debenture-holders had no claim on anything except the proceeds of sale of the loose plant. The plaintiff appealed.

Held, that the appeal failed and must be dismissed.

[Re Rogerstone Brick and Stone Company Limited; Southall v. W'escomb. Ct. of App.: Swinfen Eady, M.R., Duke, L.J., and Eve, J. Oct. 22 and 23.-Counsel: Henry Terrell, K.C. and Topham; Mathew, K.C. and Owen Thompson. Solicitors: Theodore Roberts; Bell, Brodrick, and Gray, agents for Cousins and Botsford, Cardiff.]

Practice Declaratory Judgment-Claim for, in Anticipation of Claim under Deed of Indemnity-No Cause of Action-Party indemnified ordered to pay Costs-Rights under Deed reserved by him-Order XXV., r. 5; Order LIVA., r. 1.

The defendant, who was a solicitor, was appointed executor and trustee of the will of a testator jointly with the testator's wife. The latter predeceased the testator. On the death of the testator in 1914 the defendant hesitated to act as sole executor, and was desirous of renouncing probate of the will and of declining the trusts thereof. But the four children of the testator, who were the beneficiaries under his will, pressed the defendant to act as executor and trustee. And upon their executing on the 5th March 1915 a deed of indemnity in favour of the defendant, fully indemnifying him against all liabilities and risks and charging their interests by way of security, he agreed to accept the office of executor and trustee, and proceeded to prove the will. Subsequently there were administration proceedings in the Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster. In the course of those proceedings the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of two matters: (1) In the administration proceedings an order had been made that an affidavit with certain accounts exhibited thereto should be taken off the file, and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of those proceedings, which he did. (2) The defendant had also issued in the same proceedings a summons to obtain certain remuneration, which summons was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the costs of that application and had done so. He paid those costs, reserving his right to make a claim for repayment thereof under the deed of indemnity in such time and in such manner as he might be advised. The beneficiaries then filed a petition in the matter of the deed of indemnity asking for a declaration under the orders of the Palatine Court, corresponding with Order LIVA, r. 1, and Order XXV., r. 5, of the Rules of the High Court, that the defendant had not the right to obtain repayment of the costs under the deed of indemnity. The Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster made an order declaring that, upon the true construction of the deed of indemnity and in the events which had happened, the defendant had not the right to obtain repayment of the costs. The defendant appealed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction upon the petition to make an order that under the deed of indemnity the defendant had no right to obtain repayment. In opposition to the appeal the following authorities were relied upon by the beneficiaries: Guarant, Trust Company of New York v. Hannay and Co. (113 L. T. Rep. 98; (1915) 2 K. B. 536, at p. 562), North-Eastern Marine Engineering Company Limited v. Leeds Forge Company Limited (94 L. T. Rep. 56; (1906) 1 Ch. 324), London Association of Shipowners and Brokers v. London and India Docks Joint Committee (67 L. T. Rep. 238; (1892) 3 Ch. 242), and Société Maritime et Commerciale v. Venus Shipping Company (9 Com. Cas. 289)

Held, that the defendant never having made any claim against the beneficiaries for repayment of the costs in questionall he did having been to reserve his right to claim such repayment under the deed of indemnity-the court had no jurisdiction to make the declaratory judgment that had been made; that Order XXV., r. 5, gave no right to the beneficiaries to ask for such a declaration, their duty being to wait until they were attacked and then to raise their defence; and that the authorities upon which the beneficiaries relied gave no support to their contention. Observations of Cozens-Hardy, M.R. in Dyson v. Attorney-General (103 L. T. Rep. 707; (1911) 1 K. B. 410, at p. 417) considered and applied. Appeal allowed.

[Re Clay Clay v. Clay. Ct. of App.: Swinfen Eady, M.R., Duke, L.J., and Eve, J. Oct. 17.-Counsel: Jenkins, K.C. and Maberly; Grant, K.C. and C. E. R. Abbott. Solicitors: Rawle, Johnstone, and Co., agents for G. A. Booth, Manchester; Skelton and Co., Manchester.]

Will-Construction-Legacy to Son of Testator-Power of Advancement-Establish in Business-Meaning of.

