acceptance or non-payment, as the case may be. Where a foreign bill has been dishonoured by non-acceptance, it must be duly protested for non-acceptance, and where a foreign bill which has been previously dishonoured by non-acceptance is dishonoured by non-payment, it must be duly protested for nonpayment. If it be not so protested, the drawer and endorsers shall be discharged. A bill which has been protested for nonacceptance may be subsequently protested for non-payment. A dishonoured bill must be noted or protested on the day of its dishonour. Where the acceptor of a bill has committed an act of bankruptcy before it matures, the holder may cause the bill to be protested for better security against the drawer and endorsers. A bill must be protested at the place where it is dishonoured. Provided that when a bill is presented through the post-office and returned by post dishonoured, it may be protested at the place to which it is returned and on the day of its return. When a bill drawn payable at the place of business or residence of some person, other than the drawee, has been dishonoured by non-acceptance, it must be protested for nonpayment at the place where it is expressed to be payable, and no further presentment for payment to or demand on the drawee shall be necessary. When a bill has been lost or destroyed, protest may be made on a copy thereof. A protest nust contain a literal transcript of the bill and must be signed and sealed by the notary making it, and must specify the person at whose request and the parties against whom the bill is protested, the date of protest, the cause or reason for protesting the bill, the demand made and the answer given, if any, or the fact that the drawee or acceptor cannot be found.

It would be out of place for me here to offer any criticism on the important Bill once more presented to the House of Commons under influential auspices. I am glad, that a bonâ fide attempt is thus made to codify the commercial law of the United Kingdom. My first début in public life was as an advocate of such a code. It is now just thirty years since I delivered a lecture on the subject, and suggested substantially the very method now pursued as regards this Bill for every branch of commercial law, and the great conference held in London in 1853 at the Law Amendment Society, under the presidency of the great law reformer, Lord Brougham, and the Earl of Harrowby, came to resolutions in favour of the codification of the commercial law of the United Kingdom. and commended the subject for the earnest attention of Her Majesty's Government. But alas, a Royal Commission

to ascertain how far was it possible to assimilate the mercantile laws of the United Kingdom was all that could be got, and though two Acts of Parliament were passed removing some differences in the laws of England, Scotland and Ireland, that came far short of the object I had contemplated and submitted.

Without attempting to review the merits of the Bill on bills of exchange, I may be permitted to say, first, that it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to foresee every possible contingency in commercial practice, and that therefore, however complete the Bill may be, it is sure to leave out many principles and modifications of principles, almost certain, sooner or later, to need to be legally ascertained and established. Second, that the principle of the Bill of consolidation and codification of the law is open to objection, that while one part consists of what is really law, the other embraces what is scarcely law, but simple statements of legal principles. And, thirdly, that I am not quite satisfied that the legislature can deal with the law on bills of exchange in this manner, without regard to the law on other kindred subjects; the different branches of commercial law having, of necessity, close mutual relation. It is easy to show how difficult is it for legislation of any kind to foresee every possible event: The Bill says a bill must be protested at the place where it is dishonoured. Let a bill be made payable by a party at the place which was his domicile at the time, and he afterwards changes domicile, should the protest be made at the place indicated, or at his new domicile? Where would you consider the bill dishonoured? Let a bill be made payable at the house of a third party, and the third party changes house, must you follow the house or the person? Let a bill be drawn to a house at Bristol, payable in London, must the protest be made in Bristol or in London? Suppose the bill is so drawn that it is impossible to find out where precisely the funds are likely to be, what is the holder to do? Some of these questions may be answered in a moment; but a thousand points daily occur in practice which seem different from every point previously decided, and if you make ever so complete a code of rules, it is sure to be imperfect in something or other at no great distance of time. In dealing with such an instrument as a bill of exchange, it is necessary to remember that it is essentially an international instrument, and that each party in the same enters into the contract in accordance with the law of the country where the contract is made. A bill drawn in Russia and endorsed to parties in France,

Germany, Italy, or England, is for all intent and purposes, in so far as each party is concerned, a Russian, French, German, an Italian, or an English bill. Many are consequently the points of conflict of law arising on the subject. Suppose a bill or any other instrument is executed and recorded before a notary public in a country where by law a copy of the instru ment certified by him is sufficient to establish its existence and genuineness, would that certificate be admissible in the courts of law in England to establish the same fact? Is it not right to say that an act executed before a notary in any place, if duly executed according to the law of that place, and valid there as a notarial act, is held of the same obligation and validity in every other place? The notary public is a kind of international officer, to whose acts all civilized states give credit; but questions of conflict of law arise often independently of the notary, and are of a most perplexing character, whoever may be the authority concerned, whether courts or officers.

I scarcely need to say that notaries owe to the honourable functions which they have to perform, the most scrupulous probity. There seems to be a kind of halo connected with a public officer of such antiquity, recognized and honoured almost in all countries, intimately associated with ecclesiastical law and with ceremonies of a sacred character, and yet immediately interested in one of the most modern and most advancing of all the branches of the mercantile professions, viz., Banking. Surely it behoves no other public officer more than the notary to act on the principle of the motto which distinguishes this college, and which in a manner guides and controls all the studies in this school of learning

SANCTE ET SAPIENTER.

Sancte, high morals, combined with sapienter, intelligence, knowledge, and culture.

Sancte, a tenacious grasp of principle, with sapienter, an unbounded love for scientific progress.

Sancte, due respect for the past, with sapienter, a true aspiration towards the ever-improving, ever-advancing future—the future of commerce, and banking-the future of the human family.

AUSTRALASIAN BANKING IN 1881.

THE summary of the returns of all the Australasian banks for the quarter ending 31st December last having been furnished, the Australasian Banking Record in its leader for March comments upon the remarkable expansion which is shown by the figures thus brought together "The figures year by year assume vaster proportions, and the day is not far distant when we shall, in these columns, chronicle the banking assets of the Australasian colonies at one hundred millions sterling."

SUMMARY OF BANK RETURNS OF VICTORIA, NEW SOUTH WALES, NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AUSTRALIA, QUEENSLAND, TASMANIA, AND WESTERN AUSTRALIA. Compiled from the Sworn Averages for the Quarter ended 31st December, 1881.

New Zealand.-This includes £588,330 government deposits.

Tasmania.-In this colony's banks returns deposits bearing interest are not

distinguished from those not bearing interest.

Including notes, bills of exchange, and all stock and funded debts of every description, except notes, bills, and balances due to the banks from other banks. Victoria.-Government securities (if any) held by the banks are not separately distinguished in their returns.

New South Wales.-This includes £1,842,756 government securities.

§ New Zealand. This includes £80,000 government securities; notes and bills discounted, £4,116,861; debts due to the banks exclusive of debts abandoned as bad, £8,604,906; securities not included under other heads £425,653.

South Australia.-This includes £55,000 government securities. **Queensland.-This includes £8,217 government securities. tt Tasmania.-This includes £158,515 government securities. Western Australia.-This includes £5,200 government securities.