MAGMER, JULIUS, baker. Bethnal-green-rd. Pet. June 15. July
2, at two, at office of Sol. Arnold, Finsbury-pavement
MARSDEN, BENJAMIN, confectioner, Carbrook. Pet. June 23.
July 9, at four, at, office of G. E. Gee, solicitor, Figtree-chambers,
Sheffield. Sol. Binns, Sheffield

MARSHALL. HELLAWELL, stone merchant, Bingley-quarries, near
Holmebridge. Pet. June 23. July 8, at eleven, at office of Sols.
Iveson and Meller, Huddersfield

MATHER, SAMUEL, and LEE, WILLIAM HENRY, colour merchants, Birmingham. Pet. June 19. July 7, at three, at office of Sol Stubbs, Birmingham

MILLWARD, WILLIAM, shoemaker, Dinas, near Pontypridd. Pet, June 18. July 10, at one, at office of Sols. Simon and Plews,' Merthyr Tydfil

MORRIS, ANDREW, baker, Markfield. Pet. June 21. July 7, at three, at office of Sols. Messrs. Bartlett, Loughborough MORRIS, THOMAS RENDALL, merchant's clerk, West Derby. Pet. June 21. July 9, at eleven, at office of G. W. Hughes. accountant, 4, Cable-st, Liverpool. Sol. Cotton, Liverpool MOWAT, JOHN ALEXANDER, bootmaker. Bromley. Pet. June 19. July 5, at eleven, at Wood's hotel, Portugal-st, Lincoln's-innfields. Sol. Hope, Bedford-row

NEAL, JAMES, pork butcher, Chippenham-ter, also Chippenham. mews, Harrow.rd. Pet. June 14. July 2, at ten, at office of Sol. Ablett, Cambridge-ter, Hyde-pk

NUNDY, DAVID, corn merchant, Louth. Pet. June 19. July 7, at three, at the Townhall, Louth. Sol. Bell, Louth OPENSHAW, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Manchester. Pet. June 21. June 13, at three, at office of Sols. Marriott and Woodall, Manchester

OSWALD WILLIAM, gentleman, Acle. Pet. June 21. July 10, at
twelve, at office of Sols. Foster, Burroughs, and Robberds, Nor-
wich
OTT, HENRY, butcher, Peckham-pk-rd, Old Kent-rd. Pet. June
11. July 2, at three, at 312, New Cross-st. Sol. Ody, Trinity-st,
Southwark

PATERSON, PETER HAY, of no occupation, Redcliffe-gar. South
Kensington, and Newburgh. Pet. June 21. July 15, at two, at
the Cannon-st hotel. Sol. Bushby
PELLATT, MILL, wine merchant, Arthur-st-west. Pet. June 17.
July 2, at two, at office of Mr. Ford, 76 and 77, Cheapside. Sols.
Ley and Brocklesby, Water-la, Great Tower-st
PRINCE, THOMAS, victualler, Audlem. Pet. June 21. July 8, at
eleven, at the Royal Hotel, Crewe. Sol. Onions, Market
Drayton

PRITCHARD, GEORGE SAMUEL, contractor, Highgate-rd, and
Corker's-la. Highgate-rd, Pet, June 22. July 10, at a quarter.
past ten, at 123, Globe-r, Mile End. Sol. Hicks
REAY, WILLIAM, agent, Bishopwearmouth. Pet. June 18. July
3, at two, at office of Sol. Bell, Sunderland
REED, HENRY JOSEPH, saddle maker, Norwich, Pet. June 16.
July 5, at twelve, at office of the Registrar of the County Court,
Bethel-st, Norwich

ROBERTS, WILLIAM, contractor, Cleckheaton. Pet. June 22. July
9, at three, at office of Sols. Messrs. Chadwick. Dewsbury
SCHARFMESSER, MOSES, Commission agent, British-st, Bow-rd.
Pet. June 22. July 19, at three, at office of Sol. Goldberg, West-
st, Moorgate-st
SHARMAN, CHARLES, coal miner, Pinfold-la. Pet. June 22. July
7, at eleven, at office of Sols. Messrs. Binney, Sheffield
BHAW, FRANCIS, wholesale grocer, Stockport, under firm of
Brookes and Co. Pet. June 22. July 15, at eleven, at the Water-
loo hotel, Manchester. Sols. Messrs. Chew, Manchester
SHAW, JAMES, nail maker, Leeds. Pet. June 21. July 8, at eleven,
at offices of Sols. Rooke and Midgley, Leeds
SHAW, JOHN WILLIAM, and SHAW, HENRY, woollen merchants,
Huddersfield. Pet. June 21. July 8, at three, at the Queen
hotel. Huddersfield. Sol. Mills

SMITH. GEORGE, innkeeper, Woodhonse. par. Leeds. Pet. June 21. July 6, at two, at office of Sol. Pullan, Leeds SMITH, ROBERT, mining engineer, Swansea.

Pet June 21. July 6. at eleven, at office of Byrnard, Thomas, Cawker, and Co., 10, Temple-st, Swansea. Sol. Donague, Swansea SMITH, WILLIAM, draper, Liverpool. Pet. June 15. July 12, at twelve, at office of Sol. Carruthers, Liverpool

SMYTH. WILLIAM, perambulator maker, Leeds. Pet. June 19.
July 6, at two, at office of Sols. Simpson and Burrell, Leeds
STEVENSON, CHARLES, Saddler, Sheffield. Pet June 23. July 8,
at twelve, at office of Sol. Tattershall, Sheffield
STODDART, JAMES, manager, Cleckheaton.
7, at four, at office of Sol. Storey, Halifax
SULLY, WILLIAM, carpenter, Weston-super-Mare. Pet. June 16.
July 12, at eleven, at R. Gane and Co., Commercial Sale-rooms,
Weston-super-Mare

Pet. June 18, July

SUMMERSFIELD, ELLEN, wholesale clothier. Manchester.

Pet.

