picture dealer, first, 3. Parkyns, London.-Taylor, W. joiner, first, id. Laidman, Newcastle.-Tyler, R. L. wine merchant, 1s. 11d. Harris, Nottingham.-Walker, R. sub-contractor, first, 10s. 6d. Parkyns, London.- Ward, J. grocer, second, 2s. 2. Parkyns, London.-White, R. merchant, first, 11d. Parkyns, London. Wilson, J. A. K. shipowner, first, 1s. Turner, Liverpool.- Wood, II. chemist, first, 7d. Kinnear, Birmingham. Assignment, Composition, Juspectorship, and Trust Deeds. Gazette, Jan. 29. ALLEN, EDWIN, draper, Old Kent-rd. Jan. 30. 58. by two equal instalments, in 3 and 6 mos ARMITAGE, WILLIAM, boot manufacturer, Ball's Pond-rd, Isling. ton. Jan. 4. 58. by two instalments,-2s. 6d. on Feb. 14, and 2. 6. in 6 mos ASHFORD, HENRY, dealer in photographs, Queen-st, Cheapside. BENNETT, WILLIAM THOMAS, builder, Birmingham. Dec. 30. 38. in 1 mo BENSON, CHARLES, ironfounder, Leeds. Jan. 8. Trusts. J. Crofts, wool comber, and J. Ward, agent, both Leeds BERGER, JOSEPH ALFRED, bookseller, Catherine-st, Strand. Jan. 1. 18. in 1 mo BLANKEBY, JOHN SAMUEL. hair dresser, Chesterfield. Jan. 11. 5. by two equal instalments, in 7 days and 3 mos. Trust. J. Parkin, tailor, Chesterfield BRIER, JAMES, cloth merchant, Kirkheaton, also Leeds. Jan. 7. Trusts. G. Kilburn, weaver, Dalston; and I. Bradley, cloth manufacturer, Morley BROADBENT, EDWARD, shoe manufacturer, Leeds. Jan. 4. 5s, by two equal instalments, on March 20, and July 20 BROOKS, JOSEPH, and COLTON, JOHN, paper merchants, Leeds. Dec. 30. Trusts. W. Colton, worsted spinner, and W. D. Leslie, hatter, both Leeds CAWOOD, MATTHEW HENRY, (trading as Henry Hobson) farmer, DRUDGE, SAMUEL, carpenter, Newport, Isle of Wight. Jan. 4. 10. on Feb. 4 GALE, EDWIN, Birstal, and GALE, JOSEPH HOPKINSON, Batley, manufacturers. Jan. 4. Trusts. J. Kenworthy, machine maker, Almondbury, L. M. Tetlow, card maker, Cleckheaton, J. Henley, rag merchant, Batley, J. Bywater, iron founder, Birstal, and S. Armitage, shoddy merchant, Dewsbury GOOD, JOHN, builder, Great Grimsby. Jan. 2. Trusts. W. R. Marshall, timber merchant, and I. Good, brick manufacturer, both Great Grimsby GREEN, WILLIAM, grocer. Sleaford. Jan. 1. Trusts. J. S. Stower, wholesale grocer, Boston, and J.C. Brewitt, cheesemonger, Sleaford GRINDELL, ALFRED, paint merchant, Hull. Dec. 31. Trust. J. Stuart, merchant, Hull HURST, HENRY, gentleman, Canterbury-ter, Lorimer-sq, Walworth. Jan. 20, 1s. on July 10 HYAM, THOMAS, innkeeper, Ilminster. Jan. 5. Trust. T. Perry, shopkeeper, Ilminster IDE, THOMAS, IDE, WILLIAM, and FLIN, RICHARD THOMAS, brass fitters, High-st, Shadwell. Dec. 30. 7. 6d. by three equal instalments, on April 18, Aug. 18, and Dec. 18 IDE, THOMAS, and IDE, WILLIAM, glass benders, High-st, Shad. well, and King David-la. Dec. 31. 78. 6d., by three equal instalments, on April 18, Aug. 18, and Dec. 18 LEVOI, ABRAHAM LEVY, cigar manufacturer, Bishopsgate-st, without. 78. G.,-1s. on Feb. 1, Aug. 1, 1869, 18. on Feb. 1, Aug. 1, 1870, 18. 6d. Feb. 1, and 18. Aug. 1, 1871 JONES, DANIEL, merchant, Briton-ferry. Dec. 17. Trusts. A. A. Lyddon, merchant, Bristol, and T. Williams, timber merchant, Neath LEWIS, RICHARD LIMBURY, commission agent, Spring-st, Mary. lebone. Jan. 19. 58. in 3 mos. Trust. H. Earle, gentleman, Bedford-row LOADER, RICHARD MORGAN, accountant, Grocer's-hall-ct. Jan. 23. 1s. on Dec. 31, 189 LOCKETT, GEORGE BASKEFILE, provision dealer, Fallowfield. Dec. 23. Trusts. D. Stoppard, provision dealer, J. Wardle, cheese factor, both Manchester MARRIOTT, THOMAS, hop merchant, Leighton Buzzard. Jan. 11. 10-38. in 1 week, and 5s. in 3 mos MARTIN, WILLIAM JOHN, grocer, Maldon-rd, Kentish-town. Dec. 31. 58. in 14 days MARZIAL, REV, ANTOINE THEOPHILE, pastor of the French protestant church, Brunswick row, Queen-sq. Jan. 16. 20. by equal quarterly instalments of fifty pounds, and interest at five pounds per cent. per annum,-first in 3 mos. Trusts. J. S. Lindsey, butcher, Gray's-inn-rd, and P. J. Harvey, Tavistock-st, Coventgarden, secretary to the Real and Personal Advance Company (Limited). MCCARTER, JAMES, commercial traveller, Tydd Gate, co. Cambridge, and Breams-buildings, Chancery-la. Dec. 29. Trusts. H Golding, South-pl, Finsbury, and S. Bird, Worship st, Finsbury, cabinet manufacturers MCLEAN, RICHARD, baker, Gossett-st, Bethnal-green. Jan. 13. 3. 6d. on execution MEYRICK, RICHARD, out of business, Worcester. Jan. 4. Trust. J. R. Davy, bank, Worcester MORRIS, THOMAS, MORRIS, EDWIN, lithographers, funder firm of Linfoot, Morris, & Co.) Birmingham. 78. 6d.-2s. 6d. at 6, 9 and 12 mos, secured OLLERENSHAW, ELIZABETH, widow, housekeeper, Leek. Jan. 6. 38. 4d, on Jan. 20 PETTY, ROBERT, and DONKIN, THOMAS, grease manufacturers, Sunderland. Dec. 31. Trust. W. Carling, auctioneer, Sunderland SAWTELL, WALTER JOHN, draper, South Molton. Dec. 18. 98. 6d. by three equal instalments, at 3, 6, and 9 mos, from Jan. 1,— secured SHAND, ADAM, boot manufacturer, Hull. Jan. 8. 88. -4s. on April 8, and July 8,-secured SMALLMAN, MARIA, upholsteress, Hereford-rd, Westbourne-grove Dec. 24. 2. by two equal instalments, at 3 and 6 mos SOLBE, ELIAS GUERIN, and BRITTAN, JOSHUA WILLIAM, stationers, Liverpool. Jun. 16. 68. 8. in 1 mo TETLEY, JOHN, builder, Dudley-hill, near Bradford. Dec. 31. 95. BUTCHER, ALFRED, commission agent, Leicester. Jan. 4. 6s, in 28 days from registration CAZALY, WILLIAM, draper, Red Lion-st. Jan. 9. 12s. by four DARTNALL, WILLIAM VIGOR, licensed victualler, Meopham. LATTA, FRANCIS, grocer, Salford. Dec. 29. 6s. by three equal MASON, WILLIAM, fencer, South Norwood. Jan. 25. 78.-28. in 1 mo, 2s. in 3 mos, and 3s. in 5 mos. Trusts. T. Daws, timber merchant, and J. Hollidge, builder, both South Norwood MASON, CHARLES EDWARD, gasfitter, Bolsover-st, Great Portland-st. Jan. 28. Trust. J. Doughty, gentleman, Sherwood-st, Golden-sq NAYLOR, SAMUEL, grocer, Wetley Rocks, near Leek. Jan. 29. 58. on Feb. 12 ORTON, JOHN, manufacturer, Willenhall. Jan. 2. Trusts. J. Lowe, fron merchant, and D. Knowles, agent, both Willenhall PARKS, DAVID, clothier, Westminster-bridge-rd. Jan. 23. 5s, by two equal instalments, in 3 and 6 mos from registration-the last secured. Trust. D. Bliss, chandelier manufacturer, Newcut, Lambeth PEARSON, JOHN, merchant, Manchester. Jan. 5. Trusts. J. E. Simpson, commission agent, Manchester; T. Haworth, cotton manufacturer, Accrington; and H. Ingham, cotton manufac turer, Bury REES, DAVID WILLIAMS, merchant, Chapel-pl, Poultry. Dec. 29. Trusts. C. Beckwith, warehouseman, Noble-st, and R. Davis, warehouseman, Love-la REYNOLDS, GEORGE, boot manufacturer, Shoreditch. Jan. 21. 48.-1s. in 3 mos, 1s 67. in 6 mos, and 1x. 6d, in 9 mos RICHARDSON, DANIEL, grocer, Small Heath. Jan. 21. 2. by two equal instalments, in 9 and 18 mos from registration ROBINSON, GEORGE FELL, and ROBINSON, WILLIAM, grocers, Chorlton-upon- Medlock. Jan. 23. 58. by two equal instalments, in 2 and 4 mos from registration. Trust. D. Robinson, widow, Fallowfield, near Manchester ROSS, EDWIN GOODLAD, commission agent, Kingston-upon-Hull. Jan. 5. Trusts. B. B. Mason, merchant, and E. Burwell, merchant, both Kingston-upon-Hull ROOTS, RICHARD BICKNELL, greengrocer, Chapel-st, Somers. town. 58.-28. on March 11, 2s. on July 11, and 1s. on Oct. 11 SMITH, THOMAS, linendraper, Sittingbourne. Jan. 15. 68. on registration STARMER, THOMAS, and STARMER, ELIJAH, shoe manufacturers, Northampton. 78. Gd.-3s. in 3 mos, 2s. 6d. in 6 mos, and 2s. in 9 mos-secured TRAVERS, CHARLES, lime merchant, Long Eaton. Jan. 9. 78. Gd. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. HARRISS. On the 4th ult., the wife of A. E. Harriss, Esq., solici citor, Calcutta, of a son. MALLAM-On the 27th ult., at Park View House, Oxford, the wife of George Mallam, Esq., solicitor, of a son. DEATHS. CHANDLER.-On the 30th ult., at Putney, aged 30, John Wills Chandler, eldest son of Samuel Chandler, of Basingstoke, Hants, solicitor. CONSTABLE. On the 1st inst., at 116, Englefield-road, N., aged 12, Margaret Clara, eldest surviving daughter of Charles Constable, solicitor, formerly of Bognor. INGRAM. On the 20th ult., at his residence, at Slough, Bucks, aged 76, Robert Hugh Wilson Ingram, Esq., of the Middle Temple, barrister. KENNETT. On the 28th ult., at Carlton-road, Kilburn, aged 72, Mary, widow of the late Matthew Kennett, Esq., of Dover. MASHEDER.-On the 5th ult., at Morant's Bay, Jamaica, Richard Masheder, B.A., late Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge, of the Inner Temple, and for some time District Judge of Port Antonio METHOLD. On the 28th ult., aged 65, Henry Methold, Esq., late one of the Masters of the Court of Common Pleas SCUTTS. On the 1st ult., at Queen Elizabeth-street, Horselydown, aged 74, Mr Henry Scutts, for nearly twenty the faithful and respected common-law clerk of the late firm of Slee and Robinson (now Slee, Ovans, and Bayley), St. John's, Southwark. SLOCOMBE.-On the 31st ult., at Morden, North Curry, near Taunton, aged 57, William Slocombe, Esq., of Abbott's-walk, Reading. A SUCCESS UNPRECEDENTED-MARAVILLA COCOA IS PERFECTION.-The Globe says "Taylor Brothers' Maravilla Cocoa has achieved a thorough success, and supersedes every other cocoa in the market. For homeopaths and invalids we could not recommend a more argeeable or valuable beverage." Sold in packets only, by all Grocers.-[ADVT.] COX'S DIGEST of CRIMINAL LAW CASES DE- COX'S MAGISTRATES' and PARISH LAW CASES DORIA and MACRAE'S NEW BANKRUPTCY LAW and PRACTICE. Two vols. cloth, price 428. EVANS' LAW DIGEST. Half-yearly, price 8s. 6d. FRANCIS'S LAW of CHARITIES. Second Edition, price 9s. 6d. GIBBONS' and HARVEY'S EQUITY in the COUNTY COURT. Price 10s. 6d. MARITIME LAW CASES, with a Digest of Cases and Awards for Twenty Years. Quarterly 5s. 6d. Vol. 1 may be had. OKE'S JOURNAL and CASH-BOOK. MAGISTRATES CLERKS' ACCOUNT OF FEES. Price, 1 quire 5s. ; 2 quires 8s.; 3 quires 11s.; 4 quires 148. PATERSON'S PRACTICAL STATUTES. Years 1853 and 1859, 9s. 6d. each: 1860, 10s. 6d; 1861 and 1862 12s. 6d. each; 1863 to 1865, 10s. 6d. each; 1866 to 1865, 12s. 6d. each. PATERSON and MACNAMARA'S COMPLETE PRACTICE of the COMMON LAW. Two large vols., price 31s. 6d. PATERSON'S MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT. Second Edition, price 68. 6d. Joiners, and T. Law, curd maker, all of budity hand S. Tetley, PARTRIDGE AND COOPER POLAND S TRADE-MARKS' ACT. Price 5s. 6d. Dudley-hill TURNER, JAMES, glue manufacturer, Stockport. Dec. 31. 58. on Feb. 1 UPTON, JAMES, draper, Mile-end-rd. Jan. 9. 6s. 8d. on Feb. 1 WASS, WILLIAM, builder, Sheffield. Dec. 29. 2s. 6d. on execution, and Is. 64, on June 26,-secured WALTON, JOHN, butcher, Leeds. Dec. 31. Trust. G. Noble, valuer, Leeds WEST, JOHN, and WEST, CHARLES MULLIS, cabinet makers, Newport Pagnell. Jan. 5. Trusts. A. Capp and J. Bunting, butchers, Newport Pagnell WILKINSON, MOSES, and WILKINSON, AARON, worsted manufacturers, Halifax. Jan. 11. 158.-78., 3., 3s., and 2s. in 7 days and in 3, 6, and 9 mos WOODS, GEORGE, farmer, Great Marlow, Jan. 11. 58. in 14 days WOOLGAR, STEPHEN, carpenter, Westham, near Eastbourne. Jan. 22. 58, on Feb Gazette, Feb. 2. AMAS, CHARLES, jun., draper, Hastings. Jan. 20. Trusts. H. Jesse, manufacturer, Bunhill-row, and G. Hooper, wholesale warehouseman, Wood-st AMBLER, SARAH ANN, widow, paper tube maker, Keighley. Jan. 5. 4s, by three equal instalments, in 3, 6, and 9 mos. Trusts. G. Toothill, paper dealer, Bradford, and J. Maude, builder, Keighley BARTON, ROBERT, builder, Edith-rd, Peckham. Dec. 31. Trusts. R. D. Hentsch, oilman, High-st, Peckham, and F. Nicholls, public accountant, Old Jewry chambers BOOSEY, GEORGE BENJAMIN, gentleman, Milton, near Gravesend. Jan. 29. 38, by two equal instalments, in 3 and 6 mos BROMFIELD, JOHN, chemist, Clee. Jan. 5. Trusts. M. Colbridge, grocer, and H. D. Simpson, grocer, Louth BUTTERWORTH, WALTER; BUTTERWORTH, WELLINGTON COT. TON; and BUTTERWORTH, JAMES, merchants, Liverpool and Mincing-la. Jan. 13. 68.-2s. 6d. in 1 mo, 1s.fed. in 3 mos, and 28. in 5 mos-secured (Late PARTRIDGE and COZENS), WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS, 92, FLEET-STREET, and 1 & 2, Chancery-Lane, LONDON, E.C. Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 208. DRAFT PAPER, 48. 6d., Ga., 78., 78. 9d., and 98, per ream INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled to hold twenty LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER OF MINUTE-BOOKS. An immense stock in various bindings. ILLUSTRATED PRICE-LIST of Inkstands, Postage Scales, Copying Presses, Writing Cases, Despatch Boxes, Oak and Walnut Stationery Cabinets, and other useful articles adapted to Library or Office, post free. Established 1841. SAUNDERS' PRACTICE of MAGISTRATES' COURTS Third Edition, price 12s. 6d. SAUNDERS' and COX'S CRIMINAL CONSOLIDATION ACT, with Digest of all the Cases decided. Second Edition, price 12s. 6d. SAUNDERS' UNION ASSESSMENT ACT. Price & 6d. SAUNDERS' LAW and PRACTICE of AFFILIATION Fifth Edition, price 68. 6d. SAUNDERS' MILITIA ACTS. Fourth Edition, price is SAUNDERS' NEW PRISON ACT. Price 48. 6d. SAUNDERS' POLICE ACT. Price 5s. 6d. TABLE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS REPORTS. Price 28. plain; mounted on oard-board 2s. 6d; mounted on rollers, &c., 38. 6d. TAYLER'S LAW of APPEALS to the SUPERIOR COURTS of LAW by Appeal Case. Price 78. 6d. UNDERDOWN'S LAW of ART COPYRIGHT. Price 7s 6d. WHARTON'S LEGAL MAXIMS Price 10s. 6d. Re THE PERUVIAN RAILWAYS COMPANY; CRAWLEY'S CASEJoint-stock company-Winding-up-Contributory CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. 715 Re THE PERUVIAN RAILWAYS COMPANY; ROBINSON'S CASEWinding-up-Contributory-Trustee 716 expressed by the registrar, and the Government will do good service by taking the matter into its very serious consideration without delay. A VICE-CHANCELLOR'S FIRST ACT. WE announced a short while since that Mr. JOHN WICKENS, of the Chancery Bar, had been appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has, we find, inaugurated his career in that office in a somewhat remarkable manner. There are few men, we may say very Advertisements specially ordered for the first page are NOTICE. Subscribers and Advertisers are requested to make their Cheques and Post-office Orders payable to Mr. HORACE Cox, the latter at the Strand Office. The LAW TIMES goes to press on Thursday evening, that it may be received in the remotest parts of the country on Saturday morning. Communications and Advertisements must be transmitted accordingly. None can appear that do not reach the office by Thursday afternoon's post. The Forty-fifth Volume of the LAW TIMES, no complete, may be uniformly and strongly bound at the LAW TIMES Office for 5s. 6d. THE Law and the Lawyers. 