Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Mr. ELTON, Q.C., M.P., proposed the health of the Incorporated Law Society, to whom they were indebted for this splendid hospitality. In the name of all the lawyers-in the name of all who had chosen to accept this hospitality-he thanked them. He could not sit down without saying one word in respect to the chairman, whose voice had ever been listened to with the deepest respect whilst he was in the House of Commons. He could safely say that on every occasion on which he had spoken upon questions of statesmanship or questions of law, he was listened to with the greatest deference and the most affectionate regard. The CHAIRMAN, who was met with loud plaudits, in acknowledging the compliment, said: As a solicitor I was almost, I may say, born; as a solicitor I have lived, and as a solicitor I hope to die. All my thoughts have been for the interest of the profession. I may say, certainly, since I entered the House of Parliament, that I hope that, in some degree, my efforts have tended to maintain these interests and the honour and dignity of the pro-tunity of seeing how the sample was taken. The plaintiffs had not fession to which I have the honour to be a member. I believe the Incorporated Law Society has done honest, sincere, and truthful work in the operations which it has undertaken. I remember the first institution of the society. I remember its small beginnings. I remember it began almost as a social institution, for the purpose of maintaining harmony amongst the members of our common profession. It has gradually extended its operations. It has become almost a university in the proper sense of the term. It has become a great institution of examination and of discipline; and, as it had faithfully fulfilled its duties and obligations, those which had been cast upon it by Parliament, and those which have been recognised in society, I believe it has tended not only to the benefit of our profession, but to the common benefit and welfare of the general community.

THE BALL.

The

On Tuesday evening a ball was held at the Society's Hall, Chancery: lane, at which nearly 2,000 ladies and gentlemen were present. PRESIDENT and the VICE-PRESIDENT received the guests in the council room, and among them were the Lord Chancellor and Lady Halsbury, Lord Herschell, Lord Justice Cotton, Mr. Justice Grantham, and Mr. Justice Kekewich, and a considerable number of Q.C.'s and members of the bar. Dancing commenced soon after nine o'clock, and was continued until four a.m. The whole of the building, which was profusely decorated throughout with growing plants and laid with crimson cloth, was utilized. The Examination Hall, in which was stationed the band of the Royal Artillery, conducted by Mr. L. Zavertal, and the Reading Room, where was Willoughby's band-conductor, Mr. L. P. Willoughby-were the ballrooms, and the whole of the premises occupied by the club were used for the purpose of supplying light refreshments during the evening. In order to avoid any block, the guests entered the supper-room by means of the library staircase, and afterwards gained the lower rooms by a temporary staircase constructed outside the building. Messrs. King & Brymer supplied the refreshments, and Messrs. Catbush were responsible for the decorations. The line of carriages and cabs extended from end to end of Chancery-lane and along Carey-street, and in front of the Courts of Justice.

[blocks in formation]

This was an appeal by the plaintiffs, who were cotton spinners carrying on their business at mills situate on the River Darwen, in Lancashire, against the refusal of North, J., to issue a sequestration against the defendant company for an alleged breach of an undertaking given by them in the action. The company were the occupiers of a paper mill situated higher up the river than the plaintiffs' mills. On the 27th of April, 1885, an order was made in the action by Pearson, J., on the application of the plaintiffs in chambers, declaring that the defendants had not, as against the plaintiffs, any prescriptive or other right to pollute, deteriorate, impound, withold, or diminish any water of the river, or any of its affluents, so as injure the plaintiffs in the enjoyment of the flow of the water unpolluted for the use of their mills. And the defendants, by their counsel, undertaking not to pollute, &c., any water of the river, or any of its affluents, so as to injure the plaintiffs as aforesaid (such undertaking not to be enforced for a period of eight months from the date of the order, if the defendants should in the meantime do their best to make arrangements so as to conduct their works as to avoid doing the plaintiffs any injury), it was by consent ordered that the defendants should pay the plaintiffs' costs of the action, to be taxed as between solicitor and client. During the eight months the defendants made some alterations in their works, and fourteen months after the expiration of the eight months the plaintiffs, who had not previously made any complaint since the expiration of the eight months, gave notice of motion for the issue of a sequestration against the defendants on the ground that they had committed a breach of their undertaking. On the hearing of this motion both sides filed a number of affidavits, but there was no cross-examination of the witnesses. North, J., dismissed the motion, but without costs.

THE COURT OF APPEAL (COTTON, BOWEN, and FRY, L.JJ.) dismissed

the appeal, with costs, without hearing any argument on behalf of
the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to shew that the
matters of which they complained were due to any acts of the defendants.
COTTON, L.J., expressed his regret that a case of this kind should have to
be decided on affidavit evidence, without any opportunity of cross-
examining the witnesses. Without absolutely deciding the point, he
thought that means might have been found for having an issue tried
with viva voce evidence. BOWEN, L.J., concurred. He thought that the
question in dispute ought to have been settled either by a reference to a
skilled arbitrator or upon oral testimony, not upon affidavit evidence.
Moreover, the plaintiffs' case rested upon samples of the water of the
river, and in such a case the value of the experiment depended entirely
upon the fairness with which the sample was taken. The only satisfac-
tory way of taking such samples was to give the opposite side an oppor-
attempted to submit their samples to any witnesses but their own, or to
give the defendants in any way an opportunity of checking them. The
plaintiffs were bound to shew that the mischief of which they com-
plained was produced by something peculiar to the defendants' manu-
facture that the injury must come from the defendants. The only thing
peculiar to paper manufacture which could produce the alleged injury
was the refuse of esparto grass. The defendants said that the alterations
which they had made in their works had rendered it impossible that the
esparto refuse should find its way into the river. That defence, if it
was true, was unanswerable, and the only way of meeting it was by
cross-examining the defendants' witnesses, or by inspecting the defend-
ants' works to ascertain if it was true. It was almost inconceiv-
able that the plaintiffs should not have adopted either of those courses.
The court came to but one conclusion, that the plaintiffs had not estab-
lished their case.
North, J., had dealt somewhat hardly with the defendants in depriving
FRY, L.J., was of the same opinion. He thought that

them of the costs of the motion.-COUNSEL, Cookson, Q.C., and Farwell

Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and S. Hall. SOLICITORS, Pritchard, Englefield, & Co.;
Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland.

