HEEL, ISAAC, labourer, Barrow-in-Furness, Pet. Feb. 26. Reg. & J. A. Postlethwaite. Sol. Relph, Barrow-in-Furness. Sur. March 18 HOLLAND, HENRY, and HOLLAND, GEORGE, butchers, Hastings. Pet. March 5. Reg. & O. A. Young. Sol. Philbrick, Hastings. Sur. March 20 HOWLES, THOMAS, cabinet maker, Manchester. Pet. March 4. JACOBSEN, SVENDRJORN, merchant. Liverpool. Pet. March 6. Pet. LUDLOW, THOMAS, out of buisiness, Birmingham. Pet. March 3. Reg. & O. A. Guest. Sol. Parry, Birmingham, Sur. April 2 MINTO, JOHN, labourer, Benwell. Pet. March 3. O. A. Clayton. Sol. Forster, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Sur. March 23 MORTLOCK, CHARLES, and MORTLOCK, ARTHUR, cabinet makers, Clare. Pet. March 5. Reg. & O. A. Jardine. Sol. Cardinall, Hulstead. Sur. March 24 Pet. MOUNSDON, EDWARD, horse collar maker, Crediton. PAVEY, JAMES WILLIAM, Ironmonger, Crewkerne. Pet. March 5. PRATT, WILLIAM, broker, St. Sidwell's. Pet. March 5. Reg. & O. A. Daw. Sol. Floud, Exeter. Sur. March 20 PRENDERGAST, JAMES, traveller, Manchester. Pet. March 2. Reg. & O. A. Kay. Sol. Harding, Manchester. Sur. March 23 PUDDICOMBE, SAMUEL WARREN, of no business, Honiton. Pet. March 3. Reg. & O. A. Stamp. Sol. Floud, Exeter. Sur. March 20 PYNOR, THOMAS, and PYNOR, JAMES, iron merchants, Sheffield. Pet. March 5. Reg. & O. A. Wake and Rodgers. Sols. Messrs. Binncy, Sheffield. Sur. March 24 RAW, JOSEPH, bookkeeper, Blackburn. Pet. March 3. Reg. & O. A. Bolton. Sol. Walton, Blackburn. Sur. March 22 RICKETTS, WILLIAM, in the coast guard service, Brighton. March 3. Reg. & O. A. Evershed. Sol. Lamb, Brighton. March 22 Pet. Sur. Reg. SALT, HERBERT, out of business, Liverpool. Pet. March 5. SENIOR, HENRY, joiner. Huddersfield. Pet. Feb. 17. Reg. & O. A. SHAW, BENJAMIN, woollen spinner, Huddersfield. Pet. Feb. 16. Reg. & O. A. Jones, jun. Sol. Mellor, Huddersfield. Sur. March 19 SHIPP, SAMUEL, builder, Bitton. Pet. March 4. Reg. & Ο. A. Harley and Gibbs. Sur. March 19 SHORT, THOMAS, sen., and SHORT, WALTER, timber merchants, Birmingham, Nottingham, and Cheltenham. Pet. March 5. Reg. Hill. O. A. Kinnear. Sols. James and Griffin, Birmingham. Sur. March 24 SMITH, GEORGE, farmer, Chollerton. Pet. Feb. 19. Reg. & O. A. Cook. Sol. Swan, Morpeth. Sur. March 19 SMITH, JOHN, licensed victualler, Liverpool. Pet. Feb. 26. O. A. Turner. Sols. Bateson, Robinson, and Morris, Liverpool. Sur. March 22 STONE, WILLIAM, dairyman, Barnstaple. Pet. March 4. Reg. & O. A. Bencraft. Sol. Bencraft, Barnstaple. Sur. March 19 TAVERNER, ROBERT, Crediton. Pet. March 6. O. A. Carrick. Sol. Floud, Exeter. Sur. March 24 TINDAL, THOMAS, commission agent, Lewes. Pet. March 2. Reg. & O. A. Blaker. Sol. Murray, Great St. Helen's. Sur. March 19 TOWERS, THOMAS, wheelwright, Sheffield. Pet. March 5. Reg. & O. A. Wake and Rodgers. Sols. Messrs. Binney, Sheffield. Sur. March 24 WALTON, BRINSLEY MARCIUS, physician, Minchinhampton. Pet. Sur. WORGER, CHRISTOPHER WALTER, out of business, Burgess Hill. Pet. March 2. Reg. & O. A. Blaker. Sol. Hillman, Lewes. Sur. March 19 UNDERHILL, SAMUEL, builder, Birmingham. Pet. March 4. Reg. Hill. O. A. Kinnear. Sols. Saunders and Bradbury, Birmingham. Sur. March 24 BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED. TRUEMAN, CHARLES WILLIAM, jet ornament manufacturer, Gazette, March 5. NOTTINGHAM, ROBERT, music master, East Retford. Oct. 16, 1808 SMITH, EDWIN, sen., and SMITH, EDWIN, jun., Aldimore and East Guldeford, farmers. Nov. 3, 1868 Dividends. BANKRUPTS' ESTATES. The Official Assignees are given, to whom apply for the Dividends. Is. 81. Anthony, E. B. currier, first, 3s. 6d. Carrick, Exeter. Bennett, E. T. jeweller, further, 22d. Carrick, Exeter. Challen, B. S. cattle dealer, first, Parkyns, London -Ferhaa, J. tailor, further, d. Carrick, Exeter. Frances, W. L. surgeon, first, 48. 111d. Parkyns, London. Gerrard, J. auctioneer, first, 18. 73d. Carrick, Exeter. Hendy, C. W. railway clerk, first, 48. 1144. Parkyns, London.-Lewis, H. tobacconist, first, 94. Turner, Liverpool.Me Kinnell, J. engineer, second, Id. Parkyns, London.-Petree, F. D. farmer, first, 24d. Carrick. Exeter.-Pidsley, R. H. farmer, further, 10d. Carrick, Exeter. Roe, G. M. grocer, first, 2s. 2jd. Parkyns, London.-Smith, F. hairdresser, further, 4d, Carrick, Exeter.Stevens, G. builder, further, on new proofs, 18. 11d. Carrick, Exeter. -White, J. C. grocer, further, 18. 7fd. Carrick, Exeter.-Willis, S. widow, second, 18. 3d. Parkyns, London. INSOLVENTS' ESTATES. Apply at the Provisional Assignee's Office, Portugal-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, between 11 and 2, on Tuesdays only. Hewitt, F. P. of Sncinton, second, 8hd.-Jadis, V. clerk in the Colonial Office, seventh, 1. 92d. The Registrar is given, to whom apply for the Dividend. Jarrett, G. surveyor, 18. 4d. Reg. Vines, County Court, Newbury. Assignment, Composition, Inspectorship, and Trust Deeds. Gazette, March 5. ANDERSON, DANIEL, surgeon, Carlisle. Feb. 6. In full, by nine equal instalments, in 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 18, 21, 24, and 27 mos from Jan. 15 BALLANS, JAMES NOAH, tea dealer, Sheffield. Jan. 26. 88. 6d. by two equal instalments, on March 26 and May 26 BANKA, HENRY, victualler, Screddington. Feb. 5. 6s. 8d. in 1 mo BARNES, WILLIAM CHARLES, jun., engineer, Enfield. March 1. 18. on May 31 BISSELL, JOHN, ironmonger, Barking. Feb. 22. 4s. by three Trusts. J. BRAILSFORD, TOM, machinist, Leicester. Feb. 20. BUTLER, JOHN, grocer, Bilston, Bradley, and Albrighton. Feb. 5. Trusts. J. Frost, Albrighton; W. Ward, chandler, Westbromwich; and J. Dolman, provision dealer, Birmingham CLARK, JOHN, grocer, Dalton-in-Furness. Feb. 17. 28. on May 1 COLTON, WILLIAM, worsted spinner, Leeds. Jan. 22. Trusts. M. Berendt, woolstapler; W. Lynd, oil merchant, both Leeds; and F. Whitaker, woolstapler, Halifax COMPTON, BOSTON, market gardener, Potton. Feb. 24. 10s. by two equal instalments. on Jan. 1, 1870 and 1871. Trust. W. Smith, grocer, Potton CREWE, JOHN GIBBS, grocer, Pontefract. Feb. 15. 48. by two equal instalments on April 29 and July 29,-guaranteed. Trust. S. Gillgrass, attorney's clerk, Leeds CROSS, EDWARD, builder, Lewis-pl, Richmond. Feb. 17. 8s. in 1 mo. Trust. J. Munro, timber merchant, Richmond DEY, CHARLES, draper, Walsall. Feb. 19. Trusts. J. Shannon, wholesale draper, Walsali, and J. S. Eveleigh, accountant, Bristol DIXON, MARGARET, and DIXON, WILLIAM JAMES, cotton spinners, Preston. Jan. 18. Trusts. J. Brancker, broker, Liverpool; W. Fleming, machinist, and A. Murray, accountant, both Manchester EASON, GEORGE WILLIAM, grocer, Grosvenorrow, Pimlico. Feb. 3. Trusts. A. B. Neame, Eastcheap, and T. Conway, Mincing-la, both sugar merchants Feb. 22. EASTWOOD, WALTER, chemist, Ashton-under-Lyne. 58. Trust. A. Webster, grocer. Ashton-under-Lyne ECCLESTONE, JOHN, marine store dealer, Gainsborough. Feb. 3. 48.-28. 6d. on demand, and 18. 6d. on Aug. 3. Trust. J. Barnaby, joiner, Gainsborough FISHER, JAMES CHARLES, mantle manufacturer, Westmorland. bldgs, Aldersgate-st. Feb. 5. 178. by three equal instalments, in 4, 8, and 12 mos GERRARD, WILLIAM, cabinet maker, Lyndhurst. Feb. 15. Trust. G. Wolfe, bootmaker, Lyndhurst GLOVER, SAMUEL, victualler, Leicester. Feb. 17. 3s. 4d. on March 1 GOOD, JOHN HENRY MORRIS, and GUEST, JAMES, manufacturers, Manchester. Feb. 6. Trusts. W. Parker, Manchester; B. Buckley, Heywood, both cotton spinners, and A. Knowles, yarn agent, Manchester GREGORY, WILLIAM TOMLIN, hotel keeper, Rupertst, and Arundel-st, Haymarket. March 2. In full in 1 year GRIFFEN, ELI, builder, Edward-sq-cottage, Kensington. Feb. 11. 2s. 6d. by two equal instalments in 28 days and 7 mos. Trust. C. Bates, brickmaker, Sittingbourne HARRIS, ROBERT, builder, Trowbridge. Feb. 2. 3s. 6d. 2s. in 10 days, 1s. in 3 mos, and 64. in 5 mos HICKS, WILLIAM BAKER, grocer, Wimborne. March 3. 10s. in 14 days HOBBART, JOHN, cartman, Newcastle. Feb. 22. 