By his will a testator, having thereby provided for his other children, gave to his son A. B. the interest of an aliquot share of his residuary estate not exceeding £200 per annum, unless the trustees of the will in their absolute discretion thought fit to increase it, during A. B.'s life. The remainder was to go to A. B.'s children, with remainders over. The will contained a power of advancement in favour of A. B., power being given to the trustees in their uncontrolled discretion, if they thought fit, to transfer or pay any part of the capital of A. B.'s aliquot share

to A. B. or to any other person or firm for the purpose of establishing him in business or of enabling him to become a partner in any business whether previously established or not. In 1902 the testator died. In 1903 an elder brother of A. B. went abroad, and, after he had resided there for about three years, he was joined by A. B. The two brothers were engaged in partnership in carrying on a farm. A. B.'s share in the farm, after deduction of the sum of £1000, which he had borrowed from his brother when he joined him in the farming business, amounted to £1500. The two partners came to the conclusion that their farm should either be substantially enlarged by the addition of more land thereto or that the farm should be sold, and that they should, under circumstances which they considered advantageous and at a time which was opportune, acquire and start a larger farm. Accordingly A. B. applied to the trustees of the will to apply on his behalf the power of advancement contained in the will. It was decided by Peterson, J. that the power of advancement conferred on the trustees by the will did not authorise an advancement for the purpose which A. B. required the money. A. B. appealed.

Held, that the power of advancement was not for the purpose of starting A. B. in business, and was not limited to giving money to A. B. to start him in business as distinguished from strengthening and confirming him in a business in which he was already concerned, but that the power extended to enabling the trustees to advance A. B. money to become a partner with his brother in acquiring the business of a new farm and one not necessarily in the same neighbourhood, and that therefore the advance required by A. B. was one within the power of the trustees to make, although whether such advancement should be made or not was altogether a matter for the trustees to exercise their discretion upon. Appeal allowed.

[Re Mead; Public Trustee v. Mead. Ct. of App.: Swinfen Eady, M.R. Duke, L.J., and Eve, J. Oct. 16.-Counsel: Hughes, K.C. and P. S. Stokes; Howard Wright; Nisbett. Solicitors: Stanley, Attenborough, and Co.; Rye and Eyre.]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Company-Loss of Capital-Petition to reduce-Opposition of Debenture-holders-Debentures fully secured-Right to objectCompanies (Consolidation) Act 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), ss. 46, 49 (1).

This was a petition asking the court to confirm the reduction of capital effected by special resolutions and to sanction the minute whereby the capital would henceforth be £360,000, divided into 5000 ordinary shares of £2 each and 50,000 preference shares of £7 each. The company was incorporated in 1888 with a capital of £1,000,000, divided into 5000 ordinary shares of £100 each and 50,000 preference shares of £10 each. There was a debenture debt of £1,000,000 secured on assets estimated to be worth £1,500,000. In 1905 the properties of the company were valued and it was found there was a loss on capital of £805,866. By allocation of profits up to 1917 this deficiency was reduced to £641,000. It was now proposed to reduce the capital by £640,000 as aforesaid. The petition was opposed by the Consolidated Trust Limited, holders of 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. perpetual debentures of the company.

Astbury, J. said that under sect. 46 of the Companies (Consoli. dation) Act 1908 a company could, subject to the confirmation of the court, reduce its capital. By sect. 49 (1) where the proposed reduction of share capital involved a diminution of liability in respect of unpaid share capital or the payment to any share. holder of paid-up share capital-which was not the case hereand in any other case where the court so directed, creditors were entitled to object to the reduction. Although thousands of these orders had been made, there was no recorded case where a debenture-holder had been permitted to oppose a reduction not involving a reduction of unpaid share capital or a repayment to shareholders. The framing of sect. 49 (1) and what was said by Lord Macnaghten in Poole v. National Bank of China Limited (96 L. T. Rep. 889; (1907) A. C. 229) made it clear that a secured creditor must make out a strong case before the court would direct that he was entitled to object to a reduction. Here there was no evidence that the assets were not a sufficient security for the debentures. The opposition failed, and there must be an order on the petition as prayed with no costs to respondents. [Re Meux Brewery Company Limited and Reduced. Ch. Div.: Astbury, J. Oct. 15.-Counsel: Maugham, K.C. and Warmington; Clayton, K.C. and H. E. Wright. Solicitors: Hunter and Haynes; Davidson and Morriss.]

