tise having been first insisted upon by our branch of the profession, it is gratifying to us as solicitors to find that the great value of this principle has been proved by experience, and that its importance is now generally acknowledged.

"That the committee earnestly desire the establishment, under control of Government, of an examining body in the faculty of law, whose certifi cate of fitness shall be indispensable to admission to the practice of the profession in either of the branches into which it is now divided: and that such examination should be the same for all students, without reference to the branch of the profession with which they may ultimately connect themselves.

"That while the body of solicitors would be willing to leave to any examining body the determination of the subjects and amount of general and professional knowledge required from all who desire to practise the law it would not, in the opinion of the committee, be desirable that such faculty or body should have power to insist upon the candidate for examination having been educated at any particular college or school, or on any particular system of instruction.

"That while in the opinion of the committee there should be only one examining body or faculty, which should be under control of Government, it may be found expedient to establish one or more public schools of educa tion in the law, but such public schools should be open to all students without distinction in the course of instruction between the branches of the profession which the students may propose to enter. And the committee is further of opinion, that it would not be right that any faculty constituted for the examination of candidates should have the charge of any school or classes intended to prepare students for such examination.

"That so far as the objects of the Legal Education Association accord with the foregoing resolutions, the committee tenders its cordial support." Resolutions approving of the proposals have also been received from the Incorporated Law Societies of Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Gateshead, and the Denbighshire and Flintshire Law Association.

On the 5th July last, Sir Roundell Palmer laid before your committee two resolutions. These resolutions, as subsequently placed on the notice paper of the House of Commons, were in the following terms:

"1. That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a general school of law should be established in the metropolis, in the government of which the different branches of the legal profession in England may be suitably represented; and that, after the establishment thereof, no person should be admitted to practise in any branch of the legal profession, either at or below the bar, or as an attorney or solicitor in England, without a certificate of proficiency in the study of law, granted after proper examinations by such general school of law.

2. That an humble address may be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to take into consideration the expediency of establishing and incorporating, under Her Majesty's royal charter, a general school of law in the metropolis, in the government of which the different branches of the legal profession in England may be suitably represented; and assuring Her Majesty, that, if it shall appear to Her Majesty to be expedient to provide by such charter that, after the time when such general school shall be fully established, no person shall be admitted to practise in any branch of the legal profession either at or below the bar, or as an attorney or solicitor in England, without a certificate of proficiency in the study of the law, granted after proper examinations by such general school of law, this House will be prepared to concur in such legislation as may be requisite to enable Her Majesty so to do."

A short statement of the reasons in support of these resolutions was prepared by a sub-committee, and by direction of your committee, a copy of this statement was sent to every member of the House of Commons.

As soon as it became known that Sir Roundell Palmer had given notice that he would move the resolutions in the House of Commons, some of those who were favourable to the movement drew up a form of petition by members of the Inns of Court, praying that the House would take the necessary steps for establishing such a school of law as the resolutions indicated. To this petition (which was prosented by Sir Roundell Palmer when he introduced his motion on the 11th Aug.) 400 signatures were obtained within a very short space of time. Amongst these signatures were those of Sir William Erle, late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas ; Sir J. T. Coleridge, Sir Joseph Napier, Sir Edward Ryan, and of the following Professors at the University of Oxford, namely, Sir H. S. Maine, Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence; Mr. Mountague Bernard, Professor of International Law; Mr. Bryce, Regius Professor of Civil Law; and Mr. Kenelm E. Digby, Vinerian Reader of Law. The petition was also signed by Mr. Abdy, Regius Professor of Civil Law at Cambridge; by Mr. Sheldon Amos, Professor of Jurisprudence at University College; and by eighteen Queen's Counsel. Petitions in favour of the motion were also presented by the Incorporated Law Society and other law societies.

Though the speech with which Sir Roundell Palmer introduced these resolutions was received with marked attention, the requirements of other public business at that late stage of the session made it impossible to devote to the consideration of the motion the time needed for its full discussion. It is, however a significant and gratifying indication of the interest which has beer created in the subject outside of the profession, that the speech delivered by our president was reprinted at the expense of a non-legal member of Parliament for circulation amongst his fellow-members. Within the profession the efforts of the association have received a still more signal mark of approval. On the 15th July last Sir Roundell Palmer received the following letter from Lord St. Leonards :

"Boyle Farm, 14th July, 1871. "My dear Sir Roundell Palmer,-I have been considering the proposal to establish a legal college, in which you take such a great interest. No one is more bound than I am to support such a foundation. I request you, therefore, to put down my name as a subscriber of 400 guineas, half to the foundation, and the other half to establish a prize for merit in such a manner as you and those who act with you may direct. Let me know when you will be ready to receive it.-Ever faithfully yours, "ST. LEONARDS."

A donation of 1051. has also been made by Daniel Sturdy, Esq., of Cedars Road, Clapham Common, to be applied in any way which may be thought fit for the encouragement of learning, in connection with the proposed school of law. Both these spontaneous and liberal gifts have been now received, and invested in Consols, in the joint names of Mr. Clabon, the treasurer of the association, and Sir Roundell Palmer: and the dividends will be, in like manner, invested and accumulated, until the proper time for deciding upon their ultimate application arrives.

