determined to take legal advice before adopting the suggestion of Mr. Flight. We are glad to see that an opinion is be taken upon it. We have no doubt that Mr. FLIGHT'S proposal is strictly legal. He, as the landlord, may pay the rates for his tenants, provided he does it not corruptly, and that cannot be if the rent is regulated by the amount of the rate so paid. To make the question perfectly secure, the overseer should give a receipt for each tenant's rate separately, and in the tenant's name. This done, according to the decisions cited by our contributor in the articles to which we refer, payment by the landlord is, for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of payment of rates, held to be payment by the tenants. THE NEW COUNTY COURT LAW. THE enormous transfer of business from the Superior Courts to the County Courts, effected by the Act of last session, will not be such a boon to the public as the LORD CHANCELLOR Supposed, unless some new regulations are made to meet the changed character of the business. In the Superior Courts a warrant may be obtained any day, served immediately, declaration filed, judgment signed, and execution issued within about fifteen days at the outside. But in the County Courts, which are held only monthly, twentyfive days may elapse before judgment can be had, and in that time a debtor is enabled to dispose of his property and decamp, so that creditors are to be placed in a worse position than before. Again, in an action on a bill or note, judgment may be signed without even the delay of declaration. Is all this advantage to be lost to commerce, and are plaintiffs not only to be deprived of the benefit of that procedure, but to be compelled to the slower process of the County Courts? Again, the fees of the County Courts are insufficient remuneration for such causes as it is now to entertain. Neither counsel nor solicitor would be fairly paid for the work imposed upon them. The scale of fees must be raised, or rather, as in the superior court, there should be no scales for the advocate's fee, but the allow ance of it should be in the discretion of the Court, according to the importance of the cause. In the rules which the judges are to frame, these points must not be lost sight of. If the County Courts are to become what they are intended to be, the remuneration must be such as not to exclude from them advocates of competency and respectability. "A Managing Clerk," has sent the following excellent suggestions to a contemporary: Sir,-Will you allow me to make one or two suggestions occuring to me on reading your admirable leader on this subject, in connection with the County Court Act passed last session? I think that no one who has considered the subject will disagree with you as to the desirability of having, as nearly as possible, the same course of procedure and system of pleading in the local courts (whether the cause be one of equity, common law, or Admiralty) as in the Superior Court. We can hardly hope to see the report of the recently appointed commissioners for some months; nor can we, I fear, expect the two Houses of Par liament to agree to a bill on the subject for some years when the report is published. Meanwhile our patchwork system of law making is likely to cause the most serious injuries to suitors. I apprehend that the sole object of the County Court Act of last session was to stop the cry for more judges, and to give greater facilities for trying causes and shortening assizes; but to effect this a jurisdiction has been thrown upon the County Courts, to the carrying out of which they are wholly inadequate. No doubt our system of pleading is faulty, and capable of much simplification, but I do not think that any one wishes to see pleadings in common law actions wholly abolished, as they are in the County Court; indeed, every practical man must admit that the non-use of pleadings itself renders the County Court incompetent to try the many difficult and complicated actions of which it has now cognisance; and it must be borne in mind that the subjects of the jurisdiction now thrown upon it are no less extensive (with the exception of a very few special matters) than the subjects of the jurisdiction of the Equity, Common Law, and Admiralty Courts together. The Act in question does not come into operation until the first day of next year; there is still time to prevent the evils which must otherwise accrue; there is still time for the drawing up and issuing of rules giving the practice and procedure of the Superior Courts of common law to the County Courts, at all events with modifications, until the Courts Commission has issued its report. I am only writing on the subject of the new | jurisdiction given to the County Courts in commou law matters, and I leave it to those better acquainted with the practice of the equity courts than myself to suggest the remedies necessary to meet the enlarged jurisdiction given to the County Courts in equity matters. would seem to be opposed to the spirit of the New Another remedy I would suggest (except that it County Court Act, though not to its objects) is, that in all common law actions commenced in the Superior Courts of whatever nature and for whatever amount, after issue joined, the plaintiff should take out a summons returnable before a judge at chambers to give directions as to the mode of trial, whether at the assizes, County Court, Sheriff's Court, or Lord Mayor's Court; and I am not by any means sure that a good result would not follow from the plaintiff being compelled to state shortly on oath the nature of his claim, and the defendant the nature of his defence, with a view to the judge putting the parties under terms to make admissions, and thus saving the expense of mere formal evidence. court passed next November will effect the desired If either of my remedies be a good one, a rule of result. Yours faithfully, A MANAGING CLERK, Oct 1, 1867. TITLE RECORD (IRELAND). RECORD of title business has been more brisk in Ireland than in England. The Irish Title Act came into operation in Nov. 1865, and by July 1867 200 