Page images
PDF
EPUB

the year was between ten and eleven millions, and that capital represented on the average between sixteen and seventeen years' purchase of the gross annual value. Houses, whether private residences or business premises, reached a capital value of nearly twenty-one millions, representing on the average between fourteen and fifteen years' purchase of the gross annual value. Ground and chief rents, feu-duties, and other charges of the like nature amounted to a capital of between two and three millions, being an average of nearly twenty-four years' purchase of their annual value.

The amount of Settlement estate duty paid during the year shows a great increase. This was anticipated in our report of last year. The yield of this duty was £125,720, as compared with £19,680 in 1894-95.

In our report of last year we called attention to the great falling off in the amount of "Personalty situate in the United Kingdom passing by will or intestacy," whether subject to estate duty or to probate duty. The amount of such property in 1894-95 was only £141,421,000, as compared with £159,688,000 in 1893-94. At the same time we combated the notion that this falling off was due mainly to evasion of the duty consequent upon the higher rates imposed by the Finance Act of 1894, The correctness of our contention appears to be borne out by the results of the past year, in which the amount of personalty of this description has once more risen to £162,569,000, being £21,148,000 in excess of 1894-95, and £2,881,000 in excess of 1893-94. These figures show that the fears of evasion, based on the great falling off in the total of this kind of property in 1894-95, were exaggerated. The principle causes of that falling off were the low death-rate of the last-named year and the delay in charging and collecting the duty, inevitably resulting from so complete a revolution in the system of death-duties as that produced by the Act of 1894. This letter influence is still to some extent operative, and it is one reason why the amount of this property paying duty in 1895-96, though greatly in excess of the figures of 1894-95, did not make up for the deficiency which manifested itself in that year. We are, however, far from contending that, even after making every allowance for other causes of diminution, the figures of the two years, taken together, do not indicate it, and that impression is confirmed by other evidence. In our report of last year we said, with reference to this subject:-"It is a safe generalisation that every increase in the rate of a tax is followed by some decrease in the amount of the property, or the articles subject to it. The results of the Finance Act, 1894, will certainly not constitute an exception to this most universal of fiscal experiences. But there is as yet no evidence to show that the new Estate duty is being avoided to a greater extent than was anticipated or allowed for at the time when it was imposed." The experience of another year gives us no reason for modifying this opinion either in one direction or the other.

TEMPLE CHURCH.

[ocr errors]

THE order of the morning service for to-morrow will be as follows: First Lesson, Isaiah i. Second Lesson, 1 Peter ii. v. 11 to chap. iii. v. 8. Versicles, &c. Ferial, pp. 1-3. Te Deum Laudamus: Boyce in A. Jubilate Deo: Boyce in A. Apostles' Creed: Harmonised Monotone, E. J. H., pp. 4 and 5. Preces and Responses: Ferial, pp. 6-8. Anthem : "Comfort ye." (Handel, No, 77, p. 35). Litany and Suffrages: Pages 9-15. Hymn before Sermon: No. 177.

HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. LOCKINGTON (Mary), deceased. Persons claiming to be entitled to the £75 cash in court to the credit of "In the matter of the trusts of the will of Mary Lockington deceased, so far as relates to an annuity of £50 payable to the issue of Thomas Ironmonger, deceased," or a share or proportion thereof, and the persons claiming to be entitled to receive the above-mentioned annuity of £50 or a share or proportion thereof, to come in, by Jan. 8, and prove their claims at the chambers of Mr. Justice Kekewich. Jan. 20, at two o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the claims.

PLATT (William), and Henry PLATT, nephews of Hannah Cook, deceased, if living, or if either of them is dead, then his or their legal personal representatives to come in, by Dec. 23, at the chambers of Mr. Justice North, and prove their claims in the matter of the trusts of the will of the said Hannah Cook. Jan. 8, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. Note. The said W. Platt and H. Platt were the sons of William Platt, who was born at Sunninghill, Berks, in 1765, and died at Winkfield, Berks, in 1853.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. BRITISH ASSOCIATION OF SHARE AND DEBENTURE HOLDERS LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 16, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. P. Mason, 64, Gresham-st, the liquidator of the company.

CARTWRIGHT AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Dec. 24. their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. A. Boothey, 27, Bersham-rd, Wrexham, the liquidator of the company. CHIPPING NORTON TEMPERANCE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT COMPANY LIMITED.Creditors to send in, by Jan. 4, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. S. Pryer, Lee Holt, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, the liquidator of the company. T. Mace, Chipping Norton, solicitor to the liquidator. DIETZ DAVIS AND CO. LIMITED.-Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up subject to the supervision of the court made by Mr. Justice Williams on Nov. 11. Linklater, Addison, Brown, and Jones, 2, Bond-ct, Walbrook, petitioners' solicitors.

INMAN'S YACHT AND SHIPYARD LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Dec. 1, at eleven o'clock, before the County Court sitting at the Court-house, Castle-st, Southampton. Robinson and Jefferis, 3, Gosport-st, Lymington, solicitors for the petitioners. 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 Nov. 30.

LIVE CATTLE IMPORTATION SYNDICATE LIMITED -Creditors to send in, by Dec. 31, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Mr. F. P. Rose, 25, Chesterton-rd, North Kensington, the liquidators of the company. J. A. Maxwell, solicitor to the liquidator.

MULTIPLE INNER SELVAGE MACHINE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Jan. 2, their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to Mr. P. Gregson, 57, Princess-st, Manchester, the liquidator of the company. Sampson and Price, 1, Princess-st, Albert-sq, Manchester, solicitors to the liquidator.

METEOR INCANDESCENT LIGHTING COMPANY LIMITED - Petition for winding-up to be heard Dec. 7, before Mr. Justice Romer, sitting for Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams. Phelps, Sidgwick, and Biddle, 22, Aldermanbury, solicitors for the petitioning company. 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 Dec. 5.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOFS.

HAYWARD (Richard Henry), Marks Barn House, Crewkerne, Somersetshire, gentleman.
Dec. 20: M. F. Tweedie, solicitor, 5, Lincoln's-inn-flds. Jan. 8; Mr. Justice
Chitty, at twelve o'clock.
OVERELL (John). Yardeley, Hertfordshire. Jan. 7; H. A. Phillips, solicitor, 6, Eldon-
st, Finsbury. Jan. 21; Mr. Justice Chitty, at eleven o'clock.
PHILLIPS (John Robert), Trevaughan, near Whitland, Carmarthenshire, gentleman.
Dec. 14: J. Roberts, Registrar of the Pembrokeshire County Court, holden at Nar-
berth. Dec. 17; the registrar aforesaid, at half-past ten o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ARROWSMITH (Sarah), Lime Tree House. Aldridge, near Walsall, Staffordshire, widow. Jan. 1; H. Russell, solicitor, 5, Market-st, Lichfield. ARKWRIGHT (James Charles), Cromford, Derbyshire, gentleman. Jan. 5; Small and Talbot, solicitors, Burton-on-Trent.

ASUWELL (George Thomas), 73, Rivington-st, and of 94, Curtain-rd. Shoreditch, furniture manufacturer. Dec. 2; A. Ashley, solicitor, 9, Charles-sq, Hoxton. ARCHER (Henry James), Rock House, Halberton, Tiverton, Devonshire, gentleman. Dec. 31; Nickinson, Prall, and Nickinson, solicitors. 51. Chancery-la. BLOOR (Louisa Caroline), St. Helier, Leam-ter, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, widow. Dec. 24; J. H. Stubbs, solicitor, 13, Dormer-pl, Leamington. BELLINGHAM (William), formerly of Dalston Distillery. Queen's-rd, Dalston, distiller, late of Knowle, The Drive, Walthamstow, Essex. Dec. 30; J. Brunskill, solicitor, 13. Great James-st, Bedford-row.

