« PreviousContinue »
recall to our minds the old proverb, “Parturiunt montes," and we really are tempted to ask why were these things not done years ago ? When the Civil Service of India was first thrown open to competition, and Oxford men who became Selected Candidates required additional instruction in Roman Law, the stipend of the Regius Chair of Civil Law, then filled by Sir Travers Twiss, should have been at once augmented, and we do not doubt that good results would have been speedily visible both among the Indian Candidates and in the School of Law and Modern History. In 1873, the Board of Studies for the School of Jurisprudence, then but recently carved out of the old combined school, modestly asked for, “ at least one resident Lecturer in Roman and one in English Law.” In 1876, the Board of Law Studies had risen to a higher conception of their wants, and considered that: “ 1. The Legal Teaching of the University ought to embrace the following subjects: (a) Jurisprudence, the Theory of Legislation, the Comparative Study of Law, and Legal History. (6) Roman Law. (c) English Law, including not only the various departments of Private Law, but also Constitutional and Criminal Law. (d) International Law. (e) Oriental Law, and in particular the various Legal systems in force in India. A complete scheme of Legal Study would no doubt also make provision for the teaching of Canon and Ecclesiastical Law.”
For the supply of this tolerably comprehensive bill of fare for the Law Student, the Board naturally esteemed the existing staff“ obviously inadequate.” Their recommendations, therefore, took the following shape, as that of “a provision sufficient for the needs of the University in the present and the immediate future,” viz. : “ 3. (a) Two Professors of Jurisprudence and of the other subjects mentioned above (1. a). (6) Two Professors of Civil Law. (c) Four Professors of English Law, to one of whom would be allotted the Chair of English Constitutional Law. (d) One Professor of International Law.* (e) One Professor of Oriental Law, making in all ten Professors (that is, six Professors in addition to the existing four).” The number reached by this recommendation would, it may be well to remember, render the staff of Law Professors at Oxford equal to the strength of the Faculty at Toulouse, but would still leave it much below that of Paris. In days when so much is said about the necessity of increased facilities for the systematic study of Law, this is not an extravagantly high level to reach. Yet it is scarcely probable, perhaps, that all the demands of the Board of Legal Studies will be granted. That the proposed Professorship of Oriental Law will be created may not be unlikely, and, considering our immense Oriental interests, it is not too much to expect. There is in the air some idea of extending to Hindoo and Mohammedan Law that process of Codification which has never slumbered in the English branch of the Law administered in India, from the days of Macaulay to those of Sir James Stephen. The task would be one of enormous difficulty, as was acknowledged at a recent meeting of the Law Amendment Society,t both by English and Hindoo supporters of the general principle of Codification. There can be no doubt, however, that if it be attempted, the Oriental Law Professor at Oxford would have a hand in it, as well as in the work more specially belonging to him of directing the studies of the Indian Candidates whom the University of Oxford is at last seeking to attract. Balliol has taken the lead in
* Two, at least, of these subjects for separate Chairs are, by the lInns of Court, huddled together in one Chair with General Jurisprudence and Roman Civil Law, forming a singular illustration of the Law of Hotchpot, which, we fear, none but the present Incumbent could at all adequately fill, with any satisfaction to his hearers.
+ Sessional Proceedings, vol. x., No. 14 (P. S. King), containing a Paper by J. B. Phear, Esq., late a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, on “ Codification of Law in connection with the Administration of Justice in India," read the 5th June, 1877.
