Mr. WAKE (Sheffield) thought that all must agree in the broad principle, and that it was desirable to have justice brought to their doors.

Mr. RYDER (St. Helens) did not know that the decisions of county court judges were always accurate. He thought the frequent appearance of solicitors in the county courts would do much to raise the status of the courts.

Mr. LAVERICK (Hull) observed that the profession in London had never taken kindly to the county court system, whilst in the country it was felt that there could be no question of the desirability of extending its jurisdiction. Mr. WOODHOUSE, in reply, remarked that the objections raised to the reforms he had proposed had all come from London solicitors, and he would impress upon them that there was a broad distinction between their practice and that of their country brethren. The London solicitors had counsel always at hand and the courts just over the way, and had, therefore, not the necessity to resort to the county courts, which was experienced in the country. The country solicitor's remuneration was diminished by having to employ London agente, and if they could get their work satisfactorily done by the county courts it was to their interest as well as to their clients' that they should go to them. He maintained that the county court judges were very competent men. With the permission of the meeting he would alter his motion as follows:-" That in the opinion of this meeting it is expedient that the jurisdiction of county courts, at all events in the courts possessing bankruptcy jurisdiction, should be generally extended, and that the practice and procedure should be revised, and that the remuneration should be adequately increased.' The resolution was carried nem. con. in this shape.

3.

OUGHT THE EXECUTION OF WRITS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE OFFICE OF SHERIFF?

But we

Mr. F. K. MUNTON (London) read the following paper on this subject :After referring to the history of the office of sheriff, Mr. MUNTON said :Let us look at the circumlocution connected with the putting into force of final civil process in England. Assume that a plaintiff recovers judgment by default, say for £100, with the average law costs of about £4, and that it is desired to realize this £104 on the debtor's goods. The creditor has to issue a lengthy, rambling document, bearing signs of an endeavour to modernize an ancient form, directed to the sheriff (without even mentioning his name, and he most assuredly will never see the writ nor trouble himself at all about it), authorizing the seizure of the defendant's goods within a certain district, but not elsewhere. This document being handed to the under-sheriff, that unctionary transfers his authority to a third person, the officer, and the first expense incurred by the suitor is a fee for No. 2 delegating or warranting No. Here we may pause to look at some incidental points in reference to this preliminary and unnecessary item. If a levy be wanted on the Middlesex side of Westminster Bridge, the "warrant" costs 2s. 6d. ; if you cross the bridge into Surrey, the fee is 5s.; whilst a warrant in, say, Lincolnshire, is 6s., and further still, say Lancashire, is 78. These fees were of course fixed before railways and penny postage were universal; but there they remain, and although they may be unimportant per se, they serve to illustrate my point. Before passing on we may glance at one or two positive anomalies. Whilst ordinary process has long since been operative all over England, a writ of execution is for one county only. Near a boundary, not always well defined, a second writ often becomes necessary, and delays may be serious. Again, if you are moving about the time of change of sheriff, a new warrant is charged for on the strength of such change. If a sheriff dies, too, a new warrant must be made out; and even if the Sovereign dies, the process has to be gone through afresh, demonstrating that whilst every other step in an action has been simplified, the final process remains as complicated as ever. will suppose that the correct warrant has at last been handed to the third person, the bailiff, who is to execute the writ in such a way that the sheriff may "forthwith" return the result to the court whereout the process issued. Bailiffs are a class of people varying from a decently respectable auctioneer down to an impecunious person, who would stand at nothing to serve his own purpose. Blackstone defined bound bailiffs to be "mean persons appointed by sheriffs, on account only of their adroitness and dexterity in hunting and seizing their prey; rather a harsh definition, but it was complimentary in a sense some of us would not indorse, for now-a-day few sheriff's officers are either adroit or dexterons-in fact, as a body, they are mere machines. It is understood that one of the usual conditions in a bailiff's security bond is that he shall notify, "day by day," what he has done under each warrant, whether successful or not, and that he will never make excessive or improper charges. It would be interesting to know whether any sheriff's officer in the kingdom returns "day by day what his movements are. All I can say is, that in some counties I might name it would give me much satisfaction to peruse such a diary in relation to executions issued out of my own firm's office. Again, I should be glad to know of any instance of an under-sheriff voluntarily enforcing a bailiff's bond as regards excessive charges (unless proceedings have arisen), the under-sheriff, as far as I know, invariably leaving the unfortunate debtor to the mercy of chance. It is probably unnecessary for me to say that I am only directing attention to the system, and not blaming, as a body, the existing under-sheriffs, generally solicitors of the highest repute; but I submit that they have no direct interest, and it is no affair of theirs to keep strict watch over the officers, or, at all events, in practice they do not effectually do so. Neither am I condemning all bailiffs; there are officers and officers, and some in London and some in the country are to be trusted implicitly; but my case is that people armed with such important powers should either be permanent officers of the court, or persons under the direct and immediate control of the creditor's solicitor, strengthened by speedy means of appeal, on either side, in case of difficulty. I am told that in certain rural districts special bailiffs, nominated by the creditor's solicitors, are permitted to act, but the plan is scarcely feasible in large cities and towns under the existing system. To return to the officer with his warrant to levy the £104 above mentioned, and assume that he proceeds conscientiously and with alacrity, and that on calling at the debtor's house the claim is met in

