Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

LA

AW PARTNERSHIP.-A Gentleman, having a long established and extensive practice in a Market Town of one of the Midland Counties, is desirous of admitting an active and intelligent PARTNER, upon an adequate consideration. Written applications, to be addressed, Y. Z., at Mr. Butterworth's, Law Bookseller, 7, Fleetstreet.

PROFESSIONAL CHAMBERS, GOLDEN-SQUARE.

-TO BE LET, in the most preferable part of the Square, two good Business Sets on the First and Second Floors, at moderate rents. Terms and cards to view, apply at Mr. Hammond's Estate Agency Offices, 8, Chancery-lane.

MARTIN'S CONVEYANCING, by DAVIDSON.

In five vols. royal 8vo., price 71. boards,

THE PRACTICE of CONVEYANCING, with PRECE

DENTS and FORMS of ASSURANCE, and PRACTICAL NOTES, as originated by the late THOMAS MARTIN, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law; and continued and completed by CHARLES DAVIDSON, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, and Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge.

A. Maxwell & Son, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's Inn.

Just published, in 1 thick vol. 8vo., 11. Ss. in boards, the second edition, greatly enlarged, of

A

POPULAR and PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to LAW STUDIES. By SAMUEL WARREN, Esq., F.R.S., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.

"This work contains a fund of counsel, valuable no less to the Practitioner than the Student, enriched with learning from manifold sources of knowledge, fraught with great practical wisdom, and written in language of no ordinary power. We heartily recommend it to the attentive perusal of all Law Students."-Law Magazine.

A. Maxwell & Son, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's Inn.

Just published, price 18., sewed,

THE OREGON QUESTION DETERMINED by the

RULES of INTERNATIONAL LAW. By EDWARD J. WALLACE, M.A., Barrister at Law, Bombay.

A. Maxwell & Son, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's Inn.

Just published, in 2 vols. royal 8vo., price 27. 18s.,

THE LAW of REAL PROPERTY in ITS PRESENT

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

In 500 closely printed 8vo. pages, price 1. boards,

COURTS of REQUEST, COUNTY COURTS, BO

ROUGH COURTS, COURTS BARON, and other INFERIOR COURTS, the LAW OF, with the New Act, and all the Case3 decided thereon. By J. MOSELEY, Esq., Barrister at Law.

"Mr. Moseley's work appears to be the fruit of much labour and research, and is a valuable compilation of the Law on a subject which we believe is now for the first time made the subject of a Practical Treatise." -Jurist.

66 ... got up in all its divisions with a care and laborious research which must make it the book on the branch of Law to which it is devoted."-Law Times. Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's Inn.

This day is published, royal Svo., price 128. boards,

THE SECOND ADDENDA to the ANALYTICAL

DIGEST of all the REPORTED CASES, &c. in the several Courts of Equity in Ireland and the House of Lords. By MATTHEW A. DONNELL and FRANCIS BRADY, Esqs., Barristers at Law, continuing the Digest to Michaelmas Term, 1845.

Dublin: Hodges & Smith, 104, Grafton-street, Booksellers to the Hon. Society of King's Inns.

CHEAP LAW BOOKS.-Bacon's Abridgment, 8 vols.,

41. Ss.; Viner's Abridgment, 30 vols. 57. 58.; Petersdorff's Abridgment, 15 vols. 51. 5s.; Jurist, complete, from 1837 to Christmas, 1843, 81. 88.; Law Magazine, 13 vols. 1. 8s.; Preston on Estates, 2 vols. 10s.; Perkin's Profitable Book, by Greening, 15th edit., 6s.; Maddock's Chancery Practice, 2 vols. 35s. (sells at 31. 138. 6d.); Collyer on Partnership, 1832, 8s.; East's Reports, 16 vols. 47. 10s.; Barnewall & Alderson, 5 vols.; Barnewall & Creswell, 10 vols.; and Barnewall & Adolphus, 5 vols. (20 vols.), from 147. Also a large Collection of other Reports and Text-Books at equally low prices, at R. T. DAVIS'S, Law Bookseller, 57, Carey-street, Lincoln's Inn, who continues to supply all orders with which he may be favoured at the very lowest prices for which books in a similar condition can be obtained.

LONDON, EDINBURGH, and DUBLIN LIFE AS

SURANCE COMPANY,

3, Charlotte-row, Mansion-house, London. NOTICE.-Persons desirous of participating in the profits applicable to the year, from 9th February, 1845, to 9th February, 1846, ought to lodge their Proposals at the head office, or at one of the agencies, on or before the 7th of February next. ALEX. ROBERTSON, Manager.