KING'S BENCH DIVISION. County Court-Delinue-Judgment for Return of Chattel or Payment of its Value-Default-Warrant of Delivery of_Chattel-County Court Rules, Order XXV., r. 69-County Court Form 295.

Defendant's appeal from the Plymouth County Court. The plaintiff sued for the return of a sewing-machine wrongfully

detained. The judge ordered the defendant to return the machine or pay its assessed value. The defendant having failed to return the machine within the time limited, the judge, on the plaintiff's application, ordered the issue of a warrant of delivery. The defendant appealed, and contended that, the judgment having given her an option, the warrant of delivery took away the option and was without jurisdiction. Order XXV., r. 69, provides: "Where a judgment or order is for the recovery of any property other than land or money, the court may, upon the application of the plaintiff, order in default of delivery that a warrant shall issue for the delivery of the property, without giving the defendant the option of retaining the same upon payment of the value assessed."

Held, that the defendant, being in default under the judgment, had lost the option of retaining the chattel on payment of its value, and that, although the judgment was alternative in form, there was jurisdiction to issue the warrant for delivery of the chattel.

[Bailey v. Gill. K. B. Div.: Rowlatt and McCardie, JJ. Oct. 17.-Counsel: for the appellant, ort; for the respondent, Dummett. Solicitors: Law and Worssam, for Elliott, Square, and Geake, Plymouth; Eric R. Ward, Plymouth.]

LAW LIBRARY.

The Military Service Acts Practice (Stevens and Sons Limited), by Messrs. W. H. Stoker, K.C., and Herbert Bentwich, contains the consolidated Acts, proclamations, regulations, and orders, with notes of cases and tribunal decisions. The practice as set forth is invaluable for the use of tribunals, the body of military service legislation having greatly increased since the first Act of 1916. Considering the intricacy and complication of the subject, the authors have produced an extremely summary guide. Mr. Stoker is responsible for Part 1, consisting of an introductory chapter on the new Act of 1918, with an arrangement of the leading decisions of the Central Appeal Tribunal. Part 2, by Mr. Bentwich, contains the consolidated Acts and regulations fully annotated, with references to the decisions of the courts and to the incorporated statutes.

We have received the Year Book, No. 7, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from the headquarters of the endowment in Washington. It has a good portrait of Mr. Choate as frontispiece, and the words "Peace through victory" are printed in red at the top of the title-page. It contains reports of the executive committee, the secretary, and directors of various divisions.

Judicial Tenure in the United States, which comes from New Haven, Yale University Press, is by Mr. William S. Carpenter, of the University of Wisconsin. It has been written with special reference to the tenure of Federal judges, and presents the historical development of two phases of the American judicial system. At the close of the narrative a chapter of conclusions summarises the problems involved in securing the tenure of the judicial office at the present time.

NEW EDITIONS.

Although Sir Frederick Smith is not responsible entirely for the new edition (the fifth) of his work on International Law (J. M. Dent and Sons Limited), he has found time to write a fine preface of very decided tone. His dictum, "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," should be kept well before our peace-makers. Mr. James Wylie, who edited the fourth edition, being unable to spare time to edit a fifth, the publishers intrusted it to Dr. Coleman Philipson, a well-known authority on international law. be volume has, of course, grown, partly in view of the immense volume of decisions given in the Prize Court during the war.

Mr. W. Blake Odgers, K.C., has prepared a new edition (the eighth) of his valuable book, The Principles of Pleading and Practice (Stevens and Sons Limited). The seventh edition appeared in 1911, so that since its advent many decisions have been reported which affect the procedure of our courts, and further changes have been made by various rules of court, of which the most important are known as the Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1917. These have necessitated considerable alterations in the book. Relevant decisions down to the 1st May 1918 have been noted.

ANNUALS.

The first of the Yearly Legal Practices to make its appearance is The Yearly Practice of the Supreme Court (Butterworth and Co.). Owing to the paper shortage it has not been possible to follow the custom of publishing the various germane Acts, orders, and rules, &c., in a second volume, and the practitioner is referred to last year's edition. But, in order to bring this up to date, there is a supplement at the end of the present volume containing references to all the relevant Acts, rules, and cases passed, issued, or reported during the year. Mr. M. Muir Mackenzie and Master Chitty are still responsible for the work, and their practical notes are of the greatest value. They have the assistance of Messrs. Harold G. Meyer and W. Tudor Roberts, who have revised the portion of the book they undertook last year. A special effort has been made to render the work of real use as a guide to the existing practice and to get rid of all obsolete matter.

