Digby, Mr. Tonman Mosley (Chairman of Quarter Sessions), Major McCreagh Thornhill (the High Sheriff), his Honour Judge Wood (Leicester), the Hon. W. M. Jervis, Deputy Judge Hamilton, Q.C. (Nottingham), Aldermen and Councillors of the Borough, Town Clerk, the Registrars of the several courts in the circuit, members of the Bar, and solicitors practising in the court.

His Honour Judge Smyly, on behalf of himself, the registrar of that court, and the registrars of all the courts in the circuit, said he begged to tender to his Lordship their warmest welcome and the heartiest thanks for the honour he had done them in being present, an honour which they felt very grateful for. They believed that the honour would not have been conferred if, in the opinion of his Lordship, the County Court in that circuit had not done its duty well. For that they did not claim all the credit for themselves alone. As they were all aware, it was the fiftieth anniversary of the appointments of County Courts, and he claimed that the way those tribunals had been utilised by the public showed that they had been appreciated. He had seen in the papers recently many complaints about the immense amount of perjury committed in the County Court, but he did not think people quite understood and appreciated the immense amount of truth told. There were a few cases-wrongly contested cases--where there was some hard swearing, but, after giving various figures showing the great increase in the work done in County Courts, his Honour called special attention to the increase in judgment summonses, and the disposition this showed among a certain class of people not to pay their debts until the last moment. He remarked on the hardship this was to registrars of small courts, not paid by salaries, as, in consequence of the increase the registrars had to keep a far larger staff of clerks entirely out of their own pockets. Taking the number of cases dealt with, and taking into consideration the number of cases in which the defendants honestly admitted their position, there was no more perjury in the County Courts than in the High Courts.

Sir Thomas Roe said that, as chief magistrate of this ancient borough, he had great pleasure in welcoming his Lordship within its borders. On the present occasion his Lordship appeared as the head of a great system which we all believed to be honestly mindful of the liberties of the people, and which we were proud to know was directed by many of the ablest and most honourable of our countrymen. The occasion of the Lord Chancellor's visit reminded us that the judicial system of England consisted of several departments, and that what might be called the local branch had just completed the fiftieth year of its existence. Our County Courts had undoubtedly won the confidence of the public.

The High Sheriff of the county also welcomed his Lordship on behalf of the county.

Mr. Woodyatt, in the unavoidable absence of Mr. Stanger, Q.C., and other members of the Bar, thanked his Lordship on behalf of the Barfor the honour he had done them in coming down to-day to open the new courts. His presence on such occasions would ever be a stimulus and an encouragement to the junior Bar, and would serve to remind them of the great possibilities that their profession held out to those members of it who were successful. That day would always be a memorable one in the annals of this ancient town, not only from the fact that his Lordship had so honoured them by his presence, but also from the fact that this was the jubilee year of our County Courts.

Mr. J. Bostock then read the following address from the members of the Derby Law Socitey :-" To the Bight Honourable Hardinge Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain.-May it please your Lordship,-We, the members of the Derby Law Society, comprising almost the whole of the practising solicitors of the county town of Derby, respectfully offer to you a hearty welcome to our ancient borough. We tender to you at the same time our sincere thanks for having consented to open the handsome pile of buildings intended for the purpose of more effectually carrying on the important duties which devolve upon our County Court. The event is in a measure historical. We understand this is the first occasion on which a Lord Chancellor has taken part in the proceedings of a County Court, and the occasion becomes more memorable, occurring as it does, not only in the year of the longest reign on record, but also in the jubilee year of the existing County Court regime. The business of the County Courts is daily increasing in volume and importance, and the erection of these new offices testifies to the public appreciation of this fact. We venture on behalf of the Law Societies of the kingdom to thank your Lordship for so promptly acceding to their request in postponing the operation of the new County Court rules recently promulgated until they could be further considered. We are confident that in all matters affecting the administration of justice we may safely rely on your profound knowledge of the law and the practice of the courts, and can entertain no doubt that the consideration you have shown by your presence amongst us to-day will add increased prestige to the court you have thereby honoured. We are, with greatest respect, your Lordship's dutiful servants (for the Derby Law Society), JOSEPH BOSTOCK, President, W. BEADON WOODFORDE, Secretary."

The Lord Chancellor, who had a very cordial reception, expressed his thanks for the welcome accorded to him, and, referring to Judge Smyly's address, said: There are many topics that his Honour has referred to upon which, if I were compelled to do so, I should have to offer one or two criticisms. I feel, speaking of what his Honour described as the reforms in the County Court system, that they are not questions which can be disposed of in a sentence. I think there are many things undoubtedly which might be made better. One thing struck me very much in his Honour's remarks. It was said that it is a good thing for a judge to amplify his jurisdiction. Well, it is all right for people to be proud of the position they occupy, particularly if they occupy it so well as I know the learned judge of this court does, but to the uninstructed and unprofessional mind the enormous increase of causes he referred to may

