elaborate consideration of the question, the Lords Justices may be taken to have been satisfied with the reasons given by the Vice-Chancellor. The reason for restraining the publication of a trade libel is forcibly given by Mr. Justice Fry in Thomas v. Williams: "To require evidence of injury in a case where the prospective injury is visible, and not to interfere until it has to some extent effected its injurious purpose, would be clearly a defect in the jurisdiction."

Reviews.

A RUBRIC OF THE COMMON LAW. A RUBRIC OF THE COMMON LAW. By CHARLES G. WALPOLE, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Shaw & Sons, Fetter-lane.

The plan of this unpretending volume appears to us to be a good one, and to have been very well carried out. It is intended to serve as a handbook for students, and it aims at setting forth in clear and simple outline the broad principles of common law, illustrated and enforced by a brief summary of leading cases under the various divisions of the subject. In the nature of things, a treatise such as this neither demands nor admits of the display of much originality or legal acumen, but the author has done his work with care and intelligence, and in the numerous and lucid abstracts of reported cases he shows great industry and research. The subject of Bailment, amongst others, is treated very clearly and at some length in a chapter which is, we think, one of the best in the book, although at the present moment a greater interest will, no doubt, be felt in the pages which are devoted to considering the legal relation between servant and employer. Certain odd phrases have here and there crept into the text, which might with advantage be altered in a future edition of the book. For example, the instance given on page 1 of a common law usage-viz., "that a man should have but one living wife at the same time"-is far from being happily worded; and to give as an example of a Mutuum (p. 83), a loan by Jones to Smith of a dozen of champagne, which Smith is to consume, is surely an over-statement of the bailee's duty and liability in such a case. These, however, are trivial blemishes in a useful and, on the whole, a very wellwritten book. An appendix containing the text of several important statutes, and three full indexes, add considerably to the value of a treatise which appears to fully carry out the purpose for which it was written, and is likely also to serve as a convenient work of reference to lawyers in actual practice. The book is partly printed in red letters in order, as the author says, to help the student to take a bird's-eye view of its contents, and to this novel plan of printing the volume owes its somewhat fanciful title of a "Rubric of the Common Law."

Mr. Henry Farnham Burke, eldest son of Sir Bernard Burke, C.B., Ulster King of Arms, has been appointed to the office of "Rouge Croix" Pursuivant in the Heralds' College.

The following are the names of the commissioners nominated for the commissions to inquire into corrupt practices at the places named at the late election :Gloucester.-John Bridge Aspinall, Q.C., William Robert McConnell, Francis William Raikes. Canterbury.-Arthur Charles, Q.C., Albert Venn Dicey, Robert Samuel Wright. Chester.-Arthur Hammond Collins, Q.C., Alfred Tristram Lawrence, Frank Lockwood. Macclesfield. Charles George Merewether, Q.C., John Shortt, Albert Childers Meysey Thompson. Knaresborough.-Marshall Griffith, Q.C., Henry Mason Bompas, Q.C., Charles Crompton. Boston.-James William Bowen, Q.C., Richard Henn Colling, William Alexander Lindsay. Oxford.-Lewis William Cave, Q.C., Hugh Cowie, Edward Ridley. Sandwich.-William Haworth Holl, Q.C., Richard Edward Turner, Francis Henry Jeune.

Cases of the Week.

BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGE.
SEPTEMBER 1.

COMPANY-VOLUNTARY WINDING UP-COMPULSORY OR SUPERVISION ORDER.-In this case the company had recently passed an extraordinary resolution for a voluntary winding up, and a petition was now presented seeking to have a winding up by the court or the voluntary winding up continued under supervision. The petitioner was a trade creditor for £400, and was supported by another creditor. An action had been commenced last month by the plaintiff on behalf of all the debenture holders in the company to have a declaration of charge on all the property of the company, and for the realization of their security, and an order had been made in that action for a sale of the assets as a going concern and the appointment of a receiver. The debenture holders desired a supervision order as being cheaper, and also asked that the petition which was at the Rolls might be transferred to Malins, V.C., in whose court the action had been commenced. The company also desired a supervision order. POLLOCK, B., considered the petitioner was entitled to a compulsory order, and ordered the transfer of the petition to Malins, V.C. He made the usual order for the appointment of liquidators, and as to costs.-SOLICITORS, Lumley & Lumley; Poole & Hughes.

