Marriages (Morro Velho); to legalise certain Mar- Inland Revenue; to grant and alter certain Duties J. Joint-stock Banking Companies; to amend the Law 238 Justices of the Peace; to remove Disqualifications Metropolitan Street Traffic; for regulating the of Justices of the Peace in certain Cases, c. 115, Militia; Pay and Clothing, c. 92, U. K. 296 G. B. & I. 298 Laws (Expiring); to continue various expiring Lis pendens; to amend the Companies Act 1862 Orders under the Local Government Act 1858 Local Government; to confirm a certain Provisional Local Government; to confirm certain Provisional Local Government; to confirm certain Provisional Local Government; to confirm certain Provisional M. Militia; to form a Reserve of Men in the Militia to Mutiny; for punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and Mutiny; for the regulation of Her Majesty's Royal N. National Debt; to provide for the Conversion of National Gallery Enlargement; to make further 0. Oaths, &c.; to remove certain Religions Disabilities Oaths, &c.: to enable the Courts of Referees to Ordination Fees; for the Establishment of a Table of Fees to be taken on the Consecration of Churches, Oyster Fisheries; for the Preservation and Further P. Parliament; Prorogation of; to simplify the Forms c. 81, G. B. & I. 295 Poor Poor Relief; to make the Poor Law Board R. Railways-Railway Companies; to amend the Law Real Estate Charges; to explain the Operation of Referees, Courts of; to enable the Courts of Refer S. Sewage Utilisation; for facilitating the Distributic Stores, War Department; for the Protection of T. Terminable Annuities; to provide for the Conver- Thames Embankment (North Shore); to authorise Turnpike Trusts, &c.; to confirm certain Provi- sional Orders made under the Act 14 & 15 Vict. V. Vice-Admiralty Courts; to extend and amend the W. West India Relief; to authorise an Alteration in the To Readers and Correspondents. RED. WILLIAMS-It is necessary that we should know the terms of the charter SOLICITOR'S letter on the Land Registry offices shall appear next week, ll anonymous communications are invariably rejected. Il communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for good faith. trative system. When the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of ENGLAND Commenced sitting in Nisi Prius after term on Tuesday he had to face an array of 205 cases. Of these 145 were remanets; 60 were new causes. Out of the entire list as many as 100 cases were marked for special juries. It may be said, therefore, that they are causes of some importance. The parties, however, must rest content with hope deferred, for it was impossible to try their rights during the sittings. In the DIARY OF SALES BY AUCTION DURING Common Pleas the list was not so formidable, By Messrs. NEWSON and STANLEY, at the Guildhall Coffee-house. teversionary interests in several sums of railway stock and Bank Annuities. Advertised this day. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21. By Messrs. ELLIS and SON, at the Mart. Two freehold villa residences at Dulwich, a suite of offices in Fenchurch-street, a detached residence at comprising 86 causes, 15 of which were marked for special juries. Two-thirds of these, at least, are necessarily postponed. THE London sittings after term commenced on Thursday, the LORD CHIEF BARON sitting in the Exchequer, and the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice WILLES sitting in the Common Pleas. In the former court the cause-list showed 59 causes, 7 of them remanets, and 52 new causes. Chelsea, and a desirable residence on the Highgate- Of the remanets five were marked for special road. Advertised May 11. THURSDAY, MAY 23. juries, of the new causes 17. In the Common Pleas the list comprised 83 causes, 18 being remanets, and 65 new causes. THE BOROUGH FRANCHISE, AS IT IS TO BE. THIS portion of the Reform Bill, so fiercely fought, so often amended, may now be looked upon as settled, and our readers will doubtless be pleased to learn what the law is to be. Clearly to understand the future law, the scheme of the Bill must be clearly understood. The design was to restore the old English Scot and Lot franchise, of which the working classes were deprived by the first Reform Bill. This franchise was based upon the intelligible and rational principle that every man who paid his scot (or local taxes) and bore his lot (i.e., was liable to serve local offices), who was in fact a citizen, sharing with his fellow-citizens the settled burdens and duties of citizenship, should share also in the election of their representatives in Parliament. Thus this franchise was based upon no figure. portfolio to contain the current numbers of the LAW TIMES Every rated householder was liable to be called REPORTS will be forwarded by post to any person inclosing 3s. 10d. in postage stamps. The LAW TIMES goes to press on Thursday evening, that it may be received in the remotest parts of the country on Saturday morning. Communications and Advertisements must be transmitted accordingly. None can appear that do not reach the office by Thursday afternoon's post. THE Law and the Lawyers. ACCORDING to the Owl, a meeting of Irish peers and members of the House of Commons was to be held in the tea-room on Thursday last, to consider the report of the Royal Commission on Railways, and to determine what steps should be taken in order to reform the Irish railway system. EACH succeeding term more clearly shows that there is some great defect in our legal adminisVOL, XLIII.