His Honour

not seem an unmixed benefit to the whole of the State. spoke of the persons who were compelled to pay their debts and who go to prison if they do not pay them, and it struck me that that, to the unprofessional part of the audience, might lead to some misapprehension. I have no doubt my learned friend, in the jurisdiction he administers, takes very good care that it is not because people do not pay their debts that they go to prison, but it is because they will not pay their debts. No one in this country can be sent to prison merely because he does not pay his debts. It is only that, having the money and the means to pay, he will not do so, and that is to my mind a very important and serious distinction. I do not mean to say that even in that field of inquiry the question may not be worthy of the consideration of the Legislature whether it is wise when a man can only pay a very little that he should be sent to prison so that he can pay nothing; but these are only matters for discussion hereafter. That which we have to do with is the present, and I may congratulate you all, the five representatives who have been good enough to address me, upon having an ample court presided over by an able judge who administers justice among you. Apart from the particular form in which that is administered, there is no doubt that the first necessity of any civilised community is some mode of ascertaining the rights of the parties, and that can only be done by hearing the partiesmay I add also, by listening to what they have to say? I believe the ablest judge in the world will never be able to convince a litigant against whom he decides that the decision against him is right, but what every judge, I think, can and ought to convince him of is that his case has been fairly and impartially heard; and one of the difficulties, of course, of the enlargement of the jurisdiction to which the worshipful the Mayor has drawn attention is this-that, although it is important, undoubtedly, that you should have places where, with the enormous accumulations of population of this kind and the great amount of business which is being done, there should be no delay, certainly in the smaller cases which admit of immediate solution; on the other hand it is to be remembered that the more you scatter the administration of justice so much the more do you take away that atmosphere of complete publicity which I believe is at the root of the administration of justice in this country. What the learned judge has said is quite true. I have no doubt that a great deal is done by registrars and a great deal done by officers, and that it is only the contested cases in which the questions he has referred to arise; but unless you have places where the people as well as the judges and the litigants can hear and claim their right. as I think all Englishmen have the right to claim to be present in an English court where justice is being publicly administered, there may be a very imperfect respect for justice, and therefore it is that I am able to congratulate you upon having such a place as this in which justice can be so publicly administered. I have seen the day-aye, in courts of higher jurisdiction-when there was hardly room for the parties to be squeezed together, and they suffered a good deal from the atmosphere and from the undue pressure of people coming in to hear them. I am, therefore, free to congratulate you very heartily in having such a court as this. That is, of course, the first consideration, that there should be a place where justice should be administered. Knowing the modesty of my excellent friend, which is, indeed, characteristic of his profession, it is hardly necessary for me to say how well he administers justice. You know how well he administers justice, and I think your presence here, and the way you recognised what he said, testifies to me that you appreciate that he administers it well. Then there is the question of the time during which it is administered and with what degree of rapidity you can reconcile the administration of justice with the due weighing of the cause. That always involves with it the person who administers it, and therefore I will say no more about it. With regard to other reforms, such as the enlargement of the jurisdiction to which the Mayor referred, these are questions that would admit of long debate. If the County Court cases are so great in number and if they are so greatly increasing and if such demands are made upon the time of the court, you might by enlarging the jurisdiction to some extent diminish the rapidity with which cases are tried in the County Courts. It requires, I think, grave consideration before anyone can adopt, without a full measure of the facts placed before him, the suggestion. which his worship the Mayor has made. I am compelled to say this because in his observations the Mayor suggested that I should fall into the fascination which he offered to me and commit myself to aiding and assisting the scheme which he had at heart. I can only say that any suggestion from your worshipful mayor, whom I have the honour of knowing, ought to be weighed well and considered, but a Minister of the Crown does not generally commit himself to any future legislation without giving further consideration than is afforded by the invitation of the mayor and the fascination of a lunch. In all seriousness I may say that I congratulate you all upon the efforts which have manifestly been made here to do what every court ought to have done for it-to have proper accommodation and zealous officers to execute its decrees. I think that there is nothing which so much exhibits the civilisation of the people as the care which is taken that the humblest member of the State shall have the opportunity of having justice administered to him. It is true, as the poet says that, life's great play, so it have an actor great enough, may be well performed upon a humble stage. And the smaller the courts, the less open they are to the light of public criticism, the more important it is they should be kept closely in touch with those persons who can take care that right is done, and the more important it is that the judge and the judge of the High Court and the Lord Chancellor is constantly under the pressure of public criticism. I can answer for it myself, but sometimes a judge, I will not call it of an inferior court, but a judge of a different kind of court, might do a great many things-I will not say that they do it, but they might do it-without that observation and without that criticism which is, I think, the salt of the administration of justice in this country. There are a great many things which it

arises in one's mind to say on this subject, but I have before me my watch, and that also rises up in judgment and tells me not to say any more of these things. I can only heartily wish you the enjoyment of these very handsome courts and their offices. I can congratulate my learned friends whom I see here upon the amount of business which the learned judge has promised them to dispose of. I recognise most cordially what has been said by the members of the Derbyshire Law Society, and so far as I am personally concerned nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see such an assembly as this gathered together upon the opening of courts of justice, because it shows that what I have described as the primary necessity of civilised life is not undervalued in this great and ancient borough.

It was moved that the day's proceedings should be entered on the record of the courts and the ceremony shortly afterwards concluded. The Lord Chancellor was subsequently entertained by the Mayor at luncheon. During the afternoon he visited the Derby school and distributed the prizes to the successful students.

The Lord Chancellor said that he was one of those old-fashioned people who thought that the study of the great masters of human thought who lived many centuries ago was the finest intellectual training in the world. He knew that some people thought that they ought to do something which would physically and intellectually fit men for the particular work that they were to follow, but he believed that they would learn much better by dissociating what they were to do in after life from the intellectual and physical training that they were to receive. They were not now beginning life. They would begin it with all its trials and struggles soon enough, and they were now fitting themselves for any life upon which they might be called upon to enter. He entreated them earnestly to believe how much he took an interest in what the boys were doing and were going to do. At one time it was thought to be a sort of duty to be harsh with boys, but he believed the modern system was the best. The true feeling between the boys and masters was very different to what it was at the beginning of the century. He concluded by wishing the boys success.

On the motion of Sir Henry Wilmot, seconded by Lord Belper, a vote of thanks was passed to the Lord Chancellor for his attendance, and the proceedings came to an end.

FRIENDLY SOCIETY-NOMINATIONS-REVOCATION

-PAYMENT TO A NOMINEE-VALIDITY. AT the Keighley County Court, on the 17th March, before his Honour Judge Bompas, Q.C., judgment was given in Lavin v. Howley.

J. J. Wright, barrister-at-law (instructed by Messrs. Last and Betts, Bradford), for the plaintiff; Percy Naylor, solicitor, Keighley, for the defendant.

