the EASUM, ALFRED, banker's clerk, Lea Bridge-rd; April 22, at four, at office of Sols., Lewis, Munns, and Longden, Old Jewry EDMONDS, WILLIAM HENRY, linen draper, Ossulston-st, Somerstown: April 9, at two, at 12, Hatton-garden. Sol., Marshall, Lincoln's-inn-fields EVANS, DAVID, joiner, New Milford; April 13, at a quarter-past ten, at the Guildhall, Carmarthen. Sol., Parry, Pembrokedock FROST, WILLIAM, bobbin turner, Stalybridge; April 12, at eleven, at office of Sol., Buckley, Stalybridge GALLOWAY, JOHN, agricultural implement dealer, Stockton; April 11, at eleven, at the Black Lion hotel, Stockton, Sol., Draper, Stockton GIRLING, CLARK WELSY, grocer, Great Yarmouth; April 11, at twelve, at the Norfolk hotel, Norwich called to the Bar, at the Middle Temple, in 1822. To his exertions was largely due the introduction of trial by jury into the colony of New South Wales, where he was admitted in 1824, and practised at the bar for many years, with great success and distinction. On the first election of members for the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Wentworth was returned for Sidney, which he continued to represent in the Local Legislature until when the year 1855, Constitution Act, which he had introduced, and which conferred full powers of self-government on the colonists, received the Royal assent. In the same year Mr. Wentworth was again returned by the electors of Sydney, and represented that city until he was elected president of the Legislative Council in 1861. He discharged the duties of that high office with distinguished GRAFDON, JOHN THOMAS, builder, Sunderland: April 15, at ability, firmness, and impartiality until his retirement from public life, soon after which he returned to England. The deceased gentleman was married, and has left a family to lament his loss. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. CLARKE, THOMAS, provision dealer, High-st, Camden-town, and Dockhead, Bermondsey. Pet. March 25. Reg. Brougham. Sol. Russell. Walbrook. Sur. April 19 DEACON, THOMAS, baker, Chester-st, Kennington. Pet. March 26, BUBB, ARTHUR, and HARRIS, HENRY WILSON, merchants, Pet. March 27. Reg. COUCH, WILLIAM A., baker, Dartmouth. Pet. March 26. Reg. Pearce. Sur. April 15 ELLISON, JAMES, out of business, Wroughton. Pet. March 25. Reg. Townsend. Sur. April 10 GILES, RICHARD, watchwaker, Shrewsbury. Pet. March 16. Reg. Peele. Sur. April 6 JURY, WILLIAM FREDERICK, draper, Wisbeach. Reg. Partridge. Sur. Apra 10 Pet. March 23. Pet. March 26. Gazette, April 2. LITTLE, ROBERT, contractor, Jarrow-on-Tyne. Reg. Mortimer. Sur. April 18 To surrender in the Country. BILLSON, WILLIAM, grocer, Sheffield. Pet. March 28. Reg. Wake. RICHARD, sen., and BUTCHER, RICHARD, jun., clothiers, Bury Saint Edmunds and Bishop's Stortford. Pet. March 27. Reg. Collins. Sur. April 15 HARRIS, EDWARD JACKSON, lieutenant in 17th Regiment, Aldershot. Pet. March 26. Reg. White. Sur. April 30 LINGARD, JOSEPH, hardware merchant, Manchester and Bradford. Pet. March 28. Reg. Kay. Sur. April 18 PHILLIPS, URIAH, farmer, Kattlesden. Pet. March 23. Collins. Sur. April 15 Reg AKEHURST, WILLIAM, tailor, Kington; April 13, at twelve, at the BAKER, GEORGE, tobacconist, High Holborn; April 10, at three, at BARTON, EDWARD, late common brewer, Adelaide-rd, Haverstockhill; April 11, at three, at offices of Sols., Plews and Irvine, Mark-la BARTRAM, ISAIAH, carver, Nottingham; April 9, at twelve, at office of Sol., Acton, Nottingham BOYLETT, ARTHUR, plumber, Liverpool; April 15, at two, at offices of Sheen and Martin, accountants, Liverpool. Sol., Lowe, Liverpool BRACE WELL, HARTLEY, Worsted manufacturer. Drighlington; BROWN, ALBERT, builder, Norbiton; April 13, at twelve, at office of Sol., Sherrard, Chifford's-inn, Fleet-st BRYER, WILLIAM CAN, and COMINS, WILLIAM, colonial mer. chants, Great Tower-st; April 8, at twelve, at office of Sol., Mayhew, Poultry CANHAM, JOHN, innkeeper, Attleburgh: April 13, at twelve, at office of Sols., Messrs. Taylor, Norwich CAPE, FREDERICK JAMES DAMER, gentleman, Queen's-sq, Bloomsbury; April 15, at three, at office of Sols., Lewis, Munns, and Longden, Old Jewry CLARKE, SAMUEL, grocer, Stockport; April 9, at three, at office of Sol., Johnston, Stockport COLEMAN, JOHN, builder, Westerham; April 6, at one, at the COOKE, FRANCIS, baker, Tunbridge Wells; April 16, at three, at 24, Church-rd, Tunbridge Wells. Sols., Stone, Wall, and Simpson, Tunbridge Wells CUMBE, ROBERT, grocer, Devonport; April 17, at twelve, at office of Sols., Sole and Gill, Devonport DEANE, JAMES, fish curer, Great Yarmouth; April 12, at twelve, at office of Wilt-hire, solicitor, Great Yarmouth. Sol., Tower, Lower Thames-st GOLDEN, JOHN, superannua ed metropolitan police officer, Upper Norwood; April 6, at twelve, at the Guildhall Coffee-nouse, Gresham--t. Sol., Maniere, Great James st, Bedford-row GOODENOUGH, EDWARD WILLIAM, railway plant contractor, Leadenhall-st; April 15, at twelve, at office of Brown, accountant, Westminster-chmbs, Victoria-st, Westminster. Sol., Mortimer, Cliffor 's-inn GOUGH, SYDNEY TOLMAN, kamptulicon manufacturer, Cannonst; April 22. at twelve, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Greshamst. Sols., Treherne and Wolferstan twelve, at office of Sols., Oliver and Botterell, Sunderland HALL. JAMES, and HALL, JOSEPH, builders, Oxford; April 11, at twelve, at 43, Corn-market-st, Oxford HAYWOOD, JAMES, painter, Northampton; April 15, at one, at office of Sol., Payne. Finsbury-pavement HENDERSON, MICHAEL, bedstead manufacturer, Birmingham; April 12, at three, at office of Sol, Rowlands, Birmingham HICKEY, DENIS JAMES, lapidary, Birmingham; April 12, at three, at office of Sol., Maher, Birmingham HILL, ROBERT, jun.; HILL, ROBERT, jun.; and HILL, JAMES, pawnbroker, Longton; April 9, at eleven, at the Union hotel, Longton. Sol., Hawley, Longton JAMES, DAVID, labourer, Pembroke-dock; April 12, at eleven, at office of Sol., Parry, Pembroke JONES, WILLIAM, grocer, Merthyr Tydfill; April 8, at two, at office of Sols., Simons and Plews, Merthyr Tydfil KEARTLAND, JONAS, grocer, Chester; April 11, at three, at office of Roose and Price, accountants, Liverpool. Sols,, Duncan and Pritchard, Chester LINDSAY, GEORGE, copperas manufacturer, Sunderland, Chatershaugh, Cox Green, and South Hylton; April 11, at twelve, at office of Sol., Ritson, Sunderland LOCK, GEORGE, cattle dealer, Easton, near Winchester: April 24, at four, at the Royal hotel, Winchester. Sol., Kilby, Southamp ton LYONS, LEWIS HENRY, and LYONS, RACHAEL, umbrella manufacturers, Cox's-et, Little Britain, Pentonville-rd, and Archerst, Bayswater: April 10, at two, at office of Ladbury, Collison, and Viney, Chepiile. S. ls., Lewis and Lewis, Ely-pl, Holborn MCRAE, GEORGE, wine seller, Bow-rd; April f1, at two, at office of Sol., Layton, jun., Gresham-st MARSHALL, FRANCIS HOLMES, draper, Horncastle; April 11, at eleven, at the Bull inn, Horncastle. Sol., Adecck, Horncastle MASON, ROBERT AMPHLETT, professor of music; April 13, at twelve, at office of