It is understood that the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple have made a bench order which will come into operation at the beginning of next

year, and which provides that a sum of 20001. a year may be devoted to the payment of additional lecturers and tutors for the exclusive benefit of students of the Inn. It also provides that special prizes shall be offered to students who shall submit to examinations, conducted under the direction of the society. It should be added that the order assumes that the consolidated rules of the four Inns will be so altered as to make examination before a call to the Bar compulsory in all cases.

It also deserves notice that during the present year public law schools have been established at two of the most important centres of population and business in the provinces; at Manchester, by the trustees of Owen's College, assisted by the Incorporated Law Association of Manchester, and at Liverpool by the Incorporated Law Society of that town. Both these schools have been formed under the superintendence of Professor Bryce, as principal, assisted by Mr. Albert Dicey, Mr. Erskine Holland, and Mr. Thompson. They were opened in October, and they number at Manchester forty-six students, and at Liverpool ninety-five. Great assistance will no doubt be rendered to a central metropolitan university or law school, if it can be aided in this way by subsidiary schools established in the provinces.

Whilst congratulating the members upon the extensive support the association has received, and the approval which its proposals have drawn forth from so many sources, and, in particular, upon the recognition by all the Inns of Court of the necessity for a compulsory examination as a condition for admission to the Bar; and by the Inner Temple of increased provision for teaching the law; all of which signs of advance may fairly be regarded as results of the attention drawn to the subject of legal education by the labours of this association; your committee, at the same time, desire emphatically to express their opinion that nothing short of the proposals of the association for a central school of law, open to students for both branches of the profession, and to the public, and governed by a public and responsible board, can be accepted as a satisfactory solution of the difficulties in the way of legal education.

It will be seen from the financial statement which will be laid before you by the treasurer, that liberal contributions have been made to the funds required for the expenses of the association. These expenses have hitherto been almost exclusively those of printing and advertising; but the donations already received, and the assurances which have come from other quarters, make it quite clear that should any larger expenditure be required in order to carry out the views of the association, the money will be readily subscribed.

Sir ROUNDELL PALMER moved that this report, taken as read, should be adopted. He said-Gentlemen, I cannot commence the business of to-day without expressing the satisfaction with which I see so large a number of friends of our common object assembled together, or without thanking the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple for their gracious and most liberal act in placing this splendid hall at our disposal. (Hear, hear.) It will be in the recollection of all, probably, that a meeting was held at Lincoln's-inn, in July last year, in order to set in motion that association which was then formed for the purpose of obtaining a better recognised system of legal education in this country. You are all probably aware of the general nature of the steps since taken. An executive council was formed which immediately set itself to work and issued proposals, which of course are not to be taken in their details or their language as the laws of the Medes and Persians-incapable of being altered, but which sought to put upon a proper footing the general objects, and express in a sufficiently intelligible manner the views entertained as to what was the best mode of accomplishing them Those proposals were widely circulated, and the executive council put themselves in communication with different bodies with whom it was deemed desirable to cooperate with the different universities, the Inns of Court, and law societies in town and country, the Incorporated Law Society, and the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association. The result of those communications in many respects-as to the opinions elicited, even from such as have not expressed a willing co-operation to the association-has been extremely important. I shall presently refer to some of those results a little more in detail, and therefore pass them over at present. Before the close of the last session of Parliament it was thought right to break ground in the House of Commons. It was extremely well known that, looking to the late period of the session, and owing to the difficulty found in carrying through Parliament measures of great public importance, to which the Government devoted their whole strength, that to take any effective steps to carry resolutions was practically out of the question; nor, indeed, was it really desirable to do it in the only way possible under such circumstances, with an exhausted House after a tedious session, and at twelve o'clock at night or one in the morning, with, of course, a very small attendance of members of sufficient energy and interest in the subject not to go to bed, and when common lawyers were upon circuit. It would not only have been unsatisfactory, but, in my opinion, unwise, if an opportunity had occurred, to take a division, even supposing it might have been a favourable division upon the particular resolutions at that time submitted to Parliament. Any majority so obtained, or perhaps a unanimous vote if it could have been obtained, would not have been accepted by any person who did not agree with our views, as a conclusive and satisfactory indication of the sense of Parliament. All that could then be attempted was to ventilate the subject, to show we were in earnest and meant this matter to proceed, and meant to obtain the support of the Government for our object. Of course, it was a great object to us to hear criticisms on the particular form in which our objects were embodied, to be put in possession of the views which had occurred to those not entirely with us, which in some respects might be founded upon misapprehension or misconception of our objects, or what we might consider necessary to carry them into effect, or might give us notice of points of objection which might deserve and require con sideration, all of which are manifestly great advantages as enabling us to make a better and more satisfactory approach to Parliament on the subject. That approach we mean to make with your approval as soon as Parliament meets. (Applause.) One of the first things which will be done will be to put on the notice paper of the House of Commons a renewed notice in such a form as upon full consideration may be thought most wise. That course being taken early, it may be confidently expected that a fair field will be obtained for the discussion of it, and an early night and a whole night with an unexhausted House, and the attention of all who take an interest in it. We may look forward to an actual vote and resolution of the House, and I confess I feel pretty confident, if we conduct our approaches wisely, that resolution will be in our favour. (Applause). I wish to call attention particularly to what we state at the end of this report to be the principle upon which we think the association ought to take its stand. We have adverted to what has taken place elsewhere and to the opinions which have been expressed by the various