4s. in 6 mos HOLME, JORN, Huline; and HOLME, HUNRY, Nantwich, leather merchants. Feb. 15. 15s, by three equal instalments, in 3, 6, and 9 mos HORROCKS, SAMUEL, corn dealer, Bolton. Feb. 1. 5s. by pay- JACKSON, JOSHUA, cabinet maker, Bradford. Feb. 10. Trust. W. KING, THOMAS, lodging-house keeper, Whitby. Feb. 8. Trusts. LE CHEVALIER, HARRIET, furniture dealer, Bristol. Feb. 3. Trusts. E. Fenner, chair manufacturer, Bristol, and E. Shipman, cabinet manufacturer, Wilson-st, Finsbury PALMER, JAMES, warehouseman, Basnett grove, Battersea. PARKIN, JOSEPH, chemist, Sunderland. Feb. 23. 78. in 21 days ROBINSON, JOSEPH THOMAS, wholesale grocer, Liverpool. SPILLER, JOHN, upholsterer, Swindon. Jan. 27. In full, by instalments of 78, 6d, on March 15 and June 15, and 5s. on Sept. 15. Trusts. W. V. Edwards, ironmonger, and J. Goodwin, innkeeper, both Swindon STEWART, JAMES HINTON, Leeds. Feb. 2. 5s. 6d. by three instalments of 2s. 21., and 18. 6d. in 3, 6, and 9 mos, from Feb. 14secured. Inspectors-J. Robinson, worsted spinner, Horbury; J. Folson, yarn spinner, Dewsbury; and M. Peacock, merchant, Leeds, secured TAYLOR, JOHN, retail brewer, Birmingham. Jan. 15. 18. 6d. on March 25 THOMAS, SAMUEL VOSPER, accountant, Wimborne Minster. Feb. 13. 108. on March 25 UPTON, MARTHA, and UPTON, SARAH, schoolmistresses, Lansdowne crescent, Notting-hill. Feb. 13. 2s. 6d. in 7 days WILKINSON, FRANK, lace manufacturer, Nottingham. Feb. 3. 5s. by two equal instalments, in 2 and 3 mos WOOD, GEORGE, jun., brick merchant, Lyme-st, Camden-town. Feb. 19. 68. by three equal instalments on April 20, June 20, and Aug. 20 WRIGHT, JAMES, draper, Preston. Feb. 17. Trusts. P. Sproat, draper, Preston, and D. Calverley, merchant, Huddersfield REES, JOHN ROGER, grocer, Caerphilly. Feb. 8. Tr Herbert, Pontypool, and T. Pritchard, Cardiff, both grocers SHACKLETON, GEORGE HENRY, confectioner, Suderand Fob. 9. 48. SIMPSON, CHARLES EDWIN, stationer, ner, Birmingham. Trust. W. G. Dixon, accountant, Birmingham SMART, STEPHEN, and SMART, THOMAS, shoe manufactors, Leicester. Feb. 22. 15. by four instalments, 44, 45, and 18. 6d. in 2, 4, 6, and 8 mos from registration-secured. The H. Weston, shoe manufacturer, and A. Bromwich, both Leicester Feb. STANDEN, JOHN, miller, Consley Wood. Feb. 19. 2. 64. days TAYLOR, DECIMUS, factor's clerk, Birmingham. Feb. 16.4.107 days from registration TODD, JOHN, grocer, Barton-upon-Humber. Feb. 11. Trues Bygott, miller, Barron Mere, near Barton-upon-Humber...J. Dalton, wholesale provision merchant, Kingston-up-8-1 TOWNSEND, EDWARD, tailor, Kingston-upon-Tharges. Fat 6s. by two equal instalments, on May 1 and Auz secured. Trust. W. M. White, licensed victualier, Upper Marylebone-st WADE, SAMUEL, draper, Derby. Feb. 8. 54. in 1 mo from reds tration. Trust. B. Barnes, chemist, Derby WHITNEY, JAMES, sand dealer, Bradley-green. March 5. in 12 mos from registration - BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. BAXTER. On the 6th inst., at Lewes, the wife of Wynne E. Baz ter, Esq., solicitor, of a son. MOORE. On the 8th inst., the wife of Robert Moore, Es Talbot Lodge, Tatterdown-place, and 35, Mark-lane, EC, citor, of a son. MARRIAGES. FERGUSON-CARY. On the 8th inst., at West Teignmouth Caree Thomas Benyon Ferguson, Esq, barrister-at-Low, tom Amelia, eldest daughter of Captain the Hon. Byron Cary, R.N. of Ashleigh, Teignmouth. GELL-EVERSHED. On the 9th inst, at the Parish Ch Hove, Alfred Freeman Gel, Esq., of Brighton, only late Alfred Gell, Esq., of Lewes, to Ada, youngest daa Ewen Evershed, of the Old Steine, Brighton. KINGSFORD-BROCK-HOLLINGSHEAD. On the 6th in t Matthew's, Bayswater, Douglas Kingsford, of the Temple, Esq., barrister-at-law, to Beatrice Emma Ca daughter of the late Henry Brock-Hollingshead, of E Scarr, Lancashire, Esq. LINFIELD-TRIBE. On the 6th inst, at Holy Trinity, le Henry Charles, only son of George Linfield, of Horז הא Hannah Frances Tribe, of 2. Charles-street, Gibe Islington, third daughter of the late Edward Tribe, Eng citor, of Barge-yard, Bucklersbury. PHILLIPS-STONE. On the 6th inst., at the district chare DEATHS. ADLINGTON. On the 5th inst., at Stratford, Essex 3246 Williamina Stone Adlington, only daughter of Willian St Woollery, of Midgham, and Long Pond, Westmoreland, Jos Esq., and widow of the late Thomas Ellis Adlingt in, ofr Courts of Exchequer and Chancery, Esq. BOUSFIELD. On the 3rd inst., at her residence, Warbon Oxon, aged 77, Rebekah, widow of the late W. C. Boustieli, Es of Chatham-place, solicitor. BURN. On the 10th inst., at 26, Willes-road, Kentish-t aged 62, Charlotte Emilia, the wife of James Burn. By 1 No. 16, Gresham-street, London, solicitor. HEASMAN. On the 1st inst., at No. 67, Great Percy-street, aged Mr. Benjamin Heasman, of the Chancery Registrar's Office. SLOCOMBE. On the 6th inst., aged 50, Francis Morgan Slocomb Esq., of Whitley Villa, and No. 3, Forbury, Reading, son BREAKFAST-A SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT. - The Service Gazette has the following interesting remarks"There are very few simple articles of food which boast so many valuable and important dietary properti as cocoa. While acting on the nerves as a gentle sti lant, it provides the body with some of the parer elements of nutrition, and at the same time correcta and invigorates the action of the digestive organs. The singular success which Mr. Epps attained by ba homœopathic preparation of cocoa has never been passed by any experimentalist. By a thorough k ledge of the natural laws which govern the opens of digestion and nutrition, and by a careful applira of the fine properties of well-selected cocoa, Mr. E has provided our breakfast tables with a delicate flavoured beverage which may save us many heavy doctor's bills.-[ADVT.] WRIGHT, JOHN, fishmonger, Brighton. Jan. 25. Trusts. F. Richardson, fish salesman, Billingsgate, and T. Tugwell, accountant, Brighton. Sol. English, Moorgate-st Gazette, March 9. BOTTOMLEY, GEORGE, draper, Middlesbrough. Jan. 26. 118. by three equal instalments, in 4, 8, and 12 mos from Jan. 15 CHIPCHASE, JOSEPH, boot manufacturer, Hackneyrd, and Bedford-pl, Commercial-rd. Feb. 8. 58. by two equal instal. ments, in 3 nd 6 mos from Feb. 1. last secured. Trusts. J. Barratt, St. John's-pk, Upper Holloway, and B. Nicholson, accountant, Gresham-st CLARKE, THOMAS ALFRED WILLIAM, machine maker, Leicester. Feb. 19. 58. by two equal instalments, in 2 and 4 mos from registration, secured. Trusts. N. Davidson, gentleman, and A. Bromwich, accountant, both Leicester CORNES, CORNELIUS, joiner, Hanley. Feb. 8. Trusts. H. Palmer, timber merchant, and T. Hampton, brick manufacturer, both Hanley COWARD, JAMES ALBERT, schoolmaster, Mansfield-vils, Wimbledon-hill. March 1, 28. 67. in 10 days from registration DAWSON, CHARLES ALFRED, gentleman, Bute-villa, Twickenham. gentleman, Inverness-vils, Hammersmith DEAN, CHARLES, hosiery manufacturer, Nottingham. Feb. 13. Trusts. G. Bridgett, yarn doubler, and W. McCraith, commission agent, both Nottingham Feb. 11. Trusts. J. DIXON, JOHN, grocer, Hardingswood. Gibbons, wholesale grocer, Tunstall, and J. Summer, wheelwright, Bunbury Locks, near Tarporley EDWARDS, JOSEPH, bootmaker, Carnaby-st, Golden-sq. March 5. 18. on June 5 GREGG, PATRICK HAMILTON, printer, Redditch. Feb. 8. 68. by three equal instalments, on June 8, Oct. 4 next, and Feb. 8, 1870 HAFFAM, FREDERICK THOMAS, engineer, Totterdown, near Bristol. Feb. 17. 48. on rezistration HALL, JOHN, brick inanufacturer, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Feb. 27. In full, by three equal instalments, with interest at 57, per cent. in 3, 6, and 9 mos from registration HARRISON, WILLIAM, grocer, Birkenhead. Feb. 10. 28. on April 2 HUBBERSTY, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Chorley. Feb. 8. Trusts. A. Mercer, tanner, Livesey, near Blackburn, and J. Stringfellow, spirit merchant, Chorley JENKINS, WILLIAM, innkeeper, Aberavon. Feb. 11. 