743 LORD CAIRNS has undertaken the leadership of the Constitutional party in the House of 744 Lords. We believe it is the intention of the plaintiff in the case of Phillips v. Eyre, to carry it into a court of error. WITH reference to our remarks last week on the sittings at Nisi Prius, we may observe that the Court of Queen's Bench have caused special 750 jury causes to be taken in the second court. The list was thus considerably reduced on Thursday, and there is a prospect that all the remanets will be disposed of when the sittings terminate on Monday. Deed of composition-Power to cancel a composition-deed 752 Collision-Vessels at anchor-Material facts COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. Re BIDDULPH AND OTHERS— LEADING ARTICLES, SUMMARIES, CORRESPONDENCE, &c. TO CORRESPONDENTS LEADING ARTICLES: Topics of the Week.. A Vice-Chancellor's First Act 753 The Incorporated Law Society and the New Law Courts... 281 The Working of the Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1868 The Stamp Acts and their Difficulties-Stamps on a Mortgage of Copyholds Economy Trades Unions 282 283 283 283 284 286 286 286 286 287 287 237 288 289 290 990 A DECISION has been given recently by the MASTER of the ROLLS in chambers, depriving a 286 liquidator of his remuneration, under circumstances interesting to the Profession. The state of facts upon which this decision was come to was this:-The solicitor of Captain A. presented the 287petition to wind-up the company, and obtained the order. He proposed Mr. B. as official liquidator; Mr. B. is accordingly appointed official liqui280 dator, and, in return, Mr. B. appoints the same 250 gentleman to be his solicitor in the winding-up. Thus the same solicitor acted for all parties. He proposed a compromise on behalf of Captain 290 A.; he advised Mr. B. to approve the compromise; and he did not inform Mr. B. that, if he pleased, he might set aside the whole transaction 291 relating to a sale of the property. "I think," said the MASTER of the ROLLS, "that the official liquidator must, in this state of circumstances, be answerable for the wrong advice he received, 298 and on which he has acted; and that I cannot give him remuneration for an error which was occasioned by him, in consequence of his not 293 employing a solicitor whose single duty would 204 be to canvass strictly the transactions between the promoters of the petition and the company itself." 290 290 291 291 232 293 29. 294 295 295 296 996 MR. TIDD PRATT, the official Examiner and 296 Registrar of Benefit Societies, has addressed a letter to the magistrates of the metropolitan district, stating his opinion that evils of no ordinary magnitude result from the formation of small societies holding their meetings at 27 public-houses. He intimates his intention to 27 apply to Parliament for power to suppress these 297 associations, which he justly characterises as "swindles." The experience of the various 200 magistrates must certainly confirm the opinions 297 297 297 297 strong common sense to enable them to resist the blandishments of those with whom they are newly brought in contact by means of promotion. In the first place, the promotion itself is gratifying, and in the next place, it is pleasant to find the promotion recognised as an important fact. This is evidently the view taken by the Liverpool Law Society, and probably the last thing they expected was a polite rebuff from the new Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy when they tendered him their congratulations. Mr. Justice WILLES recently, when sitting on an election petition, very strongly expressed his opinion of testimonials. He regards them with the most supreme contempt. We confess that we share this sentiment, and so, evidently, does Vice-Chancellor WICKENS. It was notified to him by the Liverpool Law Society that both branches of the Profession in that town wished to offer him their congratulations upon his appointment, and we are told that considerable preparations were made for the purpose. We allow our readers to imagine the effect produced by the receipt of the following very admirable letter addressed to the leader of the movement. To John Yates, Esq. Manchester, 4th Feb. 1869. Dear Sir, I am sincerely obliged to you, and to the gentlemen in whose name you write, for the expression of their desire to congratulate me formally on my taking my seat in Liverpool as ViceChancellor of Lancaster, and I am very unwilling to make myself appear ungrateful or uncourteous by declining the proposal. But the congratulation could not reach me in a form more agreeable to me than that which it has already taken in your letter; and I should wish you to consider whether public congratulations are not better avoided in such a case. They are not, I believe, generally made on appointments to judicial offices of real importance, and, if they were, would soon become unmeaning, though the omission of them might give pain and impair public confidence. If, on reconsideration, you and the gentlemen you represent accede to these views, and waive any formal congratulation to me on my taking my seat in Liverpool, I shall feel that I have an additional obligation to you and them, besides that which your letter has placed me under. But I repeat, with perfect sin cerity, that I feel the proposal to be a very kind and flattering one.-Believe me, your obedient JOHN WICKENS. servant, THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY AND THE NEW LAW COURTS. THE Council of the Incorporated Law Society have issued a pamphlet, in which they strongly urge the adoption of the Carey-street site in preference to the Embankment site for the erection of the New Law Courts. Now, if any body of persons has a stronger claim than another to be heard on this question, it is the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, representing as it does the majority of the metropolitan solicitors. And that the solicitors have a larger right to be heard than the general public will be admitted, when the statement made in this pamphlet is known, namely, that "the number of jurors, witnesses, and others daily called direct from their own homes or offices, to the courts and offices of the law is comparatively small; certainly not 2000 a day. A large number of the witnesses go to the attorneys' offices on their way to court. But it has been ascertained from accurate observation that in the transaction of the business of suitors from 12,000 to 15,000 visits are daily made by the solicitors and their clerks to the different offices, going and returning several times in the course of the day, and nearly as many visits probably are daily made by them to the several courts. If several hundred yards be added to the distance to be on each occasion traversed in from 12,000 to 15,000 daily visits to the offices, and as many to the courts, it is vexatious to contemplate the miles on miles of wasteful traversing which would be inflicted on the Profession, and through them on the suitors, and the weeks and months of delay which will be added to the inevitable annoyances of litigation." COMPANIES AS JUDGMENT-DEBTORS. were within the Act. If the Legislature intended to give the power now contended for, they would have introduced provisions such as those contained in the 50th and 51st sections of therefore this application must fail." Here, then, we have two practical defects in two sec This perhaps is one of the most forcible THERE is a section (60) of the Common Law arguments in favor of the Carey-street site, if Procedure Act 1854, which says, "It shall be we are to consider convenience and utility as of lawful for any creditor who has obtained a judg- the Act. We cannot insert such provisions, and the first importance. That these considerations ment in any of the Superior Courts to apply to are of the first importance few, we imagine, the court or a Judge for a rule or order that the will deny. But then arises the question whether judgment-debtor