No. 504-VOL. X.

House of Lords

Privy Council.

{T

TENISON EDWARDS, Esq. of the
Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.

The Lord Chancellor's [A. GORDON; Fig. of the Inner

Court

.....

Temple, Barrister at Law.

G. Y. ROBSON, Esq. of the Inner
Temple, Barrister at Law.

TENISON EDWARDS, Esq. of the
Inner Temple, and
CHARLES MARETT, Esq. of the
Inner Temple, Barristers at Law.
W. W. COOPER, Esq. of the Inner
Temple, Barrister at Law.

LONDON, SEPTEMBER 5, 1846.

THE proceedings of the Inns of Court relative to legal education, have lately been noticed by the public press with somewhat of disapprobation. The four societies have adopted resolutions for the establishment of four law lectureships, in addition to that on Civil Law and General Jurisprudence, already established by the Middle Temple. The subjects of these lectures are to be-Constitutional Law, Criminal, and other Crown Law, the Law of Real Property and Conveyancing, Devises and Bequests: those branches of the common law which are not included in the two last two heads: Equitable Jurisprudence as administered in the Court of Chancery. But to these resolutions they have added two others, which, it is said, render the former practically useless. They have resolved that no examination shall be required of any student as a condition precedent of his call to the bar; but that every student shall be required to produce a certificate of his having attended two of the courses of lectures-the selection to be determined by himself.

The Inns of Court have thus shewn the greatest possible reluctance to interfere with the present system of conferring the degree of a barrister, without regard to the attainments or competency of the candidate. We will not stop now to inquire whether this practice has the authority of antiquity in its favour. It would be easy, from the history of the Inns of Court, to prove the contrary, and to shew, that, at one time, the candidate for forensic rank was required to undergo probationary exercises of no trifling character. We abstain from doing so, because, if it be right, or the public interest require, that none should be admitted to the ranks of the Bar, without its being first proved that they are qualified for its duties, it matters not, in our minds, what the practice of earlier times may have been. We VOL. X.

HH

Court

.....

.....

Court of Queen's Bench

Queen's Bench Bail Court Court of Common Pleas, including

Inn, Barrister Law.
[G. J. P.SMITH, Esq. of the Inner
1 Temple, Barrister at Law.

A. Y. KIRWAN, Esq. of Gray's
Inn, Barrister at Law.
D. POWER, Esq. of Lincoln's
Inn; and

Appeals under Registra- (W. PATERSON, Esq. of Gray's tion of Voters Act.... Inn, Barristers at Law.

Court of Exchequer.... {W.M. BEST, Esq. of Gray's Inn,

Barrister at Law.

regard precedents as valuable only when they support and sanction what is intrinsically right; when they do not, they are useless.

Looking at the subject, then, irrespective of authority, we confess that we have observed with regret the reluctance of the Inns of Court to enforce upon the candidates for admission to the Bar, the acquisition of some legal knowledge. It is difficult, indeed, to perceive upon what grounds the present practice can be supported. It is, we believe, said, that the nature of a barrister's employment, the public manner in which it is exercised, and the intervention between the advocate and client of a competent judge, in the person of the attorney, render a preliminary test unnecessary, and that, without it, those only who are competent, will be employed as advocates. But why should the public, or rather the litigating portion of them, be obliged to ascertain from amongst a crowd of persons, all bearing the same insignia of learning, those who indeed possess it, and those who have but its semblance-what coins are of true metal, and what of false. Rather is it the duty of the State, or, in the present case, of those to whom the State has delegated its authority in this behalf, to present to its subjects for their choice, in matters of such grave import as are entrusted to an advocate, those only who must in some degree be presumed to be competent for the task. But, admitting that, ultimately, the capacity of each individual barrister is fairly and accurately ascertained,-and when we do that, we are granting what is far from being the fact,-why should not this be facilitated by selecting the subjects for public experiment? It is said that the attorney will ascertain the fitness of the counsel; but how is he to do so in the first instance? Either he must personally know the untried man, a state of things, which, if it were possible, would be far from desirable, or he must run the risk of a mistake, and peril his client's interest