Mr. Baines, Finsbury.pl NEWTON, ALFRED, seed merchant, Mark-la; April 15, at two, at office of Sols., Morley and Shirreff, Mork-la NEWTON, JOSEPH, see i merchant, Mark-la; April 15, at one, at office of Sols., Morley and Shirreff, Mark-la NORMINGTON, THOMAS, grocer, Shipley; April 11, at eleven, at office of Sols., Watsen and Dickons, Bradford NORTON, STEPHEN, baker, Homerton; April 10, at two, at office of Sol., Buckler, Fenchurch-st PADLEY, EDWIN, clerk, Sheffield; April 11, at twelve, at office of PAGETT, THOMAS, manager to an iron plate worker, Birmingham; Sol., PARKINSON, RICHARD, woollen printer, Newchurch; April 8, at half past three, at the Derby hotel, Bury. Sols., Hargreaves and Knowles, Newchurch PETTIT, WILLIAM STEPHEN, butcher, Newport Pagnell: April 9, at three, at the Swan hotel, Newport Pagnell. Sol., Bull, Newport Pagnell PHELPS, RICHARD EDWARD, grocer, Littlehampton; April 11, at haif-past three, at office of Sols., Black, Freeman, and Gell, Brighton POPE, JOSEPH, builder, Park-rd, Teddington; April 12, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Eagell, Clifford's-iun POVEY, THOMAS, painter, Longton; April 9, at three, at the Union hotel, Longton. Sol., Hawley, Longton PRICE, THOMAS, draper, Derby; April 17, at twelve, at office of Sel., Hextall, Derby PRITCHARD, DAVID, draper, Amlwch; April 19, at two, at the British hotel, Bangor. Sol, Roose, Amlwch PROBERT, BENJAMIN, grocer, Sandhill, in Newcastle; April 12, at twelve, at office of Sol., Bush, Newcastle PROSSER, FREDERICK, builder, Canton, near Cardiff; April 11, at twelve, at offices of Barnard, Thomas, Clarke, and Co., accountants, Cardiff. Sols., Grover and Grover PROUDLOCK, EDMUND ARCHANGEL, grocer, Middlesborough April 6, at twelve, at the Station hotel, Middlesborough. Sol.. Draper, Stockton RICHARDS, CHARLES, wholesale confectioner, Camberwell-rd, and Blackfriars-rd; April 13, at two, at the Mason's hall Tavern, Basinghall-st ROBERTS, WILLIAM NASH, commercial traveller, Surrey-ter, SHUTT, JONATHAN, hotel keeper, Scarborough; April 15, at two, at the Talbot hotel, Scarborough. Sol., Richardson, Scarborough SIBTHORPE, ALLEN WILLIAM, and SIBTHORPE, WILLIAM BARVE, Schoolmasters. Brighton; April 12, at three, at office of Sol., Chalk, Brighton SMITH, HENRY TOM, be rhouse keeper, Botherham; April 12, at eleven, at the Ship hotel, Rotherham. Sol., Willis, Rotherham SMITH, MATTH W BASS, doctor of medicine, Worington-rd, Notting-hill April 11, at twelve, at the Guildhall Coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sols., Davidsons, Carr, Bannister, and Morriss, Basin, hall st SMITH, KICHARD, late grocer, Bushton; April 16, at three, at office of Sois, Pratt and Prince, Wootton Bassett SMITH, SIDNEY STEPHENS, late wine merchant, the Rosary, Richmond, April 8, at two, at office of Lovering and Minton, accountants, Gresham-st. Sols., Tanqueray. Willaume and Hanbury STANBURY, JAMES, draper, Exeter; April 11, at eleven at office of So!., Huggins, Exeter STARKEY, THOMAS HAND, draper, Longton; April 12, at halfpast twelve, at the Clarence hotel, Manchester. Sol., Hawley, Longton SWINNERTON, WILLIAM WALTER, bookseller, Chorley; April 12' at one, at office of Sol., Morris, Chorley TAYLOR, GEORGE, pawnbroker, Macclesfield; April 17, at two, at WEBB, EDMUND, victualler, Hilsea; April 11, at four, at office of WOOLLEY, CHARLES, brickmaker, Cannock; April 10, at eleven, at office of Sol., Glover, Walsall WOOTTON, EDWARD DAVIES, grocer, Oldswinford; April 11, at eleven, at office of Sol., Price, Stourbridge YORK, WILLIAM, boot manufacturer, Wolverhampton; April 11, at two, at office of Sols., H. and J. E. Underhill, Wolverhamp ton YOUNG, FREDERICK, whiting manufacturer, Dunstable; April 15, at two, at office of Sol., Pope, Poultry Gazette, April 2. BARNES, ISAAC, lamp manufacturer, Birmingham; April 16, at eleven, at office of Sol., Duke, Birmingham BROWN, RICHARD, grocer, Dudley; April 12, at eleven, at office of Sol., Stokes, Dudley BROWN, WILLIAM, butcher, Lower Halstow; April 15, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Gibson Sittingbourne BUSSELL, JOSEPH, carpenter, Bath; April 18, at two, at 1, Northumberland-bides, Bath. Sol., Moger CHEESERIGHT, MATTHEW HENRY, grocer, Oldham; April 15, at elevet, at the Mitre hotel, Manchester. Sol., Clark, Oldham CRAIG, JOHN, travelling draper, Bolton; April 12, at three, at office of Sol., Murray, Manchester DAWE, JOHN, grocer, Callington; April 16, at eleven, at office of Sols., Greenway and Adams, Plymouth DORNING, JONATHAN, commission agent, Manchester; April 18, at three, at office of Sols., Messrs. Heath, Manchester FLETCHER, GEORGE, fish merchant, Whitby; April 18, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Wilkinson, Whitby FRY, ANN, widow, shopkeeper, Farncombe, par. Godalming: April 12, at twelve, at the Angel hotel, Godalming. Sol., Potter GODDARD, WILLIAM, linen draper, High-st and Lewisham-rd, Deptford; April 17 at two, at effice of Messrs. Cape and Harris, accountants, Old Jewry. Sols., Michael, Abrahams, and Roffey, Old Jewry GOSLING, JOHN, boot maker, Manningtree; April 21. at half-past twelve, at the Railway Station hotel, Manningtree. Sol., Pollard HOLLAND, ROBERT, and DEVINE, HENRY, cloth agents, Manchester: April 15, at half-past two, at office of Sols., Grundy and Coulson, Manchester HOWELLS, DAVID JOHN, butcher, Russell-town, par. St. George; KETTON, WILLIAM, and CLARK, WILLIAM, millers, Pickering; LEE, JOHN, bootmaker, Hollingworth-st, Holloway; April 10, at three, at office of Mr. John Carrali, public accountant, Fenchurch st. Sol., Maniere, Great James'-st, nedford-row LITTLE, PHILIP THOMAS, coach builder, King's Lynn; April 15, at twelve, at the Bunk room, Athenæum, King's Lynn MARGETSON, ROBERT ALEXANDER, Stonemason, Norwich: April 15, at eleven, at office of Sols., Messrs. Miller and Stevens, Norwich NOTT SAMUEL, confectioner, Kidderminster: April 16, at one, at 13, Church-st, Kidderminster. Sol., Prior. Kidderminster PAGE, ROBERT, agricultural machine maker, Morchard Bishop; April 16, at eleven, at office of Messrs. J. O. Barris, Wreford, and Co., pubile accountants, Gandy-st-chmbs, Exeter. Sol, Huggine, Exeter PHILLIPS, DAVID, draper. Liverpool: April 12, at three, at the Home Trade Association Rooms, Manchester. Sols., Sale, Shipman and Seddon, Manchester PRICE, GEORGE, grocer, Kidderminster: April 15, at two, at 13, SCHOFIELD, SAMUEL LEES, tin plate worker, Oldham; April 11, at three, at office of Sol., Buckley, Oldbain SCOTT, THOMAS JOHN, Thorpe Hamlet; April 15, at eleven, at WAVELL, JANE, and WAVELL, CHARLES HENRY, farmers, both The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Dividends. Barratt, J. W. baker, first, 18. 24d. McNeill, Manchester.-Fe J. grocer, 1s. 34. Paget, Basinchill-st. -Catterall, Messrs, cotton spinners, second, 2d. McNeill, Manchester.-Cer, W. stockbroker, 48. 1d. Paxet, Basinghall-st.-Danes, W. grocer, first, 209.-Fidge, J. Y. pork butcher, first, 28.914. Paget, Basinghall-st-Locke, J. common brewer, first, 38. 24. McNeill, Manchester.-Mitchell and Phillips, metal merchante, first, 7d. (first sep. of Phillips, ds. 2d; first sep. of Mitchell, 208.). Paget, Basinghall-st.-Verton, G. H. firewood dealer, first, 1s. 1014. Paret, Basinghall-st.-Norton and White, stone merchants, second, sju. Paget, Basinghail-st.-Ormered, H. candle wick dealer first, 28. 101. McNeill, Manchester.Robertson, W. H. grocer, first, 1s. 4.d. Pazet, Ba-inghall st.- Konk, J. J. victualler, first, 1s. 1d. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Sear, V. L. auctioneer, firth, Is. 3d. (and 38. to new proofs). Paret, Basinghall-st.-Sendall, H. and C. butchers, first, 2s. 01. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Smith Brothers and Co., manufacturers, further, 24. McNeill, Manchester. Smith, I. manufacturer, first. 68. 1d. McNeill, Manchester.-Stone, F. W. superannuated clerk, first, 43. 6d. Paget, Basinghall-st. Baker, F. and R. ironfounders, first and final, 1s. 21. At offic of Trust, L. Blake, Hall-quay, Great Yarmouth.-Carter, T. farmer, 43. At offices of Sol., W. Fowle, Northallerton. Trust, A. Myers. Cheesebrough and Son, woolstaplers, final, 104. At offices of Trust, H. W. Blackburn, accountant, Piece Hall-yd, Bradford.-Ford, S. dealer in china, first, 48. At offices of Gibson and Bolland, accountants, 10, South John-st, Liverpool - Honearth, G. hoster, 3. 6d. At office of Trust, T. W. Gillibrand, 56, George-st, Manchester.-Maltby, W. A. innkeeper, final, Is. 1d. At Sol, Bailes, 4. Churchyard, Boston.-Walker, C. widow, Herne Bay, first ani final, 6s. 3d. At Trust., P. Higham, 43, St. Margaret's-st, Canterbury. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. HALL. On the 20th ult, at Torbay House, Carlton-road, Maidavale, the wife of Willlim Champain Hall, Esq., of 7, Lincoln'sinn fleids solicitor, of a daughter. MELLOR. On the 29th ult, at 59, Gloucester-terrace, Hyde-park, the wife of J. R. Melior, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a son. PRESTON. On the 26th ul, at Twickenham, the wife of Charles E. R. Preston, Esq., solicitor, of twins (girls). MARRIAGES. WILLIS BUND-TEMPLE-On the 2nd inst., at Kempsey, near Worcester, John William-Bund Willis- Bund, of Lincoln's-nn, barrister-at-law, to Harriette, daughter of R. Temple, of The Nash, Worcester, Esq. DEATHS. ASTON.-On the 20th ult., at Larkhall rise, Clapham, Surrey, aged SMITH.-On the 28th ult, at 1, Norfolk-square, Brighton, William Now ready, price 88. 6d.. Part III. of Vol. VIII. of THE HE LAW DIGEST. By D. T. EVANS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. arranged that the Practitioner can find in a moment what is the latest law on any subject. It is the only Half-Yearly Digest of the Law; issued in the months of June and December. The back Parts and Volumes may still be had. Established for twenty-five years. LAW TIMES Office, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. A In the press, QUESTIONS. A NEW EDITION (THE SEVENTH OF HALLILAY'S EXAMINATION DIGEST of the EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in Common Law, Conveyancing, and Equity, from the commencement of the Examinations in 1836 to Hilary Term 1872, with ANSWERS; also the Mode of Proceeding, and Directions to be attended to at the Examination. By RICHARD HALLILAY, Esq., Author of The Articled Clerk's Handbook." By GEORGE BADHAM, Esq., Solicitor. [Will be ready in about two months. London: HORACE COX, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. The Law and the Lawyers. ONE of the oldest of the County Court judges died on Tuesday last Mr. CHARLES SAUNDERS was called to the Bar at Lincoln's-inn, in November 1829, and he was appointed Judge of the County Court Circuit 56 in 1846. This circuit includes courts at Axbridge, VOL. LII.-No. 1515. Bridgwater, Chard, Crewkerne, Langport, Taunton, Temple Cloud, Wellington, Wells, Weston-super-Mare, Williton, and Yeovil. The deceased was also Recorder of Plymouth, Devonport, and Wells. FROM the letter which we append, it appears that CASTRO alias TICHBORNE, has sympathisers among experienced lawyers. Our correspondent's guinea should be sent to Mr. STREETEN. We have nothing to do with the fund. Our correspondent writes: I see that a correspondent sends you 10s. in aid of this defence, accompanying his gift with some just and pertinent remarks. May be per mitted to ask if the LAW TIMES receives subscriptions? If it does, I shall be happy to contribute my guinea. Whether the claimant be the real Sir Roger or not has not yet been decided; but it cannot be denied that the prima facie independent evidence of identity is as strong as ever was produced before any tribunal, and when compared with the interested testimony given on the other side is overwhelming. I have no hesitation in declaring my firm conviction that the Orton theory is simply to create prejudice, and that the tattooing is a jesuitical afterthought. AN ATTORNEY OF FIFTY YEARS' EXPERIENCE. Ir would be an alarming precedent if the Government were to furnish funds to defend a prisoner about whose case public opinion happens to be divided. It must have been perfectly well known to Mr. ONSLOW and the petitioners from Hampshire and Dorsetshire who have made an appeal to this effect to the House of Commons, that if their demand were complied with, every prisoner might claim to be defended at the public expense. There is nothing exceptional in the case of the TICHBORNE claimant. He has the misfortune to be poor-not an uncommon misfortune; and in the opinion of many persons he has not had fair play. These are matters for the consideration of private individuals. As a public prosecutor the Crown has a plain duty, namely, to do all in its power to place the case against the prisoner fairly before a jury. To furnish the prisoner with the means of defeating, if possible, the object of the prosecution, would be as reprehensible as an excess of zeal in the effort to obtain a conviction. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL has a perfect right to be even arrogant in the House of Commons on the TICHBORNE case. He is indisputably master of the situation, and thus in a measure entitled to resent any interference with his proceedings, not only to defeat, but civilly exterminate, the claimant. That person, it appears, was reliably informed when he stated that no less than six counsel, led by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL himself, were retained by the Government for his prosecution. The truth of this is admitted by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL in reply to Mr. NEVILLE GRENVILLE, and this being the course pursued on the advice of the first law officer, it would be impertinence on our part to question its wisdom. It was, however, imagined that the issue would be considerably narrowed on the criminal trial. This would now appear to be a mistake, and it will be extraordinary if, with six counsel, and anything like a proportionate defence, the case at the Old Bailey, or wherever it may be tried, do not rival its predecessor in the Common Pleas. 66 A POINT of practice of some interest arose recently in the Liverpool County Court. The question was whether a witness in initiatory proceedings in bankruptcy was entitled to be assisted by a solicitor. The witness was the solicitor of the debtor, and on the ground that he himself was a solicitor, professional assistance was denied to him by the court. "At common law," said Mr. Serjeant WHEELER, a witness could not have counsel to protect him, but in bankruptcy it was different. The examinations in bankruptcy were assumed to be those of the court, and all parties before it were to some extent put upon their defence. The prac tice had been long established that a person summoned in bankruptcy might be attended by counsel or attorney, and that at the close of the examination in chief they might ask all such questions as would, in the judgment of the court, elicit the whole account of a transaction left imperfect by the examining party, or might set right any misapprehension which the answers may have given rise to." The witness being asked as to the whereabouts of the debtor, he claimed privilege. The claim was disallowed by the court, and substituted service of the petition ordered. OUR Contemporary, the Globe, falls foul of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, alleging that he made an ungracious reply to Mr. EYKYN on the subject of ex-Chancellors and the extra judicial duties which they may see fit to undertake. The writer evidently thinks that Sir JOHN COLERIDGE has acquired a bad habit of being supercilious. We should find it somewhat difficult, conscientiously, to differ with Our contemporary, if giving a general opinion; but, respecting Mr. EYKYN's question, we conceive that Sir JOHN was in somewhat of a difficulty. To ask an Attorney-General to explain the conduct of an ex-Lord Chancellor is to solicit a precedent which might tell with terrible effect upon the ATTORNEY-GENERAL himself in a possible event. So the reply left the matter open. We are not disposed to attach much importance to Mr. EYKYN's question. Ex-Lord Chancellors are absolute masters of the time during which their services are not required "on the judicial tribunals of which they are members," and if they declined to undertake such duties as those performed by Lord CAIRNS in the matter of the European Assurance Society, much valuable capacity would be lying idle, whilst, on the other hand, to expect any Englishman to wind-up a joint stock company as an amusement, or out of natural love and affection for share and policy holders is, we should imagine, to trespass on the farthest limits of even Mr. EYKYN's notions of disinterested devotion. Lord CAIRNS is sitting as an Equity Judge, and he is paid for it. To our mind this involves no loss of dignity. We would add that we venture the opinion with diffidence, as the ATTORNEY-GENERAL obviously entertains strong views on the subject. WE have already expressed some doubt as to the wisdom of members of the Bar accepting County Court judgeships "subject to future arrangements." That such doubt was justifiable is clear from the extraordinary manner in which the Government has dealt with some score of young officers in the Guards. It being necessary to fill up the positions in the regiments, the gentlemen received commissions as lieutenants on these terms: In the event of your accepting the commission now offered, you must clearly understand that you will enter the army subject to any changes which may hereafter be made in the regulations of the service in respect to pay or otherwise." By an act of Mr. CARDWELL'S, these changes turned out to signify that the officers in question became sublieutenants, holding probationary commissions, who, to add to their mortification, are sent to school again at Sandhurst. It would be hardly possible to deal in this fashion with a County Court judge; but he may be so hardworked and underpaid as to find his office unbearable, and we fear he would find it rather more difficult than the officers in the Guards to obtain the attention of Parliament to his grievances. In a sanguine mood as to the probable result of the Alabama difficulty the Albany Law Journal invites the consideration of the question whether by international courtesy American lawyers should not be allowed to practise in England and her dependencies without the five or three years' apprenticeship, as the case may be, in return for which America would give to English and Irish lawyers the right to practise in America on similar terms. Our contemporary says: We would greatly desire to see a rule adopted, both here and in England, by which lawyers would get the same courtesy that doctors do. We do not wish to throw pearls before swine, if there be yielded nothing in return. But, though few American counsellors would go to England, some might go to India or to Australia. There would be then an equivalent for the boon we would confer on English and Irish barristers who come here, in admitting them to practise at once, and before serving a five years' apprenticeship to citizenship and politics." There are one or two objections to this proposal. In the first place, the Profession in England and America are differently constituted. In this country we are inclining to greater strictness in educational matters. Further, our profession is divided-the peculiar position of an English barrister is unknown to Americans. We conceive, therefore, that it would hardly be desirable to admit American attorneys, who exercise in their own country the functions of barristers, to practise at the English Bar. With a lower educational standard than our own, and a habit of indiscriminate practice, the introduction of American practitioners into England could hardly tend to elevate our profession. In the next place we do not quite appreciate the boon to be conferred by America upon English and Irish barristers. Very few English barristers, we presume, would think of becoming American hybrid lawyers. The tendency of the Irish in that direction may be considered stronger, but hardly to an extent compensating the English and Irish Bars for a strong infusion of the American element into the ranks of the Profession in India and our colonies. In any event the first step to take towards the end desired by our contemporary is to place the Profession in the two countries on the same educational footing. Then if, as appears inevitable, the two branches of our Profession are amalgamated, the project might be entertained. THE Family Lawyer has at length come under public criticism. Novelists and dramatists have, on the whole, paid a certain amount of deference to this member of the legal profession. He stands apart from that litigious business in which it is the common idea much of the villany of life is focussed, and, with certain exceptions, he is portrayed as a respectable person carrying a large blue stuff bag, and followed by a half-starved clerk. It is very extraordinary that modern writers will adhere to this caricature of the family lawyer, who certainly no longer carries about a stuff bag or starves his clerks. The habits and manners of lawyers change with the rest of the world, and the ancient forms which are to be found in certain legal documents are retained because it is difficult to invent safe substitutes, and furthermore because the ridiculous system of paying solicitors is a direct encouragement to verboseness. It was rather hard, therefore, on the part of Mr. 66 66 READ, in the debate on the law of entail, on Tuesday night, to make the family lawyer the scapegoat of a bad system. The multitude of deeds and nonsense connected with the transfer of land is enough, according to Mr. READ, to frighten any sane man. He added, They might reform their laws, but could they reform their lawyers? They could not reform their lawyers' charges." In support of this attack, the hon. member for an agricultural district cites the Bankruptcy Act 1869, "which was to do great good," but "they could not prevent the lawyers from eating the oyster, and dividing the shells to the litigants." Then, as if practice under the Bankruptcy Act had anything to do with the transfer of land by the family lawyer, he exclaims, The man of whom I am most afraid is the family lawyer." This is equivalent to saying that as a creditor under a bankruptcy Mr. READ gets a shell, and that in transactions with the family lawyer, that voracious individual devours both oyster and shell. We say nothing of Mr. READ's mistake as to the Bankruptcy Act-as to there being a remote possibility of accountant trustees being answerable for the disappearance of some of the assets in every case-but welcome the prospect of escape from Mr. READ's displeasure which is held out to the family lawyer. Now, we are told, the family lawyer employs as his agent some superannuated butler Let him engage a or old gamekeeper.' 'thoroughly practical farmer," and the reform of the system of transfer of land may be indefinitely postponed. At any rate such a step will go far to redeem the character of the family lawyer in the eyes of Mr. READ. 66 66 SEVERAL hours appear to have been wasted in the House of Commons on Monday night in the discussion of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill. Many attempts were made to alter the existing regulations as to polling, quite a heavy debate taking place as to the policy of keeping the poll open after dark. The prevailing opinion was that polling in the dark should be avoided if possible. Mr. FORSTER'S proposal that the poll should close at such an hour between four and eight as came immediately after sunset by Greenwich time, strikes us as the most sensible. A curious proposal was made in connection with the ballot, namely that those voters who desired to vote openly might do so. But the obvious reply to this was, that bribery would be facilitated, inasmuch as every briber would make it a condition that the bribee should vote openly. Another proposition as to voting was that voting papers should be allowed. This also was negatived. Mr. BENTINCK proposed that the ballot papers should not contain the names of the candidates. This was lost by a large majority. A further and more important proposition, directed to the prevention of personation, was made by Mr. GREGORY-that the ballot papers should have upon them the voter's number on the register. This number said Mr. GREGORY "should be known only to the returning officer, and the votes might be so counted as not to expose the numbers to the agents of the candidates." Without some such means of tracing the voter it was contended personation could not be punished. In reply the SOLICITOR-GENERAL was not felicitous. As to the objection that it would not be known how the personator had voted, this was no reason why personation should not be discouraged, and it could not be better discouraged than by punishing the candidate on whose behalf it was committed." We cannot agree. If punishing the candidate be sufficient, why impose penalties upon the personator? Further, as to the opera tion of the amendment in rendering a scrutiny more effectual, the learned SOLICITOR-GENERAL merely replied that it could be made sufficiently effectual without it. He does not state how, but appears to rely upon the rare occurrence of scrutinies and the deterrent effect of severe punishment upon offenders against the Corrupt Practices Acts. Colonel BARTTLELOT and Mr. CROSS were very severe on the law officer, using the expressions ignorant and simple-minded. Sir G. JESSEL replied that he had a strong objection to personation but a stronger objection to personalities. The spiritless discussion was continued and ultimately Mr. GREGORY'S amendment shared the fate of all the others brought forward, and was negatived by a majority of forty. The House was very thin throughout the debate-a fact which seems to justify the suggestion that Parliament is not in earnest in dealing with electoral corruption. THE crusade against the powers of alienation possessed at present by the owners of property manifested itself in the House of Commons on Tuesday night under the form of a resolution moved by Mr. W. FOWLER, "That in the opinion of this House the present state of the law as to entail and strict settlement of land discourages the investment of capital in the development of agricul ture, to the great injury of all classes of the people, and increases the complication of titles and the expense and delay incident to the transfer of real estates." Mr. FOWLER'S principal objection was to tenancies for life. A tenant for life was a poor man, and had to practise a cheeseparing economy for the sake of his younger children. "He (Mr. FOWLER) saw no way out of the difficulty by saying that each generation should take care of itself, and that there should be an end of this system of tenants for life." Par ratione, we suppose there must be an end to all leases, building but or other, the duration of which exceeds the period which Mr. FOWLER may think desirable, but which he did not indicate. Mr. READ, while objecting, and with good reason, to the continuance of copyhold tenures as wasteful, and in some cases oppressive, and to the insecurity of the tenant's capital under the present system of agricultural yearly tenancies, hinted at a mild edition of the Irish Land Act for this country. "They (the tenants) must not, as regarded England, think of fixity of tenure. All they wanted was compensation for unexhausted improvements." We should be loth indeed to believe that English tenant farmers, as a rule, are unable to protect themselves in making their own contracts; while, at the same time, it is highly to be desired that the Scotch system of leases should supersede that of the English precarious tenancies. A Scotchman objects to be dependent on the caprices or circumstances of his landlord, and it would be well if the same policy were more generally entertained and acted on here. As to the proposed restrictions on the creation of life tenancies and of the power to suspend the vesting of property for twenty-one years after subsisting lives, we say, as we have said before (LAW TIMES, Vol. xlviii. p. 145), echoing the words of Lord St. LEONARDS, "that the present plan of a short settlement in this country is free from all objection. It does not place land extra commercium, but within reasonable limits enables the owner to transmit it to all his posterity." Mr. FOWLER'S resolution was lost by a majority of 103 to 81. We hope that the moving of abstract resolutions of a similar character will not become an annually recurring nuisance. Such a consummation, however devoutedly to be wished, is we fear scarcely to be looked for. THE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1870) SHORTLY after the passing of the Married Women's Property Act 1870 we called attention to the extraordinary effect and operation of the enactment contained in the 12th section (LAW TIMES, Vol. xlix. p. 415). By that section, and as to marriages taking place after the passing of the Act, a husband is relieved from all liability for the debts of his wife contracted dum sola, while the rule of the common law, subject to certain modifications introduced by the Act, remains ineffectual, and vests the wife's personalty in the husband, or gives him the power of disposing of it or reducing it into possession, and as to realty confers on him an estate by the courtesy in certain events. We expressed an opinion that the provision really required was one that would render the husband liable for his wife's debts contracted before marriage to the extent, and only to the extent, of her assets vested in him by the marriage in the same way as he would be bound if he survived her, and as her administrator, to satisfy such debts out of any choses in action belonging to her. A Bill brought in by Messrs. STAVELEY HILL, RAIKES, LOPES, and GOLDNEY now passing through the Commons, and which we print in extenso in another column, adopts a similar method of dealing with the husband's rights. The 9th section of the Bill deserves notice as an attempt to fuse or confuse law and equity in relation to trusts for the separate use of a married woman, by conferring on her creditors the power of treating a trustee holding on such trusts as a garnishee under The Common Law Procedure Act 1854. It is not perhaps quite clear whether this section does not apply to all debts of the wife, whether contracted before marriage or not; if it does not the possible conflict between legal and equitable proceedings against the trustee is apparent. It seems, however, certain that the equitable remedies of creditors are not taken away in either case, and also that it would be competent for the general body of creditors, or, indeed, for any creditor, to prevent any others or other of them, who may be proceeding at law, from gaining an undue advantage thereby, by themselves instituting a suit against the trustee, analogous to a creditor's suit against an administrator. We greatly doubt the wisdom of attempting fusion on so infinitesimal a scale. We think, also, that it is a pity that while the Act of 1870 was under repair, an effort should not have been made to remove the absurdity and incongruity of some of its other provisions. We think that, under the 3rd section, a married woman's property in the funds might and ought, as against her husband, to have been made her separate estate, without the necessity for her making any formal application to the Bank authorities. A similar remark applies to the necessity for her application to the directors or managers of a joint-stock company under the 4th section, and to the committee of management or trustees of industrial, provident, friendly, and similar societies under the 5th section. Then, again, the 7th section, which rightly impresses the separate use on personal property coming to a married woman as next of kin of an intestate, whatever be its amount, seems to us perfectly ridiculous in denying such separate use to property (unless it be a sum of money not exceeding £200) coming to her under any deed or will. We believe that, in the vast majority of cases, the intention of a settlor or testator would be effectuated by the establishment of the separate use. When the intention is to give to the husband, the gift or bequest would not be made to the wife at all. An additional absurdity is, that the sum not exceeding £200 reserved for the wife must be "money" properly so called. We should like an explanation of the reason why the wife deserves less favour because property of like value happens to be money's worth and not money. Under the 8th section, which relates to freehold or copyhold property descending upon a married woman, there is not, perhaps,. much doubt that the separate use in "the rents and profits" is, by implication, confined to her life, and does not confer on her, without the concurrence of her husband, the power of disposing of the inheritance. The point, however, is one of importance and deserves to be made clear. This section, like the preceding, is open to the remark, that there is no valid reason why the separate use should be restricted to cases of descent, and not made to apply equally to cases where the wife takes by purchase. In most cases the omission of separate use clauses in a deed or will is due merely to carelessness on the part of the draftsman or testator. THE CHANCERY FUNDS BILL. THE debate on the second reading of the Chancery Funds Bill ine the House of Commons was not very satisfactory. We hope when the measure comes before the Lords that it will be considered with a much closer reference to the interests of suitors and the Profession. The debate was indeed to a great extent carried on by laymen, who could not be expected to know very much about the working of the Chancery offices. But the members of the Profession who spoke did not, it must be confessed, draw very largely upon their store of knowledge for the enlightenment of their brethren who were less learned in such matters. re Mr. BAXTER, in moving the second reading of the Bill, did his best to lead up to this unsatisfactory discussion, by devoting much time to comments on details where he was very weak, and leaving in the background the great principle of the Bill, in advocating which he would have been strong. There can be no doubt that if the proposition was made to any suitor that the Government would give him a direct, instead of an indirect, guarantee for the safety of his money, together with 2 per cent. on any funds he did not wish to have otherwise invested, in turn for being allowed the use of such funds, he would instantly close with the offer. This is the gist of the Bill and the only objections which have ever been made to its fairness resolve themselves into two: First, that it is not bene- . ficial or convenient that the State should have the manipulation of so large a sum of money; and, secondly, the highly