Eries, 38 to 38; Illinois, 102 to 103; and United States Funded Loan, 89 to 89.

In the Railway Market the prices are:-Caledonians, 112 to 112; Great Eastern, 48 to 48; Great Northern, 139 to 139; ditto, A, 161 to 162; Great Western, 112 to 112 ; Lancashire and Yorkshire, 153 to 154 ; London and Brighton, 70 to 71; London, Chatham, and Dover, 234 to 24; ditto 4 per cent. preference, 60 to 60; London and North-Western 145 to 145; London and South-Western, 104 to 105; Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln, 74 to 744 ex. div.; Metropolitan, 59 to 594; ditto District, 284 to 29: Midland, 113 to 143; North British, 731 to 73; North Eastern Consols 163 to 161; South-Eastern, 991 to 99 ex div.; ditto Deferred, 78% to 783; Grand Trunk of Canada, 19 to 20; Great Western of Canada, 214 to 21; Antwerp and Rotterdam, 21 to 22; Great Luxembourg, 17 to 17; and Lombardo Venetian, 18 to 19.

The prices of the principal Foreign Stocks are as follows: Argentine 1868, 94 to 944; do., 6 per cent., 1871, 94 to 944; Brazilian, 5 per cent., 1865, 96 to 97; do., 5 per cent., 1871, 941 to 95 ex div.; Costa Rica Scrip, 1872, 8 to 6 dis.; Egyptian, 7 per cent., 1868, 88 to 89 : do., Viceroy Loan, 88 to 90; do., Khedive Mortgage Bonds, 80 to 81; French Morgan, 6 per

cent. Loan 983 to 991; do. National, 5 per cent., 3 to 3 pm.; Honduras, 40 to 43; Italian of 1861, 661 to 67; Mexican, 14 to 15; Paraguay, 1871, 76 to 77; do. 1872, 7 to 4 dis.; Peruvian 6 per cent. 1870, 76% to 763; do., 1872 scrip, 5 to 3 dis.; Spanish 29 to 294; do. Quicksilver, 80 to 81; do., 3 per cent., 1871, 29 to 29; Turkish, 5 per cent. 1865, 51 to 52; do. 6 per cent. 1869, 63 to 63; do. 6 per cent. 1871, 72 to 73; and Uruguay, 72 to 73.

In the Telegraph Market, Anglo-American Stock is quoted at 114 to 1i6; British Australian, 7 to 7; British Indian Extension, 114 to 114; Chinas, 7 to 8; Cubas, 74 to 8; Great Northern, 11 to 11; Indo-European, 13 to 15; Mediterranean Extension, 6 to 64; Reuter's, 9 to 10; French Cables, 20 to 21; and West India and Panama, 5 to 5.

In miscellaneous shares the prices are as follows :-General Credits 2 to 3 pm.; International Finance, to dis.; Hooper's Telegraph Works, a dis. to par; Hudson's Bay, 11 to 11; India Rubber and Gutta Percha, 35 to 37; National Discount, 12 to 12; Telegraph Construction, 31 to 31; Royal Mail Steam, 89 to 91; Native Guano, 13 to 15; Phosphate Sewage, 16 to 18; New Sombrero Phosphate, 4 to 5; and Phospho Guano, 11 to 11.

THIS was an appeal from a decision of Bacon, V.C. The suit was instituted by the manager of the Union Bank of London to make Lord Ebury and four other directors of the Watford and Rickmansworth Railway Company personally liable for a sum of upwards of £20,000, being the balance overdrawn by the company upon their current account with the Union Bank. In July 1800 three of the directors of the company signed a letter addressed to the directors of the Union Bank, requesting them to honour the cheques of the company, signed by two of the directors, and countersigned by the secretary. The bank honoured such cheques, and in the result a large sum became due from the company. Being pressed for security for this debt, the directors of the company transferred to the plaintiff, in trust for the bank, £20,000 unissued preference shares and £10,000 debentures of the company. The bank sought to make the directors personally liable on the ground that the letter requesting the bank to honour the cheques amounted to a representation that the company was legally empowered to borrow the money, and that the company would pay the money which might become due in respect of the cheques, and also on the ground that the directors had represented to the bank that the shares and debentures transferred as a security were fully paid up. The Vice-Chancellor having held that the directors were personally liable, they appealed from his decision.

Sir Roundell Palmer, Q. C., Fry, Q. C., and Speed, for the appellants.

The Solicitor-General (Sir G. Jessel, Q. C.), Swanston, Q. C., Wood, Q. C. (of the Common Law Bar), and T. A. Roberts for the bank.

Kay, Q.C., and Locock Webb for the railway

company.

Lord Justice MELLISH said that the Vice-Chancellor held the directors personally liable upon the authority of three cases at law, which decided that where an agent purports to bind his principal, he warrants that he has authority to do so, and if, in fact, he has not, he will be held person. ally liable. But in all those three cases-Collen v. Wright (7 Ell. & Bl. 301), Richardson v. Williamson (L. Rep. 6 Q. B. 276), and Cherry v. The Bank of Australasia (L. Rep. 3 P. C. 24)-a misrepresentation of fact was made. Rashdall v. Ford (L. Rep. 2 Eq. 750) showed that a misrepresentation as to law would not render the person making the misrepresentation liable in equity, and, although his Lordship could not find any authority upon the point at law, he had no doubt that a misrepresentation by an agent as to a matter of law, if the person dealing with him knew all the facts, and there was merely a mistake as to the law, would not make the agent personally liable. In the present case his Lordship came to the conclusion that, from the begining to the end of the transaction, the plaintiff knew all the circumstances of the railway company as well as the directors themselves. There was no mistake or misrepresentation as to any matter of fact, and the manager of the bank was never deceived. The bill must, therefore, be dismissed with costs, as against the directors of the company.

|

Lord Justice JAMES was of the same opinion. Solicitors: Dobie; W. Clarke; Baxter, Rose, and Norton.