NUISANCE-INJUNCTION-DELAY-VACATION BUSINESS. -In a case of Palmer v. Neal, a motion was made to restrain a nuisance to the plaintiff, a photographer, by the user by the defendant of a steam chopping machine. The nuisance complained was the vibration caused by the machine. The machine had been changed to its present horse power in November, 1879, and had been since continuously used. The writ was issued in January, 1880, and in February the time for delivering the statement of claim had been extended to April. Notice of trial had been given for the 17th of June, but the trial had not yet taken place. The objection was taken by the defendant that the motion was not vacation business, as no present urgency for the motion had been shown, and the delay since January was entirely unaccounted for. POLLOCK, B., considered there was no evidence of urgency, and directed the motion to stand to the trial, and the costs to be then disposed of. He refused to impose any terms on the defendant.-SOLICITORS, R. H. Plater; G. Biller.

INJUNCTION-BREACH OF BUILDING COVENANT-COMPLETION OF BUILDING BEFORE MOTION.-In the case of Freema v. Freshwater, an ex parte injunction had been obtained restraining the defendant from erecting certain buildings contrary to a covenant on that behalf. A motion was now made to continue the injunction, and the objection was taken that the injury, if any, was complete when the injunction was obtained, and that the affidavits did not disclose this fact, and, on the contrary, alleged that the building was not then complete. It was contended for the plaintiff that he was entitled to the costs of the motion if not to his injunction, as it was clear a breach of the covenant had been committed. Reference was made to Morris v. Grant (24 W. R. 55). POLLOCK, B., said there were several grounds upon which he should refuse the motion. In the first place the building was complete before the injunction had been obtained, and in the next place that fact, which could have been easily ascertained by the plaintiff, was not stated, and in fact the affi davits were entirely misleading on the point. He should. therefore, not continue the interim injunction, but should dismiss the motion with costs, and allow the plaintiff to have an inquiry as to damages.-SOLICITORS, Carr, Fulton, & Carr; G. R. Colman.

SHIPOWNER-CHARTER-PARTY-POWER OF MASTER TO ALTER CHARTER-BILL OF LADING INJUNCTION.—In the case of Jacobs v. Browse Island Guano Company (Limited), a motion was made to restrain the defendants, the agents of the charterers of a ship, from parting with the bill of lading of a cargo about to arrive in their ship under the following circumstances:-The defendant company had chartered the

plaintiffs' ship in 1878 to proceed to Browse Island and load guano at a rate for freight and demurrage, with a lien on the cargo therefor. The ship had been delayed some time in loading, and a large sum was now claimed for demurrage by the plaintiffs. The master had, after some months' delay, entered into a contract at Browse Island with the company's manager for the sale to the plaintiffs of the cargo to be loaded in their ship at a small sum, and with a nominal sum payable for freight. The purchase-money was to be paid by bill accepted by the plaintiffs. The bill of lading and bill of exchange had been sent over to the defendants the agents of the company, who called upon the plaintiffs to accept the bill. This they refused to do, repudiating the authority of the master to enter into the above contract, and thereupon the defendants gave the plaintiff notice they should deal with the cargo irrespective of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the bill of lading. The company were not served with the motion. The plaintiffs alleged that the master had no power to annul the charter-party, and that the scheme was a fraudulent device to oust them of their rights to lien on the cargo. The defendants the agents relied on the agreement with the master which the Flaintiffs refused to carry out, and they alleged such contract had been adopted by the plaintiffs. POLLOCK, B. was of opinion that no sufficient case for an interlocutory injunction had been made, and accordingly refused the same, reserving the costs.-SOLICITORS, Ingledew, Ince, & Co.; Harper Broad, & Buttcock.

NUISANCE-INJUNCTION-EVIDENCE-BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.-In the case of Spicer v. Mayor of Margate, a motion was made to restrain the defendants from using or allowing the use of a urinal which they had erected so as to cause a nuisance to the plaintiff. The erection was a wooden one some ten feet off the plaintiff's house, and affidavits were filed by him, by a surveyor, and a chemist, who spoke to the nuisance. The defendants filed numerous affidavits of the neighbouring inhabitants who denied that any appreciable nuisance had been caused. POLLOCK, B., was of opinion there was no sufficient evidence of any present nuisance, the plaintiff's evidence being mostly as to objections to the erection on general sanitary grounds, whereas the evidence of the defendants' witnesses was strong that no appreciable nuisance in fact existed. Under these circumstances he thought, on the balance of convenience, he ought not to grant the injunction asked for, and, therefore, he should refuse the same, reserving the costs.SOLICITORS, Foster & Spicer; Duncan, Warren, & Gardner.

