In New Hampshire, in 1805, of the 106 members of the Bar, 77 were college graduates-from Harvard 35, Dartmouth 34, Yale 6, Brown 2.

In Maine, in 1770, of the six trained lawyers, four were Harvard graduates.

In Connecticut, practically all the lawyers of distinction were Yale graduates.

In New Jersey, the prominent lawyers were almost exclusively college men, either from Yale, like David Ogden, or from Princeton, like Richard Stockton.

In Pennsylvania as already noted, a large proportion of the Bar was educated in England or the College of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania.

The records of William and Mary College and of Princeton contained the names of many of Virginia's prominent lawyers.

In South Carolina, almost all of distinction at the Bar after the Revolution graduated from Princeton, Yale, or the College of South Carolina.

New York alone seems the exception in the matter of liberal training for her Bar; for in the early 18th Century, men of education were rare in that Province. There were no college graduates on the Bench, except James Delancey, and none at the Bar, except William Smith. It seems that commerce engrossed the attention of the principal families, and their sons were sent from the writing school to the counting house, and thence to the West Indies. (1)

In 1741, when William Livingston graduated from Yale, there were but six other lawyers in the Province who were college graduates, three of whom were his own brothers.

And as the historian William Smith, Jr. (born in 1728) writes of his own time:

To the disgrace of our first planters, who beyond conparison surpassed their eastern neighbors in opulence, Mr. James Delancy, a graduate of the University of Cambridge, and Mr. Smith were for many years the only academics in the Province except such as were in holy orders-and, so late as 1746, the author did not recall above thirteen more.

In the later part of the 18th Century, however, New York recruited her Bar very largely from graduates of King's College (Columbia).

(1) Life of William Livingston, by Theodore Sedgwick Jr. (1833).

THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS.

After 1770, as the course of legal study became liberalized, and the Bar became more compact in its organization, and assured of its power, it gradually established very rigid rules, fixing requirements for office study by students desiring admission as lawyers. These rules paved the way for the establishment of regular law schools. They also tended to constitute lawyers as more and more of an educated guild.

Nothing gives a better view of the educational condition of the law student at the end of the 18th Century than the Bar Book Suffolk County 1770, containing the records of its proceedings up to 1805.(1)

Mention has been made (2), of the rule, first adopted by the Essex Bar in 1768, and later generally by other Massachusetts County Bars that:

It is agreed that we will not take any young gentleman to study with us, without previously having the consent of the Bar of this County; that we will not recommend any persons to be admitted to the Inferior Court, as attorneys, who have not studied with some barrister three years at least, nor as attorneys to the Superior Court, who have not studied as aforesaid, and been admitted at the Inferior Court, two years at least; nor recommend them as barristers till they have been through the preceding degrees, and been attorneys at the Superior Court two years at the least, except those gentlemen who are already admitted in this County as attorneys at the Superior and Inferior Courts, and that these must be subject to this rule so far as is yet to come.

In 1800, the term of years was extended so that "students of college out of the State be not admissible to the Bar until they shall have studied one year longer than those educated at Harvard University;" and "gentlemen admitted to the Bar of other States who have practised thereat less than four years must have a term of study within this county of at least one year."

In 1771, the Suffolk Bar required that "consent of the Bar shall not be given to any young gentleman who has not had an education at college, or a liberal education equivalent in the judgment of the Bar." This at once established a very high

(1) See Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., (1882), and Historical Sketch, by George Dexter.

(2) Chapter III, supra.

educational standard for lawyers. In 1784, the standard was still further raised, by the provision, that any gentleman proposed, who had not had a college education, should undergo an examination by a committee of the Bar, previous to admission as a student. The examination was apparently thorough, for, in August, 1784, it appears that:

The report of the committee on the examination of Messrs. Gardiner and Hill was considered; and it appearing to the gentlemen present that, although those gentlemen were well versed in the Latin and English classics, yet that a course of study in the mathematics, in ethics, logic, and metaphysics was necessary previous to their admission as students of law; therefore Voted unanimously, That such admission be suspended.

also, in 1793:

The committee appointed for the examination of Mr. Joseph Rowe report that he received an academical education in the province of Canada; after which, at about seventeen years of age, he entered the office of the attorney-general for that province as a clerk and student of the law; that he diligently attended to the business of that office and a suitable course of study the term of two years; all which the committee conceive is equal to a collegiate education in this State. That he has resided more than three years in Boston as a clerk in the office of Mr. Tudor. The committee, having considered the qualifications of Mr. Rowe, are of opinion that he may be duly admitted to the Bar.

and in 1798:

The committee of Suffolk Bar, appointed to examine and ascertain the literary acquirements of Mr. Holder Slocum, Jr., now a student with Judge Minot, have attended that service, and report that they find Mr. Slocum has so far attended to the Latin language that a moderate degree of attention and practice will probably enable him to render it sufficiently familiar for the purposes of his intended profession. He has paid no attention to the Greek, and has not been sufficiently instructed in the opinion of your committee, in logic, metaphysics, and mathematics. He has read some approved writers in history, and has attended considerably to the French language.

