LONDON, FC.

SAMUEL THE considerable has been anticipated by SAMUEL BROTHERS' extensive ready-m nev purchases in the great centres of manufacture; hence they have the satisfaction of announcing that there will be NO ADVANCE in the TARIFF which is here submitted to their patrons.

advance in price of Fabrics

CLASSES REPRESENTING
NINE QUALITIES.

CLASS of SUPERIOR STYLE
and FINISH.

RY CLASS UNAPPROACHED in FIT and QUALITY.

£2 2 0

Do.

do.

212 6

Do.

do.

8 80

Do.

Do.

do.

Navy Blue

2 12 6

330

Do.

do.

3 13 6

Do.

Do.

Navy Blue

3 10 0

Do.

do.

8 18 0

of 12, Brook-street, Hanover-square, London, with whom originated the world-famed 16s. TROUSERS, has the pleasure to inform many thousand customers that his Establishment is replete with the BEST and NEWEST DESIGNS for GENTLEMEN'S DRESS, Elastic Saxony Twills for Morning, Frock and Light Overcoats, Scotch, Angola, and West of England Tweeds for Riding Trousers, Elastic Twills for Ladies' Riding Habits, the Utile Dulci, Vicunas, Angolas, and Mosstrooper Tweeds for the Loch, Moor, and Mountain Suits at 3 guineas, illustrative of Scotland's beauteous heathers; also the R. Y. S. Indigo Blue Yarn Dyed Cheviots, for yachting, impervious to wind and weather.

THE GUINEA TWEED WATERPROOF OVERCOATS, all sizes and colours, ready for immediate use. ALFRED WEBB MILES.

Only address, 12, Brook-street, Hanover-square, London, W. Established 1841.

658.

70s.

GE

ING can be either purchased ready made or made to measure. The Ready-made Stock is entirely of Messrs. Samuel Brothers' own manufacture, and is equal to clothing made to order. For the convenience of Lady visitors special show-rooms are exclusively devoted to the Juvenile Depart

meat.

SAMUEL

AMUEL BROTHERS, 50, LUDGATE-
HILL, LONDON.

AMATEUR GARDENERS ARE RECOMMENDED TO
USE THE

SIDNEY PATENT HAND SOWER, for

IDNEY PATENT HAND SOWER, for

Seeds. Also for destroying Aphis with POOLEY'SAOBACCO POWDER; and for Dusting plants with Sulphur for Mildew.

To be obtained of Messrs. POLLARD, JEPHSON, and Co., Bear Garden, Southwark, Agricultural Engineers; Messrs.

CARTER, DUNNETT, and BEALE, Holborn; Messrs. SUTTON

and SoNs, Reading.

Sold by all Seedsmen and Ironmongers in Town and Country

MOS
COST THREE YEARS' SYSTEM

COST PERSONS ARE FAMILIAR with

of the Pianoforte Makers, by which anyone who Hires an Instrument and pays the Hire for that period, becomes the ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PIANOFORTE. Pre viously to the introduction of this plan it was almost as difficult for those of limited income to buy a good Pianoforte as to BUY A HOUSE; and persons went on year after year, paying for the Hire of an Instrument, and expended as much money as would have bought the Pianoforte several times over.

What will hold good for Pianofortes will hold good for HOUSES; and there are many who would no doubt AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE OPPORTUNITY, if it was afforded them, of becoming

THE OWNER OF A HOUSE

in the same way as they have already become the owner of their pianoforte. THE DIRECTORS

OF THE

BIRKBECK BUILDING SOCIETY

HAVE DETERMINED TO AFFORD

THE SAME FACILITIES FOR PURCHASING HOUSES

As now exist for Buying Pianofortes.

A HOUSE being, however, a more expensive article to Pur. chase than a Pianoforte, the "Three Years' System" will not apply, excepting in a very few cases: so that a MORE LENGTHENED PERIOD IS NECESSARY over which the time of Hiring must extend.

