securities. Afterwards they presented a liquidation petition, and the bankers, instead of proving against the joint estate, and receiving dividends therefrom, realized the securities held on the separate estate, and satisfied their whole debt.

Held, that the separate estate of J. K. H., sen., was entitled to be recouped out of the joint estate the amount applied in payment of the joint debt.

This was an application on behalf of Mrs. Ann E. Hooper, widow, for an order declaring that the separate creditors of J. K. Hooper, the elder, had a right of proof against the joint estate of the debtors, Messrs. Hooper & Hooper, in respect of the sum of £9,531, or for an alternative order declaring that such separate creditors were entitled to all the rights and remedies, by way of proof or otherwise, that Messrs. Smith, Payne, & Smith, bankers, had against the joint estate, and for a further order declaring that the joint estate was bound to contribute to the payment of the claim of the bank primarily due and owing from the joint estate, but which had been paid by the separate estate to the extent of £9,531, and for a further or alternative order declaring that the separate creditors were entitled to be indemnified by the joint estate to the extent that the joint estate had been relieved from proof or payment of dividends by the said payment of £9,531.

The following is the agreed statement of facts:

Prior to December, 1877, Messrs. John K. Hooper and John K. Hooper, the younger, carried on business in partnership, in London, as wholesale wine and spirit merchants, as Richard Hooper & Sons, and also at Oporto, in Portugal, as port wine shippers, as Hooper Brothers. During the course of their business, and up to December, 1877, Messrs. Richard Hooper & Sons banked with the firm of Messrs. mith Payne, & Smith's, of Lombard-street, and became indebted to them in a very large sum of money.

In or about the months of November or December, 1875, Messrs. Richard Hooper & Sons borrowed a sum of £5,000 from the bank, and John K. Hooper, the elder, deposited with the bank the title deeds of certain property called Newlands, which belonged to him separately, as collateral security for the due payment, by his firm, of the said loan with interest, and also all other moneys in respect of which the said Messrs. Richard Hooper & Sons might be at any time liable to the said bank on any account whatsoever. The memorandum of deposit was dated the 6th of December,

1875.

Messrs. Richard Hooper & Sons became indebted to the bank, and from time to time deposited with the bank various securities belonging to the partnership, consisting, among other things, of bills of exchange and wine warrants to a very large amount in value.

On the 14th of December, 1877, Messrs. Richard Hooper & Sons filed, in the London Bankruptcy Court, a petition for the liquidation of their affairs by arrangement or composition with their creditors, under which petition a resolution that their affairs should be liquidated by arrangement and not in bankruptcy was duly passed and registered, and Mr. James Waddell, chartered accountant, was duly appointed trustee, with a committee of inspection, and the said Mr. James Waddell thereby became trustee of both the joint and separate estates. At the time of the appointment of the trustee, the partnership or joint estate was indebted to the bank in the sum of £29,143 78. 10d., and on the 30th of July, 1880, when the said bank closed the account, the interest upon such sums amounted to £1,408 13s. 11d., making a total of £30,552 18. 9d.

At the time of the appointment of the trustee Mrs. Ann E. Hooper, widow, was a creditor upon the joint estate for £27,752 19s. 11d., and upon the separate estate of J. K. Hooper, the elder, for £7,966, and has duly proved both her said debts.

The bank have not proved their said debts or any part thereof against the joint estate or at all, nor have they received any dividend in respect thereof. After the appointment of the trustee the bank proceeded as and when they thought fit to realize the various securities held by them, and realized securities belonging to the joint estate of the nature before referred to, to the extent of £20,734 11s. 9d. The balance of the securities belonging to the joint estate still unrealized by them, consisting of wine warrants and claims on bills, is estimated to realize £286. The value, therefore, of the whole of the joint securities held by the bank has been taken by them at the total of £21,020 11s. 9d.