parliamentary titles were fully registered. The system in Ireland had this advantage over the Land Registry in Lincoln's-inn-Fields, that it started from the Landed Estates Court. By the Act of 1865, a person, on obtaining a conveyance or declaration of title from that court, is enabled to have it entered in the record, where "recorded estate;" upon the estate becomes a after which, as under the English Act of 1862, every transfer must be recorded, and the recorded owner for the time being has an indefeasible title, no entry being liable to be called in question against a purchaser for value by reason of any irregularity or informality therein, or in the proceedings previous to the making thereof. Here the later Act is an improvement on the earlier, as it affords a better indemnity; for the English Act does not provide against irregularity or informality in the entry itself, but only in the previous proceedings-an omission much to be regretted. In England the registrations of title in the first year or two were insignificant in number, and, according to the return made in 1866, the total number from the beginning was not more than 114. What it may be up to the present time we do not know, for Lord CHELMSFORD, who used to stir up the office every year while he was in opposition, has left it in peace since he took his seat as Chancellor. The value of the estates held under the 200 recorded titles in Ireland, is set down at 564,0497. The arrangements respecting fees in the Land Court are favourable to the recording of titles. There is no fee payable on recording a conveyance immediately after its execution by the court; but if an interval is allowed to elapse, then, during 1867 or within a year from the execution of the conveyance, the fee is only 5s. where the value is 1000%. or under, and 2s. 6d. for every additional 5007. of value; after 1857, if a year be allowed to elapse after the conveyance, the fee will be 10s. for 100l. The whole expense of recording a conveyance now executed by the court, is not great, inasmuch as, including solicitors' fees, it varies from 10s. to 14. 15s. 6d. ; but in the case of a title formerly granted by the court, it varies from 57. to 184, according to the nature of the estate, changes in the tenancies, and other matters. INDIAN MAGISTRATES. THE system by which Indian magistrates are manufactured has been graphically described by a barrister writing to the Pall Mall Gazette. After the Civil Service candidates have passed their first examination they have to go through probationary examinations extending over a period of two years. The studies for these latter examinations comprise law, and it is worth while seeing how they are in the habit of learning it. They are required to "study jurisprudence" and "to report a certain number of cases in the law courts." No particular method of studying jurisprudence is suggested to the candidate; consequently he makes his own choice. If inclined to work hard he goes into the chambers of a barrister, or attends the classes at King's College. If disinclined to work hard he does not read at all until a few weeks before the examination, and then he “crams.” ✅ Now, cramming stiffens a man's mind, and spoils what might have been a judicial intellect. All examinations which can be crammed for are utterly valueless as tests. The taking notes in the courts of law is a farcical operation. All law reporters are or ought to be men whose legal training is complete. Then only can they give an intelligible account of a technical discussion. But the experience gained might be of some use if the student frequented only the courts sitting in Banco. We have seen them, however, hard at work in the Nisi Prius courts at Westminster and Guildhall, where they would pick up a point of law twice, on the average, in the course of a week. Nothing could be more vain or ridiculous than this. We may now look at the result of this system. In June 1866 there were forty-eight candidates examined, out of whom fourteen failed in jurisprudence, and no less than twenty-nine in Indian law. In Nov. 1866 there were forty-nine candi dates examined, out of whom eleven failed to obtain half the allotted marks in jurisprudence, while sixteen failed similarly in Indian law. In June 1867 there were forty-nine candidates, of whom fifteen failed in jurisprudence, and twenty-seven in Indian law. Hardship is thus induced upon the candidates and those who will be subject to their jurisdiction. The former are kept back until they are sufficiently crammed; the latter will have to bear the infliction of an animated absurdity-a crammed magistrate. The Government should provide proper teachers for the pupils, or make the reading in a barrister's chambers a sine quâ non. REFORM OF OFFICES. THE late Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. CHILDERS when in power perceived certain anomalies and inconveniences in the present arrangements with regard to the various fees payable on appointment, or on account of any other services, under letters patent, or in connection with the Patent-office, or otherwise, received in the public offices (courts of law excepted), or by which benefit is derived to the Exchequer, and from the manner of accounting for them. Accordingly Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. STEPHENSON, and Mr. LUSHINGTON were appointed as a committee of the Treasury to inquire into the matter. When the Ministry went out of office, the committee of course fell to the ground, but they have furnished the present SECRETARY of the TREASURY with their draft report that it may not be wasted on the desert air of opposition. The inquiry was twofold; first, into the general policy of levying the fees in question, and into the fairness of their incidence on the appointments to which they attach; secondly, into the mode of levying fees, and their distribution and audit when levied. Fees on appointments and other services are levied in the following offices, namely, the Crown, Great Seal Patent, Petty Bag, Attorney-General's Patent Bill, and Presentation offices, and by the Messenger