originated; and, upon such resolution being filed, the proceedings shall be forthwith transferred by the registrar in accordance therewith. In considering the effect of this rule, the LORDS JUSTICES have decided that the resolution passed by creditors must not only contain the expressed determination of the creditors that the proceedings shall be transferred, but a direction that they shall so be transferred And it is the registrar's business to see that any such resolution is in every respect complete; and if it be not so, he may absolutely refuse to act upon it. Having satisfied himself that it is complete, the registrar is then bound to act upon it at once, and transfer the proceedings. A somewhat extraordinary contention was put forward in the case which has suggested these observations namely, that the verification of any resolution should be left to the court to which the proceedings are transferred. That, however, was promptly disposed of by the LORDS JUSTICES. A second consideration is, what is the meaning of the word "filed?" "If necessary," said Lord Justice JAMES, "I should read the word 'filed' as meaning 'registered.' Consequently, a resolution to transfer proceedings must be authenticated in the same way as any other resolution would require to be authenticated with respect to either bankruptcy or liquidation by arrangement. Lord Justice MELLISH expressed some doubts as to the interpretation put upon the rule by the LORD JUSTICE, but did not dissent.

IT occurs to us as somewhat ridiculous that we should go on having congresses and meetings of associations year after year for the discussion of threadbare subjects. The opinion doubtless prevails among agitators, that the Legislature will never do anything which it is not talked into doing, but cumulative speechifying is a process which should not be resorted to save on an emergency. This, however, is not the general opinion, for the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science has just opened its sixteenth congress (annual); and in the department of jurisprudence and the amendment of the law, presided over by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, we find the following new and interesting questions set down for discussion:-Municipal Law Section.-1. Is it desirable that defendants in criminal proceedings, and their wives or husbands, should be competent or compellable to give evidence in their own behalf, and if so, in what cases? 2. Can a court of international arbitration be formed with a view to avoid war, and, if so, in what way? 3. Ought railway companies and other carriers of passengers to be liable to an unlimited extent for the acts of their servants? Repression of Crime Section.-1. Is it desirable to adopt the principle of cumulative punishment? 2. What ought to be the primary aim of punishment-to deter, or to reform? 3. Is it desirable that industrial day-schools should be established? Can anything new be said upon any one of these six questions? The first in the municipal law section offers some scope for an argument; the second presents a problem which is insoluble; the third raises a question which Mr. BROWN, Q.C., and others have written and spoken upon ad nauseam. The Repression of Crime Section offers little or nothing which was not dished up far more attractively at the International Congress lately held in the Middle Temple Hall. Consequently we can only arrive at the conclusion that the Social Science Association might very well have omitted the legal department from its programme.

In this country the proceedings most in favour with shareholders of companies who conceive that they have been deceived by a fraudulent prospectus are those which bring the directors before a criminal tribunal. As a change it may be suggested that on the next occasion an action for conspiracy and deceit should be tried. The experiment has been made recently in Australia, an action being brought against three directors of the Australian Pastoral Investment Company, for having conspired to procure the secretary falsely and fraudulently to pretend and represent to the plaintiffs certain matters which were untrue. The gist of the whole grievance was that the secretary, with the knowledge of the defendants, had written a letter stating that certain wool was subject to one lien only instead of two. On behalf of the defendants it was contended that whatever or to what extent soever they might be responsible individually in another form of action for having fraudulently suppressed material information which they might have been under a legal obligation to impart to the plaintiffs, their liability here arose (if at all) solely from the conspiracy charged that there was no evidence of that, and none of combined procurement of the secretary to make the fraudulent misrepresentation. On the part of the plaintiffs it was submitted that, although such an action as this could not be brought, and although an action of deceit would not lie, against the company, which as an abstract being could not conspire, nor make representations, true or false, nor do anything except through its managers, and although an action of deceit might be brought against one or more of the defendants, still, when, instead of seeking to set aside a contract entered into under a fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiffs elect to bring an action to recover damages for the deceit, such an action as this can be maintained only against the directors person

ally, and all that it is necessary to establish is that the case is brought within the general rule which renders one individual principal, or more than one, liable in an action for deceit the additional proof of conspiracy follows thereupon. This is an extract from Justice BARRY'S judgment, and is not particularly clear, but in delivering an opinion upon these contentions, the court do not say that an action of deceit alone could not have been maintained against the directors individually, and upheld a verdict in favour of the plaintiffs, on the simple ground that there was evidence that the defendants had agreed to procure the false representations to be made, and that they were made on their behalf and for their benefit. The act of the secretary was distinctly held to be one for which the directors as his masters were responsible.