Monday, July 29.

JONES v. FROST; Re FIddey.

Solicitor's lien

·Charge under 23 & 24 Vict. c.
127, s. 28.
THIS was an appeal from a decision of the Master
of the Rolls. The suit was instituted in 1867 by
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Jones to set aside a sale by
them in 1864 of an expectant interest in certain
real estate to which Mrs. Jones expected to be-
come entitled, as the heiress-in-law of her father,
who was then alive. By his answer, the defen-
dant submitted to reconvey the property on being
repaid his purchase money and receiving his costs
of the suit, and the property was accordingly re-
conveyed, and the bill dismissed by consent. Mr.
Fiddey had acted as solicitor for Mr. and Mrs.
Jones in this suit. In Aug. 1869 Mr. and Mrs.
Jones, her father being then dead, sold the pro-
perty to one Heinrich, who purchased with notice
of the proceedings in Jones v. Frost. Fiddey's
bill of costs in that suit was taxed at £129, and
the chief clerk of the Master of the Rolls having
refused to give him a charge on the property on a
summons by him in the matter of the suit, on the
ground that the suit of Jones v. Frost no longer
existed, Fiddey presented a petition to the Master
of the Rolls praying that he might be declared
entitled to a charge on the property for the amount
of his costs. The Master of the Rolls having
made an order to that effect, Heinrich appealed.
De Gex, Q.C. and Ramadge, for the appellant,
contended that the order ought not to have been
made, because the suit had never been heard and
was not pending, and because no property was
recovered in the suit, as no property had passed
by the deed, Mrs. Jones's interest being, at the
date of the deed, a mere possibility.

Southgate, Q.C. and Cecil Dale, for Fiddey.
Pace for the plaintiffs.

Lord Justice JAMES said that it was no answer
to a solicitor's claim to have a charge that the
conveyance sought to be set aside in the suit was
of no effect. The other objection also failed.
Heinrich bought with notice of the suit, and took
the property subject to Fiddey's charge.
Lord Justice MELLISH concurred.

Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs.
Solicitors: Hanrott; C. Fiddey.

BENSON V. GRAHAM.
Action at law-Injunction-Complicated accounts
-Payment of money into court.
THIS was an appeal from a decision of Malins, V.C.
The suit was instituted by one Benson, a watch-
maker, to restrain an action at law, brought by
the defendant for a sum of £860, claimed by him
as commission for the sale of watches. The bill
stated that the defendant was the plaintiff's agent
for the formation of clubs for the sale of watches,
and charged him with having supplied the clubs
with articles of other watchmakers as being the
plaintiff's, and that the plaintiff was entitled to
the profits thus made by the defendant; and it
prayed that the accounts might be taken in this
court. The Vice-Chancellor granted an injunction,
restraining the action at law, but dispensed with
the payment of the money by the plaintiff into
court, on account of the charges proved against
the defendant. From this order the defendant
appealed.

Cottrell, for the appellant.
Glasse, Q.C. and W. W. Karslake, for the re-
spondent.

Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that the Vice

Chancellor's order was right, the plaintiff being entitled to the profits made by the defendant by the sale of goods other than those of the plaintiff, and perhaps also to the amount lost by him, through the defendant's failing to sell his goods.

Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant, Bartlett and Forbes. Solicitors for the respondent, Jacobs, North, and Vincent.

Wednesday, July 31.

Re HOPE (a Solicitor). Solicitor-Costs in respect of business done while uncertificated-6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 26. THIS was an appeal from an order of the Master of the Rolls. Benjamin Hope, a soliciior, had made a motion before the Master of the Rolls which had been dismissed with costs. The certificate of the solicitor on the other side had not been renewed at that time, but his client, nevertheless, had paid him his costs in respect of the motion. The costs having been taxed, Hope took out a summons to have them disallowed, relying upon the 26th section of the Solicitors Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73), which provides that "no person who, as an attorney or solicitor, shall sue, prosecute, defend, or carry on any action or suit, or any proceedings without having prein any of the courts viously obtained a stamped certificate which shall be then in force, shall be capable of maintaining any action or suit at law or in equity for the recovery of any fee, reward, or disbursement for or in respect of any business, matter, or thing done by him as an attorney or solicitor as aforesaid, whilst he shall have been without such certificate as aforesaid." The Master of the Rolls having dismissed the summons, Hope appealed.

Hope, in person, in support of the appeal. Daniel, in support of the order of the Master of the Rolls.

Lord Justice JAMES said that this case was governed by Re Jones (21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 482; L. Rep. 9 Eq. 63). The statute only prevented an uncertificated solicitor from recovering his costs. But there was nothing to prevent a client from paying his costs to his solicitor, though uncertificated; on the contrary, the client was in honour bound to pay them, and he was entitled to be reimbursed when his opponent was ordered to pay costs.

Lord Justice MELLISH concurred.

Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. Solicitors: B. Hope; Strangways.

Re LIQUIDATION ACT 1868; Re THOMAS SAVIN
(a Debtor).
Inspectorship deed Secured creditor-Interest
accruing subsequent to deed-Liquidation Act
1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 68).
THIS was an appeal from a decision of Bacon,
V.C. The debtor executed a deed of inspectorship
which was registered in Feb. 1866, and by the 12th
clause of which it was provided that secured
creditors should take the securities held by them
respectively in or towards the discharge of their
debts, and should be admitted as creditors on the
general estate for their balances, if any. The
Joint Stock Discount Company, who were mort-
gagees of certain railway shares and debentures
belonging to the debtor, claimed to be entitled to
apply their securities in payment of the interest
which had accrued due to them since the date of
the inspectorship deed down to the date of the
realisation of the securities, and then to prove
against the general estate for the balance of the
principal which might still be owing to them. It
was admitted that the income of the securities
might be applied in payment of the interest subse-

quent to the inspectorship deed, but it was contended that the principal could not be so applied. On a summons by the Joint Stock Discount Com. pany, to establish their claim, the Vice-Chancellor held that they were entitled out of the proceeds of the securities, in the first place, to deduct all interest accrued due from the date of the deed down to the time of the realisation of the securities, and to prove against the general estate for any balance of principal which the residue should be insufficient to pay. From this decision the trustees of the deed appealed.