should be orally examined as the Embankment site is so far removed from the to any and what debts owing to him before a "centre of the legal district," which are the master of the court, or such other person as the terms in which the council refer to the Carey-court or a Judge shall appoint, and the court or street site, as to give the argument prepon examination of such judgment-debtor, and for sect. 60 a like company cannot be treated as Judge may make such rule or order for the the production of any books or documents; and derating weight. We do not find that the council go carefully into a comparison of the two sites as regards convenience. In the paragraph we have quoted, they notice that there would be great additional delay in going down to the embankment, but they do not go into calculations, and considering that the Courts of Westminster Hall would be brought so much nearer the legal centre the probabilities are that the adoption of the Embankment site for the concentration of all the law courts and offices would leave matters pretty much as they now stand as regards convenience. Then we come to this. Should convenience be more consulted than it is at present at the cost of a certain national sacrifice? The council say emphatically that it should, that the only sacrifice required is that a handsome public edifice should be lost to view, and that otherwise solicitors are the representatives of the suitors, who are the public, and that therefore the interest of the public is that the courts should be situated in the legal centre. The notion of ornamentation of the metropolis, the council say, ought not to be imported into the discussion. The concentration is needed for the suitors, who are to pay for it; the building they require is one in which their business may be carried on with the greatest amount of expedition, economy, and efficiency; in a locality as central as possible for those who have to conduct their business; the Carey-street site is admirably adapted to the purpose, and the embankment site is not; Parliament has granted them the Carey-street site, and it cannot be believed that Parliament, especially after an expenditure of 800,0007. from the suitors' fund, will depart from a scheme so deliberately sanctioned. These are strong facts, and we must certainly agree that the council of this society have the best of the discussion which has taken place on this matter. And they have further the argument of economy on their side. "It has been estimated," they say, "that the loss on the re-sale of the Carey-street site, including the compensations paid to the occupants of business premises, would not be less than half a million. The purchase of the Embankment site would not cost less than a million and a half, and interest on the outlay of 800,000l. is accumulating, whilst the outlay remains wholly unproductive. On whom is all this increased expenditure to fall? Surely not on the suitors in opposition to whose interests the change is proposed! Is it expected that the Government will propose to Parliament that the expenditure shall be provided for by general taxation, or thrown on the Metropolitan Board of Works?" We confess that we have inclined to the Embankment site, because it seemed to us due to our law and its professors that upon the bank of our great tidal highway it and they should be represented by the splendid building which is contemplated. It is now proper that we should admit that we have not been sufficiently prosaic. Looking at the able paper to which we have referred, it is clear that there cannot be two opinions as to the expediency of adhering to the Carey-street site. A few remarks with which the council close their paper should be quoted here. They say that a misconception exists with reference to the further property proposed to be obtained in connection with the Careystreet site. It is observed that this further property is estimated at 668,000l., and it is assumed that it will be required for the buildings and approaches. The fact, however, is, that a small portion only will be required for this purpose, but it was deemed right to secure it, partly to obviate questions of light and air, but principally to secure the means of future extension before the value of the property had become enhanced by its close contiguity to the courts and offices. It is expected that the rental to be derived from this property will more than defray the annual charge which will be payable in respect of the purchase money. tions of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854. Under sect. 50, a company corporate cannot cannot obtain discovery of documents, because judgment-debtors for the discovery of debts due the examination shall be conducted in the same under his control. That it was so decided proves that there has been an oversight on the part of the Legislature. And it is an oversight the more remarkable because in sections closely preceding, bodies corporate are expressly referred to. The 50th section relates to the recovery of documents, and says that if the party is a body corporate, the necessary affidavit shall be made by some officer. Under this section it has been held (Lacharme v. The Quartz Rock Marifosa Gold Mining Company, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 502), that the court or a Judge has power to order a director of a defunct company to give the plaintiff inspection of documents not denied by such director to be in his possession or would be very unreasonable to hold that an Bramwell, B., said, "It order can be made against a corporation, but that it cannot be enforced." Another case upon the same section is Christopherson v. Lotinga, 9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 688, in which the court had to come to a conclusion very much opposed to its inclination, and held that a corporation could not make the affidavit necessary to obtain inspection, on the ground, as stated by Willes, J., "because the affidavit, if required, is to be by one of the parties to the cause, and is to pledge the personal belief of such party." The affidavit was held to be necessary, and the corporation was therefore excluded from the process available to other suitors. It is curious that the next section provides for such a difficulty as regards interrogatories, for it says that the order may require, in the case of a body corporate, any of the officers of such body corporate to answer the question in writing by affidavit. And it is the more curious because there is a particularly strong analogy between the discovery of documents, the administration of interrogatories, and the discovery of debts for the purposes of attachment. The difficulty which the Court of Exchequer found in making a company amenable to the 60th section was that an oral examination is necessary, and a corporation cannot be orally examined. The decision, therefore, is no fault of the court, but of the Legislature, in not naming the officer as the person who should, as a witness, represent the corporation. AMENDMENT ACT 1868. WE report to-day a case occurring at Nisi Prius in the Court of Exchequer which shows us what an amount of litigation may be created by enforcing with too great strictness the rules affecting arrangements between debtors and their creditors. In that case, a hop merchant lost a sum of 40,000l. by the fall in hops. He was sued by two of his creditors for small sums, and upon the day upon which those creditors issued their writs of fi. fa., executed a deed of composition by which he covenanted to