« PreviousContinue »
generally for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act; and a court cannot safely imply that a bill of sale is void cxcept as expressly provided by the Act.
398 ........ 398
LONDON, MARCH 27, 1880.
DISCUSSIONS ON SOCIAL QUESTIONS Occasionally diversify
the proceedings in a certain court. This is a very CONTENTS.
happy relief from less interesting matters ; and, as
regards the suitor, the benefit he derives from hearing a CURRENT TOPICS:
subject of great personal importance completely New Rules of the Supreme Court..............................
threshed out more than compensates for any loss of Certificates of Result of Search The Reversal of the Decision in Davies v Goodman
time which may occur. On Tuesday, upon a motion Social Discussions in Court.......
directed against a theatre which, being built of wood, The Clewer Case.............................................. 397 A Question of Evidence
was liable to conflagation, the subject of smoking was The New Queen's Counsel
quite naturally brought to the attention of the court. LEADERS:
Mr. A., Q.C., who moved on behalf of the plaintiffs, The Law of Voting ....
stated that the danger of fire was increased by reason Lawyer Candidates at the General Election...
of people smoking in the theatre. Thereupon, after & RECENT DECISIONS REFIBWS .................
few preliminary remarks, the following conversation CASES OF THE WEEK :
ensued :Banco de Portugal v. Waddell
The LEARNED JUDGE (addressing Mr. A., Q.C.).---Do Good, Ex parte Nicholson, Ex parte...:
404 you smoke, Mr. A. ? Middlesborough Assembly Rooms Company, Ia re The
(Mr. A., Q.O., pretends not to hear.] Hartridge v. Hartridge
The LEARNED JUDGE.--Do you smoke, Mr. A. ? Davies v. Good man
405 Cowderay v. Brooks ........................................ 405
Mr. A., Q.C. (pretending to wake up].-Oh! yes, Blenkinsop, Re, Wilkinson v. Blenkinsop...................... 405 certainly, I do, and I fear I smoke rather too much. OBITTABY..........
406 The LEARNED JUDGE.-I am forbidden to smoke. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL ...................................... 406 Mr. A., Q.C. (professing not to have heard the remark, APPOINTMENIE, ETC.. COMPANIES
and addressing the bench].--You smoke, don't you? SOLICITORS' CASES........................................
The LEARNED JUDGE.-I am forbidden to smoke. LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK .................................... CREDITORS' CLAIMS
Mr. A., Q.C.-Do you find yourself any the better COURT PAPERS
without it? LEGAL NEWS .................................................. 411
The LEARNED JUDGE. I don't know that I find any POBLIC COMPANIES ...................................... 411 LONDON GAZETTES, &c., &c. ..
Mr. A., Q.C.-I should think not. CASES REPORTED IN THE WEEKLY REPORTER.
Mr. B., Q.0.--I believe smoking is beneficial when not Aveland, Lord, Appellant, v. Lucas, Respondent (C.P.Div.)
excessive. Diamond Fuel Company (Limited), In re The (Ch.Div. V.C.M.)
We are assured that this instructive conversation was Dagdale's Trade Marks, In re (Ch.Div. V.C.H.) Eatough, Ex parte. In re Cliffe (Bkcy.)..
433 listened to by a crowded court with great seriousness , Glyn, Mills, Currie, & Co. v. East and West India Dock Company
(Q.B.Dir.) Hooper, In re. Ex parte Banco de Portugal (App.) Lucas v. Cooke (Ch. Div. Fry, J.).....
439 Marris v. Ingram (Ch. Div. M.R.)..
THE JUDGMENT of the House of Lords affirming the Watsoa v. Gray (Ch.Div. Fry, J.)
decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of The Queen Wise 5. Piper (Ch.Div. Fry. J.)
v. The Bishop of Oxford was, we believe, in conformity
with the general expectation of the profession, and we CURRENT TOPICS.
must confess, quite apart from the merits of the particular case, to a feeling of satisfaction whenever in the
construction of an Act of Parliament words receive their IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the new Rules of the Supreme natural meaning. No one but a lawyer would suppose Court, which have been so long under consideration, have
that the words “it shall be lawful” imported a duty, at length received the sanction of the committee of and we are glad it is now determined that “it shall be judges, and will be made public very shortly. They lawful” means "it shall be lawful.”. It must be a most will come into operation on the 6th of April next, and
sad and repugnant duty to any right-minded judge to will introduce some important changes.
