versed by the Inner House. More recently his health was understood to be impaired, his work was evidently done with difficulty, his judgments were curtailed, and his court was comparatively deserted. His Lordship's translation to the Inner House on the death of Lord Curriehill must have felt as a relief. But it cannot be expected that a judge so high-minded and so conscientious will long continue to hold an office the duties of which he plainly discharges with difficulty. And therefore no one will be surprised if his resignation should shortly be announced.

It has frequently been said that two, if not three, other judges contemplate retirement; but there is, we think, no immediate prospect of this. Some hold that a judge owes it to his party not to resign except while it is in office; and probably those judges who are of the Tory persuasion are not indisposed to wait until the "reaction" has bought their friends into power, an event which they regard as not far distant. The resolution is not censurable, when we consider that there is now a considerable majority of Liberal judges on the bench. The only Whig judge whose resignation has been suggested was a very useful member of the Division in which he sits, and although now the oldest member of the Court, is probably well aware that he can hardly be spared by his Division. Besides the maxim referred to is not so honourably observed among Whigs as among Tories.

Much regret has been felt in consequence of the illness of Lord Mackenzie. Although the legal profession has never forgiven the circumstances attending his appointment as a judge, which was regarded as an act of somewhat high-handed injustice to our most eminent jurist, who still walks the Parliament House in a stuff gown, Lord Mackenzie's personal popularity scarcely suffered; and his fitness has been established by some years' trial, during which his judgments have stood well in the Inner House. His friends only fear lest his anxiety to do his duty should have prompted him too soon to resume his seat in his Court.

One change in the aspect of the Parliament House may now, we regret to say, be recorded as a permanent one. Several of the gentlemen who hold office as Sheriffs of Counties have taken advantage of the repeal by the Act of 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. cap. 84), of the statutory provision (1. & 2 Vict. cap. 119, sec. 2), which required them to be in habitual attendance on the Court of Session during its sittings. Out of nineteen Sheriffs only seven are now in habitual attendance on the Court of Session. We are not aware that any of the others, except the Sheriffs of Edinburgh and Lanarkshire, reside within their counties. Some of them are perhaps prevented from coming to the Parliament House so often as they wish by age or feeble health; but it is well-known, and is the subject of frequent remarks in the Parliament House, that several who enjoy vigorous health have settled down to a life of dignified leisure, everywhere except in their counties. We cannot concur in the strong censure

which is frequently passed upon them for doing so; but for many reasons we regret their absence from the Parliament House, and we cannot but consider it as giving additional strength to the arguments in favour of the abolition of the office.

Queen's Counsel. - We have formerly stated our opinion, that a considerable number of silk gowns might with advantage be distributed among the Scotch Bar. At present there are only four, the law officers and the ex-law officers of the Crown. Some years ago the Faculty of Advocates passed a resolution in favour of the appointment of Queen's Counsel; but there was a considerable minority opposed to the measure, in deference to which, we presume, the creations have hitherto been so limited in number. We have reason to know, that some of the leaders of that minority have come to entertain a different opinion, and that if the Lord Advocate were to advise the Crown to distribute six or eight silk gowns, the measure would be very generally approved.

