would have the power of awarding costs. In matters of law there would be an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. The noble and learned lord then moved the second reading of the Bill. The bill was read a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE GALWAY JUDGMENT. MR. BUTT rose to move that the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider Mr. Justice Keogh's judgment, with the ulterior object of moving in committee a vote of censure on the judge, and calling for his removal from the Bench. Admitting at the outset that if a judgment were right in law its language ought not lightly to be questioned, he maintained that it might be fairly excepted to if it were violent and intemperate to such an excess as to bring odium on the Judicial Bench, and to weaken public confidence in the administration of justice. But, further than this, he maintained that the decision was wrong. It was threefold in character it unseated Capt. Nolan, it gave the seat to Capt. Trench, and it declared a certain number of per. sons guilty of undue influence and intimidation. With the first part of the decision he did not quarrel, though he thought the grounds insufficient; but he arraigned the other two as unconstitutional and contrary to the evidence. After a narrative of recent electioneering events in Galway, Mr. Butt went on to compare the judgment and the evidence, reading numerous passages from both interspersed with discursive comments. Its leading idea, he contended, was that the landlords, and not the priests, should control the votes of the Galway electors. The judge had set him. self to prove this, not that certain persons had been guilty of undue influence. It was in carrying out this avowed intention that he had used language which Mr. Butt characterised as partisan, intemperate, insulting, and licentious. It was remarkable, Mr. Butt said, that the judge always abused those most heartily who had censured his own career. He complained, too, that the judge had incriminated persons against whom the four law officers were agreed that there was no evidence, and that there was no condemnation in the judgment of landlord influence. He wound up with a fervid appeal for the removal of a judge who could no longer be trusted in his judicial capacity by any Roman Catholic. Mr. M. HENRY seconded the motion, complaining in acrimonious language of the scurrilous abuse which the judge had poured on his Galway constituents. He charged the judge with deliberate dishonesty in the revision of his judg. ment, reading many insulting passages from the newspaper report, which the judge in the official report had softened down or struck out. The soluble abuse which he had showered on the bishops and priests and on religion itself rendered him unfit to administer justice.-Mr. PIM, in a very thin House, moved an amendment, which, while expressing regret at the judge's intemperate and undignified language, declared that the House sees no reason for calling for his removal. For mere words, however ill advised, unaccompanied by any corrupt motive, removal was too severe, but the judge ought not to escape altogether without censure. The course he recommended had the ad. vantage of not giving a trinmph to either party.-Mr. SMYTH was understood to second the amend ment, but his speech consisted mainly of an attack on the Galway landlords, whom he accused of a combination to carry the election by intimidation.- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in explaining the course to be followed by the Government, began by a careful explanation of the exact amount of responsibility they had already incurred in regard to the coming prosecutions. These, he said, had been decided on by Mr. Dowse entirely on his own responsibility in the discharge of a duty cast on him as he showed by the Election Statutesa duty which he could not evade. His decision was a legal, not a political one, and though the Government had agreed with it individually, they were not collectively responsible for it. But having assented to these prosecutions, the Government could not be a party either to the motion or to the amendment, which was much worse even than the motion, since it disgraced the judge without removing him. By assenting to these prosecutions the Government had expressed a substantial agreement in the Judge's conclusions. Here he pointed out to Mr. Butt that because all the persons mentioned in the judgment were not to be prosecuted it did not follow that Mr. Justice Keogh was wrong, since the point to be tried was a different one, and the evidence to be offered was different. But even if the Judge was wrong, that constituted no ground for a motion for his removal. foundation for such a motion, the Judge must be shown to have gone wrong corruptly and perversely. (Here Mr. Butt interposed the remark that this was exactly what he accused Mr. Justice Keogh of, and the Attorney-General retorted that As a it was a mere assertion, and that Mr. Butt had not supported it by any evidence.) The whole charge resolved itself into a matter of taste and temper, on which he was not called to give an opinion; and faults of taste and temper could form no ground for removal. Where no action could be taken in such a matter as this, Parliament ought not to criticise. Intemperate and irrelevant remarks, and even unmannerly interruptions were not unknown on the English Bench, but they were borne with because it was known that the Judges were substantially incorruptible, and because of the reverence with which the office of judge was surrounded. Mr. H. JAMES came forward as the defender of Mr. Justice Keogh, who for months, he complained, had been assailed by garbled statements; and in explaining the circumstances under which the judge had acted, he charged the Roman Catholic clergy of Galway with intimidation, and with having determined to break the common law, the statute law, and the ordinances of their own Church, in order to seize on the representation of the county. In proof of this, Mr. James exhaustively reviewed the evidence as to the interference of the archbishop, the bishops, and the priests; and he read, too, many of the most striking of the altar denunciations, which were received with unmistakeable expressions of disapproval by the House. Though he did not approve all the language in which it was expressed, though he pleaded that the judge was an Irishman speaking to Irishmen, Mr. James declared that if he had been in Mr. Justice Keogh's place he should have delivered exactly the same judgment, and he concluded a powerful and much applauded speech by calling on the House by its vote to teach a "proud priesthood that it would permit no allegiance to be paid except to the Sovereign, and no obedience to be exacted except to the law. Mr. HY. MATTHEWS supported the motion, contending that the judge had strained the law and the facts, and that by his language and by the strife and ill-feeling he had excited in Ireland he was disqualified from holding the judicial office. -Mr. MUNSTER also addressed the House in a maiden speech in favour of the motion- -Mr. PLUNKET, on the other side, referred to the excitement which had prevailed in Ireland since the judgment, and read extracts from recent speeches and publications to show that the judgment was not the cause of it, but that it was aggravated by those who were desirous of carrying the legitimate influence of the priesthood into social life, and of establishing a hateful tyranny in Ireland. As one who had practised before Mr. Justice Keogh, he bore testimony to his impartiality and ability, and to the universal respect in which he was held.