STATE, practically arranged and digested in all its branches; in- LONDON, EDINBURGH, and DUBLIN LIFE AS

cluding the very latest decisions of the Courts. By GEORGE CRABB, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.

Also, by the same Author, in 3 vols. royal 8vo., price 51. 5s. boards, A DIGEST and INDEX, with a CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE of all the STATUTES from Magna Charta to the end of the 6 & 7 Vict. which are added, with great care and exactness, the Reported Decisions of all the Courts with which each section is connected.

A. Maxwell & Son, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's Inn.

ORDINES CANCELLARIE.

Just published, in 12mo., price 9s. boards,

ORDINES CANCELLARIA, containing the

Το

General

A

Orders of the High Court of Chancery, from the year 1814 to the year 1845. By CHARLES BEAVAN, Esq., Barrister at Law. Supplement, containing the Orders from 1842 to 1845, may be had separately. Price 38. 6d. sewed.

This Collection contains fifty-six sets of General Orders, the greater portion of which have never before been published.-Mr. Beavan is preparing Notes of all the Decisions, intended as an Appendix to the above Orders.

[blocks in formation]

SURANCE COMPANY,

3, Charlotte-row, Mansion-house, London.
The success which has attended the system of Assurance pursued by
this Company is illustrated by the fact, that at the General Court, held
on the 9th day of July last, there was declared a reduction of 25 per cent.
on the current year's premiums of all participating policies opened on or
before the 9th day of February, 1841.

Thus, a person aged forty, who opened a policy for 10007. in
February, 1841, at an annual premium of
Is called upon to pay this year only

.

And if this abatement be applied to pay the first year's pre-
mium of an additional policy, the party will be further as-
sured to the extent of

£32 10 24 7

0 6

215 9 4

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman, or letter (postpaid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, or to V. and R. STEVENS & G. S. NORTON, (Successors to J. & W. T. Clarke, late of Portugal Street), 26 and 39, BELL-YARD, will insure its punctual delivery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening of publication, through the medium of the Post Office, to the Country.

Printed by WALTER M'DOWALL, PRINTER, residing at No. 4, Pemberton Row, Gough Square, in the Parish of St. Bride, in the City of London, at his Printing Office, situate No. 5, Pemberton Row aforesaid; and Published at No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, in the Parish of St. Dunstan in the West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAW BOOKSELLER and PUBLISHER, residing at No. 11, John Street, Bedford Row, in the County of Middlesex. Saturday, January 24, 1846.

[graphic]

No. 473-VOL. X.

JANUARY 31, 1846.

Price 1s., with Supplement, 28.

The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity:

[blocks in formation]

LONDON, JANUARY 31, 1846.

We think we may venture to say, without disrespect to those members of the Profession who do not practise in the common law courts, that difficulties not uncommonly arise in seeking legal remedies upon deeds or other instruments, from the framers of them not having been conversant with the doctrines of those courts. It is one of the evils necessarily attendant upon the division of labour which everywhere prevails, but it becomes these pages, devoted as they are to the Profession generally, to endeavour to counteract this tendency, and we, therefore, in our present Number, present to the notice of our readers, especially of those of the class to which we have alluded, the following decisions of courts of common law respecting the construction of co

venants:

In Eccleston v. Clipshaw, (1 W. Saund. 153), it was held, that, though a covenant be joint and several in the terms of it, yet, if the interest and cause of action be joint, the action must be brought by all the covenantees. And, on the other hand, if the interest and cause of action be several, the action may be brought by one only. This rule has been followed in a variety of cases, which may all be found referred to in the notes to the above case; and the general rule established by them is, that, wherever the interest of the covenantees is joint, although the covenant be in terms joint and several, the action follows the nature of the interest, and must be brought in the names of all the covenantees; but, where the interest of the covenantees is several, they may maintain separate actions, though the language of the covenant be joint. In a note to Shep. Touch. 166, Mr. Preston, observing upon this rule, and upon the language of Sir Vicary Gibbs in James v. Emery, (5 Price, 533), lays down as the correct rule, that, by express words, clearly indiVOL. X. с

Queen's Bench Bail Court

Court of Common Pleas,"

including

Appeals under Registration of Voters Act..

Court of Exchequer.

A. V. KIRWAN, Esq. of Gray's Inn, Barrister at Law.

D. POWER, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law.

JW. M. BEST, Esq. of Gray's Inn,
Barrister at Law.