WALLASY LOCAL BOARD v. GRACEY-Stirling, J., 8th June.
ACTION BY LOCAL BOARD TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED PUBLIC NUISANCE FROM
WHICH THE BOARD SUSTAIN NO DAMAGE.

The Wallasy Local Board sought, by a motion in the terms of the writ in an action brought in the name of the board, to restrain by injunction an alleged public nuisance. The board had sustained no damage by the alleged nuisance. It was objected that the action was wrongly framed. STIRLING, J., held that the objection was well founded, as the consent of the Attorney-General had not been obtained, whereas the proceeding should have been by information in his name.— -COUNSEL, Graham Hastings, Q.C., and Bardswell; Buckley, Q.C., and F. Smith. SOLICITORS. Jaques & Co., for Layton & Steel, Liverpool; Wynne, Holme, & Wynne, for Simpson & North, Liverpool.

CASES AFFECTING SOLICITORS.

Ex parte PHILLIPS, Re WATSON-C. A. No. 1, June 8. SOLICITOR-TAXATION OF COSTS-SERVICES WHILST NO PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE EXISTED, BUT BENEFICIAL TO ESTATE.

These

This was an appeal by Mr. Watson, a solicitor, against an order of the Divisional Court (Lord Coleridge, C.J., and A. L. Smith, J ), for a review of the taxation of his bill of costs, reported 35 W. R. 290, 18 Q. B. D. 116. On May 12, 1877, Harriett Cross died leaving a will, but the executor named therein renounced probate. On September 3, 1878, letters of administration with the will annexed were granted to Ann Phillips and Catherine Noyes, the sisters of the deceased. Ann Phillips died September 14, 1879, and Catherine Noyes died December 12, 1879. After their deaths a man named Easton, who had married the daughter of Ann Phillips, intermeddled with the estate, and instructed Mr. Watson, who had previously acted for the estate, to perform further services as a solicitor with respect to the administration of the estate. services were performed by Mr. Watson, and were for the benefit of the estate, and he continued to act until June, 1882, when he received notice from one Robert Phillips revoking his authority. On August 17, 1882, letters of administration de bonis non were granted to Robert Phillips. January, 1886, he obtained an order for the delivery of Mr. Watson's bill of costs against the estate, and upon taxation the master allowed and taxed the items in respect of the work done between December 12, 1879, when Catherine Noyes died, and August 17, 1882, when Robert Phillips became administrator. Field, J., refused, on appeal, to direct a review of taxation, but the Divisional Court directed the taxation to be reviewed, holding that, in order to make the estate of a deceased person liable for services rendered while there is no personal representative, it must be shewn that they were rendered under a contract with someone authorized to bind the estate.

In

THE COURT (Lord ESHER, M.R., LINDLEY and LOPES, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision of the Divisional Court, and dismissed the appeal. They said that although Mr. Watson's services had been beneficial to the estate he could not recover costs from the administrator in respect of those services. If he had acted as a volunteer, the administrator could have subsequently ratified his action, but he had acted under the instructions of Easton, who had no authority whatever to act for the estate, and there was, therefore, nothing for the administrator to ratify.-COUNSEL, H. D. Greene, Q.C., and Parker; Bigham, Q.C., and Dickens. SOLICITORS, T. R. Watson; Smiles, Binyon, & Ollard, for Page, Hay.

LAW SOCIETIES.
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

LONDON MEETING.
PAPERS AND DISCUSSION.

On Tuesday morning the members of the Society met at the Freemasons' Tavern, Great Queen Street, for the reading and discussion of papers, the PRESIDENT taking the chair. Considerably over 1,000 gentlemen were present at the morning sitting.

The PRESIDENT said: Before beginning business I desire to say how much the council of this society feel the pleasure of your visit to us here in London. As I have already said we have been so often entertained by you in the country, that we are delighted to have the opportunity of a return visit from our country friends.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS.