Obituary.

MR. SERJEANT ARMSTRONG.

Mr. Richard Armstrong, Q.C., first serjeant-at-law in Ireland, died at his residence at Dublin on the 26th ult. The deceased was the son of Mr. William Armstrong, of Roxboro, Armagh, and he was born in 1815. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the bar at Dublin in 1839. He practised on the Leinster Circuit, and he became a Queen's Counsel in 1854, and a bencher of the King's Inn in 1861. He had for several years held the rank of first serjeant-at-law. In 1865 Serjeant Armstrong was elected M.P. for the borough of Sligo in the Liberal interest. He rarely spoke in the House of Commons, but he gave a general support to the Liberal party. He retired at the general election of 1865, and he did not again enter upon political life. Serjeant Armstrong enjoyed for many years a first-class leading business at Dublin. He was one of the counsel in the .celebrated Yelverton case, and he had been employed in many important prosecutions by the Government.

MR. JOHN HAWKEY BINGHAM CARSLAKE.

Mr. John Hawkey Bingham Carslake, solicitor, formerly town clerk of Bridgewater, died at Woodside, near Clifton, on the 23rd ult. Mr. Carslake was the son of Captain John Carslake, R.N., and he was born in 1817. He was admitted a solicitor in 1839, and a year or two later he settled at Bridgewater, where he practised for about thirty-five years. He was formerly in partnership with Mr. Benjamin Lovibond,

but at a later date he was associated with Mr. Eustace Barham. He was a perpetual commissioner for Somersetshire, and he had a large private practice. He was elected town clerk of the borough of Bridgewater in 1854, and he held that office for twenty-three years. He was also clerk to the Commissioners of Income and Property Tax for the Bridgewater District, and solicitor to the Bridgewater and Somerset Building and Investment Society, to the Bridgewater Shipping Company, and to other local associations. About three years ago Mr. Carslake was compelled, by failing health, to resign the town clerkship and to retire from practice. His son, Mr. John Barham Carslake, was admitted a solicitor in 1871, and is a member of the firm of Ryland, Martineau, Carslake, & Goodwin, of Birmingham.

MR. THOMAS VEASEY.

Mr. Thomas Veasey, solicitor, died at South Lodge, Baldock, on the 26th ult. Mr. Veasey was the son of Mr. Charles Veasey, of Huntingdon, where he was born in 1815. He was admitted a solicitor in 1838, and he practised at Baldock for about forty years, having been, during the earlier part of that time, in partnership with Mr. Samuel Veasey, who is clerk to the county magistrates at Baldock and Stevenage. Mr. Veasey was a perpetual commissioner for Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and he had a good private practice in the district. His death is much regretted.

Appointments, Etc.

Mr. JOHN THOMAS DODD, solicitor, of Reading and Wallingford, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates and to the Commissioners of Land Tax and Income Tax at the former place. Mr. Dodd was admitted a solicitor in 1854.

Mr. LOUIS JACKSON, late senior puisne judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, has received the honour of Knighthood.

Mr. RUPERT ALFRED KETTLE, judge of county courts, has received the honour of Knighthood, in recognition of his services in connection with boards of arbitration between employer and employed. Sir R. Kettle was born in 1817. He was formerly a member of the Oxford Circuit, and he was appointed judge of county courts for Circuit No. 23, in 1869. He is a magistrate for Staffordshire and Merionethshire, and a deputy-lieutenant and chairman of quarter sessions for the former county, and a member of the standing committee of county court judges for framing rules, &c.

Mr. WILLIAM POOLE, solicitor, of Taunton, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. ISAAC RICHARD REECE, barrister, has been appointed Registrar of Friendly Societies for the Island of Barbadoes. Mr. Reece is a graduate of St. John's College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1871.

Mr. EDMUND TENNANT, solicitor, of Hanley, has been appointed Registrar of the Hanley, Burslem, and Tanstall County Courts (Circuit No. 26), and District Registrar at Hanley, under the Judicature Acts, in succession to his brother, the late Mr. Alfred Tennant.