Kay, Q.C. and Westlake, for the appellants. De Gex, Q.C. and Jackson, for the respondents Lord Justice JAMES said that the Vice Chancellor's decision did not give sufficient weight to a long roll of cases, the first of which was decided ninety years ago, and all of which down to Lord Westbury's decision in Ex parte Lubbock (9 Jur. N. S. 854), treated it as a settled rule that the proof of a mortgagee's debt is to be so dealt with as not to allow interest subsequent to the bankruptcy. It was much too late to attempt to upset that rule, which governed the present case. The ViceChancellor's order must therefore be discharged. | Lord Justice MELLISH, was of the same opinion. Solicitors for the appellants: Ashurst, Morris, and Co.

Solicitors for the respondents: Mackenzie, Trinder, and Co.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL . GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Railway company-Board of Trade-Jurisdiction -Uncertified alterations in line-Injunction. THIS was an appeal from an order of Wickens, V.C. The Great Western Railway Company opened a short new line constructed on land of their own, without giving the Board of Trade notice of their intention to do so, and thereupon this information was filed to restrain them from using the new line. The facts of the case will be found fully stated in the "Notes of the Week," LAW TIMES, 3rd Aug. The Vice-Chancellor granted the injunction, but in order to allow the company time to make all necessary arrangements, directed that the injunction should not come into operation until the 1st Oct. From this order the company appealed.

Sir John Karslake, Q.C. (of the Common Law Bar). Dickinson, Q.C., Speed, and H. A. Giffard, for the appellants.

The Solicitor-General (Sir G. Jessel, Q.C.) and Hemming, in support of the order.

Lord Justice JAMES said that he thought that the Vice-Chancellor's order could not be altered. The only question was whether this was a portion of a railway within the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55. It was a line of half a mile or more, over which passenger trains were to run, and it was as essential that it should be inspected by the Board of Trade when it was made on land belonging to the railway company as when it was made anywhere else. Lord Justice MELLISH Concurred.

Appeal accordingly dismissed with costs. Solicitors: Raven and Bradley; Young, Maples, Teesdale and Co.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

Monday, July 29.

(Before the CHIEF JUDGE.)

Ex parte BOLLAND; Re COUSTEN AND CO. Bankruptcy Act 1869-Order and disposition -Custom of trade-Insufficient assertion of ownership.

evidence of the change of ownership was an entry
in the vendor's books, crediting the purchasers
with the casks, which were identified by numbers
marked on them. The purchaser having died
before the bankruptcy, his executor applied to
the County Court for an order declaring that he
was entitled to the casks of whiskey, and the
Judge made an order in accordance with the
application, and the trustee appealed.
Benjamin and Connell appeared for the appel-
lant.-The respondent relied upon two points in
support of the order which he had obtained: first,
a custom in the spirit trade at Liverpool, that
upon a sale of goods deposited in a bonded ware-
house, the goods were immediately ipso facto
transferred absolutely to the purchaser, conferring
an indefeasible title upon him; secondly, that
even if this contention were not sustainable, the
letter of the 19th Feb. 1872 was sufficient to take
the property out of the order and disposition of
the bankrupt. The first point clearly could not
be maintained for a moment, for it would amount
to an express enactment being superseded by a
mere local custom: (Knowles v. Horsfall, 5 B. &
Ald. 134. With regard to the point raised about
the letter, there was no reason for saying that this
placed the purchaser in a better position, as re-
garded his rights, in opposition to the claims of the
trustee under the bankruptcy.

Wheeler appeared for the respondent.-The
current of decisions had for a series of years been
in favour of giving as much as possible to a pur.
chaser for value, thereby considerably modifying
the principles of law laid down in Knowles v.
Horsfall. He cited Robson's Bankruptcy Law,
p. 356; Hamilton v. Bell (10 Ex. 554); Priestley v.
Pratt (L. Rep. 2 Ex. 102); Emerson v. Barnett, re
Hawkins (20 W. R. 110).

The CHIEF JUDGE said that the doctrine of order and disposition was undoubtedly the cause of considerable hardship in certain cases, but it had been a rule of law now for centuries, and was upon the whole beneficial in its effects. There could be no question in the present case that the casks of whiskey had been suffered by the true owner to remain in the order and disposition of a person, who was not the true owner. The case of Hamilton v. Bell was entirely different in its circumstances from that of Knowles v. Horsfall, and the decision in the latter case was not in the least degree impeached or superseded by the decision in Hamilton v. Bell. The only other point in the case was as to whether the letter of the 19th Feb. 1872 was such a demand for the delivery of the goods as to take them out of the order and disposition of the bankrupts; but it was clear that that letter did not affect the ostensible possession of them. It was merely a transaction as between the parties themselves, and the right of the trustee under the bankruptcy to the possession of the property in question was clearly established. The order of the judge of the County Court must be discharged. No costs would be allowed on the appeal.

Solicitors for the appellants, Chester and Urqu
hart.

Solicitors for the respondents, Barnett and
Rodway.

LEGISLATION AND JURIS-
PRUDENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, Aug. 1.
PAWNBROKERS' BILL.

