[1] Note 1. Page 1.

See post, Chapter V., Preliminary Note.

[2] Note 2. Page 5.

An important and salutary improvement in the law of libel, especially in the case of newspapers, was effected in 1843, by statute 6 and 7 Vict. c. 96. Till then the TRUTH was inadmissible as a justification on a criminal prosecution for libel—the rule being that the greater the truth the greater was the libel—by which was meant its greater tendency to a breach of the peace. Now, however, the defendant may defend himself against an indictment or information, by pleading that the charge was true, and that it was for the public benefit that it should have been published; but he must specially state in his plea the particular facts by reason of which it was for the public benefit. If such plea, or evidence in support of it, should be false or malicious, the act allows that circumstance to be taken into consideration in awarding punishment. A serious amount of fine, imprisonment, and hard labor, may be inflicted for publishing, or threatening (with intent to extort money) to publish, a false and malicious libel. In civil proceedings a defendant may plead that he was not guilty of actual malice or gross negligence; and offered to publish, or published, a full apology, in which case he may pay money into court by way of amends; and in all actions of defamation he may show an apology, or offer of one, in mitigation of damages. This statute does not extend to Scotland.

[3] Note 3. Page 32.

Troilus and Cressida, i. 3.

[4] Note 4. Page 40.

The great increase of business alone, is the cause of the accumulation of arrears—especially in the Queen's Bench, which is almost overpowered by the enormous pressure of its criminal business. All the three superior courts have recently adopted post-terminal fittings, to enable them to despatch their arrears; an act of Parliament having been passed (stat. 1 and 2 Vict. c. 32) for that purpose.

[5] Note 5. Page 42.

If the reader will refer to vol. i. p. 490, he may see how the disabilities here alluded to arose, and affected the case. The doctrine of "adverse possession" is founded on the anxiety of our law to secure quietude of title. It gives every reasonable facility for the assertion of just rights against wrongful possessors of property; but with equal reasonableness fixes a limit to immunity from the consequences of negligent acquiescence under usurpation, considering it, in a word, better policy to protect a person in possession, than to encourage a struggle for it among strangers. Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, is the maxim of the common law, on which also the statute law has often acted, and recently with great effect, by stat. 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 27, (passed on the 24th July 1833.) By its provisions, many of the most subtle and difficult questions concerning the nature of "possession" are got rid of; and the period of twenty years from the commencement of the rights of possession, fixed as that within which alone an action or suit in equity for the recovery of lands must be brought—unless a party was, when his right accrued, laboring under the disability of infancy, coverture, insanity, or absence beyond seas: in any of which cases an extension of ten years is allowed: but it is expressly provided, that however numerous such disabilities may have been—however long and uninterruptedly they may have lasted—forty years shall be absolutely the limit within which the action or suit must be brought from the time of the right first accruing. If the statute "once begin to run," as the lawyers say, "nothing can stop it." The above constitute some of the boldest and best of the great alterations recently effected in our English system of real property law. A far longer period than the present one was requisite to constitute "adverse possession" at the time mentioned in the text.

[6] Note 6. Page 43.

See post, Chapter V., Preliminary Note.

[7] Note 7. Page 49.

"[Greek: 'Anthropinos]," signifies in this place, (1 Corinth. x. 13,) says a commentator on this memorable passage of Scripture, "such as is suited to the nature and circumstances of man; such as every man may reasonably expect, if he consider the nature of his body and soul, and his situation in the present world."

[8] Note 8. Page 54.

It might be inferred, from a somewhat loose statement in an English law treatise, that in a case like that of Mr. Aubrey—viz. of possession of property in entire ignorance that it belonged to another—a Court of Equity would protect against the rightful owner's claim for the mesne profits. Such, however, is by no means the case. Mr. Titmouse had recovered at law—by the superior strength of his title, and without requiring any assistance whatever from a Court of Equity; the mesne profits, therefore, were absolutely his—and any interference, by a Court of Equity, to deprive him of them, would have been an act of direct spoliation. Such a notion, therefore, is utterly destitute of foundation. If Mr. Titmouse had been compelled to seek the assistance of a Court of Equity in order to prosecute his claim, and had clearly been guilty of negligence or fraud; it is possible that some terms might have been imposed upon him, with reference to the mesne profits to be wrung from his comparatively-speaking innocent opponent—but even then, it is conceived that Equity would be very slow and jealous in exercising such a stretch of power. The Roman law took a different view of the subject, regarding him—qui justas causas habuisset quare bona ad se pertinere existimasset, (Dig. Lib. v. Tit. iii. 1, 20, &c.)—with great leniency, and exempting him from payment of mesne profits accrued previous to the action. According to the law of Scotland, a bon fide possessor evicted (i. e. turned out) by a person having a better right, is entitled to retain the fruits or profits (called "violent profits") which he may have reaped or received during his bon fide possession. It would seem, however, that this doctrine is based not solely upon the bon fide ignorance of the ousted party, but upon the concurring negligence and delay of his victorious opponent.