38. 4d. on March 31. Trust. D. Jenkins, ship broker, Aheravon LAND, FREDERICK, builder, York. Feb. 11. Trust. T. S. Watkinson, merchant, York LEWRY, EDWARD RUSSELL, iron merchant, Stoweport. Jan. 30. Trusts. C. E. Swindell, The Quarry, near Stourbridge, and A. Baldwin, Bewdley, both ironmasters MITCHELL, HENRY, Innkeeper, Middlesbrough. Feb. 8. Trusts. J. Neill, commission agent, and W. Lasyton, brewer, both Middlesbrough MOSELY, CHARLES, brush manufacturer, Manchester. Feb. 8. Trust. D. Coe, grocer, Openshaw, near Manchester PEARSON, WILLIAM, surgeon, Hexham. Feb. 15. Trusts. J. Ridley, wool stapler: C. Taylor, butcher; W. Robb, and R. Lyon, drapers, all of Hexham FFICES. PART of a FLOOR, 357. per annum-Miz "R. F.," Mr. Maude's, Law Stationer, Qualtyبا ت Chancery-lane. ELECTION PETITIONS. SALFORD ELECTION PETITIONー Hiring of roughs Conveyance of voters to the poll- LEADING ARTICLES, SUMMARIES, CORRESPONDENCE, &c. 119 120 381 TO CORRESPONDENTS LEADING ARTICLES: Topics of the Week 381 Trades Unions 381 Defects in the Bankruptev Bill 381 Evidence in Actions for Mesne Profits 382 To Readers and Correspondents. All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. NOTICE. Friday next being Good Friday, the LAW TIMES will go to press on Thursday at noon. All advertisements and communications should, therefore, reach the office by the first post on Thursday. THE Law and the Lawyers THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE met with an accident on Monday last which rendered it inconvenient for him to preside at the opening of the Assizes at Lewes on Tuesday. Baron BRAMWELL told the grand jury that the Chief Justice was riding across the Lewes race course, and neither he nor his horse saw a chain which was hanging low, over which the horse stumbled, bringing the rider to the ground. No bones, however, were broken, and his Lordship, he was glad to say, sustained no injury beyond a severe shaking. The learned Baron added that they would naturally believemore especially as the Lord Chief Justice was well known to the inhabitants of the county as a very good horseman-that the accident was not the fault of his Lordship, or of the horse, but of the chain. He was anxious to recommend that such chains should be painted white-at present they were snares to both horses and riders. We stated recently that the new County Court Bill proposed to allow creditors to sue in their own district. In Parliament on Wednesday, it was said that the limit is to be where the debtor resides within twenty miles. Even in that case the plaintiff will be required to give security for costs. The Bill stands postponed until the 1st May, and before that time we shall offer some suggestions, and invite the same from correspondents. We are glad to see that in the debate on the Habitual Criminals Bill, Lord HOUGHTON took the view which we have frequently urged in favour of submitting bills affecting judicial procedure to the Judges. He said, "he thought it 388 most unfortunate that Bills of this character 389 were not submitted to the ministers of justice in this country. He ventured to say that this Bill had not been advised upon by any of the 390 390 390 390 Judges; indeed, he doubted whether they were aware that such a measure had been proposed. He certainly believed that this was the only country in the world where such a state of things would be tolerated." 390 391 391 THE BENCH AND THE BAR: Assize Intelligence 392 SOME important principles with reference to bankrupt shareholders before and after a winding-up are laid down by the Lords Justices in a case which we report to-day. They are these: 393 That a bankrupt must be retained as a contributory where the bankruptcy and the discharge precede the winding-up, where the debt is not shown to be capable of valuation, and where the assignees have repudiated the shares, and they have always remained and still remain vested in the bankrupt. 394 394 395 395 396 396 OUR contemporaries say that it is reported on the best authority that Mr. EDMOND BEALES, late President of the Reform League, is to be appointed to a County Court Judgeship. We 396 can quite believe it. 396 397 397 397 308 398 398 398 399 400 IN Iowa, we are told, a married lady is practising as an attorney. We are not surprised to learn further that she is very successful with juries. We have a strong objection to nibbling at great questions. Consequently, we cannot welcome a paper issued by Mr. LORD, a barrister of the Inner Temple, upon the subject of the Irish Church Bill. This paper comprises a short analysis of the Bill, with parallel comments. Some of these comments are original, but Mr. LORD is in a great measure indebted to the Times, the Daily Telegraph, and the speeches of prominent members of Parliament. As an example of the original comments we will take 0174 the first, which deals with the statement in 016 the preamble that it is expedient to dissolve the £ s. d. 2 13 0 176 011 union. The comment is, "We join issue here " -i.e., Mr. LORD joins issue with Mr. GLADSTONE. This may be an important fact, but does not help the opposition to the Bill. Nor is the matter mended by the subsequent statement that Mr. LORD considers the proposition contained in the Bill equivalent to confiscation. Whilst, however, thoroughly disapproving of this process of dealing with the Bill, we may state that there are some few interesting calculations in Mr. Lord's paper, tending to show that the surplus of seven or eight millions will be to a very large extent absorbed by the Roman Catholics. "A SOLICITOR," writing to the Times, suggests the re-enactment of an usury law to hold moneylenders in check. Hepoints out that so thoroughly has the trade of money-lending been systematised, that the professional money-lender has now his bills of exchange ready printed, even to the word "accepted" across the paper. Recent revelations of the courts of equity justify "A Solicitor" in his concluding remark that "as there exist laws to regulate the carriage of gunpowder and petroleum, to prevent the sale of poisons and public betting in the streets, to compel the muzzling of dogs, and so forth, I may not unreasonably claim it as a sound principle of legislation that the weak and helpless should, to some extent at least, be protected against the crafty and designing." TRADES UNIONS. RUMOUR says that the Trades Union Commission cannot agree upon a report. They are divided into at least three parties, each having its own scheme, and all mutually and irreconcileably hostile. The Government will, therefore, experience the greatest difficulty in redeeming the pledge given to Mr. Serjeant Cox, when questioned about it in the House, to legislate for these societies without delay. Under the circumstances, we understand it to be the intention of Mr. Serjeant Cox to publish the measure he has constructed for the better regulation of Trade Societies for the consideration of the Trades Unions generally, previous to its formal introduction to the House of Commons by a friend who has taken a great interest in the question. DEFECTS IN THE BANKRUPTCY BILL. APPROVING the main features of the ATTORNEYGENERAL'S Bill, it now becomes our duty to pick holes in it. Its author, indeed, invites criticism, and will be thankful for suggestions, his desire and design being to make it as perfect as the combined counsels of all who have given thought to the subject may enable him. The foremost and gravest defect appears to us to be the entire exclusion of penalty of all kinds from the law of bankruptcy. The Bill is based upon the assumption that bankruptcy should be nothing more than a machinery for facilitating the collection of an insolvent's property and dividing it equally among his creditors. According to this theory, it matters not how