of general discipline, which extended even to dress, demeanour, and amusements. We will now explain briefly how the property of the Inns of Court, which in our days has been said to belong to the public, was originally acquired. 6 After the order of Knights Templars was abolished by the Pope and their property seized by the Crown, Edward II. (A.D. 1307) granted the Temple estate to the Earl of Pembroke, who afterwards (A.D. 1315) resigned the grant to the Earl of Lancaster. One considerable body of the professors and students of the law became the Earl of Lancaster's lessees of great part of the old Temple, and thereby gained, for the first time, that footing there which has never since been lost. Subsequently, after a series of changes, the Temple came again, by escheat, into the hands of Edward III., and he committed it to the care of the Lord Mayor, as his escheator. That the lawyers then resided in the Temple, appears by a curious mandate of the King, dated 2nd November, 1330. In the course of the same year he farmed out the estate of the Temple, with certain exceptions, to William de Langford, at a yearly rent of 241., and the Society became De Langford's sub-lessees. But the Temple Church, the cloister, and other sanctified places dedicated to God,' and also the 'residue' of the Temple, were subsequently granted in fee to the Prior and Brethren of the Hospital of St. John, who were afterwards called the Knights of Rhodes, and ultimately the Knights of Malta. But the more western parts of the Temple, called the 'Outward Temple,' were not included in this grant. Thereupon an abatement of 12l. 4s. 2d. was made by the Crown out of William de Langford's rent in respect of the premises taken from him. At that time the total revenue of the estate of the Temple was estimated at 731. 6s. 11d., equal to about 10001. of our present money. There were two Halls in the Temple in the year 1337. The first, which stood on the site of the present Hall of the Inner Temple, had been the Hall of the old Knights Templars, and was the one originally assigned to their successors, the Hospitallers; the other had been the Hall of the Freres Serjens of the order, and remained in the hands of the Crown until A.D. 1340, when it was also granted to the Hospitallers as part of the residue of the Temple.' The lawyers who were congregated in the Temple had no title there, except as lessees of William de Langford or of the Hospitallers. But between the reigns of Richard II. and Henry VI. they had become so numerous, that both Halls were necessary to contain them, and they divided themselves into two separate Societies, called the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple. The Outward Temple, which was farthest farthest away from the City, was granted away by the Crown, and became, after a series of changes, the site of Essex House. In 32 Henry VIII. an Act of Parliament was passed dissolving the Order of the Hospitallers and vesting all the property of the brethren in the Crown, saving the rights and interests of the lessees and others who held under them. In this way, though not originally, the Templars became tenants of the Crown, paying rent for the property held by them. The old Hall of the Freres Serjens soon became too humble for the thriving Society of the Middle Temple, and in reliance that they would never be disturbed in their holding by the Crown, they converted their old Hall into Chambers, and afterwards pulled it down; then, in the 5th of Elizabeth, they, out of their own resources, built their present magnificent Hall, which is still one of the noblest ornaments of the metropolis. In both the Temples the ruinous old buildings which had been left by the Knights Templars and Hospitallers were pulled down, and various new buildings and sets of chambers were erected by the Societies, or by private members, who had leases for lives granted to them as an inducement to build. All this was done by the Templars in reliance on the honour of the Crown that their holdings under it, which had been made valuable by their expenditure upon them, would never be interfered with. But although they were for all practical purposes secure against being disturbed by the Crown, there was danger that the Crown might grant the estate of the Temple to some courtier, just as Henry VIII. had granted the estate of the Convent Garden to the Earl of Bedford. In the reign of James I. some Scotchman'* actually attempted to obtain from His Majesty a grant of the fee simple of the Temple, which would have enabled him to avail himself of the improvements which had been made by the lawyers. On this application coming to the knowledge of the Societies, they forthwith made humble suit' to the King, and by the influence principally of one of their members, Sir Julius Cæsar, who stood very high in His Majesty's confidence, they obtained a grant, dated 13 Aug., 6 James I., of the property in fee-simple to trustees for themselves and their successors for the lodging and entertainment and for the education (pro hospitatione et educatione) of the students and professors of the laws residing in the same Inns for ever,' the grantees yielding and paying to the King, his heirs and successors, 101. yearly for the mansion called the Inner Temple, and the same yearly sum for the Middle Temple. It will be observed that this trust is for the benefit of their own members *The Temple Church.' By C. G. Addison. P. 23. only only, and not for that of the general public. The two Societies then executed a deed of partition, by which the property was divided and apportioned between them, to be held in severalty for ever. In the year 1673 the two Societies purchased from the Crown the fee-farm rent of 107. a year each, which had been reserved in the grant of James I., and thus became absolute owners of the Temple. Another great body of apprentices at law and students was established, shortly after A.D. 1310, in an old mansion in what is now called Chancery Lane, where they have ever since continued. This mansion had formerly been inhabited by a religious community, had escheated to the Crown, and been granted by Edward I. to Henry Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, from whom it acquired the name of Lincoln's Inn. Soon after his death a voluntary association of lawyers, which had constituted themselves into an Inn of Court, became lessees of the mansion, and have since been called the Society of Lincoln's Inn. Some of the existing records of this Society reach back to the commencement of the reign of Henry VI. The Bishops of Chichester appear to have been then the owners of the fee-simple of this house, and in the reign of Henry VII. Robert Sherborne, Bishop of Chichester, made a new lease to William Suliarde, a member of the