bode with whom we have been in communication; and state it to be the opinion of the exemptive committee and we trust that by adopting the regon is wil erome the opinion of the association that nothing short of a central maces of law, open to students for both branches of the profeanos and to the passis, and governed by a pubic and responsible wart can be wrapped as a satisfactory solution of the difficulties in the way d'baai stuation. Now we have on a former occasion glanced gene rally at the difference between the position of legal education in this entary, and its position in other parts of the British Empire and in other red nations of the world. And before I enter upon the conteration of what has been advanced in the wry of objection to our cheme and the diffimities which may stand in our way, I should like to ava mywif of the information I have received through Mr. Anderson, from an eminent Hooten Professor, Mr. Mairhead, to pat you in posseswion of the position of this matter in our sister kingdom of Scotland This is important, because such a comparison as will result from these facts will naturally challenge an answer to the questions whether the system in operation there is or is not substantiny that which we want to introduce here; and secondly, whether, if it is found to work well there, any reason can exist for believing it would work ill in England. What I find to be the facts in Scotland are these: The Faculty of Advocates, revising former rules in 1866, made the rules under which they are at present governed with respect to admission to their bar. They require, as indispensable to admission to the Faculty, certain attendances at lectures, a course of academical instruction, and certain examinations. Now see what the attendances are: Attendance daring at least one session as a pupil in a class of Scotch law, and a class of conveyancing in a Scotch University; attendance during at least one session as a pupil in a class of civil law, in a class of international law, in a class of constitutional law, either in a Scotch university or such other university as may be approved by the governing body of the Faculty; and, lastly, attendance upon a class of medical jurisprudence, either in a university or a school recognised as qualifying for university degrees. Then they require examination in civil law, international law and in Scotch law by examiners appointed by themselves, with whom they associate the Law Professor of the University of Edinburgh. With regard to the teaching of the Faculty of Law in the University of Edinburgh, I find it as effective as this: First year, 120 lectures and fourteen examinations in civil law, and an equal number in Scotch law; eighty lectures, and eight examinations in conveyancing; Scotch law the wecond year, and conveyancing the third; and either in the second or third year, seven-five lectures in public law, that is natural and international law; about forty in constitutional law and legal history, and about fifty in medical jurisprudence. The University of Edinburgh has therefore a course of academical instruction, lectures, and examinations, and I believe the case is very much the same in France, Italy, Spain, and Belgium. Perhaps in some respects it might be stated, as far as duration of time occupied in preparatory studies goes, to be more severe there than in Scotland. With respect to Writers to the Signet, they are also required to attend the same lectures at the same place and in the same classes in civil law, Scotch law, and conveyancing, and to be examined in Scotch law and conveyancing, as necessary qualifications for admission to this branch of the profession. And I have been told that no evil or mischief has at any time arisen, or even been surmised to be liable to arise, from the union in the same class, and under the same course and system of instruction, of gentlemen intending to follow the different branches of the profession in Scotland. (Applause.)

Now, I think there is a very good practical illustration of the thing which we want, and of the success with which it may be accomplished, and with your permission I will now go to the practical question which has been raised, and which we have had to consider in our communications with the different bodies with whom it has been our duty to communicate. And first of all, following the same order I took in glancing at the subject in the House of Commons, I will refer to what has been suggested on the part of the old Universities-Oxford and Cambridge. In a general way they express their desire to co-operate with us, but the time for going into any questions of detail with them does not arise until we have overcome preliminary difficulties. Leading men among them have manifested themselves zealous and interested in our objects, which they think highly important, and they believe may be made to work together with their own in such branches of legal knowledge as those Universities can communicate. But coming nearer home, there is one University in which there is an important school of law, the University of London, and it is not at all surprising that in some points of view, our scheme should present itself to that university under a different aspect from that in which it is seen in the more remote universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It is most legitimate on the part of the University of London, while heartily sympathising with our object, to consider in what respect it might affect their own school of law, and how far co-operation with us would be prejudicial to their own usefulness in their own way. I am never afraid to deal with objectors of that class, who have the same objects in view. All we want is that a certificate of examination, founded on proficiency in the necessary knowledge, shall be an indispensable qualification to the practice of the legal profes. sion. Whether that certificate should be identical with a university degree, which, in point of fact, never was the view of the council, and whether the certificate should be granted by a body which should be able to give university degrees, is of minor importance.