or why he became insolvent, whether he was merely a good man suffering from unavoidable misfortunes, or a reckless rascal but one degree removed from a swindler, who has run into debt never intending to pay. The law is not to smile upon the one nor frown upon the other. It is to seize such property as each has and distribute it so far as it will go among the creditors, leaving to them the cost and anxiety of prosecution, a plan which experience teaches us is equivalent to impunity, and consequently encouraging the growth of that species of roguery already too rampant among us-the robbery of creditors, as being at once an easier and a safer pursuit than highway robbery. Sir ROBERT COLLIER would, perhaps, be right in this if the law made adequate provision both for the prosecution and for the punishment of bankruptcy offences. But it does not do this. The Criminal Law of Fraud is totally inadequate to meet the various kinds of fraud that are practised by bankrupts. Crimes and misdemeanours are definite acts, capable of being described in an indictment, so that they may be proved at law; but bankruptcy offences do not consist in one or even a few acts, but in a series of acts, each venial in itself, making in the aggregate an offence, which it is for the public welfare to visit with punishment. The old bankruptcy law did this with more or less of efficiency, and the penalty was appropriate. Being designed to protect the unfortunate from the vengeance of creditors, it gave that protection to those who were deemed to be deserving of it, and denied to those whose indebtedness was wrongful. As the law, swinging from the extreme of favour to creditors to the extreme of leniency to debtors, wrenched from the former the power over debtors which they too often abused - the refusal of protection by the Bankruptcy Court had ceased to be a terror; but still it operated so far as to deter many who, but for the fear of shame, would have indulged in this pleasant business of living by credit. Even this small restraint Sir ROBERT COLLIER'S Bill proposes entirely to abolish, and to place the honest and the fraudulent debtor on the same level in contemplation of law. But its author intimated that he might possibly in another Bill make further provisions for extending the criminal law of fraud so as to embrace the offences that now attend bank ruptcy. Nothing could be more desirable; but he will find nothing more difficult. The present writer has more than once essayed to frame a new definition of fraud, which should include the many cases of that crime which now escape through the very wide meshes of the net which the law has spread. We are satisfied that the difficulty will not be met by any practicable alteration in the existing law of fraud. The subject must be dealt with, as hitherto, by special and exceptional law. A new category of crimes must be created, with new definitions and a new procedure, if not a new tribunal. Certain wrongs in the contraction of debt must be made punishable; the act of accusation must be in a special form, and the rules of evidence must be largely relaxed as respects the debtor and the creditor alike. The burden of prosecution must not be cast upon creditors; it should be conducted at the public cost, and it should always follow upon a report by the liquidator that the bankrupt had been guilty of the offence stated. Thus accompanied, the Bankruptcy Bill might be shorn of penal clauses without causing a saturnalia of roguedom; but then only if the one accompanies the other. EVIDENCE IN ACTIONS FOR MESNE In the case of Pearse v. Coaker, which we re- It was contended, on the one hand, that the effect of the procedure given by the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852 makes a judgment by default of the same effect as under the old practice in ejectment. The 168th section of that Act requires the writ to be directed to the persons in possession by name, and the 170th section directs that it shall be served in the same manner as an ejectment has heretofore been served. And by the 112th rule of Hilary Term 1853 no judgment in ejectment for want of appearance or defence shall be signed without filing an affidavit of the service of the writ according to the Common Law Procedure Act 1852. The effect, it was contended, was that the judgment is primâ facie evidence of the defendant's possession in the absence of any evidence to rebut it. On the other hand it was submitted that the judgment was no evidence of possession at the date of the writ in the ejectment, but only evidence of title. upon the question, and concludes that head by ejectment; but, from the case of Ive v. Scott, in Mr. Roscoe, it seems clear to my mind that a judgment by default is not per se any evidence of the defendant's possession." form under the old practice. In the olden time the form was that the plaintiff do recover the term mentioned in the declaration, and, therefore, of course, comprising the plaintiff's interest in it; but the modern form is, tha the recover the premises, and that may make a difference." Having thus examined the judgments on the main question of evidence, it will be seen that the question of damages in the action opens no field for further discussion, as it rests upon the evidence as to possession. BANKRUPTCY LAW REFORM. ANOTHER of our contributors, writing on this all engrossing subject says:-- In a remarkably lucid speech, the ATTORNEY GENERAL has introduced to the House and the law of bankruptcy. He has gone to the work in the right way by making a clean sweep of the present law and creating and building up a fresh country the latest scheme for a reform in the structure, untrammelled by the difficulties that always attend an attempt to fit a new plan to an old one. He begins to rebuild upon a foundation strange to England, but long recognised in Scotland and elsewhere, that bankruptcy, as hitherto understood in England, is not a subject for legislation at all; that it is a question simply of debtor and creditor, with which the law should interfere as little as possible, and then only to prevent positive injustice by securing the equal distribution of the debtor's estate, and giving certain facilities for the process of liquidation. Beyond this, says Sir R. COLLIER, bankruptcy law has properly no concern. If the bankrupt has been a rogue or deals fraudulently with his property, his offence is the proper subject of criminal law, and if the criminal law is not sufficiently stringent to punish such offences, it must be made so. Bearing in mind the principle of the Bill, it will be seen that its provisions are well adapted for their object. The creditors are expected to take care of themselves; and if they do not profit by the facilities provided for them by the law, they will have to blame themselves alone. The machinery is given to them by the Bill, and, doubtless, in the course of the discussions that will attend its progress through Parliament, many improvements will be suggested by the combined experience of the mercantile men and lawyers who will take part in it without reference to the side of the House from which it comes; for this is no party question, and there is a general desire to deal with it effectually during the present session. When a debtor is declared bankrupt-or, as we should prefer, being a more accurate term -insolvent-his entire estate will, as now, lapse electing a liquidator and appointing a committee of creditors to superintend, with an official auditor of the court to pass the accounts ultimately. The liquidator will be paid by commission or otherwise, as may be agreed, and the business will be identical with that of the official liquidator in winding-up: he will get in the estate and distribute it. Baron Pigott did not think it necessary to discuss the matter, but he said that had it been necessary