exaggeration, but the obvious meaning of his own language and conduct, which we cite from the verbatim report in the Times. "He (the murdered man), was doing great harm to the union, by setting all the rules at defiance and introducing such a large number of apprentices. I thought he would ruin the trade and bring ruin upon all of us. After the first shooting I had begun to dismiss the thing from my mind, when on my visiting the Eagle Works, Hallam came up to me and said, 'What about Linley? He can be done for 157.' I paused, for it came upon me as an unpleasant subject. Something was said about the mischief, and I then said I would consider of it. I left him. On consideration, I felt that for the salvation of the union it was necessary something should be done. With great pain I assented to this." Mr. OVEREND: Why? Mark the answer. "Because I felt the necessity of doing something, or the union would be destroyed, as there was no legal defence for the union. I looked upon the thing as an absolute necessity. Linley had a wheel full of apprentices." Mr. OVEREND: And was your only reason for consenting to the shooting of this poor man the fact that he had six apprentices?—Yes. I knew if it was allowed to go on others would do the same, and the trades would be ruined. Again he said, "I employed Hallam and Crookes to blow up Wheatman and Smith." Mr.OVEREND: Why ?-“Because they had introduced machinery for grinding straight saws." Again: "I have employed men to ratten in hundreds of cases during my twenty years secretaryship. All the rattening in which I have been concerned has been done for the benefit of the trade. Other trades unions have adopted the same system." Hence it is clear that Sheffield is only an instance of the system carried to its logical results. The unions cannot accomplish the objects of their existence unless they can control the entire body of workmen. This control they can exercise only by intimidation; and if obedience can be in no other manner secured, violence is the ultima ratio. If so it be, the conclusion is inevitable. Trades unions, as at present constituted, and with their present objects, cannot co-exist with social law and order. They must be greatly modified and legalised, or they must be suppressed. The problem for social philosophers, no less than for Parliament, to solve will be, how best to deal with them. It is a formidable fact, to be noticed incidentally, that the outrages at Sheffield are not the work of ignorant men. Broadhead stated emphatically that "in the admission of members ability is rather considered than character. There have been ticket-of-leave men members." Thus the panacea of education, so popular with unreflecting persons, does not offer the hope of a remedy for this terrible social malady. Is there, then, a cure, and in what direction is it to be sought? Suppression is impossible. By attempting it we should merely substitute conspiracy for union. Prudence prescribes the regulation by the law of that which the law cannot prevent. The obvious remedy is to legalise the trade unions, giving them power to make rules for their own regulation, and the assistance of the law to enforce those rules, the just condition of this recognition being that the rules should not be antagonistic to the well-being of the community, or to individual liberty. To this end, those rules should be submitted for approval to a competent officer of state, in the first instance, and then to Parliament. Any departure from those rules, or any secret combination or regulation, express or understood, other than is apparent upon the sanctioned and registered rules, to subject the society to suppression, and all concerned in the evasion to severe penalties. This might be the general scheme of such a law. The details will require careful consideration; but they should be framed in a generous spirit, imposing as little restraint, and giving as much power to the associated workmen as may be compatible with liberty protected by law. meeting of shareholders within four months of the 2. That the companies hereafter to be formed may, 4. That as regards all shares paid up in full, it they can measure the solvency of the company; without it they cannot possibly know whether credit can be safely given. It is argued that balance-sheets mislead, and are often falsified. It may be so; but that is no for his guidance quantum valeat. It may be reason why the creditor should not inspect it fraudulent, but so may all the other documents by which he is guided in the conduct of his business. The balance-sheet is required to be sent to the shareholders; why should it not be open to the inspection of creditors? A clause should be introduced in the new Bill requiring the balance-sheet sent to the shareholders to be filed at the office of the registrar of companies, and to be open to inspection there, or at the company's office, to any person on pay5. That the seller of shares may claim a regis-ment of a small fee, and copies of it be supplied tration of the shares into the name of the buyer, to any applicant at a price per folio to be named upon producing an acceptance of those shares signed in the statute. by the buyer. 6. That the law concerning the mode of contracting, so as to bind companies by their agents, should be amended by introducing clause 41 of 19 & 20 Vict. c. 47. 7. That the court, before which a petition for winding-up shall be brought, shall have power to refer the simpler cases of liquidation to such County Court as it may direct, under the order of the said court. 8. That a petition to the court to wind-up a company, if presented by shareholders, should be signed by one or more shareholders, who are either original allottees of shares or whose names have been on the register as shareholders, for a period of not less than six months. 9. That companies should be allowed to reduce their capital, or to reduce the amount of their shares, or to reduce both their capital and their shares, on the following conditions: a. Notice shall be given to the registrar of jointstock companies. b. Notice shall be given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct. c. That the consent of all parties, being creditors of the company at the date of the reduction, be obtained. d. Or the claims of such creditor be discharged. e. Or that in cases of the absence or legal incapacity of creditors, that the amount in cash, of their claims, be invested in Government securities, or placed in the Bank of England in the names of trustees, under conditions to be approved by the Board of Trade. The second resolution is a proposal to introduce the French law of partnership, en commandite, whereby the sleeping partners are liable for so much only as they may agree to advance, while the acting partners are liable without limit, the condition of non-liability being total abstention from the management. This is in principle just, for responsibility is measured by power, and they who choose to incur the debt are made responsible for its payment. It is said, moreover, to work well in practice; but it is a novelty in England, and if it is to be permissive only, it is not likely to be much adopted. The objects of the third resolution are difficult to be understood. As it is, all companies possess power to receive payments in advance of calls on such terms as may be agreed between themselves and the shareholders, and the position is then precisely that which a new law is to be framed to establish. The fifth resolution merely simplifies the form of transfer of shares, and the seventh provides a more accessible and inexpensive tribunal for the winding-up of minor companies. The eighth is designed to check the practice of