pay two shillings in the pound. Eleven out of twenty of his creditors assented to this deed, and his supposed majority in value amounted to over 3001. beyond the required sum. The eleven creditors represented an amount of more than 12,0007., whilst the two execution creditors claimed together not more than 2001. They however resolved to dispute the deed. One of the items disputed was a sum of 1800%, for which a liquidator of a company in course of being compulsorily wound-up, was the assenting creditor. Here a very great difficulty arose, because counsel for the execution-creditors demanded that the liquidator should prove that he had the sanction of the court to his assenting to the deed, as provided by the Companies' Act 1862, sect. 160. The solicitor to the debtor was in court prepared to swear that the chief clerk in Chancery knew of the deed, and that it was assented to by the liquidator, and it was contended that this was the assent of the court. But this evidence was objected to, and, had it not been possible to go on with another point, it would have been necessary to adjourn the case for the purpose of procuring admissible evidence. This is a matter which it will be well to attend to in practice. Further, as a matter of practice, it is to be observed that it was held that in the case of a contested deed, the debtor must be prepared to prove the accuracy of every debt alleged to be due by him in the same manner as if he were defending an action brought by the creditor to recover each particular debt. It will be seen at a glance what this entails. A non-assenting creditor may choose to dispute the accuracy of the list of debts made out by the debtor, and verified to the best of the debtor's knowledge and belief by affidavit in pursuance of the Bankruptcy Act of 1868, and thus put the The difficulty is stated by the Lord Chief debtor to go through the same process as to the Baron: "We have now to consider," he said, non-assenting minority as if each individual whether it is possible to apply this section to creditor in that minority were bringing an action the case of a corporation. Now, if we were to to recover the debt. In other words, any nonmake the order prayed for against any of the assenting creditor may inflict upon a debtor directors, it would be to assume that the direc-making a deed of arrangement the enormous tors in question are defendants in the action. But that is not so. The section says that the judgment-debtor is to be orally examined on oath. If it were possible to administer an oath to a corporation, the order might be made against the corporation as a judgment-debtor. But this is not possible; and the question therefore arises to whom the oath should be administered under such circumstances. It is said that it may be to these directors, as representing the corporation. But we find, when it is intended that an oath shall be administered to a corporation through its officer, provision has been expressly made to that effect, as in the 50th and 51st sections. I think we should be usurping the functions of the Legislature if, when an enactment is made not in its nature applicable to a corporation, we treated it as suggested. The matter is one of importance; for if the order issued, and any director swore falsely with respect to this matter, the question would arise whether an indictment for perjury would lie, and it clearly would not, unless such a proceeding trouble and expense of preparing to defend a series of actions. As Baron BRAMWELL said, there is no alternative, and the only mode of mitigating the evil is by taking out a summons and obtaining particulars of the non-assenting creditor's objections. But even then a creditor to a very small amount whose debt could not affect either one way or the other the question of the three-fourths in value, might put a debtor having a bona fide majority to very great expense. It is evident that in the next Act some clauses should be inserted to compel a plaintiff under such circumstances to give pre liminary proof of substantial cause of proceeding as to some important items. But the glaring absurdity of the case in the Exchequer, was that it should have been brought or allowed to go on before a special jury. As Mr. BROWN, counsel for the debtor, remarked, cases of this kind always went to a reference. In a reference there is less strictness of procedure, the root of the matter can generally be got at more easily than in court. In any event, however, the substantiating of the validity of deeds must be a formidable proceeding, and we are not prepared with any suggestion for rendering it less so. The Act of 1868 might have been expected to do something in this direction, but the facts of the case which we are noticing. show that verifying liabilities by affidavit affords but little protection to creditors. A debtor too frequently holds one opinion as to his liabilities, whilst his creditor holds another. Each view may be perfectly bona fide, and a creditor might in cases where his debtor was embarrassed, be contented to accept the view of the latter. Yet another creditor may step in and say that the view taken by his fellow creditor shall be established and the deed be upset. If we consider the majority of composition-deeds and trust-deeds as prima facie fraudulent, we should of course rejoice at these difficulties thus thrown in the path of the debtor. But in any other light it must be admitted that a stupendous hardship may be inflicted upon an honest debtor. THE STAMP ACTS AND THEIR DIFFICULTIES.-STAMPS ON A MORTGAGE OF COPYHOLDS. AMONG the labours devolving on a legal adviser few are more wearisome and distasteful in the performance, and afford less satisfaction when performed, than that of deciding as to the amount of stamp duty with which any instrument, not of the simplest and most ordinary character, requires to be impressed. The materials on which the practitioner has to base his judgments, the rudis indigestaque moles of the Stamp Acts, are of so refractory a character, so voluminous, scattered, and very often conflicting, that anything like an approach to the certainty of a correct conclusion is in most instances impossible. A correspondence lately appearing in our columns shows that it is not merely in relation to deeds carrying out complicated arrangements that difficulties in regard to stamp duty are met with, but that in regard to so simple and common a transaction as a mortgage of copyholds, the most confident and yet conflicting opinions are expressed as to the amount of the stamp which should be affixed to the deed of covenant accompanying the conditional surrender. Whether the deed precede the conditional surrender and contain in addition to the covenants for payment of the mortgage money and interest, and for title and the power of sale, a Covenant to make the conditional surrender, or whether the conditional surrender precede, or be contemporaneous with, the deed of covenant, which will then only contain the covenants for payment of the mortgage money and interest, for title and the power of sale, special perplexities as to the stamp duty seem to arise. The case put by our correspondent appears to have been one of the latter description, and to the perplexities arising on this state of circumstances we shall first direct attention. In endeavouring to ascertain the stamp duty payable the practitioner would probably and naturally look to some digest (compilation would perhaps be the more correct word) of the various stamp duties, and turning to the head "mortgage," would light upon an enactment that "any deed or instrument made as an additional or further security for any sum or sums of money which shall have been already secured by any deed or instrument which shall have paid the said ad valorem duty on mortgages be chargeable where the total amount. the money already secured and in respect whereof the said ad valorem duty shall have been paid, shall not exceed the sum of 14004;" with the same duty as a mortgage for the amount, "and in any other case" with 17. 