deficient in that coercive side of the term law which is, above all, essential and characteristic." The Lord Chancellor declared in his address to the Grotius Society that "the policy deliberately adopted by Germany-that nothing counted except whether that which was done rendered victory more probable-had torn up every authority on the subject of international law." He regards as a hopeful feature," evidently in the sense of the infliction of punishment on those found guilty of violation of the first principles of international morality as observed in civilised warfare, "the trial of war criminals now in progress, which might teach the lesson that a country which defied international law, but failed to win the war in which it was engaged, might suffer humiliation and public unhappiness to which no man living could assign limits." These sentiments are identical with the sentiments of the Lord Chancellor in his preface to the fifth edition of his International Law, written on the 18th Sept. 1918, while the war was still in progress, and nearly two months previous to the armistice. "It may appear to some," he writes, "that the present moment was hardly opportune for a new edition of a work on international law. I do not share that view. It is true that the authority of this body of public doctrine has for four years reeled before a savage, calculated, and almost successful assault. It is true that an immensely powerful and highly educated nation has challenged the whole world by its repudiation of public law. It is true that the Kaiser, outBismarcking Bismarck, has alleged that international law is dead. It is true that, had victory in the final result settled upon the standards of Germany, we could have burned our Grotius, our Vattel, our Phillimore, our Wheaton, and our Hall. But in everincreasing numbers the world is ranging itself against the international anarchist. And it should never be forgotten that failure must involve doom. The future of civilisation requires that the authority of public law shall be reasserted with as much notoriety as marked the challenge, and it cannot be so reasserted without requiring from those who sought to destroy it a punishment so memorable, because so dreadful, that the offence will not soon be repeated. For the correction of specific infamies international law does not exclude the castigation of guilty individuals however highly placed. Material injuries may be made good by the payment of pecuniary indemnity.” THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL LEGAL ORGANISATION THE criticism of the cost of the Secretariat of the League of Nations and the International Labour Office has led to the publication of a valuable report by a commission of competent experts examining the whole of the organisation. It is a tribute to the excellence of the initial arrangements that so little modification is suggested in the main scheme of the machinery. There are one or two points, however, which deserve attention as being of particular interest in connection with the legal work of the Secretariat and the Labour Office. The commission recommend the establishment of national liaison bureaux "in order to provide for the co-ordination and unification of the relations between, on the one hand, all the Government services in their respective countries, and, on the other hand, the General Secretariat, the International Labour Office, the Council of the League, the various commissions and conferences arising out of the League, and generally with all the organisations which spring from its activities or are promoted by its initiative. These liaison bureaux, financed, of course, by the national exchequer of the country concerned, form part of a Government office (for instance, that of the Prime Minister or Minister for Foreign Affairs), and act as the channel of communication between the secretariat of the League and the various Government departments concerned." Other countries have Ministries of Justice, but in the United Kingdom there is no Government department concerned alone with law. Public opinion would not favour the constitution of another Ministry at the present time, although lawyers are becoming more favourable to the proposal. In the meantime a national legal body might be formed similar to that which is proposed within the Secretariat. After describing the sections, which have their analogous national Government departments, it is suggested that there should be added “ a Legal Advisers' Branch, which, in addition to giving legal advice to the Secretariat as a whole, would act as a channel of communication between the Secretariat and the newly constituted Court of International Justice." Such a national legal advisory body might be constituted by a working arrangement between the International Law Association and the Society of Comparative Legislation, who have already been working in co-operation with the Secretariat and the International Labour Office, together with the Grotius Society. The combined body would be in touch with the national liaison bureaux as well as having a direct relationship with the Legal Advisers' Branch. The Commission of Experts report in favour of the continuance of the record of labour legislation which forms an important part of the output of the Scientific Division, now to be reconstituted as a Publications and Intelligence Division. A considerable collection of translations of laws and administrative orders mainly relating to European countries have already been published in the legislative series of the International Labour Office. Whether the texts without comment or even the sections of the previous laws to which reference is made in them are of any particular practical value is a matter upon which there is room for difference of opinion. The summaries, such as those of the Commonwealth of Australia by Mr. G. S. Knowles, and of the Union of South Africa by Mr. E. L. Matthews, in the annual review published by the Society of Comparative Legislation are more informing to the layman, and seem to be more generally useful. It may well be a matter for consideration whether by a combination of the English Society of Comparative Legislation, representing the British Empire, the French Société de Législation Comparée supplying European countries, the Pan-American Union representing South America, and the American Bar Association acting for the United States, it would not be possible to provide a more illuminating publication dealing with labour legislation, and in course of time a similar combination might co-operate in the issue by the Secretariat of an annual review of the legislation of the world. This and other matters could receive attention more satisfactorily if there were some national legal body to deal with them.. The time would seem to be opportune for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of a small committee to consider the best means by which effective assistance in legal matters may be rendered to the Secretariat and the Labour Office. 