The way the money goes - England V. Scotland. From the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Imprisonment for Debt, laid before Parliament on 24th July 1873, it appears that in connection with the English County Courts, a small army of officials, under the name of High Bailiffs and Under Bailiffs, is maintained at the expense of the Treasury, and that the imprisonment of civil debtors under the warrants of the County Courts, and probably all other kinds of execution also, takes place at the public expense. The total number of Bailiffs is not given, but it appears from the evidence of Mr. J. Mayhall (see p. 131, et seq.) that, in the Leeds County Court alone, there are no less than two High Bailiffs and thirteen Under Bailiffs all paid by the Treasury. The total number for all the County Courts in England must exceed several hundred. These gentlemen arrest and imprison every year no less than about 8,000 County Court debtors (p. 293), of whom about 90 per cent. are imprisoned for sums under £10, and about one-half for sums under £2 (p. 299). In 1871, thirty-seven persons were imprisoned for sums under 5s. (answer 205). All this is done at the expense of the Treasury, without any charge against the creditor or the debtor (see answers 3256 and 5326). Sometimes the prison is twenty to thirty or fifty miles from the place where the court is held (see answers 3252 to 3257), and the Treasury allows ninepence a mile to the Bailiffs for bringing the debtors to the prison. The debtors seem frequently to go with the money in their pockets and pay on getting to the prison. It is hinted in various parts of the evidence that they seem to have no objection, but rather the contrary, to getting trips of the kind at the public expense, and many debtors seem never to pay without the excitement or amusement of being arrested, especially as the arrestment costs them nothing, and creditors may be reluctant to resort to it (see answers 387, 3075 to 3083, and 4972). No details are given, but the figures present room for enormous abuse, as the salaries of the officials of the County Courts other than the Judges are put down at no less than £355,000 (see p. 301). The state of matters as regards the arrest and imprisonment of debtors is sufficiently characterized by some of the Judges themselves. Mr. J. A. Russell, County Court Judge of the Manchester Circuit, says, for example, that it is perfectly monstrous" that the community should be charged with these expenses (answer 4973). The whole, however, still goes on, and we all pay our share of it. It seems to be nobody's business to stop it from going on. It seems to be thought preferable to endure any amount of abuse, and waste, and absurdity, rather than establish a responsible Ministry of Justice which alone could exercise effective control.

Scotland is very differently dealt with. In Scotland, no officials of any Court, except the Judges and Clerks, get a single shilling from the Treasury. No other officials have any allowance except what they draw from those who employ them; there is no imprisonment for debts under £8, 6s. 8d., and all imprisonments of debtors above that amount have to take place at the expense of the creditors themselves, in the first instance, with the right of recovering it from the debtors if they can.

The total expense of the English County Courts, of which the greater part of the business corresponds to that of our Small Debt Courts, is put down at £565,000 (see p. 301). The total expense of the Sheriff Courts in Scotland, which comprehend all the jurisdiction of the County Courts in England, and a great deal more, besides Criminal Jurisdiction, does not exceed £60,000. Not more than a third of this, or say £20,000, can be said to be applicable to that proportion of the same or similar work in Scotland which in England costs more than half a million. Yet while money is lavished in England in a manner that is deprecated as "monstrous" by some of their own judges, allowances for Scotland of the most pressing nature, which have been, after full inquiry, unanimously recommended by a Royal Commission, conducted under governments of both sides of politics, are wantonly and unreasonably withheld.

It is not with high officials in London alone that the blame of this must rest. There are Scotch members of Parliament enough to put it right, if they had courage and honesty enough to take up any question not pressed upon them by popular agitation. There are Scotch lawyers in Parliament who could put it right by a few plain words spoken in their places in the House, or to the ministers of the Crown. When a whisper got abroad lately about increasing the salaries of Judges of the Supreme Court, no fear was entertained of opposition in high quarters; but no help is found for the far more necessary augmentation of the salaries of our local Judges. This is the more remarkable in this age of popular power; for the Lord of Session is the rich man's and the Sheriff-substitute is the poor man's judge.

Will not the "working men," who are said to rule this country, interfere to procure adequate salaries for those who have the peculiar charge of their rights ?

It may be said that Sheriff-substitutes' salaries have lately been increased in some cases where applications have been made. We are ready to admit that this has been done in a few instances. But we must remark, in the first place, that these instances are few, and in the second place, that in some cases at least the advance has been so paltry as to be a mockery and insult to the recipient and a disgrace to the ministers who offered or advised it. We have no dislike of judicious economy, and are ready to point out many ways of practising it in legal matters, but we assure the present Ministers that by their treatment of the inferior judges of Scotland they are enabling their Tory successors to do a great act of justice at their expense, when they introduce that new scale of salaries promised by Mr. Disraeli five years ago, and withheld in the meanest way by Mr. Lowe and his colleagues.

