The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:-- July 27 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. George Burdis the younger, Arbour-square, Stepney, Mid dlesex, coal merchant.-Wm. Reed, Webber-st., Blackfriarsroad, Surrey, out of business.-John Wretton, North-street, Moorfields, London, carpenter. July 27 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. Henry Rice, Percy-circus, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, manufacturer of fancy lace goods.-Robert Webb, Macclesfield-st., Soho, Middlesex, jeweller. Charles Patterson, Stratford New-town, Essex, carpenter. July 28 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner LAW. Edwin A. Estall, Wilton-terrace, New North-road, Islington, Middlesex, builder.-Albert D. Bottomley, Lewisham, Kent, Custom-house broker. July 29 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. Wm. Cooper, Blackfriars-road, Surrey, common brewer.Jasper G. Coe, Loughborough-street, Upper Kennington-lane, Surrey, carpenter. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before a Judge of the County Court, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute: At the County Court of Northumberland, at Newcastle, July 28 at 10. John Heslop, Shotley Bridge, builder. At the County Court of Norfolk, at the Shirehall, NORWICH CASTLE, July 30 at 10. James Barnes, Great Yarmouth, licensed victualler.-Geo. Ellett, Great Yarmouth, out of business.-W. Goldspink, Pulham, St. Mary Magdalen, cattle dealer. THE COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE ACT. This Important Measure will not come into operation until the 24th of October, before which time, and as speedily as possible, an Edition of it, in a convenient form, with an Analysis, copious Practical Notes, and a full Index, by EDWARD WISE, Esq., Barrister at Law, will be published. A S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane, London. PATENT LAW AMENDMENT ACT. TREATISE on the LAW of PROCEDURE relating to LETTERS PATENT for INVENTIONS, including the Act of the last Session. By HENRY LUND, Esq., of Trinity College, Cambridge, M. A., and of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law. This is intended as a companion to a recent work by the same Author, intitled "A Treatise on the Substantive Law relating to Letters Patent for Inventions." Price 6s, cloth boards. S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane, London. Will be published in a few days, THE COUNTY COURT AMENDMENT ACT of 1852, with Notes, containing Practical Observations upon its Provisions, together with some of the recent Decisions relating to the Practice of County Courts. This will be published uniform with, and is intended to form a Supplement to, the Practice of the County Courts. By CHARLES EDWARD POLLOCK, of the Inner Temple. S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane, London. Just published, in 1 vol. 12mo., price 12s. cloth boards, A TREATISE on the LAW of MASTER and SERVANT, including therein Masters and Workmen in every description of Trade and Occupation; with an Appendix of Statutes. By CHARLES MANLEY SMITH, of the Middle Temple, Special Pleader. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in Heaven."-Col. iv. 1. "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God."-Col. iii. 22. "Servi sunt, imo homines: servi sunt, imo contubernales: servi sunt, imo humiles amici: servi sunt, imo conservi."-Senec. Ep. xlvii. London: S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street, Law Bookseller and Publisher. SIR E. SUGDEN'S WORK ON THE REAL PROPERTY Just published, in 1 vol. 8vo., price 16s. cloth boards, HEADLAM'S TRUSTEE ACT, 1850.-SECOND EDITION. THE TRUSTEE ACT, 1850, with an Introduction, Notes, and an Index. By T. E. HEADLAM, Esq., M.P., one of her Majesty's Counsel. Second Edition, with the Cases decided upon the ACTS, with the GENERAL ORDERS and CASES. Act to the present time. To which are added the TRUSTEE RELIEF Stevens & Norton, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. Of whom may be had, recently published, WINGROVE COOKE ON INCLOSURES AND RIGHTS OF COMMONS. SECOND EDITION. In 12mo., price 12s. boards, THE ACTS for facilitating the INCLOSURE of COMMONS in England and Wales; with a Treatise on the Law of RIGHTS of COMMONS in reference to these Acts; and FORMS as settled by the Commissioners, &c. Second Edition, with Alterations and Additions. By GEORGE WINGROVE COOKE, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, Second Edition, in 12mo.. price 8s. 6d. boards, SMITH'S MANUAL of EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE. -A Manual of Equity Jurisprudence, as administered in England, founded on Story's Commentaries, and comprising, in a small compass, the Points of Equity usually occurring in Chancery and Conveyancing, and in the General Practice of a Solicitor. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law. Second Edition. "A Manual especially adapted to the exigencies of a solicitor's prac tice."-Jurist, No. 465. THE COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE ACT.—An Edi tion of this Act, with explanatory Notes, &c., by HERBERT BROOM, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law, Author of "A Selection of Legal Maxims," &c., will be published as speedily as possible. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. Persons of all ages, and in every station, may assure with this Society, and the Assured can reside in any part of Europe, the Holy Land, Egypt, Madeira, the Cape, Australia, New Zealand, and in most parts of North and South America, without extra charge. FIFTH DIVISION OF PROFITS. The FIFTH BONUS was declared in January last, and the amount varied with the different ages, from 244 to 55 per cent, on the Premium paid during the last Five Years; or from 17. to 27. 10s. per cent. per annum on the sums assured. The small share of Profit divisible in future among the Shareholders being now provided for, without intrenching on the amount made by the regular business, the Assured will hereafter derive all the benefits obtainable from a Mutual Office, with, at the same time, complete freedom from liability, secured by means of an ample Proprietary Capital-thus combining, in the same office, all the advantages of both systems. A copy of the last Report, setting forth full particulars, with a Prospectus, can now be obtained of any of the Society's agents, or by addressing a line to GEO. H. PINCKARD, Resident Secretary. 99, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, London. Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman, or letter (postpaid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY-LANE, or to STEVENS & NORTON, 26 and 39, BELL-YARD, LINCOLN'S-INN, will insure its punctual delivery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening of publication, through the medium of the Post Office, to the Country. Printed by HENRY HANSARD, PRINTER, residing at No. 14, Park Square, Regent's Park, in the Parish of St. Marylebone, in the County of Middlesex, at his Printing Office, situate in Parker Street, in the Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, in the County aforesaid; and Pub AN ESSAY on the NEW STATUTES relating to Limita- lished at No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, in the Parish of St. Dunstan in the tions of Time, Estates Tail, Dower, Descent, Operation of Deeds, West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAW BOOKSELLER and PUBLISHER, residing at No. 41, Great Coram Street, in the Parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, in the County of Middlesex.-Saturday, July 17, 1852. LONDON, JULY 24, 1852. ....... 634 LORD LANGDALE, in 1847, stated the rule as to a wife's equity to a settlement thus:-"When a husband applies for payment of money, either principal or interest, to which he is entitled in right of his wife, the first questions are, whether the money for which he asks is subject to any settlement already made, and if not, whether the wife consents to the payment desired being made to her husband; if she does not, the next question is, what settlement should be made, and, if necessary, it is referred to the Master to inquire into the subject. Except under special circumstances, she has not been held entitled to have the whole of the capital fund settled upon herself and her children, or to have the whole of her income secured to be paid to herself alone, wholly excluding the husband; and there may be cases in which she may not be held entitled to have any settlement made of the particular fund in question. | The amount or proportion of the sum to be settled or secured is not subject to any fixed rule, although it seems not unusual to agree to a certain proportion." (Wilkinson v. Charlesworth, 10 Beav. 326). In a previous case, (Brett v. Greenwell, 3 Y. & C. 230), the husband being insolvent, and no settlement having ever been made upon the wife, the whole of the fund was ordered to be applied for the benefit of the wife and her children. The amount of the fund is not stated in the VOL. XVI. BB COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Phillips. Pound.-(Arrest-Privilege-Attorney's Clerk).. CONSISTORY COURT. Rector and Churchwardens of St. John's, Walbrook, v. The Parishioners thereof.-(London City Improvement Acts, 1847 and 1850-Burial-ground-Faculty) 645 645 Campbell and Others v. The Parishioners of Paddington and Others. (Faculty to build a Vestry-room on consecrated Ground granted)... 646 Salmon v. Salmon.-(Divorce Cause-Expedition in obtaining Sentence). 646 report of that case. In Foden v. Finney, (4 Russ. 428), on the other hand, although there was the special circumstance that the husband had deserted the wife, the whole of the fund, amounting only to 847. 8s. 9d., was ordered to be paid to the husband. Moreover, in Napier v. Napier, (1 Dru. & W. 407), Lord St. Leonard's disapproved of Brett v. Greenwell, saying that he thought it could not be supported; and he directed part of a fund of 1000l. to be settled on the wife, and the rest to be given to the assignees of the insolvent husband; and there being in the wife's favour the circumstance, that the husband had previously received 15007. in her right, his Lordship directed the larger proportion to be given to her, dividing the fund unequally, by allotting 6007. to the wife, and 4007. to the husband's creditors. Lord St. Leonard's, in that case, recognised as the rule, that in the absence of special circumstances, half the fund was to be settled on the wife and children, and the other half to go to the husband. This rule has been acknowledged in other cases, and most recently, by a judge whose