he should have taken time to consider it. Baron Cleasby on the other hand did discuss the question learnedly, and came to the conclusion arrived at by Baron Channell that the judgment was evidence of possession at the date of the writ. "Ejectment as it now exists," said his Lordship, "is the creature of a modern Act of Parliament (the Common Law Procedure Act 1852), which has enacted that instead of the previous proceedings, 'a writ shall be issued directed to the persons in possession by name." If there is one defendant only, then he is the person to whom it is to be directed. We have then here a to his creditors, and they will deal with it by juddment setting out that writ, and directing that the plaintiffs shall be entitled to recover possession of the premises in question. We have then a judgment of this court upon a writ directed to the tenant in possession, and I am of opinion therefore that such judgment is evidence that that person is in possession as otherwise it would be no valid judgment of the court. The defendant is not estopped from showing that he was not in possession at the time, but it lies upon him to prove that. The question now before the court is, whether we are to give effect to our own proceedings and the record of the court so as to make them valid, at any rate primâ facie. If the judgment is not evidence of the defendant's possession, he being the person in possession to whom the writ was directed, how is it evidence of the plaintiff's title? But it cannot be disputed that it is evidence of title. The proceedings are evidence against all who are parties to them in the sense of being effectual. There was, therefore, in my judgment, The question is altogether novel, and at evidence of the defendant's possession at the present it is more advisable to let the Judges speak date of the writ without the aid of extrinsic evithan for us to offer any independent comments. dence, and that is sufficient to carry the verdict The Lord Chief Baron discusses the matter fully. to the extent to which it was settled to be reHe says, "I am myself clearly of opinion duced, namely, by the profits of the premises that these proceedings in ejectment are no from the date of the writ in ejectment to the evidence of possession at all. Mr. Roscoe lays execution of the writ of possession, and the costs it down that the defendant's liability by reason of the actual ejectment to which, as defendant, of possession must be proved, and he says at he was a party, and which I think are recoverable estate pays 10s. in the pound; but if it pays page 579, speaking of what must be proved under this declaration. I decline to express any less than that sum, it shall not free him from under that head, The possession and length of positive opinion as to how far a judgment in liability until after the expiration of six years. time during which the defendant has been in ejectment by default in modern practice is evi- It must be remembered that imprisonment for such possession is in issue on not guilty. The dence of the plaintiff's title from the day men- debt is abolished by the Bill, so that the crediduration of possession must, it seems, be proved tioned in the writ, nor is it necessary in the tor will have no remedy against the bankrupt where the defendant lets judgment go by present case to do so. There is a difference unless he possesses property. We would suggest default.' He then cites various cases bearing between the form of that judgment now and the a further provision, that if at any time after The greater portion of the Bill consists of details of the machinery by which this work of realising and dividing is to be conducted, all of them being designed to facilitate the operation or to prevent abuses. It will be for the most part merely administrative work, which an ordinary accountant can perform, so that few officials will be required. It is to be consigned entirely to the County County Courts in the country, and one Judge will amply suffice for the decision of legal questions. This duty is to be confided to the Election Judges, whose business, though great now, will never again be what it is, and then only periodically, after the fury of a general election. Separated from its details, this is really the outline of the measure, so far as it relates to the principle of the Act. The consequences of bankruptcy are a subject for distinct consideration, and will be open to more question. Sir R. COLLIER proposes that it shall operate as an absolute discharge of the debtor if the he should come into the possession of property, a certain proportion of that property, say onefourth, should pass to the creditors. It would also be an improvement to require that the creditors' committee and liquidator should in all cases certify to the court specifically whether the bankrupt had in their judgment dealt fairly with his creditors and with them, and if he had or had not been guilty of fraud or improvidence in the contracting his debts, and what was the cause of his insolvency. Moreover, they should state if anything had appeared calling for a prosecution; which certificate should be sent to all the creditors, and the court should make order upon it accordingly. Even if such a document led to no action, the knowledge that a kind of judgment upon their conduct would be passed, and which, if adverse, might lead to grave penal consequences, would certainly have a very deterring effect upon fraudulent debtors, and upon that larger class who tread upon the verge of fraud by an improvidence which is morally, and ought to be legally, criminal. A certificate of good conduct would, on the one hand, though still having no legal consequences, be of great value to the honest but unfortunate debtor, by securing for him assistance in his efforts to begin the world again through the confidence it would inspire. By requiring a certificate in every case, the creditors, assisted by the liquidator, would be compelled to inquire into the conduct upon which it professes to report; and the knowledge of this would, we are satisfied, exercise an immense influence over that class of dishonest debtors who comprise at least twothirds of every bankrupt list. How the criminal law should be amended to meet this new state of things must be the subject of a separate article. THE DESCENT OF REAL PROPERTY. We have already discussed in these columns the arguments for and against the abolition of primogeniture, but it would appear that we had not anticipated the extent to which ingenuity may go in devising plans for the settlement of this vexed question. Up to the present time Parliament has been asked to go no farther than to sanction a Bill causing the real property of intestates to descend in the same manner as their personal property, and even that measure has been opposed by some of the most enlightened lawyers of the present generation. The Jurisprudence Department of the Social Science Association have, however, approved of a paper read by Mr. GEORGE HARRIS, in which he soberly considers whether the proper plan would not be to prohibit entirely the settlement of landed property upon any one member of a family to the exclusion of others. If this were adopted it is quite clear that the ultimate result must be the cutting up of the land into small portions, the total destruction of territorial influence, and probably an extensive diversion of investment from real to personal property. Mr. HARRIS appears to agree with those who think that the ownership of land should not be nership extensive unless absolutely necessary for the proper maintenance of hereditary titles. "Indeed," he says, "if an aristocracy is to be maintained in any country, it is almost, if not absolutely, necessary that a certain concentration of property, more especially of land, in their hands should also be maintained." Now it