this our purpose (no great improbability), let
us, at least, in self-justification, make known
that we have good authority for the attempt,
for (apart from the fact that the law presumes
every one to be cognisant of its precepts), do we
not find Mr. Justice Blackstone saying "that it
is incumbent upon every man to be acquainted
with those laws at least with which he is
immediately concerned, lest he incur the censure as
well as inconvenience of living in society without
knowing the obligation which it lays him
under."

One precautionary word : we have no wish
whatever to see "every man his own lawyer."
Very far from it. Of all the amateur performers
of our acquaintance, the gentleman who plays
upon the statutes is the most dangerous both to
himself and his friends. Of all amateur artists,
the person who indulges in a taste for fancy
wills and testaments is the most perilous to
society. Moreover, as we very well know
that our professional adviser has taken out
a special license for retailing law, has spent
five years of apprenticeship to the business, has
disbursed a large sum of money in obtaining the
privilege, and holds a certificate of his
competency to furnish us with the very best article
for our money, we make a point of referring to
him whenever we are unfortunate enough to find
ourselves in a legal difficulty, and we wish every
reader of this journal to go to his professional
advice in a like case.

John Blank, whom we will adopt, if you please,
as our illustrative man, is not permitted to be long
in the world before the law asserts a claim upon
him. Within forty-two days of his birth we
find that the announcement of that fact, with
particulars of the time, name, sex, names of the
father and mother, &c., must be entered in the
books of the district registrar. Henceforward,
a reference to these books will afford sufficient
legal proof (much more easily acquired, we may
remark, than by searching through a series of parish
registers) to all inquiries that John Blank was
really born, and is not a mythical personage. This
ceremony of registration (a continental institution
long before we adopted it in this country) is, to a
certain extent, compulsory: the Registration Act
requiring parents to give notice to the registrar
of the birth of a child, though affixing no actual
penalty to the neglect. On the other hand,
however, if the registrar has by any means
obtained information that any one has been
inconsiderate enough to increase the
surplus population, he is required to call upon
the parent, or the occupiers of the house
where the event has taken place, for all
particulars, and a refusal of these particulars
will render the parties liable to be indicted for
misdemeanour. As the law places a good many
difficulties in the way of this registration after
six weeks from the child's birth (though it may
be effected until the child is six months old
upon payment of additional fees and the going
through certain additional formalities), we may
assume that it looks upon the ceremony as a
privilege. Six months having expired from the
time of birth, registration is altogether
prohibited.

Let us see what would be the effect upon our
illustrative Mr. John Blank were his parents
inconsiderate enough to neglect this proceeding.
Under these circumstances the only evidence of
his age would be found in his baptismal
certificate, and this is very unsatisfactory evidence
indeed. The parish forms contain no provision
for registering more than the day of baptism;
and, although it is customary to add in a note
the day of birth, this addition has no legal
validity. In the absence of registration, then,
whilst we should be enlightened as to when Mr.
John Blank was baptised, we should be totally
unable to discover when he was born. Rather
an inconvenient circumstance for our illustrative
man, supposing him to be entitled to a little
funded property on attaining his majority, and
to have been baptised some years after he
was born.

The better to make this clear, let us boldly
incur the risk of injuring the surface of our
gilded pill, and plunge our readers incontinently
into the intricacies of "Wiker v. Law."

Once upon a time a certain Mr. Law, for the
purpose of proving his infancy at a particular
period, produced in court the register of his
christening. It appeared from the document
that the ceremony had been performed in the
year 1807, but the entry stated that he was
born in 1779. Whereupon, Mr. Justice Bayley
furnished Mr. Law with a little argument upon
the subject. "I am of opinion," said that
learned judge, "that the entry relating to the
time of his birth (Mr. Law's birth) is not
evidence of the fact; it does not appear upon
whose information the entry has been made;
and the clergyman who made the entry had no
authority to make inquiry concerning the time
of birth, or to make any entry concerning it in
the register."

This was sufficient to upset the plea of
infancy which Mr. Law wished to establish, and
the Court decided against him. He was not
satisfied, however. "At all events," he
contended, in applying for a new trial, "the entry
is evidence to confirm the statement of my
mother, who has been examined as a witness at
the former trial," and who (he might with some
justice have observed) ought to know something
about the matter.

Mr. Law, however, could not move the
court. The court were of opinion, and they
said so, "that the entry was not evidence to
prove the age of the party; it was nothing more
than something told to the clergyman at the
time of the christening, concerning which he
had not power by law to make an entry in the
register.

"If it had appeared," the court continued,
with a laudable desire to let Mr. Law down as
gently as possible, "that the entry had been
made by direction of the mother, it might,
perhaps, if required, have been read in evidence
for the purpose of confirming her testimony;
but even then it would have amounted to