THIS was an appeal from a decision of the judge of The Earl of HARROWBY, in moving the second
the County Court of Liverpool deciding that certain reading of this Bill, said it was one which re-
casks of whiskey were not in the order and dispo- pealed several Acts relating to the pawnbroking
sition of the bankrupt at the time of his bankruptcy. trade. There was a concurrence of opinion that
Messrs. Cousten and Co. were spirit merchants, the measure would effect much needed improve-
carrying on business at Liverpool, and in Decem- ments, and in its passage through the House of
ber 1870, they sold several hogsheads of whiskey to Commons only one hon. member had opposed its
Robert Ward, residing in Scotland. The whiskey progress. The noble earl moved its second reading.
at the time of the sale was lying in a neutral-Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY was understood
bonded warehouse belonging to a third party, and
not in the occupation of either vendor or purchaser,
and it was agreed between the vendor and purchaser
that the whiskey should remain in the warehouse
rent free, so far as the purchaser was concerned,
for one year from the date of the sale, and that
afterwards the purchaser should pay a rent at the
rate of 2d. a hogshead. The purchaser paid for
the whiskey in March 1871, but he took no steps
to assert his ownership over the whiskey, which
remained in the apparent ownership of the
bankrupts until the time of their bankruptcy.
On the 19th Feb. 1872 the purchaser trans-
mitted to the vendor sufficient money to pay
the duty upon the whiskey then remaining in
bond, and at the same time wrote to them request-
ing they would send the whiskey to an address
mentioned in the letter, but which, the latter neg-
lected to do, and shortly afterwards they became
bankrupts. The purchasers had never made any
claim at the warehouse in respect of the whiskey,
which continued in the books of the warehouse
keeper in the names of the vendors, and the only

to say that, by lowering the amount of the pawn-
brokers' licence duty in some instances, the Bill
would have the effect of increasing the number of
pawnbrokers in the metropolis.The Marquis
of SALISBURY thought that at this period of the
session it was too late for their lordships to pro-
ceed with a measure like this. If the Bill was one
proposed by Her Majesty's Government the case
would be different; but this was a Bill got up by
a private member of Parliament, and there was
not time to inquire into its provisions. It re-
pealed a large number of Acts, and it increased
the rate of interest which pawnbrokers might
charge. It would enable them to charge 25 per
cent. interest in certain cases, the highest rate
which they could now charge being 20 per cent.
It would also enable them to charge a small sum
for the ticket, an arrangement which in the case
of small advances for short periods would increase
the actual amount of interest from 25 to 50 per
cent. What objection could there be to letting
the matter sleep for two or three years until
the Government could take it up? (A laugh.)

It was certain that sooner or later we should have to carry out our free trade policy by extending it to transactions between pawnbrokers and their customers. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.--The Earl of MORLEY was quite aware that the argu. ments of the noble marquis had considerable force, particularly as the Bill had only been printed that morning; but so far from it being a measure that had not been considered by the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Govern ment, the subject had been considered two years ago by a select committee of the House of Commons, and this Bill itself had been sent to a select committee of the House of Commons, and had been carefully examined by the Home Office. It had been agreed on by both sides, and only one hon. member had opposed the progress of the Bill. He hoped the noble marquis would not oppose the second reading, as their lordships would have an opportunity of considering all the provisions of the Bill next week.--The Earl of HARROWBY wished to explain that in all transactions above 10s. between pawnbrokers and their customers there would be free trade. It was only in small sums under that amount the pawnbroker was to be allowed to charge a higher rate of interest. In these cases the principles of free trade were interfered with in order to allow the pawnbroker to recoup himself for certain expenses, such as those of furnishing an improved form of ticket. The Bill had met with the approbation of city missionaries and other friends of the poor, and, under all the circumstances, he hoped it approximated sufficiently to free trade to satisfy the noble marquis.--The Marquis of SALISBURY did not press his amendment. The Bill was then read a second time.

Monday, Aug. 5.

LAW OFFICERS' (ENGLAND) FEES BILL. The LORD-CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it was one to carry into effect an arrangement which had been made for the purpose, in future, of paying the law officers of England by a fixed salary instead of by fees. The Bill provided for the payment of the fees now received by them to the public account. It would have partial operation at once, because one of the present law officers (the Solicitor-General) had taken office since the new arrangement was deter As the accession to office of the present mined on. Attorney-General was prior to the arrangements, that hon. and learned gentleman would continue to receive fees. The Bill would not apply to him, but the fees hitherto paid to the Solicitor-General would be paid into the Treasury, and the hon. and learned gentleman would be remunerated by a salary, as would be the successors of the present then moved the second reading. The Bill was read Attorney-General. The noble and learned lord a second time.

Tuesday, Aug. 6.

THE PAWNBROKERS' BILL. Their Lordships having gone into committee on the Bill, Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said he would now move the amendment of which he had given notice, to leave out proviso 2 in the 4th schedule, which makes a farthing into a halfpenny and three farthings into a penny, because it seemed to have been adopted to make up for the insufficient supply of farthings by the Mint, and he feared that this proviso would encourage the Mint to neglect the proper supply of farthings. That farthings were insufficient in quantity in some parts of the country was shown by the answer given by Mr. Stubbs, a magistrate's clerk at Liverpool, to question 3095 of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. He said: "As to sect. 4, which enacted that pawnbrokers were to give farthings, I may say that in Liverpool farthings are scarcely known, and it is frequently the case that rows of pins have been given in lieu of farthings. Whether from scarcity of coin or from other causes, I cannot say, but I have not seen a farthing in Liverpool certainly within the last six years." If this proviso applied only to fractional sums, not represented by any coin, it would be intelligible, but it did not seem called for except by reason of a deficiency of coin, for which the Mint was responsible. This proviso was the same in form and spirit as a proviso would be enacting that in certain cases half a sovereign or a sovereign should be required where a debt amounted to 9s. or 19s., and if a portion of the copper coinage was to be treated as non-existing, the silver coinage might soon come in for similar treatment. Any deficiency of small coin fell very severely upon the poorer portion of the population and he had seen this proved by the fact that the only complaint which he heard made in Savoy after the annexation was that the French Government had not given them as much small change as they had had under the Piedmontese. He might also refer to the whole population of Catalonia having rejected two new copper coinages of the Revolutionary Government in Spain, so that even the beggars would not take these coins. The first of these coinages diminished the number of