strikes us as somewhat remarkable that gentlemen of culture and sagacity cannot see that if a reservation were made in favour of the aristocracy there would be an immediate outcry that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor; that the aristocracy being the barrier to an uniform law, it would form an inviting object of attack, and that the final consummation would be the conversion of the nation into a nation of small proprietors having no dignities to sustain and liable in a dangerous degree to the influence of State patronage. Mr. HARRIS, however, recognises a principle as true which we conceive to be entirely false. He says, "Regarding the matter as a question of State policy, it is on many accounts extremely desirable that the land of the country should be much more generally distributed among the people than it now is. This, as I have already stated, would give the people a direct interest in the welfare of the country; besides which, by having something at stake, they would be more likely to become good citizens and useful members of society." We unhesitatingly condemn this as a fallacy, for we have not the slightest doubt that a small city tradesman has in reality, and in his own estimation, as direct an interest in the welfare of the country as the owner of three hundred acres of land; and we cannot help considering it ridiculous to suppose that the posssession of land makes men better citizens than they otherwise would be. The long and short of the matter is that the only persons who would be directly benefited by the abolition of the law of primogeniture are those members of families who are not eldest sons. To them, of course, the benefit is palpable and immediate. But, as admitted by Mr. HARRIS, these younger members would not become owners of the land. It would, in nine cases out of ten, be found necessary to sell the land and divide the proceeds, so that the final result of the abolition of the existing law would be the more frequent purchase and sale of landed estates. Whether this would be desirable we conceive is open to the gravest doubt. Without at present discussing a matter which at no distant day must, in one shape or another, receive the attention of the Legislature, we agree with Mr. MOZLEY, who spoke first in the discussion which followed the reading of Mr. HARRIS's paper. He said there are two questions which ought to be kept quite apart-First, what should be the devolution of a man's property in the event of an intestacy? second, whether there should be any forcible interference to compel the division of a man's property among his children? And he expressed the opinion which we hold when he said that he was most strongly opposed to any interference with the power possessed by all subjects of the realm to leave their property to whom they would. CONSULAR COURTS. THE knowledge of law and politics, which every ordinarily well read man possesses, without being either a lawyer or a politician, is enough for the discussion of this question, if only the facts upon which argument must be based are faithfully presented. And when we find that even Secretaries of State have hazy and impractical ideas of these facts, we may be excused for concluding that they are not generally understood. We start with the fact known to all, that throughout the dominions of the SULTAN, are officers called Consuls, who administer justice in the name, and under the commission of their respective Sovereigns. Let the reader try and realise a state of things under which every foreigner resident in the city of London, and any Londoner who had lived abroad and come back with a foreign passport, was independent of our courts of civil or criminal jurisdiction, and amenable only to justice as administered by his Consul. Nay, we must ask him to do more. He must realise a state of affairs which would forbid our police to follow even a murderer into a foreigner's house or property without the presence of a delegate from that foreigner's Consulate. So that in the case of Mr. WILLIAM SYKES escaping over the roofs, if he entered upon an Italian's domain, his pursuers must wait till the Italian Janisary arrived, and if the culprit stepped thence into an Austrian's parapet, the Austrian Janisary must be sent for. It requires no VATTEL or CHITTY to convince us that an imperium in imperio like this is, in theory, utterly indefensible. If it be argued that without it foreign merchants in Turkey could not obtain justice, we must reply that if merchants will go to semi-barbarous countries for their own ends, they must take those countries as they find them. Our Consuls have no legal jurisdiction in Russia, in Spain, in Greece, and yet the corruption and subserviency of Judges in those countries are notorious. When we recognised certain South American republics in which justice, for justice sake, is unknown, we did not insist upon establishing Consular Courts. Why then make an exception of Turkey? The only plea that can be urged in defence of the system in question is, that it is very old, that it has struck deep roots which cannot be eradicated without sapping the foundations of a very important super-structure. So much for the principle involved. When we come to consider the practice a good deal more has to be said. Turkey contends that the condition of affairs under which the treaties and capitulations granting foreigners these exemptions has entirely changed. They were granted in favour of a few strangers estab lished on the outskirts of their cities for the purposes of trade; they are now insisted upon in favour of communities numbered by thousands living in their midst. They say also that the original treaties and capitulations are merely hooks from which a vast construction of extra favours conceded or extorted, hang. And this is true; but we must view the other side of the question. It cannot be disputed that a nation, like an individual, may part with its rights if it pleases to do so. Turkey was a grand power when it signed most of those treaties and capitulations. It is on record how a British ambassador was obliged to crawl on his knees into the presence chamber of the Sultan. The most recent of the capitulations-that with the United States-made long after the others had begun to be extended, grants greater privileges and immunities than the rest. It may be said that Turkey only granted by treaty to the United States what she had already conceded to other nations. No matter. She ratified those concessions with a full knowledge of how far they had gone, and gave other nations with whom she had treaties a treaty right to them because she had bound herself to grant to them "the same privileges and exemptions which by treaty or concession" she should grant "to the most favoured nation." Nor can it be said that our original treaties were granted out of respect to our greatness as a nation, for the time in which they were ratified was the merry days of CHARLES THE SECOND, when the Dutch were merrily burning our ships in the Medway, when our trade and credit were at their lowest ebb, and our king an out-of-door pensioner of the French monarch. Again, let us consider how it has come about that foreign communities and foreign trade have so much increased in Turkey? We are trying to establish commerce with China, Japan, and Siam. How do we set about it? By creating an imperium in imperio for the protection of our merchants, the very twin brother of that we are asked to discontinue in Turkey. If this be the only way to deal with eastern nations, and it seems to be so, have the Turks any right to kick down the ladder which has raised them? Have they the right to say, "Thanks to the capitulations we have a thriving and numerous foreign connection through which to dispose of our goods, and import what we have learned to require, therefore rescind those