66

half an hour. Besides the ordinary legal costs of the writ, including the warrant fee before referred to, the debtor has to pay one guinea for the officer's visit, mileage at sixpence a mile beyond five miles from the officer's residence (and the officer may apparently live where he pleases), 5s. for possession money, 4s. 61. for discharge fee, and, finally, £5 4s. for "poundage," so that whilst the total law costs from the commencement of the proceedings to the lodging of the execution average but £5, the expense to the debtor within an hour is increased by one blow to about £12. If it be said that the debtor bears the burden, and the creditors need not complain, I answer that these prohibitory fees work as a drawback to the plaintiff, for a generous creditor hesitates to assert his right when he knows that the penalty to his adversary is disproportionably serious. I may here quote a very small case. A poor man living some seven miles from Charing Cross, London, had been paying off a considerable debt by easy instalments, and the final balance of £3 14s. 10d. falling in arrear, the creditor instructed the sheriff. Within ten minutes after the officer entered, the defendant paid the claim out thus: Debt, £3 14s. 10d.; law costs of execution and warrant, £1 53.; levy £1 1s.; mileage, 10.; poundage, 5s. ; possession money, 5s.; release, 4s. 6d. ; total, £7 58. 4d. The mileage of ten shillings was clearly an extortion, but the frightened debtor paid it, and the bailiff in question may yet hear of this matter. I say nothing of the cost in the event of the debtor not paying the officer instanter, such as further possession money, auctioneer's charges, and the rack and ruin more or less inevitable to no organized system or surveillance; but very questionable actions pass unchallenged. As to extortion, an Act passed nearly fifty years ago constitutes it a contempt of court; moreover, an action will lie, and indeed a bailiff (though not the sheriff) may be indicted. But all these remedies are too complicated, for between the officer, under-sheriff, and sheriff, an ordinary person completely loses himself-in short, the legal machinery is rarely put into motion. The irregularities of bailiffs have, of recent years, assumed serious proportions, and they may be classed thus: mere neglect incident to the want of proper control, and wilful neglect for reward at the hands of the debtor, for most persons pressed to the extremity of an execution seek delay, and a douceur to the officer or his man is an undetectable bargain. This wilful neglect may be carried out in two ways: one by suspending the actual levy, the other, and more frequent course, levying formally and then quietly taking or charging 58. a day for possession. know of an interpleader case where 70s. was received for fourteen days' possession," though the man only remained on the premises one night, limiting his attendance on the other thirteen days to a call at meal-times, and drawing from the unlucky debtor the price of an omnibus trip to and fro! This item recalls the fact that it is 1s. 6d. a day more than the authorized charge where the man is boarded (and he is invariably well looked after in this respect), but such excessive charge is now so commonly made that I have not come across an officer for years who recognizes a threeand-sixpenny fee for possession. Sometimes the officer, without instruction, sets himself up as a judge and takes the levy by instalments (probably on liberal terms to himself for the accommodation), and there are many other opportunities for the officer to retard progress before he gets to realization, and when he combines the business of auctioneer, as he frequently does, he is completely master of the situation. But let us consider what happens when there is a claim for rent, or, what is more common, a third party sets up a bill of sale or hiring agreement. What does the officer do? Does he with despatch apprise the creditor, and does he take the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of the claim set up, or examine or check the schedules with the goods on the premises to see if there be a surplus? My experience is that be does neither; indeed, in many cases the officer does not move a pin's point until the creditor goes to the expense of issuing a peremptory rule of court against the sheriff, commanding him to certify the result of his labours. Interpleader summonses are issued in the most reckless manner, involving the creditor in delay and expense, and there is one reported case of an officer actually interpleading on the strength of a bill of sale given after the date of the levy! The neglect of sheriffs' officers has become so habitual-that is to say, it is found so difficult to procure voluntary speedy attention-that many practitioners issue a rale peremptorily demanding a return simultaneously with the issue of the writ itself, a needless expense to a creditor simply because he cannot get at the officer by any less roundabout process. I could cite numerous instances of irregu larities and troublesome conduct on the part of sheriffs' officers in various counties, but where their misdoings have not been followed by legal proceedings, I will not weary the members with details, confining myself to a particular case as a specimen. Having been provoked by many previous defaults, I recently made an example of the sheriff of a populous home county by demanding and obtaining damages for withholding the payment of the proceeds of a fi. fa. As soon as it was reasonably believed that the sheriff was in default, I resolved to issue a writ without the slightest notice; so in an action of N. v. B., where the sheriff was ruled, and he omitted for half an the sheriff was served with a writ without even the formality of a letter. hour beyond the prescribed time either to obey the rule or pay the money, Now we all know that this is prima facie a very discourteous proceeding, and if any of us here were served with & writ for an ordinary claim without notice we should make a pretty strong remonstrance. Did the undersheriff do so? Not at all. He was apparently so used to it that he simply sent a messenger immediately, not only to pay the full amount of judgment debt and costs of execution, but the indorsed costs of the writ against the sheriff. I declined the money on the following grounds: (1) I denied the right to tender at all in an action for damages; (2) no interest on the levy was offered; (3) I claimed compensation for detention of the fund; and (4) I frankly avowed that I wished to take every opportunity of exposing the system. Vague suggestions were thrown out but I stood firm, and in due time I put in a statement of claim, afterwards delivering particulars of a somewhat novel character, under four heads: first, the

