gistration; by which means that undue creation of delay may creep in, which this clause is meant to obviate. We have no remedy, however, for this evil to propose.

A new clause (55) is introduced, fixing expressly upon the poor's rates the expences incurred by overseers in preparing the lists. Upon this provision, the necessity of which was pointed out in our observations on the old bill, we have still to make this remark: that boroughs are frequently made up of parcels of parishes and townships; even within the limits of a borough the poor's rate is levied alike upon persons privileged and unprivileged to vote; and from both these considerations, particularly the former, it seems something unfair to fix upon the whole parish expences attendant on the privileges of a part. A special rate for the purpose would be easily levied on the electors at the time of polling. The expences incurred by the returning officer are referred in all cases to the county rate. In counties of cities and towns there is very often no county rate; and this very circumstance has just occasioned at Bristol a difficulty with regard to the indemnification by the hundred act. A provision for this case is wanting in clause (55).

By clause (51), also a new clause, ample powers are given to the barrister appointed to revise the lists, to summons witnesses to his court, to enforce their attendance by warrant, and to commit them if they refuse to be sworn, or to answer when sworn. Qu.? will it be implied from this clause, without particular expressions to that effect, that any persons (and if so, what persons?) must be in attendance on this court, to carry into execution these warrants and these committals? In receiving evidence also, this new judge of a new court may feel some doubt whether he is bound in all respects by the common law rules of evidence; there will be no appeal from his decisions herein, and feeling himself perfectly competent to estimate the value of many kinds of evidence which are excluded from the consideration of juries, he may be inclined to allow himself some latitude in this matter: perhaps he will be considered right in doing so; otherwise he will be unable to examine on oath any claimant or person objected to in his own case, without some special enactment declaring such a witness competent.

The other clauses, which are directory of the course of proceeding to be pursued in the barrister's court, have been amplified and, in many respects, much improved. There is one change, however, which seems to us of very great importance, and involving at the same time a question of expediency by no means easy to be solved. By clause (37) of the old bill it was provided, that where any person inserted in the overseer's list should be objected to, the barrister should expunge his name from the list on proof that such person was not qualified to vote, the onus of such proof resting of course on the objector. In the case of the county franchise, where the objection should go to dispute the possession of an estate of a certain amount within a certain parish, this proof of the negative position would be found very difficult to establish; even in the borough franchise, it might be contended that nothing short of shewing by whom every house in a particular street was occupied, would prove a man not to occupy a house in that street of the yearly value of 107. An apprehension of this difficulty (which we always felt very strongly) seems to have been entertained; and accordingly we find it enacted in clause (48) of the new bill, that, where such an objection is made, the objector is not called upon to prove this negative position, but, provided he only appears, the ónus is thrown upon the person objected to, to prove his qualification; otherwise he will be expunged from the list. Observe herein the power given to any single objector, to call every year into the barrister's court the whole constituency of a county or borough, to prove, every man by proper evidence, his qualification to vote; and this without any expence or risk on the part of the objector, or even trouble beyond that of serving notices and personally attending the court. As regards the county voter this evil may be a necessary one and beyond cure; to him also the proof of his qualification will for the most part cause little trouble or expense; but the householder, whose vote depends on the actual yearly value of the premises he occupies, is in a different situation. In his case it must always be notorious what premises they are in respect of which he claims to vote; the only question therefore between him and his objector would be the yearly value of those particular premises, or some other matter of which the objector might give positive proof. This being

so, there seems no reason why the objector should not rather be called upon to prove his case, than the person already inserted by the judgment of the overseers, to prove his qualification. Possibly it might be esteemed a better plan in both cases to give the barrister the power of awarding costs against a frivolous objector.