capitulations?" If they could add, "We have so far reformed our law and our mode of administering it, that you have no fear of getting justice at our hands," it would be something to the purpose; but they cannot say so, or their best friends for them. If we English take the initiative, as we are asked to do, in getting the other powers to abandon their capitulation rights, what guarantee are we to give to those merchants and others who have sunk millions of capital in Turkish trade on the faith of those very capitulations? If we accept the judgments of the Turkish, so called, courts, our fellow countrymen may at once go into the Gazette. If we exercise a supervision over those tribunals, and try the cases after our own lights, it will be only the capitulations over again in another form. It is urged that our Consular Courts exercise an arbitrary and excessive jurisdiction, and the leading journal, quoting from some articles published fifteen years ago by a gentleman who has certainly not contributed credit to the service he satirised, has recently stated that a British Consul may imprison, fine, deport, and dishonour a British subject at his pleasure. The present writer has no knowledge of what was done in the Levant fifteen years ago, but he can answer for it that no Consul has now, or has had for the last ten years, any such power. He can imprison for twelve months, fine up to 100%., but he cannot deport an offender until he has been twice convicted of felony, and has failed to obtain securities to be of good conduct. Even then the sentence cannot be carried out without the approbation of the Supreme Consular Court at Constantinople, to which all the previous convictions must be referred. As for "dishonouring," it is not clear what that means. The word was probably put in for effect. If it means that the Consul may express his opinion of such and such a man, under such and such circumstances, he exercises just the same right as every man and every newspaper possesses. If he be correct, society benefits, if he be wrong, public opinion corrects the mistake. A Consul in the Levant is placed in a very difficult position. He has generally had no legal training, and yet is often set to decide questions which would divide the Court of Exchequer Chamber. But I am not going to appeal for him ad misericordiam. I have heard of freaks on the Consular bench. I have heard of freaks on the bench nearer home; and I am not at all sure that the decisions of Consuls in the Levant will not bear comparison with those of many courts of petty session, or even of County Courts at home. And the Consul has no attorney sitting under him as his clerk to give him the law, no library to consult, no friends at the Bar near at hand to ask for an opinion. One grievance urged against our Consular Courts speaks volumns in their favour. British merchants complain that they are compelled to do justice, whilst others heard in other courts are not held to do justice to them. This shows that our Consular Courts, as a rule, do their duty, and what is the consequence, simply this, that foreigners and natives prefer to do business with a British subject than with anyone else. Under Secretary HAMMOND who has the reputation of being a strict disciplinarian, bore the following testimony to the efficiency of our Consuls in the Levant before a Parliamentary committee, which sat in the year 1858 : All I contend for on the part of the British Consuls is this, that as a body of men they perform those duties well and efficiently; and perhaps I may be allowed to say, with respect more especially to the Consuls in the Levant, that I believe there is no country possessed of a more efficient, a more zealous, or a more attentive body of public servants than we possess in the Levant, and have possessed there for many years. In the time of the war the conduct of those men was most exem plary. I know that they have been run down and ridiculed, that it has been the fashion for travellers to talk of their going about with janisaries and dragomans and assuming airs, but those men during the war exerted themselves most zealously and most efficiently to promote the public interests. I asked a person who had been on the spot, and who had the best means of knowing, his opinion of the conduct of our Consuls on the Black Sea, and he said it was most exemplary. We know what our Consuls in the Levant did during the war; they collected from far and near provisions and cattle and forage, and in many cases men for the public service, and in every respect they did their duty wonderfully well. I am glad to have an opportunity of saying what I do now of our public servants in the Levant. And as regards what is said by travellers of their ostentation, we must remember the country in which they live; that ostentation which is ridiculed by travellers is essential for the protection of those travellers in the country through which they pass, for it has weight with the authorities and people who are accustomed to estimate the importance of persons rather from what meets the eye than from intrinsic merit. The committee before which this was said, invited complaints against Consuls, and one or two were made, but turued out utterly unfounded, Having gone deeply into all branches of the subject before it, the committee reported: "The administration of justice in the Levant under the Order in Council of 1844, and the appointment of Mr. (now Sir Edmund) Hornby as Judge of the Consular Court at Constantinople, leave little to be desired." It is hardly fair after such evidence direct and indirect in favour of our Consuls, that the system they administer should be attacked on the ground of their arbitrary acts and incompetence, based only upon a passage from the pen of an amusing, but certainly untrustworthy, contributor to Household Words, published fifteen years ago. Do the opponents of Consular Courts imagine that a British subject will be safer from fine, imprisonment, deportation, and dishonour, in the hands of a Turkish Pasha, than he is under the jurisdiction of such men as Mr. Ham mond describes? Our procedure is simplicity itself. Cases under the value of 20l. are commenced by summons as in an English County Court; those of higher value by petition-a written narrative of the facts in English, French, or Italian, such as a traveller would write to his friend, or a merchant to his correspondent. Evidence is taken vivâ voce. But, unfortunately, all Consular Courts are not like our own. Many are shops for the sale of protection and injustice, and the encouragement of advocates who spin out the proceedings to a disgraceful length, and leave their fleeced clients in the lurch at the end. So well is this known that it is not unfrequent for foreigners, and even natives, to submit their differences to the maligned British Consul, because of the confidence which his swift and honest administration of justice has inspired. The injustice, the costliness and delays (injustice under other names) of some foreign Consular Courts, and the reckless manner in which some foreign ministers press the questionable claims of their subjects against the Porte, are the real causes of similar acts by the Turks. A real Turk is not naturally dishonest and false, as some pretend. It is only when brought into contact with the scum of the Levant, and the unfair pressure of diplomatists, that he becomes so in self-defence. The lex talionis being his guide, he cannot understand that two wrongs do not make a right. He sees how foreigners stand together to get the better of him, and he follows their lead. The Government acts in the same way. They contest every claim made against them to create, by refusal and delay, a sort of insurance fund to provide for the unjust demands which diplomacy forces them to acknowledge. Take the following as an example of the sort of claims that are sometimes made: Said Pasha, Viceroy of Egypt, when a boy of fourteen, went to visit some windmills which a speculator was erecting for irrigating purposes, and insisted on seeing the machinery work before it was quite fixed. In moving it something broke, but no complaint was made at the time. But when the Viceroy died, nearly thirty years afterwards, the speculator (who had failed in his scheme) made a claim amounting to 21,000l. against his estate. There was the value of the concession (which had proved valueless), the sums it might have produced, and interest and compound interest at the rate of 2 per cent. a month on the profits. Had the astute claimant been a Greek or a Russian, his case would certainly have been pressed in the hope of getting something; but being an Ionian, and (at that time) under British jurisdiction, his petition (which had to pass through the Consulate) was sent back to him with some observations which he doubtless considered as honouring." "dis It is from Egypt that the cry against Consular Courts has been raised, and there is no part of the SULTAN'S dominions in which greater difficulties are presented against their abolition. In the first place, the treaties and capitulations have been there supplemented by concession and custom more extensively than in any other part of the Levant. And here, again, it must be remembered that such privileges were not extorted from a weak Government; they were freely granted by MAHOMMED ALI at a time when, but for our intervention, he could have chased the SULTAN from Stamboul, and become master of Turkey. He saw that a poor and thinly-inhabited country like Egypt required foreign capital, and hands for the development of its latent resources, and he said, in effect, "Establish yourselves in my cities, cultivate my lands, and settle your affairs in your own way." So now in Egypt every case in which a foreigner is a defendant or a prisoner-even if the plaintiff or complainant be a native-is tried in the Consulate of the former. This is no doubt an abuse, but no one who knows the country will undertake to say that it has not its bright side. In Egypt, foreigners have long been allowed to buy houses and lands, and to hold them in their own names, a privilege withheld in every other part of the Turkish empire, notwithstanding the Hatti Humayum of 1854. Enabled thus to establish themselves on the land, to expend capital upon it, and patiently to await the development of their plans, in comparative security, a class of merchants has arisen in Alexandria and Cairo of standing, solidity, and repute, and far more useful to the country than the adventurers who resort to other less liberal places with the object of enriching themselves in a few years. A reversal of the present system would therefore be much more seriously felt in Egypt than elsewhere. In the second place, Egypt is less prepared to administer justice towards foreigners than any other part of the Turkish dominion. Its Viceroy must have learned a good deal during his visit to this country, and, probably, was most surprised by what some well-intentioned corporations, and deputations from societies, which ought to have known better, told him about his having done such wonders for trade and commerce. Were it possible for a Turk to do such a thing, he would have laughed at their beards. For, since he came to what is now a throne, his policy has been to make Egypt one huge farm, all the appliances of which should be in his hands, and all the profits in his pocket. Except in the case of a few firms, whom he has allowed to make fortunes out of him, he has placed every possible obstacle in the way of trade and commerce. Well might Mr. AYRTON (who has special and correct information on this head) say that if he were to tell honourable gentlemen what was going on in Egypt, he would "make their hair stand on end." So rooted is the fear of offending the Viceroy or his creatures, so well known the impossibility of succeeding in what is contrary to his or their private interests, that if he were to make his newly created parliament of sheiks a reality, open his railways and his canals to public use, retire from business, and give his judges and governors absolute immanity from control, it would be years and years before any change for the better could be effected. It is possible now that the succession has been secured for his son, instead of passing, according to Mahommedan law, to his eldest male relative, that his Highness may pause in his race for wealth, sure that his wives and children will not be persecuted and despoiled after his death, as he persecuted and despoiled the wives and chil dren of the Prince he succeeded. It will not be necessary for him to leave behind a million, in the hope that they may be allowed to retain a hundred thousand. The goose of the golden eggs may be permitted to live and lay. This, however, applies only to Egypt. The Pashas who govern other important centres of trade, such as Smyrna, Beyrout, Adrianople, &c, pay heavy sums for their places, and hold them only for a few years. They must recoup themselves in some way, and, as dog does not prefer to eat dog, they will naturally deem the Giaours fair game as soon as they are at their mercy. We started by admitting the principle of Consular Courts to be indefensible, and we have shown that we English, at least, have made the best of a bad system. The question now to be answered is, How are they to be got rid of? Mixed tribunals are suggested; but this is only a minor phase of the old evil. What right could a Frenchman or a German have to insist upon adding a French or a German Judge to the Court of Queen's Bench? Besides, mixed tribunals have been tried for the settlement of municipal cases at Constantinople and Alexandria, and they do not work well. The only safe and efficient course, as it appears to us, is to provide for the gradual extinction of the consular jurisdiction, and the gradual amelio ration of the local law and its tribunals. And the first step in this direction should be for all foreign powers having capitulations to engage to protect none but such as are bons fide their subjects. At present a Syrian goes to Trieste, comes back with an Austrian passport, and, depositing it in the Austrian Chancellerie, becomes thenceforth a subject of the KAISIR, and so on. Existing rights should be respected, but it would be no hardship to say that all persons born in the country, or establishing themselves therein for their own pleasure or profit, after a certain date, should be answerable to the country's law. And a period (sufficient to enable established firms to realise their capital and depart, if they desired to do so) might be fixed; after the expiration of which all exemptions should cease. That the result of such a plan would be highly detrimental to the commercial interests of Turkey, no one acquainted with it can doubt; but as the Turks desire to be inde pendent of the tutelage under which those inte rests have been fostered, they must pay for the luxury they seek. As well wishers of Turkey, we are sorry that the question has been raised. It is doubly to be regretted that pressure has been put upon our Government to initiate the change, because it is almost impossible that we can persuade the French, the Italians, and the Greeks, who have interests at stake as great as our own, to approach the subject from our point of view. The integrity of the Turkish Empire is not a pet theory with France, and though, if she agreed to our proposal Greece and Italy might have to do as they are told, there is a formidable power due north that would be glad of an oppor tunity of creating dissensions. The Turkish Empire has often been compared to a ruined house, which the labourers dare not attempt to repair lest the whole structure should come |
