The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-24 00:00:00

THE SIIN,

PROFESSOR LEONE LEVI'S LECTURE ON
BANKERS' CHEQUES.

A very interesting and novel ceremonial took place at
King's College on Friday evening, being the formal
closing for the session of Professor Leone Levi's lectures
on what may properly be called the learning and litera-
ture of commerce. It is a curious fact that at the first
establishment of the college a professorship of commerce
was provided for, and a professor appointed. Lectures
were given, but as no one attended they were at last
abandoned, and the department remained in abeyance
until the fame of Mr. Levi, as a commercial jurist, at-
tracted public attention to the subject, when his services
having been secured, the class was re-opened, and with
such success that the learned lecturer has had an at-
tendance of considerably upwards of one hundred
students all through his course. Much of this success is
to be attributed to the warm support given to the move-
ment by Mr. Gilbart, head manager of the London and
Westminster Bank, who not only provided prizes for the
successful students, but paid for the admission of every
gentlemen connected with that great establishment who
chose to avail himself of the course. Another gratifying
circumstance connected with the introduction of this
branch of education into King's College is, that the suc-
cess of Mr. Levi's lectures induced the Principal of the
institution (Dr. Jelf) to establish evening lectures also
on English literature and composition, the classics, ma-
thematics, and others of the higher branches of instruc-
tion ; and it was announced from the chair on Friday
eveninc, that in every case the experiment had been at-
tended with the most complete success. The business
of the evening commenced with the following lecture
from Professor Levi, on the subject of bankers' cheques,
a topic to which great interest has been given by a
recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench.
Professor Levi rose and said—Gentlemen, we have al-
ways had under consideration the law relating to mer-
cantile securities as regards bills of exchange, Exchequer
bills, dock warrants, Consols, &c. There remains now
one instrument of considerable importance in commerce
and banking, which cannot be omitted in our present
course—that is, bankers' cheques ; and at the cost of
leaving what was designated to occupy our attention in
'the last lecture for another occasion we will explain
the state of the law on the subject. A cheque is pro-
perly a bill of exchange addressed to a banker, and paya-
ble to a certain person or bearer on demand, though the
words "on demand" are not often inserted. Cheques
are commonly made as follows :
£lOO London, Jan. 1, 1856.
Pay A. 8., or bearer, one hundred pounds, on account
of --- C. D.

Messrs, Jones Lloyd and Co.
In order that such steps be exempted from stamp duties
..hey must specify the place and date of issue, and must
be drawn upon bankers having their place of business
within fifteen miles of the locality where the cheques are
istied. A cheque is always supposed to be drawn upon
a previous deposit of funds, and is an absolute appro-
priation of so much money in the hands of the bank to
the holder of the cheque, to remain there until called for.
To illustrate this :—A. cheque was produced in court as
having been issued at the Dorchester Old Bank. It
was contended that the cheque was void, because it
ought to have been dated Dorchester, aad the words
Dorchester Old Bank were not equivalent, as they only
described the establishment, and did not necessarily im-
port that the cheque was drawn at Dorchester, though
the bank was in fact situated there. But it was decided
that the cheque did show to have beef drawn at Dor-
chester. In another case a cheque was drawn in the
fallowing manner :