Mr. WILLIAM RADCLIFFE WILSON, solicitor (of the firm of Scholey, Wilson, & Leatham), of Wakefield, has been elected Clerk to the Wakefield Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority. Mr. Wilson was admitted a solicitor in 1858, and he is deputycoroner for the Honor of Pontefract, and solicitor to the Wakefield Exchange Building Company.

[In our last issue it was erroneously stated that Mr. Richd. Harris, who has been appointed Revising Barrister for Lincolnshire, practises at the Central Criminal Court and Middlesex Sessions. It should have been said that Mr. Harris had ceased to practise at the criminal bar four years ago.]

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. WILLIAM ASCROFT, WILLIAM THRELFALL ASCROFT, and ROBERT ASCROFT, Oldham, solicitors (Ascroft & Sons). (Business carried on by William and Robert Ascroft.) Aug. 2.

JOHN HAYWARD, JOHN CAMDEN HAYWARD, EDWARD RUSHWORTH KEELE, and JOHN SWANN, 5, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, solicitors (Haywood, Keele, & Swann). (Business carried on in London by Edward Rushworth Keele, and at Dartford by John and John Camden Hayward.) Aug. 5.

[Gazette, Aug. 31, 1880.]

Companies.

WINDING-UP NOTICES.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

FARMERS' AND CONSUMERS' CO-OPERATION, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 24, directed to be heard before V.C. Hall, on Nov 5. Peckham and Co, Knightrider st, Doctors' commons, solicitors for the company

MATLOCK BATH HOTEL COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Baron Follock, dated Aug 18, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Rogerson and Ford, Chancery lane, solicitors for the petitioners

MID-CANNOCK COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 23, directed to be heard before Baron Pollock, the Vacation Judge for the time being at Lincoln's inn, on Sept 8. Taylor and Co, Gt James st, Bedford row, agents for Wise and Co, Ashbourne, solicitors for the petitioner

OLDBURY BRICK COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 23, directed to be heard before the M.R., on Nov 6. Robinson and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Rowlands and Co, Birmingham, solicitors for the petitioner SAMUEL BRADBURY AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented July 27, directed to be heard before V.C. Hall, on Nov 5. Pritchard and Co, Painters' Hall, Little Trinity lane, agents for Bleakley and Downham, Birkenhead, solicitors for the petitioners WITHERNSEA BRICKWORKS, LIMITED.-Crediters are required, on or before Sept 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Archer Wilkinson, Kingston-upon-Hull. Nov 3 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

[Gazette, Aug. 27.] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. STANSTEAD AND SAINT MARGARET'S UNION CLUB SOCIETY, Boys' Schoolroom, Stanstead, Hertford. Aug 24

[Gazette, Aug 27.]

It is announced that the Lord Advocate, the Right Hon. John Maclaren, QC., has accepted the presidency of the Department of Jurisprudence at the Social Science Congress. Two LAWS.-Several days ago a white man was arraigned before a coloured justice down the country on charges of killing a man and stealing a mule.

"Wall," said the justice,." de facts in dis case shall be weighed with carefulness, an' ef I hangs yer tain't no fault of mine."

Judge, you have no jurisdiction only to examine me." "Dat sorter work 'longs to de raigular justice, but yer see I'se been put on as a special. A special hez de right ter make a mouf at S'preme Court ef he chuses ter."

"Do the best for me you can, judge."

"Dat's what I'se gwine ter do. I'se got two kinds ob law in dis court, de Arkansaw an' de Texas law. I generally gins a man de right to choose fur his sef. Now what law coes yer want, de Texas or de Arkansaw ?" "I believe I'll take the Arkansas."

"Wall, in dat case I'll dismiss yer fur stealin' de mule--."

"Thank you, judge."

"An' hang yer fur killin' de man

"I believe, judge, that I'll take the Texas."

"Wall, in dat case, I'll dismiss yer fur killin' de

man

"You have a good heart, judge."

"An' hang yer fur stealin' de mule. I'll jis take de 'casion heah ter remark dat de only difference 'tween de two laws iz in de way yer state de case."-Canada Law Journal.

THE LAW OF NATIONS.

THE eighth annual conference of the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations opened on the 24th ult. at the Federal Palace, at Berne.