66 THE PARLIAMENT OF NORTHERN THE announcement that His Majesty the King will on the 22nd inst. Irish Parliament. The Lords-Lieutenant of Ireland, in presiding over the Irish Parliaments, appeared in regal robes, but did not wear a crown. Till 1777 the robes worn by the Lords-Lieutenant on these occasions were the robes worn by King James II. when he opened the Irish Parliament of 1689. The convening of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in Belfast will perhaps render it of interest to record that Belfast has thereby become, for the very first time in its history, a meeting-place for an Irish Parliament. The Parliaments of Ireland in early times, like the Parliaments of England, met in various places, but from the time of Elizabeth till the Union all Irish Parliaments were convened in Dublin, though at different places in that city, with the exception of Cromwell's Parliament, if it may be termed by the name of Parliament, which was summoned to meet at Westminster for the three kingdoms, the members allotted to Scotland being twenty-one and to Ireland thirty. Although before the reign of Elizabeth many Parliaments met in Dublin, the place of the meeting of Parliament was by no means confined to the metropolis. Two of the most celebrated of the Irish Parliaments-the Parliament of 1367, which passed the famous statutes known as the Statutes of Kilkenny, and the Parliament of 1495, which passed Poynings' Law, the most important enactments in the whole history of Ireland-met respectively at Kilkenny and Drogheda, and Drogheda seems a favourite place for the meeting of Parliaments. Beside Drogheda and Kilkenny, Parliaments were held at various towns in Limerick, Naas, Castledermot, Trim, and other places, but no Parliament was convened at Belfast prior to the meeting in that city of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. To the student of constitutional development, points of difference and distinction between the British Constitution and its various versions and modifications are of unfailing interest. The setting up of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and the circumstances of the convening of that Parliament are suggestive of many constitutional doctrines and the methods of their application. The new Parliament differs from every other Parliament ever convened in Ireland in two fundamental and essential features. The old Irish Parliaments were sovereign bodies and theoretically independent. "Ireland," said O'Connell in 1843, "had a Parliament as old as England. It rose as spontaneously from the congregation of freemen until the representation was made universal by forming counties in the reign of James I. It had so existed, not as a favour, a concession, a grant, but as the inherent right. of freedom without which freedom was but a name." "From the earliest introduction," said Mr. Butt, of the power of the English kings into Ireland the Irish who submitted to the rule of those kings had a right to the same Parliamentary constitution as that which England enjoyed." The old Parliament of Ireland was a free and independent Parliament. It was declared by the Irish House of Commons in 1641 that " the subjects of His Majesty's Kingdom of Ireland are a free people and to be governed only by the common law of England and statutes made and established by Parliament in Ireland and according to the lawful customs of the same.' Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland were," writes Lord Chancellor Ball, “equal and co-ordinate without any paramount authority being provided to overrule or reconcile them." The claim of England to legislate for Ireland was finally contested and finally abandoned in 1782. 66 "The The new Parliament for Northern Ireland, on the contrary, is not a sovereign body. It is admittedly a semi-sovereign body created by Act of the Imperial Parliament. The Speaker of the Irish House of Commons of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, when the Lord-Lieutenant, as representing the Sovereign, had approved his selection and confirmed him in the Speakership, demanded, not, in accordance with the practice of Speakers of the Imperial House of Commons, the ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the Commons," but the rights and privileges of the Commons under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Yet another vital and essential difference between the new Parliament and the old Parliament of Ireland. Under the new Parliament there will be responsible government; there will be a Ministry, who must be members of that Parliament and will be responsible to it and through it to the electorate. In the old Parliament of Ireland, although it was theoretically a free, independent, and sovereign Parliament, there never was responsible government or government by an Executive responsible to the House of Commons and through it to the people at large. If Ireland had had responsible government, the Union would never have been carried. In Jan. 1799, when the question of the Union was first submitted to the Irish House of Commons, the Address to the Throne was carried by a majority of one-a virtual defeat of the Government-and three days afterwards the Government were actually defeated by four votes. A defeat on a leading question of policy would, in