Instead of proving against the joint estate and receivingdividends therefrom in respect of the balance of their debt, the said bank realized the securities held by them on the separate estate of J. K. Hooper, the elder, as hereinbefore stated, by arrangement between the bank and the trustee, such property, when sold by auction, having realized as net proceeds the sum of £9,779 3s. 7d. On the 30th of July, 1880, the bank finally made up their account against their debtors, and at this time the interest amounted to £1,408 13s. 11d. as before stated, making a balance claimed by the said bank of £9,531 10s. This sum was paid out of the proceeds of the said separate. security, and thereby the whole of the claim of the bank, including interest subsequent to the appointment of the trustee, became satisfied. The balance of the proceeds of the separate security-viz., £247 13s. 7d.-was carried to the separate estate of John K. Hooper, the elder. Under the above circumstances, the separate estate of J. K. Hooper, the elder, contributed to the payment of claims in respect of which the bank were entitled to retain their said securities, and which were due from the partnership or joint estate the sum of £9,531 10s., and the joint estate was thereby relieved from all the proofs which the bank, had it so pleased, might have brought against it. The joint estate, although liable for the debt to the bank, has paid no dividend whatever in respect of the said debt. On the 27th day of November, 1878, a dividend of 2s. 6d. in the pound on the joint estate was duly declared and paid to the joint creditors of the debtors other than the bank, and on the 5th day of May, 1880, a further dividend of 2s. 6d. in the pound was declared and paid to the joint creditors of the debtors other than the said bank. The amount of such two dividends on the sum of £9,531 10s. is £2,382 17s. 6d. The joint estate will probably yield a further dividend of 1s. 6d. in the pound.

having contributed about £9,000 in relief to the joint estate, Jeune, in support of the application.-The separate estater the creditors of the separate estate are entitled to be recouped the amount out of the joint estate. This is not the case of partners proving against the joint estate in competition with the joint creditors. The principle is this, that where one estate has paid debts or expenses which ought to to be refunded by the latter to the former estate: Lindley be borne by the other, the amount so paid will be ordered on Partnership, vol. 2, p. 1,201, and the cases there cited. In Ex parte Rutherford (1 Rose, 201), Lord Eldon decided that under a separate commission the separate estate was entitled to be reimbursed out of the joint estate expenses incurred in recovering property for the benefit of the joint creditors. Ex parte Read (2 Rose, 84) is very much in point. The present is a case in which, by reason of extraneous circumstances, the separate estate has contributed to the joint estate. A partner cannot prove in competition with the joint estate, because he is part of the joint estate, but here there is no competition, merely substitution. (2) I am en titled to prove on the principle of marshalling, which applies to this case. (3) As surety, I am entitled to all the rights and remedies which the creditor had against the principal debtor ; and I am entitled to be in the same position as if the creditor bad taken the money from the joint estate. The bank had no right to injure a separate creditor by having recourse to the separate estate without going against the joint estate.

McCall, for the creditors of the joint estate. This is really an attempt by the applicant to prove in competition with the other creditors. The bank has realized £9,500 out of securities, for which proof might have been made against the joint estate, and the applicant can have no higher right than Hooper senior himself had. A partner cannot prove against a joint estate in competition with the other creditors. After the joint creditors have been satis. fied, the surplus is no doubt distributable amongst the partners; but here there is no surplus.

Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM referred to Ex parte Dunlop (28 L. T. 147).

McCall. That case is not to be found in the text-books. J. Linklater, for the trustee.

Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM said that in Ex parte Dunlop it was decided by the late Mr. Commissioner Evans that the separate estate of a member of a partnership firm was entitled to be recouped out of the joint estate for the benefit of the separate creditors whatever amount of such separate estate has been applied in payment of the joint debts of the firm. In that case the facts were on all fours

with those in the present. It was not a case of competition with the other creditors. The bank had a right against the joint estate, and might have realized the joint securities without giving any credit for the security held on the separate estate. He thought the case fell within Ex parte Dunlop, and an order must be made, following the decision in that case, for he could not find from the file of proceedings that any order had been drawn up. Solicitors for the applicant, Gedge & Co.

be re-elected, but no very sufficient explanation had been received with regard to the other gentlemen. If they were influential and useful in other places, they should attend the council meetings that their utility might be of advantage to the society. Otherwise he was unable to comprehend how they were of any assistance.

Mr. PARKER did not ask the question from any wish to throw any reflection upon the council, and fully recognized the able and valuable services they gratuitously gave to the

SOCIETIES.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

The annual meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, U.K., was held in the society's hall, Chancery-lane, on Friday, the 8th inst., Mr. J. MoxoN CLABON Occupying the -chair.

Mr. C. C. Druce was unanimously elected president, and Mr. Paine vice-president, for the ensuing year.

