Horton, William, and Charles Horton, Bromsgrove, Worcester, Bakers. April 13 at 11 at offices of Scott and Horton, New rd, Bromsgrove. Hyman, Alfred, Fleet st, Tailor. April 25 at 3 at office of Dubois, Serjeants' inn, Chancery lane. Beard and Sons, Basinghall st James, George, Birmingham, Iron and Brass Founder. April 20 at 3 at office of Coleman and Co, Colmore row, Birmingham. Jefferys, Thomas Brown, Swansea, Corn Merchant. Apr 20 at 2 at offices of Plummer and Parry, Bristol chambers, Nicholas st, Bristol Johnson, David, Hockley Heath, Tanworth, Warwick, Farmer. Apr 14 at 3 at offices of Duke, Temple row, Birmingham Jones, Samuel Edward, Liverpool, Car Proprietor. Apr 18 at 2 at offices of Sheen, North John st, Liverpool. Dixon and Syers, Liverpool Kent, Frederick, Bread st, Solicitor. Apr 14 at 3 at offices of Browne Lewis, Henry, and Edwin James Lewis, Silchester ter, Notting hill, Lomas, John, Chester, Chemical Manufacturer. Apr 26 at 3 at the Manning, David, and Herbert David Manning, Luton, Bedford, Welch, Joseph, Bourton, Dorset, Baker. April 19 at 11.30 at offices of Venn, Wincanton Westcott, Henry, West Kirby, Chester, Silk Mercer. Apr 21 at 2 at offices of Davies, the Temple, Dale st, Liverpool Whittle, John, Redditch, Worcester, Boot Maker. Apr 20 at 3 at Apr 20 at 12 at Wild, James, aud William Clarke, Tunstall, Boat Builders. Apr 14 at 3 at offices of Llewellyn and Ackrill, Tunstall Williams, Seth, Aberychan, Monmouth, Grocer. offices of Hutchins, Commercial st, Newport Wilson, John James, Liverpool, Grocer. Webster, South Castle st, Liverpool Windsor, Joseph, and Samuel Masters, Stoke-upon-Trent, Stafford, Joiners. Apr 14 11 at North Staffordshire Railway Hotel, Stokeupon-Trent. Hoilinshead, Tunstall Apr 20 at 11 at offices of Winsor, William, Miles lane, Upper Thames st, Tobacconist. Apr 21 at 2 at offices of Coburn and Young, Leadenhall st Wolf, Peter, Old st, St Luke's, Baker. Apr 20 at 2 at offices of Brown Basinghall st Yardley, William, Stourbridge, Worcester, Grocer. April 13 at 11 at offices of Price, High st, Stourbridge Young, John, Chew Stoke, Somerset, Farmer. April 22 at 1 at offices of Beckingham, Albion chambers, Broad st, Bristol Ziegler, Rudolph, Mark lane, Rice Miller. April 21 at 3 at offices of Cooper Brothers and Co, George st, Mansion House. Hollams and Co, Mincing lane Straw Hat Manufacturers. April 13 at 3 at the Queen's Hotel, SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA, Luton. Wells, St. Albans Mason, Benjamin William, Fulham rd, Coal Merchant. April 13 at 3 at offices of Ogle, New Cavendish st Massey, Thomas, Milton, Stafford, Beerseller. April 16 at 11 at offices of Julian, Queen's chambers, Liverpool rd, Burslem Miles, James, West Ham, Essex, Boot Manufacturer. April 14 at 2 at offices of Morphett, King st, Cheapside. Terry, King st, Cheapside Morris, John, Maidenhead, Berks, Grocer. April 20 at 1 at offices of Poyser, Queen st, Maidenhead Nelson, Thomas, and John Harrison Blayney, Nottingham, Tailors. April 20 at 3 at offices of Bright, Town Club chambers, Wheeler gate, Nottingham Netherwood, George, Cambridge, Bricklayer. April 30 at 11 at offices of Papworth and French, St. Andrew's hill, Cambridge Newbery, William, Brooke, Isle of Wight, Carpenter. April 20 at 12 at offices of Joyce, Sea st, Newport Newman, John, Harlington, Licensed Victualler. April 26 at 3 at the Three Pigeons, Brentford. Philp, Hayes Newth, Henry Charles, Griffin st, Lambeth, Saw Mill Proprietor. April 21 at 3 at offices of Barnard, Westminster Bridge rd Nock, Joseph, Stourbridge, Worcester, Victualler. April 16 at 10 at offices of Prescott, Kidderminster st, Stourbridge Perks, James, Salop, Market Gardener. April 20 at 12 at office of Stanley, Queen st, Wolverhampton Perry, Charles Hewes, Nottingham, Wine and Spirit Merchant. April 21 at 11 at the Assembly Rooms, Low pavement, Nottingham. Martin and Son, Nottingham Pettitt, Edward, Ipswich, Suffolk, Merchant. April 26 at 1 at office Porter, Margaret, Durham, Fancy Stationer. April 21 at 11 at office Roberts, John, Corwen, Merioneth, Boot Maker. April 21 at 2 at offices of Knowles, 5, Cook st, Liverpool Robinson, Benjamin, Leeds, Mantle Manufacturer. April 20 at 3 at offices of Lowrey, 9, South parade, Leeds. Wells, Leeds Sawyer, Frank, Southampton, Coachbuilder. April 14 at 3 at office of Shute, Portland st, Southampton Shreeve, James, Pennydarren, Glamorgan, Licensed Victualler. April 16 at 11 at offices of Lewis, Glebehyde st, Myrthr Tydfil Smedley, George, Pinxton, Derby, Grocer. Apr 20 at 3 at offices of Wyles, Low pavement, Nottingham Sparling, Alfred, Elslack, York, Farmer. Apr 16 at 12 at offices of Throup, Midland Hotel, Skipton. Dale, Leeds Storer, William Thomas, Stretton, Stafford, Licensed Vtctualler. Apr 20 at 20 at offices of Thorne and Co, Darlington st, Wolverhampton Tattam, Charles, Clifton, Bedford, Cattle Dealer. Apr 24 at 1 at Apr 20 at 3 at offices of