purchasing two or three small shares for the purpose of giving the holder a locus standi for a petition to wind-up, with design to throw a profitable business into the hands of some legal friend or relative. The ninth permits alteration in the nominal amount both of capital and shares, and under certain restrictions." And this is all! Nothing is said about the publication of the balance-sheet, which, to creditors, is the most important question the committee could have entertained. Creditors and persons asked to give credit to a company are told to bear in mind the rule of caveat emptor, to look to the assets of the company, and not to the solvency of the shareholders whose liability is limited, and that if they trust without such precaution they must not complain of losses. But the law does not enable them to do that which it assumes they will do. The balancesheet is sent to the shareholders, but it is not open to the creditors to whom it is of vastly 1. That all companies should hold a general greater importance. Seeing the balance-sheet LIMITED LIABILITY. THE Select Committee has reported, and the Government promises a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the report, which are as follows: ACTIONS AGAINST RAILWAY It is very frequently said that juries will generally give a verdict against a company if they can, where negligence is alleged. We do not believe this to be the case, and certainly of late the supposition, has been to a great degree upset. Within three days of the after term sittings railway companies obtained verdicts when sued to recover damages for injuries resulting from alleged negligence. In two of those cases the accident was caused by the fact that the plaintiff alighted whilst the train was in motion. In the third it was caused by the violence of the elements. Three other actions were tried within the of themselves or their relatives. In two of those same period, two brought by solicitors on behalf cases the accident arose from a cause similar to that first above mentioned--viz., getting out before the train stopped. In the one instance the jury assessed the damages at 601. for a lady and her daughter, and in the other at five guineas. The third case elicited from the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of the Queen's Bench remarks strongly condemnatory of a custom now, we believe, almost obsolete, for medical men to arrange the amount of compensation with the persons injured. He said, emphatically, "It is no part of the duty of a medical attendant to take part in these settlements with patients." The plaintiff had accepted 31. 10s. in satisfaction, but his condition appeared to be such as to incapacitate him from earning his livelihood, and the jury assessed the compensation, by consent of the defendants, at 1500/ We may thus come to the conclusion that plaintiffs who bring actions to recover damagesfor injuries sustained by getting out of a train which is in motion will find it very difficult to persuade a jury that the fact of the train being in motion was due to the negligence of the company's servants, and not to impatience of the passenger. Also we may conclude that it isvain for railway companies to attempt to settle claims through a medical officer, who has it in his power to represent to a patient that his condition is not so bad as it really is. THE NEW INVESTMENT FOR TRUSTMONEY. MORTGAGES or debentures, as they are called, and preference stocks and shares of railway companies being out of fashion, trustees are thrown back on Bank and East India Stocks, as a refuge from the straitness of the Three per Cents. In good season, the suggestion has been adopted which was made by the late Lord Justice KNIGHT BRUCE, shortly after power had been given by Lord St. Leonards' Act of 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. 35) to invest in East India Stock, that a declaratory Act ought to be passed showing what East India Stock was meant. The doubt caused considerable difficulty and conflict of opinion between Vice-Chancellors WOOD and STUART, and Lord Justice TURNER on the one side, and Lord Chancellor CAMPBELL on the other, as well as doubt in the mind of the late Lord Justice. Not only were Lord St. Leonards" Act and the Act creating the new East India Stock (22 & 23 Vict. c. 39) passed on the same day, which raised a question of the existence of the new stock at the time when the power was given by the former Act, but the old stock was at first regarded as guaranteed by the Imperial Government, while the new was merely charged on the revenues of India. But, in truth, by the India Act of 1833, the dividends on the old stock, which is the East India Company's capital, were merely made a first charge on those revenues, and an accumulating fund in this country was set apart for the redemption of the old stock, while the new stock, which was a loan of 5,000,000l. to the India Government, was simply charged. Lord CAMPBELL thought that it was wholly immaterial whether the royal assent was given on the same day or not to the two Acts, and that the same force ought to be given to them, as if the Stock Act had passed six months before the other, and that the stocks were both East India Stocks, and therefore within Lord St. Leonards' Act. Hence he was of opinion in in Re The Colne Valley and Halstead Railway Bill, 29, L. J. 33, Ch. which was heard by the full appeal court, that money paid into court might be invested in the new or Loan Stock, but the late Lord Justice thought the point too doubtful to enable him to accede to the petition for investment; and his brother Judge agreed that it ought not to be made, not being satisfied that the Act applied to East India Stock not then existing. He would not admit that all India bonds and Bank stock were proper investments. Ultimately the full Court concurred against the investment. Although the enlarged power of investment given to trustees forms part of Lord St. Leonards' Act, it must not be supposed to be part of his work. The House of Commons, having naturally at heart the interest of tenants for life under settlements, added this tag clause to his Bill, and sent it back to the Lords, where Lord ST. LEONARDS accepted the clause so far as was necessary to save his Bill; but he publicly repudiated it, and announced his intention to propose its repeal at a future time. Both he and Lord Chancellor CAMPBELL thought that the clause was in direct opposition to the principle of law which governs the relative rights of tenants for life and reversioners, and would lead to jobbing with trust-funds. However, the next Session saw the Court of Chancery enabled, by Lord ST. LEONARDS' further Act (c. 38), to make a General Order for the investment of cash under its control, and trustees empowered to invest trust-funds on securities to be thus authorised by the court. Among these securities, according to the Order made on Feb. 1, 1861, is "East India Stock," without any further definition of it. The new East India Stock was clearly in existence when Lord St. Leonards' second Act was passed, so that no question now remained on account of the contemporaneous passing of Acts. Did this Indian Loan Stock then become included within the investments available for trust-money? now invest in the East India Stock existing previously to that day. In saying that Mr. SHERIDAN's Bill recognises the existing state of the law in this matter, we have not been strictly accurate. The doubt is not properly whether a trustee can invest in the new East India Stock; the court would allow him to exercise an honest discretion. Lord CAMPBELL, while he agreed in dismissing the petition in the Colne Valley case, held that any trustee