Ten members of the council went out of office under the bye-laws, but the whole of them offered themselves for reelection, with the exception of Mr. Thomas Plews, whose retirement the council stated in their report they much regretted. He had devoted much time to the consideration of the best mode of amending the law of bankruptcy, and his extensive and accurate knowledge on the subject rendered his services of the greatest importance.

The names of thirteen candidates had been received for election to the vacancies, but, at the commencement of the -meeting, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Bart., M.P., withdrew the nomination of Mr. F. Hastings Goldney, of Chippenham, Wilts, as he understood it was the custom to fill up any seat vacated by a City solicitor from the profession in London.

The twelve names remaining were then proposed and seconded by gentlemen in the room.

The CHAIRMAN, in reply to Mr. F. R. PARKER, stated that the reason Mr. Bell, who offered himself for re-election, had not attended any meetings during the year was that he had suffered from ill-health.

Mr. N. HANHART said that Mr. Plews had not been present at any of the meetings.

Mr. WALTERS remarked that these gentlemen had been of great use to the members in past times, and that Mr. Bell had served them as president.

The CHAIRMAN, in answer to an observation from Mr. HANHART that Mr. R. Nicholson, who also retired at this meeting, had not attended more than one-fourth of the meetings, stated that that gentleman had been ill during the whole of the year.

Mr. E. KIMBER remarked that Mr. Thomas Marshall, who was a candidate for re-election, had only attended three meetings.

The CHAIRMAN said that allowance must be made for members of the council who resided in the country. Mr. Marshall was one of the secretaries of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, and was of great service to the society and the profession in that capacity. The council recognized the great advantage of being in active communication with one of the secretaries of that body.

Mr. KIMBER wished to know if it was correct that Mr. M. Bateson Wood, a retiring member, had not attended a single meeting?

Mr. DODDS said that no one could be more active or do more for the benefit of the society than Mr. Wood. He was president of the Manchester Law Society at the time of the Incorporated Law Society's visit, and did his best to make their visit pleasant and profitable.

Mr. HANHART thought the council would do well to recognize that there was a strong feeling that all was not as it should be, and that the members had a strong interest in discussing what had been done during the year. The list of attendances of the council which had been circulated amongst the members was a very good guide as to whom they should re-elect. If satisfactory explanations of the non-attendances were forthcoming they would, of course, be happy to re-elect these gentlemen. If Mr. Bell had done the society good service in former years, it was perfectly just that he should

the opportunity, gentlemen who were able to give their attendance, rather than gentlemen who were prevented, from whatever cause, from taking their fair share of the work. He drew a wide distinction between the case of those residing in the country and those practising in London. It was doubtless a great advantage to be represented, for instance, in such a town as Manchester.

The number of gentlemen proposed being greater than the number of vacancies, the CHAIRMAN stated that an election by ballot was necessary, and scrutineers having been appointed, Thursday, the 4th of August, was fixed for a general meeting to receive their report.

Mr. A. G. Parson, Mr. C. P. Williams, and Mr. J. H. Schroder were re-elected auditors.

The CHAIRMAN moved the adoption of the balance-sheet, which was seconded by Mr. Druce.

Mr. HANHART remarked that nothing appeared in the balance-sheet with respect to the rent paid by a society known as "The Law Club," which occupied a part of the society's building. He saw that bye-law 37 gave the council power to apportion a part of the building as club-rooms; but it appeared to him that they ought to be open to the

whole of the members.

Mr. JOHN NICHOLLS wished to know the cost of the Calendar of the society. He saw that the subscriptions with regard to it amounted to £56.

Mr. LAKE (as chairman of the Financial Committee) said that the question of the club had been frequently brought forward at the annual meetings, and on every occasion the action of the council had been approved by the society. It would not be convenient to discuss at this meeting the advantages or otherwise of having the club, or the arrangements under which it was instituted. If the views of the majority of the members had changed, and it was thought desirable to reconsider the matter, a formal notice of motion with respect to it should be given. The accounts with reference to the Calendar would appear in next year's balance-sheet, as it was thought desirable to get all the receipts in one account. He might say that the expense would be very nearly, if not quite, covered, and that expense had, of course, been much heavier in this, the first year of publication, than would be the case in any subsequent year.