of the Great Seal. In all the offices, without exception, the committee have found a cumbrous system of accounts, a minute subdivision of fees which afterwards wind their way back into general public funds, and in many cases an entire absence of audit. These evils they trace to Acts of Parliament (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 111; 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 84; and 15 & 16 Vict. c. 87), first abolishing offices, then reviving some of them, and annexing their duties to other offices; also substituting payment by salary for payment by fees, but ordering the fees to be collected precisely as before, though instead of going into the pockets of the officers, they were to be paid over to the Consolidated Fund or the Suitors Fee Fund. Thus the same minute subdivision of accounts was continued, entailing much labour and care; and yet it was no longer anybody's personal interest to watch the payment of fees, as was the case when the holders of the different offices received the fees, each for his own trouble and to his own profit. We have not space, if we had inclination, to follow the committee in their detailed inquiries in the various offices, but we will select an example of fees in the Crown-office on be coming a Baron, prefacing it with an account of such a creation. The steps of the baronial development are seven; there is a sign manual warrant, directed to the Attorney General to prepare a Bill; the preparation by or Solicitor the Attorney of the Bill at his Patent-office, signed either by himself or the Solicitor; the laying it before the QUEEN for her signature; the QUEEN's returning it to the Secretary of State, who countersigns it; its going to the Privy Seal to be sealed; its coming to the Crown-office to have the patent prepared; lastly, the patent going to the Lord Chancellor to be sealed. As to the fees paid by the Baron, they amount to 3037. 18s. 6d., of which 150l. is for the stamp on the patent, and 2s. on the warrant, while the rest is appropriated in no less than nineteen different fees, although twelve of them are ultimately paid into the Consolidated Fund and Suitors' Fee Fund. The committee recommend that all the fees which are eventually payable to the same fund should be lumped together, it being absurd to make a number of separate entries and calculations of such fees. The business done in the Crown-office consists of (besides writs for calling a new Parliament) patents of dignities, patents of offices, and commissions of the peace, on all which the fees, as in the case of this baron, are exceedingly complex. In the Great Seal Patent-office are prepared charters, grants of offices, annuities, licences of denization, in perpetuity, for theatres, for convocation, and letters patent confirming the finding of convocation; but the business done is so small, sometimes only nine patents in a year, that the committee recommend its transfer to the Crown-office. The clerk of the Petty Bag swears in solicitors and strikes them off the roll, administers oaths of office, and attends with records. Writs of scire facias, certiorari, and de coronatore eligendo issue from this office; the appointments of archbishops and bishops are made out there, also writs during a Parliament of summons to a peer, or for election of a member. The committee propose that the office be abolished, and the duties as to archbishops and bishops and Parliament be transferred to the Crown-office, and the other duties divided between the clerks of records and writs and the clerk of inrolments. The special functions of the Attorney-General's Patent Bill-office, in the preparation of a preliminary form for the issue of instruments under the Great Seal, or a Bill, as it is called, are declared to be unnecessary; the committee being of opinion that the IIome-office, or other office with which the particular business originates can perform the duty as well, with Occasional reference to the Attorney or SolicitorGeneral, and at a saving of time and expense. The messengership, too, of the Great Seal the committee regard as of small consequence. The duties do not require an independent office; they are all of a menial nature, and the office becomes a mere piece of patronage bestowed on an old servant, who acts by deputy. The committee then recommend an Act for the immediate abolition of the offices above mentioned other than the Crown-office and Pre sentation-office; also the substitution of stamps for the payment of fees. TAINTED WITNESSES. THE trial of ALLEN and others for the attack on the police-van, and the murder of Chief Constable BRETT, will raise in a more prominent form than usual a question which is of almost daily occurrence in criminal courts-viz., if, and to what extent, the evidence of thieves, prostitutes, and other persons of notoriously bad character, should be received and acted upon by a jury. The defending counsel invariably makes of it a strong point in his defence, and calls upon the jury wholly to discredit whatever is stated by a witaess of ill repute. A summary and entire rejection of the evidence is confidently claimed. The Judge usually yields so far in his commentary as to make the bad character a fact throwing grave doubt over all the witness has stated, and the jury, moved by the confidence of counsel and the hesitation of the Judge, frequently rejects the tainted testimony, however decisive it might have been had it come from other lips, and thus the prisoner is acquitted, and justice defeated. It has often occurred to us that this objection to evidence on the ground of general bad character is carried too far. It proceeds on the false assumption that moral defect in one direction necessarily involves immorality in all other directions; in fact, that the whole mind is morally diseased, and not a part of it merely. But this is an erroneous theory of human nature, as every one of us might learn by a little selfexamination. The best of us has his faults, perhaps his vices, which he knows but too well, though he may have succeeded in hiding them under the veil of