The attorneys and solicitors of England are represented by different societies, more particularly by the Incorporated Law Society and the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, and those bodies have expressed themselves with a caution not unbecoming the position which they occupy, but still cordially and sincerely, and as I believe with a very great concurrence and preponderance of opinion among them, as favourable to our objects. The Incorporated Law Society state that they do so upon the footing that there shall be no premature separation or distinction of students while undergoing instruction in the law school, or in the examination with reference to the branch of the profession which they may intend to follow, and that there shall be no preponderance on the governing body of the institution either of the Bar or the attorneys. We entirely appreciate the motive and feeling which has led them to think it right to signify these views, and although we do not, and cannot pledge ourselves as to the precise manner in which the future university may be constituted-which will ultimately depend upon other authorities, namely the government of the country, and not entirely upon ourselves-yet we have had no hesitation in saying that there is nothing in the principle of those views opposed to our views. We do not desire in the future university to introduce premature separation and distinction of classes with reference to the practice of one branch or the other. We desire to make the education to be given as free, open, and liberal as it possibly can be, and to postpone to a later

stage any consideration of the difference between one branch of the profession and the other, and although it is impossible to say what might be regarded by one man or another as preponderance in the government of the insti tution when formed, yet, as far as the object of putting the Bar in the government of the future university into a position of invidious superiority over the attorneys and solicitors, or on the other hand of swamping the dae influence of the Bar by giving representation to mere numbers, which would of course give attorneys and solicitors the advantage, nothing is further from our purposes than either the one or the other. We think that when the Government of the country, when the ministers of the Crown, come to settle the terms of the proposed charter, they ought to do it with the view to the efficiency of the institution for the objects for which it is established, and with that view only, and so as to avoid raising invidious questions of any kind as between representatives of any class of persons in the legal profession. The Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association have also given us cordial approval and support, but they have expressed it in a guarded manner, and rather as a fall in lication of particular views on certain important subjects. They say that the education to qualify for practice ought not to be required to be given at any particular college or school, or on any particular system of instruction. In our judgment it is essential that we should not only have examinations, but provide in the central law school as good a system of instruction as we possibly can give, but we do not consider it by any means essential that we should require everybody who is to pass the examination to receive his education and instruction from our professors and in the central school of law. It was never a part of our scheme to insist upon a monopoly of education, still less to confine to monopolists of legal education also the task of examining those whom they taught. My own individual view has never been that it would be expedient or desirable to endeavour to get a monopoly of legal instruction for the central institution. Make it so good, that people of their own accord will come to it for the sake of what they will learn there. (Applause.) As a general rule it is adverse to the success of an institution to give it a monopoly. It is no part of our plan, and I hope it will not become a part. The learned gentleman then noticed with satisfaction the establishment of law schools in the provinces, reading the paragraph from the report and making the correction that at Manchester there are sixty students, and at Liverpool ninety-eight; and went on to notice that the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association expressed a desire that there should be one board of examiners under the control of the Government. I doubt, he said, whether it was the intention of the learned body to say that every department of the executive Government should have the "control of the examiners. That is a matter which they may consider at the proper time. My own impression is that public control and responsibility is vitally im portant; yet it does not follow that you cannot establish an institution which may be trusted to appoint its own examiners, or that the examiners should be appointed by any department of the Government. That is a question to be discusssed upon its merits. The senate of our law school might, I think, be trusted to appoint impartial and capable examiners. It is said that we should not vest the examining power in the hands of those interested in drawing students to particular schools. That would be accomplished by leaving it in the hands of a body in whom you could trust.

The learned Chairman then noticed the objections of the now SolicitorGeneral (Mr. Jessel), who, he said, in his remarks in the House of Commons had entirely misapprehended the scheme and intentions of the association. Then turning to the Inns of Court he proceeded to deal with a suggestion that the candidates for practice at the bar ought to receive a higher legal training than those intended for the branch of the profession not involving ultimately the same qualification. It is, he said, a misapprehension to suppose that there is anything what ever either in the principles of our scheme, or in what is likely to be the practical operation of it which militates against that view. In Scotland the Faculty of Advocates, when they come to consider whom they will admit to the Bar, require attendance on certain lectures and certain examinations in particular subjects, and the Writers to the Signet require attendance on certain lectures, and examinations on certain subjects, the subjects and lectures in the two cases not being altogether the same. The body calling to the Bar, may say certain things are required for the Bar and certain things required for the solicitors and attorneys. The distinction is to be in the hands of the body calling to practice. If you give the best possible education in the university, those intended for every branch of the legal profession will find in the university what they want; you do not deprive anyone of any class of study, and you do not oblige everyone to swallow everything.

Referring to the Inns of Court, he said :-I believe that as cordial and as general a concurrence in our objects and our views as at this stage could be given by any sensible person, was given by the governing body of the Middle Temple, and all honour and praise to them for it. I have no reason to think that they have changed their minds, although I have no doubt if they find our objects impracticable, they will do the best they can to attain the desired end. The use of this fine hall which they have granted to us shows, not only their courtesy, but also that they approve of our views. Gray's-inn agrees with us to a very great extent indeed-to an extent covering all the principles of our scheme, although guarding themselves by saying that they were not disposed to associate any body with the Inns of Court in the governing body of the law school, save the Incor porated Law Society. Then as to the proceedings of Lincoln's-inn and the Inner Temple. On the 22nd of last June the aggregate committees of the four inns, by a small majority, carried resolutions, that in the opinion of this committee it is not desirable that the education of the students for the bar and the education of the articled clerks of solicitors and attorneys should be under one general system of manage ment. Secondly, that the committee was of opinion, and recommended that there should be a compulsory examination of students for the bar before call to the bar or practice under the bar; and that the four Inns of Court should establish such examination. Thirdly, that the committee were of opinion and recommended that such examinations should be carried into effect under the direction and through the instrumentality of the Council of Legal Education. And, fourthly, that the consolidated regulations should be amended, and the Council of Legal Education increased in number and authority." It will be seen by these resolutions that we obtained one considerable point I may fairly call it a victory. They agreed for the first time that there should be a compulsory examination for the Bar. (Applause.)