WSPAPE

åre meant; for, having regard to the first part, which empowers the Chancellor to require the judges to perform in a suit, or on any matter arising under the authority of the Chancellor, all such duties necessary or proper to be done, as the Chancellor shall direct, the first difficulty is, that there are no such officers in the districts in which the greater part of the new functionaries will act. Hitherto, certain inquiries have been directed to the Masters in Ordinary, fixed in London; certain others to the commissioners in lunacy, who are ambulatory; and certain duties are entrusted to commissioners for taking answers; to commissioners for examining witnesses, &c., who are ambulatory; and to Masters Extraordinary in Chancery, who are always residing in the country. But to none of these officers are inquiries directed, the answers to which are required for the purpose of informing the court. The Chancellor cannot, therefore, refer such matters as he may think necessary to be reported upon to the country judges, viz. the majority of the judges appointed under this act, because such judges are only to have the authority of the officers by whom such duties are now usually performed; and no such general duties, but only duties of a very limited kind, are now performed by any officers, except the Masters in Chancery in Ordinary. The clause is contradictory in another point of view. The first part, as we have said, is sufficiently general to include references to the judges, of inquiries in lunacy; but the second part obviously restricts the generality of the first part, by limiting the authority of the judges to the authority of the commissioners or other officers of the said court, viz. the Court of Chancery; terms which do not comprise the commissioners in lunacy, who are, in a sense, officers of the Chancellor, in his character of protector of lunatics under a particular act of Parliament, but are not commissioners or officers of the Court of Chancery. The truth is, that the 22nd clause of this act is very ill constructed. If one were disposed to be hypercritical, he might say, that its meaning is quite unattainable, inasmuch as what it says is in substance this:-That the judges appointed under the act are to perform all such duties (without defining them) as the Lord Chancellor may think requisite, and as shall have been performed hitherto by the officers of the Court of Chancery, who have performed such duties. Now, as the duties are unknown, the officers are unknown also, and there is no key to the value of the unknown quantity; so that the clause is a sort of legal problem, in which, the equation being x=2+y, it is required to know the value of x.

No doubt the intention of the clause was, that the Lord Chancellor should be empowered to refer to the judges of the county courts, inquiries such as are now usually directed to Masters in Ordinary; a proceeding which would in country causes be highly convenient. It remains to be seen whether the Lord Chancellor will be of opinion that the act, as it is worded, gives him any such power.

The 90th section provides, "that no plaint entered in any court holden under this act shall be removed or removable from the said court into any of her Majesty's superior courts of record by any writ or process, unless the debt or damage claimed shall exceed 51., and then only by leave of a judge of one of the said superior courts, in cases which shall appear to the judge fit to be tried in one of the superior courts, and upon such terms as to payment of costs, giving security for debt or costs, or such other terms as he shall think fit."

This, it may be observed, will not oust the jurisdiction of Chancery to restrain proceedings, if necessary, in the county court, if it shall appear to the Court of Chancery that such proceedings at law would be inequitable.

Correspondence*.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE JURIST."

Sir, I have seen with much pleasure, that the Benchers of the several Inns of Court contemplate carrying out the plan of improved legal education commenced by the Middle Temple last year; firstly, by establishing four additional readerships, viz. one for constitutional and criminal law, a second for the law of real property and conveyancing, a third for those branches of the common law not included under the two first heads, and a fourth for equitable jurisprudence as administered in the Court of Chancery; and, secondly, by instituting rewards and honours for those students who shall be willing to undergo an examination before being called. I have always been of those who think that, in the study of the law, much benefit may be obtained through the agency of readings, or, as they are modernly called, lecstruction which is thought, and, it is to be presumed, tures. It would be, indeed, strange if that mode of infound beneficial in almost every branch of learning or art except law, should not also be adapted to assist the studies of the young lawyer. Mathematics are taught in our universities and schools by lectures; medicine, chemistry, anatomy, are taught by lectures; painting and sculpture are taught by lectures; even music is taught by lectures. So, civil engineering and all the by lectures. And, if it be right and advantageous to use practical applications of the exact sciences are taught the method of oral instruction for all these things, than of learning, it would be indeed unreasonable, if, to of which are matters of taste and feeling rather the study of a subject so much a matter of learning and reasoning as law, the method of oral instruction should be denied.

many

lectures alone can form a lawyer. Reading, extensive I do not, of course, mean to contend that attending and laborious private reading, must lay the foundation of the learning, without which the utmost talent will not suffice to make a first-rate, or even a respectable and safe, lawyer. But though it is true that, as Bacon hath it," reading maketh a full man," it does not necessarily make him full of that which is valuable; and if a man endowed even with considerable penetration reads unguided in so vast and labyrinthic a maze of learning as that of the law, he may chance to be a man very full of matter irrelevant and useless, and very empty quoad all that would be really useful to him for Therefore it is that I deem highly of learned readthe purpose for which he reads, viz. to be " of counsel." ings for the instruction of students, not because, from the readings alone, they will derive that amount or that quality of learning which will qualify them to be of counsel, but because, from the prælections of a judicious reader, they may imbibe vivid ideas of the true character of the science they are about to study, and learn what is the course of private study which will best initiate them in the learning of that branch of the law, which their character and other circumstances make it desirable that they should pursue.

I rejoice also to find that the readings are not to be confined to the general theory of jurisprudence, but are to embrace the laws of this country as they are practically administered in our courts of justice.

There is one feature in the plan proposed on which animadversions have been made, viz. that which leaves

it

to the option of students for the Bar, to pass an exa

* The view taken by our correspondent being diametrically opposed to that of the author of the leading article, we insert the two papers together, that our readers may have both arguments before them.

mination or not. It is said, Of what use is an examination, if young men are to be permitted to enter the ranks of the Bar without demonstrating, by passing the examination, that they are qualified for its duties? And it is objected, that, under such a regulation, there will be no greater check than there now is to young men eating their way to the Bar, and afterwards hanging on its skirts in a state of idleness and brieflessness, till they acquire standing enough to obtain the good things that Parliament ever and anon throws in the way of barristers who can count a given number of years of standing.