The CHAIRMAN remarked that as regarded the club-of which he was not a member-without at all wishing to detract from its usefulness to the society, he thought it would be more convenient if the rooms were appropriated to the general use of the members as refreshment rooms, particularly in view of the approaching completion of the new Law Courts. This, however, was a question which required very careful discussion after very ample notice.

The motion for the adoption of the balance-sheet was then put and carried unanimously.

The CHAIRMAN next moved the adoption of the report. He said: There are one or two matters I wish to mention, because they are rather supplementary to the report, and have in fact taken place since it was printed. First, as to the Solicitors' Remuneration Bill. The report has told you that it is a Bill under which the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the Master of the Rolls, and, as it now stands, the president of this society, and the president of one of the country law societies, to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, will be the tribunal to frame a scale of costs in non-contentious matters, and that tribunal, which would have two solicitors out of the five upon it, must submit what they want to do to the council of the society, and we shall have a month in which to consider it. The Bill went through the House of Lords. It has been amended in the House of Commons by adding the fifth member, the president of one of the provincial law societies; it has passed through Committee, and Mr. Dodds has done great service to us in helping it on, and I hope it will be read a third time and that you will shortly see it receive the Royal assent. The next matter relates to the committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor

with reference to legal procedure, and you will all remember that we have had two extraordinary meetings, at the last of which a pledge was given by myself that when the report of the committee was made public it should be circulated amongst the members of the society, and we would confirm the appointment of an outside committee of members of the society, not being members of the council, for considering the report. I have called upon the secretary to the Lord Chancellor and have learnt that the report has been signed and has been sent to the judges confidentially for their consideration. Up to the present moment it has not been returned from them. You will all have seen that some weeks ago, in the House of Commons, the Attorney-General was asked a question with reference to laying the report upon the table, and he said he saw no objection, but at the present time it has not been made public. It is just possible it may never be made public at all. I do not blame anyone for that; but we think the judges may be just now considering what they will do in consequence of that report, and one of these days rules may be promulgated in consequence of their deliberations. The members of the society may, therefore, never have the opportunity of giving the report that consideration which the extraordinary meetings thought necessary. I suggest to you whether you would like to appoint a committee to-day to make suggestions to the judges or to the Lord Chancellor as to the amendments you consider necessary in legal procedure. The report tells you how anxious the council have been as to the accommodation in the courts. We have seen Mr. Street, and we have seen model courts fitted up for our inspection. The first and grand point is to get rid of that horrid "well," and the next to have a table reaching the whole length of the seats for the Queen's Counsel. A letter was sent to the Lord Chancellor, which has followed Mr. Street on to the Continent. I have heard from him and we are to see him cirectly he comes back, and I hope we shall be able to obtain proper accommodation for solicitors.

Mr. DRUCE seconded the motion.

Mr. C. FORD had seldom read a more satisfactory report than the present, and the society had not hesitated to deal with subjects which had concerned both the solicitors and the barristers. The report made no reference to the Limitation of Actions Bill at present before Parliament, but they might be toid that it was not likely to become law during the present session. He would be glad to know whether the case referred to in the report under the heading, "Unqualified Practitioners-Debt Collector's Charges," was the case of Re Hunt, an accountant practising in the City of London ? The CHAIRMAN stated that the secretary had informed him that that was not the case referred to.

Mr. DALTON MILLER hoped that future editions of the Calendar would contain a list of the members of the council, with the dates of their election to the council, and a list of their attendances at meetings. The report appeared to show that an arrangement had been come to with the Inns of Court by which a gentleman was to be entitled to be called to the bar after having ceased to be a solicitor for twelve months, and having kept four terms and passed the bar final examination. He suggested that the council should consider the desirability of getting rid of the words in the report suggesting that the preliminary examination of the society should exempt from the bar preliminary examination before it was adopted. He thought that as the Inns of Court had yielded so far they might be induced to go a little farther. At any rate before this was settled the opinion of non-members should be taken concerning it. With reference to the Solicitors' Remuneration Bill, and the scale for non-contentious business, the council should remember that the members of the society were not all conveyancers, and that though it might be of great importance to conveyancers, some action was necessary with regard to the contentious part of professional business, with the object that solicitors should possess the same right of contracting for their remuneration which was enjoyed by those engaged in other duties. Sub-section 11 of the Act of 1870, which Act left the solicitor free to make an agreement with his client, had rendered its provisions entirely useless, for in practice it was found impossible to enter into an agreement with a client when it was coupled with so many conditions. If a solicitor made an agreement with a client that bis remuneration should depend upon the success of his efforts, such as, for instance, in the collection of a debt, that agreement was totally void. The report stated in regard to the Bill prepared by the council concerning the audience of sclicitors that the council came to the conclusion that the question as to the