October 12, 1847.
Messrs. Knapp, leo., bankers, Abingdon, pay to Mr.
Hicks, or bearer, one hundred and seventeen pounds
seventeen shillings.
1171. 17s. THOMAS SHARPS.
The same exception was male, that as no place where the
cheque was issued appeared on the face of it, it was in-
admissible in evidence for want of a stamp ; and so it
was decided that the place mentioned in the cheque was
the place where Knapp, &c., carried en their business,
and was not the place where the cheque was drawn.
The cheque must be dated on or before the day on which
it is issued, and it must not direct the payment to be
made by a bill or note. The clause requiring a cheque
to he issued within 15 miles of the place where the banker
carries on business must be carefully attended to, be-
cause, if issued at a greater distance, if not stamped, it
would be illegal, and the person issuing it, and the
banker knowingly paying it, would incur the penalty of
1001. each ; and the person knowingly receiving it in
payment or as a security incurs a penalty of 201. The
place at which a cheque is considered as issued is
that where the drawer parts with the possession of it ;
and if it be transmitted by him through the post, the
place of issuing is that where it is posted. An un-
stamped cheque drawn and issued as above may be
circulated at any dietance from the place of issue with•
out affecting its validity. Thus, a cheque drawn in
London, upon a London banker, may be sent by post
from London to Glasgow, or elsewhere, and negotiated
there fur any period. Persons residing beyond the
distance of 15 miles from their bankers, whether such
residence be occasional or permanent, must affix to
such cheques a penny stamp. But when the cheque is
issued on stamped paper it may be drawn upon any one,
banker or not, and at any distance from the place where
it is to be paid, and may also be payable either to hearer
or order. If made payable to order, then it must be in-
dorsed by the payee ; but if the drawee be a banker he
is not bound to inquire whether the indorsement is
genuine ; and if ho be not a banker it would be suffi-
cient for hint to be satisfied, before paying the cheque,
of the authenticity of the signature of the payee. A
cheque cannot be issued for any suns less than 20s. A
cheque is not like a promissory note, payable on demand,
which is a continuing security, but is intended to be
presented speedily. In strictness, it ought to be pre-
sented the same day, if there be time, and the parties
live in the same place, or, if not, within the banking hours
of the next day at furthest. Government cheques are not
payable at the Bank of England after 3 o'clock. If the
parties live at a distance, the draft should be sent by the
first post ; and so imperative this is, that it would not be
sufficient to prove, in case of delay till the third day, that
by such a course the cheque reached the drawee just as
Anon. A banker in London who receives a cheque by
the General Post is not bound to present it for payment
till the following day. The Law Merchant requires that
cheques be presented with reasonable diligence, and this
is till the close of the bankinghours on the following day.
Nor would it make any difference were the cheque to
pass through the clearing-house. The clearing-house, I
scarcely need to describe, is a place in Lombard-street
where the bankers' clerks meet to exchange their ch,queß.
The practice is, that each banker sends to the clearing-
house the cheques upon other bankers, which he receives
in the course of the day ; they are there delivered to a
clerk of the fir* on which they are drawn (each house
having a clerk in attendance there for the purpose), and
he enters them in a hook to the credit of the hankers
paying them in. When the clock of the clearing.
house strikes four, no more cheques are taken, and at
the end of the day the clerks settle their balances.
If a cheque comes too late for the clearing-house,
it is usually sent to the bankers on whom it
is drawn, an 1 they mark it with their initials, which is
considered as an undertaking to pay it the next day, i'.
not being usual for bankers to pay each other after four.
It is usual that a banker receiving a cheque upon an-
other Is bound to pass it at tho clearing-house the same
day, if there were time ' • but it appears that a cheque
p linat a banker's, and requiring to be cleared, must
be entered in two books at least before it is sent out. It
has then to go to the clearing-house, and to be then en-
tered in a third. -Under these circumstances it is but
just to allow the banker till the next day to present the
cheque. The number of banking firms who attended the
clearing-house in January, 1855, was 26. The amount
of transactions passed through the clearing by each bank-
ing house during 1840 was estimated altogether at
974,580,0001. Returning now to the presentment of
cheques, the holder is not entitled to one day more in
presenting it, by passing it through his banker's. Tee
practical mode in which the question of presentation of
cheques presents itself is the effect of the diligence or ne-
gligence on the drawer and previous holder. For instance,
a debtor paid his creditor by a cheque, and the latter
on the same day transmitted it to his banker. Tue banker
omitted to present it at the clearing-house in time for
that day, when it would have been paid, and on the next
it was dishonoured, the firm on which it was drawn hay-
ing stopped payment. In this case the drawer would not
titled,
by discharged, the holder of the cheque being en
by the general law, to present it the day after he receives
it. When the cheque circulates through several hands,
the holder would still have time till the next day to pre-
sent it. It must be remembered, however, that the liabi-
lity of the first drawer would not be extended by this ad-
ditional circulation. To charge him, the cheque must
have been presented within the period within which the
payee or first holder must have presented it. The next
thing respecting cheques is the duty of the banker on the
presentation of the cheque. As we have already had

