8 Parliamentary Returns: Suitors' Fund. PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS. SUITORS' FUND IN CHANCERY. A RETURN has been made to the House of Commons, of the date of the 8th March, under the hand of the Accountant-General, of the amount of the Suitors' Fund, on the 1st January, 1800, shewing how invested, the amount of dividends received, payments made, and surplus each year, to 1st January, 1833; and stating the payments of salaries, surveyors of buildings, legal expenses, and miscellanies. The total of salaries, surveyors, legal expenses, and miscellaneous for 1831, was £45,077 188. 6d. The following is an account in detail of this expenditure: Lord Brougham and Vaux, Chancellor W. G. Adam, Esq., as Accountant-General s. d. 900 0 0 £. 7,500 0 0 5,000 0 0 ditto ditto 600 0 0 S. S. Ward ditto 180 0 0 W. Kitson, appointed in the room of 15th clerk, who has left. 3 months' salary 45 0 0 600 0 0 ditto der the Record-office J. Smith, retired Deputy Examiner J. A. Berry G. B. Roupel, Esq., Master, for expenses of Public} Office, &c. W. G. Adam, Accountant-General, for stationery, printing, coals, candles, rates and taxes on the offices, housekeeper's salary, and sundry tradesmen's bills in carrying on the business of the office, to repay money, paid by him for the above purposes during part of the year 1831, and the whole of the year 1832 R. Critchett, Esq., Usher of the Court, for stationery and other articles supplied for the court and offices 225 15 0 488 15 2 660 1 3 ditto 200 0 0 12 months' payment. H. P. Collett, Esq., for articles supplied in the department of J. Nickolls, Courtkeeper, 2841, 16s. 11d.; and in the department of F. Hersch, Deputy Usher, 5781. 88. 7d. W. Roberts and D. Drew, money paid by them for removal of records to the D. Drew, Esq., attendance on said removal W. Westour, for the purchase of necessary articles for the use of Record-office. 19 7 2 Total Sum paid out of the Suitors' Funds in the Year 1832 £45,077 18 6 The Return also contains an account in detail of the expenditure, in 1831, of the sum of 32417. 118. 6d., for Miscellaneous Services, of which the following is a statement: £. s. d. H. P. Collett, being the amount of J. Nickolls's, the Court-keeper, and Francis Hirsch, the Deputy-Usher's, account of tradesmen's bills for articles supplied in their departments 968 9 8 10 Parliamentary Returns,-Review: Andrews on the Criminal Law. R. Critchett, Usher and Court-keeper, in respect of stationery and other articles supplied for the Court and Officers W. Roberts and David Drew, two of the Sworn Clerks in Chancery, expenses paid by them for sorting, comparing, and correcting the Records in the Inrolmentoffice, with the Indexes in the said office D. Collins, stationer, for parchment, &c. supplied by him for the above purpose (balance of his bill) D. Drew, salary granted to him for seeing the above carried into execution ditto W. Roberts ditto £. s. d 563 1 9 443 13 3 189 10 0 300 0 0 300 0 0 30 0 0 108 15 10 J. S. Harvey, Esq. late Accountant-General, for stationery, &c. supplied to his office 80 0 0 J. S. Harvey, Esq. late Accountant-General, money paid by him to the stationer for rebinding old books J. Neale, Accountant-General's Eighth Clerk, for extra attendance in writing a new Index to old Ledger Accounts W. G. Adam, Esq. Accountant-General, for stationery, &c. supplied in his department J. Hine, Esq. for Sewers Rate T. Smith, Esq. for Sewers Rate T. Smith, Esq. for Insurance Accountant-General's Office,? £3,341 11 6 W. G. ADAM, A. G. REVIEW. Criminal Law: being a Commentary on Bentham on Death Punishment. By Henry Bartlett Andrews. London: Reader, 1833. We intend, at the earliest convenient opportunity, to consider the question of the punishment of Death" as a terror to evil doers;" and the present volume will assist us materially. It contains, arranged under appropriate sections, the opinions of the leading writers on the subject, with many apt and forcible illustrations. Considering the nature of the subject, it was the best course for the writer to quote largely from acknowledged authorities: these have been judiciously selected, and Mr. Andrews has added many useful remarks and various remonstrances of his own, on the side of a more humane and better proportioned system of punishment. We think that, on the one hand, the punishment of Death is in many cases too severe; and on the other, imprisonment and transportation, as at present enforced, are frequently too lenient. We hope that the improvements designed in Secondary Punishments will be speedily effected, and the infliction of the punishment of Death may then be spared for all except a few atro.. cious crimes. The volume before us is arranged in the following order: 6. 1. Vagueness of the Law. 2. Faulty Administration of the Law. 3. Inefficiency of Death-punishment. 4. Tendency of Death-punishment to produce Crimes. 5. Irremissibility of Death-punishment. Death-punishment enhancing the evil effects of undue Pardon. 7. The causes of the general approval of Death-punishment. 8. The needlessness of Death-punishment proved by experience. 9. Fundamental principle of extensive applicability in Criminal Law, namely," that gradation of injury requires gradation of punishment." 10. Of Penitentiaries. To which is added, Opinions of the Lord Chancellor as to the conduct of Juries, as opposed to those of Sir Samuel Romilly. We should have given a fuller notice of the Work, had our space at this time permitted, and shall return to the subject on the occasion of its next Parliamentary diseussion. New Courts on the Rolls Estate.-Superior Courts: Rolls. 11 NEW COURTS, RECORD OFFICE, | cularly as the building was considered inconJUDGES' HALL AND CHAMBERS,venient, and not being fire-proof, is not safe. &c. We have received the following communication regarding the proposal for the erection of a General Record Office, Judges' Hall and Chambers, New Courts, and other Buildings, on the site of the Rolls Estate. It is contained in a letter addressed by Mr. Ker to Mr. Cooper, the Secretary of the Commissioners of Public Records, dated in March last. We may, in a future number, give the substance of the Architect's Report, which is referred to in the following statement. A letter from Lord Dover was printed in the Minutes of the Agenda, 26th November last (page 36), in which he states he had consulted Mr. Deering, the architect, respecting a Plan for the Erection of a General Record Office; and that owing to his absence from London, he had desired Mr. Ker to bring the subject under the notice of the Board. In consequence of Lord Dover's request, Mr. Ker saw Mr. Deering, consulted with him on the plan, and suggested that it would be proper to make a rough estimate of the space which would be requisite for all the records The first part of the plan includes a Record Office (sufficient to hold all the records now scattered in different places), with the neces sary offices for the attendants, &c. &c.; Courts for the Master of the Rolls and Exchequer, and the Court of Review; Chambers for the Judges and the Examiners, and other necessary offices. Conceiving that Mr. Deering could not ef fectually carry Lord Dover's directions into effect until he knew the space occupied by the records in the different departments, Mr. Ker requested him to inspect them; and from his report it appears, that the building he purposes should first be erected will be sufficient. Mr. Ker adds, that he believes the object proposed has the sanction of the Chancellor; that the money requisite might be taken from the Suitors' Fund; and that he saw Lord Althorp on the subject, who said he saw no objection on the part of the Government to the scheme, if it came recommended by the Commissioners, in which case he desired a Report to be made to the Treasury. SUPERIOR COURTS. Rolls Court. DING. which it is proposed should be placed in the SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. — RESERVED BIDnew building. He also suggested that it would be advisable to show on the plan, that the site of the estate belonging to the Master of the Rolls would afford sufficient space whereon to erect all buildings which might hereafter be requisite for containing records, &c., including those offices which the contemplated changes would make requisite. He alluded to the necessity of there being a General Depository for Wills, assuming the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission will be carried into effect; and a General Registry Office, assuming the Registry Bill should pass. From Mr. Deering's plan, it appears that the site of this estate will be more than sufficient for all these buildings. It should, however, be observed, that the plan consists of two parts:-1st, That which is proposed to be built immediately: this only occupies the site of the present Rolls House and Garden, so that there would not be any loss as regards that part of the estate which is now under lease. It would only be necessary to buy up the existing leases (which are for short terms), if the ground was required for the additional buildings. As regards the part proposed to be first built, there would still be some ground unoccupied. On this it is proposed to erect Chambers; and Mr. Ker learns it is probable the ground would either let or sell very advantageously for this A purchaser at an auction refuses to perform his contract of purchase, alleging, as the grounds of his refusal, that a person was employed to "puff" the biddings: the Court disbelieving the evidence given in support of that allegation, held the defendunt to be bound by his contract, as the vendors had a right to a reserved bidding which was fixed at a certain sum, beyond which no one except the defendant had bid. This was a bill for specific performance of a contract of sale by auction, to the performance of which the defendant objected, on the ground that a person was employed by the plaintiff to bid against him-not as a bona fide purchaser, but as a "puffer," for the purpose of enhancing the price of the property; and that in the excitement of competition, deeming, at the moment, that all was fair, he was induced to bid higher than the property was worth. Upon these grounds, and relying on the principles upon which Courts of Equity decided in like circumstances, the defendant claimed to be relieved from his contract. The Master of the Rolls, in giving his judgment, said, that it appeared on the evidence that a Mr. Johnstone had attended the sale and bid to the extent of 8,500%; that after the bidding, a Mr. Doughton, a son of one of the vendors, accompanied him out of the auctionroom, and that on their return together, Johnstone immediately advanced his bidding to the sum of 9,0007.; the defendant bid 9,0207., and 12 Superior Courts: Rolls; Exchequer Chamber. 66 66 As the was thereupon declared the highest bidder.cision had been raised upon the record by a A person named Cundell, also interested in bill of exceptions tendered by the plaintiff in the sale, and who was present in the auction-error, who was also the plaintiff in the Court room, was stated to have declared, in a public- below, to the decision of the late Lord Chief house where he was drinking, that Johnstone, Justice of the Court of King's Bench. There when out of the room with Doughton, repre- were five exceptions: the first-and the most sented that he had bid to the extent of his important of all, as it was on it the other four commission, that it was not his intention to go depended, turned upon the construction of the further than 8,500l., but, being desirous to statute 48 G. 3, c. 1, “ An Act for regulating benefit the vendors, he would do whatever the issuing and paying off of Exchequer Bills;" they should require; and that, in fact, Dough- and the question was, whether the office of ton arranged with him that he should bid to Paymaster of Exchequer Bills, created by virthe extent of 9,000/., that bidding not being tue of the 10th section, was held during pleabona fide on his own account, or on behalf of sure, or during the life and good behaviour of those who had given him a commission, but the person appointed. They were all of opisimply for the purpose of enhancing the price nion, that according to the legal construction as against the defendant. Johnstone and of the statute, that office was held during pleaDoughton, however, had been separately ex- sure, and not during good behaviour. amined on oath, and each positively denied office was not an ancient one, or known to the that any such arrangement had been made be- common law, the decision respecting it could tween them. The solicitor also, who managed not be governed by either: being of modern the sale, swore that no puffer" had been origin, and subject to no legislative enactment employed on the part of the vendors, but that but the act mentioned, it depended solely upon a reserved bidding of 90001. had been agreed the meaning which was to be put on that upon. The question, therefore, was, whether act. From the wording of the 10th section, the drunken declarations of Cundell, made in which authorized the Commissioners of the a public-house, could be opposed to the direct Treasury to appoint paymasters for paying Exoaths of these three individuals? It was im- chequer bills-it appeared clearly that the obpossible for a Court of Justice to give effect to ject was to secure the due payment of such such declarations, which probably, even if bills by giving new and necessary assistance to they had been soberly and honestly made, the officers of the receipt of the Exchequer. were merely the suspicions of Cundell, who The amount of that assistance must continue could have no knowledge of the facts to which uncertain, as the issue and payment of bills he spoke. In fact, there seemed to exist no might be at one time very large, as in time of reason why such a fraudulent arrangement as war, and at another time, as in time of peace, was represented, should have taken place be- very inconsiderable. Any given number, theretween Johnstone and Doughton. The vendors fore, of paymasters, might be insufficient for the had a right to a reserved bidding, which they despatch of the public business of that departhad fixed at 9,000l., and it was of no import- ment at one time, while at another it might be ance to them that Johnstone should enter into unnecessarily large. It might be possible that such an arrangement. Upon the whole, it the whole of the outstanding Exchequer bills appeared that the defendant had not been might be paid off, and no new issue ordered; defrauded, and he should therefore be com-in which case the officers of the receipt of the pelled to perform his contract. Doughton and others v. Ewart, at the Rolls Sittings, March 1833. Court of Exchequer Chamber. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. A person appointed to the office of Paymaster of Exchequer Bills, by virtue of the 48 Geo. 2, c. 1, s. 10, has no freehold office, but is appointed during the pleasure of the Commissioners of the Treasury. This was a writ of error from the Court of King's Bench. The Judges before whom the case was argued, assembled this morning to deliver their judgment. They were the Lord Chief Baron, and Mr. Baron Bayley; the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Mr. Justice edale, Mr. Justice Bosanquet, and Mr. Justice Alderson. The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas read the judgment of himself and the other Judges. The questions for their de Exchequer would not need assistance. The act, therefore, had not for its object any permanent appointment; but if at any time the number of paymasters was inadequate to the regular payment of the bills, power was given to the Commissioners to add new officers for that purpose. They might appoint as few or as many as the exigency of the public service miglit require. This was the obvious and necessary construction of the enacting words of the 10th section. If the officers were held to be appointed during good behaviour-that is, for life-the Commissioners might then increase the number, but could not reduce it; and yet the principal object of the act could not be effected, if the persons appointed were not removable and having that object in view, they held that the appointment was held during pleasure only. If any doubt remained as to this construction, the words of the 12th section, enabling the Commissioners of the Treasury to settle the salary, &c. of the Paymasters, would remove it. The Commissioners had authority to increase or diminish the salaries or allowances of those officers at pleasure. They might reduce them to a mere nomi |