have to say that “may” means shall,” or to decide in any case that the legal meaning of words is other than
the plain English of them. It is also satisfactory to find BY ONE OF THE NEW RULES it is provided that the Clerk that the House of Lords decided mainly on the words of of Inrolments, the Registrar of Bills of Sale, the Registrar the Act, and not on a wearisome review of all of Certificates of Married Women's Acknowledgments, and manner of antiquated and barely intelligible precethe Registrar of Judgments, shall be bound, on a request | dents and authorities. We do not despise erudiin writing giving sufficient particulars, and on payment tion, and we admit that in order to arrive at a right of the prescribed fee, to cause a search to be made in conclusion it is frequently necessary to grope amid the the register or index under his custody, and to issue a musty relics of the past; but both the process and the certificate of the result of the search.
result, from a lawyer's point of view, are apt to be very unsatisfactory. The studies of the antiquarian have
great value and interest, but it is not quá lawyers that THE COURT OF APPEAL has reversed the strange decision we respect them. A really sensible inquirer, diving into of the Common Pleas Division in Davies v. Goodman (28 the recesses of the past for legal purposes, constantly W. R. 150), that a bill of sale not duly executed and at- experiences a feeling of profound dissatisfaction. The tested is void as against the grantor. The ground taken by clue to the precise meaning of the ideas and expressions the learned judges is apparently that we have always urged he meets with is too often lost from the total alteration - viz., that, reading the 8th and 10th sections together, it of habits and institutions, and it generally happens that is obvious that while there are express provisions making the authorities that can be found are capable of being bills of sale void as against the classes of persons it is twisted either way by the ingenuity of the contending the main object of the Act to protect under certain parties. The arguments in the Bishop of Oxford's circumstances, there are no express provisions for mak case illustrated very well what we mean. For nearly ing bills of sale void as against the grantor, or void I every dictum that one side could rake up out of an old
438 ........ 442
ecclesiastical author or report, the other side could find another in the opposite direction.
In the par
A RECENT PROSECUTION for perjury raised an interest
ing question of evidence which has apparently never yet ticular case we find great difficulty in believing that
been formally decided. A person was summoned before all the wealth of antiquarian research that was lav.
& police magistrato on a charge of perjury, alleged to ished on the argument was not entirely thrown away. have been committed as a witness in a reference before Can any sane person believe that the framers of a com
Mr. Kaye, one of the Masters of the Supreme Court. paratively recent statute like the Church Discipline Act,
The master, being summoned as a witness for the in using the words " it shall be lawful," had, in their
prosecution, at first declined to give evidence, alleging minds, any reference to the previous practice of the
that, as a judicial officer, he was privileged from so doing. ecclesiastical courts, as it might be gathered from this
Mr. Montagu Williams, the counsel for the prosecution, contradictory learning? It is really too absurd. If it
stated that he had once examined Mr. Justice Fry under took a week's argument at the present time to investi
precisely similar circumstances; and after some discussion gate the question what the practice was, and then the
the master withdrew his objection, and consented to be answer remained very doubtful, how can it be supposed
It appears that the limits of a judge's liability that such a comparatively short time ago the framers of
to be called as a witness have never been expressly laid the statute acted upon the assumption of a well-estab
down. Mr. Justice Stephen in his “ Digest of the Law lished practice in the use of the words “it shall be
of Evidence" (Art. 111), remarks that “ It is doubtful lawful.” With reference to the general construction of the words“ it shall be lawful,”' we must say, with great which came to his knowledge in court as such judge.”