claim of the few shillings interest on the amount directed to be levied; second, the expenses of ruling the sheriff; third, the nominal loss attendant on the money being withheld; and fourth (I copy this item nearly verbatim), "damages incident to plaintiff being obliged to make terms with sundry debtors from the impossibility of getting writs of fi. fa. executed by defendant in his county with anything like order or regularity, or obtaining the money from the defendant after execution of such writs." I reduced this latter item to a formal sum (it being inconvenient to deliver particulars of the debtors with whom I was compromising), and the claim altogether was experimental. It aimed at the system, rather than actual loss; nevertheless the fourth item was really well-founded in point of fact; and, as the master remarked at a later stage, he "wondered I had not indicted the parties." Not to weary the meeting, let me say that the sheriff, in the end, not only paid the sixty odd pounds originally levied, but £4 damages, and £11 19s. 6d. taxed costs, incident to his default. Few practitioners, however, would take this trouble, especially as the writ has to be pointed at the sheriff himself, who, one knows, is usually personally innocent. In some private correspondence I had with the new sheriff it transpired that before he had been in office twenty-four hours three complaints from solicitors reached him! I may say that there is now an improved state of things in the county in question, and, on the whole, I abstain from quoting the name in this paper. But we come back to the main question whether the time has not arrived for introducing a radical change in these matters, and in conclusion I throw out the following suggestions for the consideration of my professional brethren and the council of our society, should occasion offer for recommending alterations in the system :-(1) That the execution of final civil process should be removed from the office of sheriff. (2) That an execation department should be established in the Supreme Court, controlled by an official easily accessible. (3) That all writs of execution should be available throughout England, and be acted on without supplementary warrant. (4) That bailiffs should be appointed by the court, under proper regulations and supervision, and be answerable direct on application to the execution department by any person alleging himself to be aggrieved. (5) That writs of execution should be marked with the day and hour of issuing, and take priority accordingly, the writ being dispatched by the execution department straight to the bailiff in rotation. (6) That unless otherwise directed in writing by the creditor's solicitor, all proceeds of execution should be at once paid into court. (7) That the costs and fees on executions should be altogether revised. (8) That all business in relation to executions and interpleader should be transferred to the execution department with provisions for the speedy intervention of the judge. Lastly, that whether the foregoing suggestions be acceptable or otherwise, the system should be forthwith modified by stringent regulations so as in some degree to lessen the present abuses, which I venture to characterize as among the gravest in the practice of the law.