who invested in that stock would not be guilty of a breach of trust; but the investment was not such a one as the court itself ought to sanction. "If a trustee had invested in that stock, and was brought before the court for breach of trust, and pleaded the provisions of the Trustees Act of last session (22 & 23 Vict. c. 35), the court would be bound to decide in his favour." Still a declaratory Act, if not necessary, will be an encouragement and comfort to trustees who are often, like Othello, perplexed in the extreme. To hit the nail right on the head, the Bill should give power or sanction to the Court of Chancery to authorise the investment of money under its control in the new East India Stock. The large amount of such money, including money paid in by railway and other Parliamentary companies, makes the question of investment in Chancery very serious. In the debate, Mr. E. K. KARSLAKE noticed the difficulty in finding proper investments for trust-funds; but he went rather too far in hoping that the Bill would be postponed to include in it the loan for the Canada railway. Delicate ground is trodden by members in the second of the two clauses of Mr. SHERIDAN'S Bill. In making a transfer or investment, the trustee is to take into consideration as well the interest of the tenant or tenants for life as the interest of the person or persons absolutely entitled to the capital afterwards. The reader will have noticed that in Peillon v. Brooking, the position of the curate, the tenant for life, was considered to warrant the investment in Bank Stock. This was the complexion of the earlier cases, which turned on the words of the Act of the 22 & 23 Vict., "provided that such investment shall in other respects be reasonable and proper." 6 In Cockburn v. Peel, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. 571, the full Appeal Court laid down the rule that, in the absence of any special circumstances which might make the transfer asked for by the tenant for life beneficial to those in remainder, irrespective of pecuniary calculations, the transfer ought not to be permitted if, on pecuniary calculations, it might be injurious to those in remainder. As in Peillon v. Brooking, so in Re Langford's Trusts, The point soon arose before the Master of the 5 L. T. Rep. N. S. 579; Hume v. Richardson, Rolls, in Peillon v. Brooking, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. L. T. Rep. N. S. 624; and Fluid v. F., 7 L. T. 731, where the object was to augment the income Rep. N. S. 590, the enlarged power of investof a curate which, exclusive of the interest of ment was allowed to be exercised on account of some Three per Cents. in settlement, did not the circumstances of the respective parties. The exceed 701. a year, while he was bringing up an transfer must be beneficial not to the tenant for increasing family, who were entitled in reversion. life as tenant for life, but to those in remainder, His petition prayed that the Bank Annuities through the relation in which they stand to him might be converted into Bank Stock or East as members of his family, or the like. But even India Stock; but the Master of the Rolls, while these decisions did not go beyond allowing he thought the circumstances of the case suffi- investment in Bank Stock. The Court set its ciently special to justify an investment in Bank face against East India Stock, old as well as new, Stock, declined to permit one either in the old until Lord WESTBURY, in Mortimer v. Picton, or in the new East India Stock. He was of 9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 591, seizing on a principle, deopinion that .the latter was not a stock contem-clared that the statutory power was to be read as plated by the recent order of the court. Whether this decision was based on the opinions of the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices in the Colne Valley case, does not appear; but it should be remarked that in that case one at least of the Lords Justices, TURNER, expressed himself as if his judgment was grounded on the contemporaneous passing of the Acts of 1859, rather than on the nature of the new East India Stock. The state of the law resulting from these cases is recognised in Mr. Sheridan's Bill, which was read a second time on Tuesday the 25th. Doubts," says the preamble, "have arisen as to the legal effect and signification of the words East India Stock,' in Lord St. Leonards' first Act;" and it is to be enacted that these words shall include East India Stock charged on the revenues of India under any Act or Acts which received the Queen's assent on or after the 13th Aug., 1859 (the day of the 22 & 23 Vict. cc. 35 & 39); and that every trustee, executor, or administrator may invest any trust fund in his possession or under his control in the stock created by such Act or Acts to the same extent and for the same purposes and objects as he can one of the powers in the settlement, and expressed himself as "exceedingly opposed to anything like a disposition on the part of the court to cling to its old traditions and its narrow-minded views with regard to investments, throwing obstructions in the way of carrying into effect the provisions which the Legislature has thought fit, prudent, and right to enact." This, perhaps, a little softened, may be the temper of the House in agreeing to the second reading of Mr. SHERIDAN'S Bill. All Judges are not so bold as Lord WESTBURY; if they were, the Bill might not have been required. The agreement, however, of the House is not final in establishing the principle of the new measure, inasmuch as Mr. WALPOLE refrained from objection, on the understanding that an opportunity should be given of consulting the ATTORNEY-GENERAL on the subject. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL will probably agree with Lord CAMPBELL in the conclusion formed by him in the Colne Valley case, that the revenues of India must be taken to be capable of bearing the burdens put on them by Acts of Parliament; and the 5,000,000l. will thus become an additional receptacle for settled money. CREDITORS OF OFFICERS IN THE ARMY. WHEN Robert Macaire set up a bank, the doors were to be opened at ten o'clock. Some cheque-holders came five minutes before ten, and were too early; others came five minutes after ten, and were too late. "When are we to come then?" they asked. "A dix heures, juste, messieurs." Something like this must be the practice of the solicitors of creditors who look for payment to Messrs. Cox and Co., out of a fund to be realised by the sale of an officer's commission. The resemblance is not between the Parisian adventurer and that honourable house, but between his mode of doing business. and a certain operation of the law of notice in our courts of equity. It is well to take heed of it, for when an officer falls into arrear with his regimental expenses and begins to borrow, the end is not unfrequently the conversion of himself into money. If this happens, there is a precise point of time when notice of a lien on the proceeds of the sale should be given to the army agent. In such a case mistaken diligence will be as delusive as negligent delay will be fatal. Having regard, then, to these circumstances, a knowledge of the law here extends to some importance, touching, as it does, the Jew no less than the Christian. Ordinarily, when money is lent on security, notice is given as soon as the security is made. That was done in Buller v. Plunkett, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. 