whether a judge is compellable to testify as to anything submission, that some of their lordships seem to have
The question has been more than once incidentally used arguments more ingenious than sound. The reason
discussed. In Reg. v. Gazard (8 C. & P. 595), the why they were reduced to this sort of argument seems to us to arise from the unfortunate use of the words the chairman of that court was at the assizes called as &
prisoner was indicted for perjury at quarter sessions, and " it shall be lawful" in one or two previous cases. Their
witness before the grand jury, who solicited the opinion lordships strove very hard to show that the words “it of Patteson, J., as to whether they ought to examine shall be lawful” are not ambiguous, and always import him. The learned judge replied, “It is a new point, but a power and not a duty. As we said before, this view
I should advise the grand jury not to examine him; he is has our warmest sympathy, because it is an endeavour to the president of a court of record, and it would be dangergive words their natural meaning. But they proceed to
ous to allow such an examination, as the judges of say—being driven to do so by the decisions—that the nature England might be called upon to state what occurred of the case and the context of the Act are sometimes such
before them in court.” On the other hand, in R. v. as to make it a duty to exercise the power. The duty is not, they say, to be educed from the words " it shall Harvey (8 Cox. C. C. 99), where the perjury was alleged
to have been committed before a county court, Byles, be lawful.” They only give the power. The duty is J., stated that the county court judge ought to have been to be educed aliunde, from the scope and context of called as a witness, although he added that there was a the Act. This seems to us to come very near to trifling distinction between the judges of the superior courts and with words. If, when an Act has said " it shall be
of the inferior courts, and that he himself, if subpænaed lawful,” it has, nevertheless, been held somotimes to
to produce his notes, would have refused to appear. It mean “you must,” it seems to us impossible to say
may be added that the Indian Evidence Act has estab. that the words thenceforth are not legally ambiguous. lished a distinction between questions as to the conduct If you may look to the context in one case, the result is you must always look to it. We cannot but think knowledge in that capacity, and collateral matters ; it
of a judge in court, or as to matters coming to his that the law lords failed entirely in this commendable endeavour to make out that the words "it shall be law. except upon the special order of some court to which he
being provided that “no judge or magistrate shall, ful" are never ambiguous and always import merely a power. We agree that they never ought to have been his own conduct in court as such judge or magistrate,
is subordinate, be compelled to answer any questions as ambiguous and ought always to import merely a power ;
or as to anything which came to his knowledge in court but the inappropriate use of the words by our Legislature in one or two instances seems to us to have in substance to other matters which occurred in his presence while
as such judge or magistrate, but he may be examined as brought about the consequence that the words are
he was so acting.” legally ambiguous, and do sometimes occur when a duty is imposed. In one of the cases that is always cited in relation to this kind of question, an Act providing for
THE FOLLOWING is a list of the new Queen's Counsel, costs, and pointing out distinctly in what circamstances a
with their respective years of call to the bar :-Three party was or was not to have his costs, used the words
members of the Equity bar, viz., Mr. Edgar Rodwell, * it shall be lawful" with relation to the functions of 1846; Mr. F. C. J. Millar, 1856, and Mr. J. T: the judge in the matter. It was held that they could Crossley, 1863. Four members of the Northern Circuit, not mean that the judge might or might not, when the
viz., Mr. J.J. Aston, 1846 ; Mr. F. W. Gibbs, 1848; Mr. indicated circumstances existed, exercise his jurisdiction. w. Potter, 1861, and Mr. J. Addison |(recorder of It seems to us really impossible that any court could Preston), 1862. Two members of the South-Eastern have held otherwise ; but the unfortunate result of Circuit, viz., Mr. Lumley Smith, 1860, and Mr. Edward this class of is that thenceforward the
Clarke, 1864. Two members of the North-Eastern meaning of the words is necessarily rendered Circuit, viz., Mr. W. Shaw, 1844, and Mr. W. C. ambiguous. If you once hold that a word may mean
Beasley, 1853. Three members of the Oxford Circuit, something in a particular case, it is involved that it may viz., Mr. G. Browne (recorder of Ludlow), 1849; Vr: possibly have a similar meaning in any other case. It
J. Underhill, 1862, and Mr. A. R. Jelf, 1863. Two must always be open to discussion that it has that mean.
members of the Western Circuit, viz., Mr. F. Bailey, ing in the particular case. Their lordships assume in their judgments a somewhat lofty air, as having the North Wales Circuit, Mr. G. Swetenham, 1848.
1845, and Mr. W. C. Petheram, 1869. One member of detected an underlying fallacy in the judgment of the
One member of the South Wales Circuit, Mr. H. G. Queen's Bench Division which vitiated their view of the
Allen, 1841; and Sir W. T. Charley, M.P. (Common case ab initio; but we doubt after all whether, except in
Serjeant) 1865. words, there is any difference between the point of view of the Queen's Bench Division and that from which the learned law lords themselves approach the case.
There will be no judge in attendance at judges' chambers until Wednesday, March 31, when the usoal sittings will be resumed.