BALDOCK (Benjamin), Stanstead Abbots, Hertfordshire, farmer and wood dealer.
Dec. 25; G. H. Gisby. solicitor, Ware, Herts.

BAILEY (Frederick), Burleigh House, Newmarket-rd, Cambridge, gentleman. Dec. 21;
J. F. Symonds, solicitor, 9, Benet-st, Cambridge.
BUSSON DU MAURIER (George Louis Palmella), 17, Oxford-sq, gentleman. Jan. 5;
Harwood and Stephenson, solicitors, 31, Lombard-st.

BRAID (Alexander). Rose Cottage. 11, Hadassah-grove, Toxteth Park, Liverpool, gentleman. Dec. 28; Hill, Dickinson, and Co., solicitors, 10, Water-st, Liverpool.

BOTTOM (Mary), Newmarket, All Saints, Cambridgeshire, widow. Dec. 19; d'Albani and Ellis, solicitors, Newmarket.

BOREHAM (Jane Chalklen), the Mount, Haverhill, Essex, widow. Dec. 12; C. H. Vincent, solicitor, 20, High-st, Haverhill, Suffolk.

BOXER (Ann Elizabeth), Willowmoor, Stodart-rd, Penge, Surrey, widow. Jan. 4; Anderson and Sons, solicitors, 17, Ironmonger-la, Cheapside.

BROWN (Eliza Ann), High-rd, Leytonstone, Essex, widow. Dec. 18; Maples, Teesdale, and Co., solicitors, 6, Frederick's-pl, Old Jewry.

BRITNELL (Cranley), Athol Villa, 24, Aberdeen-pl, St. John's Wood.

Dec. 29; Inder

maur, Clark, and Parker, solicitors, 1, Devonshire-ter, Portland-pl. BARON (Alice), 147, Oldham-rd, Manchester. Dec. 24; E. Heath and Sons, solicitors, 48, Swan-st, Manchester. CASTLE (Henry Thomas), Newport, Isle of Wight, gentleman, doctor of medicine, justice of the peace for the borough of Newport. Dec. 21; James Eldridge and Sons, solicitors, Newport, Isle of Wight.

CLEARY (Catherine). Convent of Sion, Chepstow-pl, Rayswater, formerly of 23. Upper Gardiner-st, Dublin, spinster. Dec. 17; Wastell and Ruddock, solicitors, Eldon

chmbrs, 30, Fleet-st.

CALF (William), City Bank, Tottenham Court-rd Branch, bank manager. Dec. 7; Foster, Spicer, and Foster, solicitors, 7, Queen-st-pl.

COLQUHOUN (Elizabeth Ann), Morbriggs, Lytham, Lancashire, wife of Peter Colquhoun, married woman, having separate estate. Dec. 21; J. H. Lea, solicitor, 8, Sussex-st, Manchester.

Dec.

DASTON (Samuel James), Coach and Horses, Ealing Dan, licensed-victuallers. 12; Ruston, Clark, and Ruston, solicitors, High-st, Rrentford. DAVIDS (Mary), Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, widow. Dec. 1; Burton and Son, solicitors, 2, King-st, Great Yarmouth.

EVANS (Thomas), 111, Sewerby-st, Moss Side, near Manchester, milk dealer. Dec. 15; Stuart and Travers, solicitors, 14, Brown-st, Manchester.

EVANS (Fanny), Highfleld, Aldridge-rd, Perry Barr, Staffordshire, wife of Robert Lloyd Evans, tobacconist. Dec. 31; F. M. Burton, solicitor, Warwick-chmbrs, 16A, Corporation-st, Birmingham.

FRANCIS (Frederick John). St. Michael's Vicarage, Lower Sydenham, and of Palmerston-bldgs, Old Broad-st, formerly of 14, Warwick-cres, Paddington. Jan. 7; Thrupp and Chidell, solicitors, 89, New Bond-st.

FAVELL (Thomas), George-st, Sheffield, wine and spirit merchant, trading as Thomas Favell and Co. Feb. 1; Broomhead, Wightman, and Moore, solicitors, George-st, Sheffield,

FOXHALL (John), 22. Turin-st, Bethnal Green. Dec. 20; A. Double, solicitor, 25 and 27, Jewin-cres, Cripplegate.

GRAY (Frederick), Greyhound inn, Weston Green, Thames Ditton, Surrey, licensed victualler. Dec. 19; Durham and Carter, solicitors, Kingston-on-Thames, Surrey. GRAY (Matthew), the Willows, West Hartlepool, Durham, steel and iron manufacturer. Dec. 19; S. H. Belk, solicitor, Commercial-bldgs, West Hartlepool. GLASSE (William Bulkeley). Chettle, Dorsetshire, gentleman, Q.C. Jan. 1; CollyerBristow, Russell, Hill, and Co., solicitors, 4, Bedford-row.

GRASETT (Charles), Allensmore Vicarage, Herefordshire, gentleman. Jan. 4; Lovell, Son, and Pitfield, solicitors, 3, Gray's-inn-sq.

HEATON (William), Rotherham, Yorkshire, brassfounder. Jan. 5; Oxley and Coward, solicitors, Rotherham. Jan. 4;

HODSON (Anthony), 20, Ewart-rd, Seaforth, Lancashire chief engineer.

Watts and Carr, solicitors, 13, Investment-bldgs, 65, Lord-st, Liverpool. HOSKING (Richard), Brook Cottage, Madron, Cornwall, accountant, formerly of Bayview-ter, Penzance. Dec. 31; Frythall and Bodilly, solicitors, Penzance. HILL (Theodosia), Hemswell, Lincolnshire, widow. Jan. 21; Iveson and Son, solicitors, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. Dec. 22; J. M.

HAWTHORN (Mary), 1, Ruskin-st, Liverpool, Lancashire, widow.
Quiggin and Brothers, solicitors, 8, Harrington-st, Liverpool.
ISAACS (Alexander), 111, Highbury New Park, gentleman.

Dec. 31; Bentwich,

Watkins, Williams, and Co., Corporation-chmbrs, Guildhall-yd. JAMES (William), 14, William-st, Booth-st, Handsworth, Staffordshire, labourer. Dec. 7; T. E. Silvester, solicitor, 8, Church-st, Birmingham. KERSEY (Harry), 13, Plumstead-rd, Plumstead, Kent, upholsterer. Dec. 23; Watts and Habershon, solicitors, 29 and 30, Green's-end, Woolwich. LANGHORNE (Mary Ann), Bawtry, Yorkshire, widow, formerly carrying on business at Bawtry, with James Rumble, as wine and spirit merchants, under the style or firm of Langhorne and Rumble. Dec. 18; Kenyon and Son, solicitors, Thorne, via Doncaster.

LANCEFIELD (Ann Maria). Priory Villa, West Cliff-rd, Ramsgate, Kent, widow. Jan. 1; 0. and A. Daniel, solicitors, 1, Effingham-st, Ramsgate.

LUDLAM (Benjamin), 110, Wilmslow-rd, Withington, Lancashire, butcher. Nov. 28; Sampson and Price, solicitors, 1, Princess-st, Albert-sq, Manchester.

LUMLEY (Isabella Anne), Ripon, Yorkshire, widow. Jan. 1; S. Wise and Son, solicitors, 77, North-st, Ripon.

MILLER (Harriett Sarah), Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, spinster. Dec. 1; Burton and Son, solicitors, 2, King-st, Great Yarmouth.