- Sir C.O'LOGHLEN moved the adjournment of the debate, and Col. WHITE essayed, in an impatient House, to make some remarks in defence of the county of Tipperary, which had been culuminiated by Mr. Justice Keogh.--Mr. GLADSTONE saw no advantage either in continuing or renewing the debate, and therefore deprecated an adjournment. The condition of public business and the interests of justice as involved in the coming trials equally forbade it.--Mr. DISRAELI agreed that it was desirable, considering the condition of public business, that the debate should be brought to a conclusion, although, if it had been the beginning of the session many members on his side would have desired of addressing the House. But the controversy had been conducted with signal ability and completeness on both sides, and as all the objects of debate had been practically attained, the question was ripe for a decision this evening. The controversy whether the debate should be adjourned was continued for more than an hour, Mr. BUTT, Mr. DoWNING, Mr. STACKPOOLE, Mr. MARTIN, Sir D. CORRIGAN, and others urging that the Irish people would not be satisfied with any decision at which the House might arrive after so short a debate; and several of them declaring that they would go on renewing motions for adjournment until they attained their end.-Mr. FAWCETT and Mr. BOUVERIE also advised the Government to consent to a real bona fide adjournment and to have the question fully discussed and fairly settled. -On a division the motion was negatived by 350 to 59. A second motion being made, Mr. GLADSTONE consented to an adjournment, but declined at present, although strongly pressed from both sides, to fix any day for resuming the debate. LAW OFFICERS' SALARIES. Mr. FAWCETT asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which he had privately given him notice, whether under the Law Officers Expenses Bill, fixed for the third reading that evening, it might not happen that the fees hitherto paid to the Attorney and Solicitor-General would be paid, at least to the greater portion of them, to the Attorney-General; and whether, in such an event, the country would not lose the whole, or nearly the whole, of the salary voted to the Solicitor-General. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the House was aware that under existing arrangements, the Attorney. General received the fees hitherto paid to law officers, but that the Solicitor-General received a salary instead of the fees, for non-contentious business. That was the state of the case at present. The hon. member now asked him whether the Bill before Parliament contained any security that the fees hitherto paid to the Solicitor-General, but which now were to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, would not be taken from the Consolidated Fund and paid over to the Attorney General, in addition to his salary. He could only express his astonishment at such a question being asked. (Hear, hear.) The question, if it meant anything, meant that Parliament ought to have gone further and legislated, by express provisions, against a conspiracy between the Treasury and the Solicitor-General, to defraud the public of fees directed to be paid over to the Consolidated Fund. If the parties were capable of entering into such a conspiracy, he confessed he should despair of being able to bind them by any mere words. (Hear, hear.)—Mr. FAWCETT said the right hon. gentleman had misapprehended his words, and he begged to give notice that on the motion for the third reading he should move that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of bringing up a clause upon that point. Friday, July 26. JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,--Mr. V. HARCOURT, pursuant to notice, called attention to the report of the Judicature Commission, with a view of recommending improvements in the judicial organisation of the important subject had been brought forward at country. It was not his fault, he said, that this such a late period. Had it related to the burning of a judge in effigy or to the discussion of a sensa tional Judgment, no doubt the attendance would have been very different. [There were less than 20 members present when the discussion com menced.] In round numbers it might be estimated that the cost of the judicial establishments was about £2,000,000 a year. That this was a costly establishment nobody could deny, and if he were to take up time in proving that it was dilatory in its administration of justice he should of necessity be dilatory in doing so. (A laugh.) Everybody who took an interest in the subject, on looking into the Report of the Judicature Commission, would find that the existing administration of the law must be inefficient, because in nearly every branch of it reform was recommended. Substan tially, however, nothing had been done, though this report was presented nearly three years ago. Lord Palmerston once spoke of an ignorant impatience of taxation; but in this case there was what he would describe as an ignorant patience of the evils of law. Persons who knew nothing of the subject regarded as inevitable evils which others who had paid attention to the matter knew to be capable of being remedied. They looked upon these evils as the Indians looked upon the smallpox -it had come from heaven, and submission was a duty; or in the spirit in which Mussulmans perished exclaiming, " Allah is great." A distinguished lawyer (Lord Langdale) once accounted for the fact that so little was heard of the evils of the legal system, notwithstanding that these tended more than anything else to unfasten the links which bound society together in harmony, by the reflection that during the progress of their suit both parties feared to excite any unpleasant feelings in the mind of the judge, and the decision once given, the successful party naturally saw in it the triumph of justice, or if he was conscious that his cause had prevailed through the error of the judge, he was at least disposed to enjoy his triumph in silence. The disappointed suitor, on the other hand, like the discarded servant, was conscious that any representations of his would be viewed with suspicion. He, himself, had received from Liverpool very strong represen tations as to the dissatisfaction felt with the ex isting administration of the law, and he was glad to see the hon. member for Liverpool in his place, and hoped he would express his views. With the object of endeavouring to improve the existing condition of affairs, he had put down a few definite propositions which it seemed to him desirable to carry out. First, the consolidation of the mul tifarious Superior Law Courts with distinct jurisdictions into one Supreme Court, which should exercise universal jurisdiction, without technical distinction as to the form of remedy. That was a change recommended by the Judicature Commission, and he believed approved by everybody. His second proposal was the creation of a single High Court of Appeal for the whole Empire, constituted with a sole regard to judicial efficiency and severed from all political functions. This Commons, at all events, was agreed. In the third was a point upon which he believed the House of place he proposed that there should be a re-constitution of the local tribunals with a view to giving greater efficiency to the provincial administration of justice, embracing