THE LAW OF VOTING.
(Earl Beauchamp v. Madresfield, 21 W. R. 124),
women (Chorlton v. Lings, L. R. 4 C. P. 374), aliens, THE Ballot Act has now been in force for more than unless certificated (Middlesex case, 2 Peck. 118, 33 & 34 seven years. Only one general election, however, has Vict. c. 102, ss. 2, 7), infants (7 & 8 Will. 3, c. 25, s. 8), been held under it, and since that election the pumber and felons (33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, s. 2) labour under the of potential voters has been considerably increased by the “inherent incapacity.” In a similar predicament are Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act of 1878. police-constables (19 & 20 Vict. c, 69, s. 9; 2 & 3 Vict. We propose to go briefly through the leading enact c. 93), persons employed as canvassers, agents, clerks, ments and cases which bear on the law of voting, and or messengers for reward by or on behalf of any candiwe cannot do better than preface our remarks by date” (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 11; Ballot Act, 1872, transcribing the two following sections of the Ballot 8. 25), and metropolitan police-magistrates (10 Geo. 4, Act:
c. 44, s. 18), but not revenue officers, this body of 7. At any election for a county or boroagb, a person
persons, disfranchised by 22 Geo. 3, c. 41, and other shall not be entitled to vote anless his name is on the
Acts, having recently been re-enfranchised by 31 & 32 register of voters for the time being in force for gooh county
Viet. c. 73, and 37 & 38 Vict. c. 22. or borongb, and every person whose name is on such
Secure in his right to give an indisputablo vote, we register sball be entitled to demand and roceive a ballot will assume the voter to have reached the polling place, paper and to vote : provided that nothing in this seotion and finding himself alone in the compartment, with the shall entitle any person to vote who is prohibited froin statutory pencil there provided, to be desirous of voting. Foting by any statute, or by the common law of Parliament, This, it is well known, is done by means of a cross. or reliere such person from any penalties to which he may But there are crosses and crosses, and in Woodward v. be liable for voting.
Sarsons not only were voters discovered of great 13. No election sball be declared invalid by reason of a ingenuity of draftsmanship, but a returning officer non-compliance with the rules contained in the first
was found bold enough to admit most possible marks, schedule to this Act [relating to the use of the ballot], or not even rejecting ballot-papers " bearing the voter's any mistake in the use of the forms in the second schedule
signature.” The effect of the carefully-written judgto this Act, if it appears to the tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election was conducted in accord
ment of the court is this:- The ballot-paper must not be
marked so as to show that the voter intended to vote for ance with the principles laid down in the body of this Act [relating to secrecy), and that such non-compliance or
more candidates than he is entitled to vote for; or so as mistake did not affect the result of the eleotion.
to leave it uncertain whether he intended to vote at all,
or for which candidate he intended to vote; or so as The first of these sections, dealing with the right to to make it possible, by seeing the paper itself, or by vote, has been almost exhaustively explained in Stowe v. reference to other available facts, to identify the way in Jolliffe (22 W. R. 911); the second, dealing amongst which he has voted. If these requirements are not subother things, with the mode of voting, has been elab stantially fulfilled, the ballot-paper is void, and should orately commented on in Woodward v. Sarsons (L. R. not be counted ; and, if counted, it will be struck off 10 C. P. 733). Both these cases will well repay perusal, on a scrutiny. The court, on this principle, allowed a and we believe we are right in stating that both have double and even a triple cross; allowed a straight been accepted as correct by the profession. Woodward v. line; allowed an “imperfect P” in addition to the Sarsons, it may perhaps be remembered, is in direct cross ; allowed a blurred cross; allowed a star, and conflict upon certain minor points with the Scotch allowed a pencil line drawn through the name of Wigtown case (2 O'M. & . 215), so that where the candidate not voted for. (A paper having the those points come to be in issue, a vote may be good
of the candidate voted for written thereon in England, but bad in Scotland -- an anomaly which was, “with some hesitation,” disallowed. As to the a select committee of the House of Commons in double and triple cross the remarks of court are very 1876 recommended the "passing of a short Act” to sensible: remedy. First, then, as to the 7th section. The exhaustive
There can be no doubt as to the intention to vote, and form of the first paragraph would seem to leave no door
no doubt as to the intention to vote empbatically for the
one candidate. If there were evidence of an arrangemant open for doubt; but the proviso evidently required
that the voter would place two marks so as to indicate judicial interpretation to make it clear.