Society, for ninety-nine years, at the yearly rent of 6l. 13s. 4d. Afterwards another Bishop of Chichester, by deed, dated 1st July, 28 Henry VIII., which was subsequently confirmed by the Dean and Chapter, conveyed the inheritance, with other adjoining property, to William and Eustace Suliarde. Eustace was the survivor, and by deed, dated 12th November, 22 Elizabeth, Edward, son and heir of Eustace, in consideration of 5201., conveyed the premises in fee to Richard Kingsmill and the rest of the then Benchers, whereupon a fine was duly levied. Thus the Society of Lincoln's Inn, from having been merely lessees, acquired the fee-simple of their property by purchase out of their own funds. The remaining Society, called Gray's Inn, was an Inn of Court as early as the reign of Edward III., when they became lessees of the mansion and lands there, which were then the property of Lord Gray, of Wilton, from whom they afterwards, in August, 21 Henry VII., obtained a grant of the fee-simple. The list of Readers of the Inn has been preserved, showing an unbroken succession from the reign of Edward III. It will be perceived, from this short account of the origin of the Inns of Court, that none of the Societies derived their existence from the State, but all were voluntary associations, which, by purchase out of their own funds, or, in the case of the Temples, Vol. 138.-No. 275. partly L partly by grant from the Crown, became possessed of certain plots of land, on which stood originally decayed buildings of no great value. These plots have since been covered by the Societies with new and beautiful structures, erected at an enormous cost, out of liberal contributions from members of the Society, or out of savings made from the annual dues and payments received from their own members, exclusively. The same But although the young gentlemen of England could, under the influence of patriotic feeling, form themselves into voluntary societies for the study of the law in the manner described, they could only be admitted to practise the profession of the law as advocates in the King's Courts by the permission of the Judges presiding there. It was, in fact, with the sanction and by the encouragement of the Judges that the Inns of Court were originally formed. The Judges, as representing the Sovereign in the King's Courts, have an inherent right to decide who shall be heard to plead before them for other persons. In India and all the British Colonies the Judges still call to the Bar. was also the case in Ireland. But if there were, as early as the reign of Henry VI., two thousand students in the Inns of Court, it is obvious that the Judges personally would be unable to spare the time and labour necessary to examine into the qualifications of each individual before he was permitted to practise, nor could they bestow on them the education and discipline necessary to make them worthy members of a great profession. But in the Inns of Court the Judges found an organization ready to hand, which they had themselves, before their advancement to the Bench, contributed to form, and with the leading members of which they were necessarily in the most intimate relation. The Judges, therefore, at a very early period, delegated to the governing authorities of each of the four Inns of Court that power of calling to the Bar which they could not efficiently and satisfactorily exercise themselves, and also the correlative power of suspending from practice and disbarring, in case of misconduct; but they reserved the right of an appeal to themselves in every case in which the exercise of their delegated powers by the Benchers should be questioned by any member of the Society who considered himself aggrieved, and they assumed, with the consent of the several Societies, which voluntarily submitted to their jurisdiction, the position of visitors or quasi visitors of each Inn. It is impossible to name the exact period when this delegation took place. No historical account has come down to us of the circumstances which attended it, but the fact is incontestable. Lord Chief Justice Mansfield was correct when he stated that all the power they' (i.e. the Inns of Court) have concerning the admission to the Bar is delegated to them from the Judges, and in every instance their conduct is subject to their control as visitors.' The Benchers have now exercised their delegated authority for centuries, and it has produced results so satisfactory to public opinion that the English barrister is universally recognised as holding a high social rank, and Parliament has, in its wisdom, thought fit, without the solicitation of the Inns of Court, to make barristers exclusively eligible to many offices and public employments. remarkable fact that the selection by the State of the barrister as the only person whom it would permit to be appointed to certain offices, began long after the professional education of the students by the Inns of Court-which, in the earlier ages, was of a most thorough description-had become wholly neglected, and at a time when every Inn of Court called its members to the Bar without any preliminary instructions to prepare, or any examination to test them. In ancient times the course of instruction to which students were subjected was of the most elaborate kind, and lasted several years. Even at later periods the most distinguished Benchers gave readings in the Halls of their Societies on various branches of the law, particularly on the more important statutes. Sir Thomas Littleton, Sir Edward Coke, and Thomas Williams (Speaker of the House of Commons) gave readings at the Inner Temple, Sir Robert Brooke, Sir James Dyer, and Francis North, afterwards Lord Guildford, at the sister Society, and Sir Francis Bacon at Gray's Inn. At the conclusion of each reading the senior barristers, one after the other, declared their opinions on the subject-matter of the reading, and points were mooted and discussed with profound learning to attentive audiences. But, unfortunately, it became usual for the Readers to give feasts on these occasions, of so expensive a character, that the cost frequently exceeded a thousand pounds, and this gradually led to the discontinuance of the readings themselves. The Judges kept a careful supervision over the whole course of legal instruction, and gave directions from time to time as to what should be done. If the Inns of Court had been corporations, like the ancient municipalities and the Universities and Colleges, and the Judges had been their legal visitors, the orders of the Judges might have been enforced by due course of law, and a Mandamus would have been issuable against any refractory Society. A Mandamus will lie even against a University which has no visitor, as * Rex v. Gray's Inn. 1 Douglas R., 353. well |