Proceeding to deal with the distinction between the Bar and attorneys and solicitors, the learned chairman said :—I have thought, and still think, that in every point of view it is unnecessary to make a distinction during study, and in every point of view unwise- unwise, because that distinction

:

does not really exist or the occasion for it arise till practice begins; unwise, because the more you divide classes and narrow the boundaries of your lecture room, the more you diminish the chances of success and efficiency. Numbers must be reduced, and with numbers emulation, zeal, interestthe interest and zeal of the lecturer, the interest and zeal of the pupil. We think it unwise, also, because it must be desirable that all those who are going to practise in any branch of the profession, should be admitted -if they wish to be admitted-to the best system of instruction you can give them and by not giving any particular lecturer or professor a monopoly of instruction, we think it would be wrong to condemnif we could condemn-that branch of the profession in whose hands are the fortunes of mankind and the affairs of the world, who have to conduct all personal communication with clients, and from whom all business must come to the Bar, it would be inconceivably unwise to condemn them to a lower and inferior kind of preparatory education than the best which they are willing to receive. (Loud applause.) If there are in that branch of the profession, as is undoubtedly true, and as there are possibly in the other branch, some men less worthy than the other members, then you are likely not to increase but to diminish their number by making their education more liberal. I therefore, without any hesitation for myself say that the more I reflect upon this question, this principle of dividing in the preliminary stage of instruction future attorneys and solicitors and barristers, the more convinced I am that for the Bar, for the solicitors, and for the country, it is better that you should not divide them. I hope we shall take our stand upon that view, and never be satisfied with anything which does not accomplish it. (Applause.)

Sir R. Palmer then directed his attention to the scheme of the Inner Temple-a scheme intended, as he remarked, solely for students of that inn. If, he said, it were not connected with the plan of this as. sociation it would be a retrograde movement, for it would withdraw students from the Lectures of the Council of Legal Education. Do you suppose, he said, that unless absolutely required to do it by the rules under which they are admitted to the bar, students of the Inner Temple will go to the lectures in their own Inn, and to the lectures of the professors? Of course not. The proposed system is worse than that which we have now. It might have its place if the Inn were made like a college at Oxford or Cambridge, with tutors and lecturers, and we had our General Schools. But it will work ill unless you had the general school of law already in order, and made it efficient and useful. He wished to speak in no spirit of hostility to those ancient institutions, the Inns of Court, who were governed by men who, if they did not happen to be too busy and had not inherited a system which was worn out (Hear, hear), would be not only willing but able to take the whole work of legal education into their own hands. If from no want of good intentions they had done nothing hitherto, it was quite clear that the system which they represented was not one from which much was to be expected in the future.

He continued: These bodies-I say nothing else about them-are not corporate bodies. I believe they regard themselves as private societies. They

recognise no public trust, no public responsibility, and they are not under public control. Whatever might have been possible during the many years from the reign of Edward I. to that of Victoria-(laughter)-which has been the period of trial of these societies-whatever might have been possible during that period, if they had developed in themselves the elements of such strength and efficiency as to make our present work unnecessary, it would have been well. But, not having done so, and the country having come to be interested in the matter, and those extraneous to the Inns of Court having associated themselves together to get as good a legal education as other countries enjoy, the time has come when we ought to insist, and we have a right to insist, and we must insist, on having this done under public control, by public authority, and with public responsibility. (Applause.) It may be possible that various questions may arise which will have to be attentively considered, and one will be, What place the Inns of Court ought to assume? That I hope will be well considered. The Inns of Court are, of all the institutions in the world, the most completely open and accessible to reform, for there are no vested interests in them, they can have no objects whatever except public objects, therefore every shilling they possess ought to be devoted to public objects. And all the members of the Inns of Court will say that, if they cannot succeed in doing that for themselves, there is no reason why it should not be done for them. Let us show as great a body of supporters as we can, and I believe in quantity and quality, it is all that we can desire. The hon. and learned gentleman then adverted to the valuable cooperation in the objects of the association of Lord St. Leonards, and his gift of 400 guineas towards the establishment of a legal college, as well as to a donation of 105l. from Mr. D. Sturdy, of Clapham, adding that he thought such an institution ought to be self-supporting, and that, at all events, no difficulty arose on the question of funds at the present stage of their proceedings. He begged in conclusion, to move the adoption of the report. (Cheers.)

The motion was seconded by Sir E. Ryan, and supported by Mr. Freshfield and Mr. Ryland. The two latter both stated that the objects of the association had the full concurrence of the solicitors, and Mr. Ryland, who is Vice-President of the Birmingham Law Society, said that that society had had special meetings, and had voted a third of a year's income to the object. The motion was carried.