that it was be, that voter, who had used that ballot-paper, Jolliffe cuts down this proviso, and settles that it
then, by reason of soch evidence, such double mark would applies only to “persons who, from inherent, or be a mark by which the voter could be identified, and for the time irremovable, quality in themselves then the paper, opon such proof being made, should be have not, either by prohibition of statutes or at rejeoted. But the more faot of there being such two orosses common law, the status of parliamentary electors," is not in our judgment a substantial breach of thỏ and does not apply to persons who have received alms statute.
We are aware that in so applying the (see Reform Act, 1832, 8. 36), or who have lost their principles which we have deduced from the statute, we residential qualification (see ib., s. 33), between the day are acting apparently in opposition to some of the decisions up to which the revision lists are made up (the 31st of
in the Wigtown case; but there may have been evidence July) and the day of the election. This is a liberal
in that case which does not exist in the present case, and construction of the section, no doubt, for it may en
which made many of the marks there marks of identifioafranchise some persons to whom, they being qualified at
If this was not so, we respectfully differ the time of revision, no objection could have been taken
from the strict view taken by the majority of the learned before the revising barrister.
The Petersfield voters judges who decided that case. whose votes were questioned in Stowe v. Jolliffe were of In the Wigtown case, on the other hand, the Scotch a variegated type, some having received alms, some judges rejected the single line, the misplaced cross, and having become paupers, some having ceased to reside, the cross made with pen and ink, although they allowed some having neglected to pay rates, and for varying the cross supported by small feet or claws, because they periods too; but in each one of the seven several cases were little ones. There being, it would seem, no appeal put the court held the votes good. If, then, a voter is (see Judicature Act, 1873, s. 19, as amended by on the register he may vote, whoever he be. Identity of Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, s. 20), the law of the claimant with the registered voter is all that is England and the law of Scotland must remain disrequired. Further, his vote will be good unless he have cordant until altered by the Legislature, for we can some inherent incapacity. But what is an inherent find no trace in the Wigtown case of the evidence incapacity ? Resorting to and expanding the instances courteously suggested as possible by the Court of given in Stowe v. Jolliffe, we find it plain that peers Common Pleas. The question whether a cross in pen
and ink would be good appears to be still open in Eng. land.
LAWYER CANDIDATES AT THE GENERAL Should, however, the voter be a person of tremulous
ELECTION. hand and distrustful disposition ; should he even The following is a list of the members of the legal prochange his mind in the act of voting, and divide fession, so far as can be ascertained, who, up to Monday his cross between two opposing candidates, he may still last, were candidates for seats in the new Parliament. take courage, and present himself to the presiding It is probable that several additions to the list will still officer, under rule 28, as "a voter who has inadvertently be made, especially in Scotland and Ireland. dealt with his ballot-paper.” Such a person may, on The names of members of the old Parliament are delivering to the presiding officer “the ballot-paper so printed in italics. inadvertently dealt with, and proving the fact of the inadvertence [we presume by a viewto the satisfaction of
ENGLAND AND WALES. the presiding officer, obtain another ballot-paper in the place of the ballot-paper so delivered up." How many
BARRISTERS. slips of this kind are allowable the statute does not say, BATHMr. Reginald Hardy (C); Mr. Edmund Robert but we presume that the whole question of “ inadvert.
Wodehouse (L) ence" is one for the presiding officer. By rule 36, how BERWICK—Sir Dudley Marjoribanks, Bart. (L) ever, ballot-papers "unmarked or void for uncertainty"
BEAUMARIS—Mr. Morgan Lloyd, Q.C. (L) are to be stored up under that head by the returning BEWDLEY–Mr. Richard Everard Webster, Q.C. (C) officer for use upon a scrutiny, if necessary.