accordance with constitutional practice, have entailed the resignation of the Ministry and the acceptance of office by a statesman opposed to the Union. But the Irish Ministers, looking for support, not to Ireland, but to the English Cabinet, with which they went in and out of office and whose nominees they were, recognised no such principle of action. "We have," said Grattan, no Irish Cabinet. Individuals may deprecate, may dissuade, but they cannot enforce their principles. There is no embodied authority in Ireland." Lord Fitzalan, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, by his presence at the convening of the Parliament in Belfast on the 7th inst., as preliminary to the opening of that Parliament by the Sovereign in state on the 22nd inst., has broken the record in being the first representative of the Crown who has been present and taken part in the proceedings of a House of Commons. The King is supposed to be present in the High Court of Parliament by the same constitutional principle which recognises his presence in the other courts, but he can only take part in its proceedings under various well-defined constitutional forms. He may be present at debates in the House of Lords, but the presence of Royalty at these oebates has been discontinued since the accession of George I., and, according to present practice, the Sovereign is never personally present in Parliament except on its opening or prorogation, and occasionally for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to Bills during a session, and on these occasions the Sovereign is present in the House of Lords, at whose Bar the House of Commons are commanded with the Speaker to attend. The presence of the Sovereign in the House of Commons is unprecedented, except in the case of the visits in 1532 and 1535 of Henry VIII. and in 1642 of Charles I. to that assembly, which was, of course, regarded as violations of the rights of the Commons to freedom and secrecy of debate. Lord Fitzalan appeared in his capacity of Viceroy at the convening by proclamation of the Irish Parliament in Belfast in the House of Commons because the Second Chamber in the Senate had not been elected and could not be elected till the members of the House of Commons, who are the electors of the Senate, had become qualified to elect by the constitution of their own House by the election of a Speaker or the taking of a Parliamentary oath. The Viceroy's presence in the House of Commons under such circumstances, and his direction to the House of Commons to elect a Speaker, were, although unprecedented, in absolute accord with the constitutional proprieties, which were rigidly observed by the Viceroy's withdrawal from the Chamber during the election to the Speakership and his reappearance to give on behalf of the Crown approval and approbation of that election, which was followed by another immediate withdrawal from the Chamber in observance of the rights of the House of Commons to freedom and secrecy of debate. The unanimous call to the Chair of Major O'Neill as Speaker is in pleasant contrast with the contests for the Chair which at times characterised episodes in the history of the old Irish Parliaments. The most vehement of these contests marked the opening of the Irish Parliament of 1613, when the constitution of the Irish House of Commons was settled on a basis professing to embrace the entire island. English forces from the time of Henry II. very slowly reduced the whole island to submission. In the reign of James I., which is the most important in the constitutional history of Ireland, the whole island took a common character, that of a kingdom inseparable from the English Crown, but governed, after the model of the English Constitution, by nearly the same laws and claiming entirely the same liberties. It was therefore a natural consequence that an Irish Parliament, as in the case of the Parliament of James I. in 1613, should represent, or affect to represent, every part of the kingdom. The day appointed for the opening of the Irish Parliament of James I. was the 18th May 1613. When the members of the Lower House assembled to elect a Speaker, Sir Thomas Ridgeway proposed Sir John Davies, who at his death in 1626 was Chief Justice of England, intimating that his election had been approved by the King. Thereupon Sir James Gough, as champion of the Roman Catholic party, proposed Sir John Everard, a noted lawyer and recusant. During the scene of disorder that ensued, the Roman Catholic members contrived to instal Everard in the Chair. As Everard refused to vacate the Chair, Sir Oliver St. John and Sir Thomas Ridgeway took Sir John Davies by the arms, lifted him from the ground, and placed him in the Chair in Sir John Everard's lap, requiring him "still to come forth of the Chair." Eventually Everard was ejected from the Chair and withdrew from the Chamber with his ninety-eight supporters. The Lord Deputy, Sir Arthur Chichester (Lord Chichester), was the elder brother of Sir Edward Chichester, in whose favour his brother's peerage was revived on his death without issue, and Major O'Neill is the direct lineal descendant of Sir Edward Chichester. The speech of Sir John Davies, on presenting himself to Sir Arthur Chichester for the approval of the Crown after the stormy scene of his election to the Speakership, is preserved, and is regarded as the very best epitome of Irish history till the time of its delivery. The nearest approach in the Parliamentary history of this country to the scene at the election of Sir John Davies to the Speakership of the Irish House of Commons in 1613 is probably the scene in the House of Commons on the 2nd March 1629, when, in the assertion of the privilege of free speech and the absolute control of Parliament over its own proceedings, the Speaker, Sir John Finch (afterwards Chief Justice of England in the Ship Money case), was forcibly held down in the Chair by Sir John Eliot, Holles, and Valentine while a remonstrance was voted. 