The Lawyer's Remembrancer and Pocketbook, by Mr. Arthur Powell, K.C., revised and edited by Mr. J. R. McIlraith (Butterworth and Co.), is out betimes, and is, as usual, a model of what such a thing should be, slim and limp and full of information. Among new articles added are Registration of Births, Marriages, and Deaths; Parliamentary, &c., Franchises; National Health Insurance; Licensing Law; and Practice as to Indictments. Other sections have been revised and brought up to date

Messrs. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, have issued a reprint of their Income Tax Tabular View with all the 1918 Budget changes. It is a most convenient form in which to have the various tables showing rates of income tax going back to 1842, special war service rates, income tax at 6s. per pound, money value of various totals of tax abatements, the actual figures for the vexed matter of "tax free" dividends, and so on.

Timehri, the Journal of the Agricultural and Commercial Society of British Guiana, is edited by the Hon. J. J. Nunan, K.C. In the highly interesting number for August there is printed in an appendix Mr. J. C. Ledlie's article from the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation on Roman-Dutch Law in British Guiana and a West Indian Court of Appeal, apropos of the fact that "On the 1st Jan. 1917 the Civil Law of British Guiana Ordinance 1916 came into operation in British Guiana," the event marking an important and decisive stage in the chequered history of the Roman-Dutch law in the colony.

Part 7 of vol. 13 of Criminal Appeal Cases (Stevens and Haynes), edited by Mr. Herman Cohen, contains reports of cases in the Court of Criminal Appeal heard on June 10, 17, and 24; July 22, 26, 29, and 30, 1918.

speaking to friends and foes alike. The following passage from his rejoinder on the 23rd inst. to the German Note is an admirable reduction to practice of the hope he expressed on the 27th Sept., that he would use words whose meaning no one can have any excuse for misunderstanding if he understands the language in which they are spoken, or can get someone to translate them correctly in his own: "Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been masters of German policy. Nothing can be gained by leaving this essential thing unsaid ' The harsh words" of the President find their complete justification in the judgment of Mr. Bagehot in 1872 as a theoretical writer: A great deal of the reticence of diplomacy had, I think history shows, much better be spoken out. The worst families are those in which the members never really speak their minds to one another; they maintain an atmosphere of unreality, and everyone always lives in an atmosphere of suppressed ill-feeling. So it is with nations." In admitting the world to a full knowledge of his communications with the German Government while they are still in progress, President Wilson has taken a course in the interests of open diplomacy as opposed to the secrecy of sophisticated men of affairs to which a statesman so inclined as Lord Grey of Falloden to the policy of informing the people of the relations between this country and foreign Powers would probably demur.

.6

The Note of Mr. Lansing, the American Secretary of State, embodying President Wilson's reply to the Note from Dr. Solf, the German Foreign Secretary, contains a perfect exposition and explanation of constitutional government. "It does not appear,' says the Note, "that the principle of a [German] Government responsible to the German people has yet been worked out. It is evident that the German people have no means of command. ing acquiescence of the popular authorities of the Empire in the popular will. . . The Government of the United States cannot deal with any but the veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany." In these words the distinction is clearly drawn between representative Government and responsible or constitutional Government. Representative government is Government with representative institution, where, however, the administration is not left to executive Ministers who are responsible to and dependent on the elected representatives of the people, but left to Ministers dependent on the will of "military masters or monarchical autocrats." In a system of responsible government, on the contrary, administration is left to Ministers who are responsible to and dependent on the confidence of the elected representatives of the people." The late Mr. Isaac Butt, QC, who was the most profound constitutional jurist of his time, has placed on record the most complete answer to a question asked by himself, "What is constitutional Government ? " Mr. Butt thus replied to his own question: "Constitutional Government is that, whatever be the form of government-take it as ours is a monarchy-the Sovereign carries on the government of the country by advisers controlled by a representative assembly of the people. That is constitutional government, and by this means government is brought into harmony with the feelings and sentiments of the people." Lord Grey of Falloden in his memorable speech on the 10th inst, with characteristic grasp of a political situation, said at an early stage of the exchange of Notes between the United States and Germany: "What President Wilson wants to know before we come to firm ground was where really was the seat of power in Germany." President Wilson has come to the conclusion that it is evident that the German people have no means of commanding acquiescence of the military authorities of the Empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the Empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany; in other words, that Germany is still without a system of constitutional government, and that, so long as the United States are precluded from dealing with the veritable representatives of the German people, i's demand from the present despotic Government of Germany must be, not a demand to enter into peace negotiations, but to surrender.