BIRKENHEAD—Mr. Arthur Williams (L) So much for the mode of voting generally, but there
BODMIN-Hon. Edward Leveson Gower (L) are (see rule No. 26 of the Rules scheduled to the Ballot Boston-Mr. Thomas Garfit (C); Mr. William James Act, 1872) three particular classes of voters who
Ingram (L) exercise the franchise under a special set of regulations BRIDPOŘT-Mr. Charles Nicholas Warton (C) applying to the three classes indiscriminately, and these BRIGHTON_Mr. William Thackeray Marriott, Q.C. (L) are (1) The physically incapables ; (2) if the poll be taken BUCKINGHAMSHIRE—Hon. Thomas Francis Fremantle on Saturday, Jews; and (3) the literary incapables. Of the second class we have heard much of late, and it BURY ŚT. EDMUNDS-Lord Francis Hervey (C); Mr. has been suggested not only that they may vote on a Joseph Alfred Hardcastle (L) day other than that appointed, but that the saving in Calne-Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice (L); Mr. Ulick their case extends to other Jewish holidays than Satur.
Ralph Burke (C) day. These suggestions proceed on a misapprehension. CAMBRIDGE~Mr. Alfred George Marten, Q.C. (C); Mr. Rule 26 is as follows:
Hugh Shield (L); Mr. William Fowler (L) The presiding officer, on the application of any voter | CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY-Right Hon. Spencer Walpole, who is incapacitated by blindness or other pbysical cause Q.C.(C) from voting in manner prescribed by this Act, or, if tbe CAMBRIDGESHIRE-Mr. Hunter Rodwell, Q.C. (C) poll be taken on Satarday, of any voter who declares that CANTERBURY—Hon. Arthur Gathorne Hardy (C) he is of the Jewish persuasion, and objects on religious
| CARDIGANSHIRE-Mr. Thomas Edward Lloyd (C) grounds to vote in manner prescribed by this Act, or of
CARLISLE-Mr. Miles Walker Mattinson (C) any voter who makes such a declaration as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read, shall, in the pre
CARMARTHEN—Mr. Benjamin Thomas Williams, Q.C. (L) sence of the agents of the candidates, cause the vote of
CARMARTHENSHIRE-Mr. John Jones (C) such voter to be marked on a ballot-paper in manner
CARNARVONSHIRE-Mr. Watkin Williams, Q.C. (L) directed by such voter, and the ballot-paper to be placed
CHATHAM-Mr. John Eldon Gorst, Q.C. (C) in the ballot-box, and the name and number on the
CHELSEA—Sir Charles Dilke, Bart. (L); Mr. Joseph register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in
Bothamley Firth (L) pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, CheLTENHAM- Mr. James Agg Gardner (C) shall be entered on a list, in this Act called “the list of CHESHIRE, East-Mr. William Cunliffe Brooks (C) voters marked by the presiding officer."
CHESHIRE, MID--Mr. George William Latham (L); Mr. The only other rule bearing upon the subject is rule
Vernon Kirk Armitage (L) 29, which directs the presiding officer to make up into a
CHESHIRE, West—Mr. Charles Crompton (L) separate packet “the list of votes marked by the pre
CHESTER-Right Hon. Henry Cecil Raikes (C); Right siding officer, and a statement of the number of the
Hon. John George Dodson (L) voters whose votes are so marked by the presiding officer
CHRISTCHURCH-Mr. Horace Davey, Q.C. (L) under the heads ‘Physical incapacity,' 'Jews,' and
COCKERMOUTH--Mr. Robert Grant Webster (C) .Unable to read.'”
COLCHESTER—Mr. William Willis, Q.C. (L); Mr. Francis It is clear, therefore, that Jews must vote on the ap Henry Jeung (C) pointed day or not at all, but that if the appointed day
COVENTRY-Sir Henry Jackson, Bart., Q.C. (L); Mr. be Saturday, they need not mark a ballot-paper them
Arthur Kekewich, Q.C. (C) selves, but get the presiding omcer to mark it for them, CUMBERLAND, East-Mr. Edward Stafford Howard (L) the reason being that the Jewish religion forbids writing
CUMBERLAND, WEST-Mr. David Ainsworth (L) on the Sabbath-day, but allows dictation to a Gentile
DENBIGH—Hon. George Thomas Kenyon (C) scribe. For, said Mr. Crawford, on moving the insertion DENBIGHSHIRE- Mr. George Osborne Morgan, Q.C. (L) of the saving for Jews in committee (see Hansard, vol.