66 Sir James Craig, the Prime Minister of Ulster, in congratulating Major O'Neill on his unanimous election to the Speakership, said: The selection and election of Speaker is in the hands of private members of the Mother of Parliaments, and we in the Parliament of Northern Ireland reserve to members that the whole of our members shall have the choice of the Speaker for all time." It was the result of a slow and difficult process of evolution that the election of a Speaker of the House of Commons of the Mother of Parliaments has been placed, in the words of Sir James Craig, “in the hands of private members." The election to the Speakership is in the hands of private members, but at the same time the election of a Speaker to whose candidature the Government of the day were hostile would be regarded by them as creating a position incompatible with the retention of office and of the relationship of mutual confidence between the Government and the House of Commons which is of the essence of Parliamentary Government. PRISON REFORM IN BELGIUM IN view of the findings of the congress of medical jurisprudence which has just terminated in Brussels, it is interesting to note the reforms that have already been accomplished in Belgium in prison régime. In 1907 a laboratory of penitentiary anthropology was established in the Brussels Prison, but up till 1920 its work was confined to the observation and examination of offenders with a view to collecting a scientific, methodical documentation on the criminal, sociological, and anthropological character of delinquency in Belgium. From 1910 at the Forest Prison, where the laboratory had been transferred, the anthropological examination of the inmates had become, in the natural course of events, the foundation for various therapeutic measures, some having a judicial bearing, others entailing a modification of the penitentiary régime itself, in order that this should be adapted to the biological and psychiatric individuality of the delinquent. After ten years of this modest experiment the results seemed so decisive that M. Vandervelde, Minister of Justice, decided to extend to all the prisons in the country the organisation of anthropological laboratories, and to confide the course of prison treatment of condemned persons to the psychologists in charge of these laboratories. This is the realisation, under scientific conditions, of a plan formed by the last congresses of criminal anthropology and penitentiary science, and Belgium may be proud of being the first to install a just and logical reform demanded, one may say, unanimously by all criminologists. Already laboratories are established in the nine most important prisons of the country, and are working regularly in Brussels, St. Gilles, Louvain, Ghent, and Antwerp. The alienists appointed to direct them have had opportunity to practise at the central institution at Brussels. Each of these large prisons will have the direction of the smaller prisons of the district, and delinquents will be sent for examination to the laboratory and given an observation card and a report, enabling the doctor of their own prison to prescribe special treatment for them. In fact, all the prison doctors have consented to study anthropology and psychiatry in the district laboratories. In each of the nine prisons there will be: (1) A department for delinquents suspected of mental affliction, who ought to be kept in prison; for instance, cocaine takers. (2) A penitentiary section for abnormals of all kinds, where, notably, delinquents could be kept who were not considered to be entirely responsible for their actions. It is hoped later on to have different prisons for various classes; for instance, a section for epileptics at Merxplas and an agricultural section for mental debility and a sanatorium for tubercular cases. There may be eventually: (a) A hospital and a penitentiary asylum for aged and infirm prisoners and for chronic illnesses. (b) An asylum prison for nervous diseases and all abnormal cases. (c) A sanatorium for inebriates and drug maniacs. (d) An establishment for venereal diseases. (e) A collection of colonies and prisons with a severe régime for incurable backsliders; these in view of unencumbering the prisons and reducing the cost of their maintenance. The creation of these penitentiary sections which can be installed in the present establishments will leave the ordinary prisons free either for persons awaiting their trial or for those under pyschological observation, and for the normal and healthy offenders who are able to work and may hope to become useful members of society again. It will then be possible to concentrate on these latter, who, from the social point of view, are the most interesting, the moral assistance of the directors, chaplains, teachers, and doctors, and also of the members of the committees of patronage, whose intervention in prison life ought to be intensified. At the present time the moralising influence of the prison is often lost because it is spread over too great a number of delinquents, many of whom are abnormal and impossible to influence. The Forest laboratory will remain as the centre for all this scientific work, whence the whole scheme will be supervised. The director of the service will be assisted by a committee of four members, which, besides its scientific duties, will be responsible for the organisation of work in the prisons and the training of the prison staffs. This committee has under consideration: (a) The organisation of work in prisons and the creation of two school prisons for young delinquents from sixteen to twenty, one industrial at Ghent and one agricultural at Merxplas. (b) The organisation of practical courses of medicine and hygiene in all prisons. (c) The creation of special psychiatric sections, besides those above mentioned for abnormals, at Brussels, Ghent, and Antwerp, and, later on, at Louvain, Liége, Mons, Bruges, and Namur. (d) The organisation of special medical services in the Brussels prisons (optical, dental, &c.). (e) The organisation at Merxplas of special sections for cases of weakness and tuberculosis. INDICTABLE OFFENCES ACT THE following circular letter has been issued by the Home Office :"I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that his attention has been drawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions to a diversity of practice among courts of summary jurisdiction in dealing with cases under the Indictable Offences Act 1848. It appears that at some courts the witnesses for the prosecution are required to attend, when the case for the prosecution has been completed, for the purpose of signing the depositions which have been taken and of being bound over to appear at the trial. This practice is, in the Secretary of State's opinion, open to some objection, and in a complicated case requiring the evidence of a large number of persons who may reside at a considerable distance from the court it is specially to be deprecated. Besides causing inconvenience and loss of time to the witnesses in travelling to the court and considerable expense to the public, it may actually prejudice the interests of justice, since it is desirable that any dispute regarding the accuracy of the depositions should be decided whilst the oral evidence is still fresh in the mind of the court, and, moreover, the longer the interval is between the time when a witness gives his evidence and when he signs the deposition, the more opportunity there is for tampering with him. Further, should death or serious illness prevent a witness from attending to sign his deposition, it will not be admissible as evidence at the trial. In London and at a large number of courts elsewhere the practice is that the clerk should read over and the witness should sign the deposition immediately his testimony appears to be complete, and that he should then be bound over to appear at the trial and be released from further attendance at the police court. This practice was approved by the Court of Queen's Bench in 1844, when Denman, C.J. after delivering judgment added: We do not approve of the practice of allowing depositions to remain unsigned; it is the duty of the magistrate to see that the deposition of each witness be signed at the time when it is made (Reg. v. Lord Mayor of London, 8 J. P., at p. 855), and Mr. Shortt desires to recommend it strongly for adoption in all cases dealt with under the Indictable Offences Act.' EDWARD TROUP. LAW SOCIETIES THE LAW SOCIETY Ar a recent meeting of the council a letter was read from the registrar of the West Riding Registry of Deeds, stating that, under a new rule, approved by the Lord Chancellor, the registration for all instruments (other than caveats) would in future be 7s. 6d., instead of the present fee of 5s. LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. Sir Walter Trower reported that a joint committee, representing the society and the Land Union, had met and discussed the amendment of this Bill, with a view to meeting the objections of the Land Union. GOVERNMENT 3 PER CENT. CONVERSION LOAN. The President having forwarded a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging that commission should be paid to solicitors, as had been done on the Conversion Loan of 1888, a reply was laid on the table from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's secretary, stating that it was not considered desirable to offer commission to solicitors in connection with this loan. district boards which the society and the National Federation of Law Clerks brought into existence last year. In 1919 the federation, to which the association was then affiliated, invited the society to co-operate in forming a National Joint Council of solicitors and clerks on Whitley lines. In reply the society offered district councils to deal with salaries and conditions of service in individual cases of hardship only. Prolonged negotiations followed, and in March 1920 the society offered to agree to the formation of district councils to deal with salaries and conditions of service in such way as each council should think fit. In making this offer the Law Society dropped the condition which they had previously insisted upon, namely, that the activities of district councils should be limited to the consideration of individual cases of hardship only. The clerks considered that this concession represented a fair compromise, and accepted it. A joint board for London was accordingly formed, consisting of London members of the society representing the employers, and members of the Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association and the London Law Clerks' Union, now the London branch of the National Federation. The board met on several occasions under the chairmanship of Mr. Botterell, the vice-president of the Law Society. Good progress was made in the discussion of the clerks' proposals for classification of the various grades of clerks and the fixing of minimum rates of pay for each grade. An excellent spirit prevailed, and he (the president) had every reason to believe that, if the board had been left to carry out its work without interference from the Law Society, an agreed scheme of classification and minimum salaries would have been produced. But in December the representatives of the clerks on the board were informed by the employers' side that they considered themselves prohibited from agreeing to any general scheme of classification and minima by a resolution which had been passed by the society recommending provincial law societies which had formed district councils under the original scheme to agree only to deal with individual cases, and to decline to agree to any system for general classification. A deadlock was thus produced. At the suggestion of the employers' side of the board, the clerks' side agreed to form a deputation to the council of the society with the object of placing their views before them, and of asking them to remove the unfair restriction which they had placed upon the action of their representatives; and in April the deputation was received by the council, who, after hearing a statement made by Mr. Macduff, the then president of the association, on behalf of the clerks' side of the joint board, adjourned to consider the subject further. He (the president) had now received a resolution, passed at a meeting of the council on the 27th ult., which was as follows: "The council, having carefully considered the representation made to them on the 29th April