His HONOUR.-I am prepared now to give judgment. This is a case in which there was really no dispute upon the facts, but it raised somewhat important questions of law. The admitted facts are, that Mrs. Catherine O'Hara, who was insured with the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society for two sums amounting to less than £50, nominated under the provisions of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60, s. 15, on the forms supplied by the society, the defendant, Maria Howley, to receive those sums, and the nomination was duly delivered to and accepted by the society. Before her death, Mrs. O'Hara made a will and codicil, and left the sums to the plaintiff. But this was not communicated to the society. On Mrs. O'Hara's death the society paid the money to the defendant, and the present action is brought by the plaintiff, as executor and legatee of Mrs. O'Hara, to recover from the defendant the moneys so paid to her. Now, the first question that arises is, what is the effect of the payment by the society to the nominee of a sum under the policy of insurance? On the one hand it is said that that payment gives to the nominee the absolute right to the money so paid to her. On the other hand, it is contended that the payment merely protects the society, that the society have then done what they were bound to do under their policy, but that the question who is entitled to the money remains as it was before, and that if in her will or otherwise the deceased has given the money to a particular person that person is still entitled to it. That depends mainly upon the Act of Parliament which enables these nominations to be made. Of course, I will deal presently with the question which has been raised as to the particular form of the rules of the society. I have to consider, then, what is the effect of the Act of Parliament. A decision has been cited to me of the late Judge Cox, given at Suffolk (Beggs v. Lewis, Rochester County Court, April 23, 1890), who seems to have held that the real effect of a nomination under this Act was merely to protect the society when it made its payments to the nominee, and that it did not affect the question of who was actually entitled to the money afterwards. I hope I shall always be willing to give full weight to any judgment of my brother County Court judges, and I am glad to hear what was decided by the County Court judges on any point; but at the same time I have no right, I think, to take their decisions as absolutely binding upon me, and if I come to a definite conclusion myself on a point of law, especially if I think I am upheld by cases in the Higher Courts, I am bound, I think, to give effect to my opinion. I confess I cannot follow the reasoning of Judge Cox in that case, and the conclusion I have come to is that the effect of a nomination is the same as the effect of a will, and that it does give to the person nominated property in the money when it is paid to them by the society. Now, the Act 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60, s. 15, no doubt provides that a registered society should be entitled to certain privileges. It is the privilege of a society of this sort, I think, to confer rights upon its members which they would not have if they were not members of the society. It is one of the things which is most sure to attract members to the society. Now, what was the difficulty which these provisions of the Act were to meet? It

is, I suppose, common knowledge that amongst the classes of people who join societies of this kind it is not the usual practice to make wills, because they are people who seldom have anything of great importance or value to leave by their will if they made one, and they are people who are anxious to avoid the expenses, which, although not very great, almost always attend the making and proving of a will. The effect of their not making a will is twofold. In the first place, it puts the society into difficulties, because the society do not know to whom the payment should be made of their money. There is no executor, no administrator, and the question may constantly arise as to who they are really to pay to? No doubt one of the objects of this Act was to get over that difficulty by protecting the society when they are making a payment according to nomination. There are further provisions in the subsequent sub-sections which are expressly made to meet the difficulty, and which show that the Act was intended to protect the society in making their payments. But is that the only difficulty which was to be met? This Act was intended to encourage persons of small means to begin saving, and to make them possessors of a small amount of property at their death. It was surely a very natural thing that Parliament should then consider how they were to dispose of this money which they had thus become possessed ofwhether it should still remain necessary for them to make a will in order to settle who should receive the money, or whether the Act of Parliament should give them any easier and simpler method of disposing of this money after their death. And it seems to me that the object of the Act was to provide a statutable will, if I may say so-a means of disposing of these small sums without going through all the forms of making a will. I think the object of the Act was to enable the members of the society to dispose of the money that they had saved in accordance with the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act by the simple method of saying to the society to whom the money shall be paid. I am confirmed, I confess, very strongly in this view by the case which was cited to me, though cited to me from another point of view, of Ashby v. Costin (59 L. T. Rep. 224; 21 Q. B. Div. 401). There there was a friendly society which by its rules was to pay a sum of money, if a will was made, to the person to whom it was made; if no will was made, then to such one of certain relations as the committee should think fit. The society had paid to one of the relations of the deceased, who had made no will, a sum of money, and the administrator of the deceased claimed that sum of money, as I understand, upon what was in substance the very contention which has been set up in this casee-that the payment by the society only protected the society and still left it an open question to whom the money belonged, and Cave, J., in giving judgment in that case, points out that the money which the society had to pay was not the money of the deceased, though it was payable out of the fund to which he and others had contributed. It was money to be paid according to the bargain made by the society with the other members, and he held that the money belonged to the person to whom it was paid, and that the administrator had no claim to it. It seems to me that this is a case very much in point. I do not understand the argument of Judge Cox, that this could not be a gift, because it was revocable. It is not a gift; it is an agreement with the society that they should make out of their funds, which are their own funds, payment to a certain person, and by Act of Parliament-not by common law, but by express Act of Parliament--it is provided that that shall be a contract, which, like a will, should be able to be changed by the party nominating up to the time of his decease. If he does not change the nomination, does not revoke the nomination, then I take it that it becomes the duty, by statute, of the society to pay out of their own money a certain sum in accordance with their agreement with the deceased to the person who is nominated. They pay it to the person, as I understand, not as a trustee for somebody else, but they pay it in the ordinary way in which you pay money to anybody. If you do so, and there is nothing to prevent it, the person receiving it receives it for himself, and it becomes his own property. It seems to me, therefore, on this most important part of the case, upon the society paying to the nominee of the deceased the sums of money now in question, she became absolutely entitled to them for herself, and under liability to nobody else in the matter. The next question that was raised was, that it was said that this was an invalid nomination because by the rules of the society the person nominated was not one of the near relations of the deceased, and there was not the general power of nomination which it was said had here been exercised. The rule in question reads that the secretary shall keep a book. in which shall be given the name of the person to whom the assurance shall be paid at their decease. It gives power to nominate husband, wife, father, mother, child, brother, sister, nephew, or niece. It does not say a member shall not nominate anybody else. It is clear that this rule was made to carry out the provisions of the earlier Act. Then Parliament passes another Act of Parliament, giving the members a perfectly general power of nomination. It is quite true the society has not altered its rules, and said you may nominate not only the people we have mentioned but certain other persons also. Apparently, I should think, because the nomination rule did not expressly provide that you should not nominate anyone else, and the power was already given by Act of Parliament. I am far from saying that the society and its members could not by its rules limit the Act of Parliament, and provide that only certain persons shall be nominated. My impression is, that by rules clearly pointed to that effect such an object could be accomplished. But then, I think, there must be a clear rule saying that the members agree that they will not nominate any except certain persons. The mere fact that an old rule was made which does not expressly give them power to nominate, except certain persons, does not seem to me at all such an agreement as would cut out the primá facie right of a member to nominate according to the existing Act of Parliament. I think the nomination, therefore, although not to one of the relations mentioned in the rules, is a valid nomination, and so far, therefore, on the society paying in accordance with the nomination, it seems to me that the defendant is entitled to the money. Then one question might be raised,