McCoy (Thomas), 196, Brooke-rd, Upper Clapton. Dec. 20; A. Double, solicitor, 25 and 27, Jewin-cres, Cripplegate.

MACKINTOSH (Charlotte), Bloxham, Oxfordshire, widow. Dec. 17; Stockton and Sons, solicitors, Banbury,

MILLINGTON (Ann), Dollman-st, Vauxhall, Birmingham, Warwickshire, widow. Dec. 15; F. Baildon Wright, solicitor, 5, Union-st. Birmingham.

MOON (Elizabeth), Gwy's Cliffe, Deganwy, Carnarvonshire, widow. Jan. 1; Chamberlain and Johnson, solicitors, Llandudno. MCDONNELL (John), 7, Nicholas-st, Burnley, Lancashire, cabinetmaker.

Dec. 22; J. C. Waddington, solicitor, Imperial-chmbrs, 2, Grimshaw-st, Burnley. NORRIS (Robert), 20, Carburton-st, Great Portland-st, Marylebone, formerly cab proprietor. Jan. 18; W. T. Boydell, solicitor, 1, South-sq. Gray's-inn. NEGRIN (Elia Joseph), 253, Cheetham Hill-rd, and carrying on business as a commission agent at 2, South-st, both in Manchester. Dec. 31; Holt and Risque, solicitors, 25, Booth-st, Manchester.

CWEN (Ann), Pen-y-Gwryd hotel, Pen-y-Gwyrd, Carnarvonshire, hotel keeper, Jan. 1; the administrator at the Pen-y-Gwryd hotel. Bremner, Sons, and Corlett, solicitors, 1. Crosshall-st, Liverpool.

O'CONNELL (William Bligh). Clifton House, Woking, Surrey. Jan. 1; Nisbet, Daw, and Nisbet, solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-flds."

PIPER (Jane), Grove House, 13, Southville-pl, Bristol, widow. Dec. 31; H. C. A. Day, solicitor, 59, Broad-st, Bristol.

PARKER (Emma). 38, Cox-st. St. Paul's-sq. Birmingham, Warwickshire, widow. Dec. 20: E. Westwood, solicitor, 36, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham.

RIDGE (William Heale), Wedmore, Somersetshire, saddler. Dec 31 J. C. Smith, solicitor, Wedmore. Somerset.

SMITH (John), Watlands Cottage, Wolstanton, Staffordshire, gentleman. Dec. 31; R. Urry, solicitor, Pride Hill-chmbrs, Shrewsbury.

SIKES (Harriet Hirst), Birkby Lodge, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, spinster. Dec. 19; Laycock, Dyson, and Laycock, solicitors, Huddersfield.

SHAKESHAFT (Thomas), 18, Seymour-st, Tranmere, Cheshire. Dec. 21; T. Pugh, solicitor, 9, Duncan-st, Birkenhead.

SHAW (Elizabeth), Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leicestershire, spinster. Dec. 25; Smith, Mammeth, Hale, and Quarrell, solicitors, Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

SHEPLEY (James), 90, Belgrave-rd, Oldham, Lancashire, gentleman. Dec. 18; C. Clegg, solicitor, 10, Clegg-st, Oldham.

SANDERSON (Rev. Robert Nicholas), Wyverstone, Suffolk, clerk in holy orders. Dec. 1; Haywards and Peecock, solicitors, Stowmarket.

SPRECKLEY (Eliza). Sunnyside, Bathford, Somersetshire, widow. Jan. 2; Maule and Robertson, solicitors, 7, Northumberland-bldgs. Bath.

STERN (Julius), 14, Old Change, and of 1 and 3, Carter-la, and Temple-chmbs, Temple avenue. Jan. 8; Emanuel, Round, and Nathan, solicitors, 26, Walbrook. TAYLOR (Ann), Oak-villas, Stockport-rd, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, widow. Dec. 31; Brooks, Marshall, and Co., solicitors, 97, Stamford-st, Ashton-underLyne.

WARD (John), Brightlingsea, retired oyster merchant. Dec. 19; Wittey and Denton, solicitors, Colchester.

WESTCOTT (George). Aisholt, Somersetshire, coachman. Nov. 28; F. W. Bishop, solicitor, High-st, Bridgwater.

WARHAM (John), Fern Cottage, Rhode Heath, Cheshire. Dec. 16; F. S. Waddington, solicitor, 11, Poultry.

COMMERCIAL FAILURES AND BILLS OF SALE.-According to Stubbs' Weekly Gazette, the number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending the 21st Nov. was 148. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 153, showing a decrease of 5. The number of bills of sale in England and Wales, registered at the Queen's Bench for the week ending the 21st Nov. was 152. The number in the corresponding week of last year was 151.

UNION SOCIETY OF LONDON.

:

66

THE Society met at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall on Wednesday evening, the 25th inst., Mr. Sidney W. Clarke in the chair. After the reading of the minutes and the disposal of private business, Mr. Robert Brown brought forward the motion on the agenda paper, viz., "That advocacy of spiritualism is to be condemned." Speakers: for the motion, Messrs. Brown, Glasgow, Copeland, and Willson against the motion, Messrs. Kinipple and Arnold. The motion was carried. The society will meet at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall, 3 (North) King's Bench Walk, on Wednesday evenings, Dec. 2, 9, and 16 at eight o'clock. The following are the subjects for debate: For Dec. 2, That the House rejoices in the prospect of a political separation between the Church of England and the Conservative party;" opener, Mr. Arthur J. Price. For Dec. 9, "That, in the opinion of this House, private property shall be exempted from capture at sea; opener, Mr. Haythorne Reed. For Dec. 16, "That the Government ought not to withdraw from the occupation of Egypt; opener, Mr. W. C. Copeland. The Hon. Secretary will be obliged if members will enter subjects for debate in the book provided for that purpose. Members of the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, the Juridical Society of London, the Historical Society of Dublin, and the Speculative Society of Edinburgh are elected without ballot.

[ocr errors]

PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS.

Information intended for publication under the above heading should reach us not later than Thursday morning in each week, as publication is otherwise delayed.

Mr. MURPHY, Q.C., has been elected Treasurer of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple for the ensuing year, in succession to Mr. Hopwood, Q.C.

Mr. P. C. Gates, Q.C., has been elected Treasurer of the Inner Temple for the ensuing year, in succession to his Honour Judge Waddy, Q.C.

Mr. INDERWICK, Q.C., has been appointed Master of the Inner Temple Library for the ensuing year.

Mr. HARVEY CASTLEMAN CURRY, of the firm of Messrs. Mills and Curry, of 11, Queen Victoria-street, E.C., has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Curry was admitted in 1887.

Mr. JAMES SYKES, of the the firm of Armitage, Sykes, and Hinchcliffe, Huddersfield, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oath s. Mr. Sykes was admitted in 1889.

Mr. WALTER H. DAY, of 42, Earl-street, Maidstone, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths. Mr. Day was admitted a solicitor in July 1890.

LAW SOCIETIES.