The following gentlemen were appointed officers of the Conference:-President of the Conference, Dr. F. Sieveking, President of the Hanseatic High Court of Appeal, Hamburg; Vice-Presidents of the Conference, E. J. B. Cremers, late Minister of Foreign Affairs, Member of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands; F. R. Condert, Counsellor-at-Law, New York; Theodore Engles, President of the Board of Underwriters, Antwerp; Daniel de Folleville, Professor of Law, Douai; Dr. Ch. G. Koenig, Professor of Law. Berne, and President of the Swiss Society of Jurists: Sir Travers Twiss, Q.C.; G. E. Wendt, D.C.L.; and General J. Grant Wilson, of New York.

M. Welti, the president of the Federal Council, welcomed the members of the conference in the name of the Swiss people.

The opening address of the president, Dr. F. K. Sieveking, was delivered in German. After referring to the development of international law amongst the civilized nations of Europe, Dr. Sieveking explained the object and aims of the association in the past. It had striven to make itself acquainted with the different laws of civilized nations, and to ascertain whether there might not be a common basis which should afford the means of securing a common rule for the different nations of the world. While this association had exerted considerable influence, the old maxim that a foreigner had no rights had, he feared, not ceased to exert its baneful influence. The nations of modern times had, however, in their codes proved that the commencement of a new epoch in the history of law had arrived. The promulgation of the Code Napoleon, and of the Prussian and Austrian Codes, were proofs of this. The learned judge observed that it was not the function of the legislator to say what legisla tion was required. It fell to the jurist to determine this, and to give expression to the needs, and to lay down the rules for the direction of, an advancing civilization. It became then the duty of the several States, in view of the affairs of mankind, to labour in their legislation to bring their laws into accord. The work of the association was purely scientific, and yet pre-eminently practical. It was to induce the legal authorities of different nations to adopt a common rule. The speaker referred to the labours of Savigny, Felix, and Phillimore in this direction, and especially to their labours in regard to the lex contractus, the lex loci rei sito, the lex fori, and the lex domicilii. He then referred to the great ininconvenience and the risk involved by the conflicting maritime laws of mankind. The credit and the wealth of the commercial world were injuriously affected by this conflict and uncertainty. He showed that good must ties that such a conflict of laws and customs give rise to result from the consideration of the questions and difficulby experienced jurists and practical men engaged in the commerce of the world. He concluded by calling attention and citing the words of Prince Albert. "I conceive it to be the duty of every educated person closely to watch and study the age in which he lives, and as far as in him lies to add his humble mite of individual exertion to further the accomplishment of what he believes Providence to have ordained. Nobody, however, who has paid any attention to the peculiar features of our present era will doubt for a moment that we are living in a period of most wonderful transition, which tends rapidly to accomplish that great end to which, indeed, history points-the realization of the unity of mankind. Not a unity which breaks down the limits and levels the peculiar characteristics of the different nations of the earth, but rather a anity the result and product of those very national varieties and antagonistic qualities." Just in proportion as this association attained to the accomplishment of its work would be realized, "Glory to God in the highest, or earth peace, and goodwill towards men.'

The annual report of the council stated that steady progress had been made by the association, and that ninetyeight new members had joined since the date of the last conference. The society had lost, during the past year, some of its distinguished members, including Dr. J. Thompson, of the United States, late of Berlin; M. P..

D. D. Farjasse, Cour de Cassation, Paris; M. H. Bonafos, judge of the Civil Tribunal of Lyons; and Dr. C. Zimmerman, of Berlin. The committee established to bring about the acceptance of the York and Antwerp rules to regulate general averages reported that their rules were now being largely adopted in the principal seaports of Europe and of the United States. The draft of these important rules, settling some very important points of maritime law, was originally drawn up nearly a quarter of a century ago by the late Lord Brougham. After an ineffectual attempt to obtain their recognition by several learned bodies, attention was directed to them by this association, and they were finally, after careful considera tion by jurists from all countries, adopted at the meeting of the association held at Antwerp. These rules have lately been declared by the judges of our Court of Appeal to contain the common law of England, from which the adjusters had departed. The Bremen Committee intended to present a report to the present conference respecting negotiable securities. Among the other subjects referred to in the annual report are Bills of Exchange, International Copyright, Affreightment, and the principles which should govern the intercourse between Christian and non-Christian peoples. Upon the latter subject Sir Travers Twiss was to present a paper.