AN important point is about to be raised in the courts as to the legal right of a railway company to sell land for building upor, originally obtained possession of for the purposes of their undertaking, but which the company afterwards found was not necessary for their own works. It appears that when the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway was constructed, the company were em powered by their Act to purchase and enter into possession of, amongst other properties, a quantity of land formerly known as Cumberland-street, and situated at the corner of Green-walk and Southwark-street, adjoining the Blackfriars Station. During the progress of the company's works it was found that this land was not wanted for the purposes of the railway, and, after remaining for some years in their hands, it has recently been sold by the company to private parties for building upon. The St. Saviour's Board of Works, in whose district the land is situated, maintain that the company had no right to sell and make a profit of the land in the manner they have done, and the Board have determined to take proceedings against the company to recover compensation for the alleged illegal sale of the land. Counsels' opinion, including that of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. RAYMOND, and Mr. SPEED, has been taken on the subject, and is decidedly adverse to the railway company. The last-named gentleman, who was first consulted, states that the Legislature never intended that land so acquired should be made use of as a source of profit other than the purposes for which it was intended, and that this intention not having been carried out, the parish is clearly entitled to compen sation, and the learned counsel specially points to one fact in favour of the intended legal proceedings, viz., that the land was not even purchased by the company, but that they simply entered into possession. The joint opinion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. RAYMOND is equally conclusive against the company. After stating that the Board of Works are clearly entitled to compensa tion in consequence of the railway company having sold the property as surplus land, and applied it to other purposes than those of their undertaking, counsel observe "We think the intention of the Legislature, to be gathered from the scope and object of the company's Acts, was, that the company should have the power to take, without compensation, lands then applicable to public purposes, when they were to be applied to the purposes of the rail way, which is itself for the use of the public; but we do not think it was intended to give the company such lands merely for their own pecuniary bencfit." They recommend the Board to proceed against the company under the 68th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, and this course the Board have re solved to adopt. The value of the land is estimated at 20001.

THE DISPERSION OF THE BAR. PERHAPS the highest tribute ever paid to any profession was paid by some of the members of the Judicature Commission to the English Bar, when they expressed themselves reluctant to concur in the recommendation to establish local courts of first instance throughout the country on the ground that such a course must destroy the influence at present exercised by the Bar. It might be supposed by the public that these objectors are simply yielding to a feeling of regard for the Profession to which they belong, and we are sure that there are those ready to believe that the influence of the Bar has been exaggerated. In our opinion the operation of a measure which would disintegrate the Bar and scatter its members about the country would be more important than the unthinking at present contemplate.

As a body the Bar has no ostensible organisation, and off the circuits there is no system by which its members can be controlled, or by which opinion can be guided, save the Courts of the Benchers, whose jurisdiction is only invoked in cases of professional mal practice. The great majority of barristers reside in the me tropolis, and we believe few professional men are so little inclined to herd together as lawyers. This is not unnatural, inasmuch as day after day they meet in the and see enough of one another during the hours of professional work. There is the further reason that it is to the interest more particularly of lawyers to extend the circle of acquaintance beyond the sphere of their professional labour. It is perfectly true therefore that the Bar is not an united body, and, in all probability, there is no class of men amongst whom more independence of thought exists, and between whom, individually,

same courts,

there is a wider difference of opinion on questions not only of a political and general character, but also on questions intimately connected with the profession to which they belong. If an attempt were made to convene a meeting to discuss any subject having reference to the active life of the Profession, no success would attend it unless the movement was headed by some member of the Bar universally respected. And, in the event of a meeting being convened and largely attended, there would assuredly be important dissentients present or absent who would throw serious obstacles in the way of attaining the object desired. This observation is illustrated by the efforts made to carry out some intelligent scheme of reform in legal education. The association of solicitors having moved in the matter, and Sir ROUNDELL PALMER having given the movement his countenance and support, a certain measure of success attended the proceedings of the reformers. At the critical moment, when it was expected that Parliament would support Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, a formidable enemy presented himself in the shape of Her Majesty's SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who proved to demonstration that on a question with which the Profession is intimately acquainted, there can exist diametrically opposite opinions. By one high authority a thorough reform was thought desirable, and indeed absolutely necessary to the healthy life of the Profession; by another authority equally eminent, no change at all was considered necessary, and the suggested reforms were scouted as vague and unsatisfactory. Again, as regards public appointments we believe there were those in the Profession who were prepared to support the Government in the appointment of Mr. BEALES, and the pitchforking of Sir. R. COLLIER into the Privy Council.