BARRISTERS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. THE general meeting of this association will be held in the Middle Temple Hall, on Tuesday, the 1st Dec., at half-past four o'clock in the afternoon; the Attorney-General., M.P., G.C.M.G., in the chair. All members of the Inns of Courts are invited to attend. The following twenty members of the association are eligible and willing to serve on the committee of management for the ensuing year: - The Trustees, ex officio; the Attorneys-General, past and present, ex officio; the Solicitors-General, past and present, ex officio; Mr. Arthur R. Jelf, Q.C.; Mr. John Shiress Will, Q.C.; Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore, Bart., D.C.L.; Mr. Edward Cutler, Q.C.; Sir Harry B. Poland, Q.C.; Mr. C. E. H. Chadwyck Healey, Q.C.; Mr. Ernest Laurence Levett, Q.C.; Mr. James Perronet Aspinall, Q.C.; Mr. Vernon Russell Smith, Q.C.; Mr. Thomas Rolls Warrington, Q.C.; Mr. Matthew Ingle Joyce; Mr. Sefton W. Strickland; Mr. Henry Sutton; Mr. F. W. Hollams; Mr. Henry B. Hans Hamilton; Mr. Boydell Houghton: the Hon. Alfred Lyttleton, M.P.; Mr. John F. P. Rawlinson; Lord Robert Cecil; and Mr. Edward Boyle. His Honour judge Snagge and Mr. Henry Davidson will be proposed for re-election as auditors for the ensuing year.

UNITED LAW SOCIETY.

THE Society met at the Inner Temple Lecture Hall on Monday, the 23rd inst; Mr. C. W. Williams taking the chair. Mr. P. H. Edwards opened a debate on the motion, "That it is the duty of England to offer her services to the contending parties in Cuba, for the purpose of mediation and arbitration." Mr. C. Kains-Jackson opposed, and the subsequent speakers were Messrs. R. E. Noble, C. Herbert Smith, H. C. Hamilton, A. W. Marks, W. M C. Burnett, H. E. W. Grant, N. Tebbutt, A. H. Richardson, and R. M. Begg. On the division which followed, the motion was carried by one vote. The subject for debate at the next meeting of the society is, "That it is desirable to further amend the Company Laws in the direction of greater stringency as against promoters, directors, and other officers."

CORRESPONDENCE.

This department being open to free discussion on all Professional topics, the Editor does not hold himself responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it.

PROBATES OF WILLS.-In his letter to the LAW TIMES last week, Mr. Thomas Cousins raises a number of theoretical objections to the engrossment of probates in bookwise form. I am able, however, to affirm, from actual experience, that not only do no "insuperable practical objections exist to that form of probate, but that it is of great utility, besides having the great advantage of the will being so much more legible. Some years ago I had to prove a lengthy will at the principal registry, the estate being a large one, there being several trustees, and the estate not being finally divisible for many years. It occurred to me that it would be convenient to have the probate in book wise form, printed, and after a few interviews with the registrar he agreed to seal the probate in that form. The copy of the will was accordingly printed on parchment, with a wide stitching margin, and the seal, at my suggestion, was affixed so as to fold between the last two leaves neatly. Ample space was left on the last page (or skin) for all the company registration stamps. When the probate was obtained from Somerset House, it was neatly bound in purple leather (gold lettered "Probate of the will of," &c.), with about thirty blank parchment skins of the same size following the probate, and when the estate accounts were made up, debts and duty paid, and money invested, a list of the investments, cash, &c., was engrossed on the first of these skins, showing the precise estate subject to the trusts; and all subsequent changes of investment, the original deeds appointing new trustees, receipts and releases, &c., were engrossed in order of date on the following skins. I may add that a printed paper copy, similarly, but more plainly, bound (with marginal notes to the will added), were supplied to every trustee, and the accounts and deeds, &c., copied on the following sheets from time to time so as to be a true copy of the original. Another printed copy of the will was supplied to every cestui que trust and legatee. I think the facts above stated meet all Mr. Cousins's objections, and may possibly suggest to solicitors a few things worth remembering for future use. GEO. GODFREY.

With reference to the paragraph in a recent issue of the LAW TIMES, the senior registrar of the principal probate registry informs me, in answer to my inquiry, that wills engrossed bookwise are constantly brought into the registry and have for many years been allowed to pass in that form. Care, however, must be taken to leave sufficient room for the seal. ROBERT GREENING.

[blocks in formation]

(Q. 9.) COMBINED RECEIPT AND CHEQUE.-This query is one of a good deal of interest, as I understand that some persons do act as alleged, and even go so far as to put a penny receipt stamp on a cheque, which is quite unnecessary, as the Stamp Acts carefully provide that a document which is properly stamped for the purpose for which it was drawn requires no further stamping because it is used for another purpose. indorsement is a receipt for the money no one, I suppose, will deny. ARTHUR M. SMITH.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

That an

SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES AT THE INTERMEDIATE

EXAMINATION.-NOVEMBER 1896.

THE following 180 candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the Intermediate Examination held on the 5th Nov. 1896:

Adam, Ernest Addington

Allen, Charles Royle

Ansell, John Manley

Archer, Charles D. W.

Armstrong, Charles Guy
Backhouse, Thos. James G.
Balmer, Arthur

Barker, John Henry
Baster, Philip Wellesley
Bate, Richard

Bath, Robert

Bell, Tom George
Blake, Charles Henry B.
Bonsall, Arthur Edward
Boocock, Herbert

Boucher, George Herbert
Bracewell, James
Bradish, Henry Bell
Brown, Herbert W., B.A.
Bryden, Charles John
Bugler, Richard William
Butler, Francis Noel
Charles, Henry Pendri J.
Clelland, Alfred James
Cobbett, Henry James
Cole, Ebenezer Vincent
Cole, Sanford Darley
Collier, Edward Ernest
Crecrar, Alfred

Crook. Algernon
Cross, Ambrose Betham
Crozier. Henry Darley
Cryer, Thomas Ely
Davis, David

Dawes, Frank

Dickson. Vincent Hamilton
Dixon, Ernest Thomas

Dorte, Pierre F. J. D.

Dutton, Harry

Eastwood. Charles

Edwards, Wm. Richard
Ellis. Ernest H. R., B.A,
Entwistle, Frederick
Fairfield, James
Ferguson. Robert
Fisher, Alfred S., B.A.
Fisher, Henry James
Forbes, Walter James
Ford, Francis Walter
Foster, George Edward
Fraser, Wallace
Gamlin, Hubert James
George, William Saville
Gepp, Henry Hamilton
Gepp, Nicholas Melvil
Goffey, Arthur

Greig, William Fairchild
Grellet, Ernest Hanscombe
Griffith, G. de Gorrequer
Griffiths, Rhys David

Grundy, Charles Sydney
Guedaila, Florance M.
Hall, Frederick Ernest
Hall, John, B.A.

Harrison, Godfrey Denis
Harvey, Ernest Gillmore
Haydon, Richard Evelyn B.
Hodgkinson, Francis A. L.
Hodgson, George E., B.A.
Hope, John Percival
Hunt, John
Ingram, Robert
Jackson, Walter Francis
Jeffries, Herbert
Jones, John Colenso
Keeling, Charles
Kent, William John
Kidgell, John Henry H.
King, William Byatt
Kingswell, William Henry
Kirkconnel, Harold
Kitching, Arthur
Knight, Moreton Laing
Lamb, John

Landon, Francis Palmer
Laughton, Reginald James
Laundy, Arthur Philip
Lees, Arthur
Lewis, Charles David
Lewis, Reginald B. S.
Linton, Frederick
Lobeby, Reginald Arthur
Lowe, Douglas George
Lowenthal, Sidney, B. A.
Mabane, Alfred Victor
MeBayne, Francis G. E.
Me Millin, William A.
Manisty, Edward A., B.A.
Marston, Charles Beale
Marston, Frederic Milward
Mason, Guy Wilbar
Mason, John Richard
Mather, George Palin
Maunsell, Frederick B. L.
Meaden, Louis
Millward, Thomas
Moore, Arthur Harry, B.A.
Moore, John
Mourilyan, Walter E. I.
Nash, Frank Beddoes
Nash, Leonard Rupert
Neale, Charles Goodall
Neumann, Sydney C. T.
Newton, Harold
Norris, William
Nuttall, George Ernest
Oldfield, Norman
Ord, William Henry
Peace, Charles Ernest
Pearson, Thomas Edward