under this head a re-organi. passed the other House and came down on the were ment, and that the law officers of the Crown would be able to give to-night a distinct pledge that a measure would be introduced early next session. (Hear, hear.) The SOLICITORGENERAL hoped the House would not be led away by the eloquence of his hon. and learned friend the member for Oxford or those who succeeded sation of the County Courts, and the establish- matters. The present Government had achieved right spirit, the result would be an enormous ment of courts in the provinces which should great legislative triumphs, and they might achieve convenience in the administration of justice and possess a higher jurisdiction than the courts a still greater one by energetically addressing economy both of time and expense. On these which now exist. The fourth head of his proposal themselves to this question. He trusted that the grounds he urged the Government in the coming -and to this he attached great importance-was Attorney-General would crown his reputation by a recess to prepare a measure on the subject to be a change in the office of Lord Chancellor on the measure of law reform worthy of the subject and introduced into Parliament early in the next basis of a separation of the judicial from the of himself, and that the Prime Minister, who session, so that there might be brought about a political functions of that office, so that the head had dealt with questions affecting a portion more speedy and economical administration of jusof the law might no longer be a political partisan, of the Empire, would apply himself with tice in this country. (Hear, hear.)—Mr. H. and the administrative and legislative departments equal success to a matter affecting the whole PALMER agreed that it was by no means desirable of the law might be assigned to a minister respon- Empire. The right hon. gentleman recently spoke to leave the subject of law reform entirely in the sible to Parliament. His fifth and last proposal of the Government as growing old. Now, a great hands of lawyers. He recollected that in settling was that there should be a consolidation of the law reform would be a worthy crown of the old the Bankruptcy Bill the lawyers received most manifold and separate subordinate departments of age of any Government; for its beneficent opera- effectual aid from Liverpool and the commercial legal administration with a view to their greater tions would be universal, and it would be un- members of that House. It frequently happened economy and efficiency. Under this head he in-seamed by the scars of party conflict. He knew that whenever a Lord Chancellor or any member of cluded the various offices in the Court of Chancery, of no great question which would occupy the Go- the legal profession introduced a measure of a reorganisation of the masters' offices in the vernment next session, and, in the event of their law reform, other members of the legal profession, Courts of Common Law, and the establishment of taking up this question, he would advise them to instead of lending their aid to promote it, occu some substitute for the existing and highly objec- take the Profession, especially the judges, into pied themselves in picking holes in the measure, tionable system of private arbitration. There were their confidence, believing that they would find and in endeavouring to discover defects in it. His at present some thirty-five judges in the Superior no disposition to obstruct reforms. He had ab- hon. and learned friend, the member for Oxford, Courts of Equity and Common Law-an aston- stained from entering into details, desiring to was entitled to great credit for having brought ishingly large number when they considered the leave the matter in the hands of the Government. forward this subject and for the manner in which great deficiency of judicial power, a deficiency The harvest was ripe; it was for them to put in he had done so. (Hear, hear.) It was the duty due, in his opinion, to the number of separate the sickle, and he trusted they would gather in of the Government to introduce a measure of law jurisdictions, and a want of the application of this rich harvest. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and reform on a comprehensive scale, and not leave it the principle of combination of labour. If this learned gentleman concluded by moving that the to private members to effect legal changes by principle were adopted, he believed it would not administration of the law under the existing sys-piecemeal legislation. It was to be regretted that be difficult to do the work in London with twenty tem was costly, dilatory, and inefficient; that a law reform had not occupied a more prominent judges, in which case five or six judges of the competent commission having reported that the place among the measures of the Government. Superior Courts could well be spared to form judicial organisation was defective in all its The subject was recommended to the consideration centres of higher jurisdiction in the provinces. branches, it was desirable that Her Majesty's of Parliament in the speech from the Throne at In this country the people had a right to expect Government should, in the next session of Parlia- the opening of the Session of 1860; but although that the courts of justice should be always open, ment, present to the House a measure for its re- the Lord Chancellor had introduced a Bill which but owing to the deficient organisation a costly form and reconstruction, which, without increasstaff was maintained without producing the resulting the public charge, should provide for the more which the public had a right to expect. The effectual, speedy, and economical administration question of appellate jurisdiction was one which of justice. Mr. GRAVES would not intrude had occupied the attention of Parliament for on a question apparently of a professional several years, and a number of schemes had been and technical character were not the great proposed, of which perhaps the most unsatisfac- commercial communities directly interested in tory was that which had come down within the it. What those whom he represented had to last few days from a committee of the House of complain of was that in Lancashire there Lords. In this scheme it was proposed to retain were insufficient facilities for a thorough adminis. the jurisdiction in the House of Lords and to keep tration of the law. There were three assizes in the the Lord Chancellor, an officer who might be re- year, but there was an interval from March to moved from his position at any moment, and August, during which important mercantile causes who was from the very nature of his office either remained over or were sent up to London, a political partisan, at the head of the Appel- at great inconvenience and expense. No Liverlate Court. To strengthen this court it was pool assizes passed without serious arrears, and he proposed to appoint four salaried peers with believed that, except the Home Circuit, the busi £7000 a year each. These peers were not to be ness of the Northern Circuit equalled all the other equals of the other members of their Lord- circuits put together. Since 1859 Liverpool had ships' House, but were to hold their titles for had three assizes, and in 1864 the privilege was life only, and to vote only on judicial questions. extended, on account of extraordinary pressure, to A more degrading proposition he could not imagine Manchester; but the business at Liverpool was than that judges who were