or as trustees. The executors may, in such cases, be registered as
owners, and a distringas may be lodged for the protection of the
parties beneficially interested." Legislation has in the interim abolished
the necessity of deducing title for sixty or even fifty years, and not only
thereby, but in other respects, has lessened the difficulties of achieving
the result which by the above plan it was desired to attain-a result which
was declared to be "of great national interest and importance, and entitled
to careful and serious examination." It is impossible to refrain from making
the observation, if effect had been given to this practical suggestion of
one of the leading solicitors of the day, how great weuld now have been the
progress towards the accomplishment of the registration of titles, which most
people think desirable, but which no one has yet been able to devise the
means of accomplishing by legislation. And this alone is a sufficient answer
to those who assert that a system of registration would long since have been
effected but for the interested obstructiveness of the legal profession. The
truth is, as the slightest reflection will show, by far the larger portion, if not
all, of the successful attempts to give vitality to any proposed amendments
in the law of real property-and they have been numerous during the reign
of the Queen-have emanated from lawyers practising in one or other branch
of the profession. Indeed, what is to be apprehended is not a factious
opposition on the part of the legal profession to the Bill now before Parlia-
ment, but a fear lest the pressure put upon the Government, for what is
called a large and liberal measure of land reform, may lead to the hasty
passing of a measure which will only add another to the numerous failures
upon this subject. The report of the above-mentioned Commission was
issued in 1857, but the system of registration proposed in such report was
not adopted by the late Lord Westbury when in 1862 a Bill to facilitate the
proof of title to, and the conveyance of, real estate was introduced by his
fordship into Parliament, and became law in the session of Parliament held
in that year. The Act sought, as you know, to establish a system of inde-
feasible titles, and required a very strict and expensive investigation of title
as a preliminary to registration. After a short experience of the working of
its provisions, it proved to be unacceptable to the public, and in 1868 a Royal
Commission was appointed to enquire into the working of it. This Commis-
sion reported in 1870, and confirmed the view which the public, as well as
the legal profession, had taken, and stated that the evils of which complaint
was made were "directly and visibly traceable to the main principle of the
Act," and that "the system had failed." In 1874 and 1875, Bills for the
registration of titles were introduced into Parliament by the late Earl Cairns,
and in 1875 "An Act to simplify titles and facilitate the transfer of land in
England," which came into operation on the 1st January, 1876, was passed.
The Act was designed to remedy the defects of Lord Westbury's Act, but it
also has failed to work satisfactorily, and has become, as was stated in the
report of the Select Committee which sat in 1879, "a dead letter." The
task, therefore, of establishing a system of registration which will satisfy the
requirements of simplicity, expedition, and cheapness, so as to become a
valuable acquisition to the owners of land in this country and a boon to the
public at large, has yet to be accomplished. The present Bill adopts, with
some exceptions, the provisions of the last-mentioned Act, and proposes, in
opposition to the strongly expressed opinion of the late Earl Cairns, when
giving evidence before the Select Committee of 1879, to make registration
compulsory upon any landowner who desires to sell, settle, mortgage, or, as
it would seem, to grant a lease for a term exceeding twenty-one years of any
portion of his estate, a provision which will, even if the "possessing
owner elect to register a possessory title only, render it necessary
for him to incur an immediate expenditure of a very considerable
amount in the preparation of plans and the giving of notices, &c. But,
looking to the failure of the two preceding Acts, surely it will be advisable
to postpone the enactment of compulsory registration, at least, until it has
been found by experience that the proposed legislation will work satisfac-
torily, and so to avoid the risk of hampering instead of facilitating the
transfer of real property, and of imposing upon "possessing" landowners,
upon whom in these days no unnecessary burthens should be cast, a scheme
which will inflict upon them a heavy outlay, without, it may be, any cor-
responding advantage to themselves or the general public. There are in the
Bill other provisions of great importance which are simplifications of the
Law of Real Property, and which may be found to be useful. The boldest
of these provisions proposes to assimilate real and personal property by
making real estate in case of an intestacy devolve upon the personal repre-
persons as if it were personal estate as to which he had died intestate." And
this, I may observe, is in the direction indicated by our president in the
address which he delivered at York at the meeting held last autumn. The
Bill also proposes to put an end to estates tail; and whilst this provision will
certainly tend to simplify the law, it probably will not be found to interfere
unreasonably with the power of settlement, so far as that power can be
the hesitation which one must necessarily feel in dealing with a subject so
complicated and so important as a reform of the Law of Real Property. I
do not wish for a moment to deny that the Bill of the Lord Chancellor, which
contains many other provisions of a most important kind, is, as we should
expect from all we know of his lordship, a bold and able attempt to grapple
with the difficulty of the task which is imposed upon him-a difficulty which
those who have only observed the evils and inconveniences of the present
system, and have not put their own hands to the task of remedying them,
are wholly unable to appreciate. And whether the views which I have
ventured to express are concurred in or not, I need not hesitate to add that,
preserving in this respect the traditions of our society, law reform, in any
direction in which it can be shown that mischiefs can be removed or real
improvement attained, will not meet with opposition from the council which
represents our branch of the legal profession.

[ocr errors]

The VICE-PRESIDENT (Mr. Henry Markby) read an address in which he said: Speaking to the members of our society who are now present, there is one Bill of first importance which is now before Parliament to which some allusion is necessary. I refer to the Bill entituled, "An Act to further simplify titles and facilitate the transfer of land in England and Wales." Its object is stated to be an attempt to settle and carry further the legislation which is associated with the name of Earl Cairns, to whose ability and profound knowledge of the law the Land Transfer Act of 1875, the Conveyancing Act of 1881, and the Settled Land Act of 1882 are mainly due. The Bill contemplates that registration should eventually become compulsory and universal. Its provisions in this respect are to come into operation upon death, or as and when it may be wished to effect a sale or transfer of land in any district declared by Order in Council to be subject to its operation. In this gradual adaptation of the principles of registration of titles to real property the Bill follows, to some extent, a suggestion made many years since by an eminent member of the council of our society, whose views were set forth in a paper read in May, 1852, before the Society for Promoting the Amendment of the Law, and printed by that society. I refer to the late Mr. W. Strickland Cookson, who was, I believe, throughout his life a consistent advocate of registration. In May, 1853, a Bill to provide for the registration of assurances was read a second time in the House of Commons and referred to a Select Committee. Before that Committee the views of Mr. Cookson were supported by the evidence of himself, the late Mr. John Bullar, the well-known parliamentary draughtsman, the late Mr. E.W. Field, and Mr. W. Williams, of whose aid in their deliberations the council still retain the benefit. Mr. Bullar submitted for the consideration of the Committee a plan prepared in concert with the above-named gentlemen for the registration of legal ownership in land, which received the approval of the Committee, as affording a means of facilitating the transfer of land, combined with great simplicity and security of title; and the Committee concluded their Report by recommending that the Bill for the registration of assurances should not proceed, but that a Commission should be appointed, and that a Bill adopting the scheme so suggested should be brought into Parliament in the then ensuing session. In 1854 a Royal Commission was issued, which, after a very lengthened enquiry, reported that "all owners or proprietors of land who have the right of possessing or the power of disposing of it in fee simple should be at liberty to apply for the registration of ownership thereof, so that such ownership, or the title to the land, which is the subject of the same, may thenceforth be manifested by the Register alone." This was substantially an adoption of Mr. Cookson's plan, who proposed to make a record only of the transfers of the legal estate and to keep the details of trusts and incumbrances off the Register. He also proposed to adapt the system of restraining transfers of stock by distringas to restraining the transfer of land, the intention being that on and after a day to be named, "Where any dealing with land takes place by a person entitled to or having power over the whole fee-simple, a transfer shall be executed, conveying the whole fee-simple to one or more persons absolutely. That such transfer shall be on parchment in original and duplicate, in a simple printed form, and shall express the true consideration and shall transfer the property described in the schedule to the pur-sentatives of a deceased person, and become "divisible among the same chaser, or mortgagee, or trustee, who shall thereupon become the registered That both parties shall sign the instruments, in order that the signature of the purchaser may be on the register as a check on any future transfer by him. That both parts shall be lodged at the Transfer Office, and compared with each other there: and that the duplicate shall be filed and entered in the index, and the original returned, stamped as registered, to the registered owner or the original may be filed and the duplicate re-usefully exercised. I need hardly say that these observations are made with turned. That it shall be competent for, if not obligatory on, parties to add a map to the schedule, for better describing the lands. That the validity of the title of the first registered owner shall depend, as it does now, on the validity of the title of the party making the transfer, so that the first registered owner must investigate the title-the legal and equitable title-as he does now. That when the first registered owner shall afterwards sell to another, say at the end of ten or twenty years, the purchaser will see on the register the evidence of the title for the ten or twenty years, and for that time he will require no other evidence of ownership than the register;" which would," when, under this system, land should have been transferred for fifty or sixty years, be a sufficient title." Mr. Cookson also pointed out that "Under this system equitable mortgages may be created with facility and dispatch. An equitable mortgagee may obtain a distringas if he holds a simple undertaking of the owner to grant a mortgage when required." And added that "Provision must be made for devises, where the whole ownership is not devised to one or more persons, either beneficially