Thorns, Thomas, Bosville John Mills, and William Harvie, Nicholl sq, Falcon sq, Tie and Brace Manufactorers. Apr 21 at 1 at the Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Houghtons and Byfield, Gracechurch st Thurgood, John, Derby, Tailor. Apr 27 at 3 at offices of Rumney, Walbrook Tillett, Thomas, St Gregory, Norwich, Boot Maker. Apr 25 at 12 at Three Kings, Upper Westwick st, Norwich Watkins, James, Stourbridge, Worcester, Cabinet Maker. Apr 16 at 11 at offices of Wall, High st, Stourbridge Watson, Robert, Corwen, Merioneth, Boot Maker. Apr 20 at 10.5 at Queen's Hotel, Chester. Lloyd and Roberts, Chester Webb, Amos, Tewkesbury, Gloucester, Beer Seller. April 19 at 10.30 at offices of Moores and Romney, Tewkesbury Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder. Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted. The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Invalids and Children." Highly commended by the entire Medica IPress. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, keeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures. Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breaktast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny. COCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manila Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited. In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 38., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocers, ............................................................. 453 COMPANIES.................................................... 454 NEW ORDERS.................................................. 454 IT MAY BE PRESUMED that this recommendation will be adopted by the judges, and embodied in Rules of Court. Until the revolution in legal practice which will thus be established is put in working order by these rules, it would be premature to attempt any criticism as to details. It may, however, be asked whether this plan is likely, taking litigation all round, to effect much saving of expense? In the Queen's Bench Division the majority of actions may, perhaps, be tried without pleadings, but in the Chancery Division there will be very few cases in which pleadings are now delivered where they will not be required in future. The result in chancery actions will be an increase, and not a decrease, of expense-to wit, the additional expense of an application to the court for leave to deliver pleadings. AN EXTRAORDINARY SPECIMEN of red tape has been brought to our notice. In the course of paying out of court an allowance for the maintenance of an infant, it is the practice for the Chancery Paymaster to require an affidavit that the person to be maintained is still alive and an infant. An affidavit was recently objected to at CREDITORS' CLAIMS.................................................................................................... 454 the Chancery Pay Office because, while stating that the 456 LONDON GAZETTES, &C., &c.. Grange, In re. Cooper v. Todd (Ch.Div. Fry, J., for V.C.M.) Holt v. Collyer (Ch. Div. Fry, J.) Ickeringill, In re. Hinsley v. Ickeringill (Ch.Div. V.C.H.) Jones v. Stohwasser (Ch. Div. V.C.B.). Marina," The (Adm.Div.). .... Master, Brothers, and Sisters of St. Katharine's Hospital, Ex Stevens & Sons v. Woodward (C.P.Div.) Vivian v. Moat. Vivian v. Walker (Ch.Div. Fry, J.) CURRENT TOPICS. 502 502 508 ... 495 506 ...... 507 of person was an infant, it did not also state that he was under twenty-one years of age. We know it is not unusual for draftsmen to describe minors as 66 infants under the age of twenty-one years," but it would be interesting to know whether, in the opinion of the Chancery Paymaster, there could be any real doubt as to an "infant" being under twenty-one years of age? THE COURT OF APPEAL on Saturday last affirmed the decision of the Master of the Rolls in Rayner v. Preston (28 W. R. 808, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 297), and a note of their lordships' judgments will be found in another column. The point, as our readers will be aware, was whether a purchaser who had bought an insured house under a contract containing no reference to the insurance, was entitled, as against the vendor, on the house being burnt down after the contract but before completion, to the benefit of the insurance, either by way of abatement of the purchase-money or reinstatement of the premises. The Master of the Rolls, it will be remembered, without discussing the reasons one way or the other, considered himself bound by the authority of Poole v. Adams (12 IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the coming into operation W. R. 683), and he held that the purchaser was not the new arrangements for expediting the work of the THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS will sit with the Court of Appeal on the first day of the Easter Sittings, and will take motions in his own court on the second