occasion to observe, he is under obligation to honour
Lis customer's cheque, provided he has funds on hand
belonging to Limn. And in that respect the law relat
ir?g to cheques differs from the general law regarding
bills and notes, by which the drawee is never liable on
the bill till Le has accepted it. A cheque differs fi um bills
of exchange also in that no days of grace are allowed on
it. Where a cheque is handed in to the banker, ho would
n',t render himself responsible by retaining it, provided
he retuFns it any time before five o'clock of' the day on
which it is drawn, and it would make no difference
even if the cheque had been cancelled by mistake, if it
be so returned on the same day. Cheques on bankers
are not accepted ; payment is made on presentation in
lieu of it.
We have already observed that there is a cus •
torn among bankersin London in their dealings with
pay any cheque which is
presented
each other, not to
to give AA answer to the per-
by or on behalf of another banker. after four O'clock in
the afternoon, but merely
sun so presenting it whether it. IS a good cheque or not •
d a mark i'
and in case the cheque is "PI?" or the person made
hon
it, either by the person presenting
marked cons dared
gives the answer. A cheque so
as entitled to a priority of payment. on the next day,
the effect of that marking being
have
simtlartothe accept-
ing of a bill, for the banker admits thereby to h
assets, and to make himself liable to pay. The utmost
care needs to be exercised by a banker in paying cheques,
because if not genuine he could not recover his money
back from his customer, except he be guilty of gross nc-
gligence. Thus Hall lent Wagstaffe a cheque on his
banker Fuller for 31. Waastatie altered the 31. into
3001., and Fuller paid it. 'Fuller insisted on chargisei:
Hall with the 3001., on the plea that the forgery was
such that common observation could not have detected it.
This was true, but yet Fuller bad authority to charge
against Hall such sums only as Hall had ordered him to
pay, and here Hall_had only ordered him to pay 3/, Ful-
ler thus lost the 2011. In another case, however, a cer-
tain Young left a blank cheque on Grote, his bankers,
with his wife, duly signed by him, that she might fig in
sum and date according to what she might want. she