last by the deputation from the clerks' representatives on the London Joint Conciliation Board, see no reason to alter their decision that it is impracticable, with fairness to the employers or to the clerks, to fix a minimum salary to be paid to the different grades of clerks on the system advocated by the National Federation of Law Clerks, and they are therefore unable to recommend to the Profession any scale of minimum salaries." He pointed out that what the Law Society characterised as impracticable had been accepted in Manchester and other places, and in Manchester, at any rate, was in full working order, and said that the resolution was, in his judgment, a deliberate attempt to wreck the usefulness of the London Joint Conciliation Board. The society, having set up a body (to quote the words of its constitution) to consider and deal by means of conciliation and advice with all questions arising in regard to salaries and conditions of employment of law clerks," and having appointed as their representatives on that body gentlemen of high standing in the Profession, said, in effect, "You are not to recommend a classification of law clerks or a scale of minimum salaries. If you do so, we will not accept your recommendation. It was obvious that no joint board could possibly work successfully under such conditions. The council of the society claimed to be judges in their own cause. No recommendation could have been made by the joint board except with the consent of a majority at least of their own representatives. Surely they could trust these gentlemen to decide what was practicable and fair in the interests of employers and clerks. He could only account for the resolution upon the hypothesis that the society desired and intended to break up the machinery for conciliation which had been set up in the Legal Profession. The only alternative the society offered was to set up a sort of tribunal before which a clerk who was dissatisfied with his remuneration might ask his employer to attend. This proposal was utterly impracticable. The tribunal would have no power to compel attendance, or to enforce its decision, or to protect the applicant from victimisation. Further, it would be impossible for such a tribunal to perform its functions without first setting up minimum standards of remuneration. But this was precisely what the Law Society declined to do. That there was a great deal of underpayment in the Profession was admitted. This was the case with regard to many of the members of the association. It was a state of things which would have to be remedied. He believed that the leaders of the Profession were anxious to redeem it from this reproach, but they were held back by the rank and file. It was evident that the clerks could not at present rely upon the Law Society for help, and that they must look to their own efforts to achieve their aims. SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION THE monthly meeting of the directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on the 14th inst., Mr. T. S. Curtis in the chair, the other directors present being Messrs. E. R. Cook, W. F. Cunliffe, W. E. Gillett, C. Goddard, E. F. Knapp-Fisher, C. G. May, A. C. Peake (Leeds), R. W. Poole, and M. A. Tweedie. The sum of £715 was distributed in relief f deserving cases, four new members were admitted, and other general business was transacted. APPOINTMENTS LEGAL BIRTHDAY HONOURS Knights. Mr. FRANCIS JUBAL REYNOLDS, solicitor, of the firm of Messrs. Nash, Field, and Co., Birmingham. Mr. Reynolds was admitted in 1885. Mr. BERNARD SWANWICK WRIGHT, solicitor, of Nottingham. Mr. Wright was admitted in 1899. Mr THOMAS WATTERS BROWN, K.C., has been appointed SolicitorGeneral for Ireland, in succession to Mr. Daniel M. Wilson. Mr. WILFRED LAWSON DELL, solicitor, of Basinghall-street, has been appointed Registrar of the Mayor's and City of London Court. Mr. Dell was admitted in 1911. Sir ROBERT FURSE MCMILLAN, Chief Justice of Western Australia, has been appointed Lieutenant-Governor of that State and its Dependencies. Sir Robert was called by the Inner Temple in 1881. Mr. DIGHTON N. POLLOCK has been appointed Junior Counsel for the Treasury in the Chancery Division, in succession to the late Mr. Austen-Cartmell. Mr. Pollock was called by Lincoln's-inn in 1889. Mr. GAVIN TURNBULL SIMONDS has been appointed Junior Counsel to the Board of Trade in foreshore cases. Mr. Simonds was called by Lincoln's-inn in 1906. The Hon. Sir ROBERT STOUT, K.C.M.G., LL.D., Chief Justice of New Zealand, has been made a Privy Councillor. NOTES AND QUERIES QUERIES 101. WILL RESIDUARY ESTATE DEBTS. A. by his will bequeathed certain leasehold property to B. and certain other leasehold property to C. His remaining leasehold property he gave to his wife for life and after her death to form part of his residuary estate, which he gave to D. The present residuary estate is insufficient to pay the debts, &c., of the testator. Does the residuary legatee become liable for payment of the debts, or does the wife as tenant for life and the residuary legatee as reversioner become liable? If not, do the gifts to B., C., and the wife abate proportionately? Part of the property bequeathed to B. the testator agreed to sell during his lifetime. Does such agreement for sale amount to ademption of the whole legacy? HILARY. 102. INCREASE OF RENT ACT.-A tenant of a London house let at £55 per annum has undertaken to keep the premises in a good and tenantable state of repair and to replace all broken glass and lost keys and so deliver up at the expiration of the tenancy (reasonable wear and tear excepted). Can the landlord say that the tenant is responsible for no part of the repairs and so claim the full 25 per cent. increase? EXILES. 103. INCREASE OF RENT.-Premises within the metropolitan police district were let on the 3rd Aug. 1914 at £100 per annum and were (and are) occupied partly as a residential flat and partly as offices. One room was at the same date sublet as a separate office, on a yearly tenancy, at £24 a year. This room was as from the 3rd July 1920 relet on a weekly tenancy at £1 a week, and has since been again relet on a yearly tenancy at £60 per annum. All the above rents include rates. Is the last subletting within the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920, and, if so, what is the permitted increase of rent? INQUIRER. 