Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[graphic]

ject, namely, What are the shortcomings of our system of legal training, and how can these shortcomings be remedied?.

the questions put? Questions which, through a long series of years, bear a strong family resemblance one to another. Do. we quite realize But here it will be said, "L Why should we what ought to be implied in the possessor of trouble ourselves? You admit that our system is the status of barrister ? "Barrister learned in better to-day than in former times, yet in the worst the law." Can we truly say that a tithe of the stutimes we have had at least a good bar and a dents who attain pass certificates deserve that honreasonably good judiciary." I would say in answer orable description? From inquiry I have made, I that the same objection could be made, and indeed | have reluctantly come to the conclusion that, with has been made, when in the past history of reform all the care taken, the examinations are such as can and progress any change was advocated. It is true be satisfactorily passed without any prolonged we have had a good bar and a good judiciary, but study, and without any real learning, under the we have had these, not because, but in spite of, our guidance, for a comparatively short period, of the system of legal education. A better system will skilled crammer. not make our bar less able or our bench less learned. Considered as a profession merely to deal with the litigation of the country, the bar has always been competent for that task. As the bar is, so is the bench, which is recruited from the bar. But surely we should aim at a higher ideal than this for the bar and bench of England Have we ever considered how small a part that bar and bench play in the field of jurisprudence and legal literature? Except in the United States, there are few of our text writers known, and even in the United States the number is becoming less and less, as authors of native growth spring up; and few even of the greatest judgments of Our most distinguished judges are to-day cited in any legal forum but our own. I know that this, in part, is accounted for by what I have already described as the insular character of our law; but this is not an explanation of the whole case. What are our treatises and text-books? What are the arguments of counsel ? And, indeed, what are the judgments of our judges? Are they much more than a nice discrimination of decided cases? I am speaking, I need not say, of the rule to which there are exceptions. I firmly believe that much of this is attributable to the absence, through succeeding generations of lawyers, of a comprehensive and scientific system for the teaching of law. Nor do the effects of our want of systematic teaching end with the bench, bar and text writer; their effects are also, I firmly believe, to be traced in the unmethodical, unsystematic character of our legislation.

I will give two illustrations of cases, the facts and circumstances of which I have taken the trouble carefully to verify. One relates to the state of things prior to December, 1894, when certain alterations were made with a view to greater stringency in the examinations. The student in question was an Oxford mau. He took his degree in law, but only in the fourth class. His knowledge of Roman law, however, was so deficient that he could not pass in that subject. He therefore required to pass in Roman law under the auspices of the Inus of Court. He came from the university in the summer of 1894. Later in that year, learning of the contemplated change, he wished to try to pass under the easier system. He went to a coach in the beginning of November, and after one month's coaching, he passed a so-called "satisfactory" examination in the subjects in the curriculum, including Roman law. Need I stop to point out how absurd it is to suppose that this gentleman had acquired any real grasp of the subjects in which he was examined.

The other case relates to a student under the later and more stringent regulations. He obtained his degree at Oxford in Science in the summer of 1894. While at the University he had never attended any lectures upon Law, and his first reading for the Bar began in October, 1894. In December, 1894, he passed his examination in Roman Law. In April of 1895 he passed his examination in Constitutional Law and Legal History, and, having passed such examinations, he began, for the first time, to read But can it ever be safely predicated of our pres- with a view to the examination in English Law (inent system that the test examinations, under the cluding Equity) of which he had no previous improved regulations, supply any guarantee of com- kuowledge. He obtained the services of an intellipetent knowledge? I have admitted that mastery gent coach, and, after two months' coaching, he, of the subjects in the curriculum would be ade- in June, 1895, passed a "satisfactory" examinaquate equipment for the bar. But are the subjects tion in English Law, including Equity. What did mastered? Are they digested and understood by that examination cover? It covered (1) Elements the students, or, is it not the fact that students of Real and Personal Property and Conveyancing, with but slight and superficial knowledge of the including Leases, Settlements and Mortgages; (2) subjects dealt with, are able, with the cram- Contracts and Torts, Sale of Goods and Agency; mer's assistance, to answer a fair proportion of (3) Trusts, Principles of Equity, Administration of