The conference met again on the 25th of August. Sir Travers Twiss read a paper "On Consular Jurisdiction in the Levant, and on the Status of Foreigners in the Ottoman Courts of Law." He commenced by tracing back the origin of the personal jurisdiction exercised by European consuls over their own countrymen in Oriental countries to the period when the Franks first came into contact with the Arabs in Syria and in Egypt during the ninth century.

About the same time the Arabs themselves obtained similar

privileges for their own countrymen from the Chinese Emperors at Canton. The privileges, on the other hand, granted by the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople to the subjects of the Christian States of Europe were only the culmination of the privileges previously granted by the Christian Emperors to the Venetians and the Genoese. These privileges had, the writer said, become a commercial necessity in modern times, owing to the Ottomans refusing to recognize a claim to equal justice between Christians and Mussulmans. The same religious difficulty did no texist either in China or Japan; but in spite of the reforms of the Ottoman Empire, which commenced with the reign of Mahmoud II., who destroyed the Janissaries and inaugurated a more liberal interpretation of the Koran, and which reforms had been continued by his successors down to the present time, the equal administration of justice between Christians and other non-Mussulman people, although solemnly promised in the Hatti Scheriff of Gulhani (1839), and again in the Hatti Humaioun, 1856, never obtained authority in the Ottoman law courts; a member of the Ulema, the religious interpreters of the law of the Koran, presiding as judge in these courts. Sir Travers then reviewed the various reforms introduced into the legal system of the Ottoman Empire, the most important of which was the introduction of commercial tribunals in 1847, which administer a commercial code drawn up in 1850 and improved in 1860. In the year 1862 a new code of procedure was promulgated. The judges of these courts are appointed by the Ottoman Minister of Commerce, and are responsible to him; whereas the judges of the Ottoman civil courts are appointed by the Sheikh-ul-Islam, who has at present abstained from issuing any order which would give practical effect to the Sultan's ordinances. The writer illustrated the maladministration of justice by the Kadis, by referring to the condition of the courts in the Island of Cyprus upon the British occupation of that island, and expressed an opinion that until the civil courts of the Ottoman Empire are effectively subdivided into mixed courts and Ottoman courts, and the mixed courts are withdrawn from the control of the Sheikh-ul-Islam and placed under a Minister of Justice, no effectual justice can be obtained.

A paper was subsequently read by one of the members of the Japanese Embassy-Mr. Iriye, a member of the English bar. The Ambassador from Japan himself was present, but took no part in the discussion. The Italian Ambassador and several notables were also present. Mr. Iriye's paper related to "Consular Juris

diction in Japan." He commenced by saying that the

origin of consular jurisdiction in Japan differed much from

Britain.

are

had

its origin in many other Oriental countries, and its divergence became apparent when the position of consular jurisdiction in Japan was considered. The Treaty stipulations of Japan with other Powers are exceptional in their nature. The state of the country in its astonishing progress is likewise entirely unique. Religious fanaticism, which had been shown to enter so largely into the consideration of this subject elsewhere, in Japan is unknown. The well-recognized power of the Government extends to every part of the empire. Consular jurisdiction as it exists in Japan is solely based upon Treaty stipulations made between that country and other Powers. These arrangements are almost identical in form and substance, and may practically, mutatis mutandis, be said to be defined by sub-section 2 of the 5th clause of the Treaty made between Japan and Great Britain, signed on August 26, 1856. It is declared that British subjects who may commit any crime against Japanese subjects or the subjects or citizens of any other country shall be tried and punished by the consul or other public functionary law of Great authorized thereto, according to the exists Similar provision in article 4 of the to same Treaty as all questions arising between British subjects in regard to the rights of person and property. It is understood that negotiations now pending which are likely to modify these Treaty stipulations. Mr. Iriye called the attention of the congress to the two following points:-1. That the administration of justice in Consular Courts has not been either efficient or satisfactory. 2. That the extra-territorial clause of the Treaty has been unduly extended in its interpretation by foreign Powers. Japan, he said, had always respected and, to the best of her ability, had carried out her Treaty obligations; the other Treaty Powers failed in the performance of their stipulations. They had not provided proper and efficient courts of justice, proper judges, proper procedure, nor a proper mode of executing judgments. If any Power assumes a right of jurisdiction in another country and fails to administer justice, a breach of obligation is committed, not only towards its own subjects, but also towards the State in whose territory those subjects are residing. In Japan, he said, this is unfortunately the case, and most flagrant miscarriages of justice have not been uncommon. He mentioned one or two instances. A British subject was discovered making and issuing forged paper money so nearly resembling the national paper currency that it might readily pass for it among the country people. The British authorities were appealed to, and the offender was warned to desist from his malpractices; but it appeared that no provision existed for punishing such an offence committed in Japan, and this issuer of false paper money was permitted to go scot free. A somewhat similar case arose with an American citizen, and he was only sentenced to one year's imprisonment. An Italian subject was found by the Japanese police shooting without a licence. A plaint was laid before the Consular Court of his own country. The charge was fully established and he was fined ten dollars. He brought a counter-charge that he had been roughly treated by the police, and without hearing the other side, the consul acting as judge, on an ex parte statement, decided the fine. The Italian Minister stated that he was unable to that the counter-charge had been established, and remitted interfere in respect of this decision, and the case had to be referred to Europe, where it is still pending. Difficulties frequently arise in cases between foreigners of different nationalities. An American is stated to have been murdered by a British subject on board an American ship. The counsel for the accused demurred to the casebeing tried by the American court, and his objection is held to be so far valid that all proceedings have been stayed. In this way the Japanese are neither permitted to see that justice is properly administered by their own tribunals, Lor are they assured that it will be carried out by the Treaty Powers. Difficulties arise also under the present