Peerozshaw, Noshirwan
Pemberton, Charles Hubert
Penley, Richard H., B.A.
Piper, Harry Burt
Piper, Robert Frederick
Pleadwell, William M.
Porter, John Copestake
Purser, Henry
Read, Wallace
Revis, Leonard Henry
Risdon, Frank
Robertson, Edwin F.
Robertson, Wm. W., B.A.
Robinson, John Henry W.
Robinson, John Jas., B. A.
Rolt, Frederick Alfred
Rushworth, Albert Lincoln
Rump, Frederic

Russell, Geoffrey William
Sankey, Wilfrid Vincent
Saunders, Griffith
Saunders, Percy
Shipton, William John
Singleton, Charles Copley
Smith, Clitherow
Smith, Herbert George
Smith, James Robert
Smith, Percy James
Stephenson, Harry
Stone, John Penn
Stott, John Horace
Sugden, James William
Sutcliffe, Walter Francis
Sutherland, John James
Sutton, Francis
Teek, Henry Comer, B.A.
Thompson, Henry Doudney
Thomson, Arthur R, B. A
Thorn, Henry Gilbert Alex.
Thornhill, Henry Langton
Thorp, William Tudor S.
Thorpe, Henry

Tucker, John Michael
Turner, William Triggs S.
Turton, Thomas Alfred
Upton, Archer M., B.A.
Vowles, Henry Hayes
Waller, George Albert
Warburton, Richard E.
Ward, Cecil Wellesley
Watson, Charles Bailey
Watson, Reginald Eric
Wells, Halifax Vyvyan
Whiskin, Alfred Edward
Whittingham, Joseph P.
Whittuck, Charles Fredk.
Williams, Frederick Geo.
Willis, William Gravely W.
Wilson, Joseph Charles
Winser, Joseph Croydon.

SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES AT THE FINAL
EXAMINATION.-NOVEMBER 1896.

THE following 160 candidates (whose names are in alphabetical order) were successful at the Final Examination, held on the 3rd and 4th Nov. 1896:

Aarons, Frank Henry
Aldridge, Percy Sutton
Andrew, William Stobo
Ashe, St. George
Atkins, Arthur Shirley
Atkins, George James M.
Balleine, Francis E., B.A.
Barnes, James

Bate, Launcelot Brabant
Baxter, Reginald T., B.A.
Beesly, Alfred

Berry, Herbert John
Besch, John George Q.
Bindloss, William, M.A.
Blackford, Charles
Boyce, Reginald John
Bradbury, Charles Alfred
Bradley, William James
Brook, Evan Edwin
Brown, George Fowler C.
Button, Alick James Sewell
Bygott, Edward
Castle, William
Chilver, Arthur F., B.A.
Clemesha, Henry W., M. A.
Clogg, William Edgar
Close, Charles Harold
Collis, Harry Neild, B.A.,
LL.B.

Copland, William S.
Cotman, Leonard, B.A.
Cox, Thomas Allard
Crabtree, James Fox, B. A.
Crewe, Charles William
Dauncey, Richard
Lavies, R. (Dolwyddelan)
Davies, Robert (Carnarvon)
Dawson, Maurice John
Dobell, Maurice Horace W.
Dodsbon, Edwin, LL.B.
Dowson, Bernard Withers
Drew, Cecil Lancelot
Earengey, William George
Eastham, Thomas
Edwards, Martin George
Ekin, Charles, B.A.
Elias, William P., B.A.
Farquhar, J. E. M., B.A.
Field, Arthur S, B.A.
Francis, Herbert
Giles, Harry Ross
Godfree, George Stanley
Godwin, Walter P., B.A.
Grotrian, Harold H., B.A.

G., Parker, John Clement, B.A. Perham, Hamlyn Horwood Peskett, William D'Arcy Pfahl, Harry

Hadfield, Heywood B.A., LL.B. Haigh, Hubert Hall-Smith, James Hardy, Howard Meredith Harford, Andrew A. Hargrove, Herbert Havers, Arthur C., B.A. Havers, Thomas Gerald Heaton, Robert Hepton, Herbert C. Hick. Herbert Hill, Herbert Woodroffe Hilleary, Edward L., B.A. Hird, James William Holdsworth, Charles Stork Holt, Harry Holt, Ronald Law Holtby, Thomas Huntsman, Edmund Hyde, Francis Garmston Jacob, John Reginald Jones, Harold Vivian Jones, John Evans Langworthy, Geoffrey P. Layton, Reginald George Leadley-Brown, J. B., B.A. Le Fleming, Edward R. Ley, Roland Howell, B.A. Lickorish, Austin Aloysius Livsey, George, LL B. Lodge, James William Lucas, Samuel Marlor, Fred Marriott, John R., B.A. Marsden, William H. Mills Martinez-Danson, R. John Mathews, Frederick John Matthews, Guy Maye, Jeffery Bowden Meller, Thomas Mennell, George Henry Metcalfe, Reginald Milner, James Henry Mitchell, John Petty Moon, Richard Horace Mordle, Percy Morris, C. Haigh, B.A. Morrison, Syduey Bruce Moss, William James Mumford, Harry George Nelson, Horatio W., B.A. Newall, Walter Oates, Arthur

Piesse, Montagu
Pryce, Frederick Heath
Pryce, William Edward
Ram, Willett

Ramsay, Herbert A. H.
Raper, William A. C.
Reade, Henry Lister
Roberts, Arthur Edward
Robinson, Charles
Robinson, Clement C.
Robinson, John Henry
Robinson, Roger H., B.A.
Rodway, Rowland Henry
Rose, William Hugh
Russell, Robert Stanley
Salt, Isaac Harold
Salt, Thomas F., B.A.
Schroeter, Frank Julius
Schwann, Edward Bagehot
Searl, Percy Bruce
Sharman, Arthur Frank
Shearman, Frederick B.
Shimeld, Christopher W.
Simpson, Francis Joseph
Singleton, Alfred Henry
Smith, Harry Swayne
Smith, Percy Hazell
Stevens, Frank Herron
Sturton, Arthur Jacob
Tanner, George Frederic
Taylor, Frederick George
Thomas, Peregrine
Thorne, Arthur
Tolhurst, Francis Joseph
Trangmar, Herbert E.
Vinall, Hugh John
Wade, W. M., B.A., LL.B.
Wah, Wei on, B.A.
Waller, Percy George
Wallhead, Sidney

| Walmsley. Arnold B. Warren, Herbert George Weld, Francis Joseph Westcot, William Leonard Whittington, George Wilkinson, Claud

Williams, Edward Taunton Williams, Richard Gilbert Wood, Francis Cecil John Young, Edward, B.A.

BURNLEY AND DISTRICT LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. -THE LICENSING QUESTION.

ON the 5th inst., Mr. W. Mackenzie, barrister-at-law, gave a lecture to the members of the above society on "The Licensing Question." Mr. T. Nowell (Borough Justices' Clerk) presided, and amongst many members were Mr. Fullalove (Town Clerk of Burnley), Mr. R. M. Prescott (Town Clerk of Nelson), Messrs. R. Baldwin, W. Bollard, H. Bulcock, A. B. Clarke, E. F. P. Emmett, A. L. Garnett, J. S. Kay, T. B. Nowell, J. C. Pollard, A. E. Pollard, R. Proctor, T. H. Roberts, T. E. Rodgers, T. G. Sandy, jun., F. W. Steele, C. Thornton and P. H. Woodhouse (solicitors), and Messrs. W. Bunting, H. Collinge, H. Ogden, J. K. Pickup (Secretary), H. Riley, F. Roberts, A. Shaw, T. Snowden and L. Taylor (articled clerks).