737, but, as we shall see, was fruitless. Lieut. Plunkett on his marriage in 1845 covenanted to assign to the trustees any moneys exceeding 500l., which he might thereafter be come entitled to, including money to arise by the sale of his commission. Afterwards on a loan to him by a person who was not aware of the settlement, he covenanted to repay it out of the proceeds of the same sale. This creditor gave notice of the security to an army agent who, it was intended, should receive the proceeds of the sale; the trustees gave a later notice to the army agent of the settlement. The commission was sold, and the purchase-money paid to the army agent in the usual way. The question was whether the creditor had gained priority by greater speed in giving notice. Vice-Chancellor Wood held that the creditor had not, for at that time there was no trustee of the fund. The army agent was a person who might sell the commission, and into whose hands the money might come, but it was a matter of uncertainty whether that would be so; and it would be carrying the doctrine of notice to trustees too far, to say that an incumbrancer who first gave notice to a person who was likely to become the holder of a fund should thereby exclude the prior claim of other persons who were guilty of no negligence. In fact, the trustees themselves had given notice before the army agent had become a trustee of the fund. The earlier covenant therefore created the prior lien. A judicious delay is necessary. The business of notice here must be done, as once a greaterbusiness was done, cunctando. Thus, again, in The Earl of Suffolk v. Cox, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 374, as in the above-mentioned case. a creditor of the Hon. B. T. Howard with an equitable charge, executed in Feb. 1866, on the money which should arise from the sale of his commission and come into Messrs. Cox and Co.'s hands, gave notice to those agents two days after the charge was created. On the 1st May Mr. Howard assigned the money to arise from the sale to a subsequent incumbrancer, and wrote to Messrs. Cox and Co. to pay the moneys to this incumbrancer. The commission was sold, and the purchase-money paid to them in two parts, in April and on the 5th May, and was carried in their books to "the sales of commissions account." On the 15th May promotion of an officer in Mr. Howard's stead was gazetted; on the 16th the second incumbrancer gave notice to the agents; and on the 17th the first did the like. There were other incumbrancers who also gave notice. The question, then, as put by the MASTER of the ROLLS, was, when did the agents become trustees of the fund? It was not, he thought, when the money was transferred into their books, but at the moment when it was their duty to carry out the distribution of it. That moment was the publication in the Gazette. of the retirement of Mr. Howard and the appointment of another officer in his stead. On the publication Messrs. Cox became trustees of the whole fund for, first, the War-office secondly, incumbrancers on the fund who subse quently gave notice; thirdly those who gave no notice. Consequently the second incumbrancer, who gave the first notice after the publication in the Gazette, had the first claim. This state of the law puts creditors of an officer in the army who is going to sell out on rather a precarious footing. In other cases, where notice is necessary, the creditor is in no danger of being outstripped if his solicitor makes inquiry the last thing before advancing the money, and forthwith gives notice. The time does not practically admit of another creditor gaining priority by prior notice. But in the officer's case, where there have been half a dozen different charges before the Gazette is published, it is a race between the creditors' solicitors, or rather two races. Whoever gets the Gazette first stands the best chance; he makes the running. But he may be passed at "the corner by some one who has got the Gazette second or third, and reserved himself for the rush into Messrs. Cox and Co.'s office. This is not a convenient state of law in a busy community. It is not even a seemly state, if only for the reason that it becomes ridiculous, as well as mischievous, in its practical working. WILLS AND LETTERS OF ADMINIS- munication, but from the fact that I am confident Mr. KEMPTHORNE informs us that the Regis trar-General agrees that superintendent regis- POINTS OF LAW. India Stock India 5 Cents. ... 934 931 255 255 93 934 94 937 94를 764 931 934 931 931 982 941 ... 109 109 108 108 1084 India Stock, 1874.........shut shut shut shut shut ONE or two points have been gleaned from the The point of law was this. Antimony was alleged to have been put in certain gravy, the eating of which caused all the symptoms created by an irritant poison. Supposing that it was WE have been requested to publish the follow- put in with a view to cause to the family, which ing letter, which is being circulated: Duffryn-chambers, Neath. Sir, I am desirous of bringing under your notice, as member of Parliament, a very important subject, and one which the present Ministry, if they could be induced to bring the subject forward and carry the measure, would be conferring upon the public a very great boon indeed. The subject I am desirous you should be instrumental in bringing about and promoting is an easy, speedy, and effectual mode of proving wills and taking out letters of administration. Lord Brougham stated when the first County Court Act was passed, "that the laws of England should be brought home to every man's door." I entirely coincide with his Lordship's views. Allow me to explain the mode in which wills and letters of administration are now proved and given. Poor people on the death of a relative are obliged to travel and attend at the diocese of Llandaff, nearly thirty-five miles distant from this town, whereby they are put to great inconvenience, loss of time, and additional expense; moreover, parties residing in Llangwcke, a distance of eight miles from this town, are compelled to travel to Car; marthen town, which is in another county and diocese, and thereby causing greater inconvenience, trouble, and extra expense. Under the above circumstances I think you will see the great necessity of a reformation in this particular branch of the Revenue department, and consequently I have thought it my duty to suggest the following scheme to remedy the present unfitting mode of dealing with this subject. My suggestion is Cent. 56s. a 87 Do. do. 5c. Jan 1872 103 103 104 55s. a ... ... ... ... ... 1034 Do. do. 5 c. May 1979 108 Do. 5001. e 23s. a 26s. a d March 268. pm. 6 March 268.; June 21s. pm. e March 268.; June 23s. pm. c March 26s.; June 20s. pm. The following are the latest prices of some of the plaintiff was about to leave, annoyance and ORDINARY SHARES AND STOCKS. A case was before the Court of Exchequer on Wednesday which will probably go to the House of Lords, involving the question whether a banking company is liable for the fraudulent representations of its manager. We understand that the Court of Exchequer and House of Lords are at variance upon the point which certainly demands definitive decision. A third point was raised in the Queen's Bench on Wednesday, which will come before the court in the form of a special case. There was a covenant in a lease providing that certain premises should not be altered in various ways mentioned; among others, so as to obstruct light, lessen air, and destroy uniformity. The pre1. That a local office be established for the pur- were then leased to a banking company. The mises were originally occupied by a draper, and pose of performing the duties which are now done company blocked up the kitchen windows and 1,135,800 N. S. Wales Gov. 5 p. c. 1871-76 by the diocesan courts before mentioned. 