A resolution was carried in the House of Commons on the 23rd inst., by 224 votes to twenty-eight, in favour of the "passing forthwith of a Bill making women eligible as members of Parlia ment." The effect of this resolution will be immediate legislation, in the direction thus recommended, for the completion of the recently enacted measure for the admission of women to the franchise, of which their admission to membership of Parliament is a necessary corollary. The mistake will be quickly remedied of withholding from a class eligibility for electi n to Parliament while giving its members the Parliamentary franchise, to whose

pernicious results reference has been made in these columns in the case of legislation for the admission in 1793 of Roman Catholics to the Parliamentary franchise in giving them the privilege of voting for members of the Irish House of Commons without making them till 1829, after the lap e of a generation, eligible as members of Parliament. The expression "members of Parliament in the resolution savours of ambiguity. After the Revolution the title "member of Parliament" came to be the designation of a member of the House of Commons. The resolution in all probability refers to members of the House of Commons only. The title "member of Parliament " is, however, equally applicable to peers with seats in the House, and has been so used by no less an authority than Mr. Gladstone himself. Writing in 1878, Mr. Gladstone while admitting that there is no statute or legal usage in this country which requires that Ministers of the Crown should hold seats in the one or other House of Parliament, enlarges on the convenience-indeed, the necessity-of the position which makes Ministerial positions in the majority of cases only tenable with a seat in either House, and thus concludes: "I desire to fix attention on the identification in this country of the Minister with the member of a House [either House] of Parliament." The resolution of the House of Commons, although limited to member hip of the House of Commons, cannot fail to direct attention to the political status of ladies who are peeresses in their own right, more especially to ladies who are peeresses by descent and creation than to ladies who are peeresses by reason of their being the wives or widows of peers. Peeresses in their own right, on the admission of women to the Parliamentary franchise, become the only disfranchised class in the community, and their disability will be emphasised in the near future by legislation making women eligible as members of Parliament.

Mr. Herbert Samuel, in moving the resolution for the admission of women to the membership of the House of Commons, laid gre t stress on the general principle that it is not for Parliament to decide whom the people shall elect; it is for the people themselves to decide who their representatives shall be. Wherever, he said, Parliament or the law has overstepped these lines it has always been compelled by the people to withdraw. Mr. Samuel, in support of this position, cited a precedent from legal history. "There was," he said, "a Parliament long ago called the 'Un'earned Parliament, because, wisely or unwisely, it was decided that no lawyer should have a seat in it." Mr. Samuel thought it unnecessary to relate the absolute failure of attempts to preclude the members of the Legal Profession from the House of Commons. Lord Chancellor Campbell, speaking, in his Lives of the Chancellors, of this Unlearned Parliament, which assembled in 1404, says the recklessness of the Commons may have arisen from their not having had a single lawyer among them. Lord Chancellor Beaufort, in framing the writs of summons, illegally inserted a prohibition that any apprentice or other man of the law should be elected. In return for such a slight, our law books and historians have branded this Parliament with the name of Parliamentum indoctum or the "Unlearned Parliament."

Mr.

The death of Sir Edward Fry, full of years and honours, may well recall that his career has not been without parallels in the history of the Bench and the Bar in these countries. His attainment of eminence in other spheres of achievement after he had ceased to be a member of the judiciary, on which his talents and virtues shed a lustre, has its parallels. Coke, a former Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench and of the Common Pleas, was the mover of the Petition of Right in the House of Commons. Mr. George Ponsonby, a former Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons from 1807 till his death in 1816 Abercromby (Lord Dunfermline), as a former Chief Baron of Scotland, became in 1835 Speaker of the House of Commons. Lord Pauncefote, as a former Attorney-General and Chief Justice in the colonies, had a great career in diplomacy as First Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States, and was one of Sir Edward Fry's colleagues at the Peace Conference at The Hague. Sir Edward Fry as a contributor to theological literature has had fellow-workers both at the Bar and on the Bench Lord Chancellor Hatherley is the author of a standard work, The Continuity of Holy Scripture. Lord Chancellor Selborne is the editor of an edition of