wanted 501. 2s. 3d., and by her order Worcester, one of
Young's clerks, filled it up accordingly, and showed it to
her, and she directed him to get it cashed by Grote. In
filling up the cheque, Worcester wrote the word "fifty"
with a small initial, and left sufficient space on the left
side for introducing any additional word, and he wrote
the figures so as to leave space on the left side for any
additional figure, and before presenting it Worcester put
" three hundred and" before the word fifty, and " 3"
before the 5, so as to make it a cheque for 350/. 24. 3d.
Grote paid as such. Young would not allow that pay-
ment, and sued for his balance. Here it was found that
gross negligence was committed in suffering Worcester
to have possession of the draft, and Young therefore lost
the amount. And now we have arrived at the payment of
cheques, and to the practice of writing the banker's name
across it, and to consider its effects. The practice of
crossing cheques appears to have originated at the clear-
inghouse, the clerks of the different bankers who did busi-
ness there having been accustomed to write across the
cheques the names of their employers, so as to enable
the clearing-house clerks to make up their accounts.
Originally, therefore, the crossing had nothing to do
with the restriction of negotiability, for at the time
when this was done the cheques were in the course
of payment or presentation for payment, and all their
negotiability was at an end. Afterwards it became a
common practice to cross cheques which were not in-
tended to go through the clearing-house at all with the
name of a banker, or with the words "and Co." A
custom was thus introduced that where a cheque is
crossed bankers generally refuse to pay it to any one ex-
cept a banker, and if they do pay it to a person not a
banker, they do pay it at their peril in the event of the
party to whom the payment is made not being entitled
to receive it. The object of this is to secure the payment
not to any particular banker, but to a banker, in order
that it may be easily traced for whose use the money was
received. It was not intended thereby to at all restrict
the circulation or negotiability of the cheque, but merely
to compel the holder to present it through a quarter
of known respectability and credit. The crossing is
therefore a mere memorandum on the face of the cheque,
and farms no part of the instrument itself, and in no way
alters its effects. But it is altered where the name of a
banker or the specific use for which it is intended to be
appropriated is introduced, instead of the generic words
"and Co. ?" This was the case which created so much
interest in 1852. The case was as follows :—A certain
Bellaray was trustee of a gentleman named Frank, who
died a lunatic, and he had opened an account with
Messrs. Coutts and Co. for the purposes of the trust.
At the time a suit was pending in Chancery with
reference to the trust, in which a Mr. Triston acted
as the solicitor for Bellamy. The other parties to the
suit were the next of kin of Mr. Frank, and a Mr.
Geary acted as solicitor for them. In June, 1845,
Mr. Geary brought to Mr. Triston a cheque upon
Messrs. Coutte, written out by him for 2,5961. 175.,
to be signed by Bellamy. It was when delivered
to Mr. Triston in the common form. Mr. Triston
sent the cheque to Mr. Bellamy at Brighton, who re-
turned
it signed, with the following addition of his own
handwriting, namely, at the end of the body of the cheque
the words, " General unpaid costs account ;" and crossed
as follows :—" Bank of England, for account of Accoun-
tant-General." Mr. Triston then sent it to the other
trustee, Mr. Foster, to be signed by him, and having
received it back, delivered it to Geary. Upon the day
on which Geary received the cheque he struck out the
crossing made by Mr. Bellamy, by running a pen through
it, leaving it, however, perfectly legible, and crossed the
cheque a second time with the name of Messrs. Gosling
and Co. his own bankers, and paid it into their bank to
the credit of their own account. Upon the following day
the clerk of Messrs. Gosling presented it for payment at
Messrs. Coutts' and Co., who paid it, and charged it to