audience of solicitors at quarter sessions, although of considerable importance, had better be postponed, as it would be likely to impede the progress of the larger measures involved. The council should give some promise that they would bring the subject forward early in the next session, and members should not be left with the notion that the matter might never be taken up again. The matter was one of great moment to solicitors practising in the country. He was of opinion that five of the retiring members of the council should not be eligible for re-election until at least twelve months had elapsed. The retiring members were always re-elected en bloc, and it was not possible for outside members to get elected upon it. He gave notice that he would bring a motion forward to this effect at the next general meeting. He also suggested that a list of the attend. ances of the council should accompany the voting papers at any contested election, and gave notice of motion to this effect at the next general meeting.

Mr. KIMBER congratulated the meeting upon what he considered to be the best report ever issued by the council. There were, however, several matters which required dis cussion in the interest of the profession and the public. He had heard with great gratification that the Legal Procedure Committee were about to report, but had been astounded to hear to-day that the report was not likely to be made public. Here was a document which had been prepared by a committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor, a com mittee of eminent lawyers, and numerous questions had been asked in the House of Commons upon the subject, the answer always being that the committee were about to make a report. What would be said in the House of Commons when they heard that it was not to be made public?

The CHAIRMAN observed that he had only stated his opinion. He had no authority for saying the report would not be published.

M. KIMBER asked whether any members of the society believed at that moment that it would be published? The judges, he supposed, would make rules by which the and by which solicitors would have to be bound, and yet whole of the administration of justice would be regulated, they were denied an opportunity of discussing the report. He thought the report one of the most important documents that was ever compiled, and if the committee had been acting accurately and had considered the suggestions which had been made to them by those engaged in the administra. tion of justice, why should they be afraid of letting such a society as the Incorporated Law Society know something of what they intended to do? The report of the council stated that they assented with pleasure to the appointment of an outside committee, which they suggested should consist of some of the members who had taken part in the debates at the special meetings. Mr. Kimber then referred to the case of Re Empress Engineering Company, as to which he had given notice to move a resolution, the decision in which he stated affected solicitors' costs, and seriously shook the confidence of the public in commercial enter. prize. He would not trouble the meeting with the other matter of which he had given notice, which was reported in the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL of the 4th of June last, p. 584, and which seriously damaged the securities of building societies and mortgagees of freehold and leasehold property, because the matter had already been dealt with in that journal. He was of opinion that the society, having gone so far as they had with respect to the call of solicitors to the bar, would not be acting prudently in accepting the offer which had been made by the Inns of Court. The council appeared to think differently, for, according to the report, "a doubt, however, arose whether, under the resolution, a solicitor would be required to pass the bar preliminary examination before admission as a student, and the council therefore again communicated with the benchers, suggesting that the bar preliminary examination should not be required of any solicitor who had passed the preliminary examination, held by this institution, in its entirety." Many solicitors had passed examinations which exempted them from the preliminary examination, and he hoped they would not be compelled by the bar to pass that particular examination, but that those they had already passed would be accepted in lieu of it. The report also stated the desire of the council to keep up the standard of the education of the profession, but he was of opinion that it

ought to be very much raised. He believed that if the Government were properly approached, they would be ready to assist the solicitors, and much of the taxation that pressed so heavily upon them would be reduced. He looked upon the £80 stamp duty upon articles of clerkship, and the £40 payable on admission, as taxes upon education, which ought to be reduced, if not abolished. The council had proposed, with respect to the remuneration of solicitors, that the solicitor should be empowered to name a fee for his services, and, in the event of the client demurring, that the taxing master should decide as to its reasonableness. He did not altogether object to that, but thought that the taxing master should not always be a barrister, such as was the case, for instance, in the common law division. It was absurd to suppose that these gentlemen, however learned or distinguished they might be in the other branch of the profession, could properly comprehend the services of the solicitors. If the taxing master was to be placed in the position referred to, his decision ought to be given without the requirement of a fee. The complaints of the public against the administration of the law were not caused by the fees of the solicitor, but by the large sums paid by him in court fees. It was the duty of solicitors to protest against the £5 stamp which had to be paid before an appointment could be obtained before the official referee. It was most iniquitous that justice should be taxed in that way, and that a higher fee should be asked for administering justice by an inferior tribunal to that required by the Court of Chancery. He asked what reason there was for taxing a petition in bankruptcy with a £5 stamp? It seemed to him to be most unjust, and if properly pressed home to the Legislature it would be remedied.