and that is, was that nomination ever effectively revoked? It was hardly contended that it was, because the Act of Parliament expressly gives them power to nominate, and says they may from time to time revoke or vary such nomination by writing "under his hand similarly delivered or sent," i.e., delivered or sent to the registered office of the society. And, admittedly, that was not done in this case. It did occur to me as to whether the case of Ashby v. Costin, when referring to the equitable doctrine, admittedly rather strange, by which an imperfect execution of a power has been held sufficient in favour of creditors, could possibly apply to make this revocation valid, although not according to the Act of Parliament. But that principle of equity, as I understand it, is only applicable where the question is of assets to be divided among the creditors. In the case in question the deceased had power to make a will in favour of his creditors, but had not done so; but what I understand them to say is, that if he had made a will in favour of the creditors, even if it was not a perfectly valid will, they would have enforced it possibly. Here there is no question of creditors, as I understand it, but a question of the executor and legatee under the will, and I do not think that this principle of equity could apply here. And I see nothing to make the codicil a valid revocation, and, as I said before, it was hardly contended that it was. Therefore, the nomination being, as I hold, a valid nomination, the society were right, in my judgment, in paying to the defendant the two sums. It is contended that the nomination was invalid because the total nominations came to more than £50, but it seems to me that that is no reason why the nomination, which is for less than £50, should not be a valid one. I think the society have rightly paid this money, and I think the effect of a payment by the society of money to a nominee is to entitle that nominee absolutely to the money, except by some anterior agreement she has intentionally put herself under some prior obligation. I hold, therefore, that the defendant is entitled to the money, and I give judgment for the defendant.

PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING THE

PROFESSION.

IN the Queen's Bench Division on the 12th inst., before Wills and Grantham, JJ.,

Hollams submitted to the court the report of the committee of the Incorporated Law Society in the matter of Edward Fletcher Maud, solicitor, of 14, Upper Fountaine-street, Leeds. The charge made was that the respondent, while acting as solicitor for the complainant, received and retained in his hands a sum of £87 3s. 5d., being the share of one of the beneficiaries under a will of which the complainant was executor, with instructions to remit the amount to the beneficiary, who was resident in Australia; that he subsequently falsely represented to the complainant that he had so remitted it; and that he fraudulently misappropriated it to his own use and only paid it over in consequence of the present proceedings and on the day before the hearing of the application by the committee. The complainant, who was the executor of the will of Sarah Pawson, in July 1895, instructed the respondent to realise the estate and divide it among the beneficiaries, seven in number. The respondent thereupon realised the estate, which consisted of North-Eastern Railway stock and Leeds Corporation stock, and paid over the shares of six of the beneficiaries. The remaining beneficiary was Mrs. Eastwood, a lady living in Australia, and she desired to have her share, which consisted of £87 3s. 5d., transmitted to her in Australia by means of a bank draft. The respondent undertook to effect this. On the 21st Nov. 1893 he wrote to the complainant: "The share due to Mrs. Eastwood was duly sent off on Monday last, and on the receipt being sent I will duly hand over same to you." In March 1896 it was discovered that the money had not been received, and though application was made for payment it was not paid until the 28th July 1896. The respondent did not appear at the first hearing of the application, but at a further hearing he appeared by counsel. He said that on the 21st Nov. 1896 he was busy with other transactions, and that when he wrote the letter of that date he was under the impression that he had actually sent the money to Australia. In March he was unable to make the money good, as he expected, because he was disappointed of some costs amounting to £150. He found out subsequently that the money had not in fact been sent. The committee were not satisfied with the explanation, and found that the letter of the 21st Nov. 1895 was written in order to gain time.

Macaskie, on behalf of the respondent, said that, admitting the letter to have been untrue to the knowledge of the respondent and that it was written to gain time, there was nothing to show that it was written with any fraudulent intent.

WILLS, J. said that it was difficult to deal with these matters when the gravity of the offence was not admitted, and he hoped that no one would be under the impression that the court regarded matters of this kind as trivial. The order was that the solicitor should be suspended from practice for six months, and that he should pay the costs of the inquiry.

GRANTHAM, J. concurred.

Hollams also submitted to the court the report of the committee of the Incorporated Law Society in the matter of James Crowdy, solicitor, of Howard-house, Arundel-street, Strand. The charge made was that the solicitor falsely represented to a client that he had invested upon mortgage a sum of £2226 18s. 10d., the balance of a sum of money which had been realised by sale of some stock and paid to the solicitor, and in order to carry out the false representation handed over to him a security

which he knew to be valueless and fraudulently misappropriated the money to his own use.

The COURT ordered the name of the solicitor to be struck off the rolls, and that he should pay the costs of the inquiry.

Hollams also submitted to the court the report of the Incorporated Law Society in the matter of James Henry Welsh, solicitor, of St. Anne's-onthe-Sea and Blackburn, Lancashire. The charge made was that the respondent, acting as solicitor for the complainant, received from him a sum of £500 to invest upon what he falsely represented to be a first mortgage upon certain property, whereas to the respondent's knowledge there were at that time three subsisting mortgages on the property and that he fraudulently misappropriated the £500 to his own use. The committee found that the charge was substantiated. A warrant had been taken out for the arrest of the respondent on the charge of obtaining the above-mentioned sum of £500 by false pretences, and the respondent had absconded.