the debit of Mr. Bellamy's account. The money was placed
by Messrs. Gosling to the credit of Geary in his account
with them. He never paid the money to the Accountant-
General, and Bellamy was obliged to make it good.
Bellamy brought an action against Coutts for the amount,
and the question was whether the payment made
by Coutts to Geary's banker was valid. Did, or did not,
the first crossing to the Bank of England " for account
of the Accountant-General" impo=o a duty on Coutts not
to pay the cheque except to the Bank of England ?
Could such a restriction be imposed at all ? The crossing
of a cheque cannot operate as an indorsement to the
banker whose Hama is used, because it is not written
with any intent to transfer the property in the cheque
to him and it wants the essential part of the indorsement,
the delivery of the instrument to the indorses. The cross-
ing in the name of a banker is not, then, equivalent to a
direction by the holder or drawer to the drawee not to
pay to the bearer, but to a particular person only, for
then the cheque would be altered in a manner which
would take it out of the exception of the Stamp Act,
which applies to cheques payable to bearer only. There-
fore the crossing of a cheque with the name of a
blanker cannot have the effect of restricting its nego-
tiability to such banker alone. If it was so, the in-
stalment would be no longer a cheque. It was thee
decided in that case that the payment by Coutts was
good. Thus matters stood until lately, when a decision
by Lord Campbell, in a case of a cheque of 481.175. 11d.,
revived the whole question. In this case it appears that
a solicitor in St. James's-street intrusted one of their
clerks to pay a number of cheques to their account with
Dixon and Co., the whole of them being crossed with
the name of that firm, though as regards the cheque in
question it is doubtful whether the name of Dixon was
at all in the cheque. The clerk retained one for 431.
17s. 11d., drawn on Masterman, and got it cashed by a
tavern keeper, whose house he frequented. Out of the
proceeds he deposited 151. 4s. Id. to his employer's ac-
count, and then absconded. The solicitor brought an
action against the tavern keeper for the balance, because
the cheque having been crossed with the name of Dixon
and Co., the tavern keeper ought to have refused to cash
it. The defence was that full value had been given, and
that the tavern keeper had reason to believe the clerk to be
a respectable man. Two points were at issue—first, whe-
ther the hotel keeper could cash the cheque through his
own banker whilst it had been crossed Dixon and Co. ;
secondly, was the hotel keeper guilty of negligence in
taking such a cheque ! As to the first, although some
doubt has been expressed as to the existence at all of the
name of Dixon in the cheque, Lord Campbell ruled that
crossing the cheque with the name of a banker did not,
in point of law, affect the negotiability of the cheque.
In this respect Baron Parke's decision in 1812 was fully
confirmed ; and it is still law that a cheque crossed with
the name of a banker, or with the words " and C 0.,"
does not import a restriction of negotiability to any spe-
cific bank or account, but that the cheese shall be paid
through a banker. The real ground of suck crossing is
this : cheques are in their essential character payable to
bearer ; they are in many respects treated as bank notes,
for which lof late years they have been largely substi-
tuted ; but like all other things they are liable to be mis-
laid, or lost, or stolen, and may get into the hands of
persons who are not entitled to receive payment of them.
It is therefore a great protection to the real owner that
there should exist the means of tracing and ascertaining
for whose use the money paid on a cheque is received,
and to whom the money actually goes. The payment
through a banker secures this object. For instance, let
us suppose the !customer of a banker to draw and to
cross a cheque, intending to pay it to a person to whom
lie was indebted, and that afterwards, and before hand-
ing it over Ito his creditor, he either lost it, or it was
stolen from hint ; if this cheque was presented otherwise