A Question of General Average. - The English Court of Common Law had lately occasion to consider the question whether the destruction of merchandise by water thrown upon it in the course of extinguishing a fire which is burning other merchandise in the same ship, is the subject of a general average contribution. Stewart v. West India and Pacific Steamship Co., 28 L. Times Rep. 743; 42 L. J. Q. B. 84, 191. It has been the uniform and invariable custom prevailing among English average staters, up to the present time, to treat a loss so occasioned as not the subject of a general average contribution; but all the text writers have condemned the custom as at variance with principle. The Court of Queen's Bench, approving the American case of Nimick v. Holmes, 25 Pennsylv. Rep. 366, were unanimous in expressing their opinion, that a loss of this kind was the subject of general average, as it is a voluntary and intentional sacrifice, made under the pressure of imminent danger and for the benefit and with a view to secure the safety of the whole cargo. In the American case referred to, Mr. Justice Lowrie had mentioned three things as the elements of general average, "a purpose, a means, and a result; a design to avert a common danger by a sacrifice voluntarily made and a successful issue;" adding that "the first and last are perfectly definite in their character, while the means must always remain to be defined by the rule of prudence when the danger arises." The Court of Queen's Bench in this case expressed a hope (though the opinion as to this point was not necessary to the decision of the case), that in future there would be no difference between law and custom on this point, and that average adjusters would henceforth feel bound to bring their practice into harmony with well-established principle. This expectation was probably premature, for the Court of Exchequer Chamber have in somewhat peculiar terms declined to express any opinion on the VOL. XVII. NO. CCIII. NOVEMBER 1873.

2 U

question. "If it was necessary," said Mr. Justice Brett, in delivering the opinion of the Court, "to determine whether the destruction of merchandise by water thrown upon it, in the course of throwing water to extinguish a fire which is burning other merchandise in the same ship, is the subject of general average, we should desire time to consider a question which is no doubt of great importance, and upon which we know of no direct authority in the law of this country." Although it is perhaps to be regretted that the judges in the Court of Appeal have adhered to the timid style of decision of which we have had too many examples on both sides of the Border, the unanimous opinion of Lord Chief-Justice Cockburn, and Justices Mellor, Hannen, and Quain, carries much weight, and will probably lead to an authoritative determination of the point when an opportunity arises. The judgment proceeded on the ground that the shipper suing for general average was bound by the terms of the bill of lading which bore "average of any to be adjusted according to British custom." We may refer also to a short paper in the Law Times of August 23, pointing out the limits within which the principle ought to be restricted as shewn by some other American cases. (The authorities are Arnould on Mar. Ins. ii. 812; Parsons on Shipping, i. 469; Benecke on Average, 243; Baily on Average, 40, 2d ed.; Stevens on Average, 12; The Brig Mary, Sprague's Rep. 17.)

International Law Conferences. -A conference consisting exclusively of jurists and publicists, originated by Professor Bluntschli and M. Rolin-Jacquemyns, and presided over by M. Mancini, was held at Ghent on the 8th, and another of a somewhat more popular character was held at Brussels on the 10th October; the object of both meetings being to discuss questions of International Law. The Ghent Conference received a very warm and hospitable welcome from the inhabitants of the town, and was attended by a large number of distinguished men. Among those present the Independance Belge enumerates M. Asser, an advocate and professor of law at Amsterdam, one of the directors of the Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée. M. Bluntschli, from Germany, professor in the University of Heidelberg, the author of the International Law Codified, and of several other works on public law, national and international; M. Besobrasoff, member of the Academy of St. Petersburg, author of various works on subjects connected with finance and social science; M. Carlos Calvo, former Minister of the Argentine Republic and corresponding member of the Institute of France, author of a theoretical and practical treatise on International Law; Mr. David Dudley Field, from the United States, a barrister of New York, the author of the draught outlines of an International Code; M. Emile de Laveleye, professor of Liège, whose last book is Les Causes de Guerre et l'Arbitrage; Mr. Lorimer, professor in the University of Edinburgh, whose Institutes of Law is described as one of the most original and philosophical works that has recently