-Siiii*. ««^.v.-.-'a««t-^*',-^.i»"*i';rt*^ 
 

 
 OInrnrll lUam i^rl^nol Htbrary 
 
 ilarsl]aU lEiiutty (!liiUcrtt0n 
 
 Ci9tft of 
 
 1. 31. Marshall, E.iH. H. 1S94 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 085 505 166 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924085505166 
 
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE AMENDMENT 
 OF THE LAW. 
 
 REPORT 
 
 THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE 
 
 ON THE KELATION BETWEEN 
 
 THE BAR, THE ATTORl^EY, AND 
 THE CLIENT. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 1852. 
 
^ ^7n 
 
 London : 
 
 Spottiswooues and Shaw, 
 
 New-street- Square. 
 
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE AMENDMENT OF 
 THE LAW. 
 
 THE BAR, THE ATTORNEY, AND THE CLIENT. 
 
 A Special Committee was appointed to consider the 
 present relation between the Barrister, the Attorney, and the 
 Client ; and to report whether any, and what, alterations can 
 be made therein, with advantage to the Public. 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 Your Committee, on entering upon the comprehensive 
 subject referred to them, have sought to ascertain the pre- 
 cise nature of the relation which exists by force of any 
 positive law, or of any rule of professional etiquette, or of 
 p.ny usage, between a client, the barrister, and the attorney, 
 and have then proceeded to inquire; — whether clients 
 should be permitted to consult or retain barristers, either as 
 chamber counsel or as advocates, without the intervention of 
 attorneys; — whether the statutory enactment which pro- 
 hibits barristers from practising in the County Courts, 
 " unless instructed by an attorney," ought to be upheld ; — 
 whether attorneys should be allowed to act as advocates in 
 the Superior Courts ; — ■ whether any alteration should be 
 made in the existing regulations with respect to attorneys 
 becoming barristers, and barristers becoming attorneys ; — 
 whether any alterations should be made in the law which re- 
 gulates the legal liabilities of barristers and attorneys respec- 
 tively in cases of gross negligence, and breach of confidence ; 
 and, lastly, — whether a Bar Institute or Faculty of Advo- 
 cates should be established, invested with the power of 
 superintending the admission of members to the Bar, and of 
 investigating and punishing cases of professional misconduct. 
 The question of the remuneration of barristers and attor- 
 neys is reserved for a separate Report. 
 
 A 2 
 
By the Common Law, members of the Bar are alone en- 
 titled to practise as advocates, pleaders, or counsel in our 
 Secular Courts ; and various ordinances, still in force, ex- 
 pressly prohibit any one who has not attained the degree of 
 Barrister-at-Law from practising as an advocate in the Su- 
 perior Courts, or before the Justices of Assize.' 
 
 The members of the Bar being invested by the Common 
 Law with these important rights, a corresponding and 
 equally important liability attaches to them, which precludes 
 them from refusing their aid to any one who formally 
 demands their services. This liability has in former times 
 been so clearly recognised, that several cases are mentioned 
 in the books, in which the Judges have peremptorily com- 
 pelled counst 1 to act for a suitor. ^ Indeed, in the instance 
 of pauper suitors, and in several other matters, the Legislature 
 has expressly empowered the Courts to assign counsel to 
 conduct the cause. ^ 
 
 The duties devolving upon barristers at the present day 
 consist in advising on questions of Law and Practice, in 
 preparing legal instruments, in drawing pleadings, and in 
 advocating the causes of suitors in Courts both Civil and 
 Criminal ; and these various duties are performed under the 
 control of the Judges of the Superior Courts and of the 
 Benchers of the several Inns. 
 
 The profession of an attorney, though indistinctly alluded 
 to in several earlier Acts*, may be said to date its exist- 
 ence from the statute of Westminster 2. c. 10., which was 
 passed in the year 1285. By that statute attorneys were 
 permitted to prosecute and defend any action in the absence 
 of the parties to the suit. The practice thus sanctioned of 
 appearing by attorney soon became frequent, and we learn 
 from the preamble of an act, passed in 1402', that there were 
 
 ' See Orders of the Pi ivy Council and Judges for the regulation of the Inns 
 of Court, 16 Eliz. 157-1. Dugd. Orig. Jud. 312. 
 
 ^ See Paston v. Genney, year-book, 1 1 Edw. 4. fol. 2. pi. 4. cited in Ap- 
 pendix to Manning's Semens ad legem, p. 230. Viner's Abridgment; Pauper, D. 
 
 ' 11 H. 7..;. 12. 
 
 * See Stat, of Mevton, c. 10., passed in 1260 ; stat. of Westminster, i. c. 33., 
 passed in 1275 ; stat. of Gloucester, c. 8,, passed in 1278. 
 
 » 4 Hen. 4. u. 18. 
 
then " a great number of attorneys ignorant and not learned 
 in the law, as they were wont to be before this time." To 
 remedy this evil, the act ordains, " that all the attorneys 
 shall be examined by the justices, and by their discretions 
 their names put in the roll ; and they that be good, and 
 virtuous, and of good fame shall be received, and sworn well 
 and truly to serve in their offices." 
 
 A rule of the Court of King's Bench, of 1615 ', describes 
 the province of attorneys at that time to be " to put in 
 records, and to appear for clients at the Assizes in such 
 records in which they were named attorneys before the 
 Justices at the Assizes, and to be prepared to inform the 
 counsel of their clients and masters in that behalf." 
 