coppers in the piece of silver from 34 to 32, so as to get rid of four small coins called ochavos, and the second reduced the 32 coppers to 20, which would not harmonize with any prices current in the country. It was useless for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the duties on tea and sugar if at the same time he stinted the supply of farthings, so that the consumer could not benefit by these reductions, which are only profitable to the importers. The noble lord concluded by moving the omission of the proviso.--The amendment was agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, passed through committee. When their lordships resumed, Lord REDESDALE expressed his concurrence with the noble lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) in the view that the proviso against which he had moved his amendment would not have been fair to poor persons who might be obliged to have dealings with pawnbrokers.The Earl of KIMBERLEY said he also concurred in thinking that the proviso would have been inadvisable.--The Duke of ARGYLL, in reference to the objection of his noble friend (the Marquis of Salisbury), said that this Bill neither created any vested rights nor at all tied the hands of Parliament in respect of future legislation.——The Marquis of SALISBURY said that technically his noble friend (the Duke of Argyll) was right, but his noble friend knew that the doctrine of vested interests was extended to very wide limits in practice.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS)

BILL.

be required by the contractors for the enormous works undertaken, for the preparation of the stone, and shoring up the building. He believed that the building would have ample approaches, and if it was desired to make them more beautiful the Metropolitan Board of Works would be the best authority to decide on that point. Mr. Street, in his opinion, was quite competent to carry out the design.--Lord J. MANNERS observed that this particular work was initiated by Act of Parlia ment, and certain commissioners were appointed by that Act, whose powers, he believed, had not ceased until a recent period. The work had been intrusted to a most eminent architect, and the House had better leave the matter in his hands.

sum be reduced by £5000. The House had cer-
tainly not yet approved any design for these
courts. On the 22nd Feb. the right hon. gentle-
man the First Commissioner of Works, in answer
to a question put by him, said the designs had
been exhibited for several weeks in the Library
last session, and the Government had approved
the designs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
afterwards stated that, although there were cer-
tain designs of a very simple character, it was not
till November that they were finally brought to
the shape in which they were exhibited; the
House of Commons had no opportunity of express-
ing their opinion respecting them, and when they
were called upon to vote a large sum of money it
was their duty to see that it would be well laid -Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE wanted to know
out. The subject had been bandied about from whether the architect had entered into a contract
the Office of Works to the Treasury, and from the under seal to carry out the works for a certain
Treasury back to the Office of Works; but the sum.--Mr. AYRTON replied that a contract for
confusion which arose did not stop there. On the performance of the work for a certain sum had
the 6th July he addressed a question to the been signed, and the time necessary for the com-
First Commissioner as to whether the design pletion of the building would be between six and
exhibited in the Royal Academy was the true seven years.--Mr. C. BENTINCK said that, having
design. The right hon. gentleman said the learnt there was no probability that the work
design was not approved by him, but by the Trea- would be proceeded with this year, he would with-
sury; and if the Treasury was responsible for that draw his amendment.-The amendment was ac-
design, why was not the Chancellor of the Exche-cordingly withdrawn, and the vote was agreed to.
quer present to answer for it? Whatever explan-
tion might be given by the Government, the fact
wis a large sum was to be voted, and the House
did not know what the design was to be, or who
was responsible for it. There was, no doubt, an
elaborate elevation by Mr. Street, the adoption of
the art of this country. His object was to gain
which would, he thought, be a lasting disgrace to
time. There was plenty to do on the site in pre-