his general good character. Each of us is conscious that in ourselves one fault, or even vice, does not bring with it general depravity. We know that we lapse readily into some besetting sin, yet are as good as other people in other matters: so it is with all, the criminal and degraded class included. It may be contended that very few indeed are gratuitously wicked-that is, do wrong for the pleasure of doing it, without some motive of supposed advantage. A thief by profession would probably be as likely as another to tell the truth on an indifferent matter, though in a affecting his own interest he would be utterly untrustworthy in this respect better men being too often like him. So with prostitutes. Because a woman is unchaste she is not necessarily a liar or a thief. She is degraded in the world's and in her own esteem, and, therefore, is less checked by the sanctions of society; but where she has no motive to tell a lie she is no matter more likely to do so than the purest woman in the witness-box. The conclusion is, that bad character should be held to taint evidence only when other motives may fairly be suspected to induce perjury. If such a motive can be shown, then the bad character affords a sound reason for presuming that interest might be preferred to truth. Instead, therefore, of putting bad character as a general taint, the judge should point out to the jury the circumstances under which bad character does or does not affect credibility, and then proceed to show how far these circumstances exist in the case before them. On this subject some excellent remarks have appeared in the Pall-Mall Gazette, which we extract as bearing upon a subject of great practical moment, not in relation to the coming Fenian trials merely, but as affecting the administration of justice generally. It is entitled, "Honour among Thieves :" tions of some of the chief witnesses summoned to The prolonged examinations and cross-examinaprove the identity of the men charged with the murder of the policeman Brett at Manchester must have once more suggested to a certain class of newspaper readers a puzzle out of which they find it difficult to see their way. Whether or not the lawyers engaged in the defence of the accused have overstepped the ordinary rules of legal decency and policy on such occasions, it is undeniable that few barristers or attorneys have ever rested the case of their clients against them are persons of the positively criminal more definitely upon the fact that the witnesses class, and therefore utterly unworthy of credit. Thieves, drunkards and prostitutes, it is argued, are destitute of all moral character whatsoever. They are people who may be expected to swear away a man's life without scruple. Nobody would dream of taking them as servants, or of employing them in any capacity where truth and trustworthiness are necessary. Therefore, it is argued, their of justice. The argument is plausible and often word and their oath are simply worthless in a court tells upon the British juryman with all the effect that is desired of it. But it is hardly doubtful that thereby the ends of justice may be occasionally defeated. In the present case we do not, of course, for a moment think of anticipating the judgment that must ultimately be passed upon the guilt or innocence of Allen and his companions; nor do we pretend to discuss the trustworthiness of the inmates of the prison van from which the Fenian leaders were rescued. The evidence of the women and others, who have stated that they saw the policeman shot by the accused, may totally break down, and it may be shown that they never saw what they professed to see, or that personally their past history has been such that they would be ready to perjure themselves whenever they thought they could gain by it. At the same time, it is most desirable that there should be no mistake, either now or on any similar occasion, as to the substantial soundness of the general principle involved in the line taken by the prosecution-namely, that because a man is a convicted thief, it does not necessarily follow that he is never to be believed. It would be too great and grievous an assumption to suppose that witnesses of the class in question are wholly inaccessible to a sense of duty, or to that sense of right and wrong which is popularly identified with the promptings of conscience. Where their own safety is involved, or where the interests of the special class to oath is of little or no value. which they belong are concerned, no doubt their But where it is simply a question of telling the truth as to an event which took place before their eyes, and in which they have no concern whatever, it would be rash to assume that they are more likely to commit perjury than other people. We are too apt to forget that between the real hidden nature of the respectable and the disreputable classes, the difference is not quite so sharp and decided as it there is a vast outward difference between the lives flatters our self-love to imagine. Undoubtedly setting cant aside, have we all such principles as of the criminal and the non-criminal grades; but justify us in claiming to be believed in all circumstances? When we are not strongly tempted, we usually do right; when we are strongly tempted, we usually do wrong. Yet there is no question ever raised as to the value of our evidence in cases where our own interests are not involved; and for this reason, that while our principles are rarely so lofty out any conscience or principles at all. A man who as never to be shaken, we are rarely, if ever, withpicks pockets for a livelihood is sent to gaol to learn that theft is an intolerable crime, but is he more disqualified thereby from giving evidence as to simple matters of fact than shopkeepers who cheat their customers? or fine ladies and gentlemen who run up bills which they know they will never be able to pay? or the host of "gentlemanly" traders or merchants whose consciences do not prevent them from habitually sailing only just within the limits of the law? of an oath, it is impossible to forget that, as a matter