June 22. July 14, at four, at office of Sol. Rylance, Manchester TAYLOR, JOHN, provision dealer, Liverpool. Pet June 22. July 8, at three, at office of Sol. Ritson, Liverpool THOMAS, WILLIAM ARTHUR, bookseller, Llangollen. Pet June 23. July 21, at eleven, at office of Sols. Minshalls and Jones, Oswestry

TIPPER, JOHN, Hanley. Pot. June 17. July 5, at twelve, at the Vine inn. Stafford. Sol. Shires, Leicester 100NE, WILLIAM, maltster, Belton. Pet June 22. July 9, at twelve, at offices of Marris and Son, accountants, 6, Friar-la, par. St. Martin, Leicester. Sols. Berridge and Morris, Leicester TROWELL, FRANCIS, tie manufacturer, Wood-st. Pet. June 22. July 7. at twelve, at office of Lovering and Co, 35, Gresham-st Sol. Plunkett, Gutter-la

VICKERS, THOMAS, coal merchant, Hooley-hill, near Ashtonunder-Lyne. Pet. June 21. July 6, at one, at office of Sol. Clayton, Manchester WATFORD, JAMES FREDERICK, warehouseman, Castle-st, Falconsq. Pet. June 22. July 9, at two, at the London Joint Stock Bank-chmbre, West Smithfield. Sol. Hubbard, London Joint Stock Bank-chmbrs, West Smithfield

WELSFORD, HENRY, stationer, Exeter. Pet. June 21. July 7, at three, at office of Gamble and Harvey, accountants, 1. Greshambldgs, Basing hall-st. Sols. Ashley and Tee., Frederick's-pl Old Jewry

WILLIAMS, HUGH, civil engineer, Pemberton, and Wigan, Pet. June 23, July 13, at eleven, at office of Sol. Byrom, Wizan WILLIAMS, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Brynmawr. Pet.June 23. July 9. at twelve, at office of Sol. Shepard, Brynmawr WILSON, THOMAS, Burslem. Pet. June 17. July 3, at eleven, at office of Sol. Ellis, Burslem

WOOLCOCK, JOHN MOSEBERRY, victualler, Bristol. Pet. June 21. July 7, at twelve, at office of Sols. Benson and Thomas, Bristol

Gazette, June 29.

ALDRIDGE, THOMAS, cattle dealer, Nottingham. Pet. June 24. July 12, at eleven, at office of Sols. Pratt and Hodkinsons, New ark-upon-Trent

ARNOLD, FRANK AUDLEY, milkman, Cambridge, Pet. June 26. July 13, at two, at office of Sols, Messrs. Foster, Cambridge ARNOLD, JOHN, milkman, Cambridge. Pet. June 26. July 13, at three, at office of Sols. Foster, Cambridge

BATE, GEORGE, storeman, Plymouth. Pet. June 23. July 13, at
eleven, at office of Sol Dawe, Plymonth
BRADY, HENRY, egg salesman, Ardwick, near Manchester. Pet.
June 24. July 14, at four, at office of Sols. Addleshaw and War-
burton, Manchester

BROOKS, JAMES, licensed victualler, Woking. Pet. June 22. July
13, at two, at office of Sol. Ashby, Clement's-la
COOKSON, ELLEN AUBRAY, widow, coal merchant, Guildford,
and Southampton. Pet. June 17. July 5, at twelve, at the
Guildhall Coffee-house, Sol. Lovett, Guildford, and New-inn
CORRETT, WILLIAM, manufacturing chemist, Bradford.
June 25. July 14, at three, at office of Sols. Partington and
Allen, Manchester

Pet.

COWAN, JAMES, hatter, Liverpool. Pet. June 26. July 15, at two, at the Law Institution, Chancery-la, London. Sol. Taylor, Sheffield

COWAN, JAMES, draper, Swansea. Pet. June 22. July 9, at eleven, at office of Barnard, Thomas, and Cawker, 10, Temple-st Swansea. Sol. Collins COYNE, JAMES JEROME, bootmaker, Preston. Pet. June 24. July 13, at eleven, at T. Cotsworth's Temperance hotel, Manchester. Sol. Fryer, Preston

CULVERWELL, JAMES, licensed victualler, St. Albans. Pet. June 24. July 15, at four, at the George hotel, St. Albans. Sol. Anneslev, St. Albans

CUNLIFFE, JOHN, engineer, Manchester. Pet. June 24. July 9, at three, at office of Sol. Sampson, Manchester DAVIES, ROBERT, ship joiner, Birkenhead. Pet. June 24. July 12, at two, at office of Sol. Downham, Birkenhead DIXON, WILLIAM, tailor, East Retford. Pet. June 23. July 13, at twelve, at offices of Sols, Marshall, Sons, and Bescoby, East Retford

DOWLING, ISAAC, and DOWLING, SARAH, grocers, Cardiff. Pet. June 24. July 4, at eleven at office of Sol, Evans, Cardiff

ESTAUGH, WILLIAM, farm steward, Shadwell. Pet. June 25. Ju'v 13, at twelve, at office of Sols. Emerson and Sparrow, Norwich FAIRALL, GEORGE, coal dealer, Godstone, Pet. June 22. July 13, at one, at the Hare and Hounds inn, Godstone. Sol, Gregory, King-st, Cheapside

FARNISH, HENRY, and HARKER, JOHN GEORGE, stuff manufacturers, Bradford. Pet. June 26. July 12, at half-past ten, at office of Sols. Wood and Killick, Bradford

FERGUSON, JAMES, draper, Merthyr Tydfil. Pet. June 24. July 10, at one, at office of Sols. Simons and Plews, Merthyr Tydfil FLEMING, THOMAS, grocer, Tipton. Pet. June 25. July 12, at three, at office of Sol. Travis, Tipton

FIELD, WILLIAM JABEZ, gentleman, Lee. Pet. June 22. July 7, at three at office of Sols. May, Sykes, and Batten, Adelaide-pl, London-bridge

GARNEYS, THOMAS TORONTO, oilman, Crovdon. Pet. June 21. July 9, at three, at office of Sol. Grant, Suffolk-la, Cannon-st HAIGH, JOHN, joiner, Golcar. Pet. June 26. July 16, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Ainley, Huddersfield

HALL. LEIGH, draper, Levenshulme. Pet. June 26. July 15, at twelve, at office of G. Whitt, accountant, 64, Lower King-street, Manchester. Sol. Dawson, Manchester

HERD, JAMES ELLISON, merchant's clerk, Oxton, Pet. June 25. July 9, at one, at offices of J. H. Pugh, 6, Duncan-street, Birkenhead

HEYWOOD, ALBERT EDWARD, confectioner, Huddersfield. Pet. June 22. July 8, at twelve, at the White Lion hotel, Halifax. Sol. Leeming

HJERLEID, SIVERT, ironfounder, Coatham and North Ormesby. Pet. June 23. July 9, at eleven, at the Queen hotel, Middlesboroug. Sol. Bainbridge, Middlesborough