—No, 1259. upon to perform all local duties-then more onerous than now-and he enjoyed in return all local privileges. This was the franchise designed by the new Reform Bill, and which it practically secures. Hereafter every householder, being rated, and having paid his rates, will be an elector. These are precisely the conditions that enable him to vote for the election of town councillors, guardians of the poor, and at all vestry and other parish meetings. There is another condition, that he shall have occupied the house for twelve months-a necessary test that he is a settled citizen. Here our description of the future borough franchise would end, but for the existence of the now famous compound householder. Who is he? The title is a misnomer: but no matter; it is adopted, and could not be changed now. The compound householder, then, is the occupier of a house under a landlord who compounds with the parish for payment of the poor-rate by himself instead of by his tenants, who are the parties properly chargeable, and in consideration of which he is allowed a commission in the shape of a reduction of the rate. Say that you have six houses severally rated at 57.; that the rates on each amount to 10s. per annum. You go to the parish and say, "If I pay the rates on these six houses, and save you the trouble and cost of collecting them, and the risk of bad debts, what allowance will you make me ?" Probably the parish would say, “Pay us 21. a-year for the lot, let or unlet, good tenants or bad." You accept the offer; you go to your tenants and say, "I am about to pay the rates, and shall add them to the rent." So the rent is increased accordingly. The risk is with you, certainly; but as you convert rate into rent, and have a power of distress for rent, you can recover the rate when the parish cannot; so that it is a good bargain for both. The occupiers are relieved from the trouble of paying the collector; but it is very questionable whether, in the shape of rent, they do not really pay more rate than they would have done had they paid directly. These, then, are the householders whose troubles have formed so convenient a peg for opposition. Not being rated and not paying rates, they would not be admissible as scot and lot voters, for these are the very foundation of that good old English franchise. Now let us see how their case has been provided for by the present Bill. Observe, that the conditions are, that the householder shall be rated and shall have paid his rates. The Bill makes express provision for rating, for it requires the overseers in all poor-rates to rate every house separately, and to insert the occupier's name in the rate. Thus, to start with, every householder will be duly rated without any trouble on his own part, and whether he is or is not a compound householder. But then he is also required to pay the rate. There is no provision that he shall make such payment with his own hands, or even out of his own pocket. It is enough that he is rated, and thereby made liable to pay the rate; payment may, in fact, be made by any person for him, provided it is not corrupt, and it has been expressly decided by the courts that payment by the landlord is payment by the tenant. The compound householder, therefore, being rated by the overseer when he makes the rate, and having that rate paid by his landlord, will be entitled to vote without any act to be done by himself, and with precisely the same facility as other householders. It is only in the rare case of an omission by the overseer to insert his name on the rate-book that he will be required to make a claim, as indeed is required of all householders in such case. Then it will be necessary for him to send to the overseer by post a claim to be rated, and to pay any rate that may be due and unpaid, that rate being the full rate as it appears in the rate-book; and having paid this, he may deduct the entire of the amount so paid from the next rent which he pays to his landlord. Having once made this claim to be rated, he is not required to renew it, and thenceforth he will Thus every householder may be a voter, if he pleases, without the cost to himself of a single farthing, and with no more trouble than he must take to go to the poll to vote. This is the restored Scot and Lot Franchise; but to it one of the Fancy Franchises has been added. Every lodger occupying for one year rooms which, unfurnished, are worth 107. per annum, will also be entitled to vote. But of these, as of householders, no list can be made by the overseers. The lodger must, if necessary, make a yearly claim, and must prove that claim, like all other claimants, at the Revision Court. The form of claim is specified. This must be filled up, signed, and sent to the overseer. Then the claimant must go to the Court of the Revising Barrister and prove upon oath the value of his lodgings when stripped of all their furniture, and apart from any accommodations extra, in the way of cooking, fuel, service, and such like. This will necessarily be a tedious inquiry where the value runs close; where lodgers are many, the revising barrister will be engaged for many days, or rather many weeks, during which the claimant will be compelled to lose some hours waiting for his turn to be heard. Nevertheless, there is no help for this. Claims so easily concocted could not be admitted without proof, and there is no doubt that the ingenuity in the art of manufacturing votes hitherto devoted to making qualifications out of 10. houses will henceforth be more profitably engaged in the far more easy process of making voters out of lodgings. Such is the borough franchise as now settled. We shall avail ourselves of the facilities we possess for obtaining such information, to gather from the various boroughs what are the probable results, in addition to the numbers that will be added and the changes that will be made in