consular jurisdiction in regard to procedure. Au Englishman who sues before a French consular court cannot compel the production of any document from a German. So that if no other evidence exists, justice must necessarily fail. Again, if an Englishman assaults a Frenchman, and the only bystander is an Italian, the English court has no dence. power to compel the attendance of the Italian to give evi

There are no courts of appeal, so that no miscar

riage of justice can be rectified without great delay and expense. The words of the Treaties confer upon the Powers the right of trying and punishing according to the laws of

their respective States; but they do not exempt Europeans or Americans from obedience to Japanese laws. It has, however, been maintained that under the extra-territorial provisions of the Treaty, foreigners are exempt from all Japanese laws, and that consequently no police or municipal regulations are binding upon them, unless they have been first approved and sanctioned by their respective ministers. Under cover of this interpretation of the law, quarantine regulations and the bye-laws of railways have been infringed, accidents to innocent natives have gone unpunished, injury to property has been laughed at, harours and ports have been injured, morality has been outraged, poison has been sold, and pestilence and cholera introduced. Mr. Iriye asserted, in conclusion, that Japan had never by Treaty conceded a right virtually to deprive her of the undoubted sovereignty of her own country. He appealed with great ability to the dicta of international law and to the Treaties themselves in support of his contention. His manners and his arguments are reported to have produced a most favourable impression on the congress.

Mr. Davidson, an advocate of the Scottish bar, who has resided for several years in Japan, said that he fully indorsed all the statements made by Mr. Iriye.

The reports of the Committee on Negotiable Securities was presented by Mr. H. G. Jencken, on behalf of the English Committee, and Mr. H. H. Meier and Dr. Marcus,of Bremen, on behalf of the committee appointed at Frankfort-on-theMaine. As there was a difference of opinion strongly expressed between the representatives from Bremen and those from Hamburg and other parts, an influential committee, under the presidency of M. Sieveking, was appointed to report to the congress.

On the 26th ult. a paper was read on Bankruptcy by Dr. Fred. Tomkins, of London. Among the points raised were the following:-To what extent and under what circumstances should a bankrupt be treated as a criminal? In the case of absolute bankruptcy, and after having assigned all his property for the benefit of his creditors, and having been liberated from arrest, should the after-acquired property of the bankrupt in any, and what, circumstances, be held liable for his unsatisfied claims? As touching the trustee or assignee, what rule can be established so that the evils and injustice of the present system prevalent in Great Britain may be remedied? What shall be the effect of a decree of a bankruptcy tribunal extra-territorially? Can or should the office of an assignee, trustee, or syndic, be made to extend beyond the territory of the tribunal for which that functionary has been appointed? Should the effect of a sentence of bankruptcy continue to attach to the debtor in such a way, under any circumstances, as to prevent his returning to commercial life, possibly to repeat the dishonest processes by which his creditors have in the past been subjected to loss and perhaps ruin? A discussion took place upon the papers, in which President Sieveking and Sir Travers Twiss ook part.