2. That such office be the superintendent regis- converted the kitchens into strong rooms, and 3,671,800 N. S. Wales 5 p. c. 1888 to 1893, generally adapted the premises to the purposes of a bank. For banking porposes the premises were thus rendered more valuable than they were when occupied by a draper. But was there any the less a forfeiture? If a covenant by its provisions provides against the diminution of the value of premises, can it be said that there from, although rendering the premises for a is not a breach if those provisions are departed certain special and temporary purpose more valuable? (a) The above suggested arrangement or scheme, if carried out, would entirely obviate such evasion, because in the case of all persons who die, whether possessed of property or not, the fact of the death must come under the eye, and to the knowledge of the superintendent registrar, in consequence of the return of all deaths being brought to his office every quarter. This would afford him ample means of knowing what number of deaths took place in the district. I am under the impression, and firmly believe, that if the foregoing arrangement became law, the result would prove to be an enormous increase in the public revenue of this country. This subject has been discussed by several gentlemen of high standing in the profession, as well as by numerous Members of Parliament, and they are of opinion that the time has arrived that the foregoing loudly complained of inconvenience to the public should be removed, and the public revenue properly protected. That every person liable may be made to contribute thereto according to law. would not have troubled you with this com ESTATE AND INVESTMENT Railway STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS. (a) N. B.-A curious equivoque cropped up in this latter Paid. Closing Prices Thursday 100 100 101 100 86 88 100 85 87 100 96 98 Jan and July 100 91 92 150,000 New Zealand 6 per cent.......... 100 106 108 Ditto 5 per cent. 1,000,000 751,660 S. Australian Gov. 6 p. c. 1878 and upwards 7,000,000 Victoria Gov. 6 p. c. April and No. | October Share. 100 93 95 100 107 109 100 108 109 JOINT-STOCK BANKS. BANKS. 40,000, 100 Alliance, London and Liver- 50,000 20 City 20,000 100 Colonial 150,000 10 Consolidated Bank (Limited) 42 PUBLIC COMPANIES. BANKS. 41 Bank of London.-The official liquidators have been ordered by the Court of Chancery to make a call upon the shareholders. Bank of Turkey-From the liquidators' report, it appears that 26,6472 has been received by them; and, including 31. per share returned to the shareholders, 20,7811. disbursed. English and Swedish Bank (Limited).—The liquidators announce that the first instalment of 104 per share of the net assets of the undertaking will be paid to the shareholders on the 4th July. National of Australasia.—A dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum was declared, with a 21 per cent. bonus. Provincial of Ireland.-The usual half-yearly dividend at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum. FINANCE, CREDIT, AND DISCOUNT COMPANIES. Joint-Stock Discount Company (Limited).—A further division of 1s. in the pound. ASSURANCE COMPANIES. Messrs. Chinnock and Co., July 6, the Colerne Estate, 428 acres, near Bath. Solicitors, Messrs. Bray, 99, Great Russell-street. WORCESTERSHIRE. Messrs. Wood, Langridge, and Co., during the summer, the Down-house Estate, Red-Marley, mansion, and 267 acres. Solicitors, C. M. R. Chamberlain, Esq., Ledbury, and Percival Hodgkinson, 13, Furnival's-inn. Messrs. Bentley and Hill, July 3, the Temple Langherne Estate,363 acres, near Worcester. Solicitors, Messrs. Hyde and Clarke, Worcester. Messrs. Chesshire and Gibson, Birmingham, July 4, the Hawkesley Estate, 155 acres. Solicitors, Messrs. Tyndall. The Downhouse Estate, 268 acres, at Redmarley. Solicitor, Mr. Chamberlain, Ledbury. Messrs. Hobbes, Stratford-upon Avon, YORKSHIRE. City and County Assurance Company (Limited). Messrs. Margetts, of Warwick, July 10, 120 acres. Solicitors, Stuart, V. C. having ordered a voluntary windingup to be continued under the supervision of the court, creditors are required to send in the particulars of their claims by the 22nd July. MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES. Artificial Leather Company (Limited).-Creditors are required to send the particulars of their claims to the liquidators, at the offices of Messrs. Smart and Snell, of Gresham-street, by July 15. Bombay Gas Company.-A 5 per cent. per annum dividend adopted. Charles Cammell and Co.-A dividend of 5l. 2s. per share is recommended. China Steamship and Labuan Coal Company.—A further call of 17. 10s. per share has been made. East Indian Cotton Agency (Limited).-An extraordinary meeting is called for the 1st July, to consider special resolutions for voluntary winding-up. General Trading Company (Limited).-A first dividend of 2s. in the pound to the creditors. Hudson's Bay Company.-A dividend at the rate of 10s. per share payable on 10th July next. Northern Assam Tea Company.-A call of 10s. per share has been made upon the A shares, payable by the 16th July. West London Wharves and Warehouses Company (Limited).-Creditors are required to send the particulars of their claims to Mr. George Whiffin, one of the liquidators, by the 1st Aug. SOMERSETSHIRE. Messrs. Williams, Dundry Downs Estate of 80 acres. Messrs. Hardwick and Nichols, of Bristol, at Axbridge, Mr. Babbage, of Bridgwater, at Bridgwater, July 4, the Manor House Estate of 120 acres, near Bridgwater. Solicitors, Messrs. Bate, Bridgwater." STAFFORDSHIRE. Messrs. Edwards, at Stoke-upon-Trent, July 2, Blakelow Farm, 81 acres, at Bucknall. Solicitors, Messrs. Keary, Stoke-upon-Trent. SUFFOLK. Messrs. Moore and Garrard, at Framlingham, July 1, estate of 100 acres with residence, at Framlingham. Also estate of 78 acres with Farmhouse, near Framlingham. Solicitor, Mr. Clubbe, Framlingham. 1 Messrs. Newson and Stanley, of Bury, at the Rookery, and 197 acres, near Bury. Also at the Ixworth Thorpe Estate, 1100 acres, near Bury. Mr. Fox, of Ipswich, at Ipswich, July 2, houses and farms, 250 acres. Earl Stonham. Solicitors, Messrs. Gudgeon, Stowmarket. Mr. Crosse, at Stowmarket, July 18, mansion and 108 acres at Stownupland. Solicitors, Messrs. Gudgeon. SURREY. Messrs. White, of Dorking, July 3, Hill House Farm, 160 acres, at Ewhurst. Also 380 acres at Haslemere. Messrs. Buckland, of Windsor, estate of 100 acres, with mansion, at Egham. SUSSEX. Mr. Wyatt, of Chichester, at July farms of 347 acres, Mr. Graves, July 3, the Hall and 260 acres, near Tunbridge Messrs. Moore and Hill, in July, Poulton Field Farm, 320 acres, at Poulton. Solicitor, Mr. E. J. Tombs, Cirencester. Mr. Kilvington, July 16, the Mellwaters Estate of 191 acres. Solicitor, Mr. J. Heelis, Appleby. Messrs. Eadon, of Sheffield, July 10, 380 acres. Solicitors, Messrs. Rodgers, Sheffield. Mr. Twisleton, at Settle, July 9, estates of 956, 180, 336, 67, 36, 397, and 114 acres near same. Solicitors, Messrs. Geldard, Settle. Mr. Easton, of Hull, July 16, 108 acres and tithe charge on 236 acres, at Owthorn. Solicitors, Messrs. England, Hull. Messrs Farebrother, Clark, and Co., July 4, Whitehouse Estate of 550 acres. WALES. REPORTS OF SALES. NOTE. The Reports of the Stock Exchange are officially supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose names are registered there will oblige by reports of their own sales. Wednesday, June 19, By Messrs. NORTON, TRIST, WATNEY, and Co., at the Mart. Freehold estate, known as Hegh Park-farm, Cranley, Surrey, comprising farmhouse buildings, gardens, orchards, cottages, and about 112 acres of arable, meadow, and pasture land-sold for 35501. Leasehold farm, known as Hog's-hill, situate at Crawley, Sussex, consisting of a residence with garden, farm buildings, farmyards, &c, and about 82 acres of arable and meadow land; also 41a. 2r. 37p of forest land, with cottage, garden, and buildings, term about 12 years unexpired at 111. 