opinion deserves great respect, in Bagshaw v. Winter, (16 Jur., part 1, p. 561). How are we to reconcile with this rule the case of In re Cutler, (14 Beav. 220)? There the husband was insolvent, and we are left to suppose that there had not been any settlement, as the report is silent on that point. No special circumstance is stated, and yet the whole fund was settled on the wife. It is true, it only amounted to 140/.; but in Foden v. Finney a smaller sum was given entirely to the husband; and if we may form any opinion from the arguments in that case, one of the reasons that the wife's equity did not attach was, that the sum was under 2007.; and this was so strong a motive with the Court, that it was allowed to prevail, even though the husband had deserted the wife. The decision in Cutler's case appears to be rested upon Brett v. Greenwell; but it is not possible to consider that case as of any authority after the remark made upon it by the present Lord Chancellor; and among the many reported decisions on this subject, we 'do not know of any other which has carried the wife's equity so far*. The decision appears to be as inconsistent with principle as it is with precedent. If the principle be considered, the rule laid down in Napier v. Napier seems perfectly reasonable. This equity, to use Lord Cottenham's words, (5 My. & C. 57), " is founded upon the well-known rule of compelling a party who seeks equity to do equity." The husband's right at law is conceded, and but for the assistance of a Court of equity, the wife, in these cases, would have no claim to any part of the fund. If there be any special reason, such as the husband having expended other property of the wife which had previously come to his hands, it may be that the husband's claim is altogether inequitable, and the circumstances may justify a settlement of the whole fund on the wife. (Scott v. Spashett, 3 Mac. & G. 599). In the absence of any such reason, it is surely an illogical conclusion, that the husband seeking equity must do equity by giving up the whole of that which he is endeavouring to obtain. Another of the recent cases on the subject of a wife's equity to a settlement deserves some remark. Lord Truro has given the weight of his authority, in Scott v. Spashett, (3 Mac. & G. 599), to the doctrine, that this equity will prevail against a purchaser for value from the husband, who must take subject to the equities of the assignor. This rule, notwithstanding Stanton v. Hale, (2 Russ. & M. 175), Elliott v. Cordell, (5 Mad. 149), and some other cases, is now well settled. It has often occurred to us to wonder how far it would be carried in practice. Suppose a husband executed an assignment for value of his wife's equitable property, being at the time able to maintain her, and that there had been no settlement, nor had he received any property in right of his wife previously-suppose that after the assignment made the husband were to receive a much larger amount of property in right of his wife than that which he had sold, would this be a special circumstance in the wife's favour to enable her to claim the whole of the property sold against the purchaser? * In a case, however, recently decided by Sir R. T. Kindersley, V. C., and not yet reported, a very unequal division was made, as between the wife and the husband's creditors, in favour of the wife and children; the only special circumstance being, that the wife had been at the time of her marriage, and was for a long time afterwards, in the enjoyment of considerable means, and had been reduced to distress by her husband's embarrassments. This case seems midway between Brett v. Greenwell and Napier v. Napier. In any other case it undoubtedly would, but in the supposed case the purchaser might have some equity to say that the circumstance could not have been foreseen at the time of the purchase, and that to give it this effect afterwards would be to make a subsequent act of the vendor invalidate his own sale. We do not mean to say that this argument should prevail against the wife's equity; but if not, an actuary, in valuing this kind of property for a purchaser, and presuming, as he naturally would, that the husband, desiring to sell, must be under some pecuniary pressure, and would probably at some future time be unable to support his wife, must, in addition to the common contingencies, take into consideration the further chance suggested by our supposi tion, which, in many cases, would reduce very materially the value of such a property. PURCHASES BY SOLICITORS FROM THEIR CLIENTS. pacity to purchase from his client, yet, as the parties stand in a relation to each other which gives or may give the solicitor an advantage over the client, the solicitor is required to prove that the transaction was fair; that he took no advantage of his position as solicitor; that he gave his client all that reasonable advice against himself which he would have given him against a third party, and also the full benefit of all the knowledge which he had acquired in his professional capacity. (Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 Ves. 267; Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 Hare, 60; Jones v. Thomas, 2 Y. & C. 498; Cutts v. Salmon, 15 Jur., part 1, p. 615; Champion v. Rigby, 1 Russ. & M. 539; Hunter v. Atkins, 3 Moo. & R. 113; Higgins