Then, again, whatever be the theological nature of fact, vast numbers of people of all ranks would shrink from perjury while they would not shrink from lying. The lives and the education of the criminal classes are of a kind which forbids the supposition that they have as a rule even a vague notion of the religious ideas upon which the administration of oaths is based. But many of them are possessed of such ar amount of superstitious fear as avails to prevent them from swearing falsely when there is no powerful motive to the contrary. If we oaths entertained by the bulk of respectable English were to search closely into the actual notions about people, in how many should we be able to detect anything better than this same vague superstitious dread? Yet the practical result is much the same as it would be with the most enlightened moralist. In truth, this shrinking from perjury is simply the culmination of that sliding scale of casnistry in duct of ordinary society in all countries and at all. respect to the telling of lies which governs the conperiods. From the smallest white lies," all the people have some private test of their own, way up to full-blown false swearing, most by which they decide that in certain cases lies are venial or even justifiable, and that in certain other cases they are never to be permitted for any reason whatsoever. The cool assurance with which a good many people, especially among the respectable poor, will uphold their character for truth-telling by stating that they never tell a lie unless it is necessary, is but the grotesque and rough and ready form in which they express a "view" their "betters which is more general among their "betters" than like to avow. And it is the characteristic merit of the English system of jurisprudence that it recognises this estimate of human nature, and assigns to the counsel in a criminal trial the office of cross-examining all the witnesses produced, in order to ascertain whether in each particular case the dislike of perjury is overbalanced by the promptings of personal interest; in contrast to that continental system which converts the preourselves, we seek the truth on the basis of the siding judge into a sort of public prosecutor. With trustworthiness of evidence given on oath. In France, Germany, and sundry other countries, it is the office of the judge to do his utmost to elicit the truth from the lips of the accused. And on the whole, we are by no means disposed to wish for the abolition of our own system. ABROAD AND AT HOME. Well may IF we could only see ourselves as others see us what a lesson we should learn. foreigners point to us with fingers of scorn; well may Englishmen hang their heads and be ashamed. For many years past we have been preaching to our neighbours, in the name of liberty, against restraints upon tongue and pen which they believe to be necessary for the preservation of life and property; we have welcomed everything that savoured of revolution; and, above all, we have given unbounded enthusiasm, if nothing more substantial, to the holy cause of nationalities. We were almost ready to go to war to wrench Italy and Hungary from Austria, Poland from Russia, Crete from Turkey, and we did fight our battles for the emancipation of Greece. We were told to look at the structure of our own house before we flung stones at the houses of our neighbours; but we were blind, or deaf, or both, and we could not see that Ireland was also a nationality, that the lesson we were teaching would be learned by her. Our eyes are opened now. This "even-handed justice has indeed "commended the poisoned chalice to our own lips." We have sown the wind among our neighbours, and we are reaping vantage to be procured by making the dischargeable privilege case of Stockdale v. Hansard, and lent the whirlwind on our own shores. But this is not all. We sanctioned mob law in the spring; we submitted tamely to the defiance of revolutionary leagues; we permitted the arm of the law to be paralysed; and now we are terrified at the discovery that other leagues are lawless too, and that Fenians hope to win the same triumph by the same means. ALLEN and GIBSON are the natural products of BEALES and POTTER. The unpunished threats of the latter that the streets of London should swim in blood conduct inevitably to the bloody deeds of the former. of a public duty a weapon for political warfare. DEATH OF LORD KINGSDOWN. his support to the maintenance of judicial authority. After his elevation to the House of Lords Lord Kingsdown rarely took a part in the political debates of that body. He gave his services to the judicial business of the House, although he never approved the constitution or procedure of the House as a court of last resort, and regretted his inability to correct its defects. But it was in the more congenial atmosphere of the Privy Council, where the practice and forms of proceeding had gradually been moulded and settled by Lord Kingsdown's own influence and example, that he has left the most conspicuous traces of his judicial ability. administration, the Great Seal was offered to Mr. In 1858, upon the formation of Lord Derby's Pemberton Leigh (as he was then called), and, no doubt, if he had accepted it, his name would have added considerably to the weight and dignity of that short-lived Ministry. But he refused it. His singular modesty, his want of dash and self-reliance. his dislike of outward show and display, his extreme shyness of disposition, and his indifference to the emoluments of office rendered him averse to the honour for which other men have toiled their lives away. By some this refusal was attributed to indolence; but indolence can hardly be ascribed toone of the most successful advocates of the English Bar, or to a man who would spend untold and unper-remitting labour to bring to perfection whatever he had undertaken to perform. Thus, the services rendered by Lord Kingsdown to the Duchy of Cornwall, in his capacity of Chancellor to the Prince, were of incalculable value, and resulted in placing that magnificent demesue on a totally different