10s. per annum-sold for 6201. Thursday, June 20. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. Leasehold, two houses, Nos. 4 and 6, Myatt's-road, Camberwell New-road, and a residence adjoining, known as Langton-lodge, Frederick-street, producing 741. per annum, term about 90 years unexpired, at 121. per annum-sold for 5104. Leasehold residence, known as Elm-cottage, Upton-place, 6501. West Ham, term 989 years from 1813, at 40%. per annum; also the ground-rents of Nos 25 and 26, Upton-place, underleased for the whole term at 51. per annum each-sold for Freehold residence, known as Mostyn-cottage, Merton, Surrey, let at 30. per annum-sold for 7201. Freehold residence, No. 5, Cliff-terrace, Margate, let at 351. per annum-sold for 735% Leasehold, two residences, Nos. 79 and 80, Addison-road, Kensington, term 84 years unexpired, at 501. per annumsold for 4530. By Messrs. BEADEL. Freehold, six houses and premises, situate fronting the Highstreet. Epping, Essex, producing 414. 13s. per annum-sold Freehold, four plots of building land, situate opposite Epping for 6807. common-sold for 550, Freehold house, premises, and garden, situate adjoining the above, let at 8. per annum-sold for 2101. Freehold house, premises, and garden, situate adjoining the above, producing 164. per annum-sold for 2001. Freehold, two cottages and gardens, situate in Hemnel-street, Thoydon Garnon, Essex, producing 14. per annum-sold for 1501. Freehold estate, known as Merryloot's-farm, Mucking, Essex, compris ng a house, buildings, cottage, and 105a. Ir. 18p. of arable and pasture land-sold for 5600l. Freehold-estate, known as Lenthorp's-farm, Wennington, Essex, comprising 43a. Ir. 17p. of arable land, let at 100%. per annum-sold for 34002. Freehold estate, known as Gresley-hall, Church Gresley, Derbyshire, comprising farm-house, buildings, and 143a. 3r. 29p. of arable, meadow, and pasture land, let at 2057, 4s. per annum-sold for 7000%. Freehold estate, known as South Field-farm, Scalford, Leicestershire, comprising farmhouse, premises, buildings, and 91a. 2r. 21p. of arable and grass laad, let at 1401. per annum -sold for 46201. Freehold estate, known as Rushlands and Whittle's-farms, situate adjoining the village of Claxton, in the vale of Belvoir, Leicestershire, comprising a house, shop, farm premises, buildings, and 134a. Or. 23p. of arable and pasture land, let at 1951. per annum-sold for 71007. Freehold estate, known as Stock Hill-farm, in the parish of Burton Joyce, Nottingham, comprising a residence, farm, homestead, buildings, and 35a. Or. 7p. of arable and grass lann, let at 50%. per annum-sold for 15101. Friday, June 21. By Messrs. DANIEL SMITH, SON, and OAKLEY, at the Mart. Freehold property, comprising the Royal Hotel, with stabling, the Harbour Inn, and the laundry ground, with garden, situate at Lowestoft, Suffolk-sold for 10,000! Freehold estate, situate in the parishes of Reculver and Chislett, Kent, comprising a residence, with garden and orchard, cottage, and 28a. 1r. 30p. of arable land-sold for 2100l. By Messrs. DRIVER and Co. Freehold, 3a. 3r. 7p. of building land, situate at Leytonstone, Essex-sold for 10502. Freehold, 6a Or. 38p. of building land, situate at Leytonstone, Essex-sold for 17201. Freehold, 7a. 2r. 27p. of building land, situate as above-sold for 23501. By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, LYE, and WHEELER. Freehold and part copyhold arable field, known as MiddleBroyle-field, Ringmer, Sussex, producing 251. 16s. 4d. per annum-sold for 600l. Freehold, about 567 acres of arable, pasture, hop, and wood land, situate in the parishes of Etchingham and Burwash, Sussex, with farms, buildings, &c., rental and annual value4111. per annum-sold for 15,5501. Freehold house, premises, garden, and stabling, situate at Freehold, 4a. Or. 32p. of meadow land, situate as above, annual value 12-sold for 3801. Copyhold estate, known as Storer's Farm, West Limden, Ticehurst, Sussex, comprising house, buildings, and about 299 acres of meadow, arable, and hop land, let at 251. per annum -sold for 1110. Freehold rectorial tithes, commuted at 444. 48.. arising from 306 acres of land in the parish of Ticehurst, Sussex-sold for 5501. Leasehold rectorial tithes, commuted at 4577, 13s. 4d., arising from lands and tenements situate as above; also the rent from the rectorial glebe land (24a. Ir. 28p.) called the Vicarage Farm, let at 301. per annum, terin 10 years unexpired-sold for 15807. Freehold rent-charge of 21. 128. per annum charged upon, and payable out of, the vicarage of Ringmer, Sussex-sold for 461. Tuesday, June 25. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. Freehold plot of building land, fronting Kingswood-crescent, Bromley, Kent, containing 2a. Or. 22p.-sold for 7708. Freehold residential estate, known as Birchington Hall, situate in the parish of Birchington, Kent, comprising a mansion with gardens and grounds, in all 40a. 3r. 10p.-sold for 80601. By MESSRS. BROAD, PRITCHARD, and WILTSHIRE. Freehold, three residences, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, Sutherland-villas, Selhurst-road, Croydon, producing 146. per annum-sold for 15001. Leasehold, two resi-ences, known as Spencer-house and Seymour-house, Dulwich-road, Penge, producing 170l. per annum, term 98 years from 1864, at 12. 10s. each per annum-sold for 8251, each. Leasehold property, known as St. Peter's Wharf, Hammersmith, with premises adjoining, producing 911. 6s. per annum; term, 63 years, from 1834, at 331. per annum-sold for 6601. Leasehold, two cottages, Nos. 1 and 2, Dahlia-cottages, Turnham-green, producing 371. 14s per annum; term, 21 years, from 1834, at a peppercorn-sold for 3401. Leasehold house, No. 59, Cumberland-street, Hackney-road, let at 214 per annum; term, 63 years, from 1830, at 31. 10 per annum-sold for 1801. THE COURT OF CHANCERY (OFFICERS) BILL. In moving the second reading of this Bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR said that its object is to authorise the appointment of additional chief and junior clerks in the chambers of the Vice-Chancellors and the Master of the Rolls, a step which has been rendered necessary by the increase of the business in the Court of Chancery. It also gives the Lord Chancellor power to appoint another registrar in Chancery.. -Lord CRANWORTH expressed his approval of the bill.Lord ROMILLY thought that it hardly went far enough. He feared it would prove insuffi→ cient to enable the Court of Chancery to deal satisfactorily with the immense amount of business entailed upon it by the winding-up of public com→ panies. It is also desirable to take steps to prevent improper persons becoming liquidators; and with that view he would suggest that these officers should be selected from a list of persons to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor.Lord WESTBURY remarked that it would be perfectly easy to protect estates from loss by the failure or dishonesty of official liquidators if an order were made that they should in all cases open accounts at the Bank of England, into which all money due to the company in course of winding-up should be paid. He did not think that it would be advisable for the Lord Chancellor to nominate a list of persons from whom official liquidators shall in all cases be selected.