the character of the constituencies. THE FANCY FRANCHISES. THE same inquiries were made as to the Savings Bank franchise, and the opinions of both parties were adverse to it. The persons whom it would admit would not possess even the questionable stability of a lodger; the greater portion of them would be domestic servants. The franchise founded on the possession of 50l. in the funds is not quite so objectionable, but it would be troublesome, and in practice the greater proportion of those to whom it would apply will be voters by virtue of some other franchise. It would also be attended with many practical difficulties in the way of proof. And both would open the doors too widely to vote-making. A father might make voters of all his sons by investing 50/. in the name of each in the savings bank, the only cost of this being the rate of interest he would receive there and in the funds. But our correspondents are unanimous in approving the tax-paying franchise. The principle is sound-it accords with the old English notions of representation; it is a basis for future extensions; it admits an unexceptionable class; the proof is easy, and there is no inducement to manufacture votes, for no man would submit to a tax of 17. per annum for the sake of the thousandth part in the election of a representative. But it would be desirable to raise the qualification to 21. The Education Franchise is equitable in itself, but all who could claim it will vote as householders or lodgers; at all events it is not worth creating a new franchise, with troublesome machinery, for the benefit of the very few who would profit by it. Such is the opinion as to the fancy franchises which we have gathered from extensive inquiry among the election agents of both parties, and their practical knowledge is of more value upon such a question than any quantity of eloquent theory. THE COUNTY FRANCHISE. THE Compound Householder has come off with flying colours. He is to obtain the franchise by THE LAW OF STRIKES AND LOCK- merely making a claim, paying the rate, if any OUTS. I am requested by the committee of the carpenters and joiners to give all the men in your employ notice to come out on strike against J. Jordan, unless he becomes a member of the society. This is not in any way disrespectful, but being compelled by the union laws, and this notice will be carried out unless settled in accordance with the society's laws. For this the writer was summoned before the justices, and convicted of the offence of using menaces and threats. Against the conviction the defendant appealed, and the question came for decision before the Queen's Bench on Tuesday. The ingenuity of Mr. COLERIDGE could find not even a plausible argument upon which to maintain his contention that this language would not amount to a threat. The Judges were unanimously of opinion that it was completely a case within the mischief which the statute was intended to prevent; as it was well said, if this is not, what is? But the Court also intimated a view of the law which, though correct enough when examined, does not appear to have presented itself to either of the parties engaged in the present formidable conflict between capital and labour. This law applies equally to masters and men. Undue influences used by the masters to induce other masters to act with them may be punished in like manner. But still more important is another question that seems to be raised by this view of the statute. Is a lock-out legal? Have the masters a right to agree together to close their doors against all workmen for the purpose of compelling other workmen, by the pressure thus put upon them, to accept the terms offered by the masters? should be due, which is not probable, and on payment being permitted to deduct all that he has paid from the next rent for which he accounts with his landlord. These comfortable conditions will not keep from the register a single man who desires to be an elector. The next fight will be for the County Franchise. The contest will be between a 15. and a 101. rating. Like all figure franchises, neither of these rests upon any principle; it is a mere matter of caprice. B. prefers one, C. the other, while D. would steer between them. We have been at some pains to inquire into the probable effect of both these figures upon the county constituencies, and we are bound to say that no satisfactory answer has been returned. The experienced election agents of both parties whom we have consulted, are unable to form any definite opinion as to the effects of either figure upon the fortunes of parties. The prevalent view of it is that it does not much matter whether the limit be 10 or 151. The former would add some hundreds to the register more than would the latter, but they would be a more dependent class, and for the most part under the influence of the neighbouring gentry. But all agree in this, that if the same suffrage were given to the counties as to the boroughs, and with it an increased amount of representation proportioned to the comparative numbers of electors, the counties would return Constitutionalists, without an exception. LIABILITIES OF SHAREHOLDERS. THE EARL of SHREWSBURY has been the victim of his own good-nature. The readers of the LAW TIMES will not have forgotten the notorious Savings Bank Association, whose origin and history were narrated in its pages, and a warning given which produced threats of action for libel. which were never carried into effect, although apology was refused, for statements which we knew to be true, and denunciations we believed to be justified. The assumption of a name calculated to deceive the ignorant into a supposition that they were depositing their hard