In pursuance of this resolution THE DIRECTORS HAVE MADE ARRANGEMENTS

WITH

THE OWNERS OF HOUSES In various parts of London, and its Suburbs, by which they are enabled to afford to the

Members of the Birkbeck Building Society

AND OTHERS

A very wide CHOICE in the SELECTION both of HOUSES and the locality in which they are situated. The Plan upon which the Directors propose to proceed is

TO LET THESE HOUSES FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE-AND-A-HALF YEARS,

At the end of which Time, if the Rent be Regularly Paid, THE HOUSE

Will become the absolute Property of the Tenant

WITHOUT FURTHER PAYMENT OF ANY KIND. IN ALL CASES

POSSESSION OF THE HOUSE

New System of Purchasing a House,

MAY BE SUMMED UP AS FOLLOWS:

1. Persons of Limited Income, Clerks, Shopmen, and others, may, by becoming Tenants of the BIRKBECK BUILDING SOCIETY, be placed at once in a position of independence as regards their Landlord,

2. Their RENT CANNOT BE RAISED.

3. They CANNOT BE TURNED OUT OF POSSES. SION so long as they pay their Rent.

4. NO FEES or FINES of any kind are chargeable.

5. They can leave the House at any time without notice, rent being payable only to the time of giving up possession. 6. If circumstances compel them to leave the House before the completion of their Twelve and a half Years Tenancy, they can Sub-let the House for the remainder of the Term, or they can Transfer their right to another Tenant.

7. Finally, NO LIABILITY or RESPONSIBILITY of any kind is incurred, beyond the Payment of Rent by those who acquire Houses by this New System.

The BIRKBECK BUILDING SOCIETY have on their List several HOUSES, which they are prepared to LET on the TWELVE AND A HALF YEARS SYSTEM, and in many cases Immediate Possession may be obtained. The Terms on which Houses can be placed on this Register may be obtained on application to

FRANCIS RAVENSCROFT, Manager.

The Index to Vol. LII. of the Law TIMES, which will be published next week' will contain the references to all the Names and Subjects of Cases in the NOTES OF THE WEEK, so that, united with the Index to the REPORTS, every case, reportable and unreportable, will be available to the practitioner. This is a feature to be found in no other publication

The Law and the Lawyers.

THE Lords have made so many amendments in the Liquor Law Bill in committee, that it will be necessary to defer all further commentary upon it until it has passed into the Commons, where it will be subjected to severe scrutiny. Such objections and amendments as experience may suggest to us will be more usefully contributed to that stage of the discussion. VOL. LIII.-No. 1520.

MR. W. C. HALL, solicitor, of Lincoln's-inn-fields, has intimated his willingness to give the sum of £50 to the United Law Clerks' Society, on condition that nineteen other persons will each give that sum, in order that £2000 may be raised for the purpose of erecting a few almshouses for infirm members; and also if the committee will allow the following rule to be added to the rules of the society, i.e., That any member having paid his subscription to the society for a term of twenty-five years, shall be entitled to receive a pension of £1 per week, provided that such member shall be of the age of sixty-five years, and not permanently employed in any situation."

66

THE Manchester Incorporated Law Association offers a prize of £7 78. in books, given by Mr. ROBERT DAVIES of Warrington, who, in 1847, gained a similar prize offered by the association, for the best essay On the History and Law of Tenure of Real Property in England." The prize is to be competed for by articled clerks under twenty-two years of age, such clerks being articled to members of this association. The essays are to be sent in, addressed to the Honorary Secretary of the Association, Law Library, Cross-street, Manchester, on or before the 1st Feb. 1873. They must be legibly written on brief paper, and identified by a motto corresponding with a similar motto on a sealed envelope, containing the name and address of the author of the essay.

THE programme of the Congress of the various Law Students' Societies throughout the country, to be held at the Great Western Hotel, Birmingham, on Tuesday and Wednesday next, has been issued. Mr. ARTHUR RYLAND, Solicitor, Birmingham (Member of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society), will preside over the meetings of the first day, and Mr. C. T. SAUNDERS, Solicitor, of the same town, over those of the second day. The subjects to be discussed are: Legal Education and Law Reform; Law Lectures and Provincial Law Schools; Law Students' Societies; the Examinations of the Incorporated Law Society; and the Attorney and the Articled Clerk. Papers will be read by various delegates on each subject and discussion follow thereon. We congratulate the promoters on the success which promises to attend the meetings of the Congress, and trust that it will lead to good practical results.

A QUESTION of some interest in bankruptcy arose on the 9th inst. in the Liverpool County Court, namely, as to the right of proof against the estate of one of several co-adventurers who has become The learned Judge does not consider that the old law bankrupt. has been altered. Under that law, when all the co-adventurers were judicially insolvent, proof might have been made upon the estate of each for the whole debt. If all were not insolvent, then the solvent co-adventurer, having first paid the debt, was entitled to prove upon the bankrupt's estate for the bankrupt's proportion of it. After very carefully considering the question," said Mr. Serjt. WHEELER, "it appears to me that this state of things has not been altered by the present statute, or by the rules made in pursuance of it, and that the case therefore ranges under the 78th section, and must in the terms of the section be determined according to the principles, practice and rules which prevailed in courts having jurisdiction in bankruptcy before the passing of the existing Act."