At the outset the Hon. Secretary (Mr. J. K. Pickup) read the minutes of the last meeting and letters regretting inability to attend from the Mayor of Burnley (Alderman Collinge, J.P.), the Hon. Philip J. Stanhope, M.P., Judge Gates, Q.C., Mr. H. G. Shee, Q.C. (Recorder of Burnley) and Mr. J. O. S. Thursby, J.P. (Bank Hall, Burnley, and Lincoln's-inn).

Mr. Mackenzie said :-The Licensing Question is perennial. From the earliest times it has engaged the attention of the Legislature. The question is still unanswered and the problem is still unsolved. It is admitted on all hands to be more complicated and more difficult to deal with than any other question of modern politics. The secret of this is that it affects human nature. Most political questions do not affect human nature at all. The management of our highways, the establishment of parish councils and county councils, the extension of the franchise, even the disestablishment of the Church-all these questions do not touch human nature, or, if they do, they only touch its fringe. But it is otherwise with the liquor question. Intoxicating liquor affects man's taste; it is or has been regarded as part of his food. He has used it for generations and centuries. It is bound up in the national life and national sentiments of this country. The national sentiments have not sprung up in a night. They have been forming for ages. Each day has contributed something. The great river of social life, ever flowing onward, has been constantly fed by the tributaries of necessity, appetite, fashion, vanity, caprice, and imitation. Man is a bundle of habits. With some, it is true, life is mere routine, a round of conventionalities; literally, one day telleth another." With others, each day is a reality, has its fresh place, is a rational item in the account of life. To these, nothing is without its meaning; there is a definiteness, a precision about its hours of action, of thought, of diversion, of ministering to the bodily claims of sustenance by eating and drinking. Around the latter, social life has fearfully encircled itself. The world was, and still is, "on hospitable thoughts intent." The

[ocr errors]

so shall

way

latter days are but a repetition of the former. "As it was . it be also. They did eat, they drank." I have often thought that it is because sufficient attention has not been paid to the great part human nature plays on this problem that so many of the legislative provisions have proved failures. But I do not intend to enlarge on this branch of the subject this evening. I propose to glance at the past legislation on the subject to see what view our forefathers took of it; then to give a summary of existing legislation; and then to glance just for a moment at the Licensing Laws of other countries. A French philosopher, in a preface to his new work on Philosophy, once wrote: "I am desirous of treating philosophy in a manner which is not philosophical." In the same way I desire this evening to treat this legal subject in a which is not legal-not that I intend or wish to treat it in an illegal or indecent way. Mr. Nowell will see to that; but I do not intend to explain the complex provisions of the Licensing Acts, or to expound the decisions of the courts of law. On another occasion, and in a different character, I should be only too pleased to do so. But this evening I only intend to place before you a bird's-eye view of what has been and of what is the law on this vexed question. This may the better enable you to form a correct view of the problem itself and its solution. In these observations I rely upon the legislation of the period as an index to the social condition of the people rather than on the observations of gossipy chroniclers-the inhabitants of monasteries and others. You all remember the dialogue in Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe" : "An please your reverence," said Dennet, "a drunken priest came to visit the sacristan at St. Edmund's." "It does not please my reverence," answered the churchman, "that there should be such an animal as a drunken priest, or, if there were, that a layman should so speak of him. Be mannerly, my friend, and conclude the holy man only wrapped in meditation, which makes the head dizzy and the feet unsteady, as if the stomach were filled with new wine. I have felt it myself." That is just it. Our individual observation is often what we want it to be. But when, in the Chronicles of Parliament, you get the expressed opinion of the Legislature, you have what is really the reflected opinion of the people of the country; whereas, with the medieval chronicler, looking sometimes through his own spectacles, he gives you either his own personal observations or the information he derives from friends. On this account I propose to rely for the most part on what is to be found in the Statutebook itself. Looking into the Statute-book, what a strange medley presents itself! During the past four hundred years nearly every possible remedy has been tried. Free trade in licences, local option, limiting the number of public-houses in towns and populous places, the granting of licences in the absolute discretion of competent tribunals, punishing the licensee for a breach of the law, punishing the drunkard, punishing both licensee and drunkard-everything, indeed, has been tried at one time or another, save prohibition and prohibition only. At one time or another they have either been pronounced to be failures, or have been considered to be not the most satisfactory means of carrying out the objects they had in view. And now the "strongest Ministry of modern times" feel themselves unable to suggest a remedy, and have appointed a Royal Commission to find one if they can. Referring to the Statute-book, we find that the earliest general Act on the subject of licensing was passed in 1495 (11 Hen. 7, c. 2). But long before this there were provisions on the subject. Even during the Heptarchy there was a regulation as to drinking booths in Wessex. During the early Norman period numerous assizes or ordinances were issued. One of the more famous ones was the Assize of Bread and Ale, passed in 1266, the punishment for offending against which was, for a baker, the pillory, and for a brewer the tumbrel. But in 1495 we find the first general Act. It is an Act directed against Vagabonds and Beggars, and amongst its provisions it empowers justices to suppress the common selling of ale in all towns and places where they should think convenient, and to take security of the keepers of alehouses for their good behaviour. In the same statute there is also a provision that no servant, labourer, or artificer was to play at any illegal game, except at Christmas time. Thus early it was found necessary in some measure to regulate the conduct of ale houses, and the large powers entrusted to the justices to suppress what houses they thought fit, clearly establishes the fact that much annoyance was caused by the loose way in which such houses were conducted. The remedy here provided was of little avail, Some fifty years later, in the reign of Edward VI. (5 & 6 Ed. 6, c 25), the abuse of intoxicating liquors had led to much drunkenness and public disorder. A further attempt was now made to remedy the evil. The Act states that "Intolerable hurts and troubles to the commonwealth of this realm doth daily grow and increase through such abuses and disorders as are had and used in common alehouses, and other houses called tippling-houses." The Act gave full power to justices of the peace to " remove, discharge, and put away common selling of ale and beer in alehouses and tippling-houses," wherever the justices shall think meet and convenient. No one was, in future, to be allowed to keep an alehouse or tippling-house without a licence from the justices, and without having previously entered into a bond to maintain good order and rule, under a penalty of twelve pence. These two Acts are very much alike, the latter being the more stringent of the two. It is curious that now, 400 years later, practically the same provisions exist. These Acts of 1495 and 1552 confer on justices a discretion as to the granting or refusing of alehouse licences, and under the Acts now in force the justices have much the same discretion. In the following year, 1553 (7 Ed. 6, c. 5), another provision was introduced with regard to the consumption of wines. The Act was "for the avoiding of many inconveniences, much evil rule and common resort of misruled persons made and frequented in many taverns of late, newly set up in very great numbers in back lanes, corners and suspicious places within the City of London, and in divers other towns and villages within the realm." The Act accordingly provided that no one who was not the eldest son of a duke, marquis, earl,