Upon the subject of International Copyright, which next engaged the Congress, several important communications were read from the American Committee. A discussion took place, in which M. Clunet, of Paris, explained the progress the whole question had made in France and in Europe generally. The general expression was that the United States authorities, who have power under the Constitution to promulgate an international copyright, will before long adopt some effective measures in the matter.

Sir Travers Twiss read a paper in French on the International Protection of Sea Cables. The purport of this paper was to review the conclusions at which the Institute of International Law, about to meet at Oxford, had arrived last year at its conference in Brussels, under the presidency of M. Rolin Jacquemyns, the Minister of the Interior. These were contained in the following resolutions :-(1) That it is highly desirable that the Powers interested should agree in the establishment of the rule-that the intentional destruction or deterioration of sea cables under the high seas in time of peace is an offence against the Law of Nations, and that it should be determined by the nations interested in what the precsie penalty should be attaching to such an offence with such a degree of uniformity as is compatible with the criminal laws of the several States; the right of capturing the offenders abroad to be exercised by the public vessels of all nations; the right, however, of

judging the offenders to be reserved to the tribunals of the country to which the captured belong. (2) In time of war the cables which unite neutral territories should be deemed as inviolate. Further, it is desirable that when telegraphic communication must cease in time of war that the belligerent should limit his dealings with the telegraph to such measures only as are absolutely necessary to prevent the use of the cables, and that these measures should cease, and the cable be at once restored to use immediately upon the cessation of hostilities; or at least as soon after as possible. It appeared from the Journal Télégraphique, of 1877, that the telegraphic sea-cables owned by private companies at the time of that report had an extent of 60,000 nautical miles, whilst those which were State property extended over 4,400 miles. Our modern civilization, and the entirely new condition under which both States and Commanities were placed by the material inventions of the age, gave rise to many and novel relations, for which the practical jurist must do his best to provide, not to speak of the conflicting interests which sooner or later may jostle one another under the rough and hard usages of war. Sir Travers Twiss, in conclusion, pointed out in a complimentary manner the unique interest which Switzerland had in the maintenance of friendly relations, and the adjustment of rules to govern the future of the present modes of communication between different nations. Switzerland had executed most gigantic works-piercing Mont Cenis and Mont St. Gothard, in order to facilitate the communication between the north and the south of the Continent of Europe, thereby extending the line of communication from the countries of Earope to the extreme Orient. A cincture of lightning now engirdled the globe, and it was the duty of all nations to shelter that girdle from being maliciously snapped asunder, or destroyed by the red hand of war. No single State could hold dominion over an invention of prime practical importance to the happiness and interests of mankind; all nations should perform acts of vigilance and become its protectors. The fourth and concluding session of the association was held on the 27th ult.

Mr. H. D. Jencken read a paper on the International Law of Commandite and of Limited Partnership. The question was how far the law of the place where the commandite was established protected the parties concerned in other countries against the claims of creditors for deb's contracted in foreign states; in other words, whether, without an international convention between the country whose laws recognize a commandite, and a country where a com mandite is not legally known, the commanditaire would be held legally exempt from general liability as a partner. Treaties on the subject of commercial companies and associations had been concluded by Great Britain with France, Belgium, Italy, and Germany, and a question might arise, if commandite is not expressly recognized by the law of England, whether a French or Belgian partner en commandite could claim a limitation of his liability in a suit before an English tribunal in virtue of the Treaty privileges secured to his countrymen. Dr. Tristram followed with a paper on "Domicil as Regulating Testamentary and Matrimonial Rights," his contention being that the practice of holding the domicil of a testator to be the criterion of a valid will, both as regards the form of the instrument and his capacity to make it, was highly inconvenient, and that the French law was preferable, which gave the testator the option of executing his will either according to the forms prescribed by the laws of his domicil, or according to the forms required by the law of the place of its execution. He cited the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 114, commonly called Lord Kingsdown's Act, as having relaxed the strict rule of the English Wills Act in a manner which makes the English law accord with the French law in respect of a will being valid if executed in conformity with the kz loci. Dr. Tristram advocated the recognition by all countries of this rule of the French law. Further, as the question of domicil is daily becoming more intricate, be advocated the general adoption of the rule as to domicil (which had been the subject of a convention between England and the Swiss Confederation), of which the principle had been affirmed by an English statute, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 121, under which a domicil of choice, as distinguished from a domicil of origin, should not be acquired by any. one in a foreign country unless he had been resident in