The COURT ordered the name of the respondent to be struck off the rolls, and that he should pay the costs of the inquiry.

IN the Queen's Bench Division on the 13th inst., before Grantham and Wright, JJ., Hollams presented the report of the statutory committee which found that Thomas Purdy, a solicitor, of Blyth, in Northumberland, having been instructed to commence an action and having procured, by false representations that the action was proceeding, sums amounting to £86, misappropriated them to his own use.

The COURT directed that his name should be struck off the rolls, and that he should pay the costs of the application.

Hollams also submitted the report of the committee re John Tomlinson, of 10, Townhall-square, Bolton, solicitor, who was charged with fraudulently misappropriating to his own use the sum of £17, which he had recovered for the complainant, his client, in an action in the County Court. The committee found the charge proved.

The COURT ordered that he should be struck off the rolls and pay the costs of the application.

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

A MOVEMENT IN ENGLISH LEGAL EDUCATION. (From the Harvard Law Review.)

ENGLISH law is the parent of the law of this country, almost as much as English speech is the foundation of our speech. After one hundred and twenty years of separate government our laws and our language still acknowledge, not British dominion, but the potent influence of usage and systems kindred with our own, prevailing and developing among a people bound more closely to ours than any other, by the ties of the past and of the future, by sentiment and origin no less than by material interests. We have, as a nation, adhered strongly to the English type of law even in statutes and codes. We have felt an unswerving attachment to the jury system, and to trial in criminal cases before a judge who sits as an "impartial umpire" between the State and the accused. We have never sympathised with the continental method of prosecution which Sir James Fitz James Stephen called "inquisitorial," as compared with the English "litigious system. Numbers of our earliest lawyers studied in the English Inns of Court. Edward Tilghman, Edward Shippen, Benjamin Chew, and William Rawle, had studied in the Middle Temple, and Andrew Hamilton is believed to have studied in Gray's-inn. The Bar of this country must trace its "apostolic succession," like the historical churches, through English channels. In considering legal education in England we consider a training which very directly affects us, and which our methods have in late years largely infiuenced. An English decision is as much an authority before our State courts as a decision from a sister Commonwealth within the Republic, and our Federal courts give even greater heed to it. The training which forms the Bench and Bar of England, therefore, is of more than speculative interest to us. Moreover, a man serves his home best who seeks to bring to it all that is best in the rest of the world, and a constant observation upon the progress of other nations is a test and condition of advancement in our own. We still say, with Sir Frederick Pollock, "Benedictus qui venit in nomine Legum Angliæ."

We are not disposed, however, to recount the old story of how an unsuccessful barrister, in the middle of the last century, began at Oxford a course of lectures on English law, not for law students, but for country gentlemen and general scholars, which attracted at once the attention of king and people, brought their author sudden rank, fame, and fortune, and when published as Blackstone's Commentaries became as much the accepted compendium of law in this country as in their own. Nor are we here to discuss the picturesque anachronisms of the Inns of Court, to tell how an official was wont to call the students in Norman French to the daily feasting, or of the social licence and legal and political conservatism of these ancient and inscrutable bodies.

Venerable semi-monastic foundations as they are, they have the traditions of having been great schools of law with learned moots and wrangles, and they have had readers so-called, who gave readings on the law in their solemn halls. They alone have for centuries had the power to call to the bar, and they still maintain that uncontrolled authority.

But, if we may trust Mr. Montagu Crackanthorpe, who is by every one

quoted as the best authority on legal education in England, in his testimony given in 1892 before the Gresham Commission, although it had been a moral duty, if not a legal duty, on the part of all the Inns, and a legal duty on the part of the two greater ones, the Middle and the Inner Temples, to educate law students, at least from the time of the charter of James I., yet nothing except the delivery of a few sporadic lectures was done until 1832.

At a meeting of the Hardwicke Society in the Inner Temple Lecturehall, on the 4th Dec. 1896, Mr. C. Cavanagh quoted the Letters Patent under which the Middle and Inner Temple acquired most of their property, issued on the 13th Aug. in the sixth year of James I. unto Sir Julius Cæsar, then Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the King's Exchequer, and others, granting them the mansions with the gardens and appurtenances therein described "for lodgings, reception, and education of the professors and students of the laws of this realm." And Mr. Cavnagh declared, "this beyond all question is a trust."

The solicitors had been as free of the Inns of Court as the barristers until about the middle of the sixteenth century, when they were banished and left without any share therein. So about the beginning of this century they were absolutely destitute of any means of legal education except as they picked it up in the office of older attorneys. A stir was made about this, after many years of dissatisfaction, in 1832, and certain private persons formed a society, got property in Chancery-lane, and obtained a charter as "the Council of the Incorporated Law Society." The new association established lectures and classes for the more adequate education of law students desirous of becoming solicitors. This excited the emulation of the Inns of Court, which had charge of the education of the higher branch of the Profession, and they, with reviving zeal, appointed professors and readers in certain topics for the would-be barristers.

"Up to that time I suppose no education at all was required? said Lord Cowper, the chairman of the commission. "None whatever," replied Mr. Crackanthorpe. "There was no sort of lectures which could be attended, and at which the attendance could be certified; in point of fact all that was required was that a man should be a respectable person, pay his fees, and express a wish that he should be called to the bar," Mr. Anstie: "That would be to what date?" Mr. Crackanthorpe replied: "The first compulsory examination was not till 1859, and that was only a preliminary compulsory examination for admission to an inn of Court. The first compulsory final examination for call to the bar was not till 1872."

It should be remarked that no Inn can call a person to the bar until he has been a member of that society five years, except that certain degrees from the greater English and Irish Universities shorten the period, and there are certain exceptions as to solicitors.