-Lord ROMILLY said that very few persons paid money voluntarily to the official liquidators, and it would therefore be useless to order that sums due to him should be paid into the Bank of England.Lord CAIRNS thought it desirable to adopt some mode of obtaining additional security for the immense sums now deposited in the hands of official liquidators.. He should, however, prefer to do this by compelling payment to be made to an account at the Bank of England rather than by the appointment of persons attached to the court. If the latter course was taken, then, in case of the misfeasance of any of these officers, the parties who had been compelled to choose him would throw the responsibility upon the court It is certainly very desirable that something should be done to facilitate the disposal of the surfeit of winding-up business, which now seriously impedes the disposal of the regular business of the Court of Chancery. But, at the same time the staff of that court is sufficient to deal with the business coming before them under ordinary circumstances; and he therefore thought it expedient that any appointments now made should be subject to such conditions as will allow the number of clerks to be reduced when their services are no longer required. The Bill was read a second time. THE RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. In moving the second reading of this Bill, the Duke of RICHMOND briefly explained its provisions, which have, he said, been carefully considered by a select committee of the Lower House. Its objects ure to give additional security to railway property, vas facilitate arrangements with those to whom they are indebted, to provide against the interruption of e public traffic by the seizure of lines at the suit of private creditors, and to make provision for the inding-up of insolvent companies. It also contains ecause to which he could not assent, authorising the creation of a pre-preference stock. After the second reading of the Bill, he should move its reference to a select committee.- -Lord STANLEY ~ of ÅLDERLEY said there could be no objection to the cond reading of the Bill.-Lord REDESDALE hought there could be no doubt that it is necessary to pass some general Act in order to facilitate the Bettlement of the affairs of insolvent companies. He rusted, however, that Parliament will not authorise the issue of pre preference stock. The Bill was read second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE NEW LAW COURTS. Mr. G. C. BENTINCK wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question relating to the new law courts. Two reports had been made upon the designs of the competing architects-one by the proLessional men appointed as judges, and the other by certain members of the Commission. It is understood that these reports are conflicting. Seeing that the season is far advanced, and that this matter is of great importance, and involves considerable expeniture, he wished to ask whether these reports will he laid on the table without delay.--Mr. W. HUNT aid he had had no notice of the question, but if foral notice were given he could give an answer. Mr. BENTINCK gave notice that he would put e question on Thursday. INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS. LIBEL BILL. The House went into committee on this Bill, formally committed April 30. On clause 1, Mr. NEATE moved a proviso in addition to the effect that no meeting should be deemed a public one, unless, in a county, with the written permission of the sheriff, or in a city or borough, of the mayor, or in other place with the permission of the local public authority in whom is vested the management and control of the place in which the meeting is held; and no meeting held beyond the limits of any county or borough shall be deemed a meeting within the meaning of the clause if held in any place being private property.. -Sir C. O'LoGHLEN thought a public meeting is sufficiently defined by Lord Lyndhurst's view of a meeting lawfully assembled. There are, however, a number of meetings which are not open to the public, such as railway meetings, at which it is of the greatest importance that reporters should be present, and it had therefore been suggested that the word "public" should be left out. and that the definition should be a meeting which open to reporters, and at which reporters are present. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL did not mean That was not his business in this House; but if to define what is and what is not a lawful meeting. called upon elsewhere he would express his view of As the words of the Bill express the kind of meeting intended, he did not think the amend is the law. ment was called for. The amendment was nega which this Act applies shall not on any occasion be used, without the permission of her Majesty, for the purpose of political or any other meetings, nor for open-air preaching, nor for the celebration of anniversaries or other reunions of clubs or benefit societies. 4. Any person convening, or aiding er assisting in convening, any meeting to be held in contravention of this Act, on being convicted before any magistrate sitting in any police court in the metropolis, shall, on such conviction, either be liable to a penalty not exceeding 57., or, in the discretion of the magistrate, may be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one calendar month. 5. Nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to prejudice or affect any prerogative or other right of her Majesty, her heirs or successors, in respect of the said parks gardens, and possessions. 6. This Act may be cited for all purposes as "The Meetings in Royal Parks Act, 1867.5" MARTIAL LAW.-The following circular despatch to Colonial Governors, dated Jan. 30. 1867, on the subject of martial law, has been presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty: [CIRCULAR] Downing-street, Jan. 30, 1867. colony under your government any law authorising the Sir,-Although I do not know that there exists in the proclamation of martial law by the governor, I think advisable to communicate to you, for your information, and if necessary for your guidance, an extract of a despatch addressed by me to the Governor of Antigua, in which I have stated the views of Her Majesty's Gover ment on this subject.—I have, &c., "Extract of a Despatch from the Earl of Carnarvon to the officer administering the Government of Antigua, dated Downing-street, Jan. 30, 1867, No. 40. CARNARVON "An enactment which purports to invest the Executive Government with a permanent power of suspending the ordinary law of the colony, of removing the known safe guards of life and property, and of legalising in advance such measures as may be deemed conducive to the esta blishment of order by the military officer charged with the tived without a division, and the clause, as amended, was agreed to, as was also clause 3.-On clause 4, Sir C. O'LOGHLEN proposed to add at the end of the clause words to the following effect: And in the defendant shall have the same privilege as if the case of any action for libel for words spoken the action were an action for slander." The clause, as Mr. SHERIDAN, in moving the second reading of the following new clause after clause 4: "That no amended, was agreed to. Sir C.O'LOGHLEN moved this Bill, said that the object of it was to allow action or prosecution shall be maintainable for the rustees to invest trust funds in certain securities publication of any defamatory matter contained in ther than government securities.- -Mr. HENLEY wished to know if the Government approved of the any report, paper, votes, or proceedings of either House of Parliament, which either House of Parliainciple of the Bill. Hitherto the investment of ment shall have ordered to be published; nor shall Erust funds had been limited to government securiany action or prosecution be maintainable against a es--Mr. E. K. KARSLAKE said the Bill was per-printer or publisher for the publication of any defamissive only. At present great difficulty was found by trustees in finding proper investments for trust funds. He approved of the Bill, but hoped the hon. member would postpone it in order to include in it the loan for the Canada Railway.