On the motion of Mr. Denman, Sir Roundell Palmer was reappointed president of the association for the ensuing year, Mr. Quain chairman of the Council, and the other officers to the positions which they had hitherto occupied.

A resolution was moved by Vice-Chancellor Wickens, and seconded by Mr. Quain, to the effect that a deputation of the executive committee should wait on the Lords of the Treasury and other members of the Government with the view of obtaining their support for the motion mentioned by Sir Roundell Palmer as about to be made next session, was also agreed to.

A vote of thanks, proposed by Mr. T. Hughes, M.P., to the Benchers of the Middle Temple, for the use of their hall, and one to the chairman, proposed by Mr. Forsyth, closed the proceedings.

NOTES OF THE WEEK.

COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY.
Nov. 3 and 25.

Re THE NORTHERN ASSAM TEA COMPANY (WINGROVE'S CASE.) Company-Transfer of shares-Power for directors to refuse registration-Breach of trust. THIS was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the Rolls. The articles of association of the above company empowered the directors to refuse to register any transfer of shares to an unfit or irresponsible person. Wingrove, who was for merly chairman of the company, transferred certain shares in Jan. 1868 to one Russell, and the liquidator sought to fix Wingrove on the list of contributories, in respect of these shares, on the ground that Russel was an unfit and irresponsible person, and that Wingrove was a party to the breach of trust committed by the directors in registering the transfer to him. The Master of the Rolls refused the application, and the liquidator appealed.

Swanston, Q. C. and Higgins, for the appellant. The Solicitor-General (Jessel, Q. C.) and J. D. Bell, appeared in support of the order.

Lord Justice MELLISH, who delivered the judg. ment of the court, said that the Master of the Rolls had found as a fact that Wingrove believed Russell to be a responsible person, and, unless it was clear that the court below was wrong on the evidence, the court of appeal would not set aside its decision on a question of fact. The evidence made out nothing more than a case of suspicion, while on the other side there was Wingrove's positive oath that he believed Russell to be a responsible person, and the decision of the Master of the Rolls in his favour. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Solicitors, Mercer and Mercer.

notice.

been bought by Hunter since the decree in his
Glasse, Q.C. and Rigby, for the appellant.
Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., Cotton, Q.C., and
Vaughan Hawkins for Hunter.

Kenyon, Q.C., Fischer, and Rogers for, Curling and other parties.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this was not like a case where the instrument signed was something wholly different from what it was represented to be, but this was a case where the mortgagees had parted with their interest by signing an instrument of which they did not appreciate the full legal effect; they not only executed the conveyance, but signed receipts for their mortgage money, of the effect of which they could not but be aware. Persons so acting must take the consequence of their negligence, and as against a person who had innocently advanced his money on a deed thus executed, must bear the loss that had resulted from the fraud of their solicitor. No negligence could be imputed to Curling. It would be a monstrous extension of the doctrine of constructive notice to hold that a person who advanced money on an ample security, was to be postponed, because his security consisted in part of small lots, from the title of which something might have been discovered affecting the main portion of the security, the title to which, on investigation, was found to be perfectly clear. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

The LORDS JUSTICES were of the same opinion.

Solicitors for the appellant, J. Crowdy for Griffiths and Crichton, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Solicitors for the respondents, Farrer, Ourry, and Co.; Dean and Taylor for Longueville, Williams, Jones, and Williams, Oswestry; Hill and Fenwick; Clayton.

the 10,000l. was bequeathed in the first place in trust for Mrs. Cautley for life for her separate nse, with a proviso determining her life interest in certain events which, did not take place, and that, subject to such determinable life interest, it was bequeathed to her children as she should appoint, and accordingly that her will operated as a valid appointment, and that her husband was not liable to take out letters of administration in respect of that sum. Solicitors for the petitioners, Bailey, Shaw, Smith, and Bailey. Solicitors for the respondents, Solicitors to the Inland Revenue.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Thursday, Nov. 23.

davit was

JONES v. HARRIES.

judgment in the Exchequer Chamber. Leave was reserved as to whether this ruling was right. Day, for the defendant, now moved for a rule nisi to enter a nonsuit pursuant to the leave, and also for a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive.

The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn and Mellor, JJ.) considered this case to be stronger in favour of the plaintiff than that of Frost v. Knight, where the promise was to marry on the death of defendant's father; and they thought that the ruling in this case was right, whatever might be the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber. The rule was therefore refused upon the leave reserved; it was granted with regard to the damages, unless the plaintiff agreed to accept half the amount assessed by the jury.