footing. The predominant quality of Lord Kingsdown's character was a fastidious refinement, which removed him altogether from the common pursuits of fame and power. "No breath of popularity," as he once expressed it, "ever touched his sail." But, if he was sensitive to the shortcomings and imperfections of others, he was not less exacting in all that concerned himself. Nothing satisfied him in his own productions short of the highest perfection which he was able to attain. Many of his judgments were written several times over; all were revised with In 1858, when the Great elaborate minuteness. Seal was offered him, he had already quitted the Court of Chancery for fifteen years, and, strange as it may seem, we suspect that the reason which mainly determined his refusal was a distrust of his ability to perform the duties of the Chancellor after so long an interval in a manner entirely a lequate to his conception of their importance. Perhaps it is fortunate for the world that not all men are equally scrupulous or conscientious. Not only are we reaping the fruit of the seed we have sown, but we are doing so in a very undignified way. We are in a panic of fear, and crying aloud for vengeance. For this, also, foreigners are fairly turning us to ridicule. "Sec," they say, "how differently those English treat their own troubles and the troubles of other people. When the black majority rebelled against the white minority in Jamaica, and had commenced a general massacre, they pursued to his ruin the governor who saved the lives of his countrymen, and the honour of his countrywomen, by his prompt exercise of force, because he used more force than to them, standing afar off, seemed to be altogether necessary for the Lord Kingsdown died last night at his seat, purpose. See, too, how they protested against Torre-hill, in Kent. Although the deceased noblemaking an example of the insurgent leaders man never filled any prominent office in the State; who had caused the loss of many lives and much although he retired from the Bar a quarter of a property in Ireland. And now that a few out-century ago, and has since devoted his great rages are committed among themselves, less in judicial talents and legal experience almost exclumagnitude and atrocity than those inflicted sively to a tribunal which does not often challenge upon Jamaica and Ireland, they demand that no singularly retired and uneventful, for he was a man public attention; although his whole life has been mercy may be shown, and are prepared to alike devoid of vanity and of ambition; yet those sanction even martial law, if security against who knew the strength and purity of his unobtruFenian outrage cannot be otherwise obtained." sive career place him, without hesitation, in the very Have not foreigners good grounds for so speaking highest rank of English lawyers: and even to the of us? Can we dispute the truth of the public his name, associated with some of the most accusation? enlightened and important judgments of modern times, carried a degree of weight not always attached to names of higher official authority. Thomas Pemberton was born in London on the 11th Feb. 1793. He descended on his father's side from an honourable family in Warrington, and on his mother's from a branch of the family of Leigh, to whose vast possessions near Wigan he eventually succeeded. His education was not of a character to prefigure his future distinction in life; for he was at no public school, at no University, and he began his legal career in a solicitor's office. Yet his scholarship was correct, and his taste for classical literature constant and unabated. It was not long, however, before his remarkable clearness and precision of intellect began to give indications of uncommon ability. He read for the Bar in the chambers of his maternal uncle, Mr. Cooke, a distinguished equity lawyer of his day, and in 1816 Mr. Pemberton was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of Lincoln's-inn. Although only eighteen mouths elapsed between his call and the lamented death of Sir Samuel Romilly, then at the head of his Profession, that time was long enough for the overworked leader to remark the rare qualities and great promise of the youthful junior. Fifty years afterwards Lord Kingsdown, himself a member of the House of Peers, introduced at the bar of that House another peer, Lord Romilly, the son of one of the first prophets of The moral of it is, that we must learn to see ourselves more as others see us; that we must abandon the dangerous game of patting upon the back the revolutionary party in Europe, and abstain from shouting for nationalities, at least until we are prepared to practice what we preach, and set an example by giving Ireland to the Irish, as we would have Poland for the Poles, and Italy for the Italians. That the Fenians want independence, and will be content with nothing less, must be manifest to every mind that has given the reflection of a moment to the history of the rise and progress of Fenianism. If any has hitherto doubted this, let him read the following letter addressed by a Fenian to the Pall-Mall Gazette: I have read your article on "Fenianism from a Fenian point of view," and beg leave to enlighten you upon some points which evidently you are in the dark about. The possible Fenian reply to British respectability" is not bad in its way. It does not, however, go far enough. We want not concessions from the British Government, we want Ireland for the Irish, wholly and absolutely, and that we shall have. It is not our game to commit outrage, except in self-defence, and in retaliation for any indignities put upon any of our men by our enemy. But we watch, wait, arm, and prepare for the opportunity that will enable us to destroy the British Empire effectually, and to avenge centuries of cruel oppression. If England chooses to precipitate matters by hounding on the masses of the ignorant lower classes against our people, then it will be war to the knife; let her look to her volunteers' depôts, her magazines, her manufactories, her docks, her stores, and, above