 In more recent times the practice of attorneys has been 
 gradually extended to various other offices; such as those of 
 scriveners, money brokers, stewards, receivers, and legal and 
 confidential agents in family matters ; while, a series of statu- 
 tory enactments has conceded to them an extension of their 
 exclusive privileges to proceedings in all Courts of Law and 
 Equity^, and a right to exercise several functions which, at 
 Common Law, appertain peculiarly to the province of Counsel. 
 Thus, they are expressly authorised' to prepare deeds, con- 
 veyances, and other legal instruments ; they have concurrent 
 audience with the Bar in the Bankruptcy Courts*; and owing 
 to the peculiar wording of a clause in a recent statute*, they 
 occupy in the County Courts a still more favourable position. 
 
 Such being the relative functions of the two branches of the 
 Legal Profession, your Committee have proceeded to investi- 
 gate a practice, commonly resorted to at this day, of clients 
 consulting and retaining barristers only through the interven- 
 tion of attorneys. This practice, excepting in the County 
 Courts, where a hamster is by statute prohibited from 
 appearing for his client, " unless instructed by an attorney," 
 is not founded on any posilive rule of law, as was distinctly 
 
 ' Reg. Gen. Easter T. 13 Jac. 1. 
 
 2 See the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73., commonly known as the Attorneys' Act. 
 
 ^ See 44 Geo. 3. c. 98. sec. 14. 
 
 * 12 and 13 Vict. c. 106. sec. 247. 
 
 ' 9 and 10 Vict. c. 95. sec. 91. 
 
 A 3 
 
6 
 
 determined in the recent case of Doe dem. Bennet v. 
 Halei, in which all the old authorities are reviewed. In- 
 deed, it has never been doubted that in conveyancing or in 
 criminal cases a barrister may by the Common Law be 
 retained directly by the client ; and as it has been laid down 
 that he cannot withhold his services when a retainer is ten- 
 dered, it seems to follow that before this doctrine can be 
 narrowed by a condition that such tender shall be made only 
 through an attorney, some long established rule of profes- 
 sional etiquette or immemorial usage to that effect must be 
 shown to exist. Your Committee have been unable to 
 discover any such rule or usage. 
 
 They find, however, that there is a prevalent impression 
 amongst the Public and the Profession, that a client cannot 
 with propriety retain or consult a barrister save through 
 an attorney ; and that this notion has given rise to a very 
 general practice of resorting to the attorney in the first in- 
 stance, — a practice which they have endeavoured to trace to 
 its origin. 
 
 The historical records of the 17 th century show that this 
 practice had not then become usual. 
 
 In Lord Campbell's Life of Sir Mathew Hale^, will be 
 found the following passage : — " He did not take the profits 
 that he might have had by his jiractice, for in common cases, 
 when those v^ho came to ask his counsel gave him a piece, he 
 used to give back the half, and to make ten shillings his fee 
 in ordinary matters that did not require much time or study." 
 Lord Campbell adds in a note, " At this time the client con- 
 sulted the barrister in person, and paid him the honorarium 
 without the intervention of attorney or clerk." 
 
 In Koger North's Life of Lord Keeper Guildford, it Is 
 stated that soon after his being called to the Bar, " he began to 
 feel himself in business, and as a fresh young man of good cha- 
 racter, had the favour of divers persons that out of a good will 
 went to him, and some near relations." He was once asked if 
 he took fees of such. " Yes," said he, " they come to me to 
 
 • 15 Q. B. Rep. 171. 
 
 ' See Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. i. pp. 585, 586. 
 
do me a kindness, and what kindness have I if I refuse their 
 money?"' In those days, indeed, counsel seem to have been 
 ahnost universally resorted to for legal advice In the first 
 instance, before the risk of a lawsuit was incurred ; and the 
 barrister who was consulted took care himself to examine 
 into the evidence in order to avoid mishaps. " One thing," 
 the Lord Keeper's biographer observes, " was principally his 
 care, which was to take good instructions in his chamber. 
 He examined carefully the issue, as the pleadings derived it, 
 and perused all the deeds if it were a title, and not seldom 
 examined the witnesses if it were a fact; by this he was 
 enabled to make judgment of the cause, and to advise his 
 client as to going on or not."^ In another passage Roger 
 North observes, " nor can I say upon my memory how many 
 families of nobility and others, having once made use of his 
 advice, made him afterwards arbiter of all their concerns."* 
 
 From the insight into the manners of the seventeenth 
 and eighteenth centuries, which contemporaneous dramatists 
 and poets afford, ample proof exists that during that period 
 clients were in the habit of retaining and consulting counsel 
 directly. Wycherly, who was educated for the Bar, and for 
 many years a resident in the Temple, draws, in " The Plain 
 Dealer,"* a humorous picture of a litigious widow, with suits 
 in every Court in Westminster Hall, instructing her counsel 
 personally, and evidently annoyed at a solicitor offering his 
 services to one so capable as herself of choosing her own 
 counsel. 
 
 Steele, who, although not himself bred to the Law, lived 
 much amongst lawyers, affords another instance of the then 
 professional practice, in his comedy of " The Conscious 
 Lovers," where Mrs. Sealand's counsel, Serjeant Target, and 
 her intended son-in-law's, Counsellor Bramble, are made to 
 meet at her house to arrange the preliminaries for the mar- 
 riage settlement. 
 
 Further instances may be found in the " Spectator," and in 
 other works of the period. Pope shows the then prevalent 
 
 1 P. 34. » P. 46. » p. 5S. * Act III. Sc. 1. 
 
 A 4 
 
8 
 
 practice, in his imitation of Horace, inscribed to Mr, Fortescue, 
 an eminent barrister : — 
 
 " Tim'rous by nature, of the rich in awe, 
 I come to counsel learned in the law ; 
 You'll give me as a friend both sage and free 
 Advice (and as you used) without a fee." 
 
 The story of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, sending to 
 her counsel, Mr. Murray (afterwards Lord Mansfield), a re- 
 tainer with a fee of a thousand guineas, of which the future 
 Chief Justice returned the Duchess 995, with an intimation 
 that the " professional fee with a general retainer could 
 neither be less or more than five guineas," is well known. 
 