Devizes--Mr. Alfred Childers Meysey Thompson (1) 210, p. 1957), “ although the religious scruples of a Jew
DEVONPORT—Mr. John Delaware Lewis (L) would be offended by his scratching out the name of a DEVONSHIRE, East-Sir John Kennaway, Bart (0) candidate on a Saturday, they would not interfere with DEVONSHIRE, NORTH-Right Hon. Sir Stafford North his going to the poll and directing what names should be cote, Bart. (C) struck out."
| DEWSBURY-Serjeant John Simon (L)
DUDLEY-Mr. Henry Brinsley Sheridan (L)
DURHAM CITY--Mr. Farrer Herschell, Q.C. (L); MT: In a recent case before the Divorce Division the landlady
Thomas Charles Thompson (L); Mr. John Lloja in whose house a respondent lodged, and who was called to ,
Wharton (C) prove his identity by means of a photograph, thus
photograph. thna | Essex, East-Mr. James Round (C) deposed :-"I bave no doubt it is him, and it isn't like | Essex, South-Mr. William Thomas Makins (0) him.” The President said, “I have often had to observe | EXETER-Mr. Arthur Mills (0) on the unsatisfactory character of proof by photographs and | Eve-Mr. Ellis Ashmead Bartlett (0) never act on it alone."
| FINSBURY-Mr. William M Cullagh Torrens (L)
mes monk 22. C. (L); .E.
GATESHBADMr. Gainsford Bruce (C)
SOUTH SHIELDS-Mr. Henry Best Hans Hamilton (C) GLOUCESTER—Mr. Charles James Monk (L)
SOUTHWARK-Mr. Edward Clarke, Q.C. (C); Mr. Arthur GRANTHAM-Mr. John William Mellor, Q.C. (L); Mr. Cohen, Q.O. (L) Charles Saville Roundell (L)
STAFFORD-Mr. Charles Benjamin Bright McLaren (L) GBEENWICH-Baron Henry de Worms (0)
STAFFORDSHIRE-Mr. Robert William Hanbury (C); Mr. GUILDFORD-Mr. Thomas Kemp, Q.C. (L)
Harry Tichborne Davenport (C) HALIFAX-Right Hon. James Stansfeld (L); Mr. | STAFFORDSHIRE, WEST--Mr. Alexander Staveley Hill, William Barber (C)
Q.C. (L); Sir William Anson, Bart. (L) HAMPSHIRE, NORTH-Right Hon. George Sclater-Booth STAMFORD-Mr. Marston Clarke Buszard, Q.C. (L) (C)
STOCKPORT-Mr. Charles Henry Hopwood, Q.C. (L) HAMPSHIRE, SOUTH-Mr. Francis Compton (C)
SUNDERLAND-Mr. William Digby Seymour, Q.C. (C) HASTINGS—Mr. Thomas Brassey (C)
SURREY, EAST-Mr. William Grantham, Q.C. (C); Mr. Hinston-Mr. Walter Molesworth St. Aubyn (0)
William Fothergill Robinson, Q.C. (L) HEREFORD—Mr. Robert Threshie Reid (L)
SURREY, MID-Mr. Joseph Napier Higgins, Q.C. (L) IPSWICH-Mr. James Redfoord Bulwer Q.C. (C); Mr.
TAUNTON--Sir Henry James, Q.C. (L)
TIVERTON-Right Hon. William Massey (L)
TOWER HAMLETS—Mr. James Bryce (L) KENT, MID-Mr. Howard Warburton Elphinstone (L)
TYNEMOUTH-Mr. Henry Trotter (C)
WARWICK-Mr. Augustus Frederick Godson (C) KNARESBOROUGH-Mr. Basil Thomas Woodd (0)
WARWICKSHIRE, South-Sir John Eardley Wilmot, LAMBETH-Mr. Morgan Howard, Q.C.
Bart. (C) LANCASHIRE, SOUTH-WEST-Right Hon. Richard Assheton
WESTMINSTER—Sir Arthur Hobhouse, Q.C. (L); Mr. Cross (C)
John Morley (L)
WEYMOUTH-Mr. Alexander Coghill Wylie (L)
WHITBY-Mr. Robert Grey Cornish Mowbray (C)
WHITEHAVEN—Right Hon. George Cavendish Bentinck LEICESTERSHIRE, South-Mr. William Unwin Heygate
(C); Mr. William Court Gully, Q.C. (L) (C)
Wight, ISLE OF-Hon. Evelyn Ashley (L) LINCOLN-Mr. John Hinde Palmer, Q.C. (L)
WINDSOR -- Mr Robert Richardson Gardner (C) LINCOLNSHIRE, MID-Hon. Edward Stanhope (C)
WOLVERHAMPTON— Right Hon. Charles Pelham Villiers LINCOLNSHIRE, South-Mr. John Compton Lawrence,
WORCESTER—Mr. Æneas John Macintyre, Q.C. (L)
WORCESTERSHIRE, East-Mr. George Woodyatt Hastings
(L) LONDON UNIVERSITY—Right Hon. Robert Lowe (L); Mr.