15s. The difficulty felt here would arise from the fact of the surrender and deed of covenant forming one transaction, and that it appears to be a straining the language of the enactment to apply it to a deed made at the same time as the surrender. If the practitioner, attaching more weight to the difficulty than we should feel disposed to do, decides that the case is not met, he will have to consider whether the deed must bear an ad valorem stamp, or whether it must be treated as a deed not otherwise charged, or, as some correspondents insist, must bear a stamp not exceeding 10s., under the head "Covenant" in the table. shall of Taking the last and least onerous alternative . But first, it would be observed that the separate deed promised economy when seeking office, the of covenants provided for by the 13 & 14 Vict. Government could not but practise it when they c. 97 must operate for certain specified purposes, obtained office. They are making a bold and and that whatever may have been the intentions creditable experiment, and what is their reward? of the framers of that Act, a covenant for No thanks and plenty of abuse. The very payment of mortgage-money and interest can newspapers that egged them on to the pledges scarcely be considered one of them. The same they are striving honourably to fulfil, are now remark, though with less force, applies to the engaged in the congenial task of finding fault covenant or agreement conferring a power of with the policy they applauded. They do not sale on the mortgagee. By looking a little in terms abuse economy or praise extravagance. further down the table our investigator would They profess still to desire economy. see that the covenant for payment of the mort- the economy they want is not that which has gage having been "made as an additional or been chosen for a beginning; the operation further security for the payment . . . of money should not have been tried upon the particular at the same time, or already, or pre- persons now subjected to the process of paring. viously secured" by an instrument which had They do not point out a substitute and say, paid the proper ad valorem duty, would be ex- "deal first with this or that man or class of empted from further ad valorem duty. That,men," they simply shout, "not here, not there." however, is not the information required. What A story is told of a fellow under the lash who cried the inquirer wishes to know is, whether the out, "don't strike so high," and then "don't strike insertion of such a covenant in a deed which so low?" upon which the drummer who wielded would otherwise be charged with a duty not the whip exclaimed, "What a chap you are; exceeding 10s., would render the deed liable to strike where I will I can't please you." So it is the common deed stamp. The decision in Sellick with economy and the economists. They forget v. Trevor, 11 M. & W. 722 is an authority that a that the process must be painful wherever it is deed of this character, if stamped with ad valorem applied, and, as it was promoted by themselves, duty, is admissible in evidence; it is, however, they have no right now to complain that they severely criticised by the late Mr. TILSLEY, and were taken at their word, and supposed to seems to be inconsistent with the late case of intend the reform they shouted for. It is unHaywood v. Bibby, 11 M. & W. 812. grateful, to say the least of it, to ridicule the small savings that have been enforced, the mending of pens and the machine-copying of letters, and the limitation of the supply of newspapers, and call it a beginning at the wrong end. Every man of business knows that this is a beginning at the right end, and that frugality in trifles is the foundation of all economy. The Government has undertaken a most ungracious duty, from which it is sure to earn very little praise and a great deal of abuse. Every person subjected to the process, so popular at the elections, will be converted into an enemy, and his enmity will take the guise of patriotism. He will not say, "I oppose the Government because it has curtailed my pay or my perquisites," but he will suddenly be found shaking his head over the confiscation of Church property, or expressing great alarm at the progress of Radical principles, and declaring that he thinks we are going too far and too fast. The official reform that has been so well begun must not be stayed by such obstacles as these. But the Government should be supported in its resolutions by the expressed approval of those who have no interest in abuses. Such are the difficulties, or some of the difficulties, which occur in a case where the conditional surrender precedes, or is contemporaneous with the deed of covenants. Where the deed of covenants precedes the conditional surrender, at all events, when the money is advanced before the surrender, we are inclined a deed may be conto think that such sidered an effective mortgage, and stamped with an ad valorem stamp, the subsequent surrender being treated as an instrument made as an additional or further security specifically charged with a duty not exceeding 35s., under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, and specifically exempted from ad valorem duty, under the 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, as "an instrument made in pursuance of and conformably to an agreement charged with, and which shall actually have paid, the ad valorem duty." We think the late Mr. TILSLEY went too far in asserting that because there is a proviso in the last-mentioned Act, to the effect that where copyholds are mortgaged out of court the ad valorem duty should be charged on the surrender, but if in court on the copy of court roll, that the deed of covenant, though executed before the surrender "is liable only to stamp duty as a deed not otherwise charged, and that if a surrender be never made that there is then no mortgage, and consequently no ad valorem duty." We believe that in such a case the deed of covenants constitutes an immediate effective charge, a valid equitable mortgage, and ought as such to be stamped with ad valorem duty. The intention of the proviso referred to seems to have been to explain in what cases the surrender, and in what cases the copy of court roll should be charged, and not to charge the surrender or copy of court roll with the ad valorem duty in cases where the surrender was made in pursuance of a previous contract or deed of covenant operating as an immediate equitable mortgage. It is quite time that something should be done to consolidate, simplify, and harmonise the law relating to the stamp duties; few persons, not lawyers, have any idea of the amount of labour wasted in poring over the Stamp Acts. The provisions of the 14th and 15th sections of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, are unquestionably most valuable as enabling an unimpeachable stamp to be affixed to any instrument. The cases, however, in which there should be any necessity for calling these sections into operation ought to be reduced to