting of licences in the absolute discretion of competent tribunals, punishing the licensee for a breach of the law, punishing the drunkard, punishing both licensee and drunkard-everything, indeed, has been tried at one time or another, save prohibition and prohibition only. At one time or another they have either been pronounced to be failures, or have been considered to be not the most satisfactory means of carrying out the objects they had in view. And now the “strongest Ministry of modern times feel themselves unable to suggest a remedy, and have appointed a Royal Commission to find one if they can. Referring to the Statute-book, we find that the earliest general Act on the subject of licensing was passed in 1495 (11 Hen. 7, c. 2). But long before this there were provisions on the subject. Even during the Heptarchy there was a regulation as to drinking booths in Wessex. During the early Norman period numerous assizes or ordinances were issued. One the more famous ones was the Assize of Bread and Ale, passed in 1266, the punishment for offending against which was, for a baker, the pillory, and for a brewer the tumbrel. But in 1495 we find the first general Act. It is an Act directed against Vagabonds and Beggars, and amongst its provisions it empowers justices to suppress the common selling of ale in all towns and places where they should think convenient, and to take security of the keepers of alehouses for their good behaviour. In the same statute there is also a provision that no servant, labourer, or artificer was to play at any illegal game, except at Christmas time. Thus early it was found necessary in some measure to regulate the conduct of ale houses, and the large powers entrusted to the justices to suppress what houses they thought fit, clearly establishes the fact that much annoyance was caused by the loose way in which such houses were conducted. The remedy here provided was of little avail, Some fifty years later, in the reign of Edward VI. (5 & 6 Ed. 6, c 25), the abuse of intoxicating liquors had led to much drunkenness and public disorder. A further attempt was now made to remedy the evil. The Act states that “Intolerable hurts and troubles to the commonwealth of this realm doth daily grow and increase through such abuses and disorders as are had and used in common alehouses, and other houses called tippling-houses.” The Act gave full power to justices of the peace to “remove, discharge, and put away common selling of ale and beer in alehouses and tippling-houses,” wherever the justices shall think meet and convenient. No one was, in future, to be allowed to keep an alehouse or tippling-house without a licence from the justices, and without having previously entered into a bond to maintain good order and rule, under a penalty of twelve pence.
These two Acts are very much alike, the latter being the more stringent of the two. It is curious that now, 400 years later, practically the same provisions exist. These Acts of 1495 and 1552 confer on justices a discretion as to the granting or refusing of alehouse licences, and under the Acts now in force the justices have much the same discretion. In the following year, 1553 (7 Ed. 6, c. 5), another provision was introduced with regard to the consumption of wines. The Act was “ for the avoiding of many inconveniences, much evil rule and common resort of misruled persons made and frequented in many taverns of late, newly set up in very great numbers in back lanes, .corners and suspicious places within the City of London, and in divers other towns and villages within the realm.” The Act accordingly provided that no one who was not the eldest son of a duke, marquis, earl,
viscount or baron, or who was not possessed of a certain yearly income, could keep more than ten gallons of French wines “ to the intent to spend or drink the same in his or her house by any colour or means." The number of places to be licensed was also regulated. The justices of the peace were to grant the licences, and there were not to be more than two wine-sellers or taverns in any one city, borough, town corporate, port town or market town. Certain places are specifically mentioned as being entitled to have more taverns. Thus, in the City of London, there might be forty taverns or wine-sellers ; in York, eight; there might be four in each of the towns of Norwich, Hull, Exeter, Gloucester, Canterbury, Cambridge and Newcastle-upon-Tyne; there might be three in each of the towns of Westminster, Bristol, Shrewsbury, Salisbury, Hereford East, Worcester, Southampton, Lincoln, Ipswich, Winchester, and Colchester. A person could only sell under a licence. This was an earnest and early attempt to limit by exact figures the number of taverns. The idea still finds favour. It proved a failure in the 16th century. An honest opportunity was apparently given for the two Acts to have a fair trial. At any rate, nothing was done from 1553 to 1604, a period of over fifty years. The fierce conflicts between the reformed and the unreformed religions were now practically over. The sixth Edward had given place to Mary of the Old Faith ; Mary