 These instances, and they might be multiplied to almost 
 any extent, prove to demonstration that the present practice 
 is of comparatively recent origin. In early times it was 
 utterly unknown ; at a later period it was only partially 
 recognised ; and even during the last century it was not fully 
 established. It is, therefore, girt about by no halo of an- 
 tiquity, and it must stand or fall by its own intrinsic merits. 
 
 Your Committee further find, that even during the present 
 century, and at the present moment, the ancient practice, 
 which allowed the client to communicate directly with liis 
 counsel, has not been wholly discontinued. Numerous well- 
 authenticated anecdotes which have come to their knowledge 
 satisfactorily prove that very many eminent barristers, who 
 are either still living, or who have only recently died, have 
 availed themselves of that practice. Lord Brougham may 
 be mentioned as a striking example; for in the year 1824, 
 when he was a leader of the Northern Circuit, and was 
 threatened with loss of practice by a combination of attor- 
 neys opposed to his schemes of Law Reform, he defeated that 
 combination by publishing his intention of affording his 
 counsel and advocacy to such lay clients as should directly 
 seek his aid. In this resolution he was supported by the 
 Circuit, who, with a view to relax any contrary rule of eti- 
 quette, directed their records to be searched, when no trace 
 of any such rule was found to exist. The present Lord 
 Chancellor is also known, at least on one remarkable occa- 
 sion, to have advised a client, and that client a lady, without 
 
the interposition of any attorney ; and tlie late Mr. Baron 
 Richardson, when at the Bar, repeatedly communicated with 
 mercantile men, who came direct to consult him on legal 
 questions of delicacy connected with their affairs. The late 
 Lord Abinger, too, whom few men will think of charging 
 with unprofessional conduct, is known on several occasions to 
 have given his advice to, and received his fee from, clients, 
 without any intervening attorney ; and one instance is par- 
 ticularly remembered from the fact, that the advice was 
 given, and the fee received, in a room in Brookes' Club. 
 
 With respect to the limits of the supposed rule of etiquette, 
 your Committee have been unable to obtain any precise in- 
 formation. On the one hand, some members of the Bar 
 have stated that they consider it inconsistent with " etiquette" 
 for a barrister in London to receive papers from a country 
 attorney, unless they come through his London agent ; but 
 on the other, your Committee have been assured, by gentle- 
 men of high reputation as lawyers, that they do not consider 
 it unprofessional to aid the public by advice, without the 
 intervention of an attorney ; and, indeed, some gentlemen 
 have intimated their opinion that barristers are not, under 
 ordinary circumstances, justified in refusing to clients their 
 professional aid, either as counsel or as advocates, though no 
 attorney be engaged. The attention of your Committee has 
 been also called to the well-known fact, that in criminal 
 cases counsel are constantly retained without the intervention 
 of an attorney, and that wills and settlements are frequently 
 drawn under instructions received directly from the client. 
 
 Such being, as far as your Committee have been able to 
 ascertain, the actual relation at present existing between bar- 
 rister, attorney, and client, in the conduct of legal business, 
 they now proceed to consider whether any alterations may be 
 made therein with advantage to the public ; and the first 
 question to which they will address themselves is, whether 
 clients should be permitted to consult or retain barristers, 
 either as chamber counsel or as advocates, without the inter- 
 vention of attorneys. In other words, is it expedient that 
 the present practice should be annulled ? 
 
 Now, the arguments in its favour appear to be the follow- 
 
10 
 
 ing ; first, it is contended that it has the effect of preserving 
 the dignity of the Bar ; next, that it insures the indepen- 
 dence of that body ; and thirdly, that it promotes its morality. 
 It is then urged, that the abolition of the practice would be 
 greatly injurious to attorneys ; that it would violate a tacit 
 understanding between the two branches of the Profession, 
 and would thus be inconsistent with good faith; that it 
 would cause an unseemly squabble between barristers and 
 attorneys ; that it would not benefit the public, as barristers 
 would be unable, without the assistance of attorneys, to 
 elicit the real facts from clients ; and as clients would be 
 unable, without the like assistance, to ascertain the com- 
 petency of barristers ; and that, notwithstanding the abo- 
 lition, the legal business of the country would continue to 
 flow in the same channels as at present. Your Committee 
 believe that the above is a fair statement of all the reasons 
 advanced by those who are opposed to any relaxation of the 
 existing practice ; but as they have not in their deliberations 
 had the assistance of any of those members of the Society, 
 whose position as attorneys would have rendered their co- 
 operation most valuable, it may possibly turn out that the 
 arguments in favour of the present system, as stated in this 
 Report, may be less complete than they would otherwise 
 have been. 
 
 Reverting, however, to the arguments themselves, your 
 Committee confess that they have not been much struck 
 with the force of any of them. The diminution of the 
 dignity of the Bar can scarcely be placed in competition with 
 the interests of the public ; and, even were it otherwise, it 
 would be difficult to discover how a barrister's dignity can 
 be diminished by enabling him to communicate directly with 
 his client. The maxim, " omne ignotum pro mirifico " may 
 possibly find some countenance in the courts of princes, but 
 there is little cause for fear less the familiarity induced by 
 an interview between a suitor and his counsel should breed 
 contempt. The true dignity of barristers is co-extensive 
 with their utility; and no measure which increases the one 
 can diminish the other. 
 
11 
 
 Neither could the independence of the Bar be placed in 
 any jeopardy by abolishing the present Practice. 
 
