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. Sd., 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.

દરે

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

appeared; Signor Mancini, Deputy of the Italian Parliament, former Minister, professor of International Law in the University of Rome, one of the founders of the National Italian School of Jurists; and M. Rolin-Jacquemyns, the editor in chief of the Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée, published at Ghent. All the members of the Conference agreed in recognising the possibility and urgency of constituting a free association without any official character, which might serve as the centre of a scientific movement to promote both public and private international law. The first and chief business they had was to draw up and pass the rules of the association. The task they accomplished on the 10th Sept., and from that time the Institute dates its existence. Little more than this preliminary work could be accomplished, but the founders of the institution did not separate until they had taken steps to settle what was to be done for future meetings. Geneva was fixed upon for the next Conference, which will be held on the 31st Aug. 1874. The members of the Institute did not believe in the possibility of framing a code of International law in the present stage of development of that branch of jurisprudence, but they nevertheless appointed eight of their members as delegates to meet the jurists and publicists of the Brussels Conference on the 10th October, to express sympathy with them, to share in their labours, and aid them as far as possible in attaining the objects they have in view. The promoters of the Brussels Conference are Americans. The movement originated at New York on the 15th May last. The following persons, David Dudley Field, LL.D., Theodore Dwight Woolsey, D.D., LL.D., Emory Washburn, LL.D., William Beach Lawrence, LL.D., and the Rev. James B. Miles, D.D., were, at a meeting held on that day, appointed a committee to invite publicists from different nations to meet at a time and place to be agreed upon for consultation upon the best method of preparing an international code, and the most promising means of procuring its adoption. The resolutions passed were as follows:-"That we have heard with great satisfaction the Rev. Dr. Miles' account of his mission to Europe on behalf of international justice, and that we express our cordial conviction of the wisdom of the principles and the reasonableness of the plans which he has communicated to us; that the movement of affairs, the studies of thoughtful men, and the tendencies of public opinion, call for a new and earnest consideration of the usages and laws of nations especially in regard to war, and for a new international code especially in respect to arbitration; that in the opinion of this meeting the establishment of an international code, containing among its provisions the recognition of arbitration. as the means of settling international disputes, is an object of the highest interest and importance; that with the view to the formation of such a code, it is expedient that a meeting should be called for consultation upon the best method of preparing it, and the most promising means of procuring its adoption; that such a meeting

be held at a time and a place to be hereafter agreed upon, to which publicists from different nations shall be invited, and that a committee of five be appointed to act for this country in the issuing of invitations and in making arrangements for the meeting, which committee shall have power to add to their number." We could not expect much practical outcome from a meeting so composed, and professing such large and exuberant hopes and designs. We may note, however, that the subjects of discussion were-1. Discussion on the principle of the codification of the law of nations, and examination of the best system to be employed in the preparation and editing of a code of the law of nations; 2. Discussion on the principle of international arbitration, the foundation of courts of arbitration, procedure to be followed, means of securing the execution of decrees arbitral; 3. Classification of subjects to be considered, the formation of committees intrusted with the study of the questions to be decided, and the appointment of reporters.

The duty of Sheriffs to examine into the state of the Public Registers.-A little incident at the Autumn Circuit at Inverness suggests a piece of useful employment for those Sheriffs whose alacrity in availing themselves of the new privilege of being absent from the Parliament House and cultivating their farms, and perhaps their minds, has lately been so remarkable. The Sheriff of Caithness, Orkney, and Shetland (Mr. Thoms), who is not one of the Sheriffs who have so withdrawn, brought the state of the public records at Lerwick before the notice of the Lords of Justiciary last year, when a remit was made to the Lord Clerk Register. Again, this year, the learned Sheriff reported on the subject, and the newspaper report bears:

"The returns by the Sheriffs (i.e. under 49 Geo. III. cap. 42) were examined by the Judge and found correct. Last year, he said, the Sheriff of Orkney and Shetland had very properly drawn attention to the state of the records in his district, and a remit had been made on the subject to the Lord Clerk Register. Sheriff Thoms stated that the Lord Clerk Register had not reported, and the matter has again been remitted to him. The Lerwick registers, it appears, are kept in a wooden press, along with the current processes and other documents, in the Sheriff Clerk's office, which is situated in an old tenement, called the County Buildings, in Lerwick. No arrangement for the safety of the registers has ever been made in Shetland, and Sheriff Thoms regretted to say that the efforts of the county gentlemen to obtain a Court-house, with accommodation for their safe-keeping, had hitherto been unsuccessful, in consequence of the requirement by Government that not more than £1900 should be spent in the erection of the contemplated buildings. Yet Government had sanctioned an expenditure of £4500 for the erection of such buildings in Orkney, and in Shetland the expense of buildings was a third higher. A sum of £1900 was quite inadequate to procure the necessary accommodation in Lerwick. Sheriff Thoms added that the Commissary Court records in Shetland had always been kept in the private office of the commissary clerk. Meantime the Kirkwall records are in a condition similar to those at Lerwick. The remit of last year was renewed both as regards Orkney and Shetland."

As the Sheriffs who have permanently retired to their country houses may not have a good edition of the Statutes at their command, we quote for their benefit (for we cannot believe that in their