Mr. J. W. PROUDFOOT was in favour of doubling the stamp duty upon articles of clerkship, rather than of reducing it. He was sure there were a great many more in the profession than could ever hope to make a livelihood. He could never understand why the duty was reduced from £120 to £80, unless it was that the profession might be crowded to a greater degree even than had formerly been the case. The duty upon solicitors' certificates stood in more need of being reduced. At these meetings, there had always arisen these discussions on the subject of the transfer of solicitors to the bar, and he did not see why a young man who thought he could do better at the bar should not take the usual course and go to the bar, as if he had been a student in the usual way, and had never come to the solicitor branch of the profession at all. A solicitor who had been in practice for five years should, in his opinion, be permitted to go to the bar without passing an examination. But who were the solicitors who had been successful who would go to the bar? They would see them trying to conduct their cases in the presence of the members of the bar, and liable to be snapped up by some young barrister scarcely old enough to be their grandchild. The opportunity given of transfer to the bar would not be appreciated by one solicitor in a thousand. With regard to the trial of causes, which was in a very unsatisfactory condition, he observed that, although a solicitor might have taken the greatest pains with a case, and been careful to bring every point before the advocate he had selected to conduct it, and paid him a heavy fee for so doing, yet when the case came on, the chances were that the brief had been handed to a gentleman who knew nothing whatever about the matter, and who had, perhaps, never even opened the brief. Everyone knew that it was a matter of impossibility for a barrister with a large business to attend to every case which was given to him, and he could not be in half-a-dozen places at one time. This was the more difficult on account of the manner in which a case would be put down in one court one day, another the next, and a different one on the third. In the suggestions of the council, at the end of the report, there was one, "That rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of April, 1880, by which the practice under the Summary Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 67), is abolished, should be annulled; and the practice under the Act should be re-established: the number of days in which judgment may be obtained should be reduced from twelve to eight days, ord. 16, r. 10, being made to apply to summary proceedings on bills of exchange." He could recollect the time when it was no easy thing to obtain a judgment on a bill of exchange, and then people had a great deal better chance of getting their money from debtors than at the present time. No advantage accrued to creditors by breaking a up man's home or business in three or four days. As a consequence the accountant

stepped in, a petition in bankruptcy was filed, and the creditor got an infinitesimal amount in the pound, whereas, if time were allowed them, the debtors took every opportunity of settling with their creditors. The report also contained the following paragraph:-"It has been suggested that pleadings should be abolished, but the council are of opinion that, although there may be instances in which pleadings could be dispensed with, yet in the majority of contentious cases the result of not ascertaining, by means of pleadings, the issues to be tried, would be to increase greatly the expense of preparing for trial." He felt that they ought to be grateful to the council for opposing any attempt to get rid of pleadings entirely; for solicitors could imagine what the expense would be like if they had to go into court without knowing what the plaintiff intended to prove, or what defence the defendant would set up.

Mr. RICHARDSON remarked that the report reflected great credit on the council for the work done, and upon the secretary for the conciseness, clearness, and fulness with which it was compiled. With the greatest possible respect to the learned gentlemen who delivered the lectures he could not help thinking that it would be desirable for the council to consider whether it would not be advisable that they should be delivered by solicitors rather than by gentlemen belonging to the other branch of the profession. The great objection he found to the lecturers was that they dealt so much with the theory of the law, at times going into very minute details and the splitting of straws, and he was of opinion that the students would be more usefully occupied in listening to dissertations by gentlemen learned in the practice of the law which they would have to follow, than by hearing the no doubt able observations of theorisers. He had joined the society more particularly because he thought it would issue certain rules for the guidance of its members, and he thought it would be well if the council would advise them on such matters as one that had recently come before him in the course of his practice, when a bill of sale was brought to him to attest which he found had not been prepared by a solicitor, and he had, therefore, declined to do so. As regarded the remuneration of solicitors the law appeared to be in a very unsettled condition, for the Act of 1870 simply stated that a client might agree in writing with a solicitor as to the remuneration, but it did not say that a verbal agreement would be void. As a young practitioner he occasionally went to the county courts, and he found that he was expected to wear a wig and gown or else sit in one of the back seats. This was a trifling matter, but he would suggest to the council that it was worthy of some consideration by them.