66

AN important question of company law was before Lord CAIRNS in the matter of the Albert Life Assurance arbitration on Wednesday. When the Albert Company was ordered to be wound-up, the Queen Company held several policies effected with the Albert, and the Albert several effected with the Queen. By the order to wind-up, all Albert policies were converted into immediate claims. The point was whether, where there were corresponding re-insurance policies effected with the Queen those were not also converted into immediate claims, the claim being proportioned to the sum actually paid on each policy of the Albert. "Is the re-insuring company "asked Lord CAIRNS "to be in the same position as if the contract were on the face of it a contract of indemnity, and therefore to have only to pay proportionally?" His answer was

66

"Certainly not; " and he declined to recognise as affecting the contract, the custom said to prevail amongst some insurance companies of effecting with another office policies on the lives which they themselves have assured.

In a short note in our issue of the 20th ult. we referred to the criticisms upon sentences passed by Mr. Commissioner KERR on a couple of ruffians who were convicted of assaults upon women. The sentences were condemned as too light. In one case the report stated "that the woman was the wife of the prisoner, and went with her baby in arms to induce him to leave the publichouse and return home, and that while in this defenceless state her eye was brutally knocked out by the prisoner." We now learn, on the best authority, that the true facts were "that the woman was a common prostitute, who had been vituperating the prisoner, as such women only can do, for twenty minutes-that there was no baby in the case at all, and that so far from the woman's eye

being knocked out by the prisoner, the cheek was cut only by the blow; there was incipient disease in the eye, and six weeks' drinking led to inflammation, which necessitated its removal in the hospital, to which the woman was sent by the surgeon, as she would not listen to his remonstrances." As we remarked at the time, if these facts had been known to the critics the leniency of the Judge would not have been condemned.

MR. BASS'S Bill to "abolish imprisonment for debt" has been printed. It consists of three sections. The second proposes to enact that from and after the commencement of this Act no person shall be committed to prison for making default in payment of any debt or instalment of any debt due from him under any order or judgment of any court unless it be proved to the satisfaction of the judge before whom the application for commitment is made that the debt was contracted by means of false representation, or that the debtor willfully contracted the debt without reasonable expectation of being able to discharge the same, or has made or caused to be made any gift, delivery, or transfer of any property, or has charged, removed, or cancelled the same, with intent to defraud his creditors." And by section three "no person shall be imprisoned under this Act for a longer period than months, and no person shall be imprisoned more than once in respect of the same debt,"-the period of imprisonment being left blank.

AN important point affecting attorneys has been decided by Mr. Serjeant WHEELER at Liverpool. An action was brought by Mr. THOMAS SMITH, a Liverpool attorney, to recover a sum of two guineas for attending at the recent Liverpool assizes, on a subpoena, issued on behalf of the defendant, who was also defendant in the action at the assizes. Mr. W. Lowe, solicitor, who appeared for the defendant, elicited from the plaintiff that he had acted as the attorney for the plaintiff in the action at the assizes, and therefore submitted to the court, on the authority of Pritchard v. Walker (3 C. & P. 212) that the plaintiff could not recover in this action. In reply, the plaintiff stated that he had handed over all papers previously to the trial, and that the cause had gone down to the assizes in the hands of a person who was not an attorney. Upon this the learned Judge held that as there had not been any change of attorney, either on the record or otherwise, the plaintiff could not recover, and gave judgment for the defendant.

THERE seems to be a vague notion in some quarters that the TICHBORNE Claimant and his supporters are not only going through a most extraordinary performance, but are doing something not strictly legal. This arises, we believe, from something said at one of the Hampshire meetings to the effect that the Claimant never would be convicted because public opinion is against it, and we suppose the inference is, that as a jury is likely to act in accordance with public opinion, to attempt to influence public opinion is to attempt to influence the jury. But the jury, qui jury, does not yet exist, therefore they cannot be influenced even indirectly. It is quite open to the Claimant and Mr. ONSLOW to make a progress through the provinces denouncing all opponents, and proclaiming the innocence of the accused. It is a matter of taste and discretion, but no offence in the eye of the law. The only offence which would appear to have been committed, that of maintenance, is looked upon as venial, although the law respecting it has not been altered in modern times. We have already expressed our opinion that the law is one which might be advantageously brought into operation occasionally, and no better illustration of its utility could be afforded than that furnished by the Tichborne case.