all, certain of her governing classes. Just take this simply as our position: We mean to fight, and, if necessary for the freedom of Ireland, destroy, England. We wait our opportunity, and meanwhile will take care to avenge the slightest injustice done to any of our people by English law, armed police and infuriate masses notwithstanding. Such a design can neither be met nor defeated by any reforms in the land laws. What the Irish desire and are banded to obtain is the possession of Ireland itself; their dream is the establishment of their nationality, and their hopes are upon the aid which sooner or later they look for from America. It will tax our wisdom and his own success. Pemberton rose rapidly into extensive practice. In 1829 he received a silk gown, and for many years, especially after the elevation of Bickersteth to the Bench, he stood at the head of the Bar, in his own court, the Rolls. In 1841, upon the formation of Sir R. Peels Administration, he accepted the office, more onerous than lucrative, of Attorney General to the Prince of Wales. In Jan. 1843, the death of his aged and eccentric kinsman, Sir Robert Leigh, placed Mr. Pemberton in possession of a life-interest in the Wigan estates, amounting to about 17.000l. a-year. This income, in addition to his own large professional gains, raised him to affluence; he retired from the Bar, was sworn of the Privy Council as Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall, and shortly afterwards entered upon his judicial duties as a member of ties de continued to perform for twenty years of the Judicial Committee of that body. These with unremitting diligence, but entirely without emolument, and with no outward recognition of his services except the peerage, which was first offered to him by Lord John Russell in 1853, and eventually conferred on him by Lord Derby in 1858. During the greater part of his career at the bar courage to deal with this danger, but certainly Mr. Pemberton sat in the House of Commons for the it cannot be done by tampering with revolu- borough of Rye, and afterwards for the borough of tion, by suffering mob law to reign, by yielding Ripon. He was warmly attached to the principles of the Conservative party and to their illustrious tamely to menaces, by permitting treason to be openly preached, but by the rally of all who leader, Sir Robert Peel; but he was devoid of that have anything to lose, without distinction of party eagerness and passion which impel men to play a prominent part in the House of Commons. His class or party, around those to whom is com-speeches were rare and unimpassioned. Perhaps mitted the care of the public peace, and by an unanimous resolve not to permit a party ad-resisted the pretensions of the House on the memor the most remarkable of them was that in which he a It would not be suitable in this place to enter upon appellate jurisdiction of the Crown over the colonial ation, he abhorred the exclusive pretentions of ognatical theologians, and he held very cheap the laims of sacerdotal authority. To maintain the hurch of England on the broad foundations of the sw of the land, without allowing any party to ersecute or proscribe its opponents, was the scope nd object of his views. This liberality of opinion rew down on him the bitter hatred of the bigots, which has recently been manifested in a peculiar manner by Dr. Pusey at Oxford; but it has earned for the memory of Lord Kingsdown the profound respect and gratitude of the most eminent, judicious, and enlightened of his countrymen. Lord Kingsdown was never married; his title, therefore, is extinct. Of his property the larger part reverts to a descendant of Sir Robert Leigh; the remainder passes to the brother and nephews of the late peer. THE NEW LAW AND PRACTICE OF CHAPTER VL (continued). The value cannot be made up of rooms in two or more dwelling-houses. The qualifying apart ments must be within one dwelling-house. This again will frequently raise the question, what is a dwelling-house? and thus the definition in the interpretation section must be resorted to in explanation of a franchise with which it has no apparent connection. A "dwelling-house" is there defined to be "any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, and separately rated to the relief of the poor." From this definition there results a very unexpected consequence, although one of no great moment. If a" dwelling-house" is to be a house assessed to the poor-rate, it follows building, or apartment in an outbuilding within The addition of the words "the same" appears III. He must have occupied them separately, and as sole tenant. We have already considered the meaning of the term "separately." The construction we take to be this: separately from anything but the lodgings- that is to say, that the occupation must be of the requisite value unfurnished, estimated apart from the use or enjoyment of anything beside; such, for instance, as furniture, fire, cooking, gas, water, or any other accessories to comfort or convenience. the rent is the primâ facie test of value, because houses are rarely let furnished, and there are obvious materials from which an experienced eye can form a fair judgment of its annual value. But no such materials exist in the case of furnished lodgings. The rent is but the starting point for a long inquiry, the direction of which must be to learn for what accommodations that rent is paid, and if, after all beside is eliminated, there still remains a clear 101. for the value of the bare walls? It must also be borne in mind, in making such an estimate, that the rent of furniture is much higher than that of buildings. In London it is sometimes calculated at 30 per cent. per annum ; but in the country a fair allowance would probably be about 20 per cent. upon the value, which must be deducted to arrive at the unfur nished value. To give an instance: A lodger claimant gives 157. as rent for two rooms furnished and the use of kitchen fire. How should the revising barrister proceed to ascertain the value of those rooms unfurnished? He would probably estimate the use of the kitchen fire at 1s. per week. He would then The claimant must have occupied them also inquire what was the furniture, and make a as sole tenant. He alone must take them, use rough estimate of its value. Say that it is 204.; them, pay for them, and be recognised by the the rent of that furniture cannot be set down at landlord as his tenant. A joint occupation will less than 20 per cent. per annum-namely 47. not suffice. If, therefore, as is frequent, two or Then adding this 41. for the furniture to the more occupy the same lodgings, whatever may 2. 