hymns, with accounts of their authorship. Mr. Justice Litton, a former member of the Irish Judiciary, is the author of a book entitled Life and Death, in which the question of eschatology is discussed. Sir Joseph Napier, an Irish Lord Chancellor, is the author of an exposition of Butler's Analogy, which is acknowledged to be one of the ablest treatises on that subject. Lord Justice Fry had rivals in his longevity. The names of Lords Brougham, Lyndhurst, Plunket, and Halsbury have been mentioned in this connection. Sir James Bacon, who was born in 1798 and lived till 1895, discharged judicial duties till 1886. The Right Hon. Thomas Lefroy, who died in 1869 in

his ninety-fourth year, was Chief Justice of Ireland till he had entered on his ninety-first year in 1866. Sir Edward Fry's career, however, may be regarded as unrivalled in its combination of eminence as a judge, subsequent eminence in other spheres of intellectual achievement, eminence as a theological writer, and on his attainment of a patriarchal age in full possession of intellectual faculties.

To the current number of the Law Library Journal, an American periodical, Mr. Frederick C. Hicks, of Columbia University, contributes an extremely interesting paper on "The Effect of the World War on Anglo-American Legal Literature." In this article attention is called to the striking decrease in the production of law books both in this country and the United States since the outbreak of war. In 1914, law books published in the United States numbered 507; in 1917 they dropped to 216, while in England the numbers for the corresponding years were 279 and 146. For this sharp decline in numbers various reasons are assigned-high cost of paper, of binding, of labour, and the diminution in the ranks of writers and editors; but, in addition to these canses, there is, of course, the marked falling off in the demand by the shrinkage in the number of those who in normal times purchase law books. Mr. Hicks suggests, however, that the forced decrease in the production of law books may be a blessing in disguise, and that, by elimination of "pot-boilers," there may be a genuine elevation in the standard of current legal literature. But while the war has had this marked effect in the publishing world, it has begotten a prolific crop of statutes and Governmental rules and orders, and these again have demanded new sets of publications. Attention is called to the numerous manuals published by the Stationery Office under the editorship of Mr. Alexander Pulling, and to similar publications in Canada and New Zealand, while in the United States there have been issued Important Federal Laws and Federal Rules and Regulations, both due to the war. In the matter of reports Mr. Hicks declares that" undoubtedly the war has had a salutary influence upon the publication of case law." the salutary influence being the diminution in their number and in the size of various reports. On the other hand, a few new sets of reports, due entirely to the war, have been called for. In the English Digests the heading "War" has acquired a new importance, and consequently has demanded greater space being allotted to it; in those of the United States, seeing that that country has only comparatively recently thrown itself into the great conflict, the subject of" War" is still compressed within a very short space. All over the world legal periodicals have felt the effects of the war acutely. Many have suspended publication for the duration of the war, while a good many others have been issued at longer intervals, and even these have appeared in diminished volume. But in those that have continued publication the war has naturally formed the subject of a very large number of articles. In the Index to Legal Periodicals for 1911 the subject was dealt with in seven articles, whereas in 1915 the number had risen to 232-a number which doubtless has increased considerably since that year. The whole article brings out with remarkable clearness how the momentous conflict in which for the past four years the world has been engaged, and which has wrought such revolutionary changes in our everyday life, has in a variety of ways affected this particular field of legal activity.

IRISH NOTES.

THE great authority of the late Sir Edward Fry settled one point of considerable importance upon the procedure of commissions of inquiry during the sittings of the Royal Commission on the Irish Land Laws over which he presided in 1897. One of the members of the commission on one occasion severely crossexamined a witness, and counsel for one of the parties objected as the questions of the commissioner were outside the scope of the inquiry; and counsel appealed to the chairman of the commission to keep his colleague in order. The learned chairman at once ruled that he had no power to prevent a member of the commission asking a question; that, though he was appointed chairman, his power was not greater than any of the commissioners, and that in fact he could not stop a question by a colleague even when he felt very strongly that it was irrelevant. The most he could do was to advise his co-commissioner, and leave the question there. Ten years afterwards, when the late Sir Kenelm Digby, K.C., an ex-County Court judge and for many years permanent secretary to the Home Office, was presiding over a commission to inquire into the working of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Micks, one of the commissioners, asked a question of a witness giving evidence, to which the chairman at once objected. Mr. Micks then declined to put any further question whatever to the witness, but next morning cited to the

chairman the precedent before the distinguished ex-Lord Justice. Sir Kenelm Digby loyally followed the authority cited to him. and did not afterwards in any way interfere with the questions of the members of the commission.