had given place to Elizabeth ; and Elizabeth in her turn had given place to the first James. During these long and memorable fifty years, the never-ceasing evil of intemperance and public disorder was ever present--the cankerworm of society, as it is now. The Act of 1604 (1 Jac. c. 9) complains that the true use of inns and alehouses had been grossly abused. It states that “the ancient, true and principal use of inns, alehouses and victualling-houses was for the receipt, relief, and lodging of wayfaring people travelling from place to place, and for such supply of the wants of such people as are not able by greater quantities to make their provision of victuals, and not meant for enter. tainment and harbouring of lewd and idle people to spend and consume their money and their time in a lewd and drunken manner." Christopher Marlow bad been killed in a low public-house at Deptford a few years before, when he had been spending “his time and money in a lewd and drunken manner;" and according to Shakespeare. Christopher Sly, old Sly's son, of Burton Heath, whose ancestors, he tells us, according to the chronicles, had come in with Richard the Conqueror, was likewise spending his time and money in and drunken manner at the house of Marian Hackett, the fat alewife at Wincot. The only remedy that could be suggested in 1604 for this state of things was to punish, and punish severely, any alehouse-keeper who permitted any person to remain drinking or tippling in the inn or alehouse. It was apparently thought that, if you punished the alehouse-keeper for permitting drinking in his premises by persons other than travellers or guests who had called for meals, the evil would be cured. Two years later, in 1606 (4 Jac. 1, c. 4), Parliament declares the abuses of alehouses to be intolerable. It proceeds to pass an Act“for the better repressing of alehouses. whereof the multitudes and abuses have been and are found intolerable, and still do and are like to increase.” · Persons were prevented from selling ale and beer who had no licence for the purpose, and this Act was specially directed against persons selling by retail without licence. In the same year (4 Jac. 1, c. 5) Parliament pusses another Act directed immediately against drunkenness. This Act states that “the loathsome and odious sin of drunkenness is of late grown into common use within this realm, being the root and foundation of many other enormous sins, as bloodshed, stabbing, murder, swearing, fornication, adultery and such like, to the great dishonour of God and of our nation, the overthrow of many good arts and manual trades, the disabling of divers workmen, and the general impoverishing of many good subjects, abusively wasting the good creatures of God.” No Act had yet sought to punish the drunkard as such. The preceding Acts dealt with the licensing of houses, and the punishing of licensed persons for any breach of their licence. Now an attempt was to be made to get at the drunkard. On conviction he was liable to a penalty of 58.; if he could not or would not pay he was to be committed to the stocks for the space of six hours. There were severer punishments for subsequent offences. If any person remained drinking or tippling in an alehouse in the same place where he dwelt he was liable to a penalty of 3s., and if he could not or would not pay he was to be committed to the stocks for the space of four hours. There were further enactments in 1609 (7 Jac. 1, c. 10) and 1624 (21 Jac. 1, c. 27). In 1625 (1 Car. 1, c. 4) a person who was not a resident of the place might be proceeded against in the same way. The innkeeper was also liable to be punished. From this activity in legislation we may infer that the evils which were attempted to be checked were considerable. It is manifest, however, that the early Acts, passed in the reigns of Henry VII. and Edward VI., and the subsequent Acts, had not effected the reformation that was expected of them. The number of unlicensed alehouses was increasing, and, the persons who kept them being poor, they could not pay any fine that might be inflicted on them, and if they were sent to prison the maintenance of their wives and children fell upon the parish. As it was the parish officers who had the prosecuting of such offenders, there was not much inducement for them to prosecute, if the ultimate effect of the prosecution was to increase the poor rate. The imprisonment in the previous Acts was in 1627 (3 Car. 1, c. 4) replaced by whipping. The person offending, if he did not pay the fine, was to be openly whipped as the convicting justices should appoint. Once more Parliament was to slumber for years over the liquor question. Not that the laws now in force were working well, but Parliament, when it met, had other things to think of. The stirring times of Charles I. and his Parliament, of John Hampden and Oliver Cromwell, of the Commonwealth and the Restoration, were not times when the village alehouse was to be considered. Probably publichouse morals and public-house manners were during the reign of Charles II. just what public opinion wanted-gay, dissolute, drunken.
