Now the separation of Belgium from France, and its reunion to Holland in 1815, left the organisation of its Bar as established under the Imperial Decree of 1810, and to that we must look for a statement of its constitution and for its rules of discipline.

The course of events in France must first be traced. In the preamble to the Napoleonic Decree of 1810, the re-establishment of the Roll of Advocates was said to be directed to the attaining of uprightness, delicacy, disinterested conduct, the wish for conciliation, and the use of truth and of justice. It set out to secure the freedom of the advocate and the nobility of his profession, whilst assigning the limits of licence. It was, however, obvious that in France the restrictions placed upon the practice of the profession, by reason of its being placed under the control of the political administration, were unnecessary and oppressive. The submission of the roll to the Minister of Justice, the necessity of his permission in order that the advocate might practice outside his particular Court, oaths of obedience, oaths of fidelity, the control of the Conseil de Discipline (and the conferring of its powers) by the ProcureurGeneral as the officer of the State, the restrictions upon the mere meeting together of the Conseil, the penalties imposed upon what might be considered to be an attack upon established authority, the administrative punishment of an advocate for any violation of departmental prejudice, the compulsory retainer by the State in civil matters; all these were held to be matters of just resentment to the Bar of Paris, and all were matters which in the course of the next twenty years received the constant and uncompromising hostility of the Bar, until they were swept away in France by the ordinance of 1830.

From the beginning, in Belgium, there were difficulties. The Bar resented its limited constitutions, and still more, was resentful of the measures of the government. A royal

decree of 1817 added to the declaration of professional conduct an oath of allegiance. Later, the use of the Dutch language was imposed; always there was antagonism between the State and the Bar more or less suppressed.

In

The Revolution of 1830 created Belgium as a separate State. The status of perpetual international neutrality followed. With the Revolution of 1830 fell the application to Belgium of the provisions of the decree of 1810. 1832, on the 7th August, the advocates finally incorporated themselves into a free association. In fact, they decided that the dignity and the necessity for independence of their Order were incompatible with the exercise of any authority over the deliberations and decisions of their Order relative to the exercise of their rights. They decided to nominate their own Council of Discipline after the fashion of the Order of the French Advocates of Pre-Revolution days. They, on their own account, formed an Official List. The Procureur-General tried to point out the illegality of their proceedings. Twice he made remonstrances against the recalcitrants, appealing to the Bars throughout the country, but each time in vain. On 30th June, 1832, the Statutes of the Bar were published.

The first article provided that the object of the Association of the Advocates of the Bar of Brussels was to maintain the dignity and the independence of their Order, to secure the defence of the poor, and to preserve progressive doctrines.

The third article provided that the exercise of the profession was (inter alia) irreconcilable with any public employment granted and paid by the Government.

The seventh article and those following asserted the right for the advocates of choosing the Council of Discipline, which was charged with watching over the preservation of the independence of the Order, with repressing whatever on the part of the advocate might be contrary to the principles of uprightness and honour which characterise the profession,

and with the establishment of an office for gratuitous consultation.

In 1836 an understanding was arrived at between the Government and the Free Association. They agreed to partially abrogate the decree of 1810 in order to constitute a new organic foundation, which since then has scarcely been the subject of any modification. During these six stormy years, from 1830 to 1836, the Bar of Brussels showed the most praiseworthy energy and the most rigid independence. It notably invested itself with the right of criticising, by decisions taken in full council, all the acts of the Executive authorising subversion of liberty, and did not fail to use its rights.

Apart from these questions between the State and the Bar, which constituted the fight for what may be termed its charter of freedom, conflicts of a more domestic character supervened.

It was during this period of the "Six Years' " War, also, that arose the conflict called "The affair of the Advocates of the Court of Cassation." The law of the 4th August 1832, organising the judicial system, created advocates to the Court of Cassation, which it termed " Officiers Ministeriels.” In October 1832, the Council of Discipline of the Order of the Advocates of Appeal declared: "The members of "the Association resolve not to recognise in the future as "advocate any one who shall accept this office, and to "refuse to communicate or confer with him or to sign his pleadings or consultations in capacity of advocate—in a "word, of having with him any relations other than those "which concern ministerial functions." In spite of the efforts of the Bar of Appeal, the law remained in force. The 15th June 1833, the Court of Cassation, upholding its own advocates, declared their effective co-operation obligatory. The 21st June, the Council of Discipline answered unanimously that their members would not plead any longer

66

before the Court of Cassation. Up to 1843 the situation remained strained. On the 18th July 1843, a compromise was signed between the Bars of Appeal and of Cassation, and the dissension ceased. One came soon to consider the title of advocate to the Court of Cassation as an honour granted to the most distinguished advocates. On several occasions, however, they have renewed their protest against the practice which creates two Orders of advocates and appears contrary to the fundamental unity of the Bar.

Some years later there arose the question which has, in every State in which a Bar exists, at some time or another arisen-that is to say, whether an advocate inscribed on the roll could properly exercise (1) the functions of receiver in bankruptcy or (2) those of director of commercial companies. On the 10th April 1854, by the Council of the Order of Brussels, the formal decision of the Order in favour of the restriction was given in the following terms: "Seeing that the attributes of this kind are ir"reconcilable with the dignity, with the independence, with the special duties of the advocate who owes his "time, his studies, his exertions, not to agencies of business "of the nature of receiverships and to all kinds of opera"tions and steps which are inseparable from them, but to "the general interests of society, to the defence of all, and "of every Court founded on justice and in equity." But a decree of reform was made by the Court of Appeal which decided that these functions were not incompatible with the advocate's profession.

As to the question of the directorships of commercial companies, first put in 1857 before the Council of the Order of Brussels and the Court of Appeal, relative to the general direction of a commercial company, it had been laid down in the terms that there existed an incompatibility between that employment and the exercise of the profession. In 1883 a considerable number of advocates administered

the affairs of public companies. The Council of the Order of Advocates of Brussels took in this respect a strict view, of which the following is the chief point, "considering that

a director of a public commercial company must be taken. "to carry on a business in the sense of the decree of 1810, "and that at the same time he fills a salaried post which "is equivalent to an employment for wages." The Court, however, reformed this decision 9th May 1883, and retained the advocates in question on the roll. The Council then regarding itself as attacked resolved "that advocates who have regard for the salutary and insistent traditions of the Order do not support this last decision of the Court."

Another entirely different question which has not been confined to the Bar of Belgium arose in 1882. The Council of Discipline of Brussels had to decide the question whether women could be admitted to practise the profession of the advocate. Under the old rule, which obtained throughout all the dominions of pre-Revolution France, a woman could not be an advocate; as to the decree of 1810 it is not explicit on this point. A Malle. Popelin having obtained the degree of Doctor of Law, asked to be admitted to the oath. The Court of Appeal at Brussels dismissed the application, and its decision of the 12th December 1888, amongst other proceeds, is based on this,

66

Seeing that the special nature of woman, the feebleness "of her constitution, the modesty inherent to her sex, "the protection which is necessary to her, her peculiar "mission to humanity, the demands and the obligations "of maternity, the training that she owes to her children, "the control of the household and the domestic hearth "entrusted to her efforts, place her in conditions little "reconcilable with the duties of the profession of an "advocate, and give her neither the necessary leisure, strength, nor fitness for the strifes and labours of the "Bar." The review of this decision was rejected by the

66