day of the sittings. THE COURT OF APPEAL at Westminster decided on Tuesday last appeals set down so recently as March 2 last, while the Court of Appeal at Lincoln's-inn is still hearing appeals set down in August last. WE UNDERSTAND that the report of the Procedure Committee contains a recommendation, in pursuance of a resolution arrived at unanimously by the committee, in favour of the abolition of pleadings in all cases except where leave to plead is given by the court. entitled to the benefit of the insurance. In the lastmentioned case Vice-Chancellor KINDERSLEY does not appear to have gone into any consideration of the grounds for the rule he laid down, so that the matter may be said to have been first fully discussed in the important judgments of the Court of Appeal. There were two grounds on which it was contended that the purchaser ought to have the benefit of the insurance. In the first place, it was contended that, after the contract, the vendor was a trustee for the purchaser, and on this ground Lord Justice JAMES based his judgment in favour of the purchaser. But on this point we confess we think the answer of the majority of the court is conclusive. An unpaid vendor is no doubt a trustee for the purchaser of what he has agreed to sell, but then in this case the vendor had not agreed to sell the policy. The money received under the policy is not (as Lord Justice JAMES seemed to think it was) received by reason of the vendor's legal interest in the property, but by reason of a contract which he has made with the insurance company. But, on the other contention of the purchaser, 66 it is important to point out that the decision of the court entirely turned on a question of fact. It was contended that by the operation of 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 83, as interpreted by Ex parte Gorely (4 De G. J. & S. 477), the purchaser, as a person interested in any house," was entitled to request the insurance company to rebuild the house. No request had been made by the purchaser before the office settled with the insurer, but it was alleged that the vendor in Rayner v. Preston had misled the purchaser, and prevented him from insisting on his rights under the Act. The court held, on the facts, that no misrepresentation in respect of which relief could be given had been made, and, of course, as no request had been made by the purchaser to the office, no rights had accrued to him under the statute. It will be observed that the question has not yet been decided whether the purchaser before completion is a person who may require the insurance company to rebuild. We venture to think that he is. But until the question is settled, it will be more than ever essential to bear the matter in mind in preparing purchase agreements. The agreement should always expressly include any policy of fire insurance affecting the property dealt with, and the moneys to become payable thereunder; and it should be provided that such moneys shall, in case of fire before the completion of the purchase, be recovered by the vendor and paid by him to the purchaser on completion. by every MR. BRADLAUGH having now been again returned for Northampton, the question must shortly arise whether he can take his seat or not. It is clear that he cannot affirm, and it is also clear that without either an affirmation or an oath having been taken, a scat, if taken, becomes vacant as if the elected member were dead. The words of the Parliamentary Oaths Act are to the effect that the oath thereby appointed "shall in every Parliament be solemnly and publicly made. member of the House of Commons at the table in the middle of the said House, and whilst a full House of Commons is there duly sitting, with their Speaker in his chair, at such hours and according to such regulations as the house may by its Standing Orders require." The Standing Order of the House of Commons under the Act of 1866 (see May Parl. Pr., 195), provides that " members may take and subscribe the caths required by law at any time during the sitting of the House, before the orders of the day and notices have been entered upon, or after they have been disposed of; but no debate or business shall be interrupted for that purpose." Should Mr. BRADLAUGH claim to be sworn, and objection be raised, novel questions of great delicacy and difficulty will arise. By law every person is presumed to believe in the received religion of the country for the time being, until the contrary be shown. The contrary may be easily shown in a court of justice by examining a proposed witness on the voir dire, as was done by a county court judge, and held to be lawfully done, in Maden v. Catanach (31 L. J. Ex. 118, where an atheist offered to take an oath). But to examine a member of the House of Commons is no such easy matter, for want of an examiner, and considerable difficulty might occur in giving legal parliamentary proof of a member's