James II. was too busy with his religions difficulties, and William III, too much engaged with his continental wars. During Queen Anne's time England was once more settling down to her insular repose, but it was still some time before the pressing question of the liquor trade was effectually brought to the notice of the Legislature. In 1736 we meet with the first Act specifically dealing with the question of spirits. Hitherto wine and beer were what Parliament was trying to reform the English citizen on; now, however, a potent element arose in the case of spirits, and an attempt is now made to grapple with it as the attempt had been made to grapple with beer and wine. The Act of 1736 (9 Geo. 2, c. 23) recites that the drinking of spirituous liquors or strong waters is become very common, especially among the people of lower and inferior rank, the constant and excessive use whereof tends greatly to the destruction of their healths, rendering them unfit for useful labour and business, debauching their morals, and inciting them to perpetuate all manner of vices; and the ill consequences of the excessive use of such liquors are not confined to the present generation, but extend to future ages and tend to the devastation and rain of this Kingdom. A licence was necessary for selling by retail (less than two gallons) any brandy, rum, arrack, usquebagh, geneva, aqua vitæ, or any other distilled spirituous liquors, and it (the licence) was to be obtained from two or more justices. Already, in 1660, on that outburst of loyalty which followed the return of Charles II. intoxicating liquors were made the special subject of revenue. In that year (12 Car. 2, c. 23) a revenue tax, much after the manner of the excise or revenue tax of to-day, was imposed, and this has continued with varying alterations, modifications, and extensions until to-day. This brief historical sketch shows how the various kinds of intoxicating liquors came under the ægis of the law. It would be tedious to trace the further development of the subject. We have now found indelibly impressed in the Statute-book the three great objects of English legislation on the liquor question—these three objects being the preservation of order, the dimunition of drunkenness, and the raising of a revenue. We may therefore skip the next 100 years. This brings us to the year 1828. In that year a great measure was passe ', which was to settle the law for generations to come. The Alehouse Act of 1828 provides the present machinery under which licences are now granted. It gave to justices the sole control of granting and transferring licences. It was a strict law-80 strict, indeed, that two years later it had to be relaxed. This strict law applied with equal force and with equal severity to the rich man's spirits and wines as to the poor man's beer. It was regarded by Lord Brougham and the other great pundits of that day that the strict law of 1828 did not offer sufficient facilities for “supplying the public with beer"; and in 1830, Lord Brougham's famous Beerhouse Act of that year was passed. We are told that at that time “spirit drinking was terrible”- —a remedy was sought. The expedient adopted was the Beerhouse Act. Under this Act power was given to any householder to take out an excise licence for the sale of beer and cider on payment of an annual duty only. With regard to beer licences, the justices' discretion was no longer necessary. Any householder had simply to go to the Excise and pay the licence, and open his beershop. The Parliament of the 17th century could have told the Parliament of 1830 that this was a short-sighted policy. Parliament was not, however, long in discovering their mistake. During the ten years preceding the passing of the Beerhouse Act, the quantity of malt used for brewing was 266 million bashels. During the ten years immediately succeeding, the quantity was 344 million bushels, being an increase of 28.9. During the ten years 1821-30 the quantity of British spirits consumed was 58 million gallons, and during the next ten years it rose to 77 million gallons, an increase of 32 per cent. All this clearly proved that the increased facilities for getting beer created a greater demand for spirits. Daring the year following the Act, more than 30,000 beershops were opened in England and Wales. In Sheffield, as one instance, 300 beershops were added to the old complement of public-houses ; and it is specially to be noticed that, before the second year had expired, 110 keepers of these houses in Sheffield bad applied for spirit licences, to satisfy the desire for ardent spirits. Parliament found, in their own words, that “much evil had arisen from the management of houses so easily licensed. Accordingly, in 1834, they passed a restrictive Act, distinguishing between Licences for the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises and not to be drunk on the premises. The freedom of sale in the latter
left untouched ; but every applicant for the excise licence to sell beer or cider to be drunk on the premises was required to obtain a certificate of good character signed by six ratepayers not engaged in the trade. Even with this amendment the law was exceedingly faulty, and our augast senators might have known, if they had chosen to inquire, that such a plan had already been tried and found wanting. The effect of the Beerhouse Law as it at this time stood was that the country, throughout its length and breadth, became studded with beerhouses, and in many places with beerhouses of the worst type. What could be easier than for a householder to get the signatures of six friends and obtain a beerhouse licence ? If legislative interference is to be made use of, it must be something of sterner stuff than this. It was thirty years before Parliament had time to revert to the subject again. In 1869 it was found absolutely necessary to put the sale of beer under the same strict law that it was first under in 1828. But in the compromising spirit in which English legislation is usually carried on, it was provided that the licences of all beerhouses (50,000) existing at that date could only be refused because of the bad character of the licensed person, or because the house is of a disorderly character. The result is that, in many a country village, or in the slums of many large towns, you find the number of beerbouses out of all proportion to the population, or of the reasonable requirements of the district. The licences now in force at the present day are about twenty-one in number. Fourteen of these must first be granted by the justices, and upon taking the justices' licence to the Excise, and paying the excise duty, you obtain the excise lic979. You can then