than through a banker, then, according to the custom or
usage, it would not be paid, but if presented by a banker
it would. The mere circumstance of the necessity of
placing the cheque in the hands of a banker would of
itself oppose some impediments to a fraudulent holder
in dealing with the cheque, and making it avail-
able, and the fact that it could at once be traced
and ascertained for whose use the proceeds were
received would give considerable aid in enabling
the drawer to recover book the money, in the event of
his being entitled so to do. On the other hand, if the
banker disregarded the custom, and paid the cheque to
a private individual, that circumstance would no strong
evidence against him in the event of his eeking to charge
his customer with the payment, if the person actually
presenting it was not the lawful holder and bearer of the
cheque. But all this precaution has only reference to the
time when the cheque is presented for payment, and has
nothing to do with the circulation or negotiation of the
cheque. This is the other point which has arisen out of
the last case, viz., what is the amount of caution which
was required of the hotel-keeper in receiving s tell cheque
at all. Lord Campbell said that the mere want of caution
would not be sufficient to discntitle a party where he had
bona fide and for a valuable consideration become the
holder of the cheque. This has long been hall by the
court. Gross negligence only would not be a sufficient
answer where the party has given consideration for
the bill. Gross negligence may be the evidence of
mala fides, but is not the same thing. The saying
of Lord Campbell, " We have changed all that," re-
ferred to the old doctrine laid down by Lord Tenterden,
that proper caution should be exercised in discounting a
bill for a man whose name and residence was unknown,
the new rule being that no caution need to be proved
provided the transaction was bona fide. Where, then, is
btileihe neg.tia
ie What
Parlia-
mentt e great r t
mf al
nu
el td
aot ft) they
called
ipeNrvdehs
ieul
snptto
pr
ryetssotee
rmvi
legislaten wg ?
and thetriemfoerebneot subject
hlailwityshall
wceirchiailvaetiwoihi iocf a cheque, and its distinctive
h,
feature as
dpuatyiaebs,lestboalibenatrer,
the same
to stampfree from
the danger attending like documents?esidNeVraetafeaere
ritehle.
possibility of attaining these two
d
taneously. The law as it stands is distinctly under-
a certain method
stood. The crossing only prescribes
to secure caution in tho ultimate pa
cheque by causing it to be paid through
are generally persons of great respectabil.tybmaenikters of, whothe
in-
capable of lending themselves to anyconcealment
suppression of the truth in order to promote Y' and o
fraud. It has been proposed to obtain a law by which,
r e assist
s jst or
whenever a cheque 13 crossed with the name of
banker, or the payment of which is appropriated to
specific purpose, the banker on whom the cheque is so
drawn shall pay it only through the banker, or on ac-
count only of the object so designated. We need not
say that in such case the essential character of cheques,
as payable to bearer, would he altogether altered ; but if
it be thought so desirable, the provision, doubtless, is
very simple,
and might easily be reduced into a !vale-
!lye enactment. And now as to the effect of payment. It
is usual to cause the payee, or holder of the cheque, to
I write his name across the cheque, or to endorse it. The
death of the drawer of the cheque is a countermand of
the banker's authority to pay it ; but if the person to
whom it is given receives it before the banker has notice
of the death of the drawer it cannot be recalled. Cheques
on bankers need not be protected. We had occasion
to notice that cheques cannot be received in payment
of bills or notes. It was indeed the usage in Lon-
don, when the drawee was a respectable person in
trade, to give up the bill and receive his draft, and it
was decided in two cases that theel
tbebuagnbk eere
ewba s
crib no tq
eg
eusi
bt ye
yonosuoreddo.ingliut a different rule prevails4l
aofftenrewg al negligence cdoi s
hb
and both the drawers and indorsers would be discharged

