years, rendering rent, and dies, this is not void but voidable, and if the issue accepts the rent it shall bind him. Why? Because the issue takes the same estate out of which the lease was originally derived; for the tenant in tail, who made the lease, was in

trusted with the jus possessionis, "the right of pos

session of the inheritance ;" and, therefore, the estate of the lessor continuing, the derived part or portion of it which constitutes the lessee's estate, has also continuance until the issue avoids it. And, because it is a maxim of law, that he who may defeat an estate by his entry, may equally make it good by his confirmation (Noy's Max. 178, Byth.); the issue may, therefore, confirm this lease if he will, and, as he may make an express, so he may make an implied confirmation, as by accepting rent or the like (Noy's Max. 168; Harr. N. P. 981; Doe v. Jenkins, 5 Bing. 469). But otherwise it is with respect to the remainder-man and the reversioner; for these take several and distinct estates from that out of which the lease was originally derived, and, consequently, upon the determination of the estate tail, by the tenant in tail dying without issue, the unexpired lease for years becomes absolutely void, and not merely voidable. The determination of the greater is the determination of the less estate, which was but a minor part or portion of it. [As to leases by tenants in tail, see 19 & 20 Vic. c. 120, ss. 2, 32; 2 Law Chron. 105-112; First Book, pp. 124, 130; 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 41, which last statute should have been there referred to.]

Leases for years and for life.-Between leases "for years and for life." If tenant for life, as tenant in dower or by the curtesy, makes a lease for years, upon the death of the lessor this is absolutely void, and can neither be made good afterwards by confirmation or otherwise (Harr. N. P. 987, 988); for the freehold out of which it was derived is determined, and the determination of the greater is the determination of the less estate. But, if such tenants make leases for life or lives, it is otherwise. Why? Because, in that case, they create greater estates than can be derived out of what they themselves have, and, consequently, as those leases are derived, not out of the estate of the lessor alone, but out of the two estates of the lessor and the reversioner together, it follows, that the reversioner may either defeat them or not, upon the death of the lessor, as he thinks fit. [By the 19 & 20 Vic. c. 120, s. 32, tenants by the curtesy and in dower of unsettled estates may, without the aid of a court of equity, make leases, except of the principal mansionhouse, &c., for twenty-one years, with proper clauses. 3 Law Chron. 110; First Book, 130.]

Grant and livery.-Between things "in grant," and things "in livery." If the bishop, with con

firmation of dean and chapter, makes a lease which is not strictly pursuant to the statute, and therefore operates as a common law lease, of things in livery, whether for life or lives, or for years, this is not void but voidable; and if, afterwards, the successor accepts the rent, he makes it good and unavoidable. Why? Because the bishop, who made the lease, was intrusted with the jus possessionis, "the right of possession of the inheritance," and therefore the estate, out of which the lease was derived, has continuance still; and then, according to the legal maxim, "that he who may defeat by his entry, may equally make good by his confirmation," if the successor accepts the rent he nccessarily confirms the lease; and, by so doing, he has also waved taking advantage of the statutes which were enacted for making void such leases, because those statutes were made wholly for the benefit of the successor, against the predecessor's acts, and not against the successor's own acts. And, possibly (says the law), the reserved rent may be more beneficial to the successor than the land itself. But, if a lease be made for life or lives, of things in grant, as of tithes, or other incorporeal hereditaments (Co. Litt. 44 b, n. 3), the lease is absolutely void upon the death of the lessor and not merely voidable; and this is the reason which is assigned for it,-viz., that there was anciently [until the 5 Geo. 3, c. 17, s. 3; Harr. N. P. 310] no remedy, at the common law, by which the rent, in such case, could be recovered by the successor, if afterwards denied: he could not distrain, for there was nothing of which a distress could be taken (Co. Litt. 47 b, n. 3); and an action of debt would not [prior to the 8 Anne, c. 19; Harr. N. P. 310] lie, because, the lease being for life or lives, no action of debt was maintainable till after the lives ended (2 Com. Dig. 639; 3 Id. 251; Co. Litt. 44 b, n. 3); and, therefore, since the acceptance of the rent at one day, would not, at the common law, have enabled him to sue for it if afterwards. denied, it was held to be unreasonable that he should be bound by such acceptance; and herein consists the principal distinction between the common law, and the law as it stands at this day upon the statutes. [Voidable leases may be equally made good, whether by accepting rent, or by distraining for rent due at the death of the predecessor, or by bringing an action for waste against the lessee: see 1 W. Saund. 287 d, n.; Rosc. Ev. 446, 5th ed.; Arnsby v. Woodward, 6 B. and Cr. 519; Harr. N. P. 1051]. And as it is of the bishop, in such cases, so it is of the dean, the archdeacon, the prebendary, and the like; for these are all "seised" jure ecclesia (see Bacon's Abr. tit. "Leases").