This is the peculiar body which it is considered so highly important to conserve in its integrity. The principal reason assigned by those members of the Judicature Commission to whose opinions we have referred is that the Bar exercises a most important influence upon the Bench. Taking this as a sufficient ground and argument for carefully preserving the existing constitution of the Bar, the questions to be asked are, what is the nature of this influence, and to what degree would it be impaired by creating many local bars out of the present great central body? We do not suppose that it could be seriously denied by anyone who understands the subject that the judicial Bench is extremely sensitive to the opinion of the Profession; and it is also undoubtedly true that the popularity or unpopularity of a Judge with the Bar may have a considerable influence upon the conduct of public business. The reason why a Judge should be sensitive concerning the opinion of him entertained by the Bar is obvious. He rises from the ranks of the Bar. Many of the members of the Bar are his intimate friends. To distinguish himself in their eyes as a Judge is as much a matter of proud ambition as it was to rise from a stuff gown to the rank of a leader. He knows well the merits of the Bar; he is familiar with the great knowledge of a varied kind possessed by its members, and he must also be aware, if he is a man of the world, that barristers in a large measure control opinion not only in legal journals but in the public press generally. All these are good, valid, and substantial reasons why Judges should not only respect but in a measure stand in awe of the Bar-that is to say, have such regard for its predominant opinion as to guide their conduct with care and caution which would not be bestowed upon uncriticised labour.

The next question is, how would this influence be impaired by the disintegration of the Bar? In the first place, there cannot be the smallest doubt that with the dispersion of the metropolitan Bar legal learning would decline; the uncertainty which at present waits on too many legal decisions would be largely increased. This would be one ground for decrease of respect paid by the Judges to the Bar. And the local bars being but fragments of the great body now congregated in London, an overbearing or obstinate Judge would be but little opposed, and the courage which is now known to exist in those who lead the Bar would certainly disappear. It is indeed one complaint, and about the only one which we have to make against some of the County Court Judges, that they seem to discourage members of the Bar who appear before them and exercise an amount of independent judgment regardless of the arguments adduced, which shows a want of respect to those whose demeanour we may safely say is, as a general rule, deferential though firm. Now if this is the case in the inferior courts, where barristers do not largely practise, it may be inferred that with the increased weight of a Superior Court Judge a somewhat larger Bar would not stand much greater chance of being able to make itself felt as the Bar of England now is by the Judicial Bench. And it is to be remembered that it is not only the busy members of the Bar who have weight in our courts; there is usually in every court a large number of acute but unoccupied minds engaged in learning and criticising. This element would almost entirely disappear if the Bar were scattered over the country.

But, taking all these matters into consideration, is a great reform to be obstructed because a profession is to be damnified, or even though one healthy influence the less exist to control the conduct of our judges? We are glad that a plea has been put forward for the Bar; that its influence and character have been acknowledged; and we should be glad to see it always retain its present position if it could do so consistently with necessary legal

reforms. If it is to the interest of the country that all courts of first instance should be local courts, we must submit to have judges unfettered by professional criticism; but if this important step is to be postponed on any other ground, the dispersion of the great metropolitan Bar should be looked upon as a measure likely to entail serious consequences upon the administration of justice.

THE LEGISLATION OF THE SESSION.

In the week after the Parliament rose we gave a brief notice of those statutes which, passed during the last session, had up to that time been printed. At that time about half the Acts passed had been printed, and certainly they did not show anything very striking in the way of legislation. Now all the statutes for the year are issued, and in the latter half the more important Acts occur; still, even among these there are not very many important changes. Those which are most likely to be important to our readers we will call attention to.

Cap. 60 deals with corrupt practices at municipal elections. This statute is noticed more fully elsewhere.