owner.

Passing from this question, I will now take leave to occupy some small portion of your time with a subject which is peculiarly well fitted to be

*

discussed on the present occasion. I mean the progress which the education of our branch of the profession has made during the course of the present reign, when contrasted with what had occurred in the four previous centuries. [After dealing with the history of the legislation on the subject prior to the present reign, the Vice President said that] at a date almost coincident with the commencement of the present reign-a few months only prior to the accession of her Majesty-there was held for the first time an examination, in which the council of our society took a recognised part. Sixteen members of the council of our society, together with certain officers of the court, were elected to superintend the examinations, of which the first was held in the hall of our society in November, 1836, when 101 candidates were examined, of whom ninety immediately received certificates of fitness; and on the following day, after further consideration, six more were passed, five only being postponed, all of whom were re-examined one week later and received their certificates. In 1837 the Master of the Rolls made a similar order for the examination in equity of candidates seeking to be placed on the roll of solicitors, and it was ordered that such examination should be held at the Rolls House in the presence of one of the masters in chancery and one of the sworn clerks of the court, testimonials as to due service having previously been left with the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society in the same manner as was required previously to the examination of attorneys. The Equity examiners met at the Rolls House, and examined the one candidate who presented himself, and he received a certificate to which it will, I think, be admitted his enterprise fairly entitled him. That the powers which were thus for the first time entrusted to the council of our society have been exercised with advantage to the profession and to the satisfaction of the public we need not feel any doubt. Had it not been so we should not have found, as we in fact do find, that these powers have been constantly increased by the Legislature, until our society has come to hold, with respect to legal education, the same powers in regard to solicitors as are held in regard to barristers by the Inns of Court. And these powers have been so conferred, as I believe, because the council has throughout been acting in harmony with the movement which was also set on foot in the early years of her Majesty's reign, and which has ever since been continued I mean the endeavour to raise the standard of the legal profession in all its branches. In January, 1844, by an order of the Master of the Rolls, and in Easter Term, 1846, by an order of the judges of the Queen's Bench and other courts then sitting at Westminster, the masters of the several courts of law, and a certain number of attorneys and solicitors who were always selected from the council of our society, to be elected annually, were appointed to be the examiners of candidates seeking admission as attorneys and solicitors. In 1845 the Charter of Incorporation, granted to the society by King William the Fourth, was surrendered, together with all the individual rights of property in the funds of the Institute, as it then existed, in order that the same might thenceforth be applied to the general purposes of our society in promoting professional improvement and facilitating the acquisition of legal knowledge. By these means all trace of the commercial character which had, in its origin, been unwittingly impressed upon our society, and which had been found to have a prejudicial effect upon its progress, was removed. In August, 1846, a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which had been appointed to inquire into legal education in England, made its report. The Committee advert to the fact that in none of the collegiate establishments being places of preliminary study to the Universities were any legal courses, however elementary, pursued; that in neither of the great Universities of England (Oxford or Cambridge) were there more than two chairs, one for promoting the study of civil, the other for promoting the study of English law; that of these chairs one had been discontinued on account of the paucity of students, and that the other, although more efficient and better frequented, was still inadequate; that in the University of London efforts had been made to supply their wants, but for the time only had their efforts proved successful; and that although in the College of Haileybury such requirements had been better met, they were limited to students for India. The committee then state it to be their opinion that there was in our schools and universities no course of instruction sufficiently extensive either for the general or professional student, whilst the Inns of Court had long since discontinued their lectures and readings, and consequently, there was neither for barristers or solicitors any legal education of a public kind worthy of the name. And speaking more particularly of our branch of the profession, the committee go on to state that the solicitor entered upon his professional duties “ill entitled, through want of the qualities which sound and careful education can best give, to that confidence and reliance which the very delicate and complicated nature of his duties demand." The committee then contrast the legal education of the Continent, where that branch of education held (as it still holds) an important place in the curriculum of subjects to which pre-eminence was, and still is, given in the Universities of those countries, with the want of any such facilities for the study of the law which existed in England, and go on to say that they have not "come to the conclusion that this state of things does not admit of correction; on the contrary, they have received, during their course of inquiry, very direct and unquestionable proofs from all classes, professional and unprofessional, not only of the necessity, but also of the facility, of reform." That "already commencements, with no small degree of success have been made by the establishment and operations in London and Manchester of their respective law societies," and they add that "In those matters the best labourers are the voluntary, and no reform is likely to be so general, effective, or permanent, as that which is the result of the calm deliberations and matured convictions of those directly concerned." The report closes by recommending, amongst other things: "That in providing for the special legal education of the solicitor, a stringent examination should be required in proof of a sound general education having been gone through previous to admission to apprenticeship. That this examination should embrace, in addition to the ordinary acquirements of a so-called com