assurance

On the report of amendments in this Bill, Lord REDESDALE moved an amendment having for its object to prevent any Town Council from ting a Bill for the compulsory purchase of water-paring the foundations and other necessary works works or gasworks. He said much vexation was before they could arrive at any artistic question, caused to gas companies and water companies by Street to take back his plans and alter them. If and it was quite competent for them to ask Mr. town corporations who wanted to get possession of he could not produce a more satisfactory design their property.--The Earl of KIMBERLEY submitted that in these days, when uniformity in the the architect might be changed, just as they had management of public undertakings was thought recently changed the sculptor in the case of the so desirable, it would be unwise to insert in an Wellington monument. He also wished to know Act of Parliament a proviso to prevent a town approaches of the law courts, and the ground the intentions of the Government in regard to the council from promoting a Bill for the compulsory which was not wanted for the buildings. He purchase of gasworks or waterworks. Parliament moved the reduction of the vote by the sum of would take care that such Bills were passed only £5000. Mr. W. H. SMITH did not wish to in proper cases.- -Lord REDESDALE Would withdraw his amendment, because at this time there follow his hon. friend into the artistic question, was no hope of carrying it against the wish of the but he hoped the right hon. gentleman who might Government. The amendment was then withdrawn. reply to him would state when some progress -Lord REDESDALE had another amendment to for which the ground had been cleared five or six might be expected to be made with the buildings propose, and its object was to put an end to what he regarded as an abuse. The memyears ago. Power was taken in 1865 to obtain a bers of local governing bodies were very fond of site for the new courts of law. Since then a large coming to Parliament to promote or oppose private of persons being dispossessed of their habitaspace of ground had been cleared, a great number Bills, because it gave them an opportunity of tions; and, beyond the introduction of some visiting London at the expense of the ratepayers bricks, no action had been taken. Meanwhile of their locality. The noble Lord then moved an amendment to the effect that no expenses incurred the interest on a very large sum of money by any member of a local governing body on was accruing. He hoped some would be given that the work would be proaccount of attendance on Parliament in promoting ceeded with without further delay. or opposing any Bill, or any payment to any such AYRTON said his hon. and learned friend had Mr. member for acting as counsel or agent in pro- hardly done justice to his own views. Some time moting or opposing any Bill, should be charged to ago the hon. member for Whitehaven submitted the public funds administered by such body.The Earl of MORLEY could not consent to the first stated was four years too late, because he profor their consideration a motion which he then portion of the amendment, because when any posed that the whole question should be reconmember of one of those bodies attended as a depn-sidered, and he made some reflections on Mr. tation to watch the progress of Bills, it must be presumed that the constituents of the body of duties for which he was appointed. The appointStreet as if he were incompetent to perform the which he was a member approved such attendance. ment of Mr. Street determined the style and chaTo the latter part of the amendment, providing racter of the building to be erected; and that against payment out of the funds of the body to gentleman was singularly well qualified to carry any of its members who acted as counsel or agent out that style and to produce a building of as before a Parliamentary committee the Government much beauty as any other architect that could be would give their assent.- -The first portion of named. The hon. member had fallen into considerthe amendment having been withdrawn, the latter able confusion between the general plan which portion, was agreed to.--The report of amend had been laid in the library towards the close of ments was then received. last session, and the more detailed drawings Mr. Street had since made, and which, no doubt, had from time to time varied in minute ornamentation; not been altered since it was exhibited in the but the general scope of Mr. Street's design had library. No benefit would result from communicating to the House from time to time any change which Mr. Street might make in the ornamentation of the front of his building. In August last year the Treasury gave their sanction to the south front, and, according to contract, Mr. Street was bound to deliver the contract drawings which were necessary to enable the contractors to make tenders in February this year; but he deemed it desirable that the agents for the contractors should follow him with his contract plans and drawings, and that course was being taken; but as Mr. Street aimed at a great variety of ornamentation he found that the contract plans and drawings required much more time than he anticipated, and, so far as he could judge at the present moment, the Office of Works would not be in a position to invite tenders for the construction of the building for the next three or four months. His hon. friend wished to know what was to be done with the approaches to the Courts of Justice and with the land not required for the building. At present nothing was to be done with it. All the land would

Wednesday, Aug. 7.

REVISING BARRISTERS BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of this Bill, the objects of which are-first, to lengthen the qualification of a revising barrister; and, secondly, to remove certain powers of appointment from the judges on circuit. It was thought, he said, that this Bill would have been passed before the present assizes; but as it had not been its date would be 1873. The Bill was read a second time and passed through committee.

PAWNBROKERS BILL.

The amendments to this bill were reported, and further amendments agreed to.-The Attorneys and Solicitors Act (1860) Amendment Bill passed through committee. The Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Saturday, Aug. 3.

NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

On the vote of £37,300 for the new Courts of Justice, Mr. C. BENTINCK rose to move that the

JURORS IN IRELAND.

In answer to Mr. Digby, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said that eight jurors who had been set aside by the Crown Solicitor at the assizes for the Queen's County were not set aside tors in the various counties were governed by on account of their religion. The Crown Solicirules issued by the Attorney-General in office, the last edition of which was issued by the present Vice-Chancellor of Ireland. He quoted the rule had received from Mr. Gerard, the Crown Solicitor applicable to the case, and read a statement he of the Queen's County, who declared that religion had nothing to do with the setting aside of the eight jurors, who were personally unknown to him, and concerning whom he gave certain parthat, so far from all being Catholics, one was ticulars since ascertained, from which it appeared certainly a Protestant. From the character and standing of Mr. Gerard, the hon. and learned gentleman had no hesitation in accepting the assurance he gave. -Sir J. GRAY asked the hon. and learned gentleman whether, having regard to the evils which arose under the rules, it would not GENERAL for IRELAND said that no case had been be desirable to amend them.--The ATTORNEYbrought under his notice in which anyone had been set aside on account of religion. When such a to account. case occurred, he certainly would call the offender

Thursday, Aug. 1.

FEES AT THE MANSION-HOUSE AND GUILDHALL.

Home Department if the learned gentlemen who Mr. GILPIN asked the Secretary of State for the Guildhall had any pecuniary interest in the comadvise the magistrates at the Mansion-house and mittal of accused persons for trial. The hon. gentleman begged to observe that his question gentlemen, both of whom he knew personally to had no reference to the character of the two BRUCE assumed that the question had reference be of high and irreproachable character.--Mr. called Jervis's Act, to charge for depositions. By solely to the power given by statute, commonly that Act the clerks were required to give to the prisoner copies of the depositions on which he might be committed or bailed, on the payment of words. The clerks to the magistrates of the city a fee not exceeding 1d. for each folio of ninety of London received payment for copies of depositions supplied to both parties, but that was also the case with the clerks of police-courts and magistrates throughout the country. In lengthy and important cases called Companies' Cases, when the inquiry extended over several days, the indifferently to apply to be supplied with the practice was for the legal advisers of both parties copies of evidence taken during each day, so that payment was made quite irrespective of the fact of committal. The clerks could, therefore, have prisoners, with a view to obtain remuneration no object in recommending the committal of from those charges. He had never heard any complaint on the subject, but the question of the remuneration by fees to clerks of justices must no doubt come under the consideration of Parliament next session.

Tuesday, Aug. 6.

THE JUDICATURE COMMISSION. In answer to Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. BRUCE said he was informed that the report of the Judicature Commission had been completed, that it had received the signatures of some of the members, and that it was now only waiting for the signatures of the remainder. He believed the report would be laid on the table before the termination of the session, but he feared it would not be distributed to members before the session was brought to a close.