opinions aliunde. It must be borne in mind that Jews and Roman Catholics were kept out of Parliament by their own voluntary refusal to take the oath "on the true faith of a Christian," or to take the declaration against transubstantiation. There is no instance on record of a ,, member of either faith being willing to take the oath, and being, either successfully or unsuccessfully, objected to. The only approach to a precedent is the objection to Sir CHARLES DILKE'S "Civil List" motion in 1872, on the ground of such motion, when looked at by the light of certain opinions of the honourable member, being inconsistent with the oath of allegiance. In that case the Speaker refused to interfere, "apprehending that it was no part of his duty to say what was consistent or what was not consistent with that oath" (Hansard, vol. 210, 3rd series, p. 252). Of course, if Mr. BRADLAUGH should, either after objection or not, be allowed to take the oath, no penalty will be incurred, nor will any other after consequences ensue. The oath once taken, it will be impossible to go behind it. But supposing a majority of the House of Commons to be inclined to prevent the oath being taken, have they jurisdiction to do so, or must the controversy be once more relegated to a court of law? This is a question of the utmost difficulty. A standing order prescribing as a "regulation "that certain evidence might be admissible as to the opinions of a member, though subject to obvious objections as being ex post facto, would, we think, give the House of Commons an incontrovertible jurisdiction. Failing such standing order, we incline, though with the greatest doubt, to the opinion that a court of law would have to decide the point. How a court of law would decide it, it is impossible even to speculate. THE OPINIONS delivered in the House of Lords on the 17th ult., by seven of the judges, in answer to the five questions left to them after the argument of Commissioners of Public Works v. Angus, have at last appeared, and we may now extract from over thirty closely-printed pages an indication of the current of judicial opinion on the subject. The first question put to the judges was this, "Has the owner of an ancient building a right of action against the owner of land adjoining if he disturbs his land so as to take away the lateral support previously afforded by that land?" This question was answered by all the judges in the affirmative. | The second question was, "Is the period during which the plaintiff's house has stood, under the circumstances of the case, sufficient to give him the same right as if the house was ancient ?" This question was answered by Baron POLLOCK, and by Justices FIELD, MANISTY, and FRY, in the affirmative. Mr. Justice BowEN gave the same reply, but subject to the conditions that the enjoy ment was open, and that the defendant had given no evidence that the right had not had a lawful origin. Justices LINDLEY and LOPES thought the question ought to have been left to the jury. The third question-namely, "If the acts done by the defendants would have caused no damage to the plaintiff's building as it stood before the alterations made in 1849, is it necessary to prove that the defendants or their predecessors in title had knowledge or notice of those alterations in order to make the damage done by their act in removing the lateral support after the lapse of twenty-seven years an actionable wrong?" was answered in the affirmative by Justices LINDLEY and LOPES, and also (with some qualification) by Mr. Justice BOWEN, and in the negative by the four other judges. The fourth question was, "If so, is it sufficient to prove knowledge or notice of the fact that such alterations were made, or is it necessary also to prove knowledge of their effect in causing the buildings so altered to require a degree of lateral support from the adjoining land which was not before needful?" Justices LINDLEY, LOPES, and BOWEN thought that such further evidence was unnecessary, while Baron POLLOCK, and Justices FIELD, MANISTY, and FRY, deemed it unnecessary to answer the question, in consequence of the view taken by them as to the previous one. The fifth question was this, "Was the course taken by the learned judge at the trial, of directing a verdict for the plaintiff, correct, or ought he to have left any question to the jury?" Baron POLLOCK and Justices FIELD, MANISTY, and FRY held that there had been no misdirection, but Justices LINDLEY, LOPES, and BOWEN thought that the question whether the enjoyment was open ought to have been left to the jury. The result of the answers of the judges thus shows a preponderance of opinion in favour of the view of the law taken by the majority of the judges in the Court of Appeal, while there is a much closer division as to the question whether there should be a new trial. THE "POLISHED, disinterested, and honourable" Mrs. SUSAN FLETCHER has been convicted of obtaining