this as in not a few other steps which have marked the progress of University and Collegiate Thought. We, therefore, regard the Oriental Professor as tolerably safe, but it will be far otherwise, we fear, with the proposed Professor of Constitutional Law. Indeed, we are ourselves of opinion that there may fairly seem to be a certain extravagance in asking for a “ Professor of Constitutional Law," and a “Reader in Constitutional History.” This is one of the weaknesses in the statement of Requirements arising out of the separation of the Schools of Jurisprudence and History. It appears to us quite inconceivable that men would attend both sets of lectures, and equally impossible that if they did they would not find the two overlapping. Why should not the two Boards have joined their forces, if for this occasion only, and requested the appointment of one Professor of Constitutional Law and History? It may not be too late, even now, for us to throw out this suggestion. Taken as a whole, the Report of the Board of Law Studies embodying their requirements as conceived in 1876 is somewhat unsatisfactory from its brevity. There are, indeed, facts stated which may convey sufficiently to the initiated, and to those who have constantly been watching the progress of Law reading in Oxford, what and how great are the wants to be met. But it must be read in close connection with Professor Bryce's letter of 1874, and Professor Bernard's Report of 1873. In his letter of 1874 Dr. Bryce has shown more clearly than in his later Report what is the nature of the work which he would expect from the Professor of Constitutional Law. And it appears to us that his language expresses exactly what we should expect from the realisation of our own idea of a Professor of Constitutional Law and History. Asking, in 1874, for “at least two Professors of English Law,” Dr. Bryce suggests that one of them “would probably devote himself chiefly to its historical side-the History of the Constitution, of the Law Courts, of Legal Institutions generally,” and “the other to its more practical aspects, such as Real Property, Contracts, &c.” With such a “Professor” in the field, where would be the work of the proposed “Reader?” There seems to be a pretty general agreement that the occupants of the new Chairs should not be too closely bound down within certain limits of work. Both Dr. Bryce and Dr. Bernard point out the advantages that might accrue, e.g., from a Lecturer on Roman Law illustrating his work by points of contact with English Law, and vice versa. Dr. Bryce appears to be somewhat in favour of a Chair of Canon and Ecclesiastical Law, though rather from the point of view of the encouragement (if not endowment) of research than from any conviction of its direct utility. There are in England very few men, probably, outside the pale of the old College of Doctors, who pretend to any acquaintance with Canon Law. Certainly still fewer who could be named in the same day with Canonists like Schulte of Bonn, and Maassen of Vienna, and the only recent edition that we know of the Corpus Juris Canonici, is a German one. It is possible that the “ Genius loci” may help the establishment of such a Chair at Oxford, and then perhaps the new Professor may see his way to bringing out what we remember a Foreign Canonist urging upon us some years ago as a need of the day, a fresh edition of Van Espen. Both Dr. Bryce and Dr. Bernard recommend the appointment of occasional Lecturers, and Dr. Bryce somewhat nullifies his proposal of a Professor of Canon and Ecclesiastical Law by suggesting that Ecclesiastical Law might be so dealt with, among other subjects “ for whose teaching we make at present no provision.” But there are two subjects in this list to which we would draw special attention, viz.: “ Foreign Law, and the Legal History of other Countries.” These suggestions are very valuable, and we hope they will not be allowed to drop out of sight. The Commercial relations of Great Britain, no less than her Political relations, render an acquaintance with Foreign Law and the History of Foreign Legal Systems a very desirable branch of legal study, and it is at a University like Oxford that they could best be introduced into the curriculum. In London, men preparing for the Inns of Court Examinations could hardly be expected to attend Lectures on such subjects, unless they were made part of the Examination. And for this, perhaps, the Inns are hardly ripe. But at Oxford, where for years a certain amount of Foreign Law has been read, in connection with Roman and International Law, and a certain amount of Foreign Law Texts have been read in their original languages for the B.C.L. Degree, such Lectures would only develope and stimulate an already existing branch of study. In the Final Recommendations of the Hebdomadal Council this suggestion, like many others of equal value, is not referred to by name, but a loophole is left for carrying it out under the head either of occasional Lectureships, or Extraordinary Professorships. But if anything is to be done in the matter, the subject must be persistently brought up by name whenever opportunity offers.
We are sorry to observe a similar vagueness in the language of the Council on the kindred subject of the appointment of a Professor of Foreign History, recommended by the Board of Historical Studies. This is also a valuable suggestion, and would work excellently side by side with the Chair of Foreign Law. It is not a case in which, under present circumstances, we can see that any benefit would arise from the two Schools joining forces as we have recommended in the case of Constitutional Law and History. But the two studies ought to be carried on simultaneously, and the Honour Student should read Foreign Law with a view to its illustrating his Foreign History, and vice versa. We need hardly say that at Oxford such a study would naturally be Historical as well as Comparative. It is not necessary to point out here how Feudal Law explains the phenomena of Feudal History, or