carry on business. You cannot in these cases carry on business without the justices' licence as well as an excise licence, and you cannot obtain an excise licence without showing that you have been granted a justices' licence. The different kinds of licences are: (1) The public-house licence ; (2) The licence for beer to be drunk on the premises ; (3) The licence for cider to be drunk on the premises ; (4) The refreshment-house wine licence; (5) The licence for beer not to be drunk on the premises ; (6) The licence for cider not to be drunk on the premises ; (7) The shop-keeper's wine licence or grocer's licence ; (8) The table-beer licence ; (9) The beerdealer's retail beer licence; (10) The shopkeeper's retail spirit or liquor licence; (11) The sweets licence; (12) The six-day licence; (13) The early closing licence ; (14) The occasional licence. The number of these licences might with ease be reduced. This may be useful as a matter of law amendment, but it would be regarded by licensing reformers of little interest as a matter of licensing reform. What licensing reformers want in these days is to get at the reform of the licensing authority. Who, then, is the licensing authority ? The licensing authority is in counties the county justices, and in boroughs the borough justices. The licensing meetings are held, in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, within the first ten days of March, and in the other counties between the 20th Aug. and the 14th Sept. All applications for licences are made to the justices at these meetings. The licensing authority is differently constituted according as it has to deal with the grant of new licences or the renewal of old ones, and also according as the licence is for the sale of liquors to be drunk on the premises, or for the sale of liquors to be drunk off the premises. In counties, new licences for the sale of liquor to be drunk on the premises are granted by two or more justices at the general annual licensing meeting or brewster sessions. All questions are decided by the majority of the justices present. Without a clear majority no licence can be granted. The grant, if requiring confirmation, must then be confirmed by a second body of county justices, called the " county licensing committee.” This committee is annually appointed at quarter sessions. It consists of not less than three nor more than twelve members, three forming a quorum. In boroughs where there are ten acting justices, new licences are granted by a borough licensing committee. This committee is appointed by the justices acting for the borongh. It consists of not less than three nor more than seven members, three forming the quorum. The grant, if requiring confirmation, must then be confirmed by the whole body of borough justices present at a meeting held for the purpose of confirmation, or by a majority of them, in case of a division of opinion. In small boroughs (i.e., boroughs in which there are not ten justices) there is other special provision. Where an application is made for a new licence, the applicant must attend before the licensing justices in person, unless hindered by illness or other reasonable cause, in which case he may authorise another person to attend for him. Any person may oppose the granting of the licence upon any reasonable evidence, tendered both by the applicant and his opponents, which evidence they may require to be given on oath. Subject to the necessity of hearing evidence, the justires have the most absolute and uncontrolled discretion to grant or refuse the licence, except in the cases of applications for licences for the sale of wine, cider or spirifs, not to be drunk on the premises. In the excepted cases the application cannot be refused, except on the ground that the character of the applicant or the house is not satisfactory. If the licence be refused, the applicant can proceed no further, as there is no appeal in such a case. If the application be granted, it has still to be taken before the confirming body of justices, except in the case of a licence to sell liquor to be drunk off the premises, which does not require confirmation. The hearing before the confirming body has generally the same incidents as the original hearing; but no person can oppose the confirmation who did not oppose the original grantand the confirmng body has power to give costs to the successful party. All licences continue in force for year only; but the licence-holder who, during the continuance of his licence, obtains a licence for the ensuing year, is said to renew his licence, and is on a much more favourable footing than the applicant for a new licence. Renewal of a licence made at the general annual licensing meeting, or on adjournment af it. No notice of application is necessary, nor need the applicant attend in person unless required by the justices. Justices have no power to require his attendance, unless for some special cause personal to himself. No evidenco can be given against the renewal, except after seven days' written notice of opposition given to the licenceholder. The justices have the same discretion with respect to renewals as they have with respect to new licences, but they may not refuse to renew without having given the applicant a hearing, or having summoned him to attend. In the case of houses to which a licence was attached on the 1st May 1869, renewals of licences for beer, cider, or wine to be drunk on the premises may not be refused, except upon the same grounds affecting character and qualification, as those upon which a new licerce, or renewal for beer, cider and wine not to be drunk on the premises, may be refused. In 1881, Sunday closing was introduced into Wales. Good order is sought to be established in licensed houses by the infliction of penalties for any breach of the licence. The police have the right of entry, and repeated convictions may result in the forfeiture of the licence. Such in brief outline is the preseut licensing law of England. It is the result of long experience of Licensing Acts and many experiments in licensing reform. But the result so arrived at is not one of great progress. Four hundred years ago, and you had the supervision of public-houses in the hands of justices of the peace ; they had power to grant and refuse licences ; to day, you have practically the same thing. Parliamentary draftsmen will probably tell you that the law to-day is more logical, more systematic, more effective. Chief Constable Harrop will probably tell you that the police have greater powers. But if I were a layman, I should prefer that the subject should be regulated by one Act, as in 1495, which presents simplicity, than to be regulated by over one hundred Acts, as in 1896, which present confusion. A significant feature about the whole history