 It is not very easy to understand the exact meaning of the 
 assertion, that the more direct access of the client to the bar- 
 rister will compromise his independence. In one sense, no 
 professional man can be said to be independent, since all must 
 ultimately rely on the favour of a public more or less extended. 
 In this sense, the alteration of the practice will leave the 
 position of the Bar as it found it. If, on the other hand, it be 
 meant that the alteration of the practice will reduce the social 
 position of the barrister below its present grade, no appre- 
 hension can be more unfounded. The independence, in this 
 sense, of a profession, is regulated chiefly by the number of 
 persons in whom its patronage is vested. If these be nume- 
 rous, it is comparatively a matter of indiflerence to offend any 
 of them ; if few, their displeasure must be averted at any cost. 
 So long as authors relied on patrons, they were a servile and 
 dependent class; but since they have found that the best 
 patron is the public, they have risen in self-respect and 
 position. Precisely the same reasoning applies to the Bar. 
 So long as they look only to a single class for employment, 
 their independence is exposed to many dangers ; but the 
 moment they are brought into contact with the public, they 
 have a resource against any sinister influence in an appeal 
 to its sympathies, such as was so successfully made by Lord 
 Brougham. 
 
 Those who think that the present practice is favourable to 
 the morality of the Bar, rely on the argument, that if fraudu- 
 lent claims or defences are to be set up, witnesses tampered 
 with, or any other species of mal-practice resorted to, it is now 
 necessary to find both an attorney and a barrister who are 
 jointly ready to lend themselves to such chicanery ; whereas, 
 under the supposed alteration, either one or the other will alone 
 be sufficient. Unfortunately, this check is of little practical 
 force. Unscrupulous practitioners are endowed with an in- 
 stinct which enables them readily to recognise each other; 
 and we fear that no dishonest scheme devised by a member of 
 either branch of the Profession has ever miscarried from his 
 inability to find a coadjutor equally unprincipled. Nay, the 
 
12 
 
 compulsory employment in all cases of two legal agents, has a 
 tendency to encourage such practices, by offering to them a 
 sure prospect of impunity. It is easy for two men, without 
 detection, and without absolute loss of character, to do things 
 which one dare not attempt. The responsibility is divided 
 and uncertain ; it is easy to assume a convenient ignorance 
 on dangerous points, mutual misunderstanding may be sug- 
 gested, and in the last resort, each may throw the blame on 
 the other ; the barrister, if censured by the Court, on the at- 
 torney ; the attorney, if accused by the client, on the bar- 
 rister. From these considerations, it seems clear that the 
 morality of the Profession runs no danger from the change. 
 
 It is then urged, that such a change would do much injury 
 to attorneys, and would involve a breach of good faith and of 
 the tacit understanding between the two branches of the Pro- 
 fession. A Committee of this Society can recognise no 
 Jiardship towards individuals or professions as competing for 
 a moment with the public good. Whatever injury may be 
 suffered by the attorney, will be precisely in proportion to 
 the benefit conferred on the client. If the present system be 
 best it will continue ; if not, those who profit by it have no 
 more claim to have it preserved for their benefit, than those 
 whose interests suffer by the advance of science and discovery. 
 Neither is there any breach of faith, since the present state of 
 the practice is of recent origin, and arose, not from any com- 
 pact between the two professions, but, as it is conceived, frotn 
 a fastidiousness and over-refinement of feeling which induced 
 the Bar to seclude themselves from the public, not with the 
 view to increase the profits of attorneys, but in the mis- 
 taken idea of consulting their own ease and dignity. Nor is 
 there any ground for fear lest the abandonment of the 
 practice would lead to an invasion by the Bar of the peculiar 
 province of attorneys, no encroachment by the Bar or any 
 other class of persons on the exclusive privileges of attorneys 
 being possible, so long as the Attorneys' Act, 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73. 
 remains unrepealed. 
 
 Nor does there seem to be any reason for apprehension 
 lest the change should engender unseemly squabbles between 
 the respectable members of the two branches of the Pro- 
 
13 
 
 fession. No liberal or right-minded barrister would regard 
 with feelings of jealousy the success which an attorney had 
 fairly won by his learning and his talents ; and no attorney 
 could reasonably take offence at the exercise by the Bar of 
 their undoubted right to regulate their own practice, even 
 though the result should be, that barristers should resume 
 the privilege of acting as jurisconsults, and should thus ex- 
 pose attorneys to a new, and it may be, a formidable compe- 
 tition. 
 
 It is next said, that barristers would be incapable of elicit- 
 ing the requisite information from their clients. If this 
 should be so, the change would be harmless, as the public 
 would soon cease to consult men who could not understand 
 them. There seems, however, no reason for supposing that 
 such would be the case. It may be true that investigations 
 requiring much time and patience could not be conducted in 
 a satisfactory manner by the fully employed barrister, but 
 the same observation applies at the present moment to at- 
 torneys in large practice ; and it seems idle to contend, that 
 the junior and less occupied membei'S of the Bar would not 
 be as capable of unravelling a tangled web of facts, and of 
 discussing the real points in dispute, as those who belong to 
 the other branch of the Profession. 
 
 Perhaps the most plausible of the objections which may be 
 urged to the change is, that the client, if permitted to choose 
 for himself, may select an ignorant or incompetent barrister 
 as his legal adviser. The weight of this objection lies in the 
 unfortunate fact, that owing to the neglect of legal education, 
 the supposition of ignorance in a barrister carries with it no 
 contradiction. Whatever be the merits of individual mem- 
 bers, your Committee are painfully sensible that the status of 
 a profession must depend on the terms of admission to its 
 ranks, and that the public have been deprived of the gua- 
 rantee against ignorance and incompetence, which the learned 
 societies entrusted with the power of calling to the Bar ought 
 to have afforded. In another part of this Keport will be found 
 recommendations intended to meet this serious evil. With 
 reference, however, to the present objection, it must be re- 
 membered that the client has the deepest interest in selecting 
 
14 
 
 a competent legal adviser — that many of the duties of a bar- 
 rister are performed in public in the presence of professional 
 rivals, and of a Court whose appreciation of intellectual ability 
 is exquisitely keen — that the client is not obliged to depend 
 on his ovirn judgment, but can command, if he think fit, the 
 advice of an experienced attorney ; and that it is no part of the 
 policy of the present day to fetter the liberty of private choice 
 because It may not, as a uniform rule, be judiciously exercised. 
 Nor Is the existing system faultless ; for interest, friendship, 
 or family alliance, may warp the choice of an advocate by an 
 attorney, just as ignorance and inexperience may mislead the 
 client. While neither method is wholly free from objection, 
 tlieir necessary imperfections will probably be best met by 
 leaving the alternative open. An additional safeguard will 
 be found in the suggestion contained in another part of this 
 Eeport, for rendering the barrister liable for gross negligence 
 or ignorance. 
 