The space assigned to these observations is now exhausted. We have confined ourselves to those changes in the details of the bill which appeared to us of doubtful expediency or imperfect in their operation. There are many other alterations most absolutely and undoubtedly for the better, of which we care not to take a more particular notice than this; but we must add, in justice to the framers of the measure, that they have laboured hard to make the New Bill as much better than the old one as it was possible. Whatever credit may be due to any one for the improvements effected, most assuredly very little is to be ascribed to a certain committee, which sat in close deliberation upon these details for the space of six weeks. The spirit in which that committee went to work on both sides, gave little reason to expect from their exertions any result advantageous to the measure itself; and yet, on the appearance of the New Bill, a vaunting tone was loudly indulged in by persons, who would have shrunk with horror from the suggestion of any real improvement which did not give an opportunity for impeding the progress of the measure, or abusing the intellects and motives of those who introduced it. Out upon such members of parliament! we commend them to a patient reading of the New Bill, in a better spirit than that which has distinguished them heretofore; with little hope however, under present circumstances, of so desirable a consummation; and therefore truly wishing that this may be the last committee, which shall sit in the English House of Commons unreformed.

P.

ART. X.-TITHES IN GERMANY.

Die rechtliche Natur der Zehnten, aus den Grundeigenthumverhältnissen des römischen und frankischen Reichs historisch entwickelt mit Berücksichtigung der neuesten Anträge auf Zehntabschaffung, und mit Andeutungen für die Geschichte des Lehnwesens, von Dr. J. M. F. Birnbaum, Professor, Ritter des Königlich-niederländischen Löwenordens, und Korrespondenten des Königlich-niederländischen Instituts. (The true Nature of Tithes, historically deduced from the state of landed property under the Roman and Frankish empires, with peculiar reference to the most recent plans for the Abolition of Tithes, and with hints for the History of the Feudal System. By Dr. J. M. F. BIRNBAUM, Professor, Knight of the Royal Order of the Lion and Correspondent of the Royal Institute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.) Bonn, bei Adolph. Marcus. 1831.

AMONGST the very few representative assemblies which Germany can boast, the lower house (zweite kammer) of Baden stands pre-eminent for the liberality of the opinions avowed, and the comprehensiveness of the improvements discussed in it. Shaking off that implicit reverence for authority, and that laissez-faire feeling,1 by which the energies of so many German states are depressed, it is gradually bringing under its review the entire administration, as well internal as external, of the government; in other words, assuming the functions which the English House of Commons fulfils. Within the last year the attention of this chamber has been repeatedly attracted to tithes; the expediency of abolishing them has been warmly debated, and a committee to report on

1 When the late Duke of Weimar first gave his subjects a representative assembly, they complained grievously of having the troubles of government imposed upon them, which, they said, the duke himself was paid to sustain. Würtemberg and Bavaria are now rivalling Baden.

them named. M. Von Rotteck, a highly distinguished member -described indeed by his adversary, as esteemed throughout Germany as a philosopher, historian, jurisconsult and politician-appears to have taken the lead on what is termed the liberal side of this question, and the book before us is almost exclusively an answer to him. We propose to give a short account of it, more as a matter of curiosity than with any view to a direct practical application of the argument, which turns on very different considerations from those which seem likely to influence our legislature. There is still, however, analogy enough to justify the following cursory review. The author, it may be proper to add, holds a high rank amongst the juridical writers of the continent, and his works may consequently be taken as a fair sample of the controversy.

The preface contains a statement of the author's motives in hurrying out the present publication (which is only the forerunner of an elaborate history of tithes) and a bold profession of his principles as a member of the historical school. Being firmly convinced of the injustice of the proposed abolition, he deemed it a dereliction of duty to be silent, and was particularly anxious that his opinion should be known before a definitive resolution on the subject was come to "in a land dear to him in more relations than one." But though forced to write rapidly, his conclusions have been thoroughly matured. As to his principles-" I have always treasured up in my mind (says he) the doctrine which the greatest amongst modern historians, J. Müller, gives as the deduction from the history of the world: that nations and governors prepare their own downfall when they turn a deaf ear to the spirit of moderation. In the land, in which I formerly lived, and which I left a short time since of my own free will, because remaining there appeared to me a breach of duty to a venerable monarch, whose confidence had called me there-in that land have I seen the doctrine of J. Müller confirmed by experience.”1

We pass over the author's other professions, because no

1 M. Birnbaum held a professor's chair at the University of Louvain, as did also MM. Holtius and Warnkönig- names which would reflect honour on any institution at the time the Belgic revolution broke out. M. Birnbaum is now professor at Heidelberg, M. Holtius at Utrecht, and M. Warkönig at Ghent.