v. Joyce, 2 Jo. & Lat. 282; Montesquieu v. Sandys, 18 Ves. 302). ALTHOUGH a solicitor is not under any actual inca The solicitor is in this situation-being the person who is to acquire the interest, and also the person who ought to advise the client, he imposes upon himself the duty of ascertaining the full value of the subject of contract, and of acting in favour of his employer adversely against himself, as he would have acted against any other person with whom, acting fairly for his employer, he was making the best bargain he possibly could; (Harris v. Tremenhure, 15 Ves. 34; Lawless v. Mansfield, 1 Dru. & W. 557; Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 Ves. 267); and if the solicitor will mix with the character of solicitor that of purchaser, the Court expects him, if the propriety of the transaction comes in question, to prove its fairness and validity. "The rule," said Sir Edward Sugden in Lawless v. Mansfield, (1 Dru. & W. 630), "is a very simple one, and grounded upon this, that no man can serve two masters. If a party undertakes to act for another, he must act for his benefit, and cannot in the same transaction act for himself as a principal." The nature of the proof of the fairness of the transaction must depend upon the circumstances of each case, accordingly as they may have placed the solicitor in a position in which his duties and his pecuniary interests would conflict; or may have given him a knowledge which his client did not possess, or some influence, or ascendancy, or other advantage over the client; or, notwithstanding the existence of the relation of solicitor and client, may have left the parties substantially at arm's length, and on an equal footing. (Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 Hare, 60). If the solicitor, being employed to sell, becomes himself the purchaser, his duties and his interests are directly opposed to each other; (Austin v. Chambers, 6 Cl. & Fin. 1; Chester v. Trevelyan, 11 Cl. & Fin. 714; Bellew v. Russell, 1 Ball & B. 96; Hall v. Hallett, 1 Cox, 134; Ex parte James, 8 Ves. 337; Owen v. Foulkes, in note to Ex parte Lacey, 6 Ves. 625; see also Carter v. Palmer, 8 Cl. & Fin. 657); and it would be difficult, and indeed, without the clearest evidence that no advantage was taken by the solicitor of his position, and that the client had the full benefit of all the knowledge acquired by the solicitor in his professional capacity, given him in order to form a judgment, it would be impossible, to support such a transaction: (Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 Hare, 60): and where a solicitor is unable to purchase for himself, he cannot buy for a third party, all the same mischief attending the latter case as if he was buying for himself; for though the temptation to act wrong may be less when he buys for another, yet, as he cannot use the information he has for his own benefit, it is too delicate to hold, that the temptation to misuse that information for another person is so much weaker, that he should be at liberty to bid for him. That distinction is too thin to form a safe rule of justice. In the principle creating the difficulty of the solicitor to purchase there is something that will also reach any person whom he employs to bid even for a third party, though the facts demonstrate that he did no more than say, "there is a person who will give a particular sum," with a direction to bid to that sum; and it is implied that the person employed is to get it for as little as he can; for though, in the particular case, there may be the most satisfactory evidence that the transaction amounts to no more than what the general interests of justice require, yet the solicitor is not to be permitted to purchase for himself or for another, as, in several cases, the powers of the Court would not be equal to protect it against deception, from the impossibility of knowing the truth in every case. That is the principle upon which Courts of equity have held that trustees shall not buy. Lord Rosslyn said more than once, that to affect the sale the trustee must make an advantage. That, however, is not necessary; the principle is deeper; because, if a trustee could buy in an honest case, he might in a case having that appearance, but which, from the infirmity of human testimony, might be grossly otherwise: (per Lord Eldon in Ex parte Bennett, 10 Ves. 381): neither can a solicitor purchase for himself through an agent; for to hold that a party incapacitated to purchase directly for himself could effect that object indirectly, by employing an agent to purchase for him, would be the most absurd distinction in the world. (In re Bloye's Trust, 1 Mac. & G. 488; Downes v. Grazebrooke, 3 Mer. 200; Woodhouse v. Meredith, 1 J. & W. 204; Whitcombe v. Minchin, 5 Mad. 91). of the party "in hac re," in the particular matter of the dealing between them, and is not, therefore, under any duty to advise the client against the act, he may become the purchaser. (Montesquieu v. Sandys, 18 Ves. 302; Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 Hare, 60; Jones v. Thomas, 2 Y. & C. 498). The rule of equity, said Sir J. Wigram, V. C., in Edwards v. Meyrick, which subjects transactions between a solicitor and his client to other and stricter tests than those which are applied to ordinary transactions, is not an isolated