These objections are specious enough; but I apprehend they are merely specious. It is, undoubtedly, highly desirable that the working Bar should be mainly composed of men above the ordinary standard of intellect and industry; but, in order to insure that object, it is not desirable that no men should be admitted to the Bar who have not, before their admission, manifested their superior qualities; because it is often found that men who are thought inferior in their youth, and, either from idleness or from natural lateness in the development of their powers, make no shew of ability either at college or during their pupilage, manifest, after a few years of actual practice, and when their powers are roused by the incitement of substantial responsibility, all the qualities essential to a great lawyer, in a degree that few could ever have anticipated. Such men are not altogether rare; yet they would be wholly lost to the Bar if a system of compulsory examination were introduced.

Again, if it were established that no man should be called to the Bar who had not passed an examination, it would be necessary to fix the standard of examination either too high or too low. If we fix it at such a height as to test the stronger spirits, those destined for the higher departments of business,-then we should shut out of the Profession all those men, who, though but of moderate abilities, are yet quite sufficient for the execution of a large portion of what may be termed "the heavy routine business" of the Bar. And that there is a large quantity of business which must be done, and which does not require for its transaction much beyond common sense and industry, is not to be denied. If, on the contrary, the standard of examination were fixed at such a height only as to suit the average standard of talent that can be expected in any large body of men, however cultivated, then it would be no test at all of superiority, and the men capable of distinguishing themselves, and thereby acquiring reputation, would have no such opportunity. The true object of an examination is, that it may be an ordeal so severe as to be successfully achieved only by those who are sufficiently superior to their fellow-men in ability and energy, to make efforts of which few only are capable. By an examination regulated on this principle, the existence of superior men will be made known to the Profession, even although they may have nothing of what is termed "connexion." Beyond the attainment of such an object, it would be pernicious, rather than the reverse, to press the doctrine of examination. Now, voluntary examination will answer all the purpose of establishing a public distinction between those who have made proof of their ability and those who have shrunk from it, provided the examinations be made really a severe test. It will not exclude from the Profession the men of labour, but of moderate ability, who, as a working mass, are most useful, though, individually, not remarkable; nor will it exclude those who, possessed of talent and strength, either cannot or will not develope it early in life. In fine, it will simply supply the existing deficiency of a legitimate means of making those known to the Profession who do possess, and can early exert, brilliant abilities, without attempting to stigmatise others; and it will bring for

ward the bold and ambitious, without deterring the retiring and over-modest, who may yet, beneath their crust of shyness, conceal abilities of a high order. I confess that I do think it of the highest importance, that no such principle as that of a compulsory and fixed, and necessarily most meagre, if compulsory, standard of capacity should be adopted, in reference to admission to the Bar; and I trust that no lay clamour will induce the Benchers of the several Inns, to swerve from their resolution of making the intended examination purely voluntary; hoping, at the same time, that the examination will be so substantial and severe, that none but really superior men can pass it at all. If I could hope that any suggestions coming from so humble a pen as mine could be listened to in such high quarters as Parliament chambers, I would venture to suggest that one final examination immediately preceding the call, will not be a fair and true test of the qualifications of the candidate for honours, and that it should not be an examination merely of memory. An examination should be undergone at least once in every course of reading; and it should not consist only of an examination without the aid of books, which merely tests the memory, but also of an examination (such as by giving a difficult case to be advised upon) with the aid of books, which tests the judgment. It would be very desirable, too, that, for students who intend to practise in court, the examination should consist partly in fully arguing some legal question. I am, Sir, &c.

The following are the minutes of resolutions agreed to in conference, and since confirmed, of the deputations Inner Temple, and Gray's Inn, for the improvement of committees of the Societies of Lincoln's Inn, the the existing system of education for the bar.

of

That it is expedient to institute rewards or honours, by way of encouragement to students willing to undergo examinations.

That, for the purpose of preparing students for such examinations, there be established four lectureships in addition to that on civil law and general jurisprudence already established by the Middle Temple.

That subjects of additional lectures should be, 1. Constitutional law, criminal and other crown law. 2. The law of real property and conveyancing, devises and bequests.

3. Those branches of the common law which are not included in the two last heads.

4. Equitable jurisprudence as administered in the Court of Chancery.

That the lectureship for constitutional law, criminal and other crown law, should be maintained at the joint expense of the four societies.

That the lectureship of civil law and general jurisprudence should be maintained, as now, at the sole expense of the Middle Temple.

And that the other three lectureships should be maintained at the expense of the three other societies respectively, one for each, as shall be hereafter arranged among themselves.

That no examination should be required of any student as a condition precedent to his call to the bar.

That every student should be required, as a condition precedent of his call to the bar, to produce a certificate of his having attended two of the courses of lectures. The selection to be determined by himself.

The Queen has been pleased to direct letters-patent to be passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Knight of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto David Pollock, Esq., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Bombay.