 Lastly, it is sometimes argued that the change is not worth 
 making, because it will produce no effect. Business, it is 
 said, will continue to flow in its present channels, and the 
 Bar win be utterly unable to regain the ground which it has 
 now for some years voluntarily abandoned. Without stop- 
 ping to inquire how far this argument is consistent with the 
 complaint of hardship before disposed of, your Committee 
 will proceed at once to answer it by adducing those reasons 
 which. In their opinion, show that the change will be great, 
 because Its results will be highly beneficial. 
 
 The following are the reasons which appear to show the 
 expediency of allowing the client to consult counsel without 
 compelling the intervention of an attorney : — - 
 
 1st, such a proceeding will be less expensive; 2ndly, it 
 will be more expeditious ; 3rdly, the advice will be less likely 
 to be founded on error as to fact ; 4thly, secrecy will be more 
 effectually attained ; 5thly, the independence of the Bar will 
 be better secured ; 6thly, nepotism among attorneys will be 
 discournged ; 7thly, the Bar will be placed more under the 
 influence of public opinion; 8thly, an honourable competition 
 between the two branches of the Profession will raise the 
 intellectual and moral standard of each ; 9thly, the Law will 
 
15 
 
 be studied In all its branches ; and, lastly, the profession of 
 jurisconsult will regain the position from which it has been 
 improperly degraded. 
 
 On the question of expense it is unnecessary to enlarge. 
 It is quite evident that wherever a barrister is resorted to in 
 the first instance, the expense of preparing a case for his 
 opinion, usually much larger than his fee, will be saved to 
 the client. If it be apprehended that a barrister much con- 
 sulted by clients would probably raise his fees, it must be 
 remembered that in so doing he will expose himself not only 
 to the competition of his own profession, but of the attorneys 
 also, and that such increased remuneration can, under these 
 circumstances, only be attained by extraordinary merit. 
 The mere superfluity of practitioners, the existence of a large 
 number of barristers without practice, and of attorneys with- 
 out business, has not hitherto rendered advice any cheaper to 
 the public. It remains to be seen whether the competition 
 of professions may not achieve that which has not resulted 
 from the competition of individuals. In this, as in most 
 other matters, the analogy of the medical profession affords a 
 safe guide, since no one can doubt that the competition of Its 
 diiferent branches greatly tends to secure the moderation of 
 its charges. 
 
 The greater expedition of the direct resort to counsel is 
 also too plain to requli'e much comment. In these days of 
 ra(pid motion and instantaneous intelligence, conjunctures 
 must often arise, in which the Immediate access to the best 
 advice, without preliminary forms or proceedings of any kind, 
 must be invaluable to clients. Many matters of business 
 will as little bear delay as matters of health ; nor Is it easy to 
 estimate the amount of gain, both to the Public and the Pro- 
 fession, that will arise from breaking down the delays which 
 have In so many instances interposed an insurmountable bar- 
 rier between them. 
 
 As regards safety, the presence of an intermediate agent 
 between counsel and client is of itself a cause of many 
 errors, and is frequently an obstacle to the discovery of 
 truth. The preparation of a case often falls upon the at- 
 torney's clerk, and Is little more than his revision of the 
 
16 
 
 notes taken, or instructions given, by his employer. It is, 
 in fact, a copy of a copy, exposed to all the objections which 
 apply to hearsay or secondary evidence. Considering how 
 such things are almost necessarily prepared, it cannot be 
 wondered at that all the material facts should not always be 
 disclosed, and that counsel should often be obliged to assume 
 alternative states of fact in order to give any opinion at all, — 
 a necessity which would be obviated by a single question put 
 to the client himself. The inconvenience of entrusting one 
 party with the statement of a case to be answered by another 
 is shown by the numerous miscarriages of special cases stated 
 for the opinion of our Courts, which have been decided on 
 grounds beside the merits, from the want of some fact over- 
 looked by the skilful council who framed them, but con- 
 sidered by the Court essential to the decision. Another 
 source of safety would be found in the allowing counsel 
 themselves to examine the witnesses whom they are to pro- 
 duce in Court. Such a practice would render it impossible 
 for barristers, without loss of character, to open cases, unsup- 
 ported by evidence, on the faith of their instructions, and 
 would impose upon them the salutary responsibility of ascer- 
 taining that the statements to which they give publicity are 
 not mere surmises or malicious inventions. To lend such an 
 aid to justice, and to throw such a protection over private 
 character, would raise the Bar in public estimation, and 
 increase the sphere of its utility. 
 
 Secrecy is in many cases so valuable to the client, that 
 he will rather forego the advice he needs than risk publicity. 
 Mercantile credit and female honour may, under the present 
 system, be exposed to the comments of the very numerous 
 persons through whose hands the business of an attorney m 
 large practice usually passes. When the best advice can be 
 had without committing anything to paper, or trusting any 
 one except the person consulted, the advice of the learned 
 will be placed at the command of the public in many cases, in 
 which it has hitherto been practically inaccessible. 
 