technical one that the State would be a trustee, and should not be permitted to make a profit out of the funds entrusted to its care. As we are considering the Bill from a professional point of view, the first objection does not come quite within our cognisance; and as to the second, although undoubtedly the State would be a trustee, yet it would also render certain onerous services, and act as banker, and it is quite competent for a trustee, under such circumstances,. to make a bargain that he should be remunerated before undertaking the trust. But, indeed, it strikes us that in a case like this it is pushing analogy rather far to seek to make out that the State and a private trustee should be governed by the same technical principles. If Mr. BAXTER had put in the foreground the positive gain which will accrue to suitors if the Bill becomes law, and also the fact that the proposed change would give the country an income of £800,000 per annum, he would have done much better than by spending so much time in parading the evils of the present system, under which the funds of Chancery suitors are managed, especially as it is anything but certain that the system proposed by the Government will be an improvement. It is the advantage to be derived from the change of the custody of the funds from an officer of the Court of Chancery to a political officer, subordinate to the Treasury, that the Profession would wish to be thoroughly discussed. We confess we are not at all clear that it would not be a far better scheme to retain the ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL and allow the Treasury to deal with the funds through him in like manner as they propose to deal with them through the PAYMASTERGENERAL. 66 The case stands thus: Mr. BAXTER proposes that the AccoUNTANT-GENERAL shall be abolished and all his duties be performed by the PAYMASTER-GENERAL, because the principles on which the business of the office of the AcCOUNTANT-GENERAL are managed are not quite in accordance with the financial practices of the Nineteenth Century;" that the present system involves two sets of accounts; that it makes no provision for audit; that there are great delays in paying out money; that there are too long holidays; and that the expenses are too great. As to the first of these objections we do not think the public will consider the Court of Chancery blameable in being a little old-fashioned in its dealings with the money entrusted to it. And as for the other objections we have no guarantee that they may not be urged with equal force against the management of the PAYMASTER-GENERAL. The Bill does not guide us in any way, as it simply transfers the funds and the duties; all the details on which is rested the argument that the new system of management will be cheaper, safer, and more convenient than the present one, have to be settled by general orders. But if a general order can give us all those advantages when the PAYMASTER-GENERAL has displaced Mr. RUSSELL, why cannot it do so now without any change whatever? A perusal of the correspondence between the Treasury and the Audit Office leads us still further to doubt the advantages which are promised to arise from the change. The want of a proper audit has been one of the cardinal complaints of the supporters of the Government measure against the present system. The answer that, as every dealing with the funds is known to the persons beneficially interested in them, and these persons are often hostile to one another, a practical audit is really in force, one would have thought sufficient, especially when supported by the fact that during 180 years only about £1000 has been lost through forgery or malversation. The Treasury, however, persists in making the want of a proper audit one of the gravest faults of the present system, and to promise a thorough audit as one of the greatest boons which will be given to the suitors by the new rejime. In order to be fully prepared on this point for Parliament, they sent a draft of the Bill last December to the AUDITOR-GENERAL, and invited his opinion generally so far as the proposed audit was affected. In February last Sir W. DUNBAR gave this opinion at very great length. After discussing the nature of the audit which would be required, he made a series of suggestions which may be shortly summed up thus :-That the audit staff and the PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S staff should occupy the same building; that all drafts should be countersigned by the auditor; that the previous accounts of the ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL should be audited; that the orders of court, so far as paying money, &c., go, should be simplified so that an Audit Office clerk can comprehend them; and that the regulations as to audit should be framed by the AUDITORGENERAL and the LORD CHANCELLOR. The Treasury replied that all Sir W. DUNBAR's suggestions, except the last, were matter of detail, and need not be provided for in the Bill, and that as to the last they did not agree with Sir W. DUNBAR. From all this we feel great misgivings as to the saving of time and expense, under the proposed change. We are to have an enormous business which is at present transacted under the direct control of the Court of Chancery, and under the immediate supervision of one of its own officers, transferred to certain officials down at Whitehall, who owe all their allegiance to the Treasury and to other officials at Somerset House who are partly subordinate to the Treasury, but who are ambitious of making themselves independent of every one except the House of Commons. The rules for the transaction of business (except as to audit) can only be made by the LORD CHANCELLOR, with the concurrence of the Treasury, and the rules for the audit of the accounts which may interfere most materially with the transaction of business, are to be made by the Treasury alone. This prospect is not encouraging, but we still hope it may be discussed whether the advantages to be derived by suitors and by the State from the dealings of the Government with the Chancery funds might not be gained without so great a change in the management of the business relative to these funds. HOSTILE EMBARGO AND THE CONTRACT OF MARINE INSURANCE. THE law discloses some nice refinements when dealing with arrest and capture under marine policies. The distinction drawn between the two events is one which some minds would find it difficult to appreciate. To take the instance given by Roccus : a Genoese corn ship was seized at sea by Venetian cruisers, and carried for the relief of Corfu, then in a state of famine, where it was sold and paid for. It was decided by the rota of Genoa that this was not a capture in respect of which the assurred, who had abandoned, could recover for a total loss, but merely an arrest or detention of princes, the object being not to make prize, but to purchase corn. Our leading English text book (Maclachlan's Arnould) says: "In this lies the