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Assets on Death, and Partnership; (4) Criminal
Law and Criminal Procedure, and Civil Procedure
and Evidence. Thus, after a period of altogether
eight months' study, this gentleman was supposed
to have acquired some substantial knowledge of
Roman Law and Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law
and Legal History, English Law (including Equity),
Civil Procedure (including Evidence) and Criminal
Law and Procedure. And in two short months of
these eight months he was supposed to have acquired
a knowledge of the English Law sufficient to en-
title him to practice it as a profession.

curriculum, I desire to mention that students have complained to me that the lectures, whether in the lecture-room or in the class-room, are sometimes essays merely, and frequently above their heads. They say, that, when the lecturer is speaking of legal documents, examples of the actual things are not put before them, and they fail to realize them. They say the classes are not sufficiently catechetical, and that when the lecturer has delivered himself he disappears, and is not available for advice and assistance from day to day in moments of doubt and difficulty. It is certain, if these complaints are well founded, that they point to serious defects in our methods of instruction.

These gentlemen were both gentlemen of intelligence, and gifted with remarkable powers of memory. They had not mastered the Law, but what they had done was, under the skillful direction of the coach, to learn the answer to a large proportion of the questions which the previous experience of the coach enabled him to say would probably be put in the various papers. In the latter of the two cases, the student was assured that he had answered properly more than three-fourths of the questions put; but he candidly confessed that he could not answer them now, that they had faded from his memory, and probably the most that this so-called legal training has done for him is to familiarize him with the books in which he may find the information useful to him, when he comes to the actual practice of his profession. It may, of course, be urged that the crammer is a difficulty in any system where examination is made the test. That is so, and hence the suggestion arises whether a better or some additional guarantee of learning may not be secured by some other method.

On the whole, therefore, is their not reason to think that our system of education is not satisfactory, that it is not thorough, that it does not supply any real test of adequate knowledge, that we are in too great a hurry to manufacture barristers, and that by this course we are neither recognizing our responsibilities to the public nor the true interests and dignity of the profession of the law?

Compare our legal system with the elaborate care and training in the medical and surgical schools. As has recently been well said by Sir Edwin Arnold, the labors of educational preparation for these professions grow, year by year, harder and harder and so they ought. To be up to the high-water mark of proficiency, a young doctor must to-day be a chemist, physiologist, botanist, mechanician, and many things besides.

I do not profess to be competent to lay down the lines of a proper and adequate system, but I am satisfied that we shall never have such a system until legal education is placed under the control of an authority differently constituted from that which now exists, and I shall only make such further demands upon your patients as will enable me to justify this view, and to suggest for your consideration the constitution of such an authority as might fitly be entrusted with this great work.

What are the objections to the Council of Legal Education? To begin, it is the creation of the concerted action of the four Inns of Court, and, therefore, the dissentient action of any one of them might undo it, though I admit this is not a probable contingency. Its powers are limited. It has not a free hand. Although it has now powers of initiative, that initiative may at any moment be checked by any one of the Inns of Court. It is composed solely of benchers of the Inns. This I conceive to be a grave defect. It is composed of men of advanced age-of men already fully burthened with the weight of professional and judicial work. Why should not the zeal and energy of younger men be utilized? Aye, and of men outside the profession of the law, if they are able to bring useful experience with them? Again, why are solicitors and students in that branch of the profession excluded? Down to the middle of the sixteenth century all members of, and students for, either branch of our common profession were alike part and parcel of the Inns of Court. I have never understood how the solicitors were then properly excluded. The lines of study of the two branches must be, to a large extent, similar. Why should Before leaving the subject of the existing legal they be kept apart? Their separation is a waste of

Indeed, the history of medical education in recent years, from the time when the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons commanded the principal avenues to the profession to the changes wrought by the legislation of 1858 and 1886, affords an instructive example of the improvements that may be effected under a body such as the General Medical Council clothed with public responsibility, and broadly representative in its character. It shows also how university teaching may be utilized, even in a profession in which a large part of the needful training is highly technical, practical and experimental.

[graphic]

power and a loss of advantage to both. This was so far back as 1846 pointed out as a grave evil by the Commons' Committee Report of that year. Some, I understand, advocate the separation as a barrier against fusion. I do not advocate fusion, nor do I believe in the probability of its occurrence, on the ground, mainly, that the distinction between the branches is the result, not of an arbitrary superimposed ordinance. but of a division gradually evolved because of its supposed convenience and utility. In America the distinction really, though not nominally, exists to a large extent.