earned savings with the true National Savings Perhaps the point may be worth consideration Banks was the foremost, though not the greatest, by both parties, and suggest the propriety of a of its offences. We have satisfactory assurance compromise. that the comments in these columns had the good effect of deterring many from taking shares, and still more from becoming depositors, in a concern which, under a profession of philanthropy and the pretence of charity, was designed by the promoters to put money in the purse, the victims being the working class. Among those who were tempted by the professions and promises was the EARL of SHREWSBURY, who, believing it to be a philanthropic society, too heedlessly consented to its union with another society, really a charitable one, of which he was the patron, and whose professed object was similar, namely, to secure small deposits by the labouring classes, tempting them by a higher rate of interest than the true savings banks offer. For this purpose his Lordship agreed to subscribe 20007., and to pay it in sums of 500 each, upon a certificate showing that the money was applied to recouping the depositors. But that this transaction might appear as in the regular course of business, his Lordship subscribed (nominally as he intended) for 2000 shares, and paid the first instalment of 500, which was entered in the books of the association as deposit upon his shares. The association was soon afterwards wound-up, as we had ventured to predict, and the poor depositors have lost the hard savings which they had been tempted to deposit with the National Savings Bank Association, probably mistaking it for the real National Savings Bank. The EARL of SHREWSBURY was placed on the list of contributories in respect of his 2000 shares. He appealed to the M. R., who has held him to be liable, very properly deciding that the court could not enter upon inquiries into the motives with which shares are subscribed; the only question was, if they were subscribed as a matter of fact, and in such case the shareholder would be responsible for them. It would, indeed, be a serious subject for creditors if the shareholders, whose responsibility, as it appears upon the register, is the only security the law has given them, could avoid their liability to innocent persons who had acted on the faith of the share subscribe for the shares they have taken by register, by asserting that they were induced to philanthropy, or inconsiderateness, or even by misrepresentation or fraud. PARK LAW. THE right of the public to the indiscriminate use of the parks, whether for political or religious meetings, or for other purposes apart from their proper use as places for public recreation, is to be brought before the courts for formal decision. Mr. BEALES declined the challenge of the Government to try the question on the occasion of the famous Hyde-park riot, when he might have appeared as the plaintiff, and it is now resolved to raise the issue by making him the defendant. It is said that the law officers of the Crown have it under consideration what shape the proceedings shall assume. But the precise form is of small importance, for neither damages nor penalties are sought, but only that the right may be determined by a competent tribunal. Mr. BEALES may be summoned for trespass, but then he would assert a right, which would oust the jurisdiction of the magistrates. The only safe course, as it appears to us, is an action for the trespass. This would bring the case directly before the Court of Queen's Bench, whence it might be taken, if desired, to the ultimate Court of Appeal. In a letter to the Times, Mr. BEALES reiterates his assertion that the public has obtained by user a right to hold meetings in the parks, which he calls public property. But if such is his opinion as a lawyer, the question occurs, why does, he not proceed to enforce that right by the ample redress the law would give him if he should succeed in proving that the authorities were rable day when forcible entry was made by his not entitled to close the park on the memofriends and followers? He is simply misleading the non-legal public when he says that there are difficulties in the way of such a trial. Nobody knows better than he that there are none such. The Government is willing, nay anxious, to raise the issue, and for that purpose will provide him with every possible facility, and raise no technical objections. If he will not accept the challenge so fairly offered, it can only be because he is aware that he has no case that will stand the test of inquiry. Until the right is determined, it will not be prudent to proceed with the Bill that provides facilities for the enforcement of that right, for is all that the Park Regulation Bill gns. It does not profess nor purport in the t degree to make or to confirm the title of Crown to the parks, it merely gives more ient powers for preserving the parks strictly the object to which the Crown, with the ction of the nation, has dedicated them, the eation of the whole people. The existing of trespass, which alone protects them, is culously insufficient for the purpose, the ers it is to confer are moderate, and not e than are needful for securing the object for ich they are framed. But while the founda1 upon which the Bill rests, the asserted right the Crown to the parks, is the subject of zation, would it not be the proper course to pend legislation, based upon the assumption that right, until the title is determined? irmed by an authority that the most lawless I not venture to question, no serious opposi1 can be offered to any reasonable provision securing the free enjoyment of the privilege. INTEREST IN CASES OF