Serjeant Robbins, in his published reminiscences called "The Bench and Bar," says he entered the Middle Temple as a student in 1833, and the examination lasted about a minute and a half, and consisted of one or two questions in Latin or general literature, put in the perfunctory style in which one asks a passing acquaintance after his health. Writing in 1869, he says he never knew any applicant plucked on this examination. He says, after paying £100 fees and giving security for keeping the rules of the Inn, you had merely to keep twelve terms; that a term was three or four weeks, and in the middle was what was called grand week. To keep the term you must dine once in grand week and once in each half week at the Inn. Students literally were required merely to eat their way to the bar.

Each Inn acted separately in matters of legal education until a parliamentary committee investigated this in 1846, and reported that it would be well that the Inns should co-operate and establish a joint system of education. For the first time in their history, as far as known, alarmed at the report, they appointed a joint committee, which reported that the four Inns should act in concert in the joint establishment and maintenance of a uniform system of legal education of students before admission to the bar." They also provided for a standing committee of eight Benchers on legal education, and Sir Richard Bethell, afterwards Lord Chancellor Westbury, called the boldest judge who ever sat on the bench, was made its chairman.

In 1855 the Inns of Court were investigated further by a Royal Commission, which reported rather in favour of their incorporation, a threat which seems always full of terrors for them. This produced a great effect. The Inns appointed a committee, which sat four years, and finally adopted the suggestion of the Royal Commission and reported that it was expedient that there should be a compulsory examination of students previous to being called to the bar. In that year the Inns first made an examination for admission to begin studying compulsory, requiring, as is still the rule, students to be examined in the English and Latin languages and English history; but not until fourteen years later would they adopt the recommendation of their own committee, that there be a compulsory examination for call to the bar.

Finally, a legal education association was organised, on the 6th July 1870, and Sir Roundell Palmer was made its first president. He and his allies sought for a great teaching faculty of law, whose instruction should be open to all who desired to know the law of the land, whether intending to become lawyers or not. The whole movement was brought on by an able paper from Mr. Jevons, of Liverpool, pointing out the shameful neglect of legal education in England, and this one man won the interest of Sir Roundell and a great number of the more enlightened lawyers. The plans were strongly opposed. A majority of the council of the Incorporated Law Society (the solicitors' organisation) hesitated to give their adherence to a scheme for education in law open to all alike, but a minority of the council gave the plan their warm support, and, appealing to the general meeting of the society, that, body, after a debate of two days, by a majority of two to one, supported Sir Roundell's enlightened and

liberal project. His association met with a committee of the Inns for conference, and they promptly disagreed. Thereupon, on the 11th July 1871, Sir Roundell, undeterred by the frowning Benchers, and seconded by Mr. Osborn Morgan, gallantly moved in the House of Commons, "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a general school of law should be established in the metropolis, in the government of which the different bodies of the Legal Profession in England may be suitably represented, and that after the establishment thereof no person should be admitted to practise in any branch of the Legal Profession without a certificate of proficiency in the study of the law, granted after proper examination by such general school of law." It went no further during that session, but the society printed and circulated reasons in its favour.

On the 1st Feb. 1872 a deputation appointed by the executive committee of the society waited upon Mr. Gladstone, then Prime Minister, to ask Government support for the measure. The deputation was headed by Sir Roundell Palmer, and included Sir Edward Ryan, Vice-Chancellor Wickens, Mr. Justice Quain, Lord Hobhouse, Mr. Justice Mathew, Baron Pollock, Sir Henry Maine, Prof. Abdy, Prof. Bryce, and others; but Mr. Gladstone, though expressing his sense of its importance, doubted whether the pledges of the Government already made would enable them to spare the time requisite for inquiry which must be made before they could commit themselves to any decided course of action. A most characteristic reply from the "old parliamentary hand."

However, on the 1st March, Sir Roundell again moved his resolution, slightly modified so as to include in the advantages of the proposed school of law, not only persons intending to practise in any branch of the Legal Profession, but as well "all other subjects of Her Majesty who may resort thereto." Petitions in its support were presented signed by about 400 members of the Bar, 18 of them Queen's Counsel and Benchers of the Inns, and by about 7000 out of the 10,000 solicitors then practising. Members of the Government complimented Sir Roundell for his zeal, but wished to hear from the Inns of Court. Mr. Gladstone said he had fully mortgaged the time of the House, and intimated that the Government could not give its support. Sir Roundell determined to take the sense of the House notwithstanding, and got 103 votes for his motion, but it was rejected by a majority of 13, the Government voting against it in a body.

Death and promotion are equally fatal to reformers. Sir Roundell almost immediately thereafter was raised to the Woolsack, becoming Lord Chancellor under the title of Lord Selborne, and was thus compelled to resign his presidency. Mr. Amphlett, Q.C., was chosen in succession, and he too was taken from the society by elevation to the Bench. Mr. Justice Quain died, and the organisation lost its vitality and ceased to hold meetings.

Lord Selborne, having on a change of Ministry retired from the Chancellorship, two years later returned to the charge with a Bill for incorporating the Inns of Court and establishing a general school of law. The Bill went to a second reading and was withdrawn. The success of a reformer does not so often consist in carrying his particular Bill or resolution, as in compelling or inducing even the enemies of reform to come to its standards.

The Inns, after long opposition, had come, as we have seen, in 1872, to require examination for call to the bar.

Mr. Crackanthorpe was asked whether, after enforced examinations, there were any differences in the ability of those who came to the bar, and frankly replied, "I cannot say that there were. Ability comes to the top at the bar in very curious ways, and it is impossible often to say why a man succeeds at the bar." He was of the opinion, however, that the examinations had an effect in keeping out grossly ignorant people.

There was a lull in the agitation for better legal education until 1891. Then Lord Justice Lindley and Mr. Justice Mathew, of the Council of Legal Education, interested themselves in effecting a reform within the Inns, by which the Inns appointed an increased number of readers, or professors and assistants. Instead of five professors at £1000 a year, there were six full professors at £500 and four assistant readers at £350 a year.

The readers were elected for terms of three years, and were often re-elected. There were many of them eminent persons, having other employment, as Professor Bryce, Mr. Frederick Harrison, and Sir Frederick Pollock. Attendance of students at the lectures is not compulsory, but it aids to pass the examinations and to fit for practice, and is therefore desirable.