 Such a change will also confer on the Bar an indepen- 
 dence of position which can never be enjoyed by those who 
 look exclusively to another profession for advancement in 
 
17 
 
 their own. The barrister, conscious that there is a public 
 open to him beyond the narrow legal circle in which he has 
 hitherto moved, will have the less temptation to descend to 
 unworthy arts and compliances, and may with more con- 
 fidence rely on his reputation for character and ability to 
 compensate the want of professional connexion. 
 
 Nor will such a change be without a salutary effect on the 
 manner in which attorneys dispose of the patronage entrusted 
 to them on behalf of their clients. The temptation of all 
 who have much to give away is nepotism, and whether the 
 object of desire be a brief or a place, there will always be a 
 tendency to bestow it on other grounds than purely merito- 
 rious ones. By in some degree diminishing the power of one 
 part of the Profession over the destinies of the other, we 
 render it less likely that men will be brought forward by 
 interest alone ; and by bringing the barrister in contact with 
 the public, we submit him to an impartial tribunal which 
 will view him with other eyes than those of relatives and con- 
 nexions. 
 
 The same change will correct to some extent an evil 
 much complained of in modern times, the imperviousness of 
 the Bar to the influence of public opinion. Provided he 
 stands well with those to whom he looks for employment, a 
 barrister has little pecuniary loss to apprehend from shocking 
 the moral sense of the public. He may misstate evidence, 
 misquote or suppress authorities, and accuse the innocent to 
 shield those whom he knows to be guilty, without incurring 
 any loss which money can measure. But once bring him 
 into immediate contact with the Public, and he will be made 
 to feel the pecuniary worth of character, and the necessity of 
 satisfying, not merely a zealous or malicious client, but those 
 who form the audience in, or read the proceedings of. Courts 
 of Justice. 
 
 Not merely would the competition between the two pro- 
 fessions render advice cheaper and more accessible to the 
 public, but it would also render both professions more worthy 
 and more able to give it. Men would soon discover from 
 which quarter the more honest and safe advice was to be 
 obtained ; and the less popular branch, whichever that might 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 be, would be stimulated by an honourable emulation to sur- 
 pass its competitor. From such a struggle would arise, not 
 only an improved intellectual culture, but a wish to banish 
 disreputable practices, and to raise the standard of morals and 
 learning to the highest attainable point. 
 
 Another result would be, that persons liable to be 
 called in to advise unlearned clients, would be compelled to 
 study the Law in a more comprehensive spirit ; and instead 
 of devoting their whole minds to a single department — Law 
 to the exclusion of Equity — or Equity to the exclusion of 
 Law — or Pleading to the exclusion of either, — would treat 
 our jurisprudence as a connected whole, and free themselves 
 from that narrow spirit which has so long retarded the most 
 necessary changes. 
 
 Lastly, the proposed change would restore to the Bar 
 their fair share, to be decided by public competition, of the 
 office of jurisconsult, — an office that involves the highest 
 duty which the practising lawyer can be called upon to per- 
 form. To argue, to persuade, to convince, are the functions 
 of the mere advocate ; but to advise, has in it somewhat of 
 the judicial office, and requires an union of comprehensive 
 knowledge, discretion, and integrity. Believing that the Bar 
 have acted unwisely, both with reference to the public in- 
 terest and their own, in withdrawing from the exercise of 
 this part of the legal Profession, your Committee recom- 
 mend, that the practice they have been considering should be 
 discontinued, and that henceforth it should be open to clients 
 to consult counsel without the intervention of an attorney. 
 
 A question, very nearly related to that just considered, 
 is raised by the provision of a recent statute, 9 & 10 Vict, 
 c. 95. s. 91., which forbids the employment of the Bar in 
 the County Courts without being instructed by an attorney. 
 
 The first objection to this enactment is, that it deprives 
 the Bar of the Common Law right which Doe v. Hale' has 
 established, and for the first time assumes to regulate by Act 
 of Parliament the etiquette of the Profession. 
 
 A second objection is the unfairness of the competition to 
 which the Bar is subjected, by being obliged to receive 
 instructions from a competitor, who may, if he please, retain 
 ' IS Q. B. Rep. 171. 
 
19 
 
 the brief himself, and naturally will do so in the great 
 majority of cases. 
 
 A third and more important objection is, that by this 
 means the employment of counsel is rendered needlessly 
 expensive in Courts formed to administer cheap justice, and 
 the public is deprived of all benefits accruing from the com- 
 petition of the two professions, by an act which forbids it to 
 seek the one except through the intervention of the other. 
 For these reasons your Committee recommend that applica- 
 tion be made to Parliament to repeal the clause in question. 
 
 Your Committee have carefully considered the question 
 whether attorneys should be permitted to act as advocates in 
 the Superior Courts, and have to report that such a change 
 in the present system would be highly prejudicial to the 
 public. If attorneys were empowered to assume the func- 
 tions of counsel, and at the same time to preserve their own 
 peculiar statutory privileges, they would obviously be in a 
 position to establish an absolute monopoly both of legal 
 agency and of advocacy. By a judicious distribution of 
 duties among the different members of an attorney partner- 
 ship, the firm would be enabled to dispense entirely with the 
 assistance of the Bar; whilst a barrister could receive his 
 Instructions only from the client or his attorney, and could 
 neither by himself, nor by a partner, nor by a clerk, perform 
 any of those duties which are now exclusively entrusted to 
 the attorney by statute. If, however, on effecting this change 
 the statutory privileges of the attorney should be abolished, 
 one of two events must ensue, viz., either a fusion of the two 
 branches of the Profession would take place, — every barrister 
 being enabled to act as an attorney, and every attorney to 
 act as a barrister, — or the professional lawyer would be altoge- 
 ther abolished, and any person whom the suitor might choose 
 to select would be enabled to act in the capacity of attorney, 
 legal agent, counsel, or advocate. Your Committee are per- 
 suaded that either of these results would produce far greater 
 evils than any now existing. It is clear that in any event the 
 Bar, as a separate profession, would be destroyed; and the 
 question, therefore, whether attorneys should be permitted to 
 act as advocates in the Superior Courts really resolves Itself 
 