THE Chancery Funds Bill has passed through committee. In the last discussion on Monday the only really important question raised had reference to the framing of the rules. Mr. GREGORY moved that they should be framed, not by the Treasury but by the Master of the Rolls, the Lords Justices of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, and the Vice-Chancellors of the Court of Chancery, or any three of them. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected on the ground that it was highly desirable "that the rules which were intended to protect the suitors on the one hand and the public on the other, should be framed by persons who were responsible to the House of Commons, and not by Judges who could not be compelled to attend to the expressed wishes of the House." Mr. GREGORY subsequently proposed that the LORD CHANCELLOR should have the assistance of the Judges above named or any two of them; but notwithstanding Sir R. BAGGALLAY's reminder that the Judges are constantly called upon to exercise a discretion in regard to the investment of the funds, and that such would connue to be the case after the passing of this Bill, the amendment was lost, and the framing of the rules will rest with the LORD CHANCELLOR and the Treasury. The only other feature in the discussion was a successful effort to curtail the retiring pension of the ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL. That officer will receive two-thirds only of his full salary when the Act comes into operation.

INDIA seems to be an admirable school for English Law Reformers, and it is much to be regretted that legal members of the Legisla tive Council, on their return to England, are not formed into a body for originating law reforms, which Mr. FAWCETT wrongly considered to be a function of the law officers. Mr. FITZJAMES STEPHEN is now on his way home after three years of most useful labour. According to the Times correspondent, the learned gentleman has been engaged in doing for India the very thing which so sadly wants doing in England, abbreviating and simplifying, consolidating, and re-enacting. We suspect that Mr. STEPHEN is over-praised by the Calcutta correspondent, but if a part only of what is said be true, Mr. STEPHEN Ought at once to be put at the head of a body of codifiers at home. The legal facility for getting to the heart of a matter," we are told, "never has failed Mr. STEPHEN for a moment, however complicated the subject in which he was concerned." Here is the very genius which would have saved the Digest Commission from its ignominious collapse, and which may yet guide our ill-directed endeavours to simplify and make intelligible our own laws. We are glad to see that Mr. STEPHEN praises the administration of law in India, which, it appears, has undergone, and is still undergoing, the improvement which Mr. TORRENS, in his recent work, declared to be almost essential to the maintenance of our rule in India.

THE County Court Judge of Burnley has recently come to a decision in a particular case, which will horrify Mr. BASS. He actually increased the term of imprisonment-not to be enforced for one month-from ten to forty days. The reasons for this step given by the learned Judge we commend to the attention of those legislators who contemplate following the hon. member for Derby. Mr. DANIEL said, "I wish it to be understood that imprisonment for debt is not by way of punishment to the debtor, but to induce the debtor to do that which I am satisfied he is able to do, that is, honestly to pay the debts he owes. I have been considering lately how to regulate the imprisonment for debt so as to produce that result, which is to the interest of the creditor, and which it is the object of the law to effect. The object is not punishment, but so to operate upon the debtor as to induce him to act like an honest man. At Bradford, the other day, I made inquiries as to the effect which the forty days' imprisonment had upon debtors, as compared with the previous effect of ten days, and I was told by the high bailiff that in several instances where the debtor had been committed for ten days, the debtor has ascertained that the order of committal and the conveyance to York did not add to the debt; and many persons, when they have got to York Castle have paid their debts, and then gone on pleasure to see the cathedral and other places, as a day's amusement. And I am told that when debtors have been taken from here, when they have got to Lancaster they have produced the money. It is idle to talk of imprisonment being a harsh proceeding against debtors. I am told with reference to the forty days' imprisonment that, the term being so long, it has had the effect of bringing the debtors to their senses, and has caused them to pay the debts they justly owe. That is my reason for increasing the term of imprisonment to forty days, not to be enforced for a month, so that if the debtor is disposed to do so, he will have the opportunity of acting as an honest man ought to act.”

