and contrasted England with the United States, in which every lawyer may plead in court and address the jury, and be raised by popular election to the Bench.* A topic like this was well adapted to meet with a response in the minds of the provincial solicitors, for whom Mr. Field's firm acted extensively as London agents. In 1868, Sir James Hannan, who had just been made a Judge, presided at the Annual Meeting of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association; and in the course of an impromptu after-dinner speech he used some complimentary expressions towards the solicitors by expressing a wish that the two branches of the profession should be more intimately connected. His words were seized upon with avidity, and a construction has been given to them that must have surprised the speaker. On the 25th of September in the same year, the Leeds Law Society, and some deputations from Law Societies of Liverpool, Manchester, and other towns, held a meeting at Leeds to consider Mr. Justice Hannan's remarks on the subject of the amalgamation of the two branches of the profession;' and on the motion of Mr. Jevons (of Liverpool), seconded by Mr. T. Marshall (of Leeds), the resolution was passed-That this Meeting is of opinion that the time has come when provision should be made for the foundation of a Law University, which should be open to both branches of the profession without distinction, and that the means of providing an institution already exist in the funds at the disposal of the Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery, which were originally common to both branches of the profession.' How these gentlemen, in the teeth of the historical facts on the subject, make out the last assertion, so far as the Inns of Court are concerned, we are not aware; but they addressed a willing audience, not too fastidious about accuracy. On the 5th of February, 1869, a meeting was held at the Incorporated Law Society of an associated Committee of the Council of that body, and of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, which was attended by a deputation from the Leeds Conference, and a series of Resolutions was passed by the Associated Committee, which are too lengthy to be set forth fully; but it was resolved that the regulation as to admission to the Bar should be placed under Act of Parliament;' also, That it is not right that the Benchers of the Inns of Court should have the uncontrolled power of making rules which may place attorneys in a position more restricted than the rest of the public as to the right of admission to the Bar; also, That the establishments of the Inns of Court and Inns of

* Law Mag., February 1872, p. 39.

Chancery

Chancery should be, under legal control, made subservient to purposes of Legal Education.' They also resolved that the rate of remuneration for barristers should be governed by fixed tariffs.' This sufficiently shows the objects aimed at a Bar regulated like the attorneys, by Act of Parliament, and to be remunerated in the same manner; interference with the Inns of Court and their internal management; the assertion of a right on the part of the attorneys to become barristers, free from regulations imposed by the Benchers; and the appropriation of the property of the Inns of Court for the education of attorneys as well as barristers. These Resolutions were not, however, carried without opposition on the part of some solicitors, who looked with disdain on the whole project. The main body of the eminent London solicitors, and not a few throughout the country, held aloof from this movement, and condemned with unequivocal distinctness all attacks on the Inns of Court and all aggressions against the Bar. They still continue to do so. But on this subject the tail has outvoted the head,' and the preponderance of the general body has manifestly gone in the other direction. One great difficulty was to find a good leader for this new movement. At last the sorrowful sighings of aggrieved opulence and the murmurs of repressed provincial self-consequence found sympathy in a quarter where it might have been least expected. In the year 1870 Sir Roundell Palmer, a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, consented to become President of an Association got up originally by the solicitors who favoured the Resolutions of February 1869, and to which, under the favourable auspices of Sir R. Palmer, a few barristers also united themselves. They assumed the title of the Legal Education Association.' The then Attorney-General (Sir Robert Collier) and the SolicitorGeneral (Sir J. D. Coleridge) became members of the Council of this Association, but without, as we believe, the slightest suspicion that there were any ulterior intentions of the kind which have since been developed. The first Circular or 'List,' sent round to the legal profession on the 7th of May 1870, includes in the Council of this Association the names of seventeen Queen's Counsel only out of the 170 which then constituted their number. There was also a sprinkling of members of the Junior Bar, out of the 5000 persons of whom the Bar then consisted; there were also twenty-one solicitors and one or two gentlemen who are not members of the legal profession at all. In July 1870, a meeting of the profession was convened at Lincoln's Inn Hall, at which the Association was formally constituted. The principal object of this Association, as announced in their

Circular,

Circular, was a system of common education for both branches of the profession.' This is exactly what had been expressly condemned by the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1846,* and it had received no approval from the Royal Commissioners in 1855. No hint was given in this Circular of any intention to attempt an interference by the State with the property of the Inns of Court or with their internal government. On those important subjects there was entire reticence.

We have not space to give the history of this Association. The real object of its leading projectors was at first so little suspected that a few distinguished Judges and members of the Bar joined it, who subsequently, when better informed, thought proper to withdraw. Even the venerable Lord St. Leonards sent a contribution to its funds, of three hundred guineas, which has not yet been returned to him. We have not heard that Sir Roundell Palmer, before inaugurating this association of barristers, solicitors, and laymen, for the supposed improvement of legal education by taking it out of the hands of the Inns of Court, made any effort whatever to persuade his brother Benchers of Lincoln's Inn or the Benchers of the other Inns to reconsider the whole matter of legal education, and cooperate with him in any project for its real improvement. To most minds this would seem the proper step which should have been first taken by anyone who was himself a Bencher. When Lord Cairns proposed a great change, he began to work inside his own Inn of Court, in a spirit of loyalty to the Society to which he belonged: he preferred that course to the more objectionable one of working from the outside, and trying by external pressure to force upon his own and the other Inns of Court fundamental changes. But the profound respect felt by the Inns of Court for Sir R. Palmer's personal character prevented the Benchers from running blindfold against what the Association proposed. On the contrary, they, with sound practical good sense, set to work at once to rectify everything which required alteration, and to establish, on a grander scale and with more liberal endowments than before, a system of legal education for the Bar, and to compel every student, before being called to the Bar, to pass an examination proving his legal proficiency.