20 
 
 into this, would it be for the public advantage that the Bar 
 should continue to exist as a separate profession ? Now, it 
 seems quite clear, from the terms of the reference, that this 
 is a question which the Society never intended to be raised 
 at all; but even were it otherwise, your Committee are 
 clearly of opinion that the Bar should be preserved as a 
 separate profession, not on the ground of the division of 
 labour, as that must obtain under either system, but on 
 account of the wholesome check which barristers and attorneys 
 must reciprocally afford to the conduct and charges of each 
 other. The public derive the greatest benefit from the ana- 
 logous division of the medical profession into physicians and 
 apothecaries ; and this benefit is undoubtedly to be ascribed 
 to the competition which exists between the two branches of 
 that profession. 
 
 Your Committee have next considered whether any altera- 
 tion should take place in the existing regulations with respect 
 to attorneys becoming barristers, and barristers becoming 
 attorneys. And first, every attorney, who is desirous of 
 coming to the Bar, must, previously to entering an Inn of 
 Court for that purpose, remove his name from the Bolls. 
 He must then, like any other student at law, keep twelve 
 terms ; and after his name has been for three years on the 
 books of the Inn he becomes eligible to be called. This rule, 
 which now prevails uniformly in the four Inns of Court, is 
 of very recent origin, the rules of the several Inns upon this 
 subject having varied much at different periods. Previously 
 to the reign of Philip and Mary no settled rule seems to have 
 prevailed; and from several old authorities it appears that 
 attorneys who had performed the necessary exercises were 
 called to the Bar immediately on ceasing to act as attorneys. 
 During that reign a rule was established, " that no common 
 attorneys should be admitted into commons ; " but this was not 
 strictly observed, and until within the last few years, attor- 
 neys were frequently admitted into the several Inns, and 
 allowed to keep their terms while practising as attorneys, 
 though they could not be called to the Bar till two years had 
 elapsed from the removal of their names from the Bolls. 
 Your Committee consider that the existing rule upon this 
 
21 .;.- 
 
 subject is unnecessarily harsh, as, without any corresponding 
 benefit, its obvious eiFect is to deprive every attorneys who 
 wishes to become a barrister, of three years' professional life. 
 Such a rule does not exist in the case of officers of ths Army 
 or Navy, who are desirous of being called to the Bar, and 
 there seems to be no good reason why it should prevail in the 
 case of attorneys. Indeed, the connection between the quali- 
 fications and course of study required for the two professions 
 is so close, that every facility should be given for transition 
 from one to the other, and for the application of talent to 
 that department for which it seems best adapted. The in- 
 terval of three years was no doubt interposed, in order to 
 prevent the attorney from carrying with him to the Bar the 
 connection formed in his previous practice ; but as all other 
 indirect modes of obtaining business are by law left open to 
 the barrister, to prohibit this one seems needlessly oppressive. 
 Your Committee, therefore, recommend that an attorney 
 desirous of being called to the Bar should, if in other respects 
 a fit person, be admissible into an Inn of Court for such pur- 
 pose, without previously removing his name from the Bolls — 
 that he should be permitted to keep his terms without dis- 
 continuing his practice; but that his name should be re- 
 moved from the Bolls before his call to the Bar. Secondly, 
 every barrister who is desirous of becoming an attorney, must 
 first be voluntarily disbarred, before he can enter into articles 
 of clerkship with a view to being admitted on the Rolls. 
 The two conditions of barrister and attorney's clerk, are so 
 manifestly incongruous, that your Committee do not suggest 
 any change in this respect. 
 
 The present state of the law on the subject of the legal 
 liability of barristers is somewhat uncertain. It is, indeed, 
 tolerably clear that if a barrister be guilty of collusion, 
 deceit, extortion, or other mal-practice in his profession, he is 
 punishable by attachment either at Common Law or by 
 Statute.' It would seem also, from some old authorities, that 
 Courts of Equity have the power of summarily fining, or 
 otherwise punishing counsel, who draw pleadings which con- 
 
 ' 6 Mod. 137. ; 2 Hawk. P.C. c. 22. >. 30; W^estm. i.c.29., passed in 1275, 
 
 E 3 
 
22 
 
 tain criminal, Impertinent, or scandalous matter.' But the 
 difficulty is to determine in what cases an action may be 
 maintained by a client against a barrister for misconduct. 
 Lord Kenyon has ruled at Nisi Prius, that no action will lie 
 against a counsel for gross negligence or ignorance in settling 
 pleadings ^ : and the same learned Judge has decided that a 
 fee given to a barrister to argue a cause which he did not 
 attend, could not be recovered by the client in an action for 
 money had and received.^ But in neither of these cases was 
 any notice taken of the numerous instances mentioned in 
 the old books, where the principle is clearly admitted that 
 counsel are liable for misconduct, on the ground either of 
 crassa negligentia, of breach of confidence, or of breach of 
 contract to attend to a client's cause, and that where detri- 
 ment arises to the client from such misconduct, an action 
 of deceit or assumpsit lies.* Your Committee are of opinion 
 that all doubts upon this important subject should be cleared 
 up by the Legislature, and that a declaratory enactment 
 should be passed in conformity with the ancient rule of law. 
 They can discover no valid reason why counsel should be 
 less responsible to their clients than attorneys, and they feel 
 persuaded that the immediate effect of such an enactment as 
 they suggest, would be to stop the practice, which has 
 become of late years very prevalent among Common Law 
 barristers engaged in large business, of taking briefs with- 
 out any reasonable probability of being able personally to 
 attend to them. 
 