We

THE House of Commons on the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL has referred the Juries Bill to a select committee. As a contemporary observes, the probable fate of a Bill containing 110 sections, which is referred to a select committee on the 13th May, and on the eve of the Whitsuntide holidays, may be too easily predicted. The most important feature in the Bill is the proposed reduction of the number of jurymen in civil causes from twelve to seven. should have expected to find a reduction to an odd number accompanied by a provision making legal the verdict of the majority. But the principle of an unanimous verdict is retained. The exemptions from service are regulated by the Bill on a new basis, liberating some classes whilst embracing others. Then there is a proposal for varying the constitution of jury panels according to the nature of the case to be tried. In trials for murder it is proposed that a full jury of twelve shall be sworn, of whom six are to be special and six common jurors. In all other trials whatsoever, either civil or criminal, except suits in County Courts, it is proposed that seven jurors only shall be sworn; of this number two being special jurors and five common jurors. In County Court suits it is proposed to retain the present number of five, all common jurors. Instead of nothing, as at present, com mon jurors are to be paid two shillings, and special jurors £1-not per diem, but for each occasion on which they are empannelled. The attempt has been made once to cause suitors to pay fees to common jurymen, and it failed; the system is a bad one, and we should have been glad had Mr. LOPES succeeded in obtaining for juries payment from the same source from which Judges receive their salaries. An objection to this is that the non-litigious among taxpayers would have to contribute to the costs of trying the causes of the litigious. So they have at present, in a great measure; and it would be no great hardship upon the taxpayer to extend Government pay to jurymen. However, this is not likely

to be the result, and it is of little use making further observations until the select committee make their report.

THE conclusions arrived at by the Select Committee on the Patent Laws are not very startling or important. They recommend that the patent law should be retained, but that protection for a limited period and dating back to the time at which it is applied for should only be granted for an invention on its nature and particular points of novelty being clearly described in a provisional specification, and upon the report of a competent authority that such invention, so far as can be ascertained by such authority, is new, and is a manufacture within the meaning of the law. It is further recommended that the provisional specification should be open to inspection, and that letters patent should not be granted until a complete specification has been deposited fully describing the means of carrying the invention into effect. The resolution of the patent agents has been adopted and the granting of letters patent to mere importers is condemned. It is pointed out that, inasmuch as the questions arising for decision under the Patent Laws are peculiar, a peculiar tribunal for their trial ought to be constituted, and that the present Patent Commission is open to serious complaints. No such persons have been appointed as the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1852 provided. The LORD CHANCELLOR, the MASTER of the ROLLS, and the two English law officers are now the only commissioners, "and by reason of their other engagements it is very difficult to get a meeting of the commissioners, and practically an officer in the patent office does the duty of the commission." Certain recommendations follow with the view of simplifying the law, of preventing doubtful novelties becoming patented, of facilitating inquiries into patent rights, and that in the trial of patent causes, juries should be dispensed with unless for the purpose of ascertaining certain facts, and the causes disposed of by a Judge, assisted by skilled advisers. An assimilation of the patent laws throughout the world is lastly urged, and Her Majesty's Government is requested to inquire of Foreign and Colonial Governments how far they are ready to concur in international arrangements in relation thereto. All the recommendations are sensible and practical, and have evidently been well considered.

ROMAN CATHOLICS AND THE WOOLSACK. THE answer of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL to a question put to him in the House of Commons, on Monday night, by Sir COLMAN O'LOGILEN as to the eligibility of Roman Catholics for the Lord Chancellorship of England and the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland must have surprised many. There can be no doubt that the opinion universally prevailed that those professing the Roman Catholic religion were excluded from such high offices, and it was rather startling to have this conviction so summarily demolished. Taking the question as to the Lord Chancellorship, he found that Roman Catholics had been excluded, first of all by the operation of the statutes to take the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy, and to make the declaration against transubstantiation." After referring to a number of statutes from the time of Charles II. to the present time, dealing with oaths and declarations, he "then alluded to 30 & 31 Vict. c. 62 upon the true construction of which, as far as he could judge, the answer to this question depended. If the true construction of that statute was that the statutes imposing the oaths and declarations were abolished against all persons but Roman Catholics, then by a subsequent statute the whole of those statutes were abolished, and the Roman Catholics, by the effect of that subsequent statute, would be admitted." This construction, he thought, was the true one, and, consequently, a Roman Catholic would not be prevented by the operation of any of those Acts from sitting on the woolsack.

Our impression on reading this opinion of the ATTORNEYGENERAL was, that he was wrong, and a more serious consideration of the question has only confirmed such first impression. The question is an important one, not merely as a point of law, but also from a political point of view. But we will here only state the grounds upon which our opinion is formed as to the question of eligibility.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was right in saying that Roman Catholics had been excluded first of all by the operation of statutes, rendering it obligatory to make the declaration against transubstantiation, and to take certain oaths. The Catholics for a long time suffered under this proscription, but at length the spirit of toleration and justice prevailed. The Roman Catholic Emancipation Act (10 Geo. 4, c. 7) repealed all previous statutes which required declarations against transubstantiation, &c., to be taken, thus opening offices and franchises to the Catholics, from which they had up to that time been excluded. Had the statute stopped with a mere repeal of such declarations, all offices would have been thrown open to Roman Catholics. But this was not done. They were specially excepted from holding the following offices, viz.: Regency of the United Kingdom, Lord Chancellorship of England, Lord Chancellorship of Ireland, Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, and the representing of Her Majesty at the Presbyterian Synod at Edinburgh.