12s. for the use of the fire, and deducting be their value, neither can vote in respect of 6l. 12s. from the rent actually paid, the value of them. The only course to be adopted is for one the unfurnished rooms is found to be less than of them to become the sole tenant to the land- 104. per annum, and consequently the claim must lord, paying the rent and taking the receipt in be rejected. his own name alone, and then let to the others the use of the beds and the rooms as his guests, and not as the tenants to the landlord. IV. They must be of the clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of 10l. per annum. say what Who is to This provision is perfectly clear in its con- that the lodger franchise, which can be had only (7) By Edward W. Cox, Recorder of Helston, Author of The Law and Practice of Elections," &c. So it would be with other items of deduction, as service, coal, &c. And a question may be raised whether if the use of the kitchen is part of the taking for which the entire rent is paid, the lodger can be said to occupy the lodgings separately and solely, seeing that one of the apartments is occupied jointly with other persons. Then comes the other test of the amount at A house which in its which the whole house is rated. This test has a FUTURE LEGISLATION FOR WASTE BEFORE the end of next term there will, in all 31 in 1860 to 130 in 1866. The final judgment were, for plaintiffs 158, for defendants decrees by default 27. The motions in cour were 153, in chambers 485, being a total of 638 as against 435 in the preceding year, and 243 in 1860. Fifty-three causes were heard on references to the registrar and merchants; 247 bills were taxed, and the total amount of costs were as follows: In "in pœnam causes: " Proctors' or solicitors' bills sub- Found due Agents' outport charges: Proctors' or solicitors' bills submitted 43,245 Found due Agents' outport charges: ...... Allowed as against defendants Disallowed Found due Agents' outport charges: Submitted Allowed as against plaintiffs The number of instruments prepared in the Registry were: Warrants of arrest Affidavits of justification Thus the award of a commissioner might be re- The first question to be asked and answered is, Further, as to procedure, a court of equity will not interfere in a disputed right until the right has been tried at law, except where the justice of the case requires some discovery of fact: (Godfrey v. Littel, 1 Russ. & Myl. 62.) Equity is now expected to do what law has never done yet to go to first principles to begin; its investigations by referring back to the period when there were no owners of property: in short, to the year One. We have recently seen a pamphlet, evidently written by a man who knows no law, in which the theory of no man's land was advocated. Now, much as we wish the commoners to succeed, we cannot encourage them to hope that any court in England will pursue this course. Look at the theory closely. We What then are the first principles upon which Subpoenas Other instruments prepared 397 294 164 355 174 246 ར༈ ནཎས་མ པ ས མ་སྟན་་བསད་ པ ན ན ག ས ས - ན ------------བས་་་ ་ ཟ་ The court sat on 147 days; the registrar and merchants on 31. In 10 cases payments were made to the naval prize account, for which 43477. were paid. There were two cases for capture and destruction of pirates in which 1350l. were paid. 14 distributions were ordered of proceeds of slave vessels and cargoes, amounting to 77141. The amount paid in stamps and court fees was 11.0774, the average of the preceding five years having been only 87711. The total results are thus stated in the report: The increase in the business of the High Court of Admiralty in 1866, as compared with 1865 and the immediately preceding years, is apparent from the foregoing summary; but further from a statement prepared by the registrar, and which has been laid before Parliament, it appears that since the year 1810, when the jurisdiction of the court was somewhat extended, and when the system of remunerating the judge and other officers of the court by fees was abolished, and fixed salaries were assigned to them, the number of causes instituted has increased from 228 in 1841 to 657 in 1866, the greatest number in any year previous to 1866 having been 562 in 1860. Within the same period the number of days on which the court sat has increased from 38 in 1841 to 147 in 1866, the greatest number in any year previous to 1866 having been 118 in 1863. The number of references to the registrar and merchants has increased from 2 in 1841 to 53 in 1866, 12 of the last number having been argued by counsel. The total number of bills taxed has increased from 58 to 247; the total amount for actions entered has increased, in salvage cases, from 40,4007, with an average of 612. for each case, to 221,3004, with an average of 15927.; in damage cases, from 23,900, with an average of 5694, to 613,350, with an average of 23231.; in other causes from 33,4207. with an average of 506, to 414,1107, with an average of 16304. The number of causes instituted for 20004 and upwards has increased from 11 to 137. Of causes for 10,0007. and upwards, in 1841-2-5 and 1848, there were none; in 1843-4 and 1846, one only; in 1866 there were 24. The total amount of fees of court, which in 1841 was 24477., in 1866 was 11,077, although the fees have been considerably reduced. THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF § 820. Stipulations which are necessary to make a contract reasonable, (a) or conformable to usage, (b) are implied, in respect to matters |