by the holder of the bill taking a cheque from and de-
livering up the bill to the acceptor, in case the cheque
were not paid. The law relating to banking cheques,
bills :of exchange, and other mercantile instruments,
must accommodate itself to mercantile practice ; the le-
gislature or jurisprudence can have but little voice in it.
It is always of extreme injury when rules are imposed
inconsistent with the wants of commerce, and more espe-
cially when established customs are suddenly traversed
by a legal decision. The best mode of preventing such
inconvenience is to cause the customs and even the opi-
nion and views held by merchants to be well understood.
Such opinions and views are generally found to be con-
sistent with what is cautious, expedient, and just.
At the conclusion of the lecture, which was listened to
with marked attention, Mr. Levi vacated the chair, and
Dr. JELF, principal of the college, proceeded to ad-
dress a few observations to the audience. Having com-
plimented Mr. Levi on the very ♦aluable and lucid lec-
ture they had jut heard, the learned doctor proceeded
to say that his being there was a little out of routine, as
it was no part of his duty to distribute the prizes on that
occasion, but he could not, as the chief executive officer
in the institution, deprive him of the pleasure of giving
every countenance in hie power to the important object
which his friend Professor Levi had in view. (Hear.) He
attended first, because he thought the discussion of the
subjects which had been brought under their notice dur-
ing the present course marked a new era, not only in the
history of the college, but of the commercial world. For
many years, he believed, the commerce of this great
country had been carried on by what was familiarly
known as the rule of thumb, few knowing the scientific
principles by which it was at the bottom governed.
Thanks to Mr. Levi, that would now no longer be the
case, the subject would be thoroughly opened up; indeed
Professor Levi had in his opening lecture given them an
outline of what he meant to de, which, if properly car-
ried out, would give them all intellectual occupation for
the rest of their natural lives. (Laughter.) Another rea-
son why he had pleasure in attending was that this
course of lecture■ had led to the establishment of lec-
tures in the college in various other branches of know-
ledge, and he was happy to add that all these lectures
were attracting large audiences. (Hear.) He had a third
reason for attending, and that was to express his cordial
thanks to Mr. Gilbert for his warm interest in the course,
and generally for his exertions in developing the scienti-
fic principles of commerce. (Cheers.) Lastly, he had been
►nduced to attend by his respect and esteem for their
professor, whose fame as a commercial jurist had in-
duced the head■ of the college to re-establish a professor-
ship which bad long remained in abeyance. (Hear.)
It would ill become him, in Mr. Levi's presence,
to enlarge further on his merits. Suffice it to say,
that their professor was a man of continental reputation,
and was admitted to be one of the first jurists in com-
mercial law that the world now possessed. (Hear,
hear.) But he (Dr. Jeff) could not let that opportunity
pass of thanking Professor Levi for the kind attention
and ability he had displayed during the course, and also
of warmly acknowledging the attention, diligence, and
gentlemanly conduct of all the members of his class.
(Cheers.) The prizes, which consisted of books and
certificates, were then distributed to the following gen-
tlemen ; the first eight obtaining books and certificates,
the remainder certificates alone—the first prize in every
branch being awarded to Mr. William Hutchings :—W.
Hutchings, Sweet, Forsaith, Delivalle, Sykes, Butter,
Chubb, Ketchlee, Thompson, T. J. Jones, Cndmore,
King, Duncan, Cameron, Bird, Cleve!, Hume, Osborne,
Jones, and Rose.
In presenting the prizes, Mr. Lim took occasion to
thank the heads of King's College, for the service ren-
dered to commerce by the establishment of this branch
of education, and to point out that the object was not
to bewilder the students with the technicalities of com-
mercial law, but to ground them in its general principles,
which being fended on common sense and justice, every
man of common sense could understand. With respect
to the cases in which certificates only were given, he
trusted that these certificates would have considerable
value, and serve as letters of introduction to employ-
ment in the great establishments of the metropolis.
Dr. JELF observed that in other branches of educa-
tion they had been found highly advantageous as recom-
mendations to employment.
The prizes and certificates having been all distributed,
Mr. GILBART rose amid loud cheers to propose a vote
of thanks to their Rev. Principal, Dr. Jelf, for his kind
attendance on that occasion. It was not every event
of his life to which a man could look back with un-
mingled satisfaction, but be (Mr. Gilbert) could say that
his satisfaction with everything connected with the course
of lectures just terminated was unmingled and ent re.
(Cheers.) It was a pleasure to him to see so numerous
an attendance, especially from the establishment with
which he was connected,. and he was quite sure that the
lectures which bad been delivered would have a power-
ful effect on all who had had the advantage of hearing
them. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that our collegiate
institutions generally would follow the good example set
by King's College, as literature and commerce were in
their best aspects intimately connected with each other.
It was commerce that gave to literature its practical
utility, and literature to commerce its intellectual en-
joyments. (Cheers.) He could not overrate the advan-
tage they had derived from having bad these lectures
established in King's College. Had they been com-
menced in a private building they woald have attracted
little attention, but when fostered by one of the most
eminent of our educational institutions there was little
fear of their ultimate popularity. He repeated that it
was a high honour to be permitted to open this class in
King's College, and that honour was much enhanced by
the presence of their reverend principal on that occa-
sion. He ha-1 great pleasure then in proposing a vot
of thanks to Dr. Jelf, for his attendance and presidency
that evening.
The vote was carried by acclamation.
Dr. JELF briefly acknowledged the vote, and in part-
ing suggested to the students that although their present
studies were most valuable, they might with great ad-
vantage extend their attention to other branches. There
were many classes in the college in Et glieh literature
and composition—and what accomplishment, he would
ask, was more valuable than that of writing a clear,
lucid, Anglo-Saxon letter ? (Hear, hear.) He could
assure them that one of the most difficult things in the
world was to write a good letter. There were also lec-
tures on the languages and on mathematics, and his
hearers would find that if they gave part of their atten-
tion to those branches the effect would be to strengthen
and brighten their intellect for their favourite study.
Lastly, he trusted it would not be considered out of place
if he reminded them that out Wednesday evenings there
were classes on the best of all studies, that of religion ;
and although as occasional students their attendance in
these classes was not compulsory, those who think pro-
per to attend would never have cause to regret having
done so. He was not going to preach to them there, for
lie was not in the pulpit, but this he would say as a
friend, that he would not give three straws for any edu-
cation in which religion was not the basis and principal
element. In conclusion, the learned doctor took a kind
and courteous farewell of all present.