mercial education, a competent knowledge of at least Latin, geography, history, the elements of mathematics and ethics, and of one or more modern languages." The efforts of our society for the improvement of education, thus early acknowledged, have never been relaxed. The lectures of the society were continued, and considerable care was expended upon the conduct of the examinations. But it was felt that further reforms were still necessary, and in the year 1860 a Bill for that purpose was introduced into Parliament, which was prepared under the direct instructions of the Council. This Bill became law, and by its provisions our society were enabled to set on foot the Preliminary and Intermediate Examinations. This Act was passed during the presidency of Mr. Cookson, to whose ability and active interest in the well-being of the profession of which he was an ornament I have already referred. In 1872 (it having long been felt that the endeavours to raise the standard of legal education for solicitors throughout the country would be more likely to be successful if our society were brought into somewhat more close connection with the societies established, and still in course of establishment, in the large towns of England), a supplemental charter was obtained, under which the members of the council were increased in number, and power was given to elect extraordinary members from the presidents of any other law societies established at any place in the United Kingdom except the metropolis, with the like or kindred purposes for which our society has been established. The number of such extraordinary members was limited to ten. The power thus given has since that date been constantly exercised, and has been found to be most useful for the purpose for which it was intended. Up to this time, however, our society had only a limited control over the examinations for admission into the ranks of our branch of the profession. The Legislature had not, in the first instance, done more than enable the judges to depute to the council certain functions which they could at any time resume. But in 1877 an Act which originated with, and was actively promoted by, our society became law. The passing of this Act was mainly due to the experience, tact, and indomitable perseverance of Mr. Francis Thomas Bircham, who was vice-president in 1874 and president in 1875, aided in a large degree by Mr. G. B. Gregory and Mr. E. F. Burton. It conferred upon our society, subject to a right of appeal to the Master of the Rolls, the entire management of the preliminary, intermediate, and final examinations. Upon the passing of this Act, an Examination Committee (upon which some country members always serve) was formed to inaugurate and superintend the working of its provisions. Assistant examiners were selected from practising members of the profession to assist in the conduct of the examinations, and in 1879 elementary classes for the benefit of articled clerks who had not passed their intermediate examination, which have since been continuously conducted by a London member of our branch of the profession with very considerable success, were established. On the 28th of February, 1879, the council instructed the Examination Committee to communicate with the various local societies in the country, with a view of ascertaining whether or not it would be practicable to establish local classes in country towns of the same character as those which have been established by our society for the benefit of articled clerks who had not passed their intermediate examination, and accordingly a circular letter was addressed to those bodies. At the time the local societies did not see their way to the establishment of such classes, and the suggestion met with but little encouragement from any of the societies who responded to the letter of the Examination Committee, with the exception of the Liverpool Law Society, who considered that the establishment of local law classes would meet with "great approval and be strongly supported." Such important towns as Birmingham, Liverpool, and Newcastle-on-Tyne have since seen their way to establish law classes in conjunction with our society, and these classes the council have had the satisfaction of being able to assist, in some degree, by means of a yearly grant. An honours examination has been established, at which candidates from the country have taken a full share of the prizes, for which provision has been made through the liberality of former members of the profession; and these agencies for the furtherance of the main object of our Society are now in active operation. I have thus shewn that no inconsiderable progress has been made during the present reign in promoting the education of candidates for admission upon the rolls of solicitors in England and Wales. Much remains (to be done in the same direction, and if the foregoing narrative calls attention to the importance of the question of legal education, and operates in some degree as an incentive to greater exertions on the part of the existing law societies, both in town and country, my purpose will be fully answered, and I shall more especially regard my attempt to do justice to the labours of the council of our society with satisfaction if the present reunion has the result of inducing a much larger proportion of our professional brethren to enrol themselves as members of the Incorporated Law Society than have hitherto seen fit so to do. Although during the last few years a considerable addition has been made to our number, yet our society does not include, as it should do, a large majority of the profession. If it did, its usefulness would be increased, and the objects for which it was founded, and especially that of establishing a good system of legal education, would be insured.

The last subject upon which I shall venture to make any observations, and those very few and with very great diffidence, is one upon which there is a great divergence of opinion-viz., the amalgamation of the two branches of the profession. The subject has been brought somewhat into prominence lately, and it has consequently received the consideration of the Bar Committee. It is not within my province, nor do I presume to make any observations upon the course, so far as it has been made public, which that body has thought it advisable to adopt. The interests of the bar may very safely be left in their hands. I will only observe that at present they have not seen fit to take any active steps in the matter, and I cannot but think that our branch of the profession may well follow a like course, and more especially so because of late years the transit from one branch of the pro