money by false pretences of a spiritualistic character, and sentenced by Mr. Justice HAWKINS to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. It may be worth while to point out that the maximum punishment for this kind of fraud is five years' penal servitude, under the Larceny Act, 1861, section 88, whereas the maximum punishment for using any subtle craft, &c., under the Vagrant Act is three months' imprisonment with hard labour. It may therefore prove more convenient for the future to proceed against fraudulent spiritualists under the Larceny Act than under the Vagrant Act, unless, indeed, the punishment of whipping, which is expressly authorized by section 10 of the Vagrant Act in case of a second conviction (except in the case of females), should be considered appropriate to the offence. THE IRISH LAND BILL. I. In entering upon the discussion of this question in these columns, it is perhaps desirable that we should state at the outset the points with which we do, and especially those with which we do not, propose to deal. And, first of all, we have no intention of raising any question as to the general desirability of the measure, or the propriety, or the contrary, of dealing with the possession of land in Ireland on principles different from those which apply as between hirer and lender of other descriptions of property, or of land elsewhere situate. We are, indeed, of opinion that, as a general principle, all legislation should be uniform for the whole United Kingdom, but no such rule has ever yet prevailed, and there does not seem to be any ground for its adoption in this case rather than in others. Again, we are not going to discuss the question whether the landowners of Ireland do or do not, as a class, use oppressively the powers given to them by the existing law, nor whether the protection extended to the tenantry by that law-which is admittedly more favourable to the occupier than the corresponding law of any other European community-is or is not sufficient to secure him against injustice. Our concern is not, in short, with the policy or expediency of legislation on this subject, but with the manner and form of such legisla tion, its desirability being accepted as a foregone conclusion. Further, we are not about to open up the vexed question whether the Irish tenant ought or ought not to be regarded as having, under the circumstances of his possession, a moral right to a larger interest in the soil than arises at present, either by express contract or as an incident of tenure: that question may be deemed to have been definitively settled by the Land Act of 1870, which, whatever else it may have done, unquestionably recognized such a moral right, not only in Ulster, where it had been purchased with hard cash, but, though in inferior degree, over the whole of Ireland. Nor, lastly, is it our intention to consider whether the law then introduced ought to have been taken as a final settlement of the question, nor whether the time which has since elapsed has or has not been sufficient to give it a fair trial: it is enough to say that the practical discontent at the end of the decade in question is much greater than it was at the beginning, and that, however wise or righteous in itself that measure may have been, no one in Ireland, landlord or tenant, even professes to be satisfied with its working. But here arises a question of considerable importance to our inquiry: ought the contemplated legislation to follow the lines of the Act of 1870, with a view, as far as may be, to remedy the deficiencies of that Act, while adhering to its principle; or ought it, disregarding those lines altogether, to attempt to settle the relations of landlord and tenant on a totally different basis, not only differing from, but radically inconsistent with, the provisions of that Act? There is much to be said for each of these views, and the framers of the present Bill appear, as far as we can judge, to have remained to the last undecided as to which of them should prevail. And in order to the right comprehension of this question it is necessary to consider shortly the points of alleged "failure in the Act of 1870, and the reasons why that measure has not given satisfaction. And to arrive at a just conclusion on these points a few words by way of historical retrospect are requisite. The old customary tenure of Ireland under native rule was that of "tanistry," under which the ownership of all the land of the tribe was absolutely vested in the chieftain, who could practically impose what terms he pleased, in the nature of rent and services, upon the occupier for the time being; and so absolute was his dominion, that upon the death of a chieftain all the land reverted into the actual occupation of his successor, who was under no obligation in re-distributing it to pay any regard to the claims of the previous occupiers. On the other hand, he could only allot the land