despotic authority now wielded by the Masters of the Bench,
in the administration of their respective Houses, may be
justified by their works, but it cannot be justified by an
appeal to history. This exercise of unlimited power clearly
constitutes an usurpation. I have elsewhere1 pointed out the
close similarity of the Inns of Chancery and the Halls
of Oxford University. The latter were originally completely
independent and self-governing communities. They consisted
of bodies of ten to twenty scholars, one of whom became
responsible for the rest to the owner of the house. Rules
were framed for domestic government by the scholars
themselves, which eventually developed into the Aularian
Statutes; the scholar who leased the building was elected
by them and became known as the Principal, a title given to
the head of an Inn of Chancery. The first exercise of
control by the Chancellor was marked by the custom of
requiring the Principal to give security for the rent before
that official. It was through this custom that the Chan-
cellor was enabled to reject unsuitable persons, and gradually
to supervise their organisation, but it was not till 1432 that
the Principalship was limited to graduates, and not till the
second half of the 15th century that the Chancellor
attempted to interfere with the Aularian Statutes, or to
impose upon the Halls the Statutes of the University.
the Principal was always elected by the scholars, his socii,
and it was not till the reign of Elizabeth that the Chancellor
acquired the effective nomination. As late as 1857 we find
the nomination of the Principal of St. Mary Hall submitted
to the Aulares by whom it was approved.

But

The origin and constitution of the earliest Inns of Chancery was undoubtedly precisely similar. To cite one instance only, Clifford's Inn was originally what we now call an Inn of Court. It was demised about the year 1344 to certain appentricii de banco, that is to counsel

1 Law Mag. & Rev., Vol. XXXVI, 269.

practising in the Court of Common Pleas, and had thus in its institution no exclusive connexion with the Chancery Clerks. Its members were undoubtedly equal in professional status and in wealth and numbers to those of any of the other four Houses. They were paying the same high rent for their premises as the other Houses, viz., £10 a year. At what precise moment the Inns of Chancery lost, and the four Inns of Court first enjoyed the exclusive right of audience in the Courts we do not know. Probably towards the close of the 14th century. But at the time of the foundation of Clifford's Inn, or rather perhaps of the removal of an older association of serjeants and apprentices to new quarters, the institution subsequently known as Clifford's Inn must have enjoyed that distinguishing mark of an Inn of Court, viz., the right of audience in the superior Courts for its qualified members.

Although the Regulations or Rules of Clifford's Inn can only be traced back to the reign of Edward VI, they, no doubt, in the main merely re-state the more ancient provisions. It is sufficient for the present argument to note that, by these Regulations, up to the last election in 1890 of the Principal, this lay with the whole body of the Company, that is to say, every member, from the Principal to the junior student, had the right to vote; and in nearly every case these Regulations correspond with the orders promulgated from time to time by the Inns of Court.

In comparing the evolution of the governing power in the Inns of Court, the Inns of Chancery, and the Oxford Halls, we find that the development from the more free to the less free synchronises in point of time, and was therefore probably due to the same influence. This was

the decay and break up of the gild system, of which all these societies were children. In this article I am only concerned with the historical facts. Whether the present constitution, under which a comparatively small body of

co-opted members possess uncontrolled authority over the affairs of their respective societies, is entirely satisfactory, is a question which must be left for future consideration. Speaking generally, public opinion to-day would, I venture to think, maintain that an institution in which the vast bulk of its members have no voice in the administration of its affairs, is out of touch with the spirit of modern ideas. It can only be compared with the benevolent despotism of the Tudor monarchs, which, however benevolent and beneficial for the people at the time, was yet despotism, and which, in the hands of their successors, became despotism without the benevolence. In comparing the present autocratic government of the Inns of Court with the more democratic form, of which I have here given some evidence, one word of caution must be added. In the middle of the 15th century each House, as Fortescue tells us, numbered at the outside 200 all told. A century earlier the number was probably less than half. To-day the members are to be reckoned by the thousand, with large numbers scattered all over the world. Even in the case of those who remain in London, the conditions of daily intercourse which prevailed in the old days, when the members. lived a collegiate life, no longer prevail. To this extent the circumstances are not analogous.

HUGH H. L. BELLOT.

IV. THE ARMING OF MERCHANTMEN.1

THE

HE right of a merchant ship to defend itself against capture by the enemy in time of war, and to arm. itself for that purpose, has never until quite recently been doubted.

1 Armed Merchant Ships. By A. PEARCE HIGGINS. London: Stevens & Sons.

1914.

The carrying of guns for defensive purposes was a common practice in the British merchant service during the Napoleonic wars. A reminder of those days may still here and there be found in the bulwarks of sailing vessels painted white and black to represent dummy gun ports.

The vessels of the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company were at one time specially exempted from the duty of sailing under convoy, in consideration of the sufficiency of their armament. In James' Naval History some particulars may be found of the armament of three East Indiamen convoyed from the Hooghly in 1809. The Stratham and the Europa, each of 800 tons register, were armed with 20 medium guns and 10 carronades. The Lord Keith, of 600 tons, carried 10 or 12 guns. As late as 1855, the ships engaged in the opium trade were armed for the protection of their valuable cargo against pirates and others. Unquestioned as the right of defence for merchantmen may have been, it was a right that had fallen into almost complete desuetude during the last century, so far as this country was concerned.

The revival of this ancient practice on the part of the British Admiralty was announced by Mr. Winston Churchill last year. The new policy was explained by him in the House of Commons, on the 17th of March last, in the following terms:

66

66

Forty ships have been armed so far with two 4'7 guns apiece, and by the end of 1914-15 70 ships will have "been so armed. They are armed solely for defensive purposes. The guns are mounted in the stern and can only fire on a pursuer. Vessels so armed have nothing "in common with merchant vessels taken over by the Admiralty and converted into commissioned auxiliary cruisers, nor are these vessels privateers or commerce destroyers in any sense. They are exclusively ships "which carry food to this country. They are not allowed

66

66

66

"to fight with any ships of war. Enemies' ships of war "will be dealt with by the Navy, and the instruction of "these armed merchant vessels will direct them to sur"render if overtaken by ships of war. They are, however, thoroughly capable of self-defence against an enemy's "armed merchantman. The fact of their being so armed "will probably prove an effective deterrent alone on the depredations of armed merchantmen and an effective protection for these ships and for the vital supplies that they carry."

66

This new departure in British Naval Policy was received. very differently in different quarters. Lord Charles Beresford declared his conviction that it was equivalent to an addition of 15 Dreadnoughts to our naval resources. Great shipping firms expressed their patriotic readiness and desire to fall in with any recommendations of the British Admiralty, but declined comment. Jurists and shipowners of neutral countries expressed themselves as unfavourable to the proposal-both as tending to enlarge the burdens and operations of naval warfare, and as contrary in spirit if not in letter to the terms of the Declaration of Paris. I have before me a bundle of letters from experts in neutral countries, from Belgium, Holland, Norway and Sweden, who with entire unanimity express themselves as unfavourably impressed by this development of naval warfare, which indeed raises many interesting and serious problems, some of which may be solved in the course of the present war.

The resumption by private merchantmen of the use of defensive armaments, which may apparently include naval guns of any size and in any number which the shipowner or the Admiralty of his country may deem advisable, and may apparently include the strewing of mines to delay or defeat the pursuit of a hostile cruiser, might greatly aggravate the position of neutrals in future naval warfare, and the increased power of naval weapons seems to render it even