viscount or baron, or who was not possessed of a certain yearly income, could keep more than ten gallons of French wines "to the intent to spend or drink the same in his or her house by any colour or means." The number of places to be licensed was also regulated. The justices of the peace were to grant the licences, and there were not to be more than two wine-sellers or taverns in any one city, borough, town corporate, port town or market town. Certain places are specifically mentioned as being entitled to have more taverns. Thus, in the City of London, there might be forty taverns or wine-sellers; in York, eight; there might be four in each of the towns of Norwich, Hull, Exeter, Gloucester, Canterbury, Cambridge and Newcastle-upon-Tyne; there might be three in each of the towns of Westminster, Bristol, Shrewsbury, Salisbury, Hereford East, Worcester, Southampton, Lincoln, Ipswich, Winchester, and Colchester. A person could only sell under a licence. This was an earnest and early attempt to limit by exact figures the number of taverns. The idea still finds favour. It proved a failure in the 16th century. An honest opportunity was apparently given for the two Acts to have a fair trial. At any rate, nothing was done from 1553 to 1604, a period of over fifty years. The fierce conflicts between the reformed and the unreformed religions were now practically over. The sixth Edward had given place to Mary of the Old Faith; Mary had given place to Elizabeth; and Elizabeth in her turn had given place to the first James. During these long and memorable fifty years, the never-ceasing evil of intemperance and public disorder was ever present-the cankerworm of society, as it is now. The Act of 1604 (1 Jac. c. 9) complains that the true use of inns and alehouses had been grossly abused. It states that "the ancient, true and principal use of inns, alehouses and victualling-houses was for the receipt, relief, and lodging of wayfaring people travelling from place to place, and for such supply of the wants of such people as are not able by greater quantities to make their provision of victuals, and not meant for entertainment and harbouring of lewd and idle people to spend and consume their money and their time in a lewd and drunken manner." Christopher Marlow had been killed in a low public-house at Deptford a few years before, when he had been spending "his time and money in a lewd and drunken manner;" and according to Shakespeare. Christopher Sly, old Sly's son, of Burton Heath, whose ancestors, he tells us, according to the chronicles, had come in with Richard the Conqueror, was likewise spending his time and money in a lewd and drunken manner at the house of Marian Hackett, the fat alewife at Wincot. The only remedy that could be suggested in 1604 for this state of things was to punish, and punish severely, any alehouse-keeper who permitted any person to remain drinking or tippling in the inn or alehouse. It was apparently thought that, if you punished the alehouse-keeper for permitting drinking in his premises by persons other than travellers or guests who had called for meals, the evil would be cured. Two years later, in 1606 (4 Jac. 1, c. 4), Parliament declares the abuses of alehouses to be intolerable. It proceeds to pass an Act "for the better repressing of alehouses. whereof the multitudes and abuses have been and are found intolerable, and still do and are like to increase." Persons were prevented from selling ale and beer who had no licence for the purpose, and this Act was specially directed against persons selling by retail without licence. In the same

year (4 Jac. 1, c. 5) Parliament passes another Act directed immediately against drunkenness. This Act states that "the loathsome and odious sin of drunkenness is of late grown into common use within this realm, being the root and foundation of many other enormous sins, as bloodshed, stabbing, murder, swearing, fornication, adultery and such like, to the great dishonour of God and of our nation, the overthrow of many good arts and manual trades, the disabling of divers workmen, and the general impoverishing of many good subjects, abusively wasting the good creatures of God." No Act had yet sought to punish the drunkard as such. The preceding Acts dealt with the licensing of houses, and the punishing of licensed persons for any breach of their licence. Now an attempt was to be made to get at the drunkard. On conviction he was liable to a penalty of 58.; if he could not or would not pay he was to be committed to the stocks for the space of six hours. There were severer punishments for subsequent offences. If any person remained drinking or tippling in an alehouse in the same place where he dwelt he was liable to a penalty of 38., and if he could not or would not pay he was to be committed to the stocks for the space of four hours. There were further enactments in 1609 (7 Jac. 1, c. 10) and 1624 (21 Jac. 1, c. 27). In 1625 (1 Car. 1, c. 4) a person who was not a resident of the place might be proceeded against in the same way. The innkeeper was also liable to be punished. From this activity in legislation we may infer that the evils which were attempted to be checked were considerable. It is manifest, however, that the early Acts, passed in the reigns of Henry VII. and Edward VI., and the subsequent Acts, had not effected the reformation that was expected of them. The number of unlicensed alehouses was increasing, and, the persons who kept them being poor, they could not pay any fine that might be inflicted on them, and if they were sent to prison the maintenance of their wives and children fell upon the parish. As it was the parish officers who had the prosecuting of such offenders, there was not much inducement for them to prosecute, if the ultimate effect of the prosecution was to increase the poor rate. The imprisonment in the previous Acts was in 1627 (3 Car. 1, c. 4) replaced by whipping. The person offending, if he did not pay the fine, was to be openly whipped as the convicting justices should appoint. Once more Parliament was to slumber for years over the liquor question. Not that the laws now in force were working well, but Parliament, when it met, had other things to think of. The stirring times of Charles I. and his Parliament, of John Hampden and Oliver Cromwell, of the Commonwealth and the Restoration, were not times when the village alehouse was to be considered. Probably publichouse morals and public-house manners were during the reign of Charles II. just what public opinion wanted-gay, dissolute, drunken.