 With regard to the law of liability of attorneys no ground 
 appears for suggesting any alteration. 
 
 Your Committee, having felt that a review of the existing 
 relation between the barrister, the attorney, and the client, 
 would be incomplete without some notice of the system of 
 education for the Bar, and of the institutions regulating the 
 
 ' Mitford on PI. 39. 3rd ed. ; Rules and Orders of Ch. 93. ; Viner's Abr., 
 tit. Counsellor, A. .'j. ; Fell v. Brown, I Peake's Rep. 96., per Lord Kenyon. 
 
 ' Fell V. Brown, 1 Peake's Rep. 96. 
 
 " Turner v. Phillipps, 1 Peake's Rep. 122. 
 
 ' See Vin. Abridg., Action (assumpsit), P. 6, 7, 8, ; (Deceit Case), P. b. 9. 
 10, 11, 12. ; Counsellor, A. 6. 
 
23 
 
 discipline of its members, deem it necessary to point out some 
 defects in the present system, and to make some suggestions 
 for its improvement. No profession can be looked upon as 
 properly organised, which does not, from the force of its own 
 constitution, afford the means both of training its students to 
 a scientific knowledge of their future pursuits, and of main- 
 taining its fair reputation and the honour of its members. 
 
 How greatly these important ends are neglected in the 
 present state of the Bar is shown by a brief review of the 
 functions of its governing bodies. The benchers of the Inns 
 of Court, and the Messes of the different circuits, alone pre- 
 tend to exercise any jurisdiction over the morals of the 
 Profession. The duties of the latter are chiefly confined to 
 imposing fines for trifling breaches of etiquette ; and the only 
 real punishment in their power, — that of exclusion from the 
 mess, — is obviously inadequate to restrain more grave 
 offences. The benchers of the several Inns exercise occasion- 
 ally the power of rejecting applicants for admission to the 
 Bar, and of disbarring barristers for misconduct ; but this 
 severe sentence is passed only on those who have been guilty 
 of offences of the most serious character. The task of re- 
 pressing unprofessional conduct, and of discountenancing 
 improper practices, is therefore virtually left to the general 
 opinion of the Profession ; a tribunal always uncertain, and 
 often misinformed. The duty of properly educating students 
 for the Bar devolves wholly on the benchers of the Inns; 
 and although this was certainly one of the principal objects 
 for which the Inns were originally established, it is one 
 which in recent times has been almost entirely neglected. 
 At the present day, three only out of the four Inns appro- 
 priate a scanty portion of their revenues to the furtherance of 
 this object, by supporting in each Inn a single Lectureship ; 
 and it must be obvious to all men that this is a provision 
 absurdly inadequate to carry out its ostensible purpose. 
 It is the opinion of your Committee, that these evils would 
 best be remedied by the establishment, or rather the revival, 
 of a legal university on an efficient scale. Such a system was 
 the especial care of our ancestors, in the earlier periods of legal 
 history, as is abundantly proved by the number of subor- 
 
 B 4 
 
24 
 
 dinate Inns then in active existence, and the lectures and 
 exercises which then formed the most important part of a 
 student's preparation for the Bar ; while the immense number 
 of students (no less than 2000) mentioned by Fortescue as 
 frequenting the legal University, at a time when the popu- 
 lation of England could hardly have exceeded one eighth of 
 the present amount, is a sufficient proof of the success of an 
 academical discipline. What the cause was, which in their 
 opinion led to the decadence of the system, and to the growth 
 and increase of the present abuses, your Committee will pro- 
 ceed to show. 
 
 There can be little question that the Common Law Uni- 
 versity, which our ancestors established on the banks of the 
 Thames in order to counteract the exclusive influence of 
 those more ancient institutions on the Isis and the Cam, 
 where the principles of the civil law were alone inculcated, 
 was originally framed on the same plan as that of its elder 
 rivals ; that is, in addition to a number of subordinate, but, 
 to a certain extent, independent colleges, there was a 
 central body, which alone exercised the right of conferring 
 degrees, of appointing professors, and of regulating the 
 general discipline of the place. This body is known at 
 Oxford and Cambridge by the name of the University, and it 
 claims to examine the students, sua auctoritate, before grant- 
 ing them their degrees, while it leaves to the colleges the 
 task of housing the undergraduates, and of providing for their 
 previous instruction. The history of the University of Ox- 
 ford shows the importance of this central authority, and the 
 ill effects of its functions falling into disuse. At no very 
 remote period, the degree there became, from the neglect of 
 the University authorities, almost an empty name, as far as 
 any examination was concerned. The colleges, in conse- 
 quence, grew lax in the education of their students, and the 
 required amount of scholarship was reduced to a nominal 
 standard. When, at a subsequent pei-iod, the Heads of the 
 University threw off their apathy, and insisted on a stringent 
 examination of the undergraduates, before they would confer 
 a degree, the colleges were soon forced to afford the means 
 of adequate instruction, in order to retain the students 
 
25 
 
 within their walls. A corresponding power of supervision 
 over the Inns of Court was possibly in former times exer- 
 cised 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 autho- 
 rity, similar to the governing bodies at Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge, 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 
 
26 
 
 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 qualifi- 
 cations 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 oflfering 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 bene- 
 ficial eifect 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 educa- 
 tional 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 foun- 
 dation 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 
 
27 
 
 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 Keport, 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 ad- 
 vocates 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 estab- 
 lished ; and that such Senate should have jurisdiction in all 
 questions concerning the discipline and conduct of the Bar. 
 
 7 th. That all candidates for admission to the degree of 
 barrister should pass a public examination. 
 
 THE END. 
 
London . 
 
 SpoTTiswooDES and Sh_4W, 
 
 New-street- Square. 
 
:«#