RESULT OF MICHAELMAS TERM EXAMINATION.

It appears that the number of candidates actually examined (for some did not appear, and others withdrew without finishing their papers) was 109-out of these, 85 were passed, and twenty-four were postponed, i.e. rejected, because their answers were not deemed sufficient. This number is not so great in proportion as on some former occasions, but still it is very large, and offers no great encouragement to future candidates, who may think they will "take their chance" at a proximate examination. The truth is, that articled clerks do not look at the matter in that serious light in which it ought to be viewed: they begin their studies too late, and they even then fail to avail themselves of all the opportunities afforded them. To notice one point only, we may observe that many clerks do not even peruse our "Keys to the Examinations," though they were expressly written for their use, and nearly every question can be answered from them.

The following are the names of the candidates, (under the age of 26) at the last examination, whom the examiners considered deserving of honorary distinctions of the first-class, namely:

1. Frederick Adolphus Philbrick, B.A., of Colchester, aged twenty-two, who served his clerkship to Mr. Frederick Blomfield Philbrick, of Colchester, and Messrs. Rixon, Son, and Anton, of 38, Cannonstreet, London.

2. William Melmoth Waliers, of 14, Hyde-parkgate South, Kensington-gore, aged twenty-two, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Walters, Roumieu, and Young, of Lincoln's-inn.

3. John Park Robinson, of Liverpool, aged twentythree, who served his clerkship to Messrs. Lowndes, Robinson, and Bateson, of Liverpool.

The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly awarded the following prizes of books:-To Mr. Philbrick, one of the prizes of the Incorporated Law Society, and also, as a mark of peculiar distinction, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clifford's-inn; to Mr. Walters, one of the prizes of the Incorporated Law Society; and to Mr. Robinson, one of the prizes of the Incorporated Law Society.

The examiners have also certified that the following candidates passed examinations nearly equal to those who have been reported for prizes:

1. Henry Harper Geach, of 35, Alwyne-road, Islington, aged twenty-one, who served his clerkship to Mr. Robert Walker Childs, of 25, Colemanstreet, City.

2. Arthur James Fitzhugh, of Street, Sussex, aged twenty-three, who served his clerkship to Messrs.

Hoper, Greene, and Husey-Hunt, of Lewes, and Mr. William Francis Holcroft, of: Sevenoaks, and Messrs. Loftus and Young, of New-inn, London.

3. Charles Swinden, of Birmingham, aged twentythree, who served his clerkship to Mr. Robert Dolphin, of Birmingham, and Messrs. Sudlow, Torr, Janeway, and Tagart, of Bedford-row, London.

Omission by lessee to repair-No relief in equity. Just as it was too late to notice in last number, we discovered (as stated in First Book, 136) that we had accidently answered that part of No. IX. conveyancing which referred to non-repair erroneously; for it has been established by two rather recent cases, that courts of equity will not relieve a tenant who has, even from mere negligence, omitted to perform his covenants to repair (Gregory v. Wilson, 16 Jur. 304; Hills v. Rowland, 22 Law Journ. Ch. 964).

EDUCATION OF LAW STUDENTS.

There is no mistaking the signs of the times with respect to the education of the future members of the profession-at least of those who are to be solicitors. At the late important meeting at Leeds, respecting the scheme of examinations by the University of Oxford, and also at the last annual meeting of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, this subject was amply discussed. At the former meeting Mr. J. Hope Shaw, in seconding the resolution proposed by Dr. Hook, approving of the university scheme of examinations, gave a professional application by making his observations refer to articled clerks. The speaker said he did not wish to confine himself to generalities, which (true and important as they were) were still vague, especially when his own profession afforded (what was much better) a useful practical illustration. He selected the illustration from his own profession, not because he thought that profession more important than others (though he was sure no soundly-judging man would dispute its importance), but because it was the one with whose wants he was best acquainted. He believed, however, the observations applicable to it were in a great, if not an equal degree, applicable also to the medical profession. In both cases there was an examination into the student's attainments in strictly professional knowledge, which insured considerable attention during the period of study, and at least protected the public against gross professional incompetence; but in the legal profession (and he believed in the medical one also) the test was limited to strictly professional, or what with reference to the present consideration he might call technical know

ledge; there was no test, nor any special encouragement, for a good general education, which was hardly second in importance to knowledge of a more technical character. About thirty-five years ago, the Legislature endeavoured, to some extent, to supply this defect, as far as regarded the legal profession, by providing that a service of three years instead of five should suffice for youths who had taken the degree of Bachelor of Arts at Oxford, Cambridge, or Dublin University. But the expense attendant on the privilege had prevented all but a comparatively few out of a great number of well-educated youths from availing themselves of it. It had been used just enough to prove its advantage, and the necessity for its extension. In reference to university education, he had often heard it remarked by some of the most eminent members of their body, who had had pupils from the university, that those pupils learned their profession better in three years than an imperfectly educated youth did in five; and, though he had not had a university youth as a law student under his own charge, he could fully confirm the statement from his own observation of the superior promptitude with which youths well trained in their grammarschools mastered the difficulties of legal science. So strongly had this been felt, that, during the last five or ten years, meeting after meeting of legal practitioners, not in London only, but in various parts of the kingdom, had been publicly avowing its importance, and only the previous day a meeting was held in Loudon by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society (at which, but for the present meeting, he should have felt it his duty to attend) for the express purpose of urging the consideration of it upon the judges. But the advantage of general literary attainments was by no means confined to the legal profession. It would, he had no doubt, be equally felt in the medical profession, and in the walks of commercial life. And it was because it widely extended and powerfully strengthened the encouragement to those attainments, that the proposal of the University of Oxford was eminently entitled to that hearty approbation which the resolution expressed. Not having himself had the honour of belonging to the University, there was another reflection suggested by the subject which might, perhaps, come more appropriately from him than from one of its members. He hailed the proposal heartily, on account of the public benefit which he confidently anticipated from it; but he hailed it the more heartily because it would connect the university more and more with the general education of the people; and he believed, that, whilst it was thus widening its sphere of usefulness, it was materially strengthening its own foun. dations. He trusted that the sister University of Cambridge would not lag behind in this honourable

career, and that the two would in this, as they had in so many other instances, be fellow-labourers in the intellectual, as well as the religious and moral, improvement of the people.

Before concluding we may refer to an article in a recent number of the Solicitors' Journal upon the subject, and particularly referring to the proposed preliminary examination, as noticed ante, pp. 183— 187.

"There can, we think, be no doubt that the great body of the profession is prepared to accept with approval the institution of a preliminary examination for articled clerks. The advantages are obvious and indisputable. It is greatly for the benefit of a solicitor, and indirectly for the benefit of the public, that he should have received a good education, and that he should have brought the results of his education into a definite shape. An examination will oblige his parents to furnish him with the means of learning, and it will oblige him to learn to some purpose. The whole character of the profession will be raised when no one can enter it unless he has turned his boyhood to some account; and thus the class, as well as the individual, will benefit by the arrangement. So far all are agreed. It is only when we come to particulars that differences obtrude themselves. We need scarcely say that no person already articled will be subjected to any examination, except the legal one through which he has to pass prior to his admission. But when we come to think how the examination should practically be carried on, many questions arise which it is not easy to meet at once. We have to consider the subjects of examination, and the time and mode of examining, the date in a clerk's carcer when the examination should take place, and the conditions under which the rules requiring an examination should be either partially or wholly relaxed.

"In June last, as most of our readers are aware, the Council of the Incorporated Law Society announced that they proposed to recommend to the judges to authorise an examination either before or during the articles of clerkship, or before admission, for the purpose of ascertaining that the candidate possessed an adequate knowledge of the Latin and French languages, and of English history, geography, arithmetic, and book-keeping.' The Council thus determined the subjects of examination, but not the time. On the subjects we have little to remark, for they are as well chosen, probably, as they could be, except, perhaps, that the requirement of bookkeeping is of doubtful, utility. It is required froin candidates for admission to several of the departments of the civil service, but there has not, we believe, been found much use in exacting it. Youths who have had no opportunity of keeping books prac

tically are obliged to cram up a very small amount of information on the subject from printed works; and all cram specially got up for an examination is worse than useless. But the proper time of examination is a most important question. We think that every consideration points to the expediency of establishing the general rule, that all clerks should be examined before they receive their articles. An examination in general subjects ought to show that a young man is fitted to become a clerk-not that he has spent the time of his clerkship well. We think it probable that the Council, by leaving the time undecided, really meant to leave open the settlement of exceptional cases, not to throw any doubt on the general rule. It is easy to see that there might arise exceptional cases where the time of examination might possibly be deferred, out of consideration for the circumstances of an individual. We will even go further. We think it is possible that, in some few cases, as, for instance, where the long services of an able and honest man are rewarded by the gift of articles from his master, it would be better to dispense with the examination altogether. It would be a great mistake to endanger the satisfactory working of the system by making it press too hardly on individuals whom the common sense of the profession would wish to see excepted from its operation. We think, therefore, that, somehow or other, there should be a dispensing power, to be jealously guarded and most cautiously exercised, but that, unless in cases clearly exceptional, every future clerk not yet articled should be examined, prior to receiving his articles, in the subjects specified by the Council.

"The mode of conducting the examination is also a matter that deserves to be attentively weighed. It would be a considerable hardship to impose on young men the necessity of coming up to London for a week in order to pass an examination. There are many parents to whom the expense would be an inconvenience, and many others who would see with reluctance their sons go to the metropolis for so long a time, with, perhaps, no friend to watch over their conduct. On the other hand, it is difficult to make the examinations local. It would be a serious drain on the funds of the Law Society to send down special examiners: and it is not easy to see how any scheme of transmitting papers by post could be substituted. In the Civil Service this is done, because candidates for local subordinate situations can always be referred to some official superior in the district, who can be charged with seeing the examination properly conducted. But there would be no one to conduct the examination of a person wishing to enter a private profession. As a means of obviating the difficulty, we will venture to suggest that advantage

might be taken of the new system of examinations on the point of being established by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge for persons not members of the Universities."

ARTICLED CLERKS.

Examination of articled clerk-Refusal to examineMode of appeal.-By the 3rd of the Orders of Trinity Term, 1853, respecting the examination of articled clerks, it is provided that in case any person shall be dissatisfied with the refusal of the examiners to grant such certificate (i. e., a certificate testifying the clerk's fitness and capacity to act as an attorney), he shall be at liberty, within one month, to apply for admission by petition, in writing, to the judges, to be delivered to the clerk of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, upon which no fee. or gratuity shall be received, which application shall be heard in Serjeants' Inn Hall by not less than three of the judges. These rules were made under the provisions of the 6 & 7 Vic. c. 73. Where the examiners refused to proceed with the examination of an articled clerk on account of certain charges affecting his personal character, the court refused to interfere, on the ground that his remedy was by petition to three judges, under the rules framed by virtue of the 6 & 7 Vic. c. 73. Exparte A. B., 30 Law Tim. Rep. 150.

Filing articles-Period of filing affidavit of due execution-Computation of time of service.-Articles of clerkship are required to be filed within six months of their execution, in order that the service should reckon from their date, for otherwise the service will reckon from the actual filing of the affidavit of execution. The affidavit of due execution of articles of clerkship is filed in due time if filed within six months after the execution of the articles by either of the parties. Where, therefore, the articles were sent to Bombay to be executed by the Master, and were there executed by him, and afterwards returned to England, and executed by the clerk, and the affidavit was filed within six months of execution by the latter, but not of the former: Held, that it was filed in due time. Ex parte Leggett, 30 Law Tim. Rep. 157.

Stamping articles [vol. 3, pp. 111, 177, 342; ante, pp. 35, 36]-Delaying stamping of articles-Computation of time of service.-The following decision fully confirms our views expressed ante, pp. 35, 36, as to the stamping of articles of clerkship under the 19 & 20 Vic. c. 81:-Mr. Justice Crompton has decided, that, although where, from accidental causes or unintentional neglect, articles of clerkship have not been stamped and registered within the six months, the court will permit the service of the clerk to be

computed from the date of the articles; yet, if it appear that the articles were left unstamped intentionally, even though with no improper motive, and so are not registered within the six months, the court will not interfere on behalf of the clerk. A. B., who was articled to his father, was at that time in delicate health, and it being doubtful if he would be able to follow the profession, the articles were left unstamped for a year, when, it appearing that the clerk would be able to pursue his profession, an application was made to the Treasury for leave to have the articles stamped, which being granted, an application was then made to the Court of Queen's Bench that the period of the clerk's service might be computed from the date of the articles. Exparte Welch, 30 Law Tim. Rep. 157.