[9] Note 9. Page 58.

It is by no means a matter of course, to apply for and obtain this nominal appointment, which occasions ipso facto the vacating a seat in Parliament. It is a matter of discretion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he has refused it during the present session [1844] to several applicants.

[10] Note 10. Page 75.

This species of sport has recently, alas! been seriously interfered with, by the increased power given, in such cases, to the police magistrates.

[11] Note 11. Page 91.

See Dr. Bubble's "Account of the late Landslips, and of the Remains of Subterranean Castles."—Quarto Edition, Vol. III. pp. 2000-2008.

[12] Note 12. Page 91.

Ante, Vol. 1., p. 441.

[13] Note 13. Page 93.

Horace, Carm. 1. 34, ad finem.

[14] Note 14. Page 96.

Troilus and Cressida, i. 3.

[15] Note 15. Page 224.

1 Samuel, ch. ii., v. 36.

[16] Note 16. Page 234.

It may be as well to apprise the reader, that this strange mode of pleading has been lately superseded by one more reasonable and intelligible.

[17] Note 17. Page 281.

"Mayhem," saith Blackstone, "is a battery attended with this aggravating circumstance: that thereby the party injured is forever disabled from making so good a defence against future external injuries, as before he might have done. Among these defensive members are reckoned not only arms and legs, but a finger, an eye, and a fore-tooth; but the loss of one of the jaw-teeth, is no mayhem at common law, for they can be of no use in fighting."—3 Black. Comm. p. 121.

[18] Note 18. Page 282.

In the year 1838, arrest on mesne process was abolished by statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 110, (which recited that "the power of arrest upon mesne process was unnecessarily extensive and severe, and ought to be relaxed,") except in cases where a debtor may be arrested by order of a judge, to prevent his quitting the kingdom. In the year 1844, the legislature went so far (stat. 7 and 8 Vict. c. 96, § 58) as to abolish arrest on final process, in all cases of debts not exceeding £20, independently of costs. The policy of this measure is gravely questionable.

[19] Note 19. Page 283.

A detainer signifies a writ, by means of which a prisoner, once arrested, may be detained at the suit of any other creditor.

[20] Note 20. Page 285.

The last acts of the kind are those for abolishing Arrest on Mesne Process (see ante, p. 282, note) and amending the Insolvent Laws, (stat. 1 and 2 Vict. c. 110, § 78, and 7 and 8 Vict. c. 96, § 59.)

[21] Note 21. Page 312.

For a really short-sighted person a concave glass, and for a too long-sighted man a convex glass, is requisite: but simpletons who wear a glass for mere appearance' sake, have one through which they can really see—i. e. a piece of common window-glass. Three-fourths of the young men about town wear the last kind of glass.

[22] Note 22. Page 316.

Since this was written, Great Britain has, by the demonstration of her irresistible naval and military power, and by the wisdom of her diplomacy, totally changed our relations with China—which has opened to us five of her ports, ceded to us a great island, and entered into a commercial treaty with us!

[23] Note 23. Page 339.

Hor. Carm. V., iv.

[24] Note 24. Page 352.

Plowden's Commentaries, 308, a, (Sharrington v. Strotton.)

[25] Note 25. Page 362.

About the time when this was originally written, there was a person who, chiefly at Windsor, occasioned much surprise and curiosity by the power which he appeared to exercise over horses, by touching, as he alleged, a particular nerve within the mouth.

[26] Note 26. Page 372.