Mr. Crackanthorpe reported that at the previous term ninety-two students applied to pass; fifty-seven were passed, and thirty-five rejected. Nothing is asked in the examinations that is not taught at the lectures. Many of the students are attending in barristers' chambers, at the same time paying a hundred guineas for a year's course there. They attend lectures and classes about two hours a day. No one is allowed to attend except he is a member of an Inn of Court, and thus those who seek a knowledge of law as a part of a liberal education, and not for professional purposes, are in the main unjustly excluded. Even a solicitor who wishes to take the lectures with a view to becoming a barrister was excluded, as not a member of any Inn of Court.

In considering the education of the solicitors we must briefly trace the history of the Incorporated Law Society already mentioned. It is a great association of solicitors for mutual benefit, incorporated in 1831. In 1836 they began to examine candidates for admission as solicitors. This power to examine and admit was in the judges, but they used the society to aid them. In 1877, however, by Act of Parliament, power was given the society to examine for itself, aud now, with the assistance of a Master of the Supreme Court, it has entire control. If the society refuses a certificate to any candidate he may appeal to the Master of the Rolis. There are four examinations. First, a preliminary one in general knowledge, including Latin and two foreign languages. These are held

at various points about the country, and are substantially equivalent to an entrance examination, or "little go," at the Universities rather more than equal was the testimony. Various University degrees exempt the candidate from this preliminary. Secondly, there is an intermediate examination in an assigned part of Stephen's Commentaries. Thirdly, a final examination as a test of practical skill, not from books, but upon law generally. Fourthly, on the day but one after the finals examinations for honours are held, which are entirely voluntary, Roughly speaking, about two-thirds of the applicants pass the preliminary, and the rest are postponed; about four-fifths pass the intermediate; as Mr. Pennington, the president of the society, testified, "An articled clerk, with any reasonable amount of attention, ought to be able to pass that examination." And the finals, which are the most important, are passed again by about two-thirds of those who come up to them, so that, of a given lot starting together, only about one-third get through and win the certificates for admission in course.

Up to Oct. 1891 the society maintained a system of lectures and classes for students going up for their finals. The attendance on these declined so far that at last there were only thirteen subscribers for this course, and it was abandoned at the time mentioned.

It was found that the students preferred privately to hire and depend upon tutors or coaches who gave private instruction, and the society concluded to furnish as near as might be the same form of assistance. These tutors seem really to be lecturers, not unlike our own, but instead of giving in the English manner a brief course, and then abandoning the student for months, they give far more continuous and systematic instruction.

The lecturers were highly capable, and often distinguished men, but, as Mr. Pennington said, a tutor taking a student in hand for three years could give much more assistance than a lecturer who sees a man for a few weeks at various intervals during the year.

Tuition begins with a year's instruction, which may be by correspondence, consisting of twenty-four fortnightly letters. The students are required to serve five years as articled clerks, but a university degree reduces the time to three years. Most such clerks begin at seventeen

years of age, and are admitted at twenty-two. The articled clerks serve in solicitors' offices from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. commonly, with a short interval for lunch, and they pay a premium of from 300 to 500 guineas each to the solicitor with whom they are articled.

I have no later figures, but in 1892 Mr. Longbourne, formerly one of the secretaries of the Legal Education Association, testified that there were about 15,000 solicitors practising in England and Wales, nearly 7000 of them in London. There are about 3000 of these articled clerks, and during the preceding year 639 students passed their final examinations and joined the ranks of the solicitors. Evidently the instruction afforded by the new method of the Incorporated Law Society does not do away with the need of private tutoring, for certain London solicitors fill a page of the London LAW TIMES with the advertisement of the advantages which they afford to students seeking to become solicitors, and append lists showing that for a series of years many, and during the last year substantially all, of the considerable honours and prizes of the examinations have been won by their students.

The project of Lord Selborne was in a measure revived in connection with the Royal Commission, headed by Earl Cowper, appointed to consider the framing of a charter for the proposed Gresham University in London which should unite and co-ordinate all great interests and functions having to do with higher education in England in one all-inclusive university teaching every branch of human learning. The commission took the testimony of many eminent persons-lawyers, teachers, and judges— on the subject of legal education in England, and on the continent of Europe, and in this country. The French and German schools were commended for the teaching of administrative law and of political science; but the most unqualified praise seems reserved for the law schools of this country in the matter of preparation for the bar. The Right Hon. James Bryce testified that the plan of systematic teaching of law has proved so successful in the United States that he advocates it positively in England.

Mr. Dicey, Vinerian Professor at Oxford and Queen's Counsel, testified that "the law schools in America possess a reputation which is unlike anything which is possessed by any law school here."

Sir Frederick Pollock, Corpus Christi Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford, declared that "the American law schools have convinced the Profession there that they do teach law in an efficient way-in a way which makes a man not only a better instructed lawyer, but a better practical lawyer." There was no dissent, moreover, from this concurring commendation of our law schools.

Finally, the commission, after two years of investigation and reflection, reported, in 1894, "that the time has now arrived when a more complete system of legal education may be and ought to be established in London; that this is only possible with the concurrence of the Inns of Court; that on reasonable conditions the Inns of Court are likely to co-operate and to open their lectures to the public, reserving to themselves the entire control over the call to the bar, but being ready to accept as a test of theoretical knowledge the degree or certificate of the University." The commission, therefore, propose that the Inns of Court be represented on the governing body of the University. Also that the Incorporated Law Society be represented on the same body. It also recommends that the Law Faculty be constituted with a view to persons studying for either branch of the profession of the law in Great Britain, India, or the Colonies, and equally for persons engaging in the public service, civil or diplomatic, also for persons engaged or about to engage in public life in the administration of public law as members of Parliament, magistrates, &c. Also for persons applying themselves to work of investigation or research in any of the subjects of the faculty. This noble and comprehensive plan, as nearly as can be

learned, is being carried forward by the slow and cautious methods which our "kin beyond sea" always prefer.