See the enormous gain to the cause of legal education from the junction of the two branches. With increase of numbers comes increase of emulation amongst the students, and consequent incitement to the teachers to put out their best efforts, which the chilling influence of sparse attendance at lecture or in class will not bring forth. Have the Inns' lectures, even under the improved system, been a success? Look at the attendance, In 1892, only 582, whilst in 1893 the number had fallen to 460, and in 1894, to 384. But since the Council of Legal Educational has secured freedom of admission to the public to all the lectures (all credit to them for it) it would seem to be impossible even if it were desirable which, in my opinion, it is not -to keep up the separation.

[ocr errors]

A word as to the teaching staff. I say nothing to their disparagement. Far from it. I have no doubt they are able men, but many of them are men with whom teaching is not the business of, but only an incident in, their professional lives. For a large class of subjects which must be taught, for example, Jurisprudence, Roman and Constitutional Law and Legal History, International Law and Comparative Law, we want. a professional class of teachers; and we must make it worth the while of able men to devote themselves to such teaching as a caliing. This class we cannot hope to have, without being in a position to offer adequate reward and security of tenure, and these in turn we cannot give unless and until the system of legal education is under a body of men permanently constituted, so as to command the confidence of the public and the profession, a body invested with adequate powers clothed with public responsibility and amply endowed.

One other word as to the teaching staff. If we cannot at once get here all the right men we want for the work, we must look for them elsewhere, even if we have to go far afield for them. No narrow insular spirit should interfere with the selection of the best men. Athens did not repel the master of Socrates because he hailed from the coast of Ionia, nor Aristotle, because Stagira was his birth-place. The most famous schools of the European continent derived their fame from the genius of the Alcuins of

England and the Clements of Ireland, and in our time the New World has had the wisdom in the colleges and universities to utilize the trained experience gained in the colleges and universities of the Old World. I do not doubt that we have amongst us the right stuff for the work, if we proceed in the right way to bring it forth and to utilize it.

It will then be asked, "What do you propose?" I answer first, in general terms, that I desire to see legal education placed under a body permanent in its character, not purely legal in its composition, which shall be in close touch and sympathy with the Inns of Court, but shall not be governed by them-a body with public responsibility, which shall be free to call to its aid, from any quarter inside or outside the profession, men whose experience and attainments best fit them for the work of legal education.

INNS OF COURT SCHOOL OF LAW SUGGESTED.

How is such a body to be brought into existence? Two schemes have been suggested. One is that in connection with a teaching university in London there should be founded a Faculty of Law to be en dowed by the Inns of Court. In reference to this scheme, it is, perhaps, at this time enough to say that there is not at present any teaching university in London in connection with which such a faculty could be founded, and the scheme which I propound would not prevent such a connection being established should that course hereafter appear desirable.

My proposition is that a royal charter should be obtained to establish a school of law, to be called, say, "The Inns of Court School of Law." The senate, or governing body should consist of, say, thirty members, ten to be nominated by the Inns of Court, ten by the crown, one each by the lord chancellor, the lord chief justice, and master of the rolls, one each by the four universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Victoria, and three by the Incorporated Law Society. These figures are merely suggestions. Personally, I should desire to have some of the governing body elected by the free voice of the profession as a whole. I should not limit the representatives of the Inns of Court or of the Incor porated Law Society to members of their own bodies respectively. In this way, coupled with the nominating power of the crown and of the universities. security would be had against that narrowness which, in spite of ourselves, has a tendency to creep into purely professional associations. I attach importance to the universities being directly represented on the governing body, because (amongst other reasons) it would render it easier, and with safety, to determine what degrees and what testamurs might properly be accepted in the case of university students and graduates, and it would tend towards es