JAMES, THOMAS, wheelwright, Coddington. Pet. June 25. July 13, at eleven, at office of Sol. Piper, Ledbury JEVONS, HENRY, grocer, Kidderminster Pet. June 24. July 8, at three, at the Black Horse hotel, Kidderminster. Sol. Elcock JONES, WILLIAM REES, draper, Kingsland-rd. Pet. June 24. July 13, at two, at office of Messrs. Hart Brothers, Tibbetts, and Co., accountants, 57, Moorgate-st. Sols. Ashley and Tee, Frederick's-pl, Old Jewry

KELK, ELIZA CARLETON, grocer. Liverpool. Pet. June 24. July 15, at three, st office of Sol. Nordon, Liverpool KERREY, HENRY, auctioneer, Hinckley. Pet. June 28. July 13, at twelve, at office of Messrs. Lomas, Harrison, and Starkey, accountants, 37. Cannon-st, Birmingham. Sols. Fowler, Smith, and Warwick, Leicester

KYNNERSLEY, JOHN, boot and shoe manufacturer, King's Norton. Pet. June 24. July 10, at eleven, at office of Sols. Gould and Elcock, Stourbridge

LANNIGAN. HENRY TREVOR, engineer, Redcar. Pet. June 23. July 9, at twelve, at the Queen hotel, Middlesborough. Sol. Bainbridge, Middlesborough

LAW, EDWARD, grocer, Smethwick. Pet. June 24. July 9, at eleven, at offices of Sol. Travis, Tipton LEIGHTON, JAMES BENNETT, warehouseman's assistant, Canonbury park-sq. Islington. Pet. June 21, July 7, at three, at office of Mr. Hudgell, 37, Gresham-st. Sol. Gray, Gresham-st LEEMING, CYRUS SAMUEL, painter, York. Pet. June 24. July 12, at half past twelve, at the Commercial hotel, Leeds. Sol. Wooler, Batley

LEWIS, ISAAC, pawnbroker, Cardiff. Pet. June 23. July 13, at eleven, at the Hen and Chickens hotel, Birmingham. Sol. Morgan, Cardiff

LOMAX, JOHN, provision dealer. Little Bolton. Pet. June 24 July 9, nt three, at office of Sol. Fielding, Bolton MARCON, REV. WALTER, clerk in holy orders, Edgfield. Pet. June 24. July 14, at eleven, at office of Sols. Kent, Watson, and Watson, Fakenham

MARTIN, HENRY CHARLES, grocer, Bournemouth. Pet. June 25.
July 12, at two, at the Inns of Court hotel, Holborn. Sol. Sharp,
Christchurch

MCCANN, FRANK, boot manufacturer, Essex-rd, Islington, Shep-
herdess-walk, City-rd. and Pitfield-st, Hoxton. Pet. June 26.
July 20, at three, at office of Sols. Wood and Hare, Basinghall-st,
Bow, Croydon, and Red Hill
MOSSOP, THOMAS ROBINSON WOOLFIELD, wine merchant, Long
Sutton. Pet. Ju
July 9, at two, at the Cannon-st hotel,
Cannon-st. Sols Goal and Mason, King's Lynn
NICHOLS, HENRY RICHARD, gilder, Bournemouth. Pet. June 24
July 12, at eleven, at offices of Sols. Messrs. Aldridge, Bourne-
mouth
NIXON, JOSEPH, wholesale hosier, Wood-st. Pet. June 19. July
16, at three, at the Guildhall tavern, 32. Gresham-st. Sols.
Parker, Lee, and Haddock, St. Paul's-churchyard
PARNELL, JOSHUA, builder, Oppidan's-rd, Primrose-hill.
June 25. July 15, at one, at offices of Sol. Underwood, Chan-
cery-la

Pet.

PEAK, WILLIAM BENNETT, furniture broker, Cambridge. Pet. June 26. July 14. at eleven, at 28, Green-st, Cambridge. Sols. Messrs. Foster

PHILLIPS, THOMAS, Cardiff. Pet. June 25, July 20, at eleven, at offices of Sol, Morgan, Cardiff

PORTER, ROBERT CONRAD, grocer. Dudley. Pet. June 25. July
9, at twelve, at office of Sol. Eaden, Birmingham
RAMSHIRE, JAMES, restaurant keeper, Quality-ct, Chancery-la.
Pet. June 24. July 15, at twelve, at office of Sols. Fitch and
Fitch, Union-st, Borough, Southwark

ROBERTS, JOHN, commission agent, Liverpool. Pet. June 26.
July 13, at twelve, at the Clarendon Rooms, South John-street,
Liverpool. Sol. Fowler, Liverpool

SENNETT, PETER EDWARD, carpenter. Hemingford-rd, Isling ton. Pet. June 21. July 8, at eleven, at King's Arms, 64, Barnsbury-rd, Islington. Sol. Rigby. Beresford-st, Camberwell SIBREE, PETER, seed crusher, Kingston-upon-Huil. Pet. June 22. July 9, at twelve, at T. Watson's Holderness hotel, Beverley Sols. Stead and Sibree, Hull

SIMMONS, GEORGE ALEXANDER, barometer manufacturer, Seckforde-st, Clerkenwell. Pet. June 11. July 8, at three, at office of Sol. Cooper, Chancery-la SMITH, CHARLES, glass shade dealer, Hare-st, Bethnal-gr. Pet. June 21. July 6, at ten, at the Victoria tavern, Morpeth-rd, in the par. of Bethnal-gr. Sol. Rigby, Beresford-st, Walworth SMITH, GEORGE URLING. flag maker, Aldgate High-st, and Anton-st, Amhurst-rd, Hackney. Pet. June 23. July 15, at two, at office of Sols. Courtenay and Croome, Gracechurch-st, London STEELE, THOMAS MURRAY, aerated water manufacturer, Ply. month and Compton Gifford (under style of Patent Aerated Water Company. Pet. June 25. July 13, at eleven, at office of Sol. Shelly, Plymouth

STEPHENSON, JAMES, timber merchant, Sunderland. Pet. June 23. July 9, at twelve, nt office of Sol. Steel, Sunderland STEWART, LEWIS, merchant, St. Mary-axe. Pet. June 25. July 15, at twelve, at the Cannon-st hotel, Cannon-st. Sols. Nicholson, Nicol, and Son, Lime-st

THOMAS, JOHN, draper, Strata Florida, in par. Gwnnws Upper.
Pet. June 24. July 13, at one, at office of Sol. Jones, Aberyst-
with
THOMPSON, ANDREW, grocer, Barrow-in-Furness. Pet. June 23.
July 9. at twelve, at the Ship inn, Barrow-in-Furness. Sols.
Bradshaw and Pearson, Barrow-in-Furness
TOLLEY, JOHN, and JONES, JOHN, colliery proprietors, West
Bromwich. Pet. June 24. July 12, at twelve, at the Great
Western hotel, Birmingham. Sol. Powell, Birmingham

TOMS, ANNIE CURTIS, boot and shoe maker, Ilfracombe. Pet.
June 24. July 13, at three, at 18, High-st, Ilfracombe. Sol.
Langdon

TOWNSEND, WILLIAM, poulterer, Bilston. Pet. June 25. July
10, at eleven, at office of Sol. Fellows, Bilston
TURNER, WILLIAM HODGSON, gentleman, Pudsey, in parish"of
Calverley. Pet. June 21. July 10, at ten, at offices of Berry and
Robinson, solicitors, 1, Charles-st, Bradford. Sols. Booth,
Clough, and Booth

WATERS, JOHN WILLIAM, coal merchant, Hartlepool. Pet. June
23. July 13, at twelve, at office of Sol. Todd, Hartlepool
WATTS, GEORGE HENRY, oilman, White-st, and Church-st, South-
wark. Pet. June 253. July 12, at two, at the Guildhall Coffee-
house, Gresham-st. Sol. Sweeting, Southampton-st, Holborn
WESTON, HENRY, and PAYNE, HENRY, ivory manufacturers,
Hayes bldgs, London Fields, Hackney. Pet. June 24. July 17,
at twelve, at the Buck's Head, Chilton-st, Bethnal-gr. Sol.
Rigby, Beresford-st, Walworth
WHITE, THOMAS, grocer, Cerne Abbas. Pet. June 24. July 10,
at twelve, at offices of Sols. Andrews and Pope, Dorchester
WIGRAM, ROBERT JAMES, GLYN, RICHARD HENRY, BENSON,
ROBERT HENRY, and BENSON, CONSTANTINE WILLIAM, mer-
chants, King's Arms-yd, Moorgate-st, Liverpool, Lancaster, and
of Boston, America. Pet. June 25. July 14, at eleven, at the
Guildhall coffee house, Gresham-st. Sols. Parker and Clarke,
St. Michael's-alley, Cornhill

WILLIS, EDWARD, commercial traveller, Sparkbrook, Pet, June 25. July 12, at three, at office of Sol. Parry, Birmingham

WILLIAMS, ROBERT, cotton dealer, Liverpool. Pet. June 25 July 1, at thre, at o fices of P. Vine, accountant, Imperial chmbs, Liverpool. £ol, Rumsey, Liverpool

Orders of Discharge.

BANKRUPTS' ESTATES.

Gazette, June 22.

GREGORY, FRANCIS, brickmaker, Manchester, Moston, and Newton Heath

MANLEY, JOHN JACKSON, schoolmaster, Datchet
PLOWMAN, MARGARET, confectioner, Wells next-the-Sea
SCOTT, HENRY SHIPPEY, innkeeper, Cambridge
UNDER LIQUIDATION BY ARRANGEMENT.
Gazette, June 25.

BENNETT, JAMES, farmer, Garway

Dividends.

BANKRUPTS' ESTATES.

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

Allen, H. Southsea, interest at 4 per cent. Paget, Basinghall-st. -Lindup, J. bootmaker, first, 18. 34d. Paget, Basinghall-stMintern, J. G. sheep dealer, first, 1s. 74d. Paget, Basinghall-st Blankley, W. H. chemist, second and final, Is. 5d. At Sols, Oldman and Iveson, Gainsborough.-Breward, J. E. plush manufac turer, first and final, 78. 8d. At Trust. H. Suffolk, 35, Smithfordst, Coventry, Clark, T. currier, final, 3jd. At Trust. W. T. Jefferson, Swaledale and Wensleydale Bank, Richmond.-Cooper, E. Walsall, first and final, 3d. At Trust. C. Marris, 37, Waterloo-st, Birmingham.-Cross and Cropper, brass founders, second, 1s. 6d. At Trust. S. J. Beswick, 56, Albion-st, Leeds.-Fira, John, builder and stonemason, amount of debts and interest. At Trust. H. Tarratt, 10, Market-st, Leicester.-Granville, A. K. B. paper manufacturer and clerk in holy orders, final, 1d. At Trust. S. Lovelock, 19, Coleman-st.-Hanson, Pickles, and Co., stuff manufacturers, first joint, 2s. 6d. At Trust. J. I, Learoyd, the Square, Halifax.-Heitier and Wheaton, cattle salesman, first, 2s. 8id. At Trust. T. Andrew, 13, Bedford-circus, Exeter.-Kelary. Castle, corn merchant, Is. 6d. At Trust. B. Pickering, 8, Parliament-st, Hull.-Muller, C. H. L. ship chandler, first and final, 19. 6d. At Trust. T. Alderson, 64, Church-st, West Hartlepool.-Pattison, T. bricklayer and builder, first and final, 6s. 10d. At Trust. T. Jenkinson, Northallerton.-Phillips, B. draper, second and final, 18. 6d. At Trust, B. P. Thomas, 10, Temple-st, Swansea-Pitch ford, A. T. lead manufacturer, first, 148. 2d. At Trust. C. M. Kemp, 8, Walbrook.-Pitchford, E. B. lead manufacturer, first, 14s. 4d. At Trust. C. M. Kemp, 8, Walbrook.-Pellerfen, E. chemist, second and final, 28. At Trust. A. C. R. Adcock, Horncastle.-Reynolds, J. provision merchant, fourth and final, d. At offices of J. S. and R. Please, 15, Lord-st, Liverpool.-Sheplay, James, butcher, first and final, 2s. 6d. At Sol. G. Currey, Cleckheaton-Smith, J. cotton spinner and stone merchant, final, 38. At Trust. J. Wilding, Bank-chmbs, Lord-st-west, Blackburn.Smith, Rev. P. clerk, fifth, 9jd. At Trust, R. Roberts, Swaledale and Wensleydale Bank, Richmond.-Witeor, F. H. draper, first, 38. 4d. At Trust. O. D. Ray, Bank-plain, Norwich.-Wildes, G. H. gentleman, first and final, 58. At offices of Harding, Whinney, and Co., 8, Old Jewry.-Woollen, J. and M. bone cutters, first and final, 2d. At offices of Flower and Pearson, Figtree-la, Sheffield

EDWARDS.-On the 23rd ult., at 22, Oakley-square, N.W., the wife of Thomas John Edwards, Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. EDWARDS.-On the 25th ult., at Burnside, Edmonton, the wife of John William Edwards, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. JAMES. On the 25th ult., at Woodburn, Dacre-hill, Rock Ferry, Cheshire, the wife of T. H. James, Esq., Barrister-at-law, of a daughter. MAIDLOW. On the 27th ult., at Belvedere-house, Forest-hill, the wife of John M. Maidlow, of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister-at-law, of RUDDOCK.-On the 25th ult., at 52, Studley-road, Clapham, S.W., the wife of Noblett Surrage Ruddock, Solicitor, of a daughter. SMITH-On the 25th ult., at The Hawthorns, Moseley, near Birmingham, the wife of George T. Smith, Solicitor, of a son.

a son.

DEATHS.

HODGSON.-On the 17th inst., at Thornhill-house, Handsworth, Birmingham, after a lingering illness, Eliza, wife of Mr. T. R. T. Hodgson, Clerk of the Peace for the Borough of Birmingham. HULL.-On the 26th ult., at Drumley, near Ayr, aged 59, Frede rick Shephard Hull, of Ellerslie, New Brighton, and Liverpool, Solicitor. MASON. On the 24th ult., at Eversleigh House, Highbury Newpark, aged 40, Frederick Mason, of 10, Old Jewry-chambers, and 7, Gresham-street, Solicitor.

PARTRIDGE AND COOPER,

WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS.

192, FLEET-STREET, AND 1 & 2, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, E.C Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 20s. Legal Stationery 25 per cent lower than any other house. ARTRIDGE AND COOPER'S COMMERCIAL AND LEGAL DIARIES ARE NOW READY. THE TIMES, Nov. 25, 1874. "The diaries of Messrs. Partridge and Cooper for 1875 are got up so as to be admirably adapted for office use, being cheap, handy, and not overloaded with useless matter, while giving good writing space."

ני

THE NEW "VELLUM WOVE CLUB-HOUSE" NOTE, 9s. 6d. per ream.

INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled, to hold twenty or thirty folios, 28. 3d. per skin, 26s. per dozen, 1258. per roll.

SECONDS OF FOLLOWERS, Ruled, 1s. 11d. each, 22s. per dozen, 1058. per roll.

RECORDS OF MEMORIALS, 7d. each, 6s. 6d. per dozen.

LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER OF MINUTE-BOOKS An immense stock in various bindings. ILLUSTRATED PRICE-LIST of Inkstands, Postage Scales, Copying Presses, Writing Cases, Despatch Boxes, Oak and Walnut Stationery Cabinets and other useful articles adapted to Library or Office, post free.

F

UNERAL

REFORM.

The exorbitant items of the undertaker's bill have long operated as an oppressive tax upon all classes of the community. With a view of applying a remedy to this serious evil the LONDON NECROPOLIS COMPANY, when opening their extensive cemetery at Woking, held themselves prepared to undertake the whole duties relating to interments at fixed and moderate scales of charge, from which survivors may choose according to their means and the requirements of the case. The Company also undertakes the conduct of Funerals to other cemeteries, and to all parts of the United Kingdom. A pamphlet containing full particulars may be obtained, or will be forwarded, upon application to the Chief Office, 2, Lancaster-place, Strand, W.C.

MARITIME LAW REPORTS (New Series). By J. P. ASPINALL,

Esq., Barrister-at-Law, in the Admiralty Courts of England and Ireland, and in all the Superior Courts, with a Selection from the Decisions of the United States Courts, with Notes by the Editor. The First Series of "Maritime Law" may now be had complete in Three Volumes, half-bound, price £5 59. for the set, or any single volume for 22. Back numbers may be had to complete sets.

The 1st Vol. of "Aspinall's Maritime Cases," from 1871 to 1873, price half-calf, £2 98. London: "LAW TIMES" Office, 10, Wellington-street, Strand.

Now ready, price 5s. 6d., Vol. XII., Part XI.

OX'S CRIMINAL LAW CASES. Edited by EDWARD W. COX, Serjeant-at-Law, Recorder of Portsmouth. The Parts and Volumes may still be had to complete sets. It is the only complete series of Criminal Cases published in England. An Appendix contains a valuable collection of Precedents of Indictments. London; "LAW TIMES" Office. 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.c.

The Law and the Lawyers.

THE double entry of a candidate's name upon a ballot paper does not of itself avoid his election. So it was decided by the Court of Common Pleas in Northcote v. Puleford (32 L. T. Rep. N.S. 602), a case which arose upon a municipal election, but the decision in which will equally apply to a Parliamentary one. The facts were that the petitioner had been twice nominated, first with the "addition" of his place of residence, and secondly, with that of

VOL. LIX.-No. 1684.

his place of occupation. The second nomination was, under the Municipal Election Acts, a bad one: (See Reg v. Coward, 17 Q.B. 893.) His name was twice entered in the ballot paper; 71 votes were given to him in respect of the bad, and 301 in respect of the good nomination. By adding both sets of votes together, he had a majority over the respondent, otherwise not. It was found as a fact there that was no other person of the same name on the burgess roll. This being so, we quite agree with the decision. As Mr. Justice BRETT remarked, "It would be absurd to say that the bad nomination would destroy the good one," and "the irregularity of form neither deceived nor misled any voter." But it might have been far more difficult to apply sect. 13 of the Ballot Act, which enacts that no election shall be invalidated by non-compliance with the rules and forms, if it appears that the non-compliance did not affect the result of the election. Suppose, for instance, the petitioner's name had been JOHN SMITH, and there had been ten other JOHN SMITHS upon the burgess roll. It would be hard to say that the "addition" of each individual SMITH was a sufficient identification of him.

66

THE lofty tone adopted by the Times in reviewing the discussion of the Judicature Bill in committee is decidedly remarkable, for it would appear that the leading journal is under the impression that the Bill is one affording a fine and wide field for the exercise of high juristic talent. The speeches of the common lawyers were spoken of as a display of legal provincialism dying hard, and profound regret was expressed that we have not in the present House of Commons, a MACAULAY or a GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS, whilst a tear is dropped over the waning reputation of the Bench." We share the regrets of our contemporary, but we doubt very much whether the eminent men named would have taken any prominent part in discussing questions of detail, the measure being one of mere procedure, whilst on the constitutional point of more or fewer Judges, their opinion would not have been of more value than Mr. MORGAN LLOYD'S. In short it is idle to lament that things are not as they used to be; political life is not made attractive to lawyers, economy has curtailed the emoluments of law officers, anybody is appointed a Judge who has sufficient influence, and year by year the community is becoming more decidedly a community of shopkeepers. Great statesmen and great bishops are almost dying out, and it is not to be expected that the law will furnish an exception to the general rule.

THERE is, as Sir C. ADDERLEY told Lord E. BRUCE, "no Act of Parliament enabling Government to compel railway companies to provide ladies' carriages.' "It is compulsory, however, to provide what are practically men's carriages, for by sect. 20 of the Railway Regulation Act, 1868, all railway companies, except the Metropolitan, must provide smoking compartments, unless exempted by the Board of Trade, "in every passenger train where there are more carriages than one of each class." Sir C. ADDERLEY observed that the Board of Trade may approve bye-laws, but cannot impose them (as to this see 3 & 4 Vict. c. 97, sects. 7, 10) and added (amid cheers and laughter) that most of the companies provide "ladies' carriages," but none can compel ladies to use them. It is material to point out that they cannot prevent men from using them also, without a special bye-law to that effect. Railway law recognises no distinctions of sex as such, and the right of every passenger to be carried so long as there be room for him (so far as it exists) would not be satisfied if the accommodation which he would otherwise find were denied to him by the reservation of a ladies' carriage. Whether a bye-law framed for the purpose of excluding men from ladies' carriages could be within the powers of a company to make regulations "for preventing the smoking of tobacco, and the commission of any other nuisance, in or upon the carriages and generally for regulating the travelling upon the railway," it is not quite easy to say, but we think, on the whole, that such a bye-law would be within the general words, although the power to make bye-laws for specific purposes would seem to imply that the company may not make them for other purposes: (See Child v. Hudson's Bay Company 2 P. Wms. 209).

THE provision in the Judicature Bill which dispenses with the necessity of Judges becoming serjeants, coupled with the fact that no serjeant has now been created for nearly seven years, has been not unnaturally considered as an indication on the part of the advisers of the Crown to create no more serjeants-at-law. And various rumours have been floating about to the effect that the existing serjeants (who number, including the Judges and exJudges, about two score persons) have formed the intention of dividing amongst them the handsome property of Serjeants' Inn, said to be worth about £30,000. On the other hand, not a few members of the Bar appear to be very anxious that the ancient office should not be allowed to die out, and it has, we believe, been suggested that it is an office which may be claimed of right by any barrister of sixteen years' standing. (See Com. Dig. tit. Ley, p. 2.) It is said, too, that it is for the advantage of the public that there should always be a body of barristers having a certain precedence not conferred by the mere pleasure of the Crown,

66

as is the status of a Queen's Counsel. We can find no express assertion of the right to be made a serjeant in the old books; but, looking to the exclusive right of audience formerly possessed by the serjeants in the Common Pleas, it is possible that such a right might have been claimed and maintained at the time when the serjeants had such exclusive audience. This was a moot point apparently hundreds of years ago. In Parton v. Genny (2 Ed. 4, fol. 2, pl. 4), Littleton. J. said: "If all the serjeants were dead, we could hear the apprentices to plead here as of necessity, and in case of the people." To which Bryan, C. J. answered, Then, according to you, no serjeant shall be made for necessity.' See The Serjeants' Case (6 Bing. N. C. 232, at p. 239), per Tindal, C.J.: The oath of the serjeant, we may observe, is "to give due attendance for the service of the king's people on their causes.” We do not think the question of the probably approaching decadence of an office which is as old as the Court of Common Pleas itself has received so much attention as it deserved. To dispense with the unmeaning and expensive formality of creating each judge elect a serjeant was proper enough. But we should like to hear some good reason given why no person except a judge elect has been created a serjeant since 1868. As a petition to the House of Commons in the matter is now circulating, we presume that the attention of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL will shortly be called to it.

Ir has been for many years sought to extend the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor's Court in the face of Cox v. The Mayor of London (L. Rep. 2 H. of L. 239), and the numerous decisions based by the Court of Common Pleas thereon: (See Robinson v. Emanuel, 30 L. T. Rep. N.S.500.) The last hope must be taken to be extinguished by Worthington v. Jeffries, which we reported last week (32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 606). In a carefully considered judgment the court (BRETT, GROVE, and DENMAN, JJ.) has held that a defendant in prohibition has no right to an order that the plaintiff in prohibition should be put to declare in prohibition; that the writ of prohibition is issued ex debito justitiæ; that where the Superior Court is clear both in fact and law that the jurisdiction of the inferior court has been exceeded, the Superior Court will not exercise its discretion to order a declaration in prohibition; and, finally, that the Court of Common Pleas is "clear in law" that the sections of the Mayor's Court Act which allow no defendant "by any proceeding whatsoever" to object to the jurisdiction except by plea, does not operate to prevent the defendant's attorney from objecting to the jurisdiction by applying to a Superior Court for a prohibition. The judgment, in which Sir H. KEATING concurred, contains an exhaustive review of the authorities, and deals boldly with "the formidable statement of Lord MANSFIELD in St. John's College v. Todington (1 Burr. 198), with which the court had been naturally enough much pressed in argument, that "where the court is clearly of opinion that there is sufficient ground for a prohibition the defendant has a right to put the plaintiff to declare that his jurisdiction may not be taken from him in a summary way where no writ of error will lie." We are not disposed to question the correctness of the reasoning by which the court has explained away Lord MANSFIELD's ruling, but we should have been glad if it could have seen its way to an exercise of discretion in favour of the defendant in prohibition. It is a little unfortunate that the Court of Common Pleas should prevent an appeal from its own decisions upon the curious point till lately in question.

THE much canvassed case of Robinson v. Mollett was finally disposed of by the House of Lords on Tuesday last. The actual question at issue was whether a merchant at Liverpool was justified in repudiating a contract alleged to have been entered into on his behalf by a firm of London brokers for the purchase of a quantity of tallow, simply on the ground that having no notice of the custom, he was not bound by a certain usage of the London tallow market. By this custom, brokers who act for several buyers at the same price, make one contract in their own names for the aggregate amount of all their customers' orders, and afterwards divide the whole quantity of tallow so purchased among their prin cipals to the amount of their various orders. The Court, of Common Pleas and the Court of Exchequer Chamber were divided in opinion; but the House of Lords has ordered the verdict to be entered in favour of the Liverpool merchant. The judgment of those Judges of the court below who were in favour of the broker's claim to maintain the contract seems to have been based upon the general principle of law that persons who engaged a broker to transact business for them in a general market authorised him to do so according to the general and known usages and customs of that market, although they themselves might not be aware of them. After a close examination of the alleged custom, Lord CHELMSFORD thought that it did no more than regulate the dealings of brokers among themselves in buying and selling as principals, and the mode of adjusting and settling accounts with each other, and that no part cf it was applicable to the ordinary employment of a broker engaged to buy for a real principal. His Lordship, however, was of opinion that, even if the custom applied to the circumstances of the case, it was of such a peculiar character, and so completely at

a

variance with the relations between the parties, that no person who was ignorant of the usage could be held to have agreed to submit to its conditions merely by employing broker to whom the usage was known to perform the ordinary and accustomed duties attaching to his employment. Certainly a custom which converts a broker employed to buy into a principal selling for himself, gives to the agent an interest in the transaction quite opposed to his duty. Very little need be said of the stringency of the law in its efforts to prevent any such result as this. One of the most elementary principles of the law of agency, as far as respects the duties of the agent in performing his commission, is that the agent shall not place himself in any position where his duty and his interest may conflict. On this ground alone we think the decision of the House of Lords perfectly equitable.

THE Bill, introduced by Mr. CHAPLIN, relating to the Drugging of Animals' Bill, upon which we animadverted some weeks ago, has passed through committee, and instead of its being amended there, as we are expected to believe it was, it is altered for the worse, and, however objectionable it was as originally drafted, it is far more objectionable as it is now printed. The only improvement that we can see is, that which makes it necessary that the adminis tering of an injurious substance must be with the intent to damage or disable a domestic animal. But to confer on one justice of the peace the power to hear and convict is an extension of the summary jurisdiction of justices in a manner utterly inconsistent with JERVIS's Act. The Bill, as it now stands, proposes to empower one justice to convict a person guilty of an offence under the Bill, and to order him to be imprisoned for any period not exceeding six months, or to pay, in addition to the amount of damage done, a fine not exceeding £25. Upon a second conviction for a similar offence, one justice may order the offender to be imprisoned for any period not exceeding twelve calendar months, with or without hard labour. This is really monstrous. Already the summary jurisdiction of magistrates is too great, and, instead of extending it, we are of opinion, with Lord COLERIDGE, that it is full time it should be curtailed. Under the first clause, to constitute the offence it will simply be necessary to prove the administering of any injurious substance, as the intent can only be gathered from attending circumstances. But the next clause provides that when such substance is administered without the consent of the owner of the animal, and results in actual disablement or damage, the punishment on conviction is not to exceed three months' imprisonment. Is not this rather the inversion of punishment? Where actual damage is done the punishment is only to be three months; but where such damage was only intended the punishment is twice as much. But the odd part of the Bill is the fact that what really ought to be an offence in all persons would be no offence at all if committed by a veterinary surgeon or a persou acting under his direction. It matters not that he should have a guilty intent; it matters not that he does it without the consent of the owner; he need fear no punishment if he can plead in defence that he is a member of the College of Veterinary Surgeons. Surely the promoters of the Bill could never have intended this. Presumably the Bill is prepared in the interest of horse racing-so as to prevent horses being disabled by the agency of unscrupulous persons. If the Bill passes as it is now drawn, provided the services of an unscrupulous veterinary surgeon can be secured, horses may still be drugged with apparent impunity. This is another example of the careless and ill-considered manner in which Parliamentary Bills are drafted, and we have to repeat our regret that the Select Committee, whose report we commented upon in our last issue, did not recommend the establishment of a committee or board of qualified persons to supervise all public

Bills submitted to Parliament.

THE JUDICATURE BILL IN COMMITTEE. IN 1874 the Judicature Bill was read a second time on the 7th, and taken in committee on the 10th July. Progress was reported in consequence of a cry for more Judges, and the Bill, having been heard no more of in the interim, was withdrawn a week afterwards. In the present year the Bill which was first taken in committee on Monday last is fully ten days earlier on its journey, and the progress made with it has at least extinguished all prospect, if any yet remained, of the Act of 1873 being once more postponed. The complaisance of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL will disarm all remaining criticisms of a really serious nature, and the Acts of 1873 and 1875 will now commence in a few months, despite the vaticination and hostile criticisms of Sir JOHN STUART and Sir EDMUND BECKETT outside Parliament, and of Sir GEORGE BOWYER and Mr. LOPES within it. The opening debate upon going into committee, in which almost every lawyer of note took part, but in which the lay element was conspicuously absent, was useful in marking out the salient points upon which amendments would be pressed. That the number of Judges should not be reduced; that the Judicial Committee should not be made weak; that the new Court of Appeal should be made strong; that the bill of

exceptions should be retained; that the LORD CHANCELLOR should not have the power of repealing Acts of Parliament, and that the Judges should not have the power to take away costs;-such were the suggestions which were pressed upon the Government with more or less reason by nine successive speakers, of whom one only was a layman. It is curious that the question of district registries, which has recently assumed considerable importance, was left quite unnoticed, and that the ATTORNEY-GENERAL should have omitted to make any statement as to what kind of instructions were given to the draftsmen when they were requested to consolidate the Rules of Procedure under the Act of 1873 with the Rules of Court approved by the Judges. Those two documents were here and there in conflict; which was intended to prevail, and why? However, the House went into committee, and progress was made up to clause 17 inclusive. The remaining thirteen clauses are, with the exception of the last, comparatively immaterial; but the whole volume of Orders, still remains to be got through. The happy amendment of Mr. BUTT will be found to have the effect of considerably lightening the remaining labours of the committee; but we cannot but think that it would be prudent on Monday to take the Bill before the Merchant Shipping Bill, and not after it, as at present intended.

Omitting points of a microscopic character, such as that concerning appeals from the Court of Admiralty, which occupied the attention of the committee for a period so needlessly long, the successful amendments which we propose to consider were that which keeps up the number of the Judges of the High Court, that which reconstitutes the Court of Appeal, and that which restricts the power of the Judges to alter the rules. It is probable enough that experience might have shown an increase of Judges to be necessary, although we do not think that Mr. GREGORY'S criticism as to the present wasteful distribution of strength in banc. received as much attention as it deserved; and if the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER can see his way to an à priori vote for the requisite additional salaries it is not for us to criticise the proposal which the ATTORNEYGENERAL SO readily accepted. But ought the restriction which Sir HENRY JAMES proposed, that two of the "persons" to be appointed appellate Judges must be selected from the present Common Law Bench, to be embodied in a statute or not? After carefully considering the matter, we think that it ought. As Mr. GRANTHAM acutely pointed out, the restriction would be only temporary, and apply to the Judges first selected. Indeed it would be ridiculous in a Bill for concurrent administration to make the proposed restriction otherwise than temporary. But looking to the amount of common law procedure which has found its way into the rules, and to the undoubted fact that it is easier for the common law mind to get up equity than for the equity mind to get up common law, we think that the choice of the Government ought in the first instance to be limited as proposed. And as for hampering the executive, we think the present Bill gives the LORD CHANCELLOR powers of so sweeping a character that it affords an excellent opportunity for setting just one precedent the other way. It is to be regretted, reserve forces, or no rescrve forces, that a division was not taken upon Sir HENRY JAMES'S amendment, and also upon the amendment of Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, that the selected Judges should be of a certain amount of judicial standing. We are aware of the objections in high quarters to judicial promotion, and admit the capacities of the eight Lord Chancellors who have acted as counsel one week and Judges of the Final Court of Appeal the next. But we think that at least Parliament should have been called upon to pronounce an opinion on the important principle involved, and on which equity and common law experts happen to be so oddly at variance. To pass to the remaining point accomplished, Mr. BUTT carried an amendment having the effect of restricting the power of the Judges over the rules. It is curious that no member of the committee called attention to what appears to us to be an ambiguity in clauses 16 and 17. We read those clauses to mean that the Judges may only add to, but may not alter, the rules during the period between the passing and the commencement of the Act. It was assumed in committee that the two clauses gave the Judges power to alter the rules during that period. If that be the true construction, we emphatically protest against clause 17, even in its amended shape. The ATTORNEYGENERAL was of opinion that even if the amendment were adopted "it was doubtful whether the other portions of the clause would not give the powers proposed to be taken away." As Sir HENRY JAMES pertinently asked, "Why should Parliament take the trouble of passing new rules, if the Judges are to be allowed to annul them ?" The scheme of the Act of 1873 was that rules scheduled to that Act should not be altered until after the commencement of it, and that between the passing and commencement the Judges should prepare rules which should not conflict with the rules in the schedule. The latter body of rules happened to conflict here and there with the former, and the two bodies are now rolled into one. The objection to altering the statutory "rules" of 1873 now applies equally to altering the statutory "orders" of 1875. The well-meant amendment of Mr. BUTT does not quite solve the difficulty. For ourselves, we should wish the power of the Judges (although we should think that they would have neither

time nor desire for alterations) to be restricted totidem verbis to additions as distinct from alterations. But if that be thought too close a restriction, the prudent course would be to select nominatim certain orders-perhaps, about three-fourths of the wholeto which no power of alteration before the commencement of the Act should be allowed to extend. Coming to the period after the commencement of the Act, we find that Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, citing many statutes, is all for the common law practice (see 13 & 14 Vict. c. 16; Common Law Procedure Act 1852, s. 223) of preventing new rules from coming into operation until they have been approved by Parliament. On the other hand, the ATTORNEYGENERAL, no doubt prepared to cite many statutes (see Chancery Amendment Act 1858, s. 12 and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 128, s. 2), supports the Chancery practice, proposed to be followed by the Bill, of allowing new rules to come into operation at once, subject to the after power of Parliament to annul them. Uniformity is of course indispensable. We must say that we think the Chancery practice to be by far the most reasonable. It would be highly inconvenient that the operation of every rule as to detail (and doubtless many such will be required, and that early in the history of the new practice), should be delayed until Parliament should be able to give its sanction to it. So much for what has been already done in the matter of the Judicature Bill.

How

Passing to the amendments which will still remain to be dealt with, we propose to select for notice those which concern the bill of exceptions, the district registries, and the judicial power over costs. Now the bill of exceptions was abolished by the schedule to the Act of 1873, a fait accompli, which throws the burden heavier on those who would now seek to revive it. then is it attempted to sustain this burden? Curiously omitting to urge what has always appeared to us to be the peculiar merit of the bill of exceptions, i. e., that it lies directly to a court of Appeal, Mr. LOPES and Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS dwelt only on the right which it confers upon a suitor, and which a Judge cannot avoid, of questioning the judicial ruling, as it were, in the teeth of judicial partiality. But, as the SOLICITOR-GENERAL pointed out, the restriction upon the suitor's right, imposed by the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, is not proposed to be kept up. The advantage of going direct to the Court of Appeal ceases to be so great now that we are to have a court of appeal continuously sitting. The procedure on bill of exceptions, which has been but rarely used of late, is antiquated and cumbrous, and we hope the champions of the common law will leave this very dry bone alone.

The power to establish district registries has been in existence since the August of 1873. The 60th section of the Judicature Act of that year, which provides that "it shall be lawful for the Queen in council," from time to time, to direct that there shall be district registrars (sic) in such places as shall be in such order mentioned for districts to be thereby defined. This section came into operation "immediately upon the passing" of the Act of 1873; and two of the five sections (sects. 61, 63) ancillary thereto may be worked "before the commencement " of the Act. Of these sect. 63 is of great importance to County Court registrars who may be appointed to "become and be" district registrars. That section provides that the LORD CHANCELLOR may fix a table of fees to be taken in district registries, and that the Courts of Justice (Salaries and Funds) Act 1869, shall apply to such fees. The 26th section of that Act, following the modern practice, directs that the fees are to be paid into the Exchequer. The present Bill contains the sweeping clause that any Act inconsistent with a Lord Chancellor's order, under the powers of the Judicature Acts, shall be repealed, but we can discover no express power to remunerate the district registrars, unless indeed they be "salaried officers" within the meaning of sect. 86 of the Act of 1873.

The combined effect of the two lengthy orders dealing with district registries we take to be shortly this: The plaintiff, whereever resident, may proceed in any district registry he pleases; and if the defendant happen either to reside or carry on business within that district, the action up to entry for trial must proceed there; otherwise it is optional with the defendant whether it shall proceed there or in London. The action once having got to the district registry, may be removed by the defendant as of right therefrom at any time, unless it be an action under a writ specially endorsed, in which case it must continue there. Various amendments and cross amendments are proposed, having the effect of either enlarging the jurisdiction of district registrars or abridging it. In favour of Order XXXV., as it at present stands, is the strong argument that the practice which it seeks to establish is by no means new, but gives to district registrars a jurisdiction somewhat less extensive than that possessed by the district prothonotaries of the County Palatine since 1869. In favour of abridg. ment is the perhaps stronger argument, that the new practice, especially as regards discovery, is of too stringent and difficult a character to be entrusted all at once to inexperienced persons. We observe that the amendments of Mr. DODDS and Mr. GORST on this important subject occupy nearly a page of the Order Book. It will therefore be amply discussed, and we should wish, if it were possible, to hear some good lay opinions upon it.

Finally, as to costs. The status quo cannot be said to be quite