Speaking of this Act, Sir JOHN COLERIDGE, said that though it was commonly supposed that it did by its own operation exclude Roman Catholics from certain offices, it did no such thing. What the Act did, he said, was to substitute for certain declarations which Roman Catholics could not take certain oaths which they could; but that the offices referred to in the Act were left as they were before its passing, and unaffected in any way by its provisions. In this view we certainly think the ATTORNEY-GENERAL is wrong. Previous to the Act Catholics were incapable of holding these offices simply because they could not conscientiously make certain declarations which the law required of all office-holders. Supposing, therefore, that the Act had left all offices as they were before its passing, there was nothing whatever to prevent Catholics from holding any of the above-mentioned offices, and no further legislative enactments would be required to give them such rights. But the Act in question did affect the holding of such offices. For sect. 12 specifically provides that Roman Catholics should not hold any of the abovenamed appointments. The old disability was removed, but for certain offices a new disability was created. If the offices remained unaffected by that statute, what was the meaning of section 12? What object had the Legislature in inserting such section? This can best be answered by the words of Sir ROBERT PEEL when he introduced the Bill:-"It will be quite consistent with this principle to exclude Roman Catholics from a certain limited number of offices which have special and peculiar duties attached to them, connected with the patronage of the Church, &c. The Roman Catholic is jealous of our interference with the appointments and discipline of his Church, and we have at least as good right to take security for the maintenance of the integrity of our own. This Bill will therefore exclude the Roman Catholics from the office of Regent, and from exercising, under any circumstances, the delegated authority of the Crown, from the office of Lord Chancellor of England and of Ireland respectively, and from the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland." The intention of the Legislature was to create a fresh disability entirely apart from the making of any oaths, and we contend this was effectually done by sect. 12. From that time to this no Roman Catholic has held any of the appointments then excepted, save that of the Lord Chan cellorship of Ireland, to which we will presently refer.

Roman Catholics, though they no longer had to make the declaration against transubstantiation, complained that persons other than Catholics, on qualifying for certain offices, had to make it, and that the declaration was kept in force, thus perpetuating on the statute book an insult to some of the most sacred doctrines of their Church. In 1867, therefore, Sir COLMAN O`LOGHILEN introduced a Bill to abolish the obnoxious declarations, and to render it unnecessary for any person whatever to make it on qualifying for any office. So far as the Catholics themselves were concerned, this was done by the Relief Act of 1829. The object of the Bill in question was to remove it from the statute book, This Bill afterwards became law, and now forms the statute 30 & 31 Vict. c. 62—— the Act which, according to the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, presents all the difficulties which beset the question. It is indeed difficult to understand what he meant when he said, "If the true construction of that statute was that the statutes imposing oaths and declarations were abolished against all persons but Roman Catholics.' Why, so far as the declaration against transubstantiation affected Roman Catholics, this was done by the Act of 1829. Surely he must have been misreported.

Moreover, along with the very Bill to which allusion has just been made, Sir COLMAN O'LOGILEN introduced another Bill, called Offices and Oaths Bill. Distinguishing the two measures, he said "The object of the one was to repeal an obnoxious declaration, while the other proposed to open several offices, to Roman Catholics, from which they were excluded by that declaration." Among the offices proposed to be opened to Roman Catholics were those of the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland and the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. After undergoing amendments the Bill in question became law, and forms c. 75 of the statutes 30 & 31 Vict. It substitutes one oath for the old oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy. Its first section enacts that every subject of Her Majesty shall be eligible to hold and enjoy the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland without reference to his religious belief, on subscribing the new oath, and makes provision for the exercise of the ecclesiastical patronage of the Chancellor when he should be a Roman Catholic. It was attempted to include the Lord Lieutenancy in this Act, but the House of Commons would not sanction it. The fact that an Act of Parliament was necessary to enable a Roman Catholic to be Lord Chancellor of Ireland is further strong proof, if such were needed, of the fallacy of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S opinion as to sect. 12 of the Relief Act of 1829.

The misconception which has arisen in this matter is evidently attributable to the idea which seems to have been present to the minds of both Sir COLMAN O'LOG HLEN, when he uttered the above italicised words, and of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL on Monday, viz., that the disability of the Catholics arose simply through the declaration of transubstantiation, and certain oaths, whereas the real fact is that the disability under which they now labour is a statutory one, imposed upon them by the Emancipation Act,

removal of which disability can only be effected by another

statute.

Again, if we refer to the 34 & 35 Vict. c. 48, an Act to repeal divers enactments relating to oaths and declarations which are not in force, and for other purposes therewith, we find several schedules enumerating the repealed statutes. The 2nd schedule, part 2, enumerates the statutes partially repealed, among which is the 10 Geo. 4, c. 7 (the Roman Catholic Relief Act), the whole of which is repealed, except certain enumerated sections and portions of sections, the 12th section being one of those as yet unrepealed, save of course so far as it was repealed by sect. 1 of the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 75.

On the whole, therefore, we think that Roman Catholics are still excluded from the woolsack. The same holds good as to the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. The question is a simple one, and resolves itself into this. Does sect. 12 of the 10 Geo. 4, c. 7, create for certain high offices a fresh disability? Is it a substantive enactment? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the disability still remains, for the section in question is unrepealed. political aspect of the question we have nothing to do.

With the

THE LIABILITY OF CAB OWNERS TO CAB DRIVERS. THE much vexed question whether the relationship of a cab proprietor to a driver is that of master and servant, or whether it is the more responsible relation of bailor and bailee, has at length been settled by the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, in the recent case of Fowler v. Lock. We cannot call it a satisfactory decision, inasmuch as the opinion of the court was divided, Mr. Justice Byles and Mr. Justice Grove holding that the relation was that of bailor and bailee; the former also saying that there was such a personal superintendence of the master in the supply of the horse that even if the relation of master and servant alone existed the master would be liable for sending out an untried and vicious animal. Mr. Justice Willes was of a contrary opinion, and considered that the driver was the servant of the owner, and must take all the ordinary risks. Since the case of Powles v. Hider (6 El. & Bl. 206), where it was held that the cab owner was liable to a third party for the loss of luggage occasioned by the fault of the driver, it has been generally considered that the driver was the servant of the cabowner, and the Hackney Carriage Acts indirectly seem to regard the proprietor and the driver of a hackney cab as employer and employed, and contemplate that the party who engages the cab under the care of the driver shall have a remedy against the proprietor. The agreement entered into between the cabman and owner for the hire of a cab for a day is somewhat peculiar; the cabman pays a sum of money for the cab on his return home for the use of the cab and two horses for the day; and if he does not pay the money on his return, he would not get a cab the next day. The cabman is perfectly free to drive where he chooses to seek employment, and no restraint whatever is put upon him so long as he does not illtreat the horse. In the present case of Fowler v. Lock, the facts proved were that the defendant supplied the plaintiff with a horse which was what is called in cab-driving parlance "green," that is, fresh from the country, and the animal had never been driven in a hansom before; nor had he been put in a "gingle," in which vehicle it is usual to try horses before driving them in hansom cabs. The horse having become restive ran away, upset the cab, and injured the driver.

Mr. Justice Byles, in his judgment, goes farther than the other judges, for he states that where there is a personal interference and personal superintendence of the master in the supply of the horse, and, therefore, evidence of personal negligence, causing injury to the servant by sending him out with an untried, vicious, and dangerous horse, not reasonably fit and proper for the work, he himself having the means of knowing the horse's character, and the servant having no such opportunity, the master is responsible. And the way in which the contract of letting puts on one side the existence of relationship of master and servant is pointedly put by Mr. Justice Grove, who says, "The cabman is under no control as to his movements by the owner; where he may make special bargains with the public, where he does not and cannot reasonably be expected to know the risks he encounters, where he prima facie pays instead of receives, where he is not carrying out his master's orders, where the perils are unknown to him, and change from day to day, where there is no notice of dismissal, but only a refusal to supply cab and horse on non-payment, and when there are no duties beyond those of bailor and bailee, I feel obliged to come to the conclusion that the cabman is not the servant of the cab owner." We cannot help thinking that this is sound law, and in no way interferes with the class of cases in which it has been held that the master is not liable for an accident to the servant, where the fault which occasioned the accident was as much within the knowledge of the servant as the master. Nor does this decision of the Court of Common Pleas interfere with the rule of law laid down in Powles v. Hider, that the cab master is liable for the acts of the driver for his default or neglect; and Mr. Justice Willes says, Although it seems a hardship on the cab owner, the Legislature has been relied upon as justifying us in putting this double face upon the transaction."

As the question is an important one, it is not likely to rest here; and we hear that an appeal to the Exchequer Chamber is already contemplated for the purpose of finally settling the question.

"SLIPS" IN MARINE INSURANCE.

THE Exchequer Chamber has affirmed the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Ionides v. The Pacific Fire and Marine Insurance Company (25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 490; L. Rep. 6 Q. B. 674), in which the point was whether by calling a ship the Socrates when the Socrate was intended, the policy was vitiated. As to the principal part of the policy moneys, the court held that the verdict of the jury, that the defendants had insured the cargo on board any ship which the plaintiff might choose to select was right, and that the misnomer was of no consequence. The point, however, to which we wish to direct attention, is that with reference to slips, and the operation of the last Stamp Act (30 Vict. c. 23).

Before this Stamp Act it was considered that a slip could not be looked at for any purpose whatever. In Warwick v. Slade (3 Camp. 127) Lord Ellenborough stated this to be his opinion in specific terms. In Xenos v. Wickham, in the House of Lords (16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 800; L. Rep. 2, H. of L. Cas. 296), Mr. Justice Willes, in giving his opinion, said, "the law as settled by the decisions upon the construction of the statutes referred to -35 Geo. 3 c. 63, and 54 Geo. 3 c. 147-"is that as there can be no valid insurance, or contract for an insurance, unless by writing with the statutory requisites; the slip by itself has no binding force." His Lordship cited Warwick v. Slade and Parry v. The Great Ship Company (4 B & S. 556), and added: "It follows that the slip, though complete, is no contract, nor even part of a contract of insurance, but a mere proposal that a policy of insurance shall be entered into in futuro." This was undoubtedly the law before the last Stamp Act. In the Exchequer Chamber, we believe, the Lord Chief Baron expressed an opinion that the slip might have been looked at for the purpose of proving a fraud.

The provisions of the last Stamp Act as affecting slips are these. The 7th section says, "No contract or agreement for sea insurance shall be valid unless the same is expressed in a policy." Sect. 9 says, "No policy shall be pleaded or given in evi dence in any court to be good or available in law or in equity, unless duly stamped." It is curious that two years after the passing of this Act a case arose in equity in which a slip was tendered in evidence and objected to, and the Act was not brought to the attention of Vice-Chancellor James (Mackenzie v. Coulson L. Rep. 8 Eq. 368) who, in his judgment, spoke in irreverent terms of this document. "It" (the bill) "seeks what is called the "rectification' of a policy of insurance by making it comformable to a thing called a 'slip,' which was a piece of paper on which something was written pending a negotiation for the effecting of a policy of insurance," and he held that the slip did not amount to a contract of any kind. We may as well at once put in juxtaposition with this, the law as laid down in Ionides v. The Pacific Insurance Company, by Mr. Justice Blackburn, thus: "As the slip is clearly a contract for marine insurance, and is equally clearly not a policy, it is, by virture of these enactments [ss. 7 & 9 of 30 Vict.] not valid, that is, not enforceable at law or in equity; but it may be given in evidence, wherever it is, though not valid, material."

This is the law as it at present stands, affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber.

TREASURY ECONOMY IN THE COUNTY COURTS. AN amusing instance of the energy of the Treasury in pursuing its project for small economies reaches us from the Bicester County Court. There is a room in the Bicester Court House, it seems, for the registrar, and ever since 1865 that official has occupied it without payment of rent for all business purposes, whether public or private. On the 30th Dec., 1870, he received a letter from the secretary of the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, calling for a return in the form of a reply to the following question: "Does the registrar, or any other officer of the court, transact private business on the premises?" To which the registrar replied, "The registrar alone transacts his private business on the premises, and has done so ever since the year 1865, when the Court House was first opened, as well as his official business, whereupon his previous fixed allowance of 201. a year for providing offices was discontinued."

The Board of Works slept on this important matter until 2nd Dec. 1871, when the secretary addressed the following letter to the registrar: "The Board will require a payment at the rate of £10 per annum only for your use of the premises. The arrangement to take effect from the 1st October last, and to be determined by your ceasing to hold the office of registrar, and also at three months' notice by either party. Any rates or taxes imposed in respect of your use of the premises for private business must also be borne by you."

The registrar remonstrated, but all in vain; he was informed of the person to whom the rent would be payable, and that person duly claimed half a year's rent "of County Court, Bicester," and called also for the production of evidence showing that the pre