Mr. HANHART cordially agreed with the speakers who had expressed their satisfaction with the report, but with regard to the paragraph headed "Taxation of Costs under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act," which referred to the arbitration case of the Bristol Sanitary Authority and Messrs. Bush, some of the members were of opinion that the proceedings taken by the council were in favour of certain practitioners. It appeared to be a matter in which the clients and the solicitors were personally concerned, and there seemed to be no reason why the council should take it up and spend the money of the members in deciding a question which was pertinent only to the parties concerned. He would be glad to know upon what principle the council had interfered in this case, and whether they were prepared to take up every case in which solicitors thought they were unjustly dealt with by the taxing masters. The chairman at a former meeting had expressed an opinion that the society came off best in their recent contest with the Attorney-General. Many members, however, did not share in this opinion. They did not think that all of the suggestions made by the council were wise, and were of opinion that in having to withdraw them the society had been made to eat humble pie.

Mr. HEMSLEY drew attention to the fact that, in every committee which had been appointed for the purpose of considering the question of legal reform or any other matter connected with the interests of the legal profession, the solitors were represented by about two of their number, whilst the bar would have, perhaps, some ten representatives. That was, to a great extent, the solicitors' own fault, and, as an illustration, he would refer to that part of the report which said that Mr. Ouvry's seat upon the Council of Law Reporting, which he had resigned, had been filled up by Mr. Hollams. Why should they permit themselves to

have only two representatives whilst the bar had no less than thirteen? The solicitors had reports of their own in the SOLICITORS' JOURNAL and other legal publications, and what power would the two solicitors possess in the presence of the thirteen barristers ? He would be glad to know if the council had had under their consideration the subject of the accommodation of solicitors in waiting-rooms at the new Law Courts ? In the chambers of Vice-Chancellor Hall there were two rooms for the accommodation of the bar on the first floor and one on the second, whilst there was only one room for solicitors, which was on the second floor. Considering that solicitors and their clerks were constantly attending before the judges, and that they were twenty times as numerous as barristers, better accommodation ought to be provided.

Mr. PARKER had put a question three years ago to the then president as to whether the council could not make arrangements to hold the examination in some other place or building, so that the library might not be closed to the members every now and again. Or the council might find it convenient to hold the examination on several days, for there was no reason why the members of the society should be excluded from the enjoyment of the library. At all times the students occupied the greater part of the library and of the books, and he looked upon this as a present and a greatly increasing evil which would be felt to a yet greater extent when the new Law Courts were opened, and a greater number of solicitors would be brought to the building, both in London and from the country. The students, as a body of strangers, had no right whatever to turn the members out of their own library, and they were gradually making it a study of their own, not merely coming there to read the books to be found in the library, but bringing their own text-books and passing the day in reading them. This was not putting the library to its legitimate use, and was very much to the inconvenience of the members who had occasion to resort to it. He would venture to sug. gest that it might be possible to exclude the students altogether from the library. There was an examination hall in the building in which they might be accommodated, and the library could then be retained for the enjoyment of the members. He believed that if the council were to consult Mr. Busk and the examiners they would find that the number of books used by the students would be about one hundred, and these could easily be supplied in the examination hall. Another cause of complaint was that the students made marks in the books occasionally, and damaged them in a way that ought not to be. It should be remembered that whilst the bar had four good libraries, the solicitors of England had only one, and that was closed upon examination days, and at other times only one-third was open to them. The solicitors flung back upon the bar all suggestions of inferiority or want of dignity, and yet they did not possess a proper library. He would be glad to know whether the council would object to the appointment of a library committee, with two of the outside members who really used the library and took an interest in it?