fession to the other has been made, comparatively speaking, very easy. But in saying that no active steps should be taken to disturb the distinctions which at present exist, I do not intend to indicate that the matter is one which can with prudence be wholly disregarded. On the contrary, it deserves our careful attention and constant watchfulness. Ultimately it will no doubt be determined, as such a question should be, by stress of circumstances and the requirements of the public. That the present distinctions, although they may be modified, will ever be entirely swept away, I do not believe. These distinctions are not arbitrary, accidental, or based upon considerations which have no longer any effect. They are not peculiar to this country, and even where they have been abolished by law they have a tendency to reappear. There is no country in Europe where all the functions of a barrister and a solicitor are performed by one person. Everywhere there is a line of separation drawn, although it is drawn very differently from our own. Generally on the continent of Europe a distinction is made between contentious and non-contentious business. For non-contentious business there is an officer who is called a notary, whose duty it is to prepare legal documents of every description for persons who are about to enter into a transaction which requires a writing of a formal kind. In Germany the contentious business is placed entirely in the hands of the advocate, who superintends it in its progress both in and out of court. But in France this is not so, for in addition to the notary and the advocate there is a third legal functionary called an avoué. The avoué conducts the actual procedure of the litigation, whilst to the advocate are entrusted the duties of personally advising his clients and appearing in court. The avoué is called in only when his services are required for carrying on the machinery of litigation. It is remarkable also that where there is a formal union between the functions of barrister and solicitor in litigious business there is very generally, if not always, a strong tendency towards practical separation. Persons who possess the special qualities required by a successful advocate are by no means invariably the persons best suited to advise as to the management of an intricate litigation, or upon the other manifold questions with which solicitors have day by day to deal, and vice versa. And it is this natural division of capabilities which leads to a voluntary separation of duties. I am told that many advocates in Germany devote themselves solely, or very nearly so, to appearing in court, while others very rarely leave their | own chambers. In Canada the professions of barrister and solicitor are separate to the extent that there are two distinct rolls-a barristers' roll and a solicitors' roll-but the one individual usually appears on both rolls. As a solicitor he is the officer of the court, and under its control; but, nevertheless, a separation of duties finds its place. In Toronto there is, or very recently was, a firm of nine members, of whom four are Queen's counsel; and it is in that country a well-established practice in large firms for the senior partners to devote themselves to court work exclusively, whilst the intermediate partners help the seniors and the juniors, and the juniors devote themselves exclusively to othce work. In the United States of America, as is well known, the law makes no distinction of functions whatsoever. But here, again, the voluntary separation appears in a very decided manner. Partnerships are formed with an express view to a division of work, so that one partner almost invariably appears in court, whilst another advises the clients of the firm and carries on the general business. In heavy causes suitors avail themselves of the special assistance of a qualified practitioner, "if conspicuous in some particular branch of the law, office where the proceedings are initiated," who is called in expressly for the purpose of conducting the case in court. Still, if some separation of legal functions will in all probability continue, there are not wanting indications that some change in the distribution of these functions may take place. This question must, as I have already said, be determined by the necessities and requirements of the public. But if we do our best to improve the education and to uphold the dignity and honour of our branch of the profession, we need not, I think, take alarm, and act as if we thought that every such change must be injurious to our interests. If the change be one which steadily progresses, it is probable that it will do so because public convenience lies in that direction; and we must, whilst using vigilance to regulate, as far as it comes within our province so to do, that progress, adapt ourselves to it rather than oppose it. Indeed, there is one point which will require the utmost watchfulness on our part, and it is this. No other body of men are placed by the law (and rightly so, having regard to the interests which are confided to our care) under such strict supervision and control as we solicitors are; and if any of our functions are to be assumed by others, we must insist that persons outside the ranks of our profession who desire or may be required to take the work which is now confided to us shall be placed under a like supervision and control, and be subjected, in case of failure, to like consequences; and in this way we shall discharge our duty to the general public, by whom and in whose interests this question, I repeat, must be determined.

outside of the

The PRESIDENT said that as there were other papers to be read which touched upon the same subject as the address, he would invite the members present to postpone any discussion until they had been read.

Mr. WILLIAMS, as senior member of the council, moved that the thanks of the meeting be given to the Vice-President for the very admirable paper they had listened to.

Mr. BERNARD WAKE (Sheffield) seconded the motion. He said that some of the subjects in the paper had also been touched upon by the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chancellor the other evening, when he had stated that the bench, the bar, and solicitors were three branches of one profession. The motion having been carried with acclamation, The VICE-PRESIDENT briefly returned thanks.

NEXT YEAR'S MEETING.

Mr. C. H. STANTON said he had the honour of representing the Newcastle Law Society, and he hoped that next year the members would meet at Newcastle. Mr. J. LEWIS (Wrexham) expressed a hope that this invitation would be accepted.

THE EXTENSION OF THE SOCIETY, ITS FUNCTIONS, and Powers. The PRESIDENT read a paper with this title, as follows :-Although the duty of delivering the annual address has, for the reasons stated by him, devolved this year upon the Vice-President, I feel that after the experience gained in my year of office there are matters connected with the constitution and functions of our society upon which I may usefully say a few words at this meeting; and I hope that these observations may not be considered to be out of place in coming from the President in the form of a paper, and not in the form of an address. It appears to me that the time has arrived when membership of our society should include every solicitor upon the roll. At present, out of the fourteen thousand solicitors who are upon the roll, only about one-third of that number are enrolled as members of this society; and when we consider the important functions which our society exercises with respect to the discipline of the profession and the examination of candidates for admission to it, and that the Incorporated Law Society stands forward and is acknowledged as the representative body of the whole profession, it ought, if it is to be thoroughly representative, to embrace every practising solicitor. In a very able paper which was read by the late Mr. Francis Thomas Bircham, at Liverpool, in October, 1875, the following passage occurs:-" "To me it appears that the Incorporated Law Society will not be what it ought to be until every fitly-qualified member of the profession shall have joined it, shall have entered into its fellowship, given it his aid and influence, accepted its control, and thus done his best in regulating and helping and elevating the class to which he belongs." These are words pregnant with wisdom; but, although they were uttered now twelve years since, no step has been taken in the direction of giving practical effect to the important suggestion thus made. In a paper read by Mr. Marshall, at Liverpool, in October, 1885, reference is again made to this subject, and he notices, as one of the defects of our constitution, the insufficient support given to the Incorporated Law Society, especially by solicitors in the provinces. The time for energetic action in this matter appears to have arrived; and unless it is taken in hand and dealt with practically, the Incorporated Law Society can never be the thoroughly representative body of the profession which it should be, and in the end must be. No doubt, if all the solicitors on the roll became members of the society, it would follow that the whole body of the profession would elect the members of the council. The number of representatives on the council to be selected from London practitioners, and the number to be selected from country practitioners, would be a matter for consideration hereafter. If this fusion of the whole profession with the Society were accomplished, we should bave achieved that which has been so long desired, namely, the unity of the profession; and the society in London, acting in the name of the whole body of the profession, would speak with redoubled authority, and the influence of the society would be very materially advanced. The scheme need not impose upon those who are not at present members of the society any serious burden. An increase of the fee now paid to the society as registrar of solicitors, which increase need not be of large amount, is all that would be requisite, and that increase could be made to constitute membership without any further annual subscription or payment. Another subject upon which I should desire to say a few words gathered from the experience of my presidential year, is the exercise by the society of its disciplinary functions over solicitors. These duties are increasing year by year very formidably. When I first had the honour of joining the council in 1873, it happened rarely that complaints were referred to the council with respect to the conduct of solicitors. There was probably an average of one a week, and the practice then was for the president to hand the papers to some member of the council, that he might consider them and report to the council at their next meeting. Now, the complaints addressed to the society, and the papers forwarded, have reached such magnitude, that it has for some years past been found necessary to have a special committee of the council called the Discipline Committee, who meet every week, and consider and report to the council. The work of this committee includes applications for exemption from our preliminary examinations, which are referred to the council by the judges, and the cases presented for the consideration of the Discipline Committee average weekly from thirty to forty, and in some cases involve the reading of masses of evidence and papers. I do not intend to suggest that the increase in the numbers of discipline cases is due to the increase of malpractices in the profession, as I believe the increase is not more than a rateable increase in proportion to the numbers which are every term added to our body, but I think the increase is due in great measure to the fact that the public and the profession generally are becoming more alive to the important functions which our society exercises in this respect, and so the assistance of the council is sought. I should mention that in the so-called the infringement by unqualified persons of the privileges of the profession. discipline cases which are considered by the committee are included cases of These are not inconsiderable, and are generally to be found amongst persons calling themselves accountants, who hold themselves out as legal practitioners. This latter class is summarily dealt with before a justice of the peace at the instance of the society, and numerous convictions have been obtained. But in those cases which are strictly disciplinary, and involve complaints of malpractices, these are necessarily dealt with by an application to the court. The applications have grown to very considerable proportions, and each application involves the collection of a mass of evidence to convict the delinquent, the briefing counsel, and other outlays and expenses, and the amount appearing under this head in our annual accounts is very consider