sufficiently eminent to absolutely greater than before that separation was occupy these positions should be asked to accept made. In 1866 he ventured to bring this question them on terms such as he had described. (Hear, before the House, and he received from the then hear.) The inequality between these Brumma- Attorney-General, now a noble lord in another gem and pinchbeck peers was, moreover, to be place, the strongest assurances that the matter such that the real peers could outvote them when would be considered. More recently an important they came down as ornamental personages on show deputation, consisting not merely of lawyers, but occasions. (Hear, hear.) The other members of also of members of commercial chambers such as the judicial committee, who were to be called ex Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, waited on the officio members, and to receive 70001, a year were Prime Minister, who assured the deputation that not to be called upon to attend on more than the subject should have the anxious consideration twenty days in the year, or "if prevented by a of the Government. He was aware that subsereasonable cause.' This proviso was made on quently a Bill on the subject was introduced into the behalf of the law lords who were already receiving House of Lords, which came down to the House of pensions of £5000 a year from the country, and it Commons, where it was met by a motion from the abundantly told its own origin. (Hear.) Alto- hon. and learned member for Tiverton, which had the gether, the proposals which had been sent down effect of causing the Bill not to be proceeded with. were of a most extraordinary character, and he What he complained of was that, though year after hoped the House of Commons would not assent to year they had not only promises, but also assurthem. (Hear.) As to our great Indian Empire, ances in speeches from the Throne, that measures the proposal was to appoint assessors, to be paid of law reform would be introduced, yet after many out of the Indian revenues, who were to be without years no facilities were given to meet the difficula vote. He was sure that such a scheme would ties in Lancashire of which he complained. About not be favourably received by this House. As to two years ago he introduced a Bill conferring on local tribunals, there were sixty County Court local courts admiralty jurisdiction, and one of the Judges sitting, 134 days in the year, and the provisions of the measure was to enable the Judges judicature commission said that the staff was far of the High Courts to visit Liverpool occasionally larger than was necessary. He would suggest the to settle cases of admiralty jurisdiction. One creation of five or six centres, such as Liverpool, third, if not more, of the cases heard in the Court for provincial superior courts, and that five or six of Admiralty came from Liverpool, and most of of the County Court judges of the district should those cases were local cases occurring in the River act as suffragans under the superior judge, dis- Mersey. The witnesses were on the spot, yet the posing of the smaller business, both civil and people of Liverpool were compelled in cases over criminal. It was monstrous that a Liverpool £200 to bring their witnesses to London to have civil cause could not be tried between March and their cases settled there. The then AttorneyAugust except in London, where the witnesses General, Sir R. Collier, took exception to the might have to wait days or weeks before it came clause in the Bill dealing with that matter, on. Much delay was occasioned by the vestibules and he was compelled, at a late period of the of the courts being choked up. There was a mass session, to strike it out in order to save the Bill. of administrative business, especially in the Court What was really wanted in Liverpool was a of Chancery, and in England, at least, the ad- continuous judge sitting in that place. ministrative staff was disorganised and inade- did not mean that there should be one judge quate. It might be asked whether his scheme sitting throughout the year, but a court sitting would be an expensive one. Now, he believed through the year. The question of law reform that, though piecemeal reforms might be expen- deserved serious consideration from the Governsive, a review and consolidation of our whole system ment. If it were left solely to the legal members would effect great economies, both in the courts of that House-among whom, probably, there of first instance, the local courts, and the admin- would be great difference of opinion-a satisfacistrative staff. His object had not been to develope tory conclusion might not be arrived at for some a plan of his own, but to urge the Government to time; but if the commercial members of the House deal with the question, it being hopeless for came forward and stated their own grievances, private members to take up even much smaller and if the Government took up the question in a He him, from the terms of this motion. They were asked to declare that 'the administration of the law under the existing system is costly, dilatory, and inefficient." (Hear, hear.) He heard something like a cheer from three or four members in a House certainly not largely attended, and he took the cheer of those three or four members to represent the amount of interest which was felt in this question. ("No, no and laughter.) Well, six members said " no "in reply to those who cheered. But we could not get an alteration of a system of judicature which would make it efficient unless the public would evince a proportionate interest in the question, and would support those who had not dilettante, but substantial reform at heart. Until the public took an interest in the question it was quite impossible that measures could be successfully introduced and passed into law. Why had not measures of law reform been introduced and carried? Because they had been set on one side to make way for political questions which had greater interest for the country, which aroused stronger feelings among the constituents, and which, consequently, met with greater support in that House. It was not that there was any want of zeal, energy, or ability on the part of the legal members of the House. They were quite as desirous as some of the hon. members who talked of urging them on to bring forward legal questions. It was of no use attempting it; there was no chance for them. The police supervision of public houses had a great deal more interest for this House and for the country, and it was useless to talk of reforming judicature until we had determined upon the style of the label which was to be put on the house of the publican who sold adulterated beer. (" Oh, oh.") "It was impossible to carry legal measures, because there was not sufficient feeling aroused in the county as to their necessity. He did not agree with the preamble of this motion that the existing system was either dilatory or inefficient. He denied it as regarded the equity branch of the law, with which habitual practice had made him familiar. The practice of the Court of Chancery could not be fairly accused of either dilatoriness or inefficiency; but, make any change we would, we could never make a system of law, applied to a complicated state of society like ours, cheap in the sense of costing little, in order to get difficult questions decided. He would not flatter democracy, mobocracy, or doctrinaires in the House or out of it; but it was quite impos sible to get difficult, complicated, and