Mr. MILLER (Bristol) hoped that some such suggestion as that suggested with regard to the execution department, &c., would be adopted.

Mr. P. GODFREY (London) moved a resolution to the effect that the law of execution required amendment, and that the meeting would suggest to the council that the subject should be taken into consideration forth with with a view to immediate legislation.

Subsequently Mr. GODFREY withdrew the motion, and a motion by Mr. MUNTON, that the recommendations contained in his paper should be taken into consideration by the council with a view to their suggested legislative action, was carried.

The meeting then adjourned.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

The forty-ninth half-yearly meeting of this society was held on Wednesday morning at the Royal Institution, Albion-street, Hall, Mr. F. H. JANSON presiding.

The usual formal business having been transacted,

Mr. MARSHALL (Leeds) brought forward a motion of which he had given notice as follows:-"That having regard to the large accumulated funds of the society, and to the annual income from other sources and probable increase, this meeting recommends the board of directors to consider whether the amount granted might not be increased, and whether, if in their opinion this cannot be done, some other mode of carrying out the main objects of the society might be devised." He observed that the income of the association amounted to 1,731 guineas from annual members. There were also a certain number of life members who paid ten guineas, and a certain amount from donations under wills, and so on, which, although they might vary, might be looked upon as a sure source of income. Last year, in addition to the amount expended in relief, they had paid the whole of their expenses and bad capitalised £1,600 or £1,700. He thought that a society so strong in funds actually and prospectively might properly spend larger sums in granting relief. He thought that instead of £30 a year being given to necessitous members, the sum might well be increased to £40 or £50. In canvassing for the society he was frequently met with the remark, "The society is rich enough, you don't want money," and it was very difficult under existing cir cumstances to answer that objection. They had the large accumulated capital of £44,000, which was constantly increasing by virtue of the bequests and other windfalls which came to the society. The annual subscriptions would also doubtless increase. He therefore begged to move his resolution. Mr. BRAMLEY (Sheffield) seconded the motion. He thought the £15 given on an average to the non-members was not nearly sufficient. The CHAIRMAN remarked that the total income in subscriptions for the last year was £1,817, for invested property £1,604, making 3,421. The working expenses were £743, leaving a balance of £2,677. There were ten board meetings, which would give £267 to be given at each meeting, without trench. ing upon donations or life-donations, and it appeared that in the course of last

year £276 was expended in this manner at each board meeting, which, in the year, amounted to about £100 in excess of the receipts for annual subscriptions. Mr. GRIBBLE (London) supported the resolution, and observed that if there were any necessity at any time for an increased income, the solicitors would respond to any appeal which might be made to them.

Mr. BURNE (Bath) was in favour of granting annuities instead of requiring the applicants to come to the board every year.

Mr. WILLAN (Darlington) thought that too much was paid to non-members. This rather held out a premium to solicitors to refrain from subscribing. The CHAIRMAN remarked that the question was fully gone into at Brighton last year, when there was an unanimous expression of opinion that the society should not be considered as a benefit, but as a charitable association. Mr. W. MELMOTH WALTERS (London) observed that the average amount given to non-members was £15, and to members £30. He objected to the accumulation of funds. What did they intend to do with them? Some were of opinion that they should be spent in bricks and mortar, and a school built; but he was most strongly opposed to this, and would have the money given so that the children might be sent to whichever schools were preferred by their friends. Mr. WHITEHEAD (London) was opposed to the life subscriptions being treated as capital.