Where a public prosecutor institutes or conducts any criminal proceeding before justices, the clerk to the justices, if he is not the public prose-public prosecutors.-The Secretary of State shall cutor, shall furnish to the public prosecutor, on demand by him, all such depositions, recognizances, documents, and things connected with the case, and give such information in reference to the case as the public prosecutor may require.

The coroner by whom any person is committed for trial shall certify the fact of such committal, and transmit all depositions taken before him, and the recognizances and other documents and things belonging to the case, to the proper public prosecutor.

The public prosecutor shall, subject to any regulations made under this Act, deliver or certify the said depositions, recognizances, documents, and things to the proper officer of the court in which the trial is to be had, in the manner in which they would but for this Act be delivered by the clerk to the justices or certified by the coroner, as the case may be.

Any question which may arise with respect to the transmission, delivery, or certifying of depositions, recognizances, documents, or thing in pursuance of this section shall be decided by a

Secretary of State, whose decision shall be final.

5. Provision as to private prosecution.—Where a public prosecutor prosecutes any person for any offence, such prosecution shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act or by any regulation made thereunder, be conducted solely by such public prosecutor, and in any county or borough in which this Act is in operation no person shall be bound over by any justices or coroner to prefer a bill of indictment for any offence mentioned in the first schedule to this Act.

salary, the justices, council, or other governing body, who under the said Act have power to make a recommendation with respect to the payment of such clerk by salary in lieu of fees, shall, within six months after this Act so comes into operation, make such a recommendation to a Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall make an order directing such payment; and if, in the case of any such clerk, such recommendation as enables a Secretary of State to make an order under the Criminal Justice Act, 1851, is not received by the Secretary of State before the expiration of the said six months, the Secretary of State shall, in like manner in all respects as if such recommendation had been duly made, make an order under the said Act, directing the payment of such clerk by salary in lieu of fees for all his official business which is not excepted by such order, and fixing the amount of such salary.

Every such salary shall be deemed to accrue from day to day, but shall be paid quarterly, or at such less intervals as may be from time to time fixed by such justices, council, or other governing body.

Provided that the salary of any clerk of the peace appointed before the passing of this Act shall not at any time be fixed at any less sum than the average amount, to be proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State, of the salary, fees, and other payments and allowances actually received by such clerk, or by him and his predecessor in office, during the three years next before the passing of this Act, in respect of the official business for which such salary is to be paid: Provided further, that nothing in this section shall prejudice the right of any clerk of the peace to receive any increase of salary or compensation in the event of his being deprived of any house of residence or emoluments other than such fees, payments, or allowances as aforesaid.

This section shall, so far as is consistent with the tenor thereof, be construed as one with sections, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve of the Criminal Justice Act, 1851.

14. Making of table of fees.-With respect to the fees to be taken after this Act comes into opera tion in any county or borough in respect of the official business of any clerk to whom section nine of the Criminal Justice Act, 1851, applies, or of any clerk to whom that section does not apply, and who is clerk of a stipendiary magistrate, or of special and petty sessions or of justices, or of any metropolitan police court, the following provisions shall have effect:

as

(1.) Within six months after this Act comes into operation in any place, the justices, council, or other governing body who, under the Criminal Justice Act, 1851, have authority to make a recommendation with respect to the payment of any of the said clerks within such place, shall, and at any time after that date may, submit to a Secretary of State a table of the fees which they consider should be taken in respect of the official business of any of the said clerks within the jurisdiction of such justices, council, or other governing body, and may at any time submit to a Secretary of State any objections or representations respecting the table of fees for such official business then in force, or which is proposed to be made by a Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall consider every table, objection, and representation so sent to him. (2.) The Secretary of State, as soon as practicable after the receipt of any such recommendation made before the expiration of the said six months, or in default of such recommendation, as soon practicable after the expiration of the said six months, shall make a table of the fees which he considers proper to be taken in respect of the official business of all the said clerks within the jurisdiction of the justices, council, or other governing body making such recommendation, or failing to make the same, as the case may be. 43.) A Secretary of State may from time to time, whether with or without the recommendation of the said justices, council, or other governing body, make a table of fees by way of alteration of, or addition to, or substitution for any table of fees made in pursuance of this section; and any table so made shall, so far as it does not supersede the table previously in force, form part thereof. (4.) The Secretary of State shall cause copies of every table of fees made in pursuance of this section to be transmitted to the justices, council, or other governing body within whose jurisdiction such fees are to be taken, and such copies shall be distributed by such justices, council, or other governing body among the clerks to whom any such table relates, and

shall be affixed and made public in such
manner as the authority distributing the
same may think best calculated for
giving information to the persons who
are required to pay such fees, and in
such other manner, if any, as a Secretary
of State may direct.
(5.) Every table of fees made in pursuance of
this section shall come into operation at
such date, not earlier than the date of
its transmission to the justices, council,
or other governing body, as may be fixed
by the Secretary of State; and after the
first table so made comes into operation
the fees prescribed by that table or any
other table superseding the same, and
for the time being in force in pursuance
of this section, and no other fees,
whether authorised by or in pursuance
of any Act or otherwise, may be taken in
respect of the official business of the
clerks to whom such table relates; and
if any person take or demand any fee
contrary to this provision, he shall be
liable, on summary conviction before
two justices, to a penalty not exceeding
twenty pounds.

15. Application to clerks of Act where no jus-
tices, &c.-In the case of the clerks of the metro-
politan police courts, and in the case of the clerk
of any stipendiary magistrate whose fees are paid
to the account of Her Majesty's Exchequer, and
in any case in which for any cause there is no
authority having power under the Criminal Jus-
tice Act 1851, to make a recommendation, a Secre-
tary of State shall make the table of fees, and
cause such table to be distributed and made
public; and the provisions of this Act relating to
such table shall be construed as if there were no
reference to such local authority.