intricate that they were law reformers, and that the Govern- hon. gentleman himself did not bring much com- wanted to reform our judicial organization. His notion of law reform was to take particular portion of the law which might not touch the prejudices and excite the passions of an assembly over which they no influence, and try to improve these portions. This was a humbler, but it was a practical duty, and might lead to good results. Such a duty he had already undertaken, and in this very year had carried through a select committee an important amendment in the law relating to juries. Then there was the law of evidence, which he should certainly endeavour to reform another year. But he was not prepared to propose a large change in our system of judicial organization, because he could not put the key-stone to such an edifice; it was not his duty to do so; the task of initiating such a change must rest with the Lord Chancellor, and must be undertaken in the other House. (Hear.) He would not enter into the details touched on by his hon. and learned friend, but as to one of them he did not agree that it would be well to create a high court of appeal entirely free from political influence. He should be sorry to see his profession cut off from all connection with the political world. Such a separation could not tend to the advantage of the public, of the Profession, or of the Bench. The Bar and the Rench were all the better for their contact with the current of political opinion in this country. Nor did he think it was well for the common law branch of his profession when it was dominated by that most able, upright, learned, but, he must add, somewhat narrow-minded man, Lord Wensleydale. With all respect for that learned judge, his influence in the Profession was not at all a healthy one, and would have been much better had he been in this House and mingled with political parties. He was one of those lawyers whose epitaph some one had written and had said, Summa industria, et summa diligentia, leges Angliæ ad absurdum reduxit." (Laughter.) He did not agree with the hon. and learned gentleman in other respects. At this time of the session, and in the present state of the atmosphere, he did not see any advantage in dividing the House on this subject, and he hoped the hon. and learned gentleman would be content with having caused this valuable debate, and would allow this motion to be negatived.- -Dr. BALL said he should have been content to go into the lobby with the Attorney-General and the SolicitorGeneral against the adoption of the abstract resolution proposed by the hon. and learned member for Oxford if the Attorney-General had not said that the Government might during the recess apply their minds to one question connected with law reform-the reform of the Appellate Tribunal. As an Irishman he expressed his decided opposi tion to any proposition to make the appeals from the Irish courts be presented, not to the House of Lords, but to English judges. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman then eulogised the system carried out by the Irish Landed Estates Court, under which an unimpeachable title was given to a purchaser of property, as a system which was attended with cheapness in the conveyance of land, and prevented all litigation in reference to the land so conveyed. Facility and cheapness of transfer might be obtained without any of these gigantic remedies.--Mr. COLLINS attributed the failure of Lord Westbury's Act to its costliness, an indefeasible title costing more than it was worth. He advised the Government, instead of taking up impracticable schemes as to the appellate jurisdiction, which did not concern five cases in 1000, to give the County Courts unlimited jurisdiction, subject to the right of a suitor on giving security for costs to take a case to a superior tribanal. This would insure prompt and inexpensive justice. Mr. GLADSTONE, understanding that his hon. and learned friend intended to divide, wished to give reasons why it would be impolitic to adopt his motion. It -asserted that the administration of the law under the existing system was costly, dilatory, and inefficient. This might be true, and was deserving of inquiry; but lay members of the House must feel that their acquaintance with the subject did not justify them in passing such a sweeping condemnation. ("Oh!" from Mr. Whalley.) The hon. member for Peterborough knew everything, and propounded as matters within his own knowledge many things known to nobody else on the face of the earth. (A laugh.) It was natural that this hon. and learned friend should wish the Government to consider a matter on which a competent commission had made recommendations, but for the House to give them a positive direction to introduce a Bill next session would weaken the responsibility of the Government in making a wise selection of questions for legislation, and would enable them to cast on the House the responsibility of any failures accrning therefrom, as also of the omission to take up the question of local taxation or any other matter. Was it not better that the Government should be left to act upon their own responsibility than that the function should be taken from them, and that they should be directed by means of abstract resolutions proposed by private members to introduce Bills dealing with questions upon which they, as responsible advisers of the Crown, were not prepared to take action? if he desired to indulge in a tendency to ease and repose, which was not unnatural in one who grew old, he should like nothing better than to be relieved of the responsibility of directing action by a line of conduct similar to that which was being pursued by his hon. and learned friend. He had a leaning to the views expressed by his hon. and learned friend, but he felt it to be his duty to warn the House against entangling itself in the consequences of passing abstract resolutions. His hon. friend the member for Brighton seemed to be of opinion that, in reference to the Irish Church legislation the Government acted upon an abstract resolution. To an extent he was right, but his hon. friend, who possessed a good memory, must remember that the action taken was not delayed until a session after the passing of the resolution, but came on the following day. He hoped his hon. and learned friend would not put the House in the false position in which it would be involved by agreeing to the motion he had proposed, and that the House itself, if the proposal were pressed to a division, would agree to the original motion, which was that the Speaker should leave the chair.Mr. VERNON HARCOURT was aware that he had no right of reply, but wished to say just a sentence in answer to the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Government. The Solicitor-General, having put the issue on this ground, that neither the House of Commons nor the country cared about law reform, he thought that that point ought to be tested. There was no doubt that the Solicitor-General did not care about law reform. (Cries of "Order," amid which the hon. member resumed his seat.)