The PRESIDENT said that at this period of the meeting it was usual to fix able. A reference to the court in these cases seems to involve an unnecessary the place of meeting for the following year,

expense, and to be a waste of energy. The vast majority of the cases which

are brought before the court are applications for removing a practitioner from the rolls, or suspending his certificate. They consist chiefly of cases where punishment follows as a matter of course, the delinquent having been either convicted of a criminal offence, or having been proved to have misappropriated his client's money, or to have improperly retained it, or to have been guilty of other gross professional misconduct. The function now exercised by the court, at considerable cost to the society, could well be exercised by the council alone, subject of course, to the practitioner affected having the right to appeal to the court within a prescribed time, against the decision of the council. A suggestion to this effect was made by Mr. Lowndes, at Liverpool, in the year 1885, and he proposed that the council should apply for a fresh" charter, and should ask for the same powers to remove members from the roll for misconduct which the bar have of disbarring, subject to an appeal to the judges." Such a measure appears to be a necessary development of the functions which have, from time to time, been entrusted to the society, all of which have been exercised with the strictest justice and impartiality, and the time seems to have arrived when the jurisdiction and authority of the society over solicitors should be completed, by investing them with this additional jurisdiction. The third and last suggestion which I venture to make is this. Only those who have served upon the Discipline committee referred to, can conceive the number of complaints which are made that a certain class of solicitors, who are on the rolls, allow unqualified persons (usually clerks who have had experience in the office of a solicitor) to practice in their name, on a division of profit or some other arrangement, in which the delinquent solicitor is interested. Many cases occur where the solicitor appears to have offices at various places, where the business is conducted and carried on by a clerk in his name, the solicitor only visiting these offices occasionally for the purpose of keeping up appearances. These irregular practitioners are real pests to the public and to the profession. They tout for business in every direction, especially in accident and such like cases. They agree to do the business upon terms of "no cure, no pay," taking one-half the proceeds of the verdict or settlement as the price of their services. They squeeze the poor client from time to time for advances on account, and in the result they get hold of the amount of the verdict, or compromise and pocket the greater part of the proceeds, and then comes the complaint of the poor client to the law society. There is great difficulty in bringing about a conviction of delinquent solicitors of this class, inasmuch as his guilt can only be proved out of his own mouth, or the mouth of his so-called clerk, and we are very seldom able to get at sufficient facts to make out a primâ facie case for an application to the court-but if we do succeed in making out a case after going to the expense of preparing affidavits, and briefing counsel, the court upon being satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, refers it to the master to consider and report, and then the solicitor is brought up and examined. Then, and not till then, comes the pinching point, for if he be actually guilty of irregularity, he must either commit flat perjury (and he is seldom prepared for this) or be convicted out of his own mouth. He can be asked what salary he pays the so-called clerk, or how otherwise he is remunerated; who pays the rent of the offices where the business is carried on, and who pays the office expenses, and he is subjected to a searching examination, with a view to establish the fact, that although nominally he is conducting the business carried on in his name, it is really carried on by the clerk, who is actually practising in the name of the delinquent solicitor. It would very much facilitate the getting at the facts in cases of this nature if the council were empowered at the outset to examine the suspected solicitor on oath, without going to the expense of applying to the court, and then having the case referred to the master; and it is believed that if the council had summary power in cases of this nature, it would go very far to suppress the objectionable practice referred to, if not entirely to eradicate it. Of course, the suggestions thus made would involve going to Parliament for extended powers, having first obtained the views of the judges with respect to the proposals made; but the question of going to Parliament is a minor consideration when contrasted with the very great benefits which would be derived by efficient legislation in the direction indicated.

THE LAND TRANSFER BILL.