The motion was carried.

On the motion of Mr. BURNE (Bath), seconded by Mr. HARPER (Bury), it was resolved, "That the directors be requested to consider whether grants for such objects of the bounty of the society as may seem suitable may not be by way of annuity." On the motion of Mr. W. BERIAH BROOK (London), seconded by Mr. SIDNEY SMITH (London), the bye-laws were altered, so that a public accountant should be appointed, in addition to twojauditors selected from amongst the members.

Mr. Stephen Williams, Mr. Henry Soutar, and Mr. H. Schröder were elected auditors for the ensuing year.

chairman, were carried unanimously, and the proceedings terminated. Votes of thanks to the board of directors, who were re-elected, and to the

Previous to the resumption of the regular order of proceedings, on Wednesday, Mr. S. WHITEHEAD (London) said that the society were without an invitation for 1883, and suggested that they should entertain their provincial friends in London next year. The PRESIDENT remarked that the matter had better be left to the consideration of the council. When the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association was amalgamated with the Incorporated Law Society, it was stipulated that a meeting should be held annually in the provinces.

Mr. LEE (Birmingham) moved, and Mr. KEMP (Wakefield) seconded, that the paper on the Married Women's Property Act, by Mr. Lowe, be next taken, the subject being of great practical interest.

A discussion ensued, and eventually the motion was negatived. At a subsequent period Mr. COTHAM (Bradford) moved: "That it be an instruction to the council to settle the order in which the papers are read at provincial meetings-that first in order should be read such papers as, in having regard to then recent legislation, in preference to those of more the opinion of the council, deal with subject-matters of great interest, general interest.”

Mr. DEAKIN (Birmingham) seconded the motion.

The PRESIDENT thought it scarcely desirable that a resolution to this effect should be passed. The council were prepared to pay due attention to the wish of the meeting, and it would be better that it should be left in their hands.

The motion was withdrawn.

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COURTS OF COMMERCE.

Mr. A. M. JACKSON (Hull) read a paper on this subject.

ON THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED BY THE CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE ACT, 1881, AS TO DUTIES UPON PROBATES OF WILLS AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, AND THE MORAL OBJECTION TO THOSE ENACTMENTS.

Mr. W. SMITH (Sheffield) read the following paper with this titla:— In offering these observations, I beg to disclaim any idea of adding to the information already possessed by the gentlemen who hear me. The inconveniences of the present law as to probate duties are necessarily more frequently brought before solicitors than any other class of the community. To the merchant or manufacturer, or to men of other callings, the inconveniences in question occur, perhaps, only twice or thrice in a lifetime. But to the practising solicitor they are of constant occurrence. And therefore I wish to take the sense of a gathering like this, which, although possessing no official authority, may be taken potentially and actually to represent the views and feelings of the profession. Prior to 1880, the law and practice as to probate duties were based upon common sense and convenience. An executor, as is well known, cannot take a step (except "of his own wrong, as the law puts it)--cannot draw a cheque, or give a receipt, until he gets his probate. And inasmuch as in the great majority of cases considerable time is required before he can ascertain, with anything like accuracy, the exact amount or value of the estate, the law allowed him a margin by fixing stages of value; so that it was sufficient to depone that the value of the estate was (c.g.) above £1,000 and under £1,500. This met the circumstances of the case; and when the detailed account came in due time to be furnished, if it