Cap. 62 is the Scotch Education Act. This year there has been a large instalment of statute law revision. Caps. 63 and 97 deal with English Statute Law, and repeal a vast number now useless statutes. Cap. 98 deals similarly with a number of obsolete Acts relating to Ireland. A curious question is likely to arise as to the construction of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act 1872 (cap. 65), as to the power of justices to make an affiliation order where a child is born before Aug. 10, the date of the Act, but the application for the order is made after that date. The Act totally repeals all the other Acts giving power to make orders, and only provides for cases where the child is born after the passing of the Act. This Act gives power to justices to make an order for five shillings weekly, an increase on their former power, and also provides that orders are to be in force until the child is thirteeen years of age, or, if the magistrates so direct, until sixteen years of age. Sect. 8 gives power to guardians of the poor in certain cases to obtain an order against the father. Cap. 69 establishes a Local Government Board in Ireland. Cap. 70 provides that all fees payable to any law officer of the Crown or his clerk in pursuance of the Patent Law Amendment Act 1852, or in other ways in respect of which a salary is now paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, shall be paid into the Treasury. The Merchant Shipping Acts are amended slightly by cap. 73, and there are certain transfers of powers to the Board of Trade and the Registrar General of Seamen from various authorities to whom duties connected with measurement and registration and emigration had been entrusted. Pilotage is also dealt with in a piecemeal way. It is to be regretted that the promised Merchant Shipping Code has not received more attention; if it had, these repeated small changes would be unnecessary. Cap. 74 deals with the adulteration of food. By cap. 75, a want that was much felt has been supplied. This Act gives power to the Court of Queen's Bench of Ireland to appoint commissioners to take affidavits in the Channel Islands, and also commissioners to administer oaths within ten miles of Dublin. This latter provision was much needed, as it was most inconvenient to be compelled to attend before a Judge's clerk whenever it was necessary to swear an affidavit. Caps. 76 and 77 provide regulations as to the working of coal and metalliferous mines, and deal with the employment of women and children in mines, with wages, inspection, and other matters of considerable importance in such works. The Acts provide penalties for enforcement of its provisions, which deal mainly with the protection of human life. Cap. 79 is the Public Health Act; of this a summary was given last week. The facilities which were formerly given to Writers to the Signet, and solicitors in Scotland, with respect to admission as attorneys in England, are now extended by cap. 81 to members of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, and they can now be admitted in England after serving three years under articles. It will be a good thing when some greater facility is given to barristers and attorneys in England to pass from one branch of the Profession to the other. By cap. 84 no barrister can be appointed after 1st Jan. 1873, a revising barrister, unless he is of seven years' standing at the Bar, and all Acts giving power to the Judges to appoint additional revising barristers to assist in the completion of the revising work are repealed from the same date. This will probably have to be altered during the next session, as it will be impossible for the Revising Barristers in some districts to complete their work within the time provided by the Act. At a time when the Judicature Commission proposes to abolish borough and local courts of record, it is curious to find the Legislature extending their jurisdiction. Cap. 86 gives these courts greater power in interpleader matters, as to serving of writs out of the jurisdiction, as to sitting of the courts, and enforcing of writs of execution. A schedule attached to the Act provides for settlement of a table of fees, for hearing of chamber motions out of the jurisdiction, and the whole Act generally facili tates the working of these courts. There can be no doubt that they are eminently useful, and their abolition would be a source of great discontent. Many Acts which would have