Law Students' Corresponding Society. The proposed meeting, noticed ante, pp. 180, 187, of the Law Students' Mutual Corresponding Society will take place in London, at Anderton's Hotel, Fleet-street, on the 21st instant.

SUMMARY OF DECISIONS.

EQUITY AND CONVEYANCING.

CHARITY.- Mortmain-Will Construction Charitable bequest—Substitutional gift [vol. 3, pp. 241, 283, 368; First Book, p. 97].-In the case of The Attorney-General v. Tyndall (2 Eden, 207), Lord Northington, amongst several propositions which he there laid down,, expressed an opinion that a gift over, in case it should be found that the gift to the charity could not take effect, was void as being in fraud of the mortmain law, and intended merely in terrorem to prevent the heir front disputing it. There were three propositions determined by Lord Northington in that case, one in opposition to the view taken by Lord Hardwicke in The Attorney-General v. Bowles (3 Atk. 806), and with respect to which the current of decisions is stated to be confirmatory of Lord Northingtou's opinion. Lord Hardwicke, in The Attorney-General v. Bowles, held that a gift might be supported for the purpose of erecting an hospital, building a school, and the like, although no particular land was pointed out for that purpose, provided land could be found which would enable the erection to be made. Lord Northington held, that it could not be intended that the testator meant his trustees to go about begging for land, as he described it, and that the trust must be taken in its full sense, as if it had been the intention of the testator that they should purchase the land upon which the building was to be erected, and that view has been affirmed by subsequent decisions. The other two points decided by Lord Northington have certainly

not met with approbation; one was, that the case even of the building on land in mortmain was a transgression of the law, inasmuch as it improved the estate and made it more valuable-that has been overruled by a series of subsequent decisions; and the third point was, that a gift over, in the event of a charitable bequest failing for want of legality, was to be taken in terrorem, and also in fraud of the law as to mortmain. There is no decision following that; on the contrary, there is a decision by Sir John Leach directly opposed to it (sce De Themmines v. De Bonneval, 5 Russ. 288). And in the following case it was held that a bequest to a charitable institution to be appropriated for the purposes of the charity is good if some of the objects are such as it can be legally applied to, although the purposes of the charity may comprise objects to purposes of the charity may comprise objects to which the bequest could not legally be applied. A testator, after bequeathing several legacies to charitics, gave all his residuary estate to trustees upon trust for a charitable association; and by a codicil, after reciting that he had by his will, and other methods, disposed of parts of his personal estate to charitable uses, declared that, in case any parts of the same should be considered not to have their full operation, he bequeathed all such personal estate to the same trustees, free from any trust or condition, express or implied. The testator having afterwards attempted to dispose by deed of a sum of money for charitable purposes in a manner clearly void: Held, that this fund was included in the residuary bequest to the charity trustees, and also in the substitutional bequest contained in the codicil. Semble, if the bequest for the charitable association had been void, the substituted bequest to the same trustees would be good. Carter v. Green, 26 Law Journ. Ch. 845. CHARITY.-Will-Charitable bequest Uncertainty-Trust Power of disposal not exercised.—Lord St. Leonards, in his work on Powers (vol. 2, p. 163), takes a distinction between Harding v. Glyn (1 Atk. 469), and The Duke of Marlborough v. Godolphin (2 Ves. 61), where Lord Hardwicke held that a legacy to the testator's wife for life, and after her death to be divided and distributed to and amongst such of his children, and in such manner and proportion as she should direct, was a mere power, and not a trust for the children in default of appointment; but he says "it should seem that if a case in the very terms of The Duke of Marlborough v. Godolphin were now to occur, it would be decided tl at the children took as tenants in common, in default of appointment." In Doyley v. The Attorney-General (4 Vin. Abr. 485), where the direction, being to dispose of the testator's real and personal estate to such of his relation on his mother's side who were most