rule, but a branch of a rule applicable to all transactions between man and man, in which the relation between the contracting parties is such as to destroy the equal footing in which such parties should stand; and therefore, where the solicitor can prove that he dealt with his client upon an equal footing and at arm's length, the difficulty of supporting the transačtion is removed. An agreement between a solicitor and client, for taking a fixed sum in satisfaction of all demands for costs, may be perfectly fair and right; but the Court looks upon it with suspicion, and is vigilant to protect the interests of the client. (In re Whitcombe, 8 Beav. 140). It has already been stated that transactions between a solicitor and client in the course of their professional connexion, or even after that has ceased, if its influence remains, however suspicious in their origin, are not absolutely void, but voidable only; and therefore, if they are confirmed by the subsequent deliberate act of the client, when free from the influence of the solicitor, and especially if confirmed after investigation, and upon the advice of other and independent solicitors, they cannot be successfully impeached. (De Montmorency v. Devereux, 7 Cl. & Fin. 188, and the cases there cited). Review. A Manual of the Parliamentary Election Law, &c. By THIS work makes its appearance very opportunely, on the occasion of a general election, when, although corruption is a thing of course gone by, if not by force of the improved virtue of constituents and candidates, at least by force of the example made of St. Alban's, and of the dread of the new Bribery Act, it may be expected that an average quantity of returns will be petitioned against, and well-considered legal information on the subject will be required by the Profession. The plan of the work is best explained by the author himself, in p. 9 of the Preface: In other cases, the relation between the parties may simply produce a degree of influence and ascendancy, "The general plan of this work is as follows:placing the client in circumstances of disadvantage, as After a history of the progress of election law during where he is indebted to the solicitor, and is unable to 'the last twenty years, and a condensed statement of discharge the debt, when, in order to sustain the trans-the existing position of it in Scotland and Ireland reaction, the solicitor must prove that he gave the client the full value of the subject-matter of the dealing; if he proves that, the ground of any unfavourable influence is removed. (Nokes v. Warton, 5 Beav. 448; Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 Hare, 60). 6 spectively, that of England and Wales is considered in detail-first, as to the present arrangement of places returning members; secondly, the constitution of the franchise; thirdly, the method of ascertaining it, by "registration; fourthly, the incapacities for electing; Lastly, in the simple case, where, though the relation fifthly, the qualifications and disqualifications for of solicitor and client existed in one transaction, and being elected; sixthly, the mode of exercising the therefore personal influence or ascendancy might ope- franchise, through the agency of the returning officer rate in another, yet, if the solicitor had not any pre- ' and his staff of functionaries; seventhly, the mode in vious concern with the subject-matter respecting which 'which a voter may throw his vote; eighthly, disturbthe question arises, the particular duties to which anying forces by which the exercise of the franchise may given situation of confidence might give rise cannot, of course, as respects that subject, attach upon him, whatever may be the other duties which the mere office of solicitor may impose; and therefore the rule of equity respecting transactions between a solicitor and his client may no longer apply; or, in other words, if, under the circumstances, the solicitor does not act as the solicitor be disturbed and defeated, viz. by undue interference, by intimidation, violence, bribery, and treating; lastly, the ultimate adjudication upon the exercise of the franchise, when impeached by electors or candidates, by the House of Commons." The extent of the work makes it impossible for us to do more, in the limited space which can be occupied, than to refer to a proportion of it, and select a few exist for detecting bribery in even its subtlest and specimens of its style. We will take, therefore, by most varied forms. Devices hitherto successful in the way of such specimens, the 7th and 8th chapters, hands of those characterised by a corrupt but conwhich treat of "incapacities to elect," and "disqualifi-summate astuteness will be henceforth found shorn of cations for being elected." 