22 & 23 Vict., cap. 35, and also section 9 of 23 & 24 Vict., cap. 38, which requires that when trustees apply to the Court in a summary way for directions, the statement shall be signed by counsel. The reasons for making this amendment would appear to apply to applications under this Bill.

CONVEYANCING BILL, 1882.

Clause 2. The Committee consider that it is doubtful whether this clause would in practice be found to work for the public benefit, and they would observe generally that :—

A solicitor really desirous to save his client expense can always take his client's directions on the subject of title.

A solicitor not so desirous would never avail himself of the provisions of this clause.

There is no test applied by the Bill as to what are to be considered the indicia of good faith, and the previous relations between the public and solicitors, in matters relating to the investigation of title, do not appear to afford any assistance in reference to the question whether a solicitor has acted in good faith under the clause.

It can hardly be for the benefit of the public that the public should in such a matter be put to the risk, expense, and practically almost insurmountable difficulty of proving want of good faith against an astute practitioner.

In short, the Committee consider that the clause is not needed for the protection of careful and trustworthy solicitors, while it might be used by those not within that category to the detriment of the client's interest.

The above suggest some only of the many objections raised to the clause.

Clause 5. The Committee suggest that the provisions of the clause should apply to leases made under powers created 'before' as well as to leases made under powers created 'after' the commencement of the Act.

Clauses 9 and 10. It is also suggested that the effect which the Bill gives to irrevocable powers of attorney given for valuable consideration should apply as well to powers so given 'before' as 'after' the passing of the Act.

June 28, 1882.

APPENDIX C.1

FOREIGN MARRIAGE LAWS.

REPORT.

The Joint Committee of the International and Municipal Law Sections of the Jurisprudence Department have at three meetings considered the reference made to them by the Council of the following resolution which had been adopted in the Department at Dublin:—

1 See ante, p. lv.

'That the Council be requested to take into consideration the conflicts of the British and Foreign Marriage Laws, and the frequency of invalid marriages contracted thereunder, and the inconveniences resulting therefrom, and to take such steps in reference thereto as they may think desirable.'

The Joint Committee report that having regard to the state of public opinion in this country, and the difficulty of the subject, they do not think fit to suggest any legislation whether founded on international convention or otherwise. With the view, however, of suggesting a means whereby the danger of invalidity may be brought to the notice of all persons about to contract marriage in England with foreigners, the Committee have adopted the following recommendations :

I. That it is desirable that the Archbishops and Bishops should communicate with their Vicars-General, Registrars, Surrogates, and other officials, with a view to secure that, in all cases where a licence is sought for the solemnisation of marriage between parties either of whom is a foreign subject, due precautions be taken, by requiring the production of a certificate or otherwise, to ascertain that the foreign party is competent, according to the law of his or her own country, to contract the intended marriage.

II. That it is further desirable that the Archbishops and Bishops should direct to be circulated among the clergy instructions with regard to the solemnisation of marriage by banns between parties one of whom is a foreign subject, similar to the Instructions on marriage of a British subject with a Foreigner which the Registrar-General has caused to be circulated among the registration officers.

III. That in order to facilitate the ascertainment of the competence of a foreign subject by the law of his own country to contract an intended marriage, it is desirable that application be made to foreign Governments to authorise their consuls in this country (on the receipt of such moderate fee as the foreign Government may please to direct) to make inquiry into any such cases, and if it be found that the competence duly exists by the foreign law, to grant a certificate to that effect.

MEMORANDUM AS TO FRENCH AND BELGIAN MARRIAGE LAW.

This Memorandum is not intended to give a full account of the requirements of the French or the Belgian law on the subject of marriage, but it has been prepared for the information of clergymen and others, in order to put them on their guard against difficulties of which they might not otherwise have been aware.

(1) Any person intermarrying in England with a French subject, although all the solemnities have been observed which are required by the law of England, is liable to have his or her marriage declared invalid in a French Court, unless the requirements of the French law as to the age of the French subject, the consent of the parents or relatives, and the publication of notices, have been complied with. It is therefore recommended to every British subject proposing to intermarry

with a French subject that the assistance of the nearest French diplomatic agent or consul should be obtained, with a view to ascertain that the requirements of the French law have been duly complied with, and to procure duly legalised evidence of such compliance.

(2) No Frenchman can intermarry under eighteen years of age, and no Frenchwoman under fifteen, without a dispensation.

(3) No Frenchman under twenty-five, nor Frenchwoman under twenty-one, can lawfully contract marriage without the consent of his or her parents, or parent if only one is alive. In case of difference between father and mother, the consent of the father is sufficient. If both parents are dead or incapable, the consent of the grand-parents is required subject to the like provision in case of their disagreement. If there be no parents or grand-parents alive or capable, the consent of a family council is required.

(4) Where a French subject has attained his or her age of twentyfive or twenty-one years, the French law still requires a respectful communication of the intention to contract a marriage to be made to the relatives, whose consent would be required if the party were still under the age respectively of twenty-five or twenty-one years, and the French law does not authorise any such intended marriage to be solemnised, if objected to by those relatives, until after a certain delay.

(5) A notice of an intended marriage of a French subject is required by the French law to be twice published at the Town Hall of the place which is deemed by the French law to be the principal place of residence of such subject in his or her own country. The publications must take place at an interval of eight days between them, and the marriage cannot (without a dispensation) lawfully take place until the third day after the second publication.

(6) The provisions of the Belgian law are identical with those of the French law in the matters specified in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The requirements as to age and the consent of relatives are enforced with great strictness in the French and Belgian courts. Those as to the publication of notices (though the absence of them may under circumstances be excused) cannot be disregarded without the risk of a marriage being disputed in a French or a Belgian court, and declared invalid by reason of clandestinity.

May, 1882.

APPENDIX D.1

NOTE TO PRESIDENT'S ADdress.

In moving the adoption of the Report presented to the Concluding General Meeting of Members and Associates, Mr. Hastings referred to some criticisms on a portion of his Address, and said :—

You will permit me, before concluding, to answer some inquiries that have been made of me concerning an expression in my opening address. I spoke of the dogma propounded by John Stuart Mill as to

1 See ante, p. 31.

the " unearned increment" of land, the dogma being that such an increment in value should be confiscated by the State, as "untrue and unphilosophical." I have been asked why it is so, and with your permission will give an answer. It is unphilosophical because it seeks to apply to one species of property, and to that alone, a principle which, if sound and correct, must be equally applicable to all. The dogma was on this point very happily ridiculed by Mr. Goldwin Smith at our Dublin meeting last year. Let me give other illustrations. A fundholder bought into the funds at 90: he can at this moment sell at par. What is that but unearned increment? Is it to be confiscated by the State? And, if not, then, on the argument of Mr. Mill, why not? An investor buys the shares of a joint-stock Company; he toils not neither does he spin; the directors and manager do all the work, and do it well; the shares go up 50 per cent. What is this but unearned increment? Is this to be confiscated by the State? And once more, if not, why not? But the dogma is also untrue, for it assumes that there is always, and continuously, an increment in the value of land. There is often a decrement. Is the State to compensate for this? It should in justice do so, for if it gains on one side it should lose on the other. Nor is it true that the increment, when existing, is necessarily unearned, though usually supposed to have been so. It has been often earned by prudent foresight, by sacrifice in the present in order to gain in the future; in a word, by the individual exercise of those qualities which go more than any other to the making of the combined national wealth. The whole idea, I repeat, is a craze; and one which may fairly be placed side by side with another delusion of Mill's later days-that protective duties may be beneficial to a colony; an utterance which has wrought untold mischief, and the evil consequences of which will not cease with the present generation. I knew Mill well, and valued him highly; he was a great and a good man; but the best men make mistakes, and I contemn the silly adulation which prostrates itself before obvious error, however estimable the authority from which the error may come.'

INDEX.