anticipation which may be attached to the property of any married woman. It is somewhat remarkable that the application of the Act of 1870 should have been so carefully limited to women married after its commencement, whilst this Act is made to apply, almost without exception, to married women generally, whether married before or after it comes into operation. It seems to me that it would have been better to allow a little more time for the country to prepare itself for legal changes of this magnitude. Then, too, this Act seems to be inconsistent with the policy of the previous law affecting this subject, in the following respect :-Before, even when there was no restriction against anticipation attaching to the separate property of a married woman, she had by no means so full a power of disposing of it as is conferred upon her by this Act. Now, apart from any settlement, she will be as free and unfettered in this respect after marriage as before, and during the whole period of her coverture she will be left entirely open to that exceptional influence on the part of her husband which it has hitherto been the policy of our laws to guard against. For this reason I fear that there is danger of the Act itself defeating the very purpose it was intended to serve. But my chief objection is that, without really giving very much more protection to married women than they had before, it has the effect of severing the interests of husband and wife, when the first aim of our legal policy should be, as heretofore, to make these interests as far as possible identical. Before, as I have endeavoured to show, although the untoward circumstance of a bad husband was necessarily guarded against, it was still recognized that the great majority of husbands and wives live happily together in domestic harmony, and the underlying principle of unity was accordingly preserved. But now the majority are made to yield to the minority, for this new legislation appears to be based on the unheard-of assumption that married people generally are hostile to each other, and that they are living in a state of domestic strife, each trying to amass a separate competence, which shall be safe from the depredations of the other. The idea that their interests can, by any possibility be identical, seems to be utterly discarded. They cease, for all legal purposes, to be one person; and henceforth, married women, though living with their husbands under the same roof, and sharing everything with them, are to stand out before the law in almost identically the same position as a feme sole, retaining everything which they possess, or which they may ever possess, quite independently, and having rights and interests which may frequently be set up in direct antagonism to those of their husbands. It may be said that this won't affect those who are living happily together, as they will not be likely to disagree over questions of money, whichever it may technically belong to in point of law. But it seems to me that the Act, throughout the whole of its provisions, holds out inducements to married people to quarrel such as no previous law has afforded; and we know what a fruitful source of contention money is even amongst the best of people. We can imagine that a woman prone to extravagance would be much less likely to act prudently if she is able to do everything quite independently of her husband, and without recourse to him. We can imagine that a woman prone to be unfaithful to her husband would be much more likely to yield to temptation, and leave him, when she is provided with means independently of the slightest control on his part. Again, it may be said that all this may be prevented by settlement. But it must be remembered that in very many cases, especially amongst the less wealthy classes, there are no settlements, and that it is to provide for cases in which there are no settlements that the law has been changed. It seems to me, then, that I am not in any way overstating the gravity of the principle upon which this measure is founded, when I say that it strikes at the very foundation of our social system; and I do not believe that it will be very generally acceptable in this country when there has been time for its provisions to become known, and for its full moment and importance to be appreciated. That they were not generally known at the time when it became law, I think is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that it encountered but slight opposition in either House of Parliament, and none whatever from out. side. It is, in effect, a great step in advance for that small but ardent body of politicians who advocate the political equality of women with men, and who are constantly striving to obtain for women the political franchise and other so-called rights. That married women should be enabled to vote upon political questions, even against their husbands if they feel disposed, is certainly the logical consequence of this measure, and I have little doubt that it is simply the prelude to the introduction of other measures for what is popularly termed the emancipation of women, and that if it is allowed to go unchallenged we may reasonably look for other surprises of a like nature before many sessions of Parliament have elapsed.

A discussion followed in which a very general expression of opinion was given in opposition to the Act.

Mr. HOWLETT protested against a Bill being hurried through at the end of the session without adequate discussion.

Mr. WAKE moved, "That in the opinion of the meeting the Married Women's Property Act should be repealed at the next opportunity."

The PRESIDENT was afraid he would be compelled to rule the motion out of order. It was most desirable that politics should not be admitted into the discussion. This was not a question of law and the council could not, except in details, make a suggestion. The Bill so far from having been hastily passed had been before the council as early as March in the present year, and was almost a reproduction of one that was before them last year.

A FEW SUGGESTIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL
TRUSTEES OF PRIVATE ESTATES.

Mr. J. TANNER RAY (Bradford) read a paper on this subject.
The following papers were not read, their writers not being present :-
"Solicitors and the Public," Mr. F. T. BIRCHAM (London).