expired at the close of last session are continued by cap. 88 until various dates in the ensuing year. We notice among the Acts thus continued is the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices Act 1868. This must be continued, or the Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections) Act 1872 would be useless, as no person would exist having power to appoint the tribunal under that Act. It will be remembered that some time back a municipal corporation got into difficulty by promoting a Bill in Parliament, in which they were unsuccessful. Having no borough fund, the members of the corporation became personally liable for the cost of Bill, as they could not levy a rate to defray the expenses. To meet this difficulty, an Act has been passed enabling corporations and other governing bodies to charge the rates with such expenses with certain provisoes. Before they can promote or oppose a Bill, the assent of an absolute majority of the governing body must be obtained; such assent must be again obtained after the deposit of the Bill; and further, the assent of the ratepayers must be given to the incurring of the expense by the ratepayers assembled in a meeting in the manner provided by the Local Government Act 1858, for the adoption of that Act. The committees of either House may decide that the promotion or opposition is vexatious, and then the borough funds cannot be applied to the expense. Sect. 3 provides that no payment to any member of a governing body for acting as counsel or agent in promoting or opposing any such Bill shall be charged on the ratepayers. As this clause originally stood, it was provided that members attending the committees, unless witnesses, could not recover their expenses. By cap. 92, parish constables are abolished, except where quarter sessions deem them necessary. Cap. 93 is the Pawnbrokers' Act 1872, and consolidates the various Acts relating to pawnbrokers. A summary of the Act has been published in our columns. Then, lastly, there is the Intoxicating Liquors Act. This is too well-known already to require further notice, but as further evidence of how carelessly it has been drawn, we would call attention to the schedule of the Act. In that schedule appear the Acts that are repealed, and amongst others there are certain portions of the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 27 (Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences). The sections specified as being repealed are "sect, five, sect. seventeen, sect. twenty, sect. twenty-six, &c., sect. thirtyone; also sects. eighteen, thirty, thirty-one, &c., so far as such sections relate to the sale of liquors, or any offences connected therewith." Thus section 31 is repealed, first altogether and then in part, in the space of three lines. Which is it meant to be? Such questions will very soon have to be answered, as the Act is likely to be tested at all points.

We are still unable to retract our former opinion, that the late session had produced but little remarkable in the way of legislation. There are a few important Acts; but they are very few, and most of the great questions where our law is most defective have been left untouched. Let us hope that during the next session more leisure will be found for useful legislation, and that less time will be spent in useless and long-winded discussions on points of mere local interest.

will

MORTGAGES BY DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS. THE late Mr. Jarman, writing in 1839, after collating a number of cases illustrative of the fine distinctions, the doubts and difficulties, arising on the law of equitable mortgage by deposit of the title deeds, says, "A cursory glance at the numerous preceding cases which have arisen in regard to deposit-securities strongly demonstrate the inexpediency of relying upon this species of security, which ought never to be accepted, unless, perhaps, in the case of small temporary loans. It is not a little surprising that some large banking and mercantile firms are in the habit of taking securities from their customers in this manner. They are always popular with borrowers, as avoiding the necessity of a formal deed of conveyance both on the occasion of the loan and of the repayment, and as leaving no trace of the transaction on the face of the title." One of the dangers to which a mortgagee by deposit is exposed is brought into prominence by the case of Dixon v. Muckleston, decided by Lord Romilly on the 18th April, and reported 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 752, the result of which cannot be more succinctly summarised than in the head note, which is as follows:-" In 1864 M. deposited title deeds of 1774, relating to certain property, with A., and in 1868 M. deposited title deeds of the same property, showing a title in himself from 1787, with B., without notice of the prior deposit: Held, that the deeds deposited with A. were material to the title, and that the charge thus created in favour of A. had priority over the equitable mortgage to B." It should also be stated that the deeds of 1774, which were held material were the lease and release, by means of which the property was conveyed to a person through whom the mortgagor derived title, and who settled them on the occasion of his marriage by the deeds of 1787. Lord Romilly says, "The deed must be a material deed, but I think that the word material means only that it must be a deed relating to the property. No one can say that this, which was a conveyance in fee of the property, and the root of the title, was not a material deed, though one of ancient date. It is true that this will follow, and this argument is strongly urged, that the result of this will be that many equitable mortgages

may be made of the same estate, and this unquestionably is true; but the sole answer to this is, that the person who lends money on this species of security must take care to be the first of such incumbrancers, and if he cannot be sure of this he must not advance his money without the security of a legal mortgage." Whether the very wide sense attributed to the word "material" by the Master of the Rolls be correct or not-whether muniments whatever their age, and however slightly they may affect the property, are or are not to be deemed material-it is clear that the meaning to be given to the word, "material" is wide enough to render the mortgagee altogether dependent on the good faith of the mortgagor, and, which is of more importance, that the court will not weigh degrees of materiality in determining questions of priority. In many cases bankers and others making advances deem the possession of the most material deed-the conveyance to the mortgagor, or the deed showing his immediate title-sufficient, and the case of Dixon v. Muckleston forcibly exposes the fallacy of this notion. Where a mortgagee chooses to accept a deposit-security we think he may fairly require from the mortgagor a statutory declaration that he has not created and is not aware of any incumbrance.