It is privately anticipated that Mr. Crackanthorpe will be called on to aid in shaping the final action which will ensure to England a more adequate and a more free and open system of legal education. The commission have outlined a course of legal studies deemed desirable, and proposed a statutory commission for carrying out the scheme submitted. It is believed that Mr. Crackanthorpe will be invited to serve on this commission.

In the meantime the Inns of Court keep on their slightly modernised methods, and the only path to the bar is through their doors. The 17th Nov. 1896 was call night of the Michaelmas Term for all four Inns, and sixty-four students were called to the bar, as against sixty called at the same time last year. CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY. Madison, Wis., 1897.

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND.

[Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months from the date given, unless other claimants sooner appear.]

PHILLIPS (Arthur), 14, St. Ann's-rd. Wandsworth, a minor (now of age), and PHILLIPS (Edward), 6, Devonshire-pl, Wandsworth-rd, gentleman. £52 08. 5d. £2 158. per Cent. Consolidated Stock, late New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimants, said two persons above-named. April 7.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. BERKELEY (Fitzhardinge Capel). The above, who is supposed to be dead, was the son of the late Col. Sydney Augustus Capel, of Ipswich, Suffolk, and Lady Emily Elizabeth Fitzhardinge Capel, his wife, both deceased. He resided formerly with his parents at Ipswich, and went to Australia about May 1864. In May 1875 he is supposed to have been at Bowen, Port Denison, in Queensland, since which time he has not been heard of. Persons claiming to be interested in the estate to which he was entitled under the marriage settlement of his parents to apply, before June 25, to Messrs. Notcutt ahd Son, Ipswich. Any person who can supply evidence of his death will be rewarded.

JENKINSON (Mary), formerly of Marple, Cheshire, late of 30, Fountain-st, Cheethamhill, Lancashire, spinster, who died at Prestwich Workhouse, North Manchester, on Jan. 16, 1897. Her next of kin to apply to the Solicitor for the Treasury, Treasury-chmbrs, Whitehall.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. BOLIVIAN SYNDICATE LIMITED (in voluntary liquidation).-Creditors to send in, by May 10, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. R. Bensusan, 34-36, Broad-st House, Old Broad-st, the liquidator of the syndicate.

MUSICAL ART CLUB COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard April 28, before the Court sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand. S. J. Attenborough, 18, Piccadilly, solicitor for the petitioner. Notices of intention to appear on the hearing of the petition must be signed by the person or firm, or his or their solicitor (if any), and must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock on April 27. MERCANTILE RESTAURANT LIMITED (in voluntary liquidation).-Creditors to send in, by May 12, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. Walton, Portland House, Basinghall-st, one of the liquidators of the company. RADCLIFFE MILL COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 20, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. J. C. Atkins, 19, Queen-st, Oldham, the liquidator of the company. Wrigley, Claydon, and Trustram, 11, Clegg-st, Oldham, solicitors to the liquidator.

REUTER'S INTERNATIONAL AGENCY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by May 8, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. W. Jacob, 19, Farringdon-av, the liquidator of the company. H. H. Price, 3, Arundel-st, Strand, solicitor for the liquidator.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.

LAST DAY OF PROOFS.

HARRIS (Edward), deceased, who formerly carried on business at the Lacock Brewery, Chippenham, Wiltshire, and afterwards resided at Bath. All persons claiming to be entitled to participate in a legacy of £1200 left by the testatrix, Phillis Lee, upon trust for all the creditors of her deceased son, said E. Harris (except Messrs. Tugwell and Co., bankers, Bath, and Mr. Henry Druitt Phillips, of 27, Nicholas-la), rateably and in proportion to the amount which was owing to them respectively at the time of his bankruptcy, to send in, by May 4, the particulars of their claims to Messrs. Withers, Pollock, and Crow, solicitors, Maltravers House, 6, Arundel-st, Strand. May 21; Mr. Justice Romer, at one o'clock.

TAYLOR (Ann), Sparrow's Farm, South Mimms, widow. May 7; W. Osborn Boyes, solicitor, Barnet, Herts. May 18; Mr. Justice Romer, at eleven o'clock.

WADE (John), 1, Regent's-ter, Bournemouth, Hampshire, solicitor. May 4; T. H. Gardiner, solicitor, S, Lincoln's-inn-flds. May 11; Mr. Justice Romer, at eleven

o'clock.

YORKSHIRE BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED.-As to all persons claiming to be holders of mortgage debentures of the company under its then name of the Co-operative Pure Family Beer Association Limited. May 7; at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kekewich. May 14, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. AYLAND (Samuel). Queen's hotel, Llanfairfechan, Carnarvonshire, hotel-keeper. May 7; Boote, Edgar, and Co., solicitors, 20, Booth-st, Manchester. BARTRUM (Joseph), Highfleld, Leigham Court-rd, Streatham, Surrey, gentleman. May 6 Deacon, Gibson, Medcalf, and Goddard, solicitors, 9, Gt. St. Helen's. BROWN (Robert), 17, Chain-st, Reading, Berkshire. May 6; Deacon, Gibson, Medcalf, and Goddard, solicitors, 9, Gt. St. Helen's.

BENNION (Owen), Acton Mill Farm, near Stafford. April 24; Jordan and Pickering, solicitors, Bank-passage, Stafford.

BROADHURST (Godfrey Brooks), Westminster Palace hotel, Victoria-st, formerly of Manchester, gentleman. May 29; Earle, Sons, and Co., solicitors, 54, Brown-st, Manchester.

BRAND (William), 7, Union-ct, Old Broad-st, and of Shanghai, China, merchant. May 22; Trass and Jarmain, solicitors, 25, Coleman-st.

BURNEY (Ernle Kerr Amyatt Amyatt), 16, Chester-sq, a colonel in Her Majesty's army. June 1: F. Richardson and Sadler, solicitors, 28, Golden-sq.

BEAVIS (Richard), 16, Campden-hill-sq. Kensington, artist. May 10; Hyde, Tandy, Mahon, and Sayer, solicitors, 33, Ely-pl.