APPEAL. has recently been much questioned whether erest could be given in cases carried to the urt of Appeal. The subject was before Mr. stice BLACKBURN in the Queen's Bench a few s ago, and he said that the better course uld be to ask the Court of Appeal to give gment with costs. This course has been en by the LORD CHIEF BARON in the Excheer Chamber. In the case of The Tyne Com.sioners V. The General Steam Navigation mpany, he stated that he was of opinion that s Court possessed the power of awarding erest from the time of the judgment of the irt below to the time of the decision of s court. "The meaning of the Court of ror," his Lordship observed, "was descripe of the court in which a writ of error merly lay. All the powers that formerly isted were now continued in the Exchequer amber, which was a Court of Appeal. Had is Court, then, the power to award interest? had formerly been held that the Exchequer amber was bound to allow costs, but there s a discretionary power as to allowing inest. The statute of Will. 4 had made it perative. The Court was now sitting as a urt of Appeal, but they were also a Court of Tor with its original powers, and one power As to award interest. It was expressly declared at the Court should have the power to award sts, and should have the same power as the ourt of Error in respect of awarding process otherwise. This invested the Court with all e powers of the former Court of Error. This ourt clearly had the power, and therefore varded the plaintiffs interest on the amount the judgment, and made the rule absolute ith costs." C. L. P. A. 1854. ARBITRATION UNDER THE VERY important argument was heard before e Court of Queen's Bench on the 10th instant, ith reference to the construction of the comulsory arbitration clause of the C. L. P. A. 354. We give a report elsewhere, but we may ere state the difficulty. against the drawer of bills is not a matter of mere account. "This clause," he adds, "was clearly not meant to apply to such a case.' Again, as stated by JERVIS, C. J., in Brown and others v. Emerson, 25 L. J. 104, C. P., "it does not follow from this decision that every case ought to be referred which involves in part matters of mere account." In that case, it appeared that some of the items of the plaintiffs' claim, and also of the defendant's set-off, were disputed by the respective parties. CRESSWELL, J. had refused to refer it, being of opinion that the statute did not authorise a compulsory reference of the whole matter in dispute where any of the items in the account were disputed. From this view the Chief Justice differed. Yet, according to his reading, the section in the Act is susceptible of various constructions. He observes: "It may mean that where the matter in dispute consists wholly of matters of mere account, the whole may be referred, and that, where it consists in part of matters of mere account, such part only may be referred; or it may mean, that where the matter in dispute consists either wholly or in part of matter of mere account, the compulsory reference may be either of the whole matter in dispute or of part only of the matter in dispute, as the Court or Judge may think fit." His Lordship adopted the last construction. We have said enough to show that some specific rule is required which will render unnecessary constant appeals to the full court for the purpose of ascertaining when a dispute is, and when it is not, matter of mere account, and in what cases arbitration may be made compulsory. THE REGISTRATION OF SHARE TRANSFERS. Calls are A MOST important decision was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber on Tuesday, which virtually deprives a company of a security which it hitherto obtained by the fact of fully paid-up shares having been regarded in the light of pledges for the due payment of all calls falling due upon other shares held by the same person. Say there are two classes of shares, A. and B. C. holds some of A. and some of B. made, by payment of which the A. shares become fully paid up, and are converted into stock. Calls are made upon the B. shares, which remain unpaid. Now, could the company refuse to register the transfer of the A. shares? They contended that they could by virtue of sect. 16 of 8 Vict. c. 16, which enacts that no shareholder shall be entitled to transfer any share after any call has been made in respect thereof, until he shall have paid such call, nor until he shall have paid all calls for the time being due on every share held by him. The Court below held that the section applies only to the transfer of shares on which a call can be and has been made, and has no application to the transfer of shares on which all the calls have been paid; and that a company, therefore, is bound to register a transfer of stock, although the transferor be the holder of shares on which there are calls unpaid: (L. Rep., 2 Q. B. 59.). And this decision the Court above affirmed, as we have stated. The contention of the defendants which has thus been negatived is this: that the object of the particular section in the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act was, that if a shareholder was indebted to a company for calls due in respect of shares held by him, the company should have a security on every share the shareholder held. LUSH, J., in the court below, was strongly of opinion that such a proposition could not be maintained, whether the fully paid-up shares had been converted into stock or not. The action was upon a bill of exchange, the lea setting up a deed under the Bankruptcy Act etween the defendant and his creditors. The uestion raised thereupon was whether the proisions of the B. A. 1861, as to number and roportionate value