104. RENT ACT.-A. is the tenant (weekly) of premises comprising three rooms upstairs, occupied by himself, and two rooms and shop downstairs, which he has sublet, the standard rent being 10s. a week for the whole of the premises. The present owners purchased the premises in 1919 and have never recognised the sub-tenant, but have collected the rent weekly from A. The rent due from A. is now £3 in arrear, owing to his inability to obtain that sum owing to him from his sub-tenant. A. is only a poor man, and cannot pay the owners this arrear due from him. What are the rights of the owners, who want possession for business purposes? Can they get an order for possession from the County Court on the grounds that the rent is not being paid, without having to supply alternative accommodation for either of the two occupants of the premises? S. A. 105. SUBSTITUTED EXAMINATION FOR MATRICULATION.-Have any of your readers attempted the substituted examination which is open to solicitors over twenty-five years of age under No. 116 of the university statutes as an alternative to the matriculation examination, prior to sitting the LL.B. examinations? If so, I should be obliged if any of them can give me any idea of the standard of knowledge required by the examiners. C. H. RENNEY. ANSWERS (Q. 92.) Re INCREASE OF RENT ACT 1920.—I read sect. 12 (2) thus : This Act shall apply to a house (or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling) and therefore covers flats and single rooms separately let. In the case of Read v. Goater it was held that sect. 12 (2) (iii.) dealt with the case of a single letting of a house that was protected with land or premises that were not protected, but that sect. 12 (2) must in such a case be read with sect. 13, under which business premises were protected. JOHN BOYD. (Q. 93.) INCOME TAX-TRUSTEE-I agree with the opinion of "A. K. C." that the trustee is under no obligation to account for tax on income not taxed at the source unless the beneficiary is incapacitated, when rule 4 applies. Surely a trustee would not be justified in paying tax if the beneficiary was not liable (which might be the case), and put him or her to the trouble of claiming repayment. JOHN BOYD. (Q. 95.) LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION.-S. H. would take the property as heir of his mother, subject to his father's estate by the curtesy. On the father's death, S. H. being dead, the estate would pass to his (S. H.'s) legal personal representative, who can sell. There does not appear to be any necessity to take out letters of administration to the estate of C. H., as there was nothing left unadministered. JOHN BOYD. In view of the answer of Mr. J. Lewis Phillips to this query, I would like to add to my reply, posted too late for last week's issue, that I agree with what he says, as a general rule, but the circumstances here are exceptional. The father did not convey to the son (the heir), as the beneficial interest was in himself during his life. The son at the time of his death had a vested interest in the property, which, I suggest, would pass to his personal representative when appointed. I submit that where real property passes on the death intestate of the owner to persons in succession it is only necessary for the personal representative to convey to the person first entitled. In the present case no conveyance was necessary: (compare Stevenson v. Mayor of Liverpool, 31 L. T. Rep. 673; L. Rep. 10 Q. B. 81, where it was decided that if the executor allows the life tenant to take the rents that amounts to an assent to the bequest in remainder). JOHN BOYD. (Q. 96.) Re RENT ACTS.-See the cases of Davies v. Bristow and Penrhos College Limited v. Butler, reported together (123 L. T. Rep. 655; (1920) 3 K. B. 428). The acceptance of rent by the landlord after the expiration of a notice to quit is not to be taken as an assent to a renewal of the tenancy, for he has no choice but to receive the rent. JOHN BOYD. (Q. 97). MOTOR-CAR-CATTLE-DAMAGE. See the following cases: Heath's Garage Limited v. Hodges (115 L. T. Rep. 129; (1916) 2 K. B. 370), Ellis v. Banyard (106 L. T. Rep. 51), Jones v. Lee (106 L. T. Rep. 123), and Turner v. Coates (115 L. T. Rep. 766; (1917) 1 K. B. 670). JOHN BOYD. (Q. 98.) Re INCREASE OF RENT, &c., ACT 1920.-I know that a County Court judge has decided that a purchaser who has not obtained the legal estate is not the "landlord" under sect. 12 (1) (ƒ). B.'s joining would not help, as he does not require possession under sect. 5 (1) (d). JOHN BOYD. (Q. 99.) ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT 1919-I do not think it right for a district valuer to supply information to third parties, and in my experience he refuses to do 80. An official referee, however, has the same authority as a judge of the High Court with respect to the discovery and production of documents: (Barnett v. Aldridge Colliery Company. 4 Times L. Rep. 16; Macalpine and Co. v. Calder and Co., 68 L. T. Rep. 426; (1893) 1 Q. B. 545). The owner was not, I think, justified in withholding the information asked for. JOHN BOYD. (Q. 100.) SOLICITOR TENANTS IN COMMON-FEES FOR PRODUCTION. -I would answer this in the affirmative, but I know of no authority. JOHN BOYD. GAZETTES HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN HARLAND (Robert Thomas), Hove, who died Feb. 15, 1919. Persons claiming under an inquiry as to who upon his death became beneficially entitled to any personal or real estate of his as to which he died intestate, and, if any have since died, who are their legal personal representatives, to come in, by Oct. 1, at chambers of Eve, J. Hearing Oct. 17, at 2.15, before Master Keen, at said chambers, Room 237. IDIENS (Sarah Emma),, who died May 25, 1920. Persons claiming under an inquiry as to who upon her death became beneficially entitled to any personal estate of hers as to which she died intestate, and, if any have since died, who are their legal personal representatives, to come in, by Jan. 10, 1922, and prove their claims at chambers of the Judge, Room 164, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing Jan. 17, at 11.30, at said chambers, Room 162. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M. ON THE DATE GIVEN, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. ANGLO-BOLIVIAN RUBBER ESTATES LIMITED (in voluntary liquidation for purpose of reconstruction).-Creditors to send in, by June 30, to Francis and Johnson, 19, Great Winchester-st, E.C. 2, the sols. to liquidator. ARNOLD J. VAN DEN BERGH LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 20, to G. C. Clarke, 13, Basinghall-st, E.C. 2. ARTHUR LINCOLN AND CO. LIMITED (Diamond-st, Bradford).-Creditors to send in, by June 30, to R. S. Dawson, Tanfield-bldgs, Bradford. A. V. Hammond, Bradford, sol. for liquidator. BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND COUNTIES TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED.Petition for winding-up to be heard June 21, at Royal Courts of Justice. Wragge and Co., Birmingham, sols. to pets. London agents, Collisson, Prichard, and Barnes, 27, Bedford-row, W.C. Notices of appearance by June 20. BURTON ELECTRIC THEATRE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 31, to F. R. Williams and W. H. Glanville, Grafton House, Golden-sq. W. 1. BORDER AVIATION COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors who have not already done so, to send in, by June 22, to H. J. Armstrong, City-chmbrs, 57, English-st, Carlisle. CORNBROOK CHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 21, at Royal Courts of Justice. Vaudrey, Osborne, and Mellor, Manchester, sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by June 20. CHARLES H. HUSS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 30, to C. H. Huss, 30/31, Evelyn-st, Cardiff. CLAMP, BOYCE, AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 11, to F. G. Schofield, 16, Clegg-st, Oldham. DINGLEY BROTHERS (EXPORT) LIMITED.-Creditors to seni in, by July 30, to C. Watts, 123, Cannon-st, E.C. 4. E. DOUGHTY AND CO. LIMITED.-Adjourned petition, also petition for compulsory winding-up, or, in the alternative, for continuing the voluntary winding-up under supervision of the court, to be heard June 21, at Royal Courts of Justice. Church, Rackham, and Co., 46, Lincoln's-inn-fids, W.C. 2, sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by June 20. EDWARD LEWIS AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 22, to H. H. Barker, Mount Pleasant, King's Heath. Beale and Co., Birmingham, sols. to liquidator. GENERAL AERONAUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 18, to G. E. Sendell, 36, Walbrook, E.C. 4. H. AND J. CHAPMAN (ROTHWELL) LIMITED.-Creditors to send in their claims to H. C. Palmer, St. Giles-chmbrs, St. Giles-st, Northampton. MARKET GARDENERS AND GENERAL TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 19, to H. G. Campion and Co., 5, Queen Victoriast, E.C. 4. MAGNET LAUNDRY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 22, to G. A. G. Robertson, 13, Basinghall-st, E.C. 2. MILLWARD AND UNWIN LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 20, to L. G. Pugh, 13, Bishop-st, Coventry. MOORGATE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 28, at Royal Courts of Justice. J. T. Lewis and Woods, 54, Chancery-la, W.C. 2, sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by June 27. OLYMPIC PRESS LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 21, POPULAR PLAY-HOUSES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard PLASKOW AND HILLER LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, at once, to H. W. RISIN' SUN POLISHES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 30, to H. J. de Courcy Moore, 2, Gresham-bldgs, Guildhall, E.C. 2. RUSHTON BROTHERS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 30, to F. Clarkson, Bank-chmbrs, Hargreaves-st, Burnley. STAGE ENTERPRISES LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by June 21, to E. Kelleher, 2, Paper-bldgs, Temple, E.C. 4. TOWNLEY AND RUSSELL LIMITED.--Creditors to send in, by June 23, to G. J. Maidment, 345, City-ra, E.C. W. LOOMAN AND CO. LIMITED.--Petition for winding-up to be heard June 21, at Royal Courts of Justice. Wood and Wootton, 8, Stonebldgs, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. 2, sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by June 20. WHITHAM AND BUTTERWORTH LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard June 21, at Royal Courts of Justice, at 10.30. J. A. Richardson, 3, Howard-st, Strand, W.C. 2, sol. for pet. Notices of appearance by June 20. ZEKHAN QUEEN LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 15, to A. D. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN LAST DAY OF PROOFS DAVIES (George Proffit), Cressington Park, Liverpool. July 12; A. D. Dean, of Dean, Son, and Wright, sols., Liverpool. July 15; Registrar of Liverpool District of Chancery of Lancaster, at 11. LAYCOCK (William), Rochdale. July 14; C. B. Hudson, sol., Rochdale. July 21; Registrar of Manchester District of Chancery of Lancaster, at 11. MORRIS (Edward Webster), Oxford. July 7; W. E. B. Walton, of Walsh and Walton, sols., Oxford. July 21; P. O. Lawrence, J., at 12. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35 LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. AINSWORTH (Herbert), Johannesburg, South Africa. ALDRICH (Andrew Harold), Brampton. July 23; J. P. Larkman, Beccles, ALLEN (Frederick William), Wirksworth. July 11; Kingdom, Severne, and Grattan, Wirksworth. BARRETT (Frederick George), Ealing. July 9; Collisson, Prichard, and Barnes, 27, Bedford-row, W.C. 1. BARTON (Samuel Bright), Bilsington. June 15; Kingsford and Flower. BERLYN (Felix Simon), Whalley Range, Manchester. July 8; Pearson, BENSON (George), Sturton-le-Steeple. July 20; Mee and Co.. Retford. BUTTER (John Kerr, D.M.). Cannock. July 4; J. S. Gardner, Cannock. BARTLETT (George), Chichester. July 22: Sowton, Bartlett, and Blaker, Chichester. BRIDGER (Sarah Jane), Haslemere. July 16; G. H. White, Guildford. BOTT (Estelle Marie), Hove. July 11; J. K. Nye and Donne, Brighton. |