LAW AT THE SOCIAL SCIENCE CONGRESS. We have elsewhere expressed the opinion that annual discussion of threadbare questions is of little use. If anything could induce us to alter this opinion it would be the speech of Lord NAPIER, whose inaugural address contains scme most sensible reference to Real Property, and the Law of Primogeniture. His views are those of a man of the world who has seen the working of different laws in different countries. We extract his remarks on these subjects without comment:

REAL PROPERTY.

The question which beyond all others deserves our sustained and dis passionate consideration and action is the question of real property viewed in its political and social aspects. On this subject the opinion of the country is less matured, and the deliberations of the association, the writings which it may prompt, and the discussions which it may raise, can be of vital use in leading the public mind to just, moderate, and acceptable conclusions. The distribution of property is the feature in our laws and customs which presents the greatest apparent hardship, which arouse the keenest sense of injustice, which affords the readiest materials for misrepresentation, and which discovers the most dangerous inconsistency between our political institutions and our social condition. In Great Britain real property is transferred and transmitted under laws, customs, and influences which all combine with irresistible, increasing power to produce consolidation. Primogeniture, entail, traditional predilection, the exigencies of fashion and recreation, the accumulation of capital, are working incessantly together to promote great aggregations of land in the hands of a few. The statistics of landed property have not yet been verified with any accuracy, but it would be hazardous to estimate the number of estates above the dimensions of a garden or paddock at more than 100,000 in a country which numbers more than 26,000,000 of inhabitants, and there are but few counteracting agencies at work to mitigate the perilous progression towards monopoly. France, Ger many, Italy, Russia, Switzerland, the United States, the British colonies, all the countries which count for something in the world, which propagate ideas, or offer examples or present points for comparison, which fascinate by their past or which possess the promise of an expansive future, all have committed acts or adopted principles and measures which conduct them on a path directly opposed to that on which the destinies of England are still impelled. In France political confiscation founded, and the com. pulsory partition of land on succession has accelerated, the division of property to such an extent that the number of estates is almost equal to the number of families engaged in agricultural pursuits. In Germany a revo lution of the same nature, though not of the same magnitude, has been effected in a more regular manner. The benefits of landed property have been imparted progressively to a numerous and prosperous class of cultiva tors by the abolition of feudal superiorities, by the restriction of entails and special destinations of land, by the deliberate division of estates between the landlord and the occupier on a basis, if not always equitable to the former, at least patriotic in its motives, and happy in its results, and by the operations of rules of succession reproducing in instances the primitive laws of the country, and in others adopting, with various modifications, the maxims of the French code. Twelve years have now elapsed since I had the good fortune to be a witness at St. Petersburgh of the promulgation of the Act of Emancipation and Endowment, and, notwithstanding the disenchantments which are ever ready to follow in the track of philanthropy, the scene still remains the greatest recollection of my life, an impression that can never be repeated. and can never be forgotten. There was for once no formal ceremonial of court or camp. In the cathedral of St. Isaac, from the sacred lips of the Metropolitan, to a rude and humble multitude hushed in breathless expec tation, the Imperial message came which carried liberty to all, and land to all who would work to earn it. Enslaved and disinherited the crowd went in; a few simple words were uttered by an aged priest, the people melted quietly away into the wintry air, transformed, it seemed, as far as laws could alter men; no one shouted, no one spoke, but they lingered in the shadow of the church as if unwilling to depart from a spot where so bright a promise had descended. That moment gave a legal and lasting interest in the land of Russia to 50,000,000 of its inhabitants; directly to some, indirectly and inferentially to others. That the gift has been deeply marred by the conditions there is little doubt. The Act of Emancipation is not exempt from the infirmities which belong in other countries to the best efforts of legislation. In India, where England has assumed such a weighty charge in guarding the welfare and directing the destinies of mankind, no attempt has ever been made to propagate or accredit the principles of the English law of inheritance, and no tendency is now discovered to reproduce the features of our social condition, of which that law is the powerful associate. The attitude of the English government in matters of land tenure and land revenue has been influenced at different times by the political sentiments and economical theories preponderant at

some