there are to be found amongst the Corporation of London, gentlemen not only of respectability and integrity, but of sound sense and liberal views; but the 232 members of whom the Common Council is composed, appear to be influenced by a very small section, who set their faces against all effectual reforms. If not turpitude or corruption, it is, at all events, a gross neglect of duty, and wilful resistance to reform, when they allow the present state of things to continue. If they have the extensive power of internal reform, which has been so much relied upon in resisting the interference of Parliament, why has not this power been exercised, at all events, to check some of the evils that we have pointed out? If, on the other hand, they have not this power, why has not Parliament been asked to lend its aid to adapt the ancient free institutions of London to the modern wants of this great City? We have been told' that, in 1836, after the last Commission came into the City, a Reform Committee was appointed by the Corporation, who had an interview or two with the Ministers of the day as to a Bill about to be brought in by Lord John Russell, but, on his Lordship's intimation that the Bill would not be proceeded with, this self-reforming Corporation remained passive; the fact is, that it has long been the practice, on the eve of St. Thomas' Day2, for propositions of reform to be placed on the Common Council paper. We have given the principal result of these efforts at self-reform in our analysis of the City defence. The Corporation, as we have already observed, are much in the habit of applying to Parliament in the management of their property, &c. Twice within the last five years have the Sheriffs of the City of London presented petitions at the bar of the House for Corporation Reform; a private Bill was brought in, and passed both Houses, in 1849, under this designation, but it, after all, turned out to be a mere immaterial alteration of the City Election Act of Geo. I.3

Again, in 1852, was a City Reform Bill brought in. This was also a mere Election Bill, though of a more sweeping

1 Evidence of Mr. W. Williams, M.P., § 2830. Mr. Bennock, § 1169.

2 St. Thomas's Day is the day on which the Common Council have to meet the electors.

character, and being chiefly supported by the evidence of the partisans of the Corporation, who represented it as a model of perfection, the Bill was thrown out, and reform is now unpopular at Guildhall.

A reform, however, and a sweeping one too, is inevitable. If municipal institutions are of any value at all, they can no longer be confined to a portion only of the Metropolis. London, any more than Liverpool, cannot remain without a system of local government. The innumerable local statutes, charters, customs, and bye-laws which govern it, — the hundreds of local boards and commissioners, and local and petty officers that its inhabitants are called on to maintain,—— the numerous district courts, and district governments to which it is handed over, must all give way to the progress of system: economy, efficiency, and simplicity, must take the place of extravagant expenditure, conflicting jurisdiction, and endless confusion. Whether one great and efficient corporation is to arise out of the ashes of the old civic institutions, or a separate municipality is to be formed for each of the metropolitan boroughs, it is quite clear that system must be pursued, --that there must be one body of police acting in unison for the whole Metropolis, one system of sewerage, and, let us add, one system of justice.

Aldermen or not, we cannot have gentlemen undertaking the responsible duties of police magistrates of the Metropolis whose chief knowledge of law has been derived from their acting as jurymen, and whose chief pretensions for the appointment are, that they already hold more offices than they can possibly attend to. We cannot have justice administered by deputy. The value of dilettanti officials is now fully appreciated. At Guildhall, at the Mansion House, at the Old Bailey, or at Clerkenwell, justice administered by inefficient, though unpaid officials, is costly indeed.' We hope, indeed, to see none but qualified justices take

1 Sir Peter Laurie has recently come forward as the public apologist of the unpaid Aldermen. He argues that their value is shown by the fact that there are more convictions at the Central Criminal Court on committals by Aldermen than by the Stipendiary Magistrates. The facts of the worthy Knight are fallacious, inasmuch as the majority of the committals by the Stipendiary Magistrates of London are not to the Central Criminal Court; but his inference is more fallacious, inasmuch as the most difficult questions that arise in Magistrates' Courts are with respect to summary convictions.

their place in the judgment-seat in any Court in this Metropolis, Middlesex, Surrey, Tower Hill, or City Magistrates We are innovators enough to be willing to be rid of them altogether. The applicant for justice, the criminal at the bar, are as much entitled to have justice efficiently administered in trifling as in important cases. Let the police courts of the Metropolis be uniformly presided over by gentlemen duly qualified to administer justice according to the law of England, and no difficulty will arise in complying with the public demand for more expedition and more simplicity in our criminal procedure; the dispensing with the farce of Grand Jury Presentments, and all the chicanery that arises out of the ancient office of the Clerk of the Peace. We would add a hope that, whilst this useful change is being effected, measures may be taken for securing to the Metropolis, as a substitute for the numerous Criminal Courts now held with so much inconvenience to the public, a permanent Court for criminal trials, and appeals from the summary decisions of the magistrates.1

We could not quit this subject of Metropolitan Municipal Government without adverting to the inconveniences of the present system of administering justice in the Metropolis, and the remedies which appear so easily to present themselves. We now take leave of the subject for the present. The London Corporation Commissioners have a proud and an honourable burden imposed upon them. The investigation of the charges against, and the defence of, the present members of the Corporation of London, really forms a very small part of their vocation. The greater, the more important labour remains behind, to rid the Metropolis of England of the incubus of a conflict of local jurisdictions, a confusion of law and local government, and to substitute system, economy, and efficiency.

There are in the Metropolis, besides the Courts-leet and the peculiar Courts of the City of London, Courts of Quarter Sessions, held at Guildhall, at Clerkenwell, at Westminster, at Newington, and at Tower Hill. The Central Criminal Court at present holds its sittings once a month. If, with the aid of two Assistant Judges, sittings were to be substituted of a fortnight's duration, the whole of the criminal trials and appeals from magistrates' decisions could be easily disposed of, to the great benefit of all parties concerned, the furtherance of justice, and the saving of expense. We observe that the learned Recorder

House of Lords, English and Irish 3 House of Lords' Cases. (Clarke).

Cases

House of Lords, Scotch Cases

Part 5. Vol. iv. part 1.

1 Macq. House of Lords' Cases. Parts 2 & 3.

Lord Chancellor, and Court of Appeal 2 De Gex, Mac. & Gord. Part 5.

in Chancery

Appeal] 2

Vol. iii. part 1.

15 Beav. Parts 2 & 3.

V.C. Stuart2

I. POINTS DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF

CHANCERY.

1. Charitable Bequest Cypres Construction of Will. 2. CharitiesBequest to Corporation to pay specified Sums to, out of Rents Increased Rents how to be disposed of. 3. Covenant not to carry on Trade within certain District Construction of-Injunction. 4. Husband and Wife- - Assignment of Wife's Leaseholds - Equity to a Settlement. 5. Judgment Creditor - Sale Foreclosure. 6. Jurisdiction - Lord Chancellor interested in subject-matter of Suit-Enrolment of Decree of Vice Chancellor Appeal to House of Lords. 7. Mortgagor and Mortgagee Foreclosure ― Judgment Creditors. 8. Mortgagor and Mortgagee- Power of Sale - Redemption — Costs. 9. Mortgagor and Mortgagee - Redemption - Omission to attend to receive Money

1 We are indebted to Mr. Tudor for the selection of cases in the last two Numbers.

2 None of the decisions of Vice-Chancellor Stuart have yet been published by the authorised reporters.

Subsequent Interest. 10. Mortmain Act Bequest to Church Building Society. 11. Mortmain Act - Inrolment of Grant of Rentcharge to Charity Retainer of Rentcharge by Grantor during his Life

-

Estate

Condition.

Invalidity of Grant. 12. Public Policy — Peerage 13. Settlement - Jointure chargeable primarily upon Settlor's real Estate. 14. Tender. 15. Trustee acting as Solicitor - Costs. 16. Trust, breach of - Trust Funds employed in Trade- Compound Interest. 17. Trust Funds - Power to invest on real Securities - Loan to a Railway Company on Assignment of Undertaking, Tolls, &c., improper. 18. Usury- Promissory Notes - Real Security. 19. Vendor and Purchaser-Sale by Direction of the Court - Misrepresentation in Particulars - Discharge of Purchaser from Contract. 20. Voluntary Undue Influence- Post-obit Bond · Onus of Proof. 21. Voluntary Family Arrangement - Parent and Child-Undue Influence. 22. Will Construction of- Conversion. 23. Will Conversion - Money directed to be laid out in Land— Tenant for Life entitled to Income from Testator's Death. 24. Will established against the Heir-at-Law at the Suit of a Devisee of the legal Estate - Origin of the Jurisdiction. 25. Winding-up Acts Official Manager - Payment of Costs by personally.

Gift Gift

1. CLARK V. TAYLOR. 1 Drew. 642.

Charitable Bequest — Cy-pres- Construction of Will.

Very difficult questions often arise in determining whether a bequest is intended for charitable purposes generally, or whether it is simply intended for the benefit of a particular private charity. The distinction between the objects of a charitable bequest in such cases is of much importance, for it is well settled by the authorities that where there is a gift to a charity generally, indicative of a general charitable purpose, and pointing out the mode of carrying it into effect, if that mode fails, the Court, nevertheless, will carry out the general purpose of charity. Where, on the other hand, the testator shows an intention, not of general charity, but to give to some particular institution; if it fails, because there is no such institution, the gift will also fail, and will not go to charity generally. In the case of Clark v. Taylor the testator gave as follows: "I give to the treasurer for the time being of the Female Orphan School, in Greenwich aforesaid, patronised by Mrs. Enderby, the sum of 50%. for the benefit of that charity." It appeared by the evidence that the school, which had been voluntarily kept up by Mrs. Enderby at her own expense, had been entirely discontinued. Held by Sir R. Kindersley, V. C., that as the testator did not appear to contemplate a charitable purpose generally, nor even generally the particular species of charity designated, but intended only a charitable gift to a particular institution which had ceased to exist, it could not be disposed of