In 1870-71 the four Inns of Court appointed a Joint Committee to consider the whole subject of legal education. This Committee, besides carefully considering and discussing the subject among themselves, received Sir Roundell Palmer, with a deputa

* P. lii.

tion of the Legal Education Association, on the 25th of April 1871, and listened attentively to his explanation of the views expressed in the Association's printed Proposals. The only practical advantage of this interview was, that the Committee saw, in the deputation which accompanied Sir Roundell Palmer, a sample of the men proposed to supersede in their functions such of themselves as were members of the Council of Legal Education: it is sufficient to say that they were able to look upon them without alarm. By their printed Proposals, the Legal Education Association proposed to establish a Legal University, to make both barristers and solicitors pass compulsory examinations (which is now done), and to enable the new University to confer degrees in law,' but not to confer the status of attorney or barrister. On the establishment of this 'Legal University,' the functions of the Council of Legal Education were to cease, and the fees of students and the contributions of the Inns of Court were to form the academical fund to defray the expenses of the new body. The effect, in short, would have been to take from the Inns of Court the teaching of their own students, and to commence a system which would speedily reduce the Benchers of each Inn to the condition of mere Building and Dining Committees. Their end would not then be far distant. The Degrees in Law which such an University might grant would never shed around the head of a barrister a halo equal to the light of a farthing candle; but such a Degree would enable the solicitor who obtained it to say to the barrister, 'I am a Master in Law as well as you, and I ought therefore to be equally allowed to conduct cases in Court.'

On the 22nd of June 1871, the Joint Committee made their Report to the four Inns of Court, in which they stated that in their opinion it is not desirable that the education of students for the Bar and the education of the articled clerks of solicitors and attorneys should be under one joint system of management;' but they recommended a compulsory examination of students before they should be called to the Bar, and that this should be done through the instrumentality of the Council of Legal Education. Sir Roundell Palmer, after a compulsory examination had been thus approved, moved, in July 1871, certain resolutions in the House of Commons, in favour of the establishment of a 'General School of Law,' but with no practical result beyond eliciting from Sir George Jessel (now Master of the Rolls) a brilliant refutation of his whole project, in a speech which has never been satisfactorily answered.*

* Hansard, vol. 208, p. 239.

Vol. 138.-No. 275.

M

On

On the 6th of December 1871, the Joint Committee of the four Inns made a Second Report repeating their recommendation of a compulsory examination, and advising that the Council of Legal Education should be strengthened, by its numbers being increased to twenty Benchers, with whom should be, for the future, the appointment of readers and examiners, whose remuneration should be increased by the contributions of the several Societies.

The recommendations of the Joint Committee having been approved by all the Inns of Court, the number of the Council of Legal Education was increased accordingly, and the additional powers recommended were given to them.*

On the 22nd of February 1872, the newly constituted Council of Legal Education held their first meeting, under the auspices of that veteran law reformer Lord Westbury, who took the chair and addressed the meeting at some length. The Council immediately set to work; but before they had had time to perfect anything, Sir Roundell Palmer again, on the 1st of March 1872, moved a resolution in the House of Commons in favour of a General School of Law for the instruction of Students intending to practise in any branch of the Legal Profession.' In that speech he gave the first intimation of meditating any aggression on the property of the Inns of Court, if those Inns should continue to prefer their own opinions to his; and he uttered a threat on the subject, which elicited a prompt and well-deserved remonstrance from the present Attorney-General, Sir Richard Baggallay.t The then Attorney-General (Sir J. D. Coleridge) and the Solicitor-General (Sir George Jessel) spoke and voted against the resolution. Mr. Gregory and Mr. Leeman, both eminent

*The Council, when thus constituted, comprised twenty leading men of both political parties without distinction, including several members of the Legal Education Association. † Hansard, vol. 2091, p. 1260.

The former, desirous of dispelling the ignorance which exists among the general public on such subjects, condescended to explain to the House that the money at the disposal of the Benchers was not expended in providing themselves with unnecessary luxuries, and that so far as his Inn (the Middle Temple) was concerned, and he believed the same remark applied to the other Inns, not a single sixpence was lost to the funds of the Inn by the dinners which the Benchers eat.' We have before us a return on that subject, as to the state of affairs at the Inner Temple for the ten years from 1861 to 1871, carefully made out a few years since by the Sub-Treasurer. It shows that the sums received during those ten years from the Benchers for fees on calls to the Bench, were 17,4351, and for commons and dues, 32451. 78. 7d, making a total of 20,6801. 78. 7d. The cost of the Bench table during the same period, including wine, beer, dessert, tea and coffee, and the entertainment of all visitors, was 78881. 10s., making a balance in favour of the Society of 12,7911. 178. 7d. It is true that a few of the senior Benchers have chambers. But they belonged to the Bench as early as the reign of Elizabeth, and not a single Bench chamber has since been added.-Royal Commissioners' Report, p. 7.

solicitors,