James II. was too busy with his religious difficulties, and William III. too much engaged with his continental wars. During Queen Anne's time England was once more settling down to her insular repose, but it was still some time before the pressing question of the liquor trade was effectually brought to the notice of the Legislature. In 1736 we meet with the first Act specifically dealing with the question of spirits. Hitherto wine and beer were what Parliament was trying to reform the English citizen on; now, however, a potent element arose in the case of spirits, and an attempt is now made to grapple with it as the attempt had been made to grapple with beer and wine. The Act of 1736 (9 Geo. 2, c. 23) recites that the drinking of spirituous liquors or strong waters is become very common, especially among the people of lower and inferior rank, the constant and excessive use whereof tends greatly to the destruction of their healths, rendering them unfit for useful labour and business, debauching their morals, and inciting them to perpetuate all manner of vices; and the ill consequences of the excessive use of such liquors are not confined to the present generation, but extend to future ages and tend to the devastation and rain of this Kingdom. A licence was necessary for selling by retail (less than two gallons) any brandy, rum, arrack, usquebagh, geneva, aqua vitæ, or any other distilled spirituous liquors, and it (the licence) was to be obtained from two or more justices. Already, in 1660, on that outburst of loyalty which followed the return of Charles II. intoxicating liquors were made the special subject of revenue. In that year (12 Car. 2, c. 23) a revenue tax, much after the manner of the excise or revenue tax of to-day, was imposed, and this has continued with varying alterations, modifications, and extensions until to-day. This brief historical sketch shows how the various kinds of intoxicating liquors came under the aegis of the law. It would be tedious to trace the further development of the subject. We have now found indelibly impressed in the Statute-book the three great objects of English legislation on the liquor question-these three objects being the preservation of order, the dimunition of drunkenness, and the raising of a revenue. We may therefore skip the next 100 years. This brings us to the year 1828. In that year a great measure was passe', which was to settle the law for generations to come. The Alehouse Act of 1828 provides the present machinery under which licences are now granted. It gave to justices the sole control of granting and transferring licences. It was a strict law-so strict, indeed, that two years later it had to be relaxed. This strict law applied with equal force and with equal severity to the rich man's spirits and wines as to the poor man's beer. It was regarded by Lord Brougham and the other great pundits of that day that the strict law of 1828 did not offer sufficient facilities for "supplying the public with beer"; and in 1830, Lord Brougham's famous Beerhouse Act of that year was passed. We are told that at that time "spirit drinking was terrible "- -a remedy was sought. The expedient adopted was the Beerhouse Act. Under this Act power was given to any householder to take out an excise licence for the sale of beer and cider on payment of an annual duty only. With regard to beer licences, the justices' discretion was no longer necessary. Any householder had simply to go to the Excise and pay the licence, and open his beershop. The Parliament of the 17th century could have told the Parliament of 1830 that this was a short-sighted policy. Parliament was not, however, long in discovering their mistake. During the ten years preceding the passing of the Beerhouse Act, the quantity of malt used for brewing was 266 million bushels. During the ten years immediately succeeding, the quantity was 344 million bushels, being an increase of 28.9. During the ten years 1821-30 the quantity of British spirits consumed was 58 million gallons, and during the next ten years it rose to 77 million gallons, an increase of 32 per cent. All this clearly proved that the increased facilities for getting beer created a greater demand for spirits. During the year following the Act, more than 30,000 beershops were opened in England and Wales. In Sheffield, as one instance, 300 beershops were added to the old complement of public-houses; and it is specially to be noticed that, before the second year had expired, 110 keepers of these houses in Sheffield had applied for spirit licences, to satisfy the desire for ardent spirits. Parliament found, in their own words, that "much evil had arisen from the management" of houses so easily licensed. Accordingly, in 1834, they passed a restrictive Act, distinguishing between licences for the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises and not to be drunk on the premises. The freedom of sale in the latter case was left untouched; but every applicant for the excise licence to sell beer or cider to be drunk on the premises was required to obtain a certificate of good character signed by six ratepayers not engaged in the trade. Even with this amendment the law was exceedingly faulty, and our august senators might have known, if they had chosen to inquire, that such a plan had already been tried and found wanting. The effect of the Beerhouse Law as it at this time stood was that the country, throughout its length and breadth, became studded with beerhouses, and in many places with beerhouses of the worst type. What could be easier than for a householder to get the signatures of six friends and obtain a beerhouse licence? If legislative interference is to be made use of, it must be something of sterner stuff than this. It was thirty years before Parliament had time to revert to the subject again. In 1869 it was found absolutely necessary to put the sale of beer under the same strict law that it was first under in 1828. But in the compromising spirit in which English legislation is usually carried on, it was provided that the licences of all beerhouses (50,000) existing at that date could only be refused because of the bad character of the licensed person, or because the house is of a disorderly character. The result is that, in many a country village, or in the slums of many large towns, you find the number of beerhouses out of all proportion to the population, or of the reasonable requirements of the district. The licences now in force at the present day are about twenty-one in number. Fourteen of these must first be granted by the justices, and upon taking the justices' licence to the Excise, and paying the excise duty, you obtain the excise licence. You can then

carry on business. You cannot in these cases carry on business without the justices' licence as well as an excise licence, and you cannot obtain an excise licence without showing that you have been granted a justices' licence. The different kinds of licences are: (1) The public-house licence; (2) The licence for beer to be drunk on the premises; (3) The licence for cider to be drunk on the premises; (4) The refreshment-house wine licence; (5) The licence for beer not to be drunk on the premises; (6) The licence for cider not to be drunk on the premises; (7) The shop-keeper's wine licence or grocer's licence; (8) The table-beer licence; (9) The beerdealer's retail beer licence; (10) The shopkeeper's retail spirit or liquor licence; (11) The sweets licence; (12) The six-day licence; (13) The early closing licence; (14) The occasional licence. The number of these licences might with ease be reduced. This may be useful as a matter of law amendment, but it would be regarded by licensing reformers of little interest as a matter of licensing reform. What licensing reformers want in these days is to get at the reform of the licensing authority. Who, then, is the licensing authority? The licensing authority is in counties the county justices, and in boroughs the borough justices. The licensing meetings are held, in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, within the first ten days of March, and in the other counties between the 20th Aug. and the 14th Sept. All applications for licences are made to the justices at these meetings. The licensing authority is differently constituted according as it has to deal with the grant of new licences or the renewal of old ones, and also according as the licence is for the sale of liquors to be drunk on the premises, or for the sale of liquors to be drunk off the premises. In counties, new licences for the sale of liquor to be drunk on the premises are granted by two or more justices at the general annual licensing meeting or brewster sessions. All questions are decided by the majority of the justices present. Without a clear majority no licence can be granted. The grant, if requiring confirmation, must then be confirmed by a second body of county justices, called the " county licensing committee." This committee is annually appointed at quarter sessions. It consists of not less than three nor more than twelve members, three forming a quorum. In boroughs where there are ten acting justices, new licences are granted by a borough licensing committee. This committee is appointed by the justices acting for the borough. It consists of not less than three nor more than seven members, three forming the quorum. The grant, if requiring confirmation, must then be confirmed by the whole body of borough justices present at a meeting held for the purpose of confirmation, or by a majority of them, in case of a division of opinion. In small boroughs (i.e., boroughs in which there are not ten justices) there is other special provision. Where an application is made for a new licence, the applicant must attend before the licensing justices in person, unless hindered by illness or other reasonable cause, in which case he may authorise another person to attend for him. Any person may oppose the granting of the licence upon any reasonable evidence, tendered both by the applicant and his opponents, which evidence they may require to be given on oath. Subject to the necessity of hearing evidence, the justices have the most absolute and uncontrolled discretion to grant or refuse the licence, except in the cases of applications for licences for the sale of wine, cider or spirifs, not to be drunk on the premises. In the excepted cases the application cannot be refused, except on the ground that the character of the applicant or the house is not satisfactory. If the licence be refused, the applicant can proceed no further, as there is no appeal in such a case. If the application be granted, it has still to be taken before the confirming body of justices, except in the case of a licence to sell liquor to be drunk off the premises, which does not require confirmation. The hearing before the confirming body has generally the same incidents as the original hearing; but no person can oppose the confirmation who did not oppose the original grant and the confirmng body has power to give costs to the successful party. All licences continue in force for a year only; but the licence-holder who, during the continuance of his licence, obtains a licence for the ensuing year, is said to renew his licence, and is on a much more favourable footing than the applicant for a new licence. Renewal of a licence is made at the general annual licensing meeting, or on adjournment af it. No notice of application is necessary, nor need the applicant attend in person unless required by the justices. Justices have no power to require his attendance, unless for some special cause personal to himself. No evidence can be given against the renewal, except after seven days' written notice of opposition given to the licenceholder. The justices have the same discretion with respect to renewals as they have with respect to new licences, but they may not refuse to renew without having given the applicant a hearing, or having summoned him to attend. In the case of houses to which a licence was attached on the 1st May 1869, renewals of licences for beer, cider, or wine to be drunk on the premises may not be refused, except upon the same grounds affecting character and qualification, as those upon which a new licence, or renewal for beer, cider and wine not to be drunk on the premises, may be refused. In 1881, Sunday closing was introduced into Wales. Good order is sought to be established in licensed houses by the infliction of penalties for any breach of the licence. The police have the right of entry, and repeated convictions may result in the forfeiture of the licence. Such in brief outline is the present licensing law of England. It is the result of long experience of Licensing Acts and many experiments in licensing reform. But the result so arrived at is not one of great progress. Four hundred years ago, and you had the supervision of public-houses in the hands of justices of the peace; they had power to grant and refuse licences; to day, you have practically the same thing. Parliamentary draftsmen will probably tell you that the law to-day is more logical, more systematic, more effective. Chief Constable Harrop will probably tell you that the police have greater powers. But if I were a layman, I should prefer that the subject should be regulated by one Act, as in 1495, which presents simplicity, than to be regulated by over one hundred Acts, as in 1896, which present confusion. A significant feature about the whole history

« EelmineJätka »