such share, or interest shall be void, and that every person entering into such contract shall forfeit a sum not exceeding ten pounds; and that for better protecting purchasers, it shall be the duty of the directors of the company by whom certificates of shares are issued, to state on every such certificate the date of the first complete registration of the company, as before provided; and that if any such director or officer knowingly maké a false statement in that respect, then he shall be liable to the pains and penalties of a misdemeanor."

Section 58 of the same act imposes a penalty not exceeding 507. in all cases where "joint stock companies to which this act is hereinbefore made to apply, and which shall exist on the first day of November, 1844," shall not within the prescribed time "register such company at the office for the registration of joint stock companies.” However, the section afterwards states, that the certificate of registration then obtained "shall not be considered a certificate of complete registration, so as to confer on any such company the powers and privileges of this act."

From these portions, and from the general tenor of the act, it would seem that it was, at all events, the intention of Parliament to include railway and other parliamentary companies in the provisions of the clause regulating the disposal of shares, &c. in joint stock companies. Neverthe

less, whatever view may be taken of this question, prudence would dictate the propriety of complete registration, as the safest course of proceeding on the part of promoters of railway companies.

THERE is a great difference between the practice of committees of the two Houses of Parliament, and of the courts of law. Although the former are strongly disposed to act according to the letter of the standing orders, they are by no means so bound down by precedents as the latter. In any case of non-compliance with the standing orders, if it can be shown that those standing orders have been in substance complied with, though not strictly to the letter, the committees of both Houses have generally been found to yield and allow parties to proceed, notwithstanding such non-compliance, acting rather like equitable arbitrators (if the term may be allowed)

than strict lawyers. A very recent case occurred within the author's knowledge, in which a parliamentary committee departed from the practice of their predecessors in all similar instances, upon the reasonableness of such departure being proved to them. It was the case of an insurance company (to be established in London), in which the solicitor to the promoters had neglected to advertise in the papers of the county of Middlesex, which appeared to be necessary, according to the uniform practice up to that period, under the language of the standing orders respecting the publication of notices three successive weeks in the Gazette, "and in some one and the same newspaper of the county in which the city, town, or lands to which such bill relates, shall be situate," &c. (H. C. 15, H. L. 220, s. 2). Every one of the parliamentary agents declared such to be the practice, with the sole exception of the gentleman employed by the solicitor who had so neglected the due and usual publication of the notices. This agent, indeed, it is not unlikely, would, under other circumstances, have joined with his brethren in the expression of a similar opinion. It was, however, held upon consultation between Mr. Greene, M.P. (then the chairman of the subcommittee, and now chairman of Ways and Means), and Mr. Aglionby, M.P. (the chairman of another sub-committee, then sitting in an adjoining room), together with the members of each sub

committee, that the principle was that the standing order did not require such advertisement to be inserted in any papers but the Gazette, seeing that the intention of the Legislature was to make such advertisements apply to cases where lands were to be taken, or where the subject matter of the bill could be locally defined or confined; but as the business of this company would be indefinite and multifarious, and they might have to sue or be sued in any court of judicature in the kingdom, it was held that there had been a sufficient compliance with the standing order, by the appearance of the notice in the Gazette alone, which Lord Shaftesbury (acting for the House of Peers) ultimately confirmed and allowed. The exception, therefore, sought by the agent for the bill, was granted in both Houses. (Case of the Royal Farmers' Insurance Company, 1841.)

2. Where Parliamentary Practice is strict, and where not.

It is necessary, however, at the same time, to state that committees of both Houses of Parliament are strict as to matters of right or property. Nothing can prevent any suitor or opponent to any bill introduced into either House, where he really has a good case, from being successful in obtaining a hearing and consideration, though possibly not all he might with justice expect, if he can actually show that any injury to his property