Ecclesiastical and Admi- f J. P. DEANE, D.C.L. of Doctors'

ralty Courts

Court of Review

......

......

{

Commons.

W. W. COOPER, Esq. of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.

cative of the intention, a covenant may be joint or joint and several to or with the covenantors or covenantees, notwithstanding the interests are several, so they may be several, although the interests are joint. But the implication or construction of law when the words are ambiguous, or are left to the interpretation of law, will be, that the words have an import corresponding to the interest, so as to be joint when the interest is joint, and several when the interest is several; notwithstanding language, which, under different circumstances, would give to the covenant a different effect.

In Sorsbie v. Park, (12 Mee. & W. 146; 13 Law Journ., N. S., Exch., 9), this qualification of Mr. Preston of the rule above noticed was brought before the Court of Exchequer, and adopted by that court. "I think the rule," said one of the judges, "is plain and certain, and requires no authority; it is correctly stated by Mr. Preston, in the passage in Sheppard's Touchstone which Mr. Temple has cited. Where the words of a covenant are in their nature ambiguous, so that they may be construed either way, then the deed in which they are inserted supplies the mode of their construction. If it exhibit a several interest in the parties, you may construe it as a several covenant, and vice versà. But there is no rule to say, that words, which are expressly a joint covenant by several persons, shall be construed as a several covenant, unless there is something to lead to that construction." And another, "I think the correct rule is laid down by Gibbs, C. J., in the case of James v. Emery, with the qualification stated by Mr. Preston, in the note in Sheppard's Touchstone, 166. That rule is, that a covenant will be construed to be joint or several according to the interest of the parties appearing upon the face of the deed, if the words are capable of that construction; not that it will be construed to be several by reason of several interests if it be expressly joint."

EWSPAPER

[ocr errors]

In Mills v. Ladbrooke, (7 M. & G. 218; 7 Scott, 1005; 8 Jur. 247; 13 Law Journ., N. Ş., C. P., 122), Mr. Preston's qualification of the rule was adverted to by the court, but without assent or dissent, as the case was capable of decision, assuming the rule to be unqualified. In more recent cases, however, the correctness has been directly brought in issue, and the result, as we apprehend, has been to establish the unqualified rule.

But a short time before the decision of Sorsbie v. Park, the Court of Queen's Bench had, in its judgment in Foley v. Addenbrooke (4 Q. B. Rep. 197; 3 G. & D. 64; 7 Jur. 234; 13 Law Journ., N. S., Q. B., 163), recognised the result of the cases as being as before stated, without noticing the qualification of Mr. Preston, but to which, indeed, their attention had not been called. The case, therefore, is not entitled to be considered as of much importance.

But Hopkinson v. Lee (14 Law Journ., N. S., Q. B., 101; 9 Jur. 616) is of a different character, coming after the decision of the Court of Exchequer, and expressly passing judgment upon it. In that case the words of the covenant were, "That the defendant and T. M. Lee, in consideration of the premises and of the advance of the sum of 29007., covenanted with the plaintiff, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and also as a separate and distinct covenant with and to the said A. C. Hogg, his executors, administrators, and assigns, in manner following; that is to say," &c. It was contended for the defendant, that the plaintiff ought to have joined A. C. Hogg in the action, she having, as appeared to be the fact, an interest in the common fund. Sorsbie v. Park was cited and relied upon for the plaintiff; and the correctness of the qualification introduced by Mr. Preston, and recognised by the judges in that case, was denied by the Court of Queen's Bench, who directed a nonsuit to be entered. We quote that part of the judgment which is more particularly applicable to the point in question:

Lord Denman, C. J.-" The question in this case was, whether a nonsuit ought to be entered on account of the action being brought by the plaintiff only, when the covenant in contemplation of law was said to be made by the defendant with the plaintiff and one Anne Caroline Hogg jointly. That it is so made is argued upon the authority of a very long series of cases, of which Slingsby's case (5 Rep. 18 b, 19 a) is the leading one, and although by no means the oldest case, yet more entitled to respect, because founded on principle; the reason of which is adopted, sanctioned, and fully explained by Lord Kenyon, in Anderson v. Martindale, (1 East, 497), who comments upon it, and whose subsequent decision received the silent acquiescence of the whole court. This case does not appear to have been overruled or questioned. It was acted upon in the court of error, over which Gibbs, C. J., presided, in 1818, in James v. Emery, (5 Price, 533; S. C., 8 Taunt. 215). The same rule is laid down in Sheppard's Touchstone, p. 166; but the last very learned editor of that work (Mr. Preston) has there originated a doubt whether it is not expressed too generally. He refers to several cases, none of which impugn or qualify the rule; and, what is truly remarkable, he does not even name Anderson v. Martindale. Mr. Preston in