tr

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the

tablishing that connection of legal education with da university training which, with advantage, largely prevails in other countries, but is almost wholly wanting in our own. I should confer on such a body the power of granting academic distinctions, and I should commit to it in fullest confidence the settling of a scheme of peliminary examination, of systematic instruction, and of final tests of fitness for the profession of the law. A difference would, no doubt, have to be made between Bar students and others. But that is a matter of detail. I think such a scheme, well considered in all its parts, ought to receive the sanction of the Inns of Court, and would receive the warm support of the profession generally. It continues the name of the Inns of Courtt-as it ought to be continued-in connection with the cause of legal education. The new creation would be, in effect, their child. On the governing body their voice would be powerful, and to the Inns of Court, I need hardly say, we must mainly look for the funds to carry on the work in worthy fashion. The Inns of Court--to their credit, be it said—have never shown a spirit of parsimony. On the existing system the annual expenditure amounts to some £7,000. If the lectures and classes are made attractive, I doubt whether any larger sum, or, at all events, any substantially larger sum, would be required to work the scheme which I advocate.

ther

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

I have said that to this body I would confidently entrust the work of education. To the Inns of Court I should still leave untouched, in all their

fulness, those functions of discipline, those powers of calling or refusing to call, and of disbarring, which they have hitherto exercised with honor to themselves and with advantage to the public and to the profession. To the incorporated Law Society, in like manner, I should leave untouched such anal

ogous authority as they now possess. The pith and

substance, then, of what I have to urge is the To the necessity for establishing a school of law. governing body of that school of law will fall the working out of a wise and comprehensive system.

and which, probably, may usefully occupy those earlier years of professional life when professional work is insufficient for full oceupation.

I have now done. I feel how perfunctory my treatment of this great subject has been, for a great subject it undoubtedly is.

I shall be content, if to earnest minds inside the profession and outside it (for it is not merely a professional question), I have said enough to inspire the conviction that the effort ought now to be made to end a state of things certainly not creditable to the profession of the law, and surely disadvantageous to the community.

Never at any time, in any State, has there existed such a conjunction of circumstances as marks London pre-eminently to-day as the seat of a great school of law. We are here at the very heart of things, where the pulse of dominion beats strongest, with a population larger than that of many kingdoms--a great center of commerce, of art and of literature, with countless libraries, the rich depository of ancient records, and the seat at once of the higher judiciary, of Parliament and of the sovereign. From this point is governed the greatest empire the world has known. From our midst go forth to the uttermost ends of the earth, not merely those who symbolize the majesty of power, but happily with them, those who represent the majesty of Law Law, without which power is but tyranny. It has been well and truly said that there is hardly any system of civilized law which does not in some portion of the empire. In parts of Cangovern the legal relations of the queen's subjects ada, French law, older than the first empire, modified by modern codification, prevails in other parts, the English system; in Australia, English law modified by home legislation in those self-governing communities; in parts of Africa, Roman law

with Dutch modifications; in the West Indian colonies, Spanish law modified by local customs; in India, now the Hindoo, now the Mahommedan law, tempered by local custom and by local and imperial legislation.

If the empire of our arms is wide, so, happily, is the empire of our law. For this wide and varied field, the ultimate legal court of appeal is the judicial committee of the privy council. Before that tribunal the bar of England aspire to practice, and on its benches aspire to sit.

A word of warning is perhaps hardly needed, but I will utter it. However perfect the system, its fruition must mainly depend upon the energy and intelligence of the student. After all, the main function of teaching is to teach men how to think, to give them a grasp of principle, to put them on the right track, to give them a clue to the labyrinth, to inspire them with enthusiasm for the profession, that they may work with a will, inspired by a lofty idea of the dignity of the profession of the law, of its duties and of its responsibilities. Nor will any system dispense with the need of practical study in the chambers of a working law-flock, and from which shall go forth men to pracyer, which, however, may well (in the case of students for the bar), be postponed to a later stage,

Surely these facts suggest great possibilities and great responsibilities. Is it an idle dream to hope that, even in our day and generation, there may here arise a great school of law worthy of our time

worthy of one of the first and noblest of human sciences, to which, attracted by the fame of its teaching, students from all parts of the world may

tice, to teach, and to administer the law with a true and high ideal of the dignity of their mission?

[graphic]

SOME NOTABLE SCOTCH LAWYERS- through life, and more than once got him into diffi

IN

JOHN HOPE.

