being thereto admonished, he was treated as being guilty of contempt of Court and was amerced or imprisoned accordingly.

as to the right

The Law 41, "Quia non sunt

One great controversy of those times was of audience being extended to foreigners. of the year 1569, in terms forbad them. adstricti juramento juxta formulam jure nostro civili praescriptam."

We have said that the history of advocates in Hungary is very largely associated with the general history of the country. We find about this time that the evil effects upon the social system of the country, by reason of the protracted wars with the Turks (when Hungary was in effect for centuries the shield of Christendom), had its indirect effect upon the professional classes, which became to some extent disorganised. Amongst other charges against the advocates of that day which aroused popular resentment will be found that of deliberately protracting law-suits. In fact for something like half-a-century the reputation and standing of the orders of advocates was at the lowest possible point. There were even proposals to exclude advocates altogether from intervention in law-suits. How far this temporary discontent was local to Hungary it is difficult to gauge with accuracy. It will be recalled that, in England, in the sixth year of Henry IV, a temporary movement enabled the exclusion of lawyers from the "Unlearned Parliament." However that may be, in the year 1486 there were passed several important restrictions upon the practice of advocates in Hungary. By a royal proclamation it was enjoined that no one should be simultaneously advocate and witness, or advocate or judge in the same law-suit. The advocates were put under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Courts themselves.

Section 69 of the 6th decrete of the year 1486, is especially interesting as a mediæval attempt in the direction of a

66

Right-to-work" enactment.

It forbids an advocate to

accept the conduct of law-suits from more than fourteen persons at the same time.

The Statute 52 of the year 1550, and 49 of the year 1563, is as follows:

"Prorelationibus procuratorum quo ad trinaviam prohibitionem responsionum suarum et deliberationum, otiosis item eorum disputationibus et exceptionibus circa indebitam actionem et citationem formari solitis (retensa usque ad reformationem et editionem novi decreti antiqua consuetudine) limites ponuntur."

The Law 49, of the year 1563, speaks bitterly "de otiosis procuratorum disputationibus."

Up to the year 1563 procuracies or retainers had been drawn up under ecclesiastical sanction. By the Law 53 of that year retainers to advocates were permitted to be given in the presence of a civil magistrate.

In the year 1567 the oath of the advocates was made more stringent. In addition to the obligation to the client of fidelity in the conduct of the suit, there was a prohibition in favour of the State against the advocate undertaking an unjust law-suit (Statute 27). Many of the difficulties under which the orders of advocates suffered at this time were naturally attributed by the Hungarians to the incursion into their ranks of foreigners, by reason of the domination of the House of Austria. It will be remarked that throughout this period the Hungarian advocates were ceaselessly engaged in fighting for the national party in the national assemblies against the Imperial power.

Amongst the statutes specifically regulating the profession during this period may be mentioned that of 1578 (Statute 17), which limited the period of a retainer to one year, except only when the client giving it remained abroad for a longer period; and that of 1622 (Statutes 14 and 15), arising from the period of war and consequent insecurity (when documents connected with law-suits were taken from

the Courts and placed in what was termed safe, or private, custody) directing that all documents connected with lawsuits, and in the possession of advocates, must be returned to their legal owners.

There was in 1695 a royal decree that the regulation of advocates should be strictly observed; that those advocates who did not take the prescribed oath should not be permitted to act, and that law-suits instituted or conducted by such non-juring advocates should be abated or even rejected. It is to be noted that the oath was to be taken according to Catholic rites. In effect it was intended to exclude from the roll of advocates the adherents of the Protestant faith. There was later on added a clause which has a political rather than an ecclesiastical object. An advocate has to swear allegiance to the king; a provision which was intended to break up the relations between Hungarian advocates and the Constitutional and National parties.

Certain new regulations were made in the year 1723. The principal points covered by these were:

(1) The obligation on the advocate after passing an examination to take an oath that wittingly he would accept no unjust cause; that against the due course of the law no one he would defend; that law-suits he would not willingly protract; and that by no secret bargain he would defeat the rights of his client.

(2) That the advocate would avoid the raising of unfounded objections in the course of the prosecution of the suit.

(3) To use only a limited number of documents (confined to three) in the interest of his client. This strange provision was no doubt merely a check upon prolix pleading.

(4) A prohibition on the stipulation for the payment to the advocate of a part of the subject-matter of the suit.

(5) That the judge might fix the remuneration of the

advocate, having regard to the experience and knowledge of the advocate and the labour involved in the particular business.

(6) That the retainer was valid for the period of the law-suit.

(7) That although it was possible that an advocate might revoke his declaration on admission, such revocation was punishable with a fine.

In the year 1790 new regulations were issued:

(1) University studies were enjoined; persons of good character alone were eligible for admission; an examination was obligatory in all branches of the science of the law.

(2) Then the student should undergo a term of one year's apprenticeship ("Patvarista") either with a judicial magistrate or with a senior advocate.

(3) Thereafter the student should undergo a term of one year's employment as a junior official in one of the Royal Courts of Justice.

(4) Thereupon the student should pass a special examination held before a commission of examiners appointed by what in England might be termed the King's Bench Division.

It was further provided that an advocate who should behave in a scandalous way, or who should be immersed in debt, or who should be convicted of any misdemeanour, should be punished by admonition, by suspension, or by condemnation to perpetual silence. There were special rescripts and regulations for the counsellors of the King, for the counsellors of the Counties or Cities, for the counsellors in the Holy Roman Court, for the advocates of the Poor, for the advocates of the State. It was after this that the practice grew up (analogous to that in England in Elizabethan times), for persons of the more favoured classes to pass the examination prescribed for an advocate, as a standard of education and a mark of training. In the early years of the 19th century many advocates were to be found who later devoted themselves to the academic study

of law, and to this is due a very remarkable series of important contributions to Hungarian juridical science.

During the 19th century the following may be taken as the land-marks of the progress of the profession :

(1) In 1827 the system of retainers was reformed. The advocate could be formally retained, either by an oral declaration before the person trying the particular cause, or by a document subscribed before the Tzolgabiró, a headman of a district, a functionary very akin to the Scotch Procurator-Fiscal.

(2) In 1840, special courts were instituted dealing with commercial suits, e. g., bills of exchange, and within those courts it was prescribed that only those advocates who had passed a special examination were eligible to practise.

(3) After 1848 the Austrian rule became all powerful. During the next few years the Hungarian laws were abrogated. An imperial decree established the new regulations for the Bar known as the Sixty-three Sections. The most remarkable provisions were: (a) The advocate had to prepare a special statement of facts which, under a penalty, had to be disclosed to the court on the request of the judge; (b) the advocate had no right to refuse a retainer on any ground personal to himself; (c) the advocate could not put an end to the retainer save on good and sufficient reason assigned; (d) any agreement in advance as to fixing a fee was void the remuneration of the advocate being assessed by the judge, having regard to the labour, the ability and the diligence of the advocate on the one hand, and the financial ability of the parties on the other; (e) the advocate was obliged, without reward, to represent the poor.

(4) About the year 1860, the movement for Hungarian Constitution becoming stronger, came the turn of the tide for Hungarian susceptibilities. Hungarian again became the language of the courts of law. The ancient rules of the advocates were restored. The standard of education