a minimum, and this can only be accomplished by a thorough revision, consolidation, and simplification of the stamp law. ECONOMY. As with individuals so with Governments. Economy is easy to preach, difficult to practise. Everybody approves the application of it to others, but objects to its application to himself, and all agree in dislike of the economist. So it is at this moment. During the elections there was a cry for econony, and many a seat was carried in the boroughs by the assertion that one party was all for spending and the other party all for saving. Having TRADES UNIONS. SIR WM. ERLE has just published a small volume of ninety pages on "The Law Relating to Trades Unions." As chairman of the commissior which has been so long engaged in the investigation of the practical working of these societies, he is better qualified than any other man, not merely to inform us what is the law that, now regulates them, but how that law may be safely and beneficially amended. Sir WM. ERLE is now familiar with their organisation, their government, their conduct, their objects; he has learned what there is of good in them, and what evils attend them. If he has failed to show with equal clearness how the good may be preserved and the evils averted, it is only because the difficulties of the question are so great that even his astute mind cannot suggest satisfactory solution of them. a We have read this little treatise with special curiosity, because, as our readers will remember, we ventured some time ago upon a portion of the same task, and submitted to the consideration of the legal community a plan for dealing practically with trades unions, which was well received by many of the trade societies, and generally approved by readers who had given thought to the subject. It was interesting to us to learn how far the better knowledge of the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry might advance or negative the scheme we had propounded. Sir WM. ERLE commences with a sketch of the common law relating to trades unions. Union itself is presumed to be lawful; the test of unlawfulness lies in the purpose of the union. When a person joins a union, he consents to transfer a part of his own power over his own rights to the governing body of the union. The "legitimate" power of the union over its members is measured by the quantity of his own free will that each member is supposed to transfer to the union. In the majority of unions this transfer relates only to power over the money or work of the members. These are strictly lawful objects of a union. But there may be unions for other objects, not legal, and in such case the law attaches a greater amount of criminality to the combination, by reason of the multiplication of force, and even prohibits that to be done by a union which it would not prohibit to an individual. “A union operates by way of agreement." If all its purposes are legal, it is in the nature of a partnership, the remedy for breach of which would be in equity. If any of such purposes are illegal, whether criminal or not, the union itself would be void for illegality; if any of its purposes should be criminal, the union itself would be a crime. The right to property of a union depends upon the lawfulness of its objects. "Members of lawful unions have rights to the property of the union the same as other subjects to their joint property. Members of unions for unlawful purposes have no right to assistance from any court for the fulfilment of unlawful purposes; but for all other purposes (except the unlawful, if they can be distinctly severed) they are in the same position as unions for lawful purposes." But though these rights exist in law, Sir WILLIAM ERLE says that "it is difficult in practice to enforce them. In most unions the members are being changed perpetually by outgoing and incoming, while no provision has been made for transmission of rights of property, and probably no such provision could be effectual without the aid of an Act of Parliament analogous to the Joint-Stock Companies Acts." Now this is precisely the plan we have proposed, and which was submitted to the Social Science Congress at Birmingham in October last. We suggested that trade societies should be incorporated after the manner of joint-stock companies, with articles of association, in which the objects of the society should be specifically set forth, together with the rules for its government. The details of the scheme, which will of necessity be numerous, and require much care and thought in elaboration, will, if the design be approved by those whom it most concerns, and to whom we propose to submit them and when their suggestions have been received and weighed, be thrown into the shape of a Bill. and submitted to the House of Commons. It is, however, satisfactory to see so competent an adviser as Sir W. ERLE approving the adoption of the design of the Joint Stock Companies Act as the plan that appears to him best adapted for the regulation of trades unions. Our plan proposes to give them extensive powers of arbitration in trade disputes, and of control over their own members, with right to sue and be sued, although members of the corporation, but accompanied with due protection against abuse of the powers thus submitted to them. A more expanded outline of the scheme will be given at the close of this paper. "The test of unlawfulness," says Sir W. ERLE, "is to be found in the purposes of the union. For example, if money is to be collected for the purpose of obtaining useful information, and regulating accordingly the supply of labour, the union is so far lawful; if the purpose is to apply its money to the injury of others-as, for instance, in burning the property or destroying the lives of persons obnoxious to the union-the union is so far unlawful. About such cases as these there is probably no dispute. But doubt about the lawfulness of the union arises when there is a purpose to restrain trade." Restraint of trade is unlawful at common law. It is a question of degree; it cannot be defined, but it may be described, and Sir W. ERLE thus describes it: "At common law every person has individually, and the public also have collectively, a right to require that the course of trade should be left free from unreasonable obstructions." Analogous rights to unrestricted course of trade are the common law rights to a free passage on the highway, to light, to air, to the flow of water to the lands of riparian proprietors. And this right extends to quality as well as quantity. If air or water is unreasonably fouled, an action lies for the wrong, and the degree of unreasonableness depends on circumstances, and varies with them. The right to a free course of trade has been carefully maintained by the common law. This is the principle of the prohibitions against forestalling, engrossing, regrating, &c., which were necessary for the freedom of trade when transit At this point we pause, proposing to resume the subject and the book that treats of it next week. THE NEW LAW COURTS. STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE SUGGESTED CHANGE OF SITE. THE Council of the Incorporated Law Society consider that it has become necessary for them to invite the attention of the members of the society, and of the Profession at large, to the subject of the New Courts and Offices of Justice, and especially to the efforts which are now being made to change the site from that which the Legislature has sanctioned, to another at a considerable dis tance. The concentration of the