N the legal annals of Scotland the families of Hope and Dundas have a remarkable record in the number of judges they have given to the bench of the Court of Session. Of the Dundases five attained the judicial dignity; this, however, is outdone by the Hopes, who can claim six representatives as senators of the College of Justice, and of this number three were brothers. These three were the sons of Sir Thomas Hope, of Craighall, the founder of the legal dynasty, who for many years held the office of lord advocate in the reign of Charles I. With Sir Thomas was initiated the cus

In con

culties. So early as 1822, while still an advocatedepute, he came into collision with the House of Commons. Mr. Abercromby (afterwards speaker) had brought under the notice of the House the relations of the lord advocate and certain of his subordinates with two newspapers in Scotlandthe Beacon and the Sentinel - which, in a very short time, achieved an unenviable notoriety by the number and virulence of their attacks on political opponent; and, in the course of his speech, Abercromby animadverted in severe terms on Hope's conduct as advocate-depute in connection with a prosecution relating to the affairs of these newspapers-conduct which, it was alleged, was intended to prejudice the trial of Stuart of Duncan, who, in a duel arising out of libellous productions in the Sentinel, had killed Sir Alexander Boswell. Part of the attack on Hope was based on a misapprehension, but Hope was naturally indignant, and, in a letter which he addressed to Abercromby, he gave vent to his indignation in strong terms. This letter, being brought before the House, was voted a breach of privilege, for which its author was ordered to attend at the bar, and give an explanation of his conduct. In obedience to this order Hope attended, and, in a speech marked by a good deal of spirit, he explained that, while he regretted having been guilty of a breach of the House's privileges, he had felt compelled to adopt the course he had, to vindicate his honor as a professional man and as a gentleman. The House was favorably impressed with his speech, and, according to Hansard, he withdrew "amidst loud and continued cheers." Some discussion followed, and eventually it was resolved that no further steps should be taken in the matter, in view of the explanation which had been offered.

tom which long prevailed for the lord advocate to plead in court with his hat on, this privilege being granted to him, as it appeared unfitting that a man should plead uncovered before his sons. nection with our present sketch we are concerned only with Sir Thomas' third son, Sir James Hope, of Hopetoun. This Sir James was the grandfather of the first Earl of Hopetoun, from whom was descended Charles Hope, of Granton, for many years lord president of the Court of Session; he married his cousin, a daughter of the second Earl of Hopetoun, and of that union John was the eldest son, John Hope was born on the 26th May, 1794, and was educated at the High School and University of Edinburgh. Following in the footsteps of his distinguished father, he entered the Faculty of Advocates on the 23d Nov., 1816. With a lord president for his father, closely connected with the noble family of Hopetoun, with opinions on political affairs in harmony with those of the government of the day, and with powers of no mean order, Hope might be classed among those who have greatness thrust upon them. His rise was extraordinarily rapid. Three years after his admission to the faculty he became an advocate-depute under Sir William Rae; and when only of seven years' standing he obtained the office of solicitor-general. From the first he appears to have been somewhat impetuous. Scott, writing in his "Journal," thus refers to him: " Walked home with the solicitor-haved with much magnanimity. At that time it decidedly the most hopeful young man of his time; high connections, great talent, spirited ambition, a ready elocution, with a good voice and dignified manners, prompt and steady courage, vigilant and constant assiduity, popularity with the young men and the good opinion of the old, will, if I mistake not, carry him as high as any man who has arisen here since the days of old Hal Dundas. He is hot, though, and rather hasty; this should be amended. They who play at single-stick must bear with pleasure a rap over the knuckles." An inability to beau raps over the knuckles accompanied him

Mention has been made, in the sketch of Sir James Moncreiff in this series, of Hope's protest that he, as solicitor-general, was entitled to take precedence of Moncreiff as dean of faculty, and of Moncreiff's answer to the protest. Both on this occasion and in 1829, when Jeffrey was elected dean, Hope be

was not unusual for the offices of lord-advocate or solicitor-general and dean of faculty to be combined in one person; the rule securing a fair distribution of honors being of a much later date. In those circumstances, and considering that the conservatives were still in the ascendant in the faculty, Hope, had he chosen to push his claim, might easily have got the deanship for himself. Some had put him forward in 1829 to oppose Jeffrey, but he waived his claims in deference to his opponent's seniority and high standing at the bar; not only so, but he moved Jeffrey's election. He lost little by waiting; for, in

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »