derer, Aug. 9 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Leonard W. Lloyd, Goldhawk-terrace, New-road, Shepherd's-bush, Middlesex, builder, Aug. 8 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Joseph Charles Ridge, Great St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, London, wine merchant, Aug. 8 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. Watson, Salisburycourt, Fleet-street, London, licensed victualler, Aug. 8 at halfpast 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.--John Jackson, Scarborough, Yorkshire, silversmith, Aug. 21 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston-upon-Hull.-R. A. Taylor, Dunston, Durham, Epsom salts manufacturer, Aug. 12 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.- Benjamin Thompson, Derby, woollendraper, Aug. 15 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Nottingham.-Horatio Black, Nottingham, lace manufacturer, Aug. 15 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Nottingham.

To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. George Wheeler, Richmond, Surrey, grocer.-T. Clifton and Richard Easby Rawle, Bristol, wine merchants.-John Johnson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, banker.-John Woodhouse, Ripon, draper.

Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process.

Joseph Henry Teale, Chelmsford, Essex, dealer in tea, Aug. 7 at 12, County Court of Essex, at Chelmsford. - Thos. Giles, Southampton, ironmonger, Aug. 1 at 10, County Court of Hampshire, at Southampton.-Thomas Elwell, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, ironmonger, July 30 at 2, County Court of Staffordshire, at Oldbury.-Wm. Illidge, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, dealer in timber, July 30 at 2, County Court of Staffordshire, at Oldbury.-Joseph Millns, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, miller, Aug. 6 at 10, County Court of Nottinghamshire, at Mansfield.-J. Bonehill, Smethwick, Staffordshire, out of business, July 30 at 2, County Court of Staffordshire, at Oldbury.-Griffith Rogers, Liverpool, builder, July 24 at 9, County Court of Lancashire, at Liverpool.-Lewis Saber, Liverpool, shopman to a furniture broker, July 24 at 9, County Court of Lancashire, at Liverpool.-Geo. Linneker, Norton, Derbyshire, beer-house keeper, Aug. 6 at 10, County Court of Yorkshire, at Sheffield.-Thomas Marsden, Sheffield, Yorkshire, razor-blade forger, Aug. 6 at 10, County Court of Yorkshire, at Sheffield.-Thomas Carter James, Teignmouth, Devonshire, shoemaker, Aug. 9 at 11, County Court of Devonshire, at Newton Abbot.-Jas. Winterbon, Colchester, Essex, plumber, Aug. 4 at 12, County Court of Essex, at Colchester. -Wm. Christopher Winterbon, Colchester, Essex, plumber, Aug. 4 at 12, County Court of Essex, at Colchester.-Ebenezer Darby, Moulsham, Chelmsford, Essex, tailor, Aug. 7 at 12, County Court of Essex, at Chelmsford.-Thomas Harrison, Chowbent, Atherton, Lancashire, provision dealer, Aug. 2 at 11, County Court of Lancashire, at Leigh.--Thomas Paul, Birmingham, last manufacturer, Aug. 9 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.-Leonard Deane, Birmingham, huckster, July 26 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.-Edward Samuel Haycock, Birmingham, mathematical instrument maker, Aug. 9 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.-Darius Woollaston, Birmingham, licensed victualler, July 26 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.-Joseph Taylor, Aston, Warwickshire, out of business, Aug. 9 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.- Chas. Harlow, Birmingham, out of business, Aug. 9 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.-Elizabeth Reeves, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, out of business, Aug. 6 at 10, County Court of Nottinghamshire, at Mansfield.-Nicholas Simon the younger, Gibsmeare, Bleasby, Nottinghamshire, servant to the Midland Railway Company, Aug. 12 at 10, County Court of Nottinghamshire, at Bingham.-Thomas Norbury, Newton Moor, near Hyde, Cheshire, licensed victualler, July 30 at 10, County Court of Cheshire, at Hyde.

The following Persons, who, on their several Petitions filed in the Court, have obtained Interim Orders for Protection from Process, are required to appear in Court as hereinafter mentioned, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street, Lincoln's Inn, as follows, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute :

Aug. 1 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONer. Henry Catamore, Eroe-cottage, New Church-road, Camberwell, Surrey, bricklayer.

Aug. 1 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. John Austin, Middleton-street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, tobacconist.-Edward Hutchins, Stanley-place, Paddington, Middlesex, out of business.

Aug. 2 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. William Henry Humphrys, Greenfield-cottage, Leyton, Essex, out of business.

Aug. 2 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner LAW. Richard Henry Jewell, Compton-street, St. John-street, Middlesex, carpenter.-James Edward Hanger, Basing-place, Kingsland-road, Middlesex, painter. - Emily Sarah Ann Findlay, widow, Marylebone-street, Golden-square, Middlesex, housekeeper.-Alexander Aiton, Powell-street West, King's-square, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, clerk in the General Post-office.

Aug. 4 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. John Bealby, Havering-street, Commercial-road East, Middlesex, warehouseman in the employ of the London Dock Company.

The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:—

Aug. 1 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Fraser Houstoun Bloxam, Mitcham-common, Surrey, in no business.- Henry Pinker the elder, Pitt-st., Commercialroad, Peckham, Surrey, out of business.-Wm. Edw. Follit, Chenies-place, Somers-town, Middlesex, out of business.Borden Wilbor Plumb, Clifford-st., Bond-street, Middlesex, general merchant.-John Crane, Upper John-street, Hoxton Old-town, Middlesex, jobbing smith.

Aug. 2 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Delabere Walker, Harp-alley, Farringdon-street, London, in no business.-John Stone Franklin, Admiral-terrace, Vauxhall-bridge-rd., Middlesex, out of business.-Wm. Parry, Whitchore-street, Piccadilly, Middlesex, tailor.-John Gordon Cameron, America-sq., Minories, London, master mariner.

Aug. 2 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner LAW. Richard Saul, Blackfriars-road, Surrey, meat salesman.Reuben Brooks, Regent-st., and Cranbourn-st., Leicestersquare, Middlesex, picture dealer.—Jonathan Jarvis, Great Wild-st., Drury-lane, Middlesex, milkman.-Wm. Wright, Great Peter-st., Westminster, Middlesex, ornamental painter. --John Thos. Austin, Wardour-st., Soho, Middlesex, fringe manufacturer.—Wm. Wells the younger, Shouldham-street, Queen-st., Edgeware-road, Middlesex, out of employ.—Ann Reynolds, Gresse-st., Rathbone-place, Middlesex, lodging. house keeper.-James Charles Johns, Alfred-place West, Thurloe-square, Brompton, Middlesex, not in any trade.

Aug. 2 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. Wm. Job White, King-street, Holborn, Middlesex, printer. John Storey, Waterloo-road, Lambeth, Surrey, butcher.

Aug. 4 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Joseph Jackson, Essex-place, Mile-end-road, Middlesex, superannuated clerk in the Bank of England.-Thos. Castle, Edward-square-mews, Kensington, commission agent.

Aug. 4 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner LAW. James Ottway, Walker-terrace, James-st., Salmon's-lane, Limehouse, Middlesex, blacksmith.-Wm. Hobden Eldridge, Providence-buildings, New Kent-road, Surrey, tailor.-Geo. Williams, North-st., Westminster, Middlesex, cheesemonger.

Aug. 4 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. John Ariell, Stamford-st., Blackfriars-road, Surrey, watch movement maker. Isaac Harris, Rose Cottage, Peckham Rye, Surrey, grocer's clerk.-David Wheatley, Banbury, Oxfordshire, licensed victualler.- Charles Lompech, Barbican, London, teacher of the French language.-Joseph Trevet han the elder, Chatham, Kent, not in any business.-Wm. Thos. Barth, Holland-place, Clapham-road, Surrey, senior clerk in the Secretary's Department of the General Post-office, St.

LONDON, JULY 26, 1851.

If the debate in the House of Commons upon the right of a Jew to take the abjuration oath without the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" has done nothing else, it has at least elicited some most marvellous attempts to mystify the House of Commons by legal subtlety.

The form of the oath of abjuration to be taken by any person elected to be a member of the Commons, before he can vote or sit, is prescribed in very distinct terms by the 1 Geo. 1, c. 13, the language of the statute being, that the persons referred to shall take the "oaths hereinafter mentioned"-words which, in plain English, mean the oaths set forth, and no others. With so plain a guide, it would require a very subtle argument, and an equally subtle audience, to arrive at the conclusion that any other acts of Parliament, not expressly striking out of the oath the words "on the true faith of a Christian," could have the effect of making them unnecessary by law. But if the aid of other acts of Parliament is invoked, so far from shewing that those words may lawfully be eliminated from the abjuration oath, they shew just the contrary. The Roman Catholic oath, for instance, under the 10 Geo. 4, c.7, does not contain those words; but the fact of their omission, in reference to a class of persons avowedly professing themselves Christians, and in regard to whom the words would be surplusage, if it has any bearing on the construction of the other act, rather shews, that when the Legislature used the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in speaking of the Queen's subjects generally, some of whom may not be Christians, it intended that none but Christians should enter the House of Commons. So, with regard to the exception made in favour of Quakers by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 49, the words "on the true faith of a Christian" being quite unnecessary, in reference to a sect of avowedly professing Christians, their omission does not at all shew that the Legislature meant to treat them in any other

VOL. XV.

CC

....

660

Richardson v. The South-eastern Railway Company 660

place as words of ceremony, but rather that it meant to treat them as words of substance, when speaking of persons who might or might not be Christians.

For the arguments against the substantiality of the words as part of the oath, attempted to be drawn from the practice of Courts of law in administering oaths, it seems to us that there is not the slightest foundation. For the oath to be administered by a Court of law, there is not, and never was, any particular form provided either by statute or by custom. The rule of law is, simply, that (except as to the persons expressly excepted by statute) a witness must give his evidence upon oath; and, according to the doctrine of an authority not to be disputed, (Omichund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 21), all that is necessary to an oath is an appeal to the Supreme Being, as thinking Him the rewarder of truth and the avenger of falsehood; and the outward act is not at law essential to the oath. So that, as regards the oath of a witness in legal proceedings, there never was any specific form essential; and therefore the fact of Courts of law permitting witnesses to vary the form of an oath, according to their peculiar religious customs, has no bearing whatever upon the question, whether, where the Legislature has prescribed a particular form, it meant that form to be varied, or abandoned altogether. But supposing the letter of the statute not to be, as we conceive it is, too precise to permit any escape, let us consider for a moment whether the oath prescribed, does not bear on the face of it internal evidence that it was meant to be confined to professing Christians. When the Legislature used the words, "I do make this recognition, &c. on the true faith of a Christian," it must have supposed, either that the declarant would be, or that he would not be, a Christian; and it must have intended the words to have some meaning. Now, if the Legislature contemplated that the declarant was to be other than a professing Christian, it would be impossible that the words should be used by him, unless the Legislature meant them to have no meaning; because when a man says, either in

PURIST

suance of an act of Parliament, or otherwise, "I promise so and so, on the word of a gentleman-on the word of a man of honour," or, according to the old Norman expression, "foy de Chrestien," he means, or is always understood to mean, that he himself is, or professes to be, the thing to which he refers; nor would the pledgee attach the least value to the pledge, unless he so understood it. So that, if the Legislature had in its contemplation that a professing Jew should take this oath, it must have intended either that the words should have no meaning, or else that he should pledge himself upon a faith which he professedly ignores; that is, that he should pledge himself, not in reference to his own responsibilities, but to the responsibilities of some one else. Why should any tribunal be asked to pervert so monstrously the plain meaning of the English language?

In any view that can be taken of the oath of abjuration, it seems to us, that the construction put upon the law by the House of Commons, in the case before it last session, is the sound and true construction, justified by common sense-consistent with the rules of legal construction; nor do we anticipate that any amount of subtlety will induce it to reverse the judicial decision to which it then came.

Correspondence.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE JURIST."

SIR,-It was not until yesterday that I saw your review of my work on the Law of Master and Servant. I am unwilling to suppose that the inaccuracies with which the review abounds proceed from any motive, but am ready to attribute them entirely to an unfortunate want of care: they are, nevertheless, of so much importance to me, that I trust you will, in justice to yourself and to me, cause them to be corrected in your

next number.

case.

And now to take the other cases which are stated to

have been omitted:

without your reviewer troubling himself to peruse the as a reference to the table of cases would have shewn, body of a book of which he professes to be giving a fair and unprejudiced opinion.

The cases of "Holcroft v. Barber (1 Car. & K. 410; and see 6 Man. & G. 935)" are, therefore, the only ones be found reported in 1 Car. & K. 4, is omitted, as being remaining undisposed of. The former case, which will a case on evidence. It decided, that, to prove the engagement of an editor of a newspaper for a year, you might go into evidence of custom. And the case reported in 6 Man. & G. 935, is Baxter v. Nurse, which will be found in the first page of my book; nay, is the very first case cited.

To the earlier part of the review I say nothing; you have a right to your opinion, and are at liberty to express it as you please; nor will I deny that I could have desired to have occupied much more space in the preliminary portion of the book; but the part to which I have particularly called your attention is so grossly and I trust to your sense of candour and fairness to erroneous, that I cannot permit it to pass unnoticed, rectify the mistakes above referred to.

I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,
CHARLES J. B. HERTSLET.

2, Middle Temple-lane,
July 24, 1851.

We should be very sorry if we had given Mr. Hertslet any just ground of complaint; but we believe, that though his present statement is to a great extent literally correct, it does not affect the substantial accuracy of our review, or better his position.

of the passage cited by Mr. Hertslet from the IntroducWith respect to the settlement cases, we were aware tion to his book; but as that passage contains no apo logy or excuse for the omission which it confesses, it was unnecessary to refer to it. The settlement cases whether a given hiring is to be considered as a hiring constitute the principal authorities on the question, for a year, or as a hiring for a shorter period; and dental to the question of settlement, it was the prin though, in each case, that question was merely inci Hertslet is aware of the difference, to a lawyer, between cipal, or rather the only, point in the case. Surely Mr. the legal points which may be decided on it. Rez v. the point at issue between the parties to a case, and Scammonden (3 T. R. 474) was a settlement case, but its only importance is as an authority on the question of estoppel by deed. So, Rex v. Longnor (4 B. & Ad. 647) is only cited as an authority on the execution of

that he has omitted these important cases; but he does deeds. Mr. Hertslet therefore confirms our statement, not "sufficiently explain" why he has omitted them. In the next sentence in his Introduction he says that he has not deemed it "necessary to insert the enactthe title of his book promises "the principal statutes ments relating to the combinations of workmen," yet relating to workmen, the settlement of disputes," &c. Mr. Hertslet cannot think that he makes amends for the imperfections of his book by confessing them in a preface.

mere point of evidence, not affecting the law as to contracts of hiring, he only affords an additional proof of the justice of our general criticism on his abilities as a text-writer. We never charged Mr. Hertslet with the omission of Baxter v. Nurse, but merely referred to 6 Man. & G. 935, as material to be considered with Holcroft v. Barber.

Lastly, as to the other cases charged to be omitted, Mr. Hertslet is quite right in his statement, that they are referred to in his book, though one reference, copied from the table of cases, (Priestley v. Fowler, p. 1), is erroneous; and if we had studied his book as carefully as we should have done if it had been worth the labour, our statement as to those cases might have been qualified by the observation, that though they were not referred to in the place where they ought to be found, they were mentioned in a different place. The statement of which he complains consists of a quotation from the first section of a treatise on "The Law relating to Master and Servant," the whole of which treatise is comprised in twelve duodecimo pages, (the rest of the book consisting of statutes, printed in extenso, with a very few notes). That first section is intitled "The Contract of Hiring," and it contains the following passage, with the references:-"For what amounts to a yearly hiring". For what is a sufficient notice of dismissal without warning. Moral misconduct, wilful disobedience, or habitual neglect, must be proved to justify the immediate discharge of a yearly servant." The figures refer to notes of cases at the foot of the page, which complete the imperfect sentences in the text. We cited this passage with the notes verbatim; and we said that we expected to find there, not a mere enumeration of the cases, but a statement of the point decided; and added, that there was not even a reference to the important cases of Holcroft v. Barber, &c. That statement was strictly correct. The first section of Mr. Hertslet's book" On the contract of hiring"-consisting of two pages and a half, in which, we have seen, he professes to refer to the authorities on the subject of dismissal for misconduct, concludes without any reference to the cases charged by us to be omitted. This is all that we asserted. Mr. Hertslet's defence is, that though it is true that those cases are not cited in the place where he professes to refer to the authorities on the points to which they relate, and though in that place there is no reference to any other part of the book for further scraps of information, there are other parts of the book where references to them may be found. If we had known the fact to be so, we should have qualified our statement, but it would have only furnished ground for a remark on Mr. Hertslet's neglect of method and arrangement, even within the narrow limits of a treatise of twelve pages, divided into three sections.