Mr. JOHN HUNTER (London) read the following paper on this sub. ject:-The Bill "to further simplify Titles and facilitate the Transfer of Land in England," which has been brought into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, is so great an advance on every scheme for improving the law of real property which has been laid previously before Parliament that it deserves full discussion and consideration at this meeting; and although the subject occupies a prominent place in the vicepresident's address, I think a paper specially devoted to the proposals of the Lord Chancellor may be acceptable. The Bill consists of two parts, one referring to registration of title, the other to alterations in the law of real property. The memorandum prefixed to the Bill states that its object is to supplement and carry further the legislation effected by the Land Transfer Act, but the registration proposed by the Bill differs essentially from that established by the Act in most important particulars. Indeed, although the three names of absolute, qualified, and possessory titles appear both in the Act and the Bill, it appears to me that the names are the only point in which the scheme to be established by the Bill will resemble that established by the Act. Under the Act of 1875, as well as under the prior Act of 1862, all applications for a registered title came from volunteers, and, in practice, were applications for an absolute title. It the application for an absolute title was unsuccessful it was withdrawn, for no one wanted to be registered with a qualified title, which was direct notice to everyone dealing with it that there was a flaw in the title. The name of possessory title was first used in the Act of 1875, and I understand that not more than a dozen possessory titles have been registered under it. Registration under the Acts has, therefore, hitherto been registration with an absolute title, and to obtain this it was necessary to satisfy the registrar, by strict proof, that every link in the title was correct, and

to exclude, by equally strict proof, the possibility of anyone other than the applicant having any interest in the land. The expenditure of time, and labour, and money required to prove a title for forty or sixty years in this way was enormous. The several instances quoted in the report of Mr. Osborne Morgan's Committee were, so far as my information goes, not exceptional, but only average cases; and although this elaborate and exhaustive inquiry into each title was no doubt absolutely necessary so long as the effect of a certificate of the registrar was to bar the claims of everyone to the registered land, the immense difficulty of proving to demonstration every fact and every document required to support a title, with its accompanying cost and delay, unquestionably prevented recourse being had to the registry. But the difficulties did not cease after a title was once registered. On each subsequent dealing with the land registered with an absolute title the formalities required were far greater than with unregistered land. Deeds had to be printed; every signature to a deed had to be proved by a statutory declaration. In the case of death of an owner, a devisee under his will could not be registered until he had served notice of his application on the heir-at-law, or obtained his consent, and a fresh ad valorem fee had to be paid on substituting the name of devisee or heir for deceased owner. In one case in which I was concerned I had to go to the Master of the Rolls for an order before the registrar would register the title of a purchaser from a first mortgagee selling under his statutory power, because I could not procure the consent of subsequent incumbrancers. In another case a client of mine bought a house and garden, one number on the register, and then bought an adjoining strip of land, being another number on the register, to enlarge his house; and on the transfer the registrar refused to amalgamate the two numbers, but obliged us to go on with two separate titles, and two certificates, involving double fees and trouble in every future dealing with the house. On a purchase by myself of land, the title to which was on the register, after the transfer to myself had been proved with all due formalities, I was required, before I got my certificate of title, to prove, by production of certificate of marriage, that I was not married before 1834. I subsequently made two small further purchases of adjoining land, and on each occasion had to produce the marriage certificate, to exclude the risk of my leaving a wife who could claim dower under the law repealed fifty years ago. The result of this particularity and want of elasticity not only deterred people from putting their titles on to the register, but induced them to take them off. The total number of original_registrations under the Act of 1862 was 411, and as many as 170 titles have been taken off after being put on. The titles have been increased in number by sub-division of the original registration, so that these numbers do not imply that 17-40ths, nearly one-half of the titles, have been taken off the register; but they do show that registration, as hitherto worked, has been very unpopular. With this experience of the past it is not surprising that those who desire to make registration compulsory should propound a new scheme for the future, and this, it seems to me, the Lord Chancellor does, although his Bill retains old names. In the first place, as registration is to be compulsory, everyone applying for it will naturally apply for what costs least money and time-viz., a possessory title. This may be obtained under the Act and existing rules by the applicant (or one of them, if more than one) and his solicitor making a declaration verifying the description of the land, and stating that, to the best of their belief, the applicant has a good title, and that possession or receipt of rents is in accordance with the title, and that if some one document, produced with the application, is marked by the registrar, the fact of registration of the title cannot be concealed from any other person dealing with the land. When the registrar is satisfied with the declaration and the description, and that the registration cannot be concealed, "he shall register the applicant with a possessory title." Under the Bill this possessory title can be made absolute by the applicant stating on affidavit, with particulars to be prescribed, that he has made due inquiry into the title, that he is not aware of any question affecting it, and that the confirmation of it will not prejudice any interest of any other person in the land. Certain notices are then to be given locally and by advertisements, and to be repeated for five years. If no adverse claim is made during the five years, the applicant's possessory title may be confirmed by the registrar, and become an absolute title. Thus it will be seen that, instead of an applicant for an absolute title having to produce strict proof of his title for forty years preceding his application, and equally strict proof to negative the rights of every other possible claimant, and of these proofs being examined by the officials, in future he will have to produce only some one document for the purpose of its being marked, so as to insure subsequent dealers with the property having notice that the title is registered, and his title may be made absolute without any investigation whatever by officials on the evidence of the applicant himself and his solicitor, if no adverse claim is put in after five years' advertising. The pendulum could hardly swing further from one side to the other-from excessive precautions to prevent improper registration to excessive anxiety to facilitate registration from all comers.

The absolute title under the Act, when obtained, differs almost as much from the absolute title under the Bill as the two modes of obtaining it differ. Under the Act the "first registration of any person as proprietor of freehold land with an absolute title shall vest in the person so registered an estate in fee simple in such land, together with all rights, privileges, and appurtenances belonging or appurtenant thereto" (subject to incumbrances and to unregistered equities as therein mentioned), "free from all estates and interests whatsoever." This conferred on the proprietor what is usually known as an indefeasible title. But under the Bill a certificate of absolute title is not intended to protect the first registered owner from any claims, for by section 10, sub-section 5, it is to be enacted that "If by reason of the confirmation under this section" (which enables the enlargement of possessory into absolute titles) "of the

« PreviousContinue »