Mr. JOHN INDERMAUR quite agreed that the closing of the library on examination days was a source of great discomfort to the members and their articled clerks. It was also most unnecessarily closed on days when dinners took place. He, however, altogether disagreed with the remarks which had been made with respect to the students. A large part of the income of the society was derived from the students, and they were the only people who ever used the library in a grateful and useful manner. The members visited it in a mere casual way, but many of the students derived the greatest advantage from it. They no doubt were in the habit of bringing their text-books to the library, but it was necessary for them to refer to reports and statutes which, as a matter of course, they would not have an opportunity of doing in their own chambers. His own experience as a student had always been that, when a solicitor came into the library and required a book which was in the hands of a student, it was taken away from the student and given to the member. There was an admirable idea in the report with respect to the remuneration of solicitors, which the council were of opinion should be "according to the skill, knowledge, and exertion which he employs in the business, and according to the importance and his consequent responsibility, and not according to the time employed, the length of documents prepared, or the number of letters or confer ences." He thought this a mere idle formula, and that solicitors would never arrive at that period when they would

be so remunerated. In his own experience the taxing masters were always inclined to consider the length of documents in their allowances. The present state of the taxing office was a scandal, especially in the Chancery Division. A few days since he had left a bill for taxation and had been told it was impossible to give an appointment until after the long vacation. He thought the council would be better occupied in considering such questions as these than in dealing with subjects which concerned the far future. With regard to the division of the two branches of the legal profession, he asserted that economy in procedure would never be accomplished until there was a fusion between the two branches, and he was sure that time would arrive. Although he congratulated the council upon the steps they had taken for facilitating the call of solicitors to the bar, yet he grieved when he saw that they considered the resolution which had been arrived at to be satisfactory. It was still necessary that solicitors should spend four terms and pass an examination. This was not a satisfactory termination of the question.

Mr. J. A. ROSE regretted the manner in which the books in the library were spoilt by the writing in them of insolent remarks by the students. He was opposed to rendering the access of solicitors to the bar so easy, and could not see any objection to the keeping of the four terms which was required. Did they wish that gentlemen should be solicitors one day, barristers the next, and solicitors again the day after, so that they would become perambulating nuisances? He could not agree in abusing the late Chief Baron of the Exchequer because he had smoothed the way for respectable solicitors' clerks to become solicitors. Some of the best and most honourable solicitors he had ever met had risen from the lowest ranks of the profession, and he could not see why their course should not be facilitated. They certainly ought not to have any slur put upon them as was done in the report. Referring to the encounter which had taken place between the solicitors and the Attorney-General, in which the council, having the better case, had conducted it so mag. nificently that at the end they had to apologize, he said they had now transferred the quarrel from the barrister to his clerk, and were objecting to his fees. He had never heard a client say one word against the 2s. 6d. to be paid to the clerk, but had heard a good deal said against the guineas paid to the barrister.

Mr. J. E. Fox expressed his satisfaction with the report, but observed that, as the society had permitted a Bill to pass enabling the barrister of five years' standing, on being disbarred, and passing the society's final examin ation, to be inrolled as a solicitor, should not be satisfied with a result which placed the solicitor at a greater disadvantage. The council had prepared a Bill for the purpose of facilitating the call of solicitors to the bar, and the bar, wishing to prevent its passing, had effected a compromise, by which a solicitor of not less than five years' practice might, after keeping four terms, and having passed the bar final examination, be called to the bar. The report told them that "the council had hoped to get rid of the interval altogether, but with the uncertainty as to the result of their bill in Parliament, they considered that it would be prudent to accept the resolution of the Inns of Court." În connection with this subject, there was a suggestion as to preliminary examination; and, if the council accepted that resolution, all solicitors who had not passed the preliminary examination of the Incorporated Law Society, no matter how they might have been exempted from it, would be prevented from going to the bar. This was not right or just, as many solicitors had passed the Oxford or Cambridge local examinations, an1 some had obtained degrees, whilst others had been exempted, and the solicitors ought to have equal advantages with the members of the bar. As regarded the audience of solicitors, the Bankruptcy Act had admitted that solicitors were qualified to have audience in the Bankruptcy Court, and, if this were the case in that court, why should they not be qualified to have audience in the other courts? He would observe, with regard to the library, that the bye-laws concerning it were not carried out. There was a bye-law that none but members should be admitted, and if this was not carried out in its entirety, at any rate the students should be restricted to the further end of the library. He moved, as an amend ment, "That the report be received, with the exception of that part thereof which relates to the call of solicitors to