Ex parte EDMUNDS. Bills of Sale Acts 1854 & 1866-Affidavit filed with Right of receiver of public moneys to claim audit bill of sale-Description of assignor's residence. of his accounts-Mandamus. INTERPLEADER issue, plaintiff claiming the proParry, Serjt. (with him Joyce) moved on behalf perty of one Isaac Anthony, under a bill of sale, of Mr. Leonard Edmunds for a writ of mandamus and the defendant, being an execution creditor. to compel the Lords Commissioners of the TreaThe case was tried at Swansea during the Spring sury to have his accounts audited. It appeared Assizes, 1871, before Mellor, J., when a verdict from his affidavit that he was appointed to the was found for the plaintiff, leave being reserved office of Clerk of the Patents by the Crown in 1833, to the defendant to move for a nonsuit on the and held the office until 1864, during which time ground that the affidavit filed with the bill of sale he received and disbursed on account of the Crown contained an insufficient description of the resimore than a million and a half of money. He dence of the said Isaac Anthony, the assignor. alleged that his accounts had never been brought In the bill of sale, he was correctly described as to statutory or Parliamentary examination, the party of the first part, "Isaac Anthony, of audit, and report," either on behalf of the Crown Dynevor Lodge, in the parish of Llanarthney, in or on behalf of the House of Commons, and the county of Carmarthen, auctioneer." It was proved that a letter addressed to Isaac Anthony, effectual certificates of discharge, even and quit,' that in the absence of his lawful "valid and Dynevor Lodge, would reach him from the he was to this day held personally responsible and neighbouring post town of Llandilo. The affi- accountable to the Crown and to Parliament for as follows: "I, Walter William the whole of the said milllon and a half. He Edwards, of Llandilo, in the County of Carmarthen, attorney's clerk, made oath and say as stated that he had incessantly demanded from follows: 1. That the paper writing hereto annexed year to year and in every year from 1834 to the a true copy of a bill of sale made or given by justice, that he might be forced by the Executive present day as of right and according to law and Isaac Anthony to David Jones, of Wern, in the Government, under the provisions of the Acts of parish of Llanarthney, in the county of Carmar- Parliament, into the examination of his said then, gentleman, and of the schedule or inventory accounts. The various departments of the thereto annexed or therein referred to and every Government refused his said demands, and inattestation of the execution thereof. 2. That the stituted proceedings against him in the Exchequer, bill of sale was made or given on the 5th Dec. 1870, being the day of the date thereof. 3. That self and the Crown were referred to arbitration, upon which the matters in difference between himI was present and did see the said Isaac Anthony and in the result the arbitrators found him sign and execute the said bill of sale, and that the indebted to the Crown in a said Isaac Anthony resides at Dynevor Lodge, 70001. over In consequence he was and is an auctioneer. 4. That the name W. Wm. for the debt and costs, and deprived of his imprisoned Edwards, subscribed as a witness attesting the pensions; but as no formal audit had taken execution of the said bill of sale, is in my hand-place, and he had received no legal discharge, writing, and that I reside at Llandilo and am an attorney's clerk. Sworn at Llandilo, in the county of Carmarthen, this 17th Dec. 1870, before me, Nath. Davies, a commissioner for taking affidavits in the Court of Queen's Bench, Westminster, W. Wm. Edwards." A rule nisi had been obtained by the defendant in pursuance of the leave reserved.

De Rutzen now showed cause. Coleridge supported the rule. They discussed the two Bills of Sale Acts, (17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 96), and also the following cases: Pickard v. Bretz (5 H. & N. 9); Hewer v. Cox (3 El. & El. 428); Briggs V. Boss (L. Rep. 3 Q. B. 268); Thorp v. Browne (L. Rep. 2 E. & I. App. 220); Brodrick v. Scale (L. Rep. 6 C. P. 98); Allen v. Thompson (1 H. & N. 15); Hatton v. English (26 L. J., Q. B., 161); Routh V. Roublot (1 E. & E. 850).

The COURT (Cockburn, C.J. Blackburn and Mellor, JJ.) considered the last case, Routh v. Roublot, an authority more applicable than any other to the circumstances of the present case, and held that the description was sufficient. Rule discharged. Attorney for plaintiff, Thos. Clarke. Attorneys for defendant, Ingledew, Ince, and Greening.

Saturday, Nov. 25.

TARGETT V. VINCENT.

sum of

it was now contended that the Acts of Parliament relating to the audit of public accounts, viz., 25 Geo. 3, c. 52; 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 121; and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 39, not only appointed auditors whose business it was to examine these accounts when ordered to do so by the Treasury, but also laid upon the Commissioners of the Treasury the duty of ordering the auditors to examine the accounts of those receivers of public moneys who claimed to have their accounts so examined.

The COURT refused to grant a rule, on the ground that no such right as that contended for had been granted to the receivers of public moneys. The duty of ordering the audit of acthe Treasury in the interests of the public and counts was imposed upon the Commissioners of the House of Commons, but upon the materials before them the court declined to express an opinion as to whether that duty had been neglected. Rule refused.

Attorney for applicant, E. Johnson.

ACTION came on for trial at the Oxford Summer

Assizes 1870. The defendant had obtained an order for a special jury, but seven special jurors only attended. Neither plaintiff nor defendant would pray a tales, and the trial went off. At the Spring Assizes of this year, the action was tried and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The master had allowed the defendant the costs of the first trial, and Byles, J., had affirmed his order. A rule had been obtained to rescind this judge's order, and to review the taxation; two of the masters had been desired to report upon the practice of the court in such a case, and the following report of masters Hodgson and Unthank was now read: "We think the practice in this court is to allow the costs in such a case as this to the successful party as costs in the cause, and not as costs of the day."