"A Few Thoughts on the Laws which affect a Bastard Eigné," Mr. WILLIAMS (London).

"Legal Education," Mr. F. A. CHATWIN (Birmingham).

tion.

VOTES OF THANKS.

A cordial vote of thanks to the Hull Law Society was, on the motion of Mr. WALTERS, seconded by Mr. HOWLETT, passed upstanding, and with acclamaMr. Lowe, President, and Mr. WATERHOUSE, Secretary, of the Hull Law Society, replied. On the motion of Mr. MUNTON, seconded by Mr. BRAMLEY, & vote of thanks was passed, with applause, to the Philosophical Society for the use of their building. Mr. DEVONSHIRE moved, and Mr. SHIRLEY seconded, a vote of thanks to the readers of the papers, which was carried unanimously.

A vote of thanks to the President was moved by Mr. HARVEY (Liverpool), seconded by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM (Stroud), and carried upstanding with cheers. The PRESIDENT briefly returned thanks, and the proceedings terminated. On Tuesday evening a dinner was given by the Hull Law Society at the Public Rooms, Jarratt-street. Mr. FRANCIS LOWE, President of the Hull Law Society, occupied the chair, and about three hundred gentlemen were present. On Wednesday evening a very successful and largely attended ball was given in the same place, and on Thursday excursions were made to several places of interest in the locality.

OBITUARY.

MR. HENRY BATHURST.

Mr. Henry Bathurst, solicitor, died at Faversham on the 1st inst. in his seventieth year. Mr. Bathurst was born in 1813. He was admitted a solicitor in 1853, and he had ever since practised at Cheltenham, having for many years been in partnership with his elder brother, the late Mr. Richard Ba hurst. The deceased was a perpetual commissioner for the county of Kent, and he had an extensive private business. He was for many years auditor for the East Kent Poor Law District, and he was also solicitor to the Faversham Starr Bowkett Building Society, and secretary and solicitor to the Faversham Gas Company. Mr. Bathurst's death has caused universal regret at Faversham.

MR. GERALD FITZGIBBON, Q.C.

Mr. Gerald Fitzgibbon, Q.C., of the Irish bar, died on the 27th ult., in his ninetieth year. Mr. Fitzgibbon was born in 1793, and he was for many years engaged in teaching. He was called to the bar at Dublin in 1830, and he received a silk gown in 1841. He had for many years a large leading business, and in 1843 he was one of the counsel for the defence in the O'Connell State trials. Mr. Fitzgibbon held for a short time the rank of serjeant-atlaw, and in 1860 he was appointed a master of the Court of Chancery in Ireland. He held that office for nineteen years, and in 1879 (at the age of eight-six) he retired on a pension. Mr. Fitzgibbon was the father of the Right Hon. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon.

MR. EDMUND JAMES DANIELL.

Mr. James Daniell, solicitor (of the firm of Bevan & Daniell), of 40, Chancery-lane, died suddenly at his residence, Page Green, Tottenham, on the 2nd inst. Mr. Daniell had been for some time out of health, but had spent a part of the Long Vacation at the seaside, and was thought to have returned home very He was born in 1814. He was admitted a solicitor in 1859, and he had been much better, but on the day above-mentioned he was found dead in his bed. for several years in partnership with Mr. Arthur Talbot Bevan, solicitor to the Brewers' Company. Mr. Daniell formerly resided at Forest Gate, and he acted as solicitor to the Epping Forest Defence Fund long before the question of the preservation of the forest was taken up by the Corporation of London.

MR. HENRY LAWES.

Mr. Henry Lawes, barrister, died at Hawthorne, near Melbourne, on the 7th of August, from disease of the heart. Mr. Lawes was the son of the late Mr. Serjeant Edward Lawes, and was born in 1832. He emigrated to Australia about thirty years ago, and be spent some time at the gold-fields. He was afterwards clerk in the offices of the Master in Equity, and in 1859 he was called to the bar at Melbourne. He was for many years one of the leading practitioners in insolvency cases, and he had also a fair share of practice in equity. He had been several times elected mayor of the municipality of Hawthorne. Mr. Lawes leaves a widow and a large family.