courts and offices has for a great many years been advocated by the council. They were led to the consideration of the subject by observing the enormous waste of time, and the consequent delay and expense, occasioned by the distances of the courts from each other, and from the great centre of the legal profession in the metropolis, and by the very widely scattered distribution of the several offices of the law in different localities. It was seen that a much greater amount of supervision and direction by the judges of their several officers would be possible; that the progress of legal business would be much more rapid; that the solicitors would be able to give much more personal attention to the matters entrusted to them, and that the result would be more satisfactory and beneficial to the suitors, if all the courts and all the offices of all the courts could be collected in one central building. But the council also were deeply impressed with the great importance of effecting this concentration in the heart of the great legal district. It seemed to them that the measure would be a very imperfect one, if the building were erected on any other site than one immediately contiguous to the Inns of Court, and convenient to the practitioners. A portion (less than half) of the garden of Lincoln's-inn-fields was proposed (see Report of Select Committee of House of Commons in July 1842) as the site for the courts, and was not without its advocates; but it was open to insurmountable objections. The portion selected afforded no accommodation for the offices; great disapproval was expressed, on sanitary grounds, of contracting this open space, which affords to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood the benefit of light, air, and recreation; and its distance from the Middle and Inner Temples would alone have prevented its adoption. The site selected, as combining advantages infinitely beyond any other, was that usually designated "the Carey-street Site." Bounded by Carey-street on the north, by the Strand on the south, and by Bell-yard and Clement's-inn on the east and It had Lincoln's-inn on one side of it, and the two west, it was in the very centre of the legal district. Temples on another, whilst Serjeants'-inn, Chancery-lane, Clifford's-inn, Symond's-inn, Clement'sinn, and Lincoln's-inn-fields were clustered close around it. In this legal district the chambers of every practising barrister, and of a large proportion of the solicitors of the metropolis, are congregated. There are about 3000 London solicitors and about 7000 practising in the country, and not of firms of extensive general business, but the only is there a large concentration in the district great bulk of those who act as town agents for the 7000 country practitioners are there also. The tendency of men engaged in similar pursuits to aggregation is natural and inevitable. Whether their pursuits lie in the direction of law, or commerce, or manufactures, the result is the same. They are drawn together by the irresistible atstrikingly exemplified in the legal profession by traction of convenience. This tendency is very the members of Gray's-inn. It is believed that there is not now a single barrister of that inn practising in the courts of law or equity, whose chambers are in his own inn of court. Everyone of them has been compelled to seek chambers in another inn of court to bring himself within the range of his brethren of the bar. As long ago as the year 1832 the subject was brought before the House of Commons by the late Mr. Freshfield, at the instance of the Incorporated from that time the council have laboured for the Law Society, and was debated at some length; and attainment of this cherished object of concentra tion of the courts and offices on the Carey-street site. There has been remarkable unanimity in the Profession on the subject, and the council have never, for a single moment, hesitated in their choice. A scheme for building the Courts of Equity in Lincoln's-inn was brought before Parliament by Lord Chelmsford, at the instance of the benchers of Lincoln's-inn, but the scheme met with no favour. All projects for the improved administration of the law that have been favourably received, point, more or less, to one great legal establishment, under an united governing body, all the legal offices being branches under its superintend ing control. This scheme of Lincoln's-inn pointed in the opposite direction, and was rejected. The council looked upon the object aimed at as expense ought to be defrayed out of the national one of national concern and considered that the treasury, but they found that successive Governments repudiated altogether this obligation, and insisted that courts and offices were required solely and exclusively for the suitors, and consequently if they were to be erected as proposed, the whole expense must be defrayed by the suitors. The undertaking was thus peremptorily dismissed from the category of national works. It was to be the undertaking of the suitors, because exclusively for their benefit. The council were not deterred by this determination, because they considered that the advan tages to the suitors of a concentration in the centre of the legal district would be so great as to compensate very abundantly for the outlay, and they persevered in their efforts to obtain their object. Moreover, the council found on careful examination of the accounts of the funds raised by fees from the suitors and paid into the Treasury to meet the expenses attending the administration of justice, that by equitable arrangements with the Treasury, which have since been made, the whole cost of the undertaking might be defrayed without any very considerable increase in the fees. And here it may be observed, that the solicitors are the proper representatives of, and are iden tified in interest with the suitors, who are their clients. It is with the solicitors alone and exclu sively that the suitors have personal intercourse in all matters brought before the tribunals; it is to the solicitors that the financial affairs of the suitors, as such, are intrusted; and the solicitors have better opportunities than any other persons can possibly have of forming a correct judgment on the question, in what way the business of their clients may be most expeditiously, most economically, and most efficiently conducted. It is utterly idle and vain in the general public to imagine that non-professional persons, however intelligent, can form any accurate opinion on the opposition and arrangement of the courts and offices best adapted to the transaction of the business of the suitors. After several years of laborious effort, and after many disappointments, the council thought that at length the object so much desired by them had been attained. In the year 1865 two Acts of Parliament were passed; one for acquiring the chosen site (the Carey-street site), and the other for providing the funds for the purchase of the site and the erection of the buildings. Both Acts received the Royal Assent on the 19th June 1865, and on the 29th of the same month a Royal Commission was issued appointing commissioners for the purpose of superintending, in concert with the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, the preparation of the designs and the execution of the works authorised by Parliament. The money required is to be advanced by the Treasury in the first instance, but is to be repaid partly by a million of Stock in the Court of Chancery, and partly by a redemption annuity |