of assenting creditors and heir claims had been bona fide complied with. Now this main question, the testing and stimating the debts, was clearly a matter of "mere account," and therefore referable Ο an arbitrator. But there were several The converse must be borne in mind, namely, pills of the debtor outstanding at the date of the execution of the deed, and it was necessary the case if a call is made the shareholder cannot part with any share of that class without paying that call and all calls which are in arrear in respect of shares of that class. A LATE JUDGE. co ascertain who were the holders, and therefore the creditors of the debtor at the time. And his, again, involved possibly questions of law as to the liability of the debtor to the several olders of the bills. The Court considered CHARLES CROMPTON, like THOMAS WILDE, began one of so much importance and life as a lawyer in a solicitor's office, but, unlike difficulty that they reserved their judgment, the future Lord Chancellor, he had not to with the view of consulting the other Judges, struggle upwards from a humble rank. Dr. and framing a rule which should meet the state CROMPTON, his father, was of a good family at Derby, descended from Puritans and Roundheads, and when, shortly after the birth of his son, he removed to Liverpool, he enjoyed there a station which opened the way to the son's practice in after years at sessions, as the of things. Now it is to be remarked that the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE has already refused to refer an action upon bills of exchange in Pellatt v. Markwick, 3 C. B., N. S., 760, stating explicitly that an action From his beginning of his successful career. father, CHARLES CROMPTON is said by his biographer recently, in the Law Magazine, to have inherited freedom from affectation, pretension, and vanity, his genial natural character, and the love and tenderness which underlay every part of his inner man, as well as humour, wit and cleverness, sharpening, however, into a propensity for satire; but, from the roughness of his school life, he derived some aversion from general society. Among those with whom he was intimate it was otherwise, and he showed his love of his kind, as his father did, in his friendly and equal intercourse with persons who were below him in station. At twenty he completed his course at Trinity College, Dublin, and entered Mr. DENISON's office at Liverpool for the training of a solicitor, but by that gentleman's advice, who discerned in him qualities fit for the bar, he was placed as a pupil in the chambers of LITTLEDALE; and when LITTLEDALE was raised to the bench he went to PATTESON. Under these great masters he grew proficient in special pleading. "In quickness and acuteness of intellect, in the rapid evolutions of his own thought, in readiness of resource, and in a certain subtle and over-refining speculation, in hesitation, after chewing the cud of his opinions, about the soundness of his conclusions-doubts concerning them ordinarily shared by no other mind he bore a good resemblance to the celebrated lawyer whose chambers he entered in his first year of pupilage." He used to say that he owed his knowledge of law to WILLIAMS' Saunders, but his reading was not confined to law; it is said to have been universal, from books of science and philosophy down to street ballads. When he travelled the circuit as a judge he would buy a novel at a railway-station, read it after dinner, and finish it at breakfast the next morning. "His reading flowed over into, and enriched his talk without choking the spring, or destroying the originality of his mind." Endued with a faculty so discursive, it is not surprising that he disliked a set argument, and would end it by some irregular thrust which turned the laugh. against his adversary in an unanswerable jest. Such were his character and education when he joined the Northern Circuit in 1821. BROUGHAM was there, and TINDAL, PARKE, STARKIE, ALDERSON, and PATTESON. The last two were promoted to make up the number of judges to fifteen, and TINDAL and PARKE also became judges. CROMPTON Soon took a leading place. In addition to the Liverpool Sessions, he went those of Lancaster and Preston, and he also attended the Chester Assizes. At the bar his progress was not rapid, but during his leisure he was an observer of the means of success in others-the caution, dexterity, and quaint impressiveness of WILLIAMS, the concealed art of SCARLETT, like a "thirteenth juryman talking the case over with his fellows," the matchless eloquence and the impassioned declamation, ridicule, and pathos of BROUGHAM, and the cogency and finish of LYNDHURST, CROMPTON became a wary and safe junior, and an admirable examiner. "He acquired a habit of keeping watch over a witness, of observing his face and gestures, and he possessed a happy power of discerning where a witness was likely to stop. He kept his own mind and that of the witness steadily in hand, directing the attention of the latter to the main point on which his evidence was wanted, and letting his narrative flow out in its own way. His mind, singularly acute, penetrated quickly the intricacies of the case; he looked it through and through, and guessed from what was told what probably remained unsaid. His habits of caution made him search again and again into the grounds of his own opinions, and the steps of his arguments, as ready ever to suspect and detect a fallacy in them as in his opponent's reasoning. His habit of looking round and round a subject made him as able to cast his opponent's line of argument as his own, and prepared him to meet all objections." Whilst this habit furnished him with a versatility in argument