among the tribesmen: no stranger "who was not of the seed of " the particular clan, could take any share, and none of the allottees could be dispossessed during the life of the allottor, except by the somewhat summary process-of by no means rare occurrence-of putting him to death for some real or alleged disobedience to the authority of his chief. Under the Norman colonists this tenure became somewhat modified: the chiefs avowedly held of the King of England (who was not, however, prior to the reign of Henry VIII., recognized as King," but merely as "Overlord," in Ireland), and their immediate retainers, the descendants of the younger branches of their own families, or of the principal adventurers who had "come over with" them, held of them by a tenure essentially feudal, but the great mass of the dependants, comprising practically the whole of the aboriginal population, remained unaffected by the change, save only that, on the one hand, systematic resumptions and re-distributions of land on a large scale were not practised by the Normans, and, on the other, the restrictions, such as they were, upon the arbitrary will of the chief, were persistently disregarded. In other words, the system of tanistry was superseded by a modified sort of "villenage," in which the persons of the villeins were indeed free, and their actual occupancy seldom interfered with, but their recognized rights as occupiers were reduced to a minimum. Among a people almost exclusively pastoral, such as the Irish then were, this system was not attended with the inconveniences which would have arisen from it among a more settled population extensively engaged in agriculture. The gradual extension of English rule over the island eventually extinguished this tenure, the chiefs successively surrendering their lands to the Crown, and receiving them back "to hold by knight service. : a change invariably, but by no means immediately, followed by the substitution of "terre tenants," in the feudal sense of the word, for the old occupiers in tanistry. But it is noteworthy that most, if not all, of the "rebellions" which recurred periodically from the time of Richard II. down to the " pacification" effected under Elizabeth, arose from discontent at the operation of the Norman laws of descent as opposed to the old tanistry. And the principle underlying this law-viz., that the land belonged to the chief only as representative of the tribe, and that no individual whomsoever had any permanent "proprietary" rights in it inconsistent with its enjoyment by the tribe as a whole, was constantly insisted upon by the insurgents, and has never lost its hold upon the minds of the Irish people. The confiscations which succeeded the successive rebellions of 1595, 1641, and 1688 brought about, indeed, some important modifications of this principle, and materially altered the relations of the people to the land, but without in the least weakening this feeling of a real and indefeasible right to the possession of the soil, upon conditions varying within tangible, though undefined, limits. The particular form which this feeling took in the eighteenth century, and its effect at the present day, must be reserved for a future article. THE NEW BANKRUPTCY BILL. any of his predecessors in the work of reforming the Bills does not detract from the credit he deserves for his general scheme. That credit ought to be considerable. We do not share in his anticipations of the successful working of some of his proposals, but it must be admitted that he has done better than any of his predecessors. He has, in general, steered clear of the evil of laxity on the one hand, and impracticable severity on the other. Shortly put, his general proposal (as developed in his speech) is as follows. He sweeps away the existing provisions as to liquidation and composition, and provides that all proceedings shall be commenced by petition, which may be presented either by the debtor or any creditor. It will be remembered that, in deference to the objections which were taken to the presentation of a petition by a debtor against himself, this provision was dropped in the latest Bill of the last Government. We have never been able to see any The first meeting may decide on the acceptance of a composition, which must be passed by a majority in number, and three-fourths in value, and must be not less than five shillings in the pound, and must be confirmed by a second meeting after a report upon it has been made by the official receiver. The court, moreover, is empowered to refuse to allow the com. position to be proceeded with if it is of opinion that it is not calculated to benefit the general body of the creditors, or if the bankrupt had been guilty of misconduct. On the other hand, the meeting may appoint a trustee, as to whom it is provided that he must give security, and may be removed by the Board of Trade on the ground of unfit. ness or probability of