troduces an exception, not grounded on judicial authority, namely, that the covenants must be ambiguous, before that which is primâ facie either joint or several can be properly construed as several or joint, according to the interest of a covenantee. He cites Salkeld, p. 393, which gives no countenance to the exception; and he cites 2 Rolle's Abridgment, p. 419, which relates to a wholly different matter. We have looked into not only the second, but the first, Rolle's Abridgment, p. 419, which is under the title 'Condition,' and also at p. 519, which comprises the head of 'Covenant;' but in neither place does this doctrine at all appear. Mr. Preston thus concludes his observations: 'The general rule proposed by Sir Vicary Gibbs, and to be found in several books, would establish that there was a rule of law too powerful to be controlled by an intention, however express.' But we think that there is no ground for Mr. Preston's apprehension, that words perfectly plain and unambiguous, confining the contract expressly to one person, and excluding all others from its operation, will be strained by the law so as to comprehend those whom it took pains to exclude. The true explanation of the rule is rather this: that the whole covenant, taken together, extends to both covenantees, and not to either of them, although separately named in some of its words, by reason of the joint interest of the subject-matter of the action appearing on the face of the covenant itself. Such being the state of authorities, a special case was reserved from the assizes for the Court of Exchequer, where certain persons with whom a covenant had been made sued the covenantees upon it. The deed, being fully set out, was found to make the defendants covenant with the plaintiffs for themselves and others; and, in Easter Term, 1843, the court held, in strict conformity with all the cases, that a nonsuit ought to be entered, because all the others had not been joined as plaintiffs in bringing the action, although the covenant declared on was made with the plaintiffs alone. But the plaintiff here founds his argument upon some dicta which fell from the late Lord Chief Baron and from Mr. Baron Parke, applicable not to that case, but only to the converse of it, which was represented as at variance with the old law. Unluckily, no reference was made to Anderson v. Martindale; and the court, justly thinking the case too clear for argument, stopped the learned counsel who supported it. Lord Abinger thought the rule plain and certain, and that it required no authority, observing, however, it is correctly stated by Mr. Preston,' and then he cites the rule, with the exception. Baron Parke also thinks the correct rule is laid down by Gibbs, C. J., in James v. Emery; still, however, with the qualification stated by Mr. Preston. These learned judges could not intend to overrule Anderson v. Martindale, which was not brought before them; nor, if they did, could we agree to be bound, by their extra judicially declaring such intention, when their decision itself pursued the decision in that case."

The Court of Queen's Bench, therefore, dissents from the dicta in Sorsbie v. Park, and adheres to the law laid down in the old cases, without the qualification introduced by Mr. Preston.

The above judgment has been brought before the Court of Exchequer in a still later case, Bradburne v.

Botfield, (14 Law J., N. S., Ex., 330); and that court has explained what was meant by the dicta in Sorsbie v. Park, and, in effect, confirmed the doctrine held by the Court of Queen's Bench. "I mention this," says Baron Parke, who delivered the judgment, "because the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of Hopkinson v. Le, have supposed that Lord Abinger and myself had sanctioned some doctrine at variance with the case of Anderson v. Martindale and Slingsby's case, which was far from my intention to do, it being lawfully established, I conceive, by the cases that one and the same covenant cannot be made both joint and several with the covenantors and covenantees. It may be fit to observe that a part of Mr. Preston's explanation, that, by express words, a covenant may be joint and several with the covenantor or covenantees, notwithstanding the interests are several, is inaccurately expressed: it is true only of covenantors, and the case cited from Salkeld (p. 393) relates to them. Probably Mr. Preston intended no more; and I never meant to assent to the doctrine that the same covenant might be made by any words, however strong, joint and several, where the interest was joint."

The most important part, therefore, of the qualification is to be rejected; and, if Mr. Preston meant to speak of the covenantees, and it is clear, from his language, that he did, he was undoubtedly wrong. And, with respect to covenantors, the qualification was needless, as the judgment of Sir Vicary Gibbs, and the cases upon which it was founded, had reference to the parties bringing the action, and not to those against whom it was to be brought.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION,

APPOINTED TO INQUIRE, BY THE

PARLIAMENT OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE.