YORK-Right Hon. James Lowther (C)
YORKSHIRE, WEST RļDING, NORTH-Mr. Francis Powell LYNN Regis-Hon. Robert Bourke (C)
BARNSTAPLE-Mr. James Brend Batten (L)
BRISTOL-Mr. Lewis Fry (L) MONTGOMERYSHIRE-Mr. Stuart Rendel (L)
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE--Mr. Frederick Charsley (C)
CHIPPENHAM-Mr. Gabriel Goldney (C) NEWARK-Mr. Samuel Boteler Bristowe, Q.C. (L)
COCKERMOUTH-Mr. Edward Waugh (L) NEWCASTLE UPON-TYNE-Mr. Charles Frederick Lamond
Dover-Mr. Charles Kaye Freshfield (C) (C)
Kent, East-Mr. Edward Francis Davis (L) NEWPORT-Mr. Charles Cavendish Clifford (L)
LIVERPOOL--Mr. Edward Whitley (C) NORTHAMPTON—Mr. Charles George Merewether, Q.C.
NORWICH Mr. Jacob Henry Tillett (L) (C)
PETERBOROUGH--Mr. Robert Tennant (C)
RADNORSHIRESir Richard Green Price, Bart. (L)
STOCKTON-Mr. Joseph Dodds (L) NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, NORTH-Mr. Henry Fox Bristowe,
SUSSEX, EAST-Mr. George Barrow Gregory (C) Q.C. (L)
WOLVERHAMTON-Mr. Henry Hartley Fowler (L)
YORK-Mr. James Johnson Leeman (L)
BARRISTERS. Joseph William Chitty, Q.C. (L)
BELFAST-Mr. Robert Seeds, Q.C. (L) OXFORD UNIVERSITY-Right Hon. John Robert Mowbray
CLARE—The O'Gorman Mahon (HR) (C)
DUBLIN UNIVERSITY— Right Hon. Edwarà Gibson, Q.C. PEXBROKE-Mr. flenry George Allen, Q.C. (L)
(C); Hon David Plunket, Q.C. (C) PENBHYN--Mr. John Dawson Mayne (C)
DUNDALK-Mr. Philip Callan (L) PLYMOUTH —Sir George Young, Bart. (L)
KERRY-Mr. Rowland Blennerhassett (HR) PORTSMOUTH-Hon. Thomas Charles Bruce (C); Mr.
KILDARE--Mr. Charles Henry Meldon, Q.C. (HR); John Freeman Norris (L)
Right Hon. William Cogan (L) PRESTON—Sir John Holker, A.G. (C)
KILKENNY-Mr. Patrick Martin, Q.C. (HR) READING-Mr. George Shaw Lefevre (L)
LEITRIM–Mr. Bernard Charles Molloy (HR) RICHMOND-Hon. John Charles Dundas (L)
LIMERICK, CITY— Mr. Richard O'Shaugnessy (HR) ROCHDALE-Mr. Richard Wilson Gamble, Q.C. (L)
LIMERICK, COUNTY-Mr. Edward John Synan (HR) ROCHESTER--Sir Julian Goldsmid, Bart. (L); Mr. LONDONDERRY, COUNTY-Right Hon. Hugh Law, Q.C. (L) Arthur Otway (L)
Louth-Mr. Alexander Martin Sullivan (HR)
TYRONE-Mr. John William Ellison Macartney (C)
WEXFORD, COUNTY—Sir George Bowyer, Bart. (HR); SHROPSHIRE, NORTH-Mr. Stanley Leighton (C)
1 Mr. Keyes O'Clery (HR) SOUTHAMPTON-Mr. Charles Parker Butt, Q.C. (L) ) YouGHALL-Sir Joseph N'Kenna (HR)