collusion with the bankrupt; or by the creditors at any time; or by the Board of Trade if he is guilty of misconduct; with an appeal, in case of removal by the Board of Trade, to the court. The remuneration of the trustee is to be fixed by the schedule, but may be increased in the case of special services, or where the assets exceed £3,000. The following is the scale given in the schedule where the assets under a bankruptcy petition do not exceed £3,000:-"For property realised, including debts collected, 2 per cent. on the first amount of £500, or any less sum; 1 per cent. on the next amount of £500, or any less sum; per cent. on all further sums. On dividend: 2 per cent. on the first amount of £1,000, or any less sum; 1 per cent. on all further sums. Where the property has been realised partly by a receiver and partly by the trustee, the remuneration for property realised shall be divided in pro portion to the amount realised by each." The trustee is not to be allowed any additional remuneration" for the performance by others of services which he ought to perform by himself." All bills are to be taxed and all moneys over £50 are to be paid into the Bank of England, and the accounts of the trustee are to be audited halfyearly by the Comptroller-General. The bankrupt is to be publicly examined in court as to his conduct and affairs. On the close of the bauk ruptcy, or before with the assent of the trustee and a majority of the creditors, the bankrupt may apply for discharge, and the court will have power to grant, re conditions as to after-acquired property. The court is empowered to order a prosecution and to commit the bankrupt for trial, without applying to a magistrate. Ifit is shown that the debts of the bankrupt are fully paid, or the court is satisfied that the bankruptcy has been caused by misfortune and not by misconduct, it may annul the adjudication. practical objection to allowing a debtor to present a peti-fuse, or suspend such discharge, or to qualify it by any tion against himself, and we are glad to see that the provision is restored. Another provision, too, which was also dropped in the last Government Bill, has been reinstated-viz., the requirement that the debtor shall file a statement of his affairs and list of his creditors upon, or within three days after, the filing of the petition. This we regard as an essential to a good Bankruptcy Bill. Upon adjudication the property of the bankrupt is to vest in an official receiver, who is to be an officer attached to the Bankruptcy Court, and is to be appointed by, and responsible to, the Board of Trade. The registrars of the county courts are to fulfil this function. The first meeting is to be held within seven days of the presentation of the petition. We are glad to find that Mr. Chamberlain has not given way to the irrational cry for abolition of proxies. It is quite true that most of the evils of the present system may be traced to the abuse of the system of proxies, but so long as you have creditors living at a distance, it is ridiculous to abolish their use. What ought to be done is so to restrict their use as to avoid abuse. We repeatedly pointed out during the discussions on the previous Government Bills that what is mainly wanted is some provision as to the persons to whom proxies may be given. Mr. Chamberlain seems to have, to some extent, recognized this need, and he provides, not only that the proxies must be on official forms, and be available only for the mecting specified on the form, but that they must not be given to the solicitor for the bankrupt, nor used by any person for the purpose of voting for the appointment of himself as trustee. Whether this provision will be sufficient, we cannot judge till we have to consider in detail the clause in the Bill. With regard to small estates, it is provided that the receivers shall act as trustees and wind up the estates as decide to elect a trustee of their own. quickly as possible, unless the creditors by resolution is proposed that a special bankruptcy judge shall be And, lastly, it appointed; that the London Court of Bankruptcy shall become a branch of the High Court, and that the regis trars shall act as chief clerks. The appeal in London cases is to be from the bankruptcy judge to the Court of Appeal, and in country cases from the county courts to the Court of Appeal, with the judge in bankruptcy sitting as one of its members. The Bill has been issued at too late a date to enable us to deal this week with any of the clauses which carry out this scheme. We shall hope hereafter to return to them. Mr. Justice Kay will go on circuit on Tuesday, the 3rd of May, and will probably be absent for a week or ten days. Lord Coleridge announced on Monday that it was intended that there should be sittings at Guildhall after Easter, lasting nine or ten instead of only five or six days, as had latterly been the case there at that time of the year. |