RESTORATION OF GAMSTON CHURCII.

(Front the Rctford Advertiser.)
HISTORIC NOTICES OF THE CHURCH.

The following extracts from the report of Mr. G. G.
Scott, A.R.A., who has just restored the parish church
of St. Peter, Gamston, will convey tho best idea that
can be given of the original structure, and the changes
which have been made in it previous to the present al-
terations.

"This church consists of a nave with south aisle,
chancel, and western tower. There has been a north
portch which has been destroyed.
"The pillars, and four arches, by which the aisle is
separated from the nave, and also the chancel arch, are
of the end of the 13th century, and of good design.
The capitals of the pillars are of a peculiar and curious
design.

"-The north wall, to half its height, is probably of the
same date ; the clerestory having been added at a later
period.
" The aisle walls are.also probably partly of the same
date, though the windows have been inserted later.
The north and south doorways are both walled up, but
would probably ba•found to agree in date with the earliest
portions of the church.
.....

"The clerestory and roofs are of the 15th or 16th cen-
tury, as are the windows generally.
" The chancel is a structure of the 16th century, and
of a size and height not proportioned to the scale of the
church.

"The tower is a remarkably fair structure, quite early
in the perpendicular style —it is, in fact, much the
finest tower in the neighbourhood." These are Mr.
Scott's remarks. _

The oldest part of the church now standing is at-
tributed by Mr. Scott the sod of the 13th century, but
a church was existing her(' before the end of the 12th
century, as may be seen in Thoroton (art. Mission),
where the church of Gainston is confirmed to the
Canons of Mattersey, against the abbot and canons of
Welbeck, in the year 1192.
The founders of the Monastery of Gilbortines, at Mat-
tersey, were the Lords of Gameton, though they took
their name from Mattersey, and were called de Mareeey,
or de Marisco. They were the founders of the churches
of Bolton, Marishey (Bawtry ?), and Misson, which, as
well as atnston, they gave to the Priory of Mattersey ;
and " all the right which they claimed in the said isle
and churches was confirmed to the Priors and Canons
of Mattersey, in 1192." The Priory was founded pro-
bably about 1180.
From the de Mareseys were descended the Monbou-
chore, Lords of Gainston, whose arms were on the monu-
mental effigy of a knight lying in the chancel. This
knight was probably Sir Nicholas Monboucher, on
whom, and his wife Margaret, were settled vast estates
in this county, on his marriage in 1366. Ile died in
1385. A son of his, Ralph Monboucher, has been eom-
memorated on a piece of painted glass, in the window of
the chancel, on which might be traced " Orate pro bono
state Radulphi." According to a memorandum in the
Register, in 1669, by John Davies, Rector, Ralph died
without issue, and the family became extinct.
As Mr. Scott says, the tower is quite early in the per-
pendicular style, which style commenced towards the
end of the reign of . Edward 111. (who died in 1376).
s twhich
determine
when
w The
it
was built from a peculiar trait in it.
We must suppose this part of the church was built by
Sir Nicholas soon after his marriage, or in the course of
towert
henext
itself2o wyeilairs,at probablytil helpeend
u of
Though it is a handsome structure, and has evidently
been built by skilful workmen, it seems, in one respect,
to have been
mismanaged. The tower does
withnave and chaucel, but is not stand square
in-
clined to an angle of about eight degrees to the north of
strangelythe
west, while the other parts are nearly due east and west.
This deviation cannot have been caused by accident, or
carelessness, since it has given
,the workmen much ad-
ditiOnal trouble to connect the tower with the P&VO at