--Mr. WHITWELL remarked that only one gentleman connected with the commercial interests of the country had had an opportunity of taking part in that discussion. Commercial men were particularly alive to the importance and also the urgency of reform in the administration of the law. If the report of the Judicature Commission stimulated the Government into action it would do great good to the com. munnity, but as he saw no practical issue to the resolution which had been moved he should vote against it. The House then divided: For Mr. Haecourt's resolution, 45; against, 60; majority, 15. The resolution was accordingly negatived. Monday, July 29. PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION. he would ask the President of the Local GovernMr. F. S. POWELL gave notice that on Thursday ment Board whether it was his intention to propose during the present session a standing order to remedy some of the inconveniences which retion affecting towns and other places. sulted from the present system of private legisla. MANSION HOUSE AND GUILDHALL OFFICIALS. Mr. GILPIN gave notice that on Thursday next he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the learned gentlemen who advised the magistrates at the Mansion House and Guildhall had any pecuniary interest in the committal of accused persons for trial. TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES. Mr. CROSS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had considered the fact stated in the letter of Mr. Serjeant Wheeler, dated the 9th July 1872, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury; and, if so, whether he still proposed to apply the rules laid down in the Treasury Minute of the 22nd June 1872, to Judges appointed prior to the year 1870.-The CHANCELLOR of the ExCHEQUER desired to state in the first place that the Minute in question was adopted in order to give effect to the wishes of the Committee of Supply. (Cries of "No.") This statement was disputed, but at all events he understood that to be the wish of the committee. However, whether that were so or not, he was unable to say he could deal with the arguments and facts stated in the letter of Mr. Serjeant Wheeler, because they seemed to amount to this, that when maintenance expenses were once fixed for a public officer they ought not to be revised or altered under any circumstances during his tenure of office. This would amount to a vested interest which he could not admit. With regard to the salary of an officer he freely admitted it; but the expenses of an officer appeared to him to be perfectly met if he received a fair indemnity for the expense to which he was put. At the same time, he was bound in candour to say that fresh facts had come to his knowledge since the decision of the committee was arrived at. It appeared to have been the opinion of several Lord Chancellors, though not of the present one, nor of Lord Westbury, that County Court judges should not reside in their districts, and he freely admitted that if any gentleman had made his arrangements for life in deference to that opinion the circumstance constituted a claim on the Treasury, and that ex penses ought to be paid which otherwise would not have been allowed. The Treasury were not willing to take the matter in a lump, but intended to consider each case separately. Lastly, anticipating the question of the hon. and learned member for Taunton (Mr. James), he had to state that the estimates had been voted this year under the old footing, and would be applied for the coming year on that footing. Therefore, the hon. and learned gentleman would have ample opportunity to challenge the propriety of any vote the Treasury might propose to make. Mr. JAMES said it had also been his intention to ask with regard to the Treasury Minute in question, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would suspend its operation until there had been an opportunity of taking the sense of Parliament upon it; or, failing that course, whether the right hon. gentleman proposed to retain the money already voted for travelling expenses on the old scale. In consequence, however, of the explanation just given, he should wait to see what course was taken by the department, repeating the question, if necessary, hereafter. Wednesday, July 31. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES BILL Mr. A. CROSS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, which came down from the Lords, said he knew it would be a perfectly hopeless task to attempt to pass it at that period of the session, and therefore it was not his intention to press the motion. Mr. GLADSTONE did not deny that that was a question which might be dealt with by the Government, but the actual circumstances of the time did not admit of it. He would, however, say, in all sincerity, that there could be no one more competent to deal with the subject than the hon. gentleman himself—(hear, hear)-and if he were prepared to adopt that Suggestion, and bring in a Bill early next session, the Government would render him all the assistance in their power.- Dr. BALL expressed his doubt as to the possibility of a private member passing through that House a Bill of this description, unless at least it had some assistance from the Government. He suggested, therefore, that a Bill should be brought in early next session and referred to a Select Committee, to consist of all the most eminent members of the Bar in that House, for this Bill was very largely a question of law and procedure. When the Bill had been modified in the committee the Government would then be in a position to see whether the measure was one which they could snpport or not. He was decidedly in favour of to procedure, and the powers to frame a new that portion of the present measure which related that the preliminary inquiry served no useful pursystem of rules and orders. He was of opinion pose, while it led to great expense. (Hear, hear.) He was also opposed to visitation fees, which were a tax on the English clergy. In connection with the celebration of marriage, he certainly preferred a system of licence to that of banns as a protection against clandestiniscity and the perpetration of fraud, the partics applying for a licence being bound to depose on oath that there was no impediment to the marriage. If there was to be a new judge at all he should be one in connection with the other courts of the country, for his belief was that if his duties were confined exclusively to the hearing of ecclesiastical causes he would cease to be a lawyer and become a theologican.The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that in preliminary investigations of a personal character, the Ecclesiastical Courts were sometimes of great use; many of the fees, however, were objectionable.--Mr. H. PALMER thought that the subject should have been introduced in that House by the hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last. He believed that the present Bill had been prepared with a maximum of consideration for the clerical element, and a minimum of sympathy with the general public.-Mr. COLLINS observed the great object of the Bill seemed to be to give more power to the Bishops.--Mr. CROSS briefly replied, and explained that the reason he had not earlier in the session taken steps to send the Bill to a Select Committee was, that some of the provisions were so opposed to his views that he had never intended to ask the House to read it a second time.--The amendment and motion were both negatived. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BRITISH SUBJECT OUT OF JURISDICTION— CAUSE OF ACTION-BREACH OF CONTRACT C. L. P. ACT 1852, s. 18.