'almost all their efficacy; for it is, perhaps, not going too far to say that impunity may be regarded as com'paratively annihilated. The universal spirit of indignation against this opprobrium of the age, to which In both the author commences by a short outline of the subject, concluding by an alphabetically arranged table of the incapacities and disqualifications. Mr. Warren says, (p. 140), speaking, of course, with refe-impressive utterance has been given by the most emirence to his particular subject: 6 'nent statesmen belonging to all parties, and also, with a marvellous concurrence, by all the leading organs of public opinion, will not suffer itself to be baffled during the inquiries into corrupt practices which may henceforth be instituted. Candidates themselves can now be compelled to come before committees, or it may be into a court of law, there to be exposed to an acute and merciless examination, from which they cannot Legal incapacities appear generally to range them'selves under three heads: those respectively founded on the want of intelligence, independence, and integrity; and under this division the subject will be 'treated. Those cases of incapacity, which do not fall obviously under any of these divisions, will be found disposed under one or two others, at the close of the chapter. In stating these various instances of inca-shelter themselves, except by the ignominious, peril"pacity, the reader will find occasional conflict betweenous, and even fatal plea, that they decline to an'the decisions of election committees; in which cases, swer, on the ground that their answers may tend to criminate themselves. All their agents, friends, and acquaintances, moreover, especially those most intimate, and in any way taking part in the election, will 'be subjected to similar scrutiny; as will be also every elector whom vigilant and unsuspected observation may detect in a suspicious or equivocal position. While candidates, voters, and those who communicate with them, are thus imperilled, it must be borne in mind that places themselves which are the scenes of ' and indeed in all decisions of those tribunals, though 'entitled to the utmost respect and consideration, it is open to subsequent committees to decide according to 'their own view of the law of Parliament. In one or two of the ensuing cases, however, this will be found otherwise, namely, in those decided by the Court of "Common Pleas, whose decisions, we have seen, are 'conclusively binding upon both revising barristers and 'committees. Questions of incapacity fall exclusively within the province of these three tribunals-thebribery and corruption will henceforth be subjected Court of the Revising Barrister, of the Common to the unsparing and rigorous scrutiny of Parliament, 'Pleas, and a Committee of the House of Commons, to with the great additional powers conferred by the act 'which they have been withdrawn from the polling-which has just received the assent of an expiring 'booths." 'Parliament. It is possible that more than one boThe subject of the 8th chapter is dealt with upon rough may ere long find itself in the melancholy the same plan; and in the latter part of this will be position of Sudbury and St. Alban's, or their freemen found some useful observations on the property quali-follow the fate of many of their brethren disfranchised fication of members-a subject which, however, one can 'during the last few years for systematic corruption, scarcely refrain from smiling at seeing gravely treated and whose doings, as exhibited in the catalogue of stain any book, the frequent practical evasion of the rules tutes given in this volume, have too often inflicted an on the subject being as notorious as the existence of indelible stigma upon their order." Parliament. The reader will also find in the 12th chapter very usefully condensed information on the important question of bribery-a question, the grave discussion of which also frequently provokes a smile in those who reflect, that though now and then a gross case of wholesale bribery causes the unseating of a member, or even the disfranchisement of a borough, yet not an election passes without an amount of money being spent, which, as it cannot by any possibility be spent in the legal expenses of the election, must necessarily, notwithstanding the thunder of the Legislature, have been expended in corrupting the voters. On this subject the following passage in Mr. Warren's work will point out to candidates and their friends the perils which now threaten the corrupter of electors: 6 6 "Within the last eleven years the Legislature has 'directed its efforts very anxiously against bribery, and 'placed upon the statute-book several statutes of a far more sweeping and stringent character than had ever 'been ventured upon before; but there is one statute capable, it is believed, of reaching closer to the very 'heart of corruption than perhaps any of its framers 6 contemplated; it is the act which will be found in the "Appendix, enabling parties, and compelling them, to 'be examined for and against themselves-a statute ' earnestly commended to the attention of all who may 'be weak enough even to entertain the idea of yielding 'to such derogatory practices as are now under consi'deration. "The position, indeed, of all parties intrusted with the 'electoral franchise, and all places where they exercise 'it, has become exceedingly critical, in consequence of 'the recent and greatly-augmented facilities which now We shall conclude this short notice of a work, which appears to be executed with great care, by stating, that its practical utility is much increased by the introduction of a digest of the decisions of the Court of Common Pleas on appeals from the revising barristers. London Gazettes. FRIDAY, JULY 16. JONATHAN STREETER, Brighton, Sussex, corn and coal JOHN WILLIAM EDWARDS, Marchmont-st., Bruns- ROBERT PEARE STEPHENS, (and not ROBERT |