Provided that where any body of persons other than the justices, council, or other governing body above mentioned in this Act would, but for the passing of this Act, have power to recommend a table of the fees to be taken by the clerk of any stipendiary magistrate, such body shall in the provisions of this Act with respect to tables of fees, be substituted for such justices.

16. Application of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 51, to fees and return by clerk.-The Act of the session of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter fifty-one, intituled "An Act to provide for an annual return of rates, taxes, tolls, and dues levied for local purposes in England," and any Act amending the same, shall apply to all fees taken in respect of the official business of any clerk, for which a table of fees can be made under this Act, in like manner in all respects as if such fees were dues therein mentioned, and such clerk or the treasurer to any rate or fund to which the fees taken in respect of the official business of such clerk are payable, shall make a return thereof accordingly.

Every such clerk shall also make any return which a Secretary of State may from time to time require with reference to the duties of the office of such clerk or matters coming within the cognizance of such clerk by reason of his official business, in such form and with such particulars as the Secretary of State may require; and if he fail to make such return shall be liable to the like penalty as if he had failed to make a return under the said Act.

Miscellaneous.

17. Provision as to restitution of Stolen Property. -A conviction of any person for an indictable offence in relation to property upon a prosecution instituted or conducted by a public prosecutor shall have the same effect for entitling the owner of the property, or his representative, to obtain restitution or restoration of the property as a conviction upon an indictment preferred by or on behalf of the owner or his representative. Provided that the court before whom the indictment is tried, if satisfied that the owner or his representative has made default in giving all reasonable information and assistance in relation to the prosecution, may, at their discretion, refuse to award any writ or to make any order for restitution, and may at their discretion grant to the public prosecutor or to any other person a certifi cate of such default, in such form as they may think fit, upon production whereof, or upon proof of the granting whereof any action, suit, or proceeding by or on behalf of the person so certified to be in default, which would not be maintainable otherwise than by reason of a conviction upon an indictment preferred by or on behalf of such person shall be stayed.

18. Extension of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, ss. 29 and 40.— Sections twenty-nine and forty of the Act of the session of the second and third years of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter seventy-one, intituled" An Act for regulating the Police Courts in the Metropolis" (which sections relate to the delivery of possession of goods charged to have been stolen or fraudulently obtained, and to the delivery of goods unlawfully detained, to the owner), shall apply to the whole of England, in

like manner as if they were enacted in this Act, with the omission of all reference to the metropolitan police district, and with the substitution of two justices or a stipendiary magistrate for a justice or magistrate.

19. Savings for Attorney General and officers.Nothing in this Act

(1.) Shall affect any right of her Majesty's Attorney General or Solicitor General, or of any public department or the solicitor thereof, to institute or conduct any prosecution or proceeding; or any right of her Majesty's Attorney General or any person by his leave to enter or cause to be entered a nolle prosequi; or

(2.) Shall, save as prescribed by any regulations made under this Act, exempt any clerk of assize, clerk of the peace, clerk of the Crown, clerk of indictments, constable, officer of police, or other officer from any duty which he may, at the passing of this Act, be liable to perform. And every clerk of assize and clerk of the peace shall give such aid, in taxing or regulating the costs of a public prosecutor incurred in pursuance of this Act, or the costs payable under the enactments mentioned in the second schedule to the Act, as a Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe.

Every officer of police shall give such aid and information to a public prosecutor as the said public prosecutor, subject to any regulations under this Act, may from time to time require for the purpose of the execution of his duties under this Act.

20. Commencement of operation of Act.-This Act shall not, except so far as is necessary for taking proceedings for adopting the same, come into operation in any county or borough until it has been adopted by the local authority of such county or borough.

This Act may be adopted by the local authority of a county or borough by a resolution duly passed by such local authority, by a majority of those who are present at a meeting of such local authority, and signed by the chairman of such meeting, and transmitted to the Secretary of State, and upon such transmisson shall come into operation at the date thereof.

21. Application of Act to Central Criminal Court district.-In the Central Criminal Court district, that is to say, in the district which by the Act of the session of the fourth and fifth years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter thirty-six, intituled "An Act for establishing a new court for the trial of offences committed in the metropolis and parts adjoining," is deemed to be one county for the purposes mentioned in that Act, this Act shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, and shall apply in such district in like manner in all respects as if it were a county, subject to the following qualifications:

(1). A Secretary of State may as soon as con

veniently may be after this Act comes into operation therein, and afterwards from time to time, appoint a public prosecutor or public prosecutors for such district without any recommendation: (2.) Where a county is situate partly within and partly without the Central Criminal Court District, the provisions of this Act which relate to the payment of any clerk by salary, and to the fixing of the table of fees to be taken by any clerk, shall not come into operation in that part of such district which is comprised in such county until this Act has been adopted by the local authority of such county.

22. Meaning of "committed for trial."-Where a reference is made in this Act to a person committed for trial, such reference shall be deemed to refer also to a person who has given bail to appear and take his trial, or to answer to an indictment, or is ordered to be detained in custody until removed for the purpose of his trial, and also, unless the context otherwise require, to a person who has been committed, bailed, or ordered to be detained in consequence of an inquisition before a

coroner.

For the purposes of this Act, an offence shall be deemed to have been committed in any place in which the venue is or can be laid.

23. Interpretation.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms have the meanings hereinafter respectively assigned to them; that is to say,

The term "Secretary of State" means one
of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of
State:
The term "The Treasury" means the Com-
missioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.
The term "borough" means any place for the
time being subject to the Act of the session
of the fifth and sixth years of the reign of
King William the Fourth, chapter seventy-
six, intituled "An Act to provide for the
regulation of municipal corporations in
England and Wales," and the Acts amendin