--Mr. WALPOLE Ed not object to the second reading, on the nderstanding that an opportunity would be given fconsulting the Attorney General on the subject. public newspaper, the court or a judge may, on the quest that you will cause to be submitted to the Legislature The Bll was then read a second time. ATTORNEYS' ETC., CERTIFICATE DUTY BILL. Upon the order for going into committee on this Bill, Mr. DENMAN said that the attorneys were at resent subject to what was really a quadruple tax. "They had to pay a fee of 802. upon their entrance to the profession, another of 261. upon taking out their articles, the ordinary income-tax upon their professional earnings, and also the annual tax (which was 2. in London, and 67. in the country) for the renewal of their certificates. He had authority for believing that the average income of attorneys in the kingdom did not exceed 3601. a year, so that, in fact, this duty was equal to an additional income-tax of 6d. in the pound upon all the members of the profession whose income did not exceed the sum he had stated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Lord Chancellor, and Lord Cairns had all voted against the tax. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had objected to the Bill being in the hands of a member of the ather branch of the legal profession. He (Mr. Denman) thought nothing of the argument. He was only acting from a sense of justice. Another argunent against the Bill was that an objection against licences should be taken, not singly, but in a lump, against all licence taxes. But if this argument prevailed mo licence, however objectionable, could be touched without including in the operation an attack on other licences which might not possess the same objectionable features. Still another argument against this measure was the time argument. But that meant nothing more than this: "Don't attack the duty now, because you don't know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do in his budget;" but when the budget was over the language was changed; it was then matory matter in any periodical or other publication, REAL ESTATE CHARGES ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill, as amended, was agreed to. THE JURY SYSTEM.-The new Act of Parliament (30 & 31 Vict. c. 35) which has just been issued, provides that jurors in civil or criminal proceedings who object to be sworn are to be permitted to make a solemn declaration. TURNPIKE TRUSTS.-The select committee to whom the Turnpike Trusts Bill was referred have agreed to the following special report:-"That in any future legislation on the subject of turnpike trusts it will be expedient to alter and amend the Highway Act (27 & 28 Vict. c. 101) so as to provide a uniform system of road management throughout the country, and that the maintenance of all roads should be provided for by a rate levied on districts, and not as at present on parishes separately." MEETINGS IN ROYAL PARKS.-The following is a should possess this extraordinary facility for the suppres "I think it, therefore, necessary to repeat the instr tions given by my predecessor to Colonel Hill, and to rean Act repealing so much of the law as authorises the proclamation of martial law. "I have only to add, that in giving you these instra tions, Her Majesty's Government must not be supposed a convey an absolute prohibition of all recourse to martial pation of an Act of Indemnity. The justification, however, law under the stress of great emergencies, and in antier of such a step must rest on the pressure of the momen and the Governor cannot by any instructions be relieve from the obligation of deciding for himself, under tha: pressure, whether the responsibility of proclaiming mar tial law is or is not greater than that of refraining fro doing so." SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. CHANCERY PRACTICE.-Where the justice of the case required it, the addition of co-plaintiffs to a suit was allowed to be made at the hearing of it: (Maughan v. Blake, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 513. Rolls.) of a claim for of SOLICITOR AND CLIENT.-A firm of country with the management of their business solicitors intrusted W., one of their partners, London. In the course of this branch of the investment, advanced moneys to W., which were business certain persons, for the purposes misapplied by him and lost. Subsequently all of the members of the firm, with the exception of G., became insolvent. G. afterwards died, and on his estate being administered, the first time was made against him in respect claim was good as against G.'s estate: (Sawyer the moneys misapplied by W.: Held, that the v. Goodwin, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 514. V.C. S.) and his TAXATION.An agent had taken an agreement principal had established the agency by a suit. The property in respect of which the agency wat established was not worth 1000l.: Held, that the costs of the suit ought to be taxed on the of the cases specified in the regulations made by higher scale, as the suit did not come within any the court: (Stamford v. Dawson, 16 L. T. Ref. N. S. 516. V. C. W.) copy of a Bill intituled, An Act for the better and more effectually securing the Use of certain Royal Don't attack the Exchequer, for see what the ation of her Majesty's Subjects," introduced into Parks and Gardens for the Enjoyment and RecreChancellor has done." It was because the tax was the House of Lords by Lord Redesdale:-" -"Whereas anjust and oppressive to the poorer portion of the it is expedient to provide for the better and more legal profession that he asked the House to abolish effectually securing the use of certain Royal parks at. He moved that the Speaker leave the chair. and gardens for the enjoyment and recreation of her The House having resolved itself into committee, Majesty's subjects. Be it therefore enacted by the clause 1, repealing the stamp duty, was agreed to without opposition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer advice and consent of the Lords' spiritual and temQueen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the having shortly before left the House. The other poral and Commons, in this present Parliament clauses and the preamble were also agreed to.- -On assembled, and by authority of the same, as follows: the question that the Bill be reported to the House, -1. This Act shall apply to all the Royal parks, Mr. WALPOLE, on behalf of the Chancellor of the gardens, and possessions, the management of which ACTION ON IRISH JUDGMENT.-Declaration on Exchequer, stated that he would take the discussion gardented in the Commissioners of her Majesty's whe a judgment in the Court of Ex. in Ireland. of the Bill on the third reading.-Mr. DENMAN said that would be against the understanding which had been come to. Mr. WALPOLE understood that it polis shall mean the area for the time being subject action. Replication, that the court, under the within the limits of the metropolis. 2. The metro any writ of summons, nor had any notice of the had been stated that the discussion would be taken to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of provisions of an Act of Parliament in that Works. 3. The parks, gardens, and possessions to behalf, and upon an affidavit of the plaintiff's at a future stage. The Bill was then reported. Works and Public Buildings, and which are situate |