grand distinction between arrest and capture. Capture is the forcible taking of a ship, &c., in time of war, with a view to appropriating it as prize. Arrest is a temporary detention of the ship, &c., with a view to ultimately releasing it or paying its value." Marshall is cited in support of this definition, and in a note we find it stated, " so it was received in Fowler v. The English and Scotch Marine Insurance Company (34 L. J. 253, C. P.)" Now it is perfectly plain that it would be important if in such a case the doctrine as stated was recognised. But that case was decided upon a clause in a policy against war risks, using the words "capture, seizure, and detention." An embargo was laid upon the ship, which was Prussian, by the Danish Government, on the breaking out of the war between Denmark and Prussia in 1854. By the policy it was provided that within thirty days after receipt of official news of capture or embargo, without waiting for condemnation, the insurers would pay a total loss. The court decided that the detention was not temporary, and that whether it were so or not, thirty days having elapsed, the plaintiffs, under the express terms of the policy, were entitled to recover for a total loss. We have searched the reports diligently, but fail to see where the court recognised the doctrine as laid down in the text-book which we have cited; and it is perfectly clear that in a case of this kind it would matter nothing whether the embargo were permanent or otherwise. A period was wanted from which the thirty days might run, and any detention was sufficient. It is always dangerous to attempt to deduce general principles from a case which turns upon a particular stipulation. But the more important matter to which attention should be directed in these days when earnest efforts are being made to assimilate the laws of various countries, is the effect of hostilities upon ordinary contracts of insurance where the underwriter and the assured are subjects of different states. The principle prevailing where the underwriter and the assured are subjects of the same state, is that the underwriter is liable for all loss occasioned by the public acts of the home government in detaining, arresting, or laying an embargo on the ship, either in the home or a foreign port. A principle applicable to a foreigner insured with British underwriters is, that if his ship be detained under an embargo by his own government for purposes not hostile to the British Government, he may recover the loss sustained. It is doubtful, however, whether even now this may be regarded as an established principle of law, for Lord Ellenborough took a directly opposite view in the cases of Conway v. Gray, Conway v. Forbes, and Murray v. Sheddon, which are reported together in 10 East. The recent case of Aubert v. Gray (7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 469) which was a decision of the Exchequer Chamber, Chief Baron Pollock dubitante, recognised the principle as stated above, and overruled Conway v. Gray. The plaintiffs were Spaniards, and insured the ship with a British underwriter in the ordinary form. She was seized by the Queen of Spain, converted into a troop ship, and employed in the war of Spain against Morocco. The court held that the plaintiff could recover for a total loss. The case was really fought upon the question whether Lord Ellenborough's doctrine was correct, namely, that every member of a State must be taken to be responsible for the acts of his own Government. Upon this point Lord Ellenborough said, "In all questions arising between the subjects of different states, each is a party to the public authoritative acts of his own Government; and on that account a foreign subject is as much incapacitated from making the consequences of an act of his own state the foundation of a claim to indemnity upon a British subject in a British court of justice, as he would be if such an act had been done immediately and individually by such foreign subject himself." In support of this view Touteng v. Hubbard (3 Bos. & Pul. 291), was cited. Now the ground upon which Lord Alvanley decided that case is distinctly put forward by him in his judgment, namely, "that a British merchant is not liable to answer for any damages which the owner of a foreign vessel may sustain from an embargo laid by the British Government on foreign ships in the nature of reprisals and partial hostility." Later on he thus refers to the nature of the embargo: By this embargo all Swedish vessels in the ports of England were detained and the crews made prisoners. The object of this must have been to make a species of reprisal on the State of Sweden. This great question remains to be decidedWhether a British subject shall be compelled to indemnify a Swede against all the acts of the British Government which have been done to the latter with a view to resist the injustice of the Swedish Court; and, whether by a charter-party of affreightment it shall be competent to a foreigner to defeat all the effects of the British embargo, and throw the burden upon a British subject? We are of opinion that, on principles already established, it would be a total violation of every rule by which the courts have been governed, respecting actions brought against British subjects, by persons in a more or less extensive degree of hostility, to suffer this plaintiff to recover." On comparing the judgments of Lord Alvanley and Lord Ellenborough, it will be seen that the former dwells strongly upon the question of hostility, whereas the latter seems to state the doctrine generally that an assured cannot recover for a loss consequent upon the public act of his own Government. And it must be doubted whether Lord Ellenborough can be said to have been justified in citing Touteng V Hubbard in support of his decision. Nevertheless it may be asked why the element of hostility as between the Governments of the two contracting parties should be material? If a subject is responsible for the act of his Government, why should he not be liable, whatever the nature of the act which causes the loss? The logical conclusion is that he ought to be, and if he were, Aubert v. Gray would not have been decided as it was. What did the court say? The assertion that the act of Government is the act of each subject of that government is never really true. In representative Governments it may have a partial semblance of truth; but in despotic governments it is without that semblance. This judgment recognises the important distinction between an embargo in time of peace between the countries of the insurers and the assured, laid on for a purpose wholly uncon nected with hostility either existing or expected, and an embargo connected with such hostility." 66 There is an obvious ground for the distinction between an arrest and a capture as concerns the remedy against under writers, because if the value of a thing seized or detained is pay able by the Government seizing it, the underwriters should not be |