At a Parliament holden on the 21st November, 1845, a motion having been made by Master Bethell, of which the notice was as follows, viz. :

That, for promoting the legal education of the students of this House, it is expedient that a lecturer be appointed for the purpose of reading on jurisprudence and the civil law; and that two or more exhibitions be founded for the benefit of such students as shall, on examination previous to their call to the Bar, shew the greatest proficiency in the subjects of such lectures; and that such lectures be open to the attendance of students of the other Inns of Court; and that, from and this House be called to the Bar who shall not have atafter the first day of Easter Term, 1846, no student of tended one of such terminal course of lectures; and that the societies of the other Inns be requested to concur with this society in the establishment of similar lectureships in other branches of law; and that it be referred to a committee to approve of proper regulations for carrying the above objects into effect.

It was resolved and ordered by the Bench,"That it is expedient that steps be taken for promoting the legal education of the students of this House; and that it be referred to a committee to ascertain and report to the Bench the best mode of carrying this resolution and the objects mentioned in the above notice of motion into effect."

Under the aforesaid order, the committee have made the following report:

TO THE PARLIAMENT, &c.

Your committee having entered on the inquiry directed to them, as to the means to be adopted "for promoting the legal education of the students," recommend that the steps to be taken by the Middle Temple should

The Benchers of the Middle Temple request that gen-be such as are best adapted for the commencement of a tlemen desirous of becoming candidates for the office of Reader on Jurisprudence and the Civil Law will address the Treasurer of the Middle Temple by letter, to be left at the office of the Under Treasurer, Middle Temple, on or before the 20th February next ensuing. Candidates are requested to state the grounds and references on which their applications are rested.

The Benchers of the Middle Temple will proceed to

make their election on or before the 1st March next. 29th January, 1846.

sound and comprehensive legal education; for they have be followed out and completed by the proceedings of reason to hope that the plan, thus rightly begun, will the other societies; so that the institutions which will be the students collectively a complete course of legal infinally established by the several Inns shall afford to struction. The committee have also adverted to the acknowledged deficiency which has long been felt to exist in the education of English lawyers, in consequence of their entire neglect of the study of jurisprudence and the civil law; although, in all places where law has been or is taught as a science, these subjects have

The Queen has been pleased to direct letters-patent uniformly formed the first and one of the most essential to be passed under the Great Seal of the United King-parts of legal education. From these, and many other reasons to the like effect, the committee are induced to dom, granting the office and place of Advocate-General recommend that the first step for the promotion of legal or Judge Martial of her Majesty's forces to the Honour-education to be taken by this House should be the apable James Stuart Wortley.

The Right Hon. Sir Nicolas Conyngham Tindal, Knt., Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, has appointed the under-mentioned gentlemen to be Perpetual Commissioners for taking the acknowledgments of deeds to be executed by married women in and for the respective counties and districts attached to their names:-John Price, of Buntingford, in the county of Hertford, in and for the county of Hertford; Thomas Llewellyn, of Tunstall, in the county of Stafford, in and for the county of Stafford; John Joseph Wise, of Ashbourne, in the county of Derby, in and for the county of Derby.

pointment of a reader on jurisprudence and the civil law. To illustrate the benefits which, in the view of the committee, would result to the legal education of the students from such an appointment, it may be well to explain the sense in which the committee use the terms "civil law" and "jurisprudence," and their consequent expectation of the province and duties of the lecturer.

By the term "jurisprudence" the committee mean to indicate general jurisprudence, as distinguished from the particular jurisprudence of any individual nation; and which, in further explanation of their meaning, they would divide into positive jurisprudence, or the

philosophy of positive law, and comparative jurisprudence, or the exhibition of the principles of positive law in an embodied form, by a comparison of the jurisprudence of modern nations. In the first, they would have the lecturer also include the important subject of the "Interpretation of Laws;" and, under the latter head of comparative jurisprudence, the "Conflict of Laws" may, with propriety, be comprised.

By the term "civil law" the committee wish to indicate what may be called "Modern Roman Law," that is to say, those portions of the civil law which, being of an universal character, and applicable to the relations of modern society, have formed the basis of the jurisprudence of many continental nations, and entered so largely

into our own.

The committee are of opinion that this study of the theory of the civil law may be most advantageously combined with the study of jurisprudence, and that the two united will furnish the best means of preparatory legal culture, and the formation of an enlarged and comprehensive legal mind.