THE Belfast Prisons Bill, alluded to in this column last week, had a speedy passage through the House of Commons, and was read a third time on the 23rd inst. Every speaker who took part in the discussion on the committee stage admitted that the selection of Mr. Justice Dodd was a wise one, and Mr. Healy, who fought the measure at every stage, had nothing but praise for his experience and capacity. There was an incident between Mr. Healy and the Chief Secretary for Ireland of considerable importance to the Legal Profession Mr. Healy complained that a gentleman who had been selected to conduct the inquiry had been suddenly dropped, and an undeserved stigma cast upon him, in replacing him by Mr. Justice Dodd. The Chief Secre ́ary said he had made that selection in consultation with Mr. Healy, and then found, before he was actually appointed, that Mr. Healy was publicly announced as counsel for the prisoners, who were a party at the inquiry, and he felt he could not have counsel for a party taking part in the selection of the tribunal, and he cancelled what had been done. Mr. Healy, whom he had informed of the change and of the cause of it, had not denied that he was counsel for the prisoners. In reply, the hon. member for North-East Cork said he had not received a brief for the prisoners or a retainer for the prisoners, and that he was acting entirely as a member of Parliament in the public interest. The language used by both the Chief Secretary and Mr. Healy was carefully chosen.

THE propriety of a member of the Bar taking part in the House of Commons in the discussion of matters in which he has been engaged as counsel belongs to the etiquette of the Bar rather than to that of the House itself. In Feb. 1893 the present Mr. Justice Ross put a motion in the notice paper of the House, expressing regret that the clemency of the Crown was extended to the Gweedore prisoners sentenced at Maryborough Assizes in 1888, where the learned member had been one of the counsel who prosecuted them. A question was put to the English Attorney-General, Sir Charles Russell, as he then was, as to whether the action of Mr. Ross was in accordance with the traditions of the Bar The AttorneyGeneral, in reply, said, assuming the facts to be as stated, "it would be contrary to what is understood to be proper professional conduct in England to use his knowledge of facts, obtained as counsel in a criminal case, for the purpose of political discussion in the House" Mr. Speaker Peel, being appealed to, said it was a question to be settled by the Bar, but quoted the following resolution passed in 1858: "It is contrary to the usage and deroga. tory to the dignity of this House that any of its members should bring forward, promote, or advocate in this House any proceeding or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward."

THE Irish Executive has not yet filled the vacancy in the Chancery Division caused by the appointment of Mr. Justice O'Connor to be a Lord Justice of Appeal. The latter appointment was made several months ago, and the business at the Chancery side is such that the vacancy cannot long be left unfulfilled. The practice adopted now on many previous occasions of appointing a judge to take up the work temporarily cannot be recommended, and there is no reason why the place should not be filled. The pretence of economy is never alluded to now, and it is meet that silence should be observed in regard to it, because, if the details of the Government's efforts to secure economy in the administration of affairs at the Four Courts should ever become public, they would kill it with ridicule. The Attorney-General in Ireland by precedent has a claim to a puisne judgeship-such a one as is now vacant-if he wishes to put forward his claim; but it is hinted that he is not taking this course, and that the Solicitor-General, Mr. Powell, will become the new judge.

This

THE ART OF CHESS.-BY JAMES MASON, Author of “ Principles of Chess," &c. Fourth Edition, Enlarged. Price 7s. 6d. net. edition was revised and brought up to date by the late Mr. L. Hoffer (Chess Editor of the Field"). Several fresh examples of the End and Middle Games (taken from matches played since the last edition was issued) are given, with explanatory notes; while in the section dealing with the Opening much additional matter, showing the best play in the latest tournaments, will be found. Mr. Hoffer, in fact, endeavoured to make the book as nearly perfection as possible.FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE Cox) LTD., Windsor House, Bream'sbuildings, London, E.C. 4. West End: Messrs. A. WEBSTER & Co, 44, Dover-street, Piccadilly, W. 1.-[ADVT.]