We did not profess to point out all Mr. Hertslet's omissions, because we thought his work of too little importance; but as the accuracy of our criticism has been impugned, we may now add, that the result of ten minutes' search has been, that the following cases on the law of master and servant, comprising domestic and menial servants, and clerks, husbandmen, and persons employed in the different manufactures," are not to be found even in the table of cases to a work which professes to contain "all the cases to the present time," (1850)-(we have already mentioned the numerous cases on a yearly hiring, which assume the form of "Rex or Reg. v. The Inhabitants of —"):Blenkinsop, (5 Jur. 870); Wallis v. Day, (2 M. & W. 273); The Countess of Plymouth v. Throgmorton, (1 Salk. 65); Cutter v. Powell, (6 T. R. 320; 2 Smith's L. C. 1); Elderton v. Emmens, (4 C. B. 479); Pilkington v. Scott, (15 M. & W. 657); Hartley v. Cummings, (5 C. B. 247); Williamson v. Taylor, (5 Q. B. 175); Aspdin v. Austen, (Id. 671); Dunn v. Sayles,

Johnson v.

(Id. 685); Paganini v. Gandolfi, (2 Car. & P. 371); Dunn v. Murray, (9 B. & Cr. 780); Davies v. Davies, (9 Car. & P. 87); Alfred v. Fitzjames, (3 Esp. 3); Phillips v. Jones, (1 Ad. & El. 333); Cleworth v. Pickford, (7 M. & W. 314); Reg. v. Smith, (8 Car. & P. 153); Wilkinson v. Garton, (9 Q. B. 137); Burgess v. Beaumont, (7 Man. & G. 962). We have no doubt that we might go on for several hours at the same rate, without exhausting the investigation of Mr. Hertslet's sins of omission.

REGULA GENERALIS.

ORDER OF COURT,

Wednesday, the 16th July, 1851.

THE Right Hon. THOMAS LORD TRURO, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, by and with the advice and assistance of the Right Hon. Sir JOHN ROMILLY, Knt., Master of the Rolls, and the Right Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir JAMES LEWIS KNIGHT BRUCE, the Right Hon. the Vice-Chancellor ROBERT MOUNSEY LORD CRANWORTH, and the Right Hon. the Vice-Chancellor Sir GEORGE JAMES TURNER, Knt., doth hereby order and direct in manner following, that is to say:

I. That when any property is directed to be sold before the Master, the Master shall be at liberty to order the same to be sold at such place, either in London or in the country, and by such person, as he shall think fit.

II. That when any property is directed to be sold before the Master, the Master shall be at liberty to fix a reserved bidding for the same, if sold entire; or if sold in lots, one bidding for each lot; and such reserved bidding shall be made one of the conditions of sale under which the said property shall be sold; and in order that the Master may form his judgment as to such reserved bidding, the parties shall carry in before him such proposals as they may think fit. And the Master shall use his discretion as to communicating such reserved bidding to the parties, or any of them, or their solicitors; and the Master, previously to such sale, if he shall think fit, shall cause to be put under a sealed cover, and to be delivered to the person appointed to sell, a note in writing of the sum at which he shall fix such reserved bidding for each lot. And in case no person shall bid a price equal to, or higher than, the sum mentioned in the said note, then the Master, or the person appointed by him to sell the said property, shall declare that such lot is not sold, but has been bought in on account of the persons interested in or entitled to the property.

III. That when any property is directed to be sold before the Master, the Master shall be at liberty to fix an amount to be paid as a deposit by the purchasers respectively at such sale, and to appoint some proper person to receive the same, who, if required by the Master, shall give security, to be approved of by the Master, duly to account for and pay what he shall receive in respect of such deposit, in such manner as the Court shall have directed with respect to the monies to arise from such sale, and the person appointed to receive such deposits shall, within such time as the Master shall appoint, and without any special order for the purpose, pay the monies which he shall receive in respect thereof (the amount of such monies to be certified by the Master) in such manner as the Court shall have directed with respect to the monies to arise from the sale.

IV. That when any property is directed to be sold before the Master, the Master shall be at liberty, either before or after such property shall have been put up