In lecturing on this subject, the committee recommend that the lecturer should read with the class, first, the greater part of the Institutes, and then portions of the Pandects, accompanying that which is read with an exposition of the subject, tracing the rules and principles in the jurisprudence of modern nations, and more especially in that of our own country.

the term for which the lecturer should be appointed, the committee desire that there should be a succession of able lecturers on such extensive subjects; but they are at the same time aware that the tenure of office should be sufficiently long to afford an adequate compensation for the labour of composing a well digested course; and they, therefore, think that the lecturer should be appointed for three years, to be computed from the end of six months from the date of such appointment, which preliminary period of six months is to be allowed for the composition of the lectures, and, in respect thereof, the extra sum of one hundred guineas should be given if the lecturer shall have discharged the duties of his office during the whole period for which he is to be appointed.

Thus the lecturer will receive 1000 guineas from the society, which, with the annual sums paid by the students, the benefit of publication, and, as the committee trust, the generous feeling of deserving well of the Profession, will form a sufficient inducement to men of the highest attainments to seek the office, and to be zealous in the performance of its duties.

With respect to the qualification of the lecturer, the committee recommend that he should be either a barrister or doctor of civil law. The mode of the appointment of the lecturer is a matter of some delicacy; and the committee suggest that the bench, having received the names and testimonials of the candidates, should adopt some mode of nomination which may prevent all canvassing and personal solicitation.

The committee propose that the lectures shall be opened to the students of all the societies.

The committee believe that this plan, if properly carried out, will be of the greatest advantage to students in the commencement of their studies; and that the transition, which they desire should be constantly made, from the principles of the civil law to corresponding The committee next request the attention of the portions of English law, and the cases and judgments Bench to the second part of the system of education in the latter, which are most illustrative either of the they recommend to be adopted, and which consists in agreement or differences of the two systems, will effec- the institution of an annual examination of students tually tend to ground the students in a right apprehen- proposed for the Bar, previous to their being called. The sion of the principles of many of the most important committee do not propose that such examinations shall portions of English law, as now practically admini-be made compulsory, but they think it highly desirable stered. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that, to students intended for the equity bar, (and which now form a large proportion), this is the only fitting course of preparatory study.

The committee recommend that the lecturer should deliver three terminal courses, each consisting of twenty lectures, the first course between the first day of Hilary Term and the end of March; the second between the first day of Easter Term and the 10th July; and the third between the 26th October and the 24th December in every year. This division will give about two lectures to every week, of which they recommend that one should be on jurisprudence and one on the civil law, making it the text for the exposition of English law.

The committee are aware, that, to render these lectures attractive, superior qualifications will be required in the lecturer, and that his remuneration from the society should be ample; they think, however, that, as an incentive to the lecturer, part of the emolument should be dependant on the number of students; and they propose, therefore, that the annual sum of 300 guineas should be received by the lecturer from the society, and that he should also receive from every student one guinea for each terminal course of lectures.

that an opportunity of distinguishing themselves should be afforded to all young men desirous of becoming advantageously known to the Profession in a legitimate manner; and they, therefore, propose, that, on the occasion of every call to the Bar, the names of those stushall be published by the society, with such honourable dents who have submitted themselves to examination addition as they shall appear to have deserved; and the committee hope and believe that the attention of the Profession will be attracted to these lists, and that many young men will be found desirous of availing themand distinguished. The committee propose that the exselves of this unexceptionable mode of becoming known amination shall be conducted by three benchers, assisted by the lecturer; and that it shall consist of questions in jurisprudence, common law, equity, and conveyancing, to each of which questions a numerical value shall be attached by the examining benchers.

The committee suggest that the lectures should comfound who is prepared to enter in Easter Term next on mence in October, 1846, unless an able lecturer can be the duties of his office; and they also propose that the first examination shall be held in Trinity Term, 1847.

The third recommendation of the committee is neces

sary, for the completeness of the institutions they desire

to see established.

The committee think, that, having regard to the obligation which, by the rules of the House, is now thrown on the students, of attending "readings," (which are As an additional inducement to attendance at the lecmerely nominal), and the fines imposed for non-attend-tures, and to exertion at the examination, the commitance, each student might well be required to attend at least one of the terminal courses previously to being called to the Bar; but at present the committee recommend that no direction be given for enforcing attendance until some general system shall have been adopted in connexion with the other societies. With respect to

tee propose that two exhibitions of prizes of 100 guineas each should be given by the society to the two students, who, having diligently attended at least three terminal courses of lectures, shall have passed the most meritorious examination.

The committee believe that these exhibitions will

« AnteriorContinuar »