like that of FOLLETT, it was productive of irresolution. In his chamber business his opinions were always useful in defining a course of action, whatever difficulty there might be in the law of a case. After the removal of the assizes to Liverpool and the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, which was fruitful of questions, CROMPTON'S practice increased so much that he was compelled to give up reporting, which he bad carried on jointly in the well-known series since 1830. In Lord TRURO's Chancellorship, in 1852, he | was appointed a judge of the Queen's Bench. In banc his judgments excelled in full and sound expositions of the law, and his natural powers of mind were of great avail, but at Nisi Prius he is considered not to have been eminent, owing, perhaps, to his too great anxiety to present the case to the jury in every point of view. His nervousness and lack of dignity and repose caused him to fail to inspire the awe which is popularly associated with a "good criminal judge," but his sentences were equable and well merited, and no one was more sensible than he "How often the felon's dock holds one whose guilt is to be imputed to the world in which he lives. He sat almost weighed down by a deep sense of responsibility, and not holding himself of a different nature from the poor criminal whom he tried." This feeling once led him to observe sharply that he was not accustomed to have murders opened like sensation novels. be allowed. OPINION. I have already entered Hyde-park to form themselves it. The law sanctions you and your brothers sub Captain A. Slade, 100th Foot." When his health failed, after twelve years' that he drew smiles from the doctors and those around him. To attend his funeral at the village church of Willesden, the Judges adjourned their courts. A glad and touching picture of his home life is painted by his biographer in the memoir to which we are now indebted. With his entertaining and improving conversation were mixed things in his old satirical vein, but it was either softened or directed against himself; once he said "I grow lenior and melior I hope as I grow older." The departed Judge is summed up as original, various, plain, and natural, fine grained under a rough bark, with a free tongue and a pure life, a sharp tongue and a tender heart, a man of feeling and a man of mirth. "He lived loving much and beloved, and died regretful yet resigned, amidst tears which he sought to change into smiles, good without pretence, humble, hopeful, tender and true." THE LAW OF TRESPASS. THE following are the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, under two successive Governments, upon the law as applicable to the removal of trespassers upon the public parks. As it is equally the law as regards trespassers on all private property, the opinions of so many distinguished lawyers on a subject of frequent recurrence will be acceptable for future reference. The first is the opinion of Sir A. COCKBURN, Sir R. BETHELL, and Mr. WILLES. CASE. 1. Is there any authority to close the gates of the inclosures and exclude the public altogether during the day? 2. The gates of the inclosures being open, is there any authority to prevent the ingress of persons to the inclosures, those persons conducting themselves properly and orderly in their attempt to obtain ingress? 3. Supposing persons to have entered, and to preach, or play upon musical instruments, or to sing, does any authority exist to turn persons so preaching, or playing, or singing out of the parks, supposing they do not obstruct a thoroughfare or cause a disturbance? and, if so, you are particularly requested to state what is the nature of the authority, and how is it derived. OPINION. 1. We think that there is a right in point of law to close the gates and exclude the public from the parks. 2. We think that, the gates being open, there is a right on the part of the Crown to exclude persons attempting to gain admission; but we do not think this right should be exercised against particular 1. We are of opinion that every person entering and remaining in the park must in law be taken to do so by the licence of the Crown or of those acting in the management of the park; that it is competent at any time to revoke this licence, or to annex to it a condition that those who avail themselves of it must not form, engage in, or attend meetings of a political character in the park, and that on this condition being broken the licence is at an end, and the if he refuse to leave the park on notice or warning, person breaking it becomes a trespasser, and may, be removed. It would, of course, be necessary to bring home to the knowledge of the person to be removed that a condition such as above supposed has been annexed to the general licence to enter the park. This might be done to a great extent by public notices in and about the park, though it is possible to suppose that, notwithstanding publication of notices, however extensive, individual cases might occur when, from inability to read or othernot be imputed, and in such cases it would be wise, actual knowledge of the condition would But we are bound to state that, though the legal right of removal is such as we have described, we do not consider that in the case of any large assembly the right could practically be exercised with safety, or that such an assembly could be "dispersed by force," in the sense in which that term is ordinarily understood. The right of removal is a right to remove each separate individual as a trespasser, by putting him out of the park, using just so much force (and no more) as is necessary for that purpose. It is a separate right against each individual. The assembly (assuming it to be orderly) are not united in doing an illegal act, and there is no right to disperse them, or coerce them as a body of rioters or disorderly persons. It appears to us that it would not be practicable to remove each individual, or any considerable number of persons, and to prevent them returning; and it is also highly probable that the effort to remove any particular person or persons would or might soon become confused by a resistwith the degree of force that would be justifiable ance from bystanders, which would introduce into the operation elements of great difficulty and embarrassment. On the whole, we should answer the question proposed to us by saying that, in our opinion, there is not for any practical purpose a legal authority to disperse by force a meeting of the kind supposed, consisting of a large number of persons, and that whether notice has or has not been given beforehand. THE SLADE BARONETCY. WE have already (see p. 513) given the intro- In concluding this summary it is only just to The General writes: sisters. "Maunsell-house, Bridgwater, Oct. 2, 1863. "My dear Uncle,-I am much obliged for you I can now talk you upon this subject, as I have wished to do ev posing some plan by which everything can be cleare up. "Your obedient nephew, "ALFRED SLADE, Captain 100th Foot. "To Major-General Slade, &c." We have in substance given the arguments belon but we now add a simple epitome of them. Ther were many points in the case only slightly touche upon, and there were others the learned counsel, i the exercise of their discretion, avoided arguin altogether. The plaintiff contended that the registe and documents produced, and the evidence given by "Castle, Guernsey, Oct. 18, 1860. a witness to the marriage, were sufficient to show "Dear Alfred, -Your letter, undated, was re- that all legal formalities had been complied with ceived by me yesterday. It enables me to enter that this evidence was helped by the presumption in upon a subject which, from affection to your father favour of marriage; that the subsequent conduct o and delicacy to your mother, I have never touched the parties, and especially the separation from be upon either to yourself or to any of your brothers or and board, had, before the military tribunal at Vienna The facts are simply these:-In early life in 1826, shown that the marriage was, and was Your dat er for, then in 1826) a lieutenant in the and, lastly, that even supposing there had been father formed an intimacy with the wife of represented by the parties to it as, a valid marriage cuted a deed allowing him 1000fl. a-year provided Austrian service. She left her husband and exe- irregularity in the first instance, according to Austrian law, the marriage was nevertheless valid, and 20,000l. were deposited at Vienua to provide for for that purpose before the competent Austrian and a he did not molest or interfere with her proceedings, unless it had been declared invalid by proceedings this annuity, and on his death the Austrian Govern- at the suit of some one person entitled to demand a ment handed this money to his widow, your mother declaration of invalidity, and that, inasmuch as no (it was not accepted, Lord Vaux declining to inter- such declaration of invalidity had been obtained in fere, on the ground that he was not on terms with Austria before the marriage with Sir F. Slade in 1833, his sister); this I have from Count Apponyi him- that marriage was bigamous and bad, and that Si self, the Austrian Ambassador in London. A divorce Alfred Slade was not even now entitled to demand a mensa et thoro was granted to De Köber and his that the marriage of his mother with Baron von wife, but a divorce a vinculis matrimonii could not be Körber should in Austria be declared invalid. The obtained, as your mother was a Roman Catholic. defendant maintained that it lay upon the plainti This I have from Carl de Körber himself, in a letter to displace the marriage of Sir F. Slade in 1835 with which you can see. Your father and mother lived Miss Mostyn, and that the plaintiff could only do by together in London and elsewhere until 1835 or 6, proving a previous valid marriage having been con when they were married. This marriage was never tracted by Lady Slade; that the presumptions were made public until 1818, when the succession to the in favour of the second marriage of the lady who immediately challenged by me as illegal, on the dren were to be rendered illegitimate. He re entailed estates was opened to your father. It was was in effect charged with bigamy, and whose chilground that Carl de Körber, the first husband, was that the bans of Miss Mostyn's intended marriage then alive (he did not die till 1854). Your father ought to have been published in the parish of St. Whether, supposing a number of persons who maintains that your birth is legitimate. If so, prove Babyla, and, since she had not resided there six individuals, unless in case of previous misconduct. 3. If persons who have entered commence to preach or play they cannot be turned out without proper notice to them that the permission or licence of the Crown to the public to enjoy the park is conditional only, and does not apply to persons who so conduct themselves; and the best way of giving such notice is by posting it up at the entrances of the parks. The authority to close and exclude the public from the parks is that which every landowner has to prevent the public from trespassing on his lands, for we are of opinion that the public have not acquired any legal right to use the parks by reason of the continued user under the licence and by favour of the Crown. The other is the opinion of Sir HUGH CAIRNS and Mr. BOVILL, Q. C. : CASE. |