within their walls. A corresponding power of supervision over the Inns of Court was possibly in former times exercised by Serjeants' Inn; but be this as it may, there is no question that the Judges alone held the power of conferring the degree of barrister, a power which is still vested in them, though for a long time past it has been delegated to the Benchers of the several Inns. This abandonment of their authority by the Judges has produced, but in a greater degree, the same evils as were engendered at Oxford from a similar neglect. The Inns of Court (which resemble the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge), exercising the anomalous power of themselves conferring a degree, have not only suffered the previous examination to fall utterly into disuse, but, as just stated, they have almost wholly neglected their more proper function of educating the students in legal science.

Your Committee believe, that the only remedy for these evils is to be found in the restoration of some central authority, similar to the governing bodies at Oxford and Cambridge, which may exercise an adequate control over the Inns of Court. They therefore suggest, that a Senate, composed of Barristers to be chosen by election, should be established to regulate the practice and maintain the honour of the Profession; that the power of conferring the degree of barrister should no longer be delegated to the benchers, but that it should be resumed by the Judges; and that a public examination should be instituted, under the control of the central authority, which every student must pass prior to his call to the Bar. In these days it can no longer be endured that barristers alone, of all professional men, should be permitted to practise, albeit they may be utterly ignorant of the first principles of the science which they undertake to explain and administer. No man can enter into the church, the army, or the navy; no man can become an attorney, a physician, a surgeon, or an apothecary; no man can even be the master of a merchant ship, without being first subjected to an examination, which, at least, furnishes some test of his professional knowledge; and it is idle to attempt to contend that rules, which have been

established by universal consent for the purpose of excluding the incompetent and ignorant from all other professions, should not apply with equal force to the important profession of the Bar. No profession can guarantee any higher qualifications than those possessed by its least competent members; and if the Bar is to maintain its present position among the institutions of the country, those qualifications must be raised, at least to a respectable standard.

In offering these suggestions, your Committee have before their minds the system which, since 1830, has prevailed in France. There, a young man who adopts the Bar as his profession must study three years in an elementary school of law. He next enters himself as a Stagiaire, and for this purpose he must apply to the Conseil de Discipline, a body which is chosen by election out of the rest of the Bar, and which exercises a most beneficial control over the conduct of the practitioners, and the etiquette of the profession. After passing three more years as a Stagiaire, he must again apply to the Conseil for admission to the rank of Advocate, and has then to undergo such examination as it may appoint. Your Committee are informed that this system exerts a most beneficial effect on the character and status of the French Bar; and they believe that such a Senate as they have described would be the most fitting depository of the supreme power in the Profession, both as to rules of etiquette, and as to educational regulations. But, under any circumstances, they feel called upon to condemn the present system, under which the power of granting degrees is vested in the Benchers of the Inns, and has by them been allowed to degenerate into an empty ceremony, utterly at variance with the original constitution of our legal University.

Your Committee are aware that no reform can be considered complete that does not include a restoration of the educational functions of the Inns of Court,- the appointment of a staff of tutors or professors in each Inn, equal in ability and number to the instruction of all the students, and the foundation of exhibitions and prizes as incentives to legal studies. But they believe that a reform of this kind would necessarily follow from the establishment of a public examination before

granting the degree, and from the moral force which such a body as a senate would exert upon the Inns of Court. Each Inn would then vie with the others in affording the best instruction as an inducement for students to enter its walls, and an honourable rivalry would be established among them similar to that which now animates the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.

Your Committee, in closing their Report, submit to the Society the following resolutions:

1st. That any practice which has a tendency to prevent the public from obtaining the assistance of counsel except through the compulsory intervention of an attorney should be discontinued.

2d. That so much of the 91st Section of the Act of 9 & 10 Vic. c. 95., as prevents a barrister from advocating the causes of suitors in the County Courts, "unless instructed by an attorney," should be repealed.

3rd. That attorneys should not be permitted to act as advocates in the Superior Courts.

4th. That attorneys should be eligible to be called to the Bar without any intermediate cessation from practice.

5th. That counsel should be made responsible to their clients for crassa negligentia, breach of contract, and breach of confidence.

6th. That a legal University, composed of the Inns of Court, and governed by an elected Senate, should be established; and that such Senate should have jurisdiction in all questions concerning the discipline and conduct of the Bar.

7th. That all candidates for admission to the degree of barrister should pass a public examination.

ART. XIV. - FRANCE.

THE extraordinary but hardly unexpected changes which have taken place in France since our last Number was published, impose upon us the necessity of making some reference to the new aspect of things in that country, as far as its jurisprudence and judicial system may be affected by it. (See No. XX. pp. 87. and 91.)

An absolute government has now been established, upon the result of a general vote of confidence in the President; and he manifestly supposes that the people have given him a right to do exactly as he pleases in all respects whatsoever, though it is certain that only one of the questions he propounded to them was ever thought of for one moment by nine hundred and ninety-nine in every thousand who voted; namely, the question, "Will you have Louis Napoleon for ten years or not?" The reflecting part of the community were most probably, almost certainly, in the minority. However, so it is; and he has abolished all parliamentary government all discussion in meetinge - all discussion through the Press. He is, in many respects, more absolute than his Uncle; in some material respects more absolute than the Eastern Princes. More absolute than his Uncle, because he assumes to act in the name of the seven millions and a half who voted—that is, of the whole community: more absolute than Oriental Princes, because he has the divided responsibility arising from a mere semblance of a constitution. He is supported by two kinds of populace, one armed, the other unarmed. To both he appeals on all occasions. It is a mob and military government, in every sense of the word; and it is an absolute government.

This is, no doubt, the melancholy result of the errors and the crimes of the last fatal revolution, that of 1848; and it has been brought about principally by the violent Republican party. The mistakes and the faults of other parties joined their influence in leading to this sad consummation; but the

Red Republicans are those mainly answerable for having inflicted upon France the loss of even the semblance of freedom. It is no business of foreign nations: they have neither the duty, nor the right, to interpose. We can not see either the duty or the right to interfere with the French by attacks upon an order of things which they have chosen for themselves; and if they have not chosen it, if it has been imposed upon them either by force or by fraud, or by a mixture of both, their neighbours can lend them little help, and certainly will do them no kindness by exulting over such misfortunes. Rather let us hope that some compensation may be found for loss of liberty, in sure, and vigorous, and wholesome administration. Those in whom the power is vested, and on whom the responsibility rests of its exercise, may endeavour to lighten the nation's burdens, by giving it good measures; above all, wise and enlightened reforms in its jurisprudence. The loss of free and effectual debate in the legislature, of full and unfettered discussion by the community, is irreparable. But out of the general evil may come a partial good: improvements in the Law will be more easily made; and if they are well devised, they would, in some sort, reconcile men to the new state of things.

We say nothing of the latest acts of the government, especially of the hardly credible Orleans confiscation; — a close imitation of the very Socialists, the terror of whose inroads upon property has mainly enabled the present rulers to sweep away all public liberty. We speak of the system and its tendencies; and we join in the hope that those who work it may be disposed to give some compensation to the community whose rights they have taken away.

We are now enabled to lay before our readers, in connection with this subject, a document of the highest importance. It is a letter from M. Dupin, one of the most eminent lawyers and statesmen that France ever possessed, giving in his resignation of his high office of Procureur-General.

This is one of the consequences of the extraordinary decree of Louis Napoleon-confiscating the property of the House of Orleans. This remarkable letter is another proof that the few respectable men who, for the sake of peace and