-The plaintiff and defendant, both British subjects, whilst in Germany, entered into an engagement to marry each other. The defendant, who was the lady, continued to reside out of the jurisdiction of the English courts, and the plaintiff, whilst in London, received from the defendant a letter breaking off the engagement. Held, upon plaintiff's application to proceed with an action for breach of promise under sect. 18 of the C. L. P. Act 1852, that the section intended to distinguish between actions of tort and contract; that the cause of action must mean the whole cause of action; and that in cases of contract, the contract must have been made within the jurisdiction to enable a plaintiff to proceed. The Court of Queen's Bench therefore dissented from the decision of the Common Pleas in Jackson v. Spittall (22 L. T. Rep. 755; L. Rep. 5 C. P. 542.) Held also, that the receipt of this letter by the plaintiff in London did not make the breach of contract within the jurisdiction: (Cherry v. Thompson, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 791, Q.B.) INNKEEPER'S LIEN-PIANOFORTE-GOODS NOT THE PROPERTY OF GUEST, BUT NOT KNOWN TO BELONG TO ANOTHER.-The lien of an innkeeper extends to all goods brought to the inn by a guest and received by the innkeeper, even although they are the property of a third person, provided the innkeeper does not know they are such. The right of lien is not confined to such goods as travellers ordinarily carry with them in travelling. Where a person staying at an hotel for some weeks hired a pianoforte, and put it in a room in the hotel, for which he paid a weekly sum, the hotel keeper, not knowing that the pianoforte was not the property of the guest, was held to have a lien on it for an unpaid bill of the guest: (Threlfall v. Borwick, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 794. Q. B.) BILL IN EQUITY-SCANDALOUS AND IRRELE De VANT MATTER-MOTION TO EXPUNGE-IRRELE VANT ISSUE RAISED BY PERSON SEEKING TO EXPUNGE. -Scandalous matter irrelevant to the real question at issue in a suit, but relevant to an irrelevant issue raised by a party to the suit, will not be expunged by the court at the instance of the person who raised the irrelevant issue. cision of Wickens, V.C. affirmed. Per James, LJ. -Where evidence has been entered in an order as read, the court will have great hesitation in ordering any part of it to be expunged on the ground of scandal or irrelevancy: (Bruff v. Cobbold 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 786. Chan.) ON 23rd ult., at the Guildhall, Worcester, before the Mayor (H. Willis, Esq.), and J. Wood, Esq., John Albert Fitzmaurice Gibson, writing clerk, Oldbury, was charged with obtaining a situation by means of a forged character, on the 1st May last. Mr. Bentley prosecuted; prisoner was undefended. Mr. Thos. Southall deposed: I am town clerk of Worcester, and a practising solicitor in that city. I recently advertised for a managing clerk, and received an application, dated 6th April last, from John Albert Fitzmaurice Gibson, the prisoner, and a personal visit from him on the 9th of the same month. I required references as to his character, and amongst his former employers to whom he referred me was Mr. Joseph Soames, solicitor, Petersfield, to whom I wrote accordingly, on the 20th of the same month. Not receiving a reply, I wrote on the 25th of the same month to the prisoner, stating that I had not heard from Mr. Soames, and inquiring if he knew the reason; but he did not reply. On the morning of the 29th April last I received a letter now produced, purporting to be written and signed by Mr. Soames, and giving Gibson an excellent character. On the same day I wrote to Gibson on the faith of the letter which I believed came from Mr. Soames, engaging him as my clerk, and requesting him to enter on his duties at once. His salary was to be £180 a year. I also wrote to Mr. Soames thanking him for the letter. On the 1st May last prisoner came to my office, and I there showed him the letter produced. He read part of it. I asked him how long he had been with Mr. Soames. He said eighteen months. I then asked him if the letter was in the handwriting of Mr. Soames himself. He looked again at it and said, 66 "Yes, it is," and handed me back the letter. I told the prisoner I feared the letter was a forgery, and requested him to see me again. He made an appointment with me for the 3rd inst., and kept it. I had previously stated the circumstances to the magistrates, and a warrant was issued for his apprehension. After I had told Gibson on the 1st inst. that I had heard the letter was a forgery, and pressed him as to whether the letter was really written by Mr. Soames or not, he looked at it again and said, "I find it is not written by Mr. Soames." I received from the prisoner with his first letter copies of six testimonials, and he has since produced the originals. I have ascertained that some of these are genuine; as to the others I have not yet obtained answers. Mr. Joseph Soames deposed: I am a solicitor practising in Petersfield, Hampshire, and am also clerk to the guardians and clerk to the justices. I know the prisoner. He came into my employ. ment as managing clerk on the 1st April last year. He came to me with what appeared to be excellent testimonials. He left my employment about the 22nd Jan last. While in my employment he had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with my handwriting. The letter produced is dated 27th April 1871, and appears to be signed by me. The envelope bears the Petersfield postmark of April 27, 1872, and is directed "Thos. Southall, Esq., solr., Worcester." Neither the letter nor the envelope is in my handwriting. Prisoner (interrupting): I wrote both the letters. Mr. Soames (continuing): The paper upon which the letter is written is the official union paper used in my office, and of which he had the charge. I never authorised anyone to write the letter on the 27th. It was written without my knowledge or authority. On Monday, 22nd April, I received by post a letter from Mr. Southall, and also one from Gibson, which I produce. The letter in question was an appeal by the prisoner to his late master to give him a favourable testimonial for the situation he was seeking in Worcester, saying that if he did not do so he (prisoner) should be ruined.] I answered that letter on Tuesday, the 23rd, and asked for certain explanations before I On the 2nd May I received a letter from Gibson, in which he denied the receipt of my letter of the 23rd. I did not give him a written character as he requested. I have no doubt the letter of the 27th April, 1871, was written by did so. Gibson. Prisoner: And so far as the duties of the office were concerned I did them well? Witness: Up to a certain time you performed your duties very well indeed. In reply to a question by Mr. Mears, asking him if he had anything to say, prisoner replied: I am guilty. He then piteously appealed for mercy, and endeavoured to persuade the Bench that the case could be summarily dealt with, but the Bench decided to commit the prisoner to the assizes, and agreed to accept bail, himself in £100, and two sureties in £50 each. It transpired that in the year 1866 the prisoner was sentenced to sixteen months' imprisonment, for forgery, at Liverpool. 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, unless other claimants sooner appear.] CLIFFORD (Lieut.-Col. Henry Morgan), Llantello, Cressenny, Monmouth, and DAVIES (Rev. David), of the same place, £124 11s. Three per Cent. Aunuities. Claimant said Henry Morgan Clifford, and Rev. David Davies. POLLEN (Anne), Rodbourne, Wilts, widow, £11 2s. 3d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant Sir Richard Hungerford Pollen, Bart., and John Hungerford Pollen, executors of Anne Pollen, widow, deceased. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. PILLAR (Anna Maria), 219, Brixton-road. Surrey, next of kin, to send in by Oct. 29. at Chambers of V.C. M., Nov. 11, at twelve o'clock, at the said chambers, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. OMMANNEY (John, Portsmouth, a mariner. Next of kin to send in by Nov. 2, at the chambers of the M. R. Nov. 16, at twelve o'clock, at the said chambers is the time ap pointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. AHMUTY (Wm. S., Henton, Wookey, Somerset, gentleman. Aug. 31; Samuel Hobbs, solicitor, Wells, Somerset. Oct. 29; M. R., at eleven o'clock. CHIVERS (Ann), Devizes. Oct. 1; Henry K. Norris, soliCLARK (Jas.), sen., Field Dalling, Norfolk, machine-man. citor, Devizes. Nov. 4; M. R., at twelve o'clock. Sept. 30; C. M. Stretton, solicitor, 18, Southamptonbuildings, Chancery-lane, Middlesex. Oct. 30; M. R. at eleven o'clock. CLARKE (Richard W.), Witney, Oxford, butcher. Sept. 13; G. S. Kempson, solicitor, 31, Abingdon-street, Westminster, Middlesex. Nov. 5; V. C. M. at twelve o'clock. FAIRBURN (Hannah), 152, Barnsbury-road, Islington, Middlesex. Sept. 3; C. Sawbridge, solicitor, 136, Woodstreet, Cheapside, E.C. Oct. 30; M, R. at eleven o'clock. FOSTER (John), Northampton. Sept.; A. S. Munns, solici tor, 8, Old Jewry, E.C. Oct. 30; V. C. M, at twelve o'clock. HUGHES (Owen D.), Corwen, Merioneth, solicitor. Sept. 30; Frankish and Buchanan, solici ors, 23, Parliamentstreet, Westminster, Middlesex. Nov. 2; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. JONES (Geo.), Esq., Rosherville, Kent, Oct. 1; T. South- TAYLOR (John F.), 2, Penton-street, Pentonville, Middle- CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ALISON (Lieut. Colonel Frederick M.). 4, Milner-street. Chelsea, Middlesex, in Her Majesty's army, Sept. 25; Mackenzie and Co., solicitors, 1, Crown Court, Old Broad, screet, E.C. ANDREW (Rebecca), 6, Grosvenor-terrace, Stony-Knolls Broughton, near Manchester, Nov. 26; Withington and Co., solicitors, 24, Brown-street, Manchester. BATHER (Lydia), 6, Great Percy-street, Clerkenwell, and 20, Ball's Pond-road, Middlesex, dyer, Sept. 6; H. H. Lawrence, solicior, 30, Bedford square, W.C. BEARDMORE Geo. A.), Old B sford, Notts., bleacher; Sept. 2; Hunt and Son, Week-day ross, Nots. BERNABEN (Maria), Zinzan-terrace. Reading, Berks, Sept. 1; W. W. Gabriel, sol citor, 43 Lincoln's-iun-fields, W.C. BROWN (Jane), 67, Clapham-road, Su ry. Aug. 7; 0. Richards, solic tor, 16, Warwick-street, Regent-street, W. BUCKLEY (Jos.), Woodhi 1, The Priory, Higher Broughton, near Manchester, calico rinter. Sept. 14; T. L. Farrer, solicitor, 47, Princess-street, Manchester. CHAPMAN Wm. N.), 27, St. Mary's-terrace, Whitley, Northumberland, coal agent. Nov. 1; Ingledew and Daggett, solicitors, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. CHARMAN (Jas.), Denne Farm, Warnham, Sussex, farmer. Aug. 31; R. Robinson, solicitor, 2, Fleet-street, E.C. COLEMAN (Chas.), Ath 1-villas, Station-1.d, Red ill, Surrey, merchant. Sept. 2; Uptons and Co., solicitors, 20, Austi friars. E.C. COTTRELL (Wm. C.), London-street, Reading, grocer and tea dealer. Sept. 24; C. W. Hoffman, solicitor, Reading. DEANE (Ralph). Esq., Eastcote House. Miudlesex. Oct. 1; Walters and Co., solicitors, 9, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. DENTON (Mary F. M.), 7, Medina villas, Cliftonville, Brigh. tn. Aug. 24; Briggs and Sons. solicitors, .7, Lincoln'sinn-fields, W.C. DE THIERRY (Adolphe Baron', Wiesbaden, Prussia. Aug. 24; Lawrence and Co., solicitors, 14, Uid Jewry chambers, London. DICKENS Lieut. Sydney S.), R.N., H.M.'s ship Topaze. Dec 31; Richardson and Sadler, solicitors, 28, Goldensquare, W. ELWES Jane M.), Walland Cary, Woolfardisworthy, Devon. Sept. 30; Tilleard and Co., solicitors. 84, 1. Jewry, E.C. EVEREST (Dr. Geo. J., 13, Mayl: nd-road, Shepherd's-bush. Middlesex. Sept. 6; J. S. Hincks, solicitor, 14, King-street, Finsbury-square, E.C. FLEMING John B. W.), Esq., Stoneham-park, and Chilworth Manor House. Southamp.on. Oct. 1; J. Burgin, solicitor, 8, John street, Bedford-row, W. Fox (Richara), Beeford, Yorks, farmer. Oct. 10; Foster HEPPER John H.), Leeds, glass and china dealer. Aug. 27; Jas. Rider, solicitor, 15, Park row, Leeds. HODGSON Richard), Hawkwood, Chingford, Essex, gentleman. Sept. 1; Kingsford and Do. man, solicitors, 23, Essex. street, Strand, W.C. JACKSON (Wm,), Esq.. Lancaster. Sept. 2; Maxsted and Gibson, solicitors, Lancaster. JOHNSON (Wm.), 3, Clarence stret. Liverpool, painter, and plumber. Sept. 1; Bremuer and Son, solicitor, 77, Dalestreet, Liverpool. JONES (Ellen), Hillfield-parade, Gloucester. Sept. 2; Young and Co., solicito 8, 2, St. Mildred's court, Poultry. KENDALL (Edward, Esq., 6, Lansdowne-terrace, Chelten ham. Sept. 21; Daws and Sons, solicitors, 9, Angelcourt, Throgmorton-street, E.C. LAWRENCE Mary E.), Park-road, Norbiton, Surrey, Nor. 2; H. Hill, solicitor, 50, Queen Street, Cheapside, E.C. LEWIS (Frederick), 257, Hackney road, Middlesex, attorney. Sept. 11; Sorrell and S. n, 63, Great Tower-street, E.C. MALDEN Frances). Esq., M.D., Worcester. Sept. 24; T. Barneley, solicitor, , Foregate, Wo cester. MATHEWS (William), Esq., . Pulteney-sareet, Bath. Sept. 10: Bridges and Co., solicitors, 23, Red Lion-square, Middlesex. MAUNSELL (Garnett P.), 196, Kentish Town-road, N.W. Sept. 17; S. Gedge, solicitor, 1, Old Palace-yard, West minster. PERKINS (William B.), Long Itchington, Warwick, gentleman. Sept. 17: G. and F. R. Moore, solicitors, 2, Churchstreet, Warwick. PULLEN (Anne F., St. Lawrence, Isle of Thanet, Kent. Sept. 29; Wm. West, solicitor, Bromyard, Hereford, RANDOLPH (Sophia E.), Lansdowne, Torquay. Wm, Ley, solicitor, 61, Carey-street, Middlesex, RASLEIGH (Wm.), Menabilly and Point Neptune. Cornwall, and 17, Hill-street, Berkeley-square, W., and St. Leonard's-hill, Windsor. Aug. 31; Shilson and Co., solicitors, St. Austell. RIMMER, (Jas.), 7, Mersey-street, Birkenhead. Sept. 12; M. J. Hore, solicitor, 5, Commerce-chambers, Lordstreet, Liverpool. ROYLE (John, Coventry, solicitor. Sept. 2; T. Browett, RUTHERFORD (Eleanor B.), Wrotham-road, Gravesend, UPTON (Wm.), 91, Strand, W.C., and Acre-lane, Brixton, REPORTS OF SALES. Thursday, July 25. By Messrs. BEADEL, at the Mart. Essex, Southend.-The Cliff-town Estate, No. 6, Cliff-townparade, freehold-sold for £1000. No. 7, Scratton-road, freehold-sold for £325. The reversion to houses and land, term 86 years-sold for £625. Freehold ground rents, amounting to £63 169. per annum— sold for £2045. The reversion to an enclosure, containing Sr. 8p., term 86 years-sold for £50. A ground rent of £5 per annum-sold for £150. Various freehold ground rents, together with the reversion to houses and land-sold for £4225. Four plots of freehold building land-sold for £750. Essex, near Burnham.-Holliwell Farm, containing 419. Sr. 36p., freehold-sold for £12,000. Billericay, near, a freehold estate, known as Great Gubbins, containing 368a. 2r. 13p.-sold for £10,0 0. Barking. May bells Farm, containing 145a. 2r, 25p., freehold -sold for £10,500 Moggs's Farm, containing 89a. Or. 31p.-sold for £5500. By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall. Westbourne-park.-No. 39, sutherland-street, term 74 years -sold for £600. Kent, near Dartford.-Longfield Court and 3la. Sr. 14p.. freehold-sold for £5000. At Hartley-green.-Two cottages and enclosures of land. containing 10a. Ir. 12p.-sold for £1050. Hartley-cottage, with stabling, &c.-sold for £1080. |