Per bend Ermine and Pean, two lions rampant combatant, counter-changed, armed and langued Gules; surmounted by three bendlets undee Argent, on each three fleurs-de-lis Azure; on a chief Or, three Titmice volant proper; all within a bordure gobonated Argent and Sable.

Crest.—On a cap of maintenance a Titmouse proper, ducally gorged Or, holding in his beak a woodlouse embowed Azure. Motto—"Je le tiens."

Note.—The Author was favored, on the first appearance of this portion of the work, with several complimentary communications on the subject of Sir Gorgeous Tintack's feats in heraldry: and one gentleman eminent in that science, and to whom the author is indebted for the annexed spirited drawing, has requested the author to annex to the separate edition, as he now does, the two following very curious extracts from old heraldic writers:—the first, supporting the author's ridicule of the prevalent folly of devising complicated coats of arms; and the second being a very remarkable specimen of the extent to which an enthusiast in the science was carried on its behalf.

First—"An other thing that is amisse, as I take it, and hath great neede to be reformed, is the quartering of many markes in one shield, coate, or banner; for sithence it is true that such markes serue to no other vse, but for a commander to lead by, or to be known by, it is of necessitie that the same should be apparent, faire, and easie to be understoode: so that the quartering of many of them together, doth hinder the vse for which they are provided.—As how is it possible for a plaine unlearned man to discover and know a sunder, six or eight—sometimes thirty or forty several marks clustered altogether in one shield or banner, nay, though he had as good skill as Robert Glower, late Somerset that dead is, and the eies of an egle, amongst such a confusion of things, yet should he never be able to decipher the errors that are dalie committed in this one point, nor discover or know one banner or standard from an other, be the same neuer so large?"—Treatise on the True Use of Armes—by Mr. Sampson Erdswicke, [a famous antiquary in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.]

[Secondly.—An extract from the Book of St. Alban's, written late in the fifteenth century, by Dame Juliana Berners, Abbess of St. Alban's]—

"Cain and all his offspring became churls both by the curse of God, and his own father. Seth was made a gentleman, through his father and mother's blessing, from whose loins issued Noah, a gentleman by kind and lineage. Of Noah's sons, Chem became a churl by his father's curse, on account of his gross barbarism towards his father. Japhet and Shem, Noah made gentlemen. From the offspring of gentlemanly Japhet came Abraham, Moyses, and the Prophets, and also the King of the right line of Mary, of whom that only absolute gentleman[X] Jesus was borne; perfite God and perfite man according to his manhood, King of the land of Juda, and the Jewes, and gentleman by his Mother Mary, princess of coate Armour."

[27] Note 27. Page 374.

I vehemently suspect myself guilty of a slight anachronism here; this ancient and illustrious monarchy having been mediatized by the congress of Vienna in 1815—its territories now forming part of the parish of Hahnroost, in the kingdom of ——.

[28] Note 28. Page 399.

Ante, p. 265.

[29] Note 29. Page 415.

??de?a, 1036-9. AnglicÉ: Alas, alas, my children! why do you fondly fix your eyes upon me? Why beams upon me that last smile of yours? Oh, woe! woe! is me! What shall I do? For now that I have seen the bright eyes of my little ones, my heart is broken!

[30] Note 30. Page 415.

Ezek. xii. 18.

[31] Note 31. Page 453.

Since this work was published, a very important statute (6 and 7 Vict. c. 85) was passed, in the year 1843, for removing the incompetency to give evidence, by reason of any crime, or interest.

[32] Note 32. Page 456.

When once a man's necessities have compelled him to subscribe his name to the three magical letters "I. O. U.," he is liable for the sum specified in it to any one simply producing it, though it be addressed to no one, and no proof be given that "U" means the plaintiff, (see Curtis v. Rickards, Manning and Grainger, 46; and Douglas v. Hone, 12 Adolphus and Ellis, 641,) unless the defendant be able to adduce clear evidence impeaching the plaintiff's right to recover.

[33] Note 33. Page 461.

The late venerable and gifted Lord Stowell, in the case of Evans v. Evans, 1 Consistory Reports, p. 36.

[34] Note 34. Page 466.

Some have imagined this to be an allusion to a disclosure pretended by M. Thiers, a few years ago, after the death of Lord Holland, to have been made to him by that nobleman, of what had passed at a Cabinet council!!