Breach of promise to marry-Condition precedent -Action before fulfilment of condition. ACTION for breach of promise of marriage tried before Blackburn, J. at Westminster. Verdict for plaintiff, damages 250%. Leave reserved to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, the Court to be at liberty to amend declaration, if it should be proper and necessary to do so. The declaration alleged that the promise was to marry within a reasonable time. The evidence established a promise to marry as soon as the father of the man, who was defendant, should consent. The engagement was broken off by the defendant, on the alleged ground of his father's J. O. Griffits appeared to show cause against refusal to consent, and his consequent inability to the rule, but the Court called upon provide for a wife. Defendant had been in receipt Dowdeswell, Q.C. for the plaintiff.-He argued of 401. a year, and his father was a druggist. The that the failure of the first trial was the fault of jadge at the trial held that the declaration ought both sides; and therefore the costs were thrown to be amended, and that the action lay, notwith- away, and ought not to be imposed upon either standing the nonfulfilment of the condition pre-party. He relied upon Wood v. Duncan (5 M. & cedent, on the authority of Frost V. Knight W. 87); Bostock v. North Staffordshire Railway (L. Rep. 5 Ex. 322), which case is now awaiting Company (21 L. J. 384 Q.B.). [Master Smith re

ferred the court to the case of Seeley v. Power, 3 Dowl. P. C. 372.]

The COURT declined to disturb the practice of the court. Rule discharged.

LONDON AND SUBURBAN BANK v. WALKINSHAW. Action against drawer of bill-Payment by acceptor after action brought-Holder's right to proceed for costs. ACTION upon a bill of exchange, tried before Blackburn, J., during this term. Verdict for plaintiff 1s., with leave to plaintiff to move to enter a verdict of 501., the amount of the bill. Plaintiff commenced actions against the acceptor and drawer of the bill; the defendant in this case being the drawer. Before declaration against the drawer the acceptor paid the amount; plaintiffs then declared in this action, without first demanding of defendant the cost of the writ. Afterwards defendant refused to pay what he considered the unnecessary cost of the declaration, and pleaded, amongst other pleas, payment before action; he did not, however, plead payment after action brought. The learned judge considered the plaintiffs' conduct improper, and directed the verdict as above and refused to certify for costs.

Anderson showed cause against a rule, granted in pursuance of the leave reserved, and argued that what was done at the trial was within the judge's discretion, and that this case was distinguishable from Randall v. Moon (21 L. J. 226, C. P.), relied upon by the plaintiff when the rule was moved.

Rose appeared to support the rule, but was not heard.

The COURT considered that in strict right the

plaintiffs had a right to go on with this action for their costs; that the defendant might have pleaded payment after action; and that the judge was wrong in allowing evidence in reduction of damages under the plea of payment before action.

Rule absolute.

STIMSON V. FARNHAM.

Action against sheriff for a false return—No injury to plaintiff.

ACTION against a sheriff for a false return, tried before Mellor, J., in Middlesex. Verdict for de771. for plaintiff. In an action of the present fendant, with leave reserved to enter verdict of plaintiff against Follows, the sheriff of Leicestershire returned to a writ of fi. fa. obtained by the directed, I seized the goods and chattels in my plaintiff: "By virtue of the within writ to me bailiwick of the within named Henry Follows, and kept them safe in my possession until the 19th Sept., 1870, when I received from John Wilkinson Smith, the attorney of the plaintiff, in the said writ named, an order to withdraw from possession of the said goods and chattels. Whereupon I immediately withdrew from such possession." At the trial the defendant did not attempt to prove the truth of this return, but he called evidence to show that the only goods Follows appeared to have, had been assigned under a bill of sale, which the jury found to be valid. A rule had been obtained in pursuance of the leave, on the ground that the defendant was concluded by his return.

Mundell, Q.C. and Abbott showed cause, and argued that as no actual damage to the plaintiff cient even for a nominal verdict. was proved, the falsity of the return was not suffi

Field, Q.C. and J. W. Mellor, in support of the rule, contended that the sheriff in this case ought to have interpleaded or returned nulla bona; that this was his deliberate act, and being an official return he was estopped from contradicting it at the trial. They relied upon a dictum of Lord Campbell's, in Remmett v. Lawrence (15 Q. B. 1004), which, according to Williams, J., in Levy v. Hall (29 L. J. 130, C. P.), is supported by two cases, Clerk v. Withers (2 Lord Raym. 1075). Mildmay v. Smith (2 Wms. Saund. 343), and

The COURT considered that the two authorities cited failed to support the mere obiter dictum of Lord Campbell, and that this action of tort, like others, requires injury to the plaintiff as well as a Rule discharged. wrong by the defendant. Attorney for plaintiff, Jeremian Briggs. Attorneys for defendant, Preston and Robinson.

Monday, Nov. 27. MARSHALL v. ULLESWATER STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.

Incidents to a right of way over water-Obstruction maintained by owner of soil. SPECIAL case without pleadings. Plaintiff was owner of the fee simple of the soil of Lake Ulleswater; defendants were owners of the fee simple of some of the adjoining land. The public have a right of way over the whole of the lake. Defendants had constructed a pier from their own land out into the lake, for which the plaintiff successfully instituted proceedings against them. The case is reported 3 B. & S. 732. Since the year 1861, when those proceedings were finally cor cluded, the pier has remained as it was structed, and the defendants have landed passen

con