It is the opinion of the committee that on his remaining in an office three years from the present time, with an attention for part of the time, under the direction of his instructor, to history and metaphysics, and occasionally to the Latin language, it will be proper, at the expiration of that period, if he continues the

assiduity and attention which he has hitherto manifested, to allow of his admission to the Bar.

and, Jan. 18, 1800, a student from the Litchfield Law School was refused:

The committee of Suffolk Bar, appointed on the application of Mr. Samuel Hawkins for admission to the bar in this county report, that in September last the said Hawkins was admitted as an attorney and counsellor at law at the Court of Common Pleas in the county of Litchfield, in Connecticut, and in October last he was admitted an attorney and counsellor at the Court of Common Pleas in the county of Dutchess, in the State of New York, which admissions appear to be duly certified. He also produces certificates of having studied one year with Tappan Reeve, Esq., in Connecticut, and two years with Jno. Esq., of Troy, in the State of New York. He also states that he studied one year with Mr. Ogden, of which he has no certificate with him. He had not a college education, but studied with a private tutor previous to his living with Mr. Ogden. Mr. Hawkins is a native of the State of New York. The committee are of opinion, under the circumstances above stated (that he) is not now admissible to the Bar of this county.

Often, however, the rules were enforced liberally, owing to special circumstances. Thus, on July 21, 1778, it was voted that Mr. Christopher Gore (later Governor of Massachusetts and a noted lawyer) "be considered as having studied the law according to the rules of the Bar since the month of July 1776, and that he be entitled to the privileges of such a student."

So too, on December 3, 1779:

Upon motion made by Mr. Tudor, that Mr. Fisher Ames might be considered as a student with him from April, 1778, although he had during that time pursued his studies at Dedham, after consideration and debate, Voted, That Mr. Ames be considered as a law student from the first day of January, 1779, only (this indulgence allowed from some particular circumstances in his favor), and that at the expiration of three years from that day, he continuing in Mr. Tudor's office for the future, he be recommended to be sworn only on condition that he submit to an examination by the Bar, particularly in the practical business of the profession.

In 1782, John Adams was allowed by vote to take into his office, Jonathan Williams, as a clerk, "Mr. Williams having a fair moral character and a liberal education at Harvard College;" Mr.

Adams also took another clerk having "a fair character," Mr. Edward Hill.

It is interesting to note that the legal reputation of the Suffolk Bar was so high at this time that there were many applications from Southern law students-men who in pre-Revolutionary days would have gone to England to study in the Inns of the Inner or Middle Temple.

Thus, in October 1783, it was voted:

On motion of Mr. Hichborn, that Mr. Richard Brook Roberts be admitted as a student in his office with a deduction of one year from the usual term required by the rules for such students previous to their recommendation for the oath, Voted, That Mr. Roberts be admitted accordingly with the proposed allowance, provided he produces a certificate from a gentleman of the profession in Carolina that he has read law under such gentleman's direction for one year at least.

And, in July 1784:

On motion of Mr. Gardiner, to have his son, John Gardiner, admitted into his office as a student of law; and on motion from Mr. Gore to have the liberty of taking into his office Mr. William Hill (a young gentleman from North Carolina), as a student of law, it appearing to the Bar that neither of these young gentlemen had received a college education, Voted unanimously, That a committee be appointed to examine the said young gentlemen with respect to their literary qualifications, and to report their opinion thereon to the Bar.

And in April 1781, it was "unanimously assented to that Mr. William Hunter Torrens of Charlestown, South Carolina, be considered as a law student in Mr. Lowell's office from Jan. 1, 1781". On August 21, 1787, there is the record that Mr. Isaac Parker (afterwards the first Royall Professor of Law at Harvard College, and Chief Justice of Massachusetts) "be considered as a student in Mr. William Tudor's office from August 1, 1787"; and, July 3, 1790, Mr. Tudor received consent to take into his office as a student, Mr. Josiah Quincy (later President of Harvard College).

In 1780, it was voted by the Suffolk Bar, that "no gentleman take a student into his office for a less consideration than one hundred pounds sterling," and in 1783, that "no gentleman should in the future have more than three students in his office."