that supreme power vested in the people when they become a raving mob it is only a form of mob-law-the supreme law of the land. The lax and dilatory enforcement of the law is responsible for these outbursts of popular indignation; the people become tired of watching criminals go unpunished through the tardy administration of justice that brings it into derision and contempt. There is a ready means for putting an end to lynch-law, and that is by adopting and faithfully enforcing the existing Criminal law of England, for nowhere in the world is the administration of criminal

justice so well and so promptly enforced. The speedy punishment following the committal of the most heinous crime in England is the admiration of the civilised world. There is no unseemly delay; no theatrical posing of the criminal before the public; no morbid appeal to emotional sympathy; no hero worship in the attitude of the ordinary criminal before an English tribunal. Justice here is swift but fair, and its administration is an object-lesson to other countries. There is no need of lynch-law in England because the supreme will of the people is respected by the constituted authority.

Where mob-law is concerned justice is not blindfoldshe is open-eyed and acquiescent. Not that some effort or attempt is not made to punish a few offenders on whom by chance the authorities have lain hands. This always happens. But the great social crime-the lawlessness, anarchy, and destruction are never punished. These are like a flash of lightning that shatters into fragments and leaves only wreckage behind―irreparable ruin—for mob-law knows no equality of compensation. In England and in the United States the law is predominant. We say so-and-so is lawful or is contrary to the law, as the case may be, but it is always the law that is held in respect. In Continental countries, on the contrary, it is not the law but the constituted authority that is alone regarded; it is

not the law that the commissaire de police, or the gendarme, or the douanier, or the military enforce that meets with respect, but the officials themselves that are feared and obeyed-it is the instruments and mediums through which the law is set in motion that is recognised, mere law being incarnate in those who administer it. In this way the personality of officials and law officers become correspondingly powerful. An excellent illustration of this occurred in 1830 when the ordinance directed against the press inflamed the Parisians into open opposition. A commissaire de police went to the office of the Temps to make a seizure, but was met at the door by the editor, who angrily exclaimed: "Our presses are under the protection of the law; in the name of the law I forbid you to touch them." "Take care," replied the commissaire, "do as you will; it is you who put yourself in rebellion against authority." "The law is superior to authority," cried M. Baude, "and it is you who put yourself in rebellion against the law." But in that instance legalised authority succeeded for the moment in trampling under foot the law, and the presses were soon rendered unserviceable; but it was not long before M. Baude, at the head of a body of National Guards, took possession of the prefecture and there established himself under the new order of things.

Jurisconsults and philosophers may say that mob-law is after all but a feature of natural law, and from an academic point of view this is undoubtedly true. Thunder and lightning, storm and tempest, drought, floods, fire and death, are as much natural laws as the sunshine, fruit, flowers, the harvest, laughter, love and life. Man's nature and instincts are criminal, and he is as much a brute to-day (if not more so) than in primitive times, for he is in comparison more hypocritical, false and wicked. With no civilisation man lived in close connection with all animal life, and, like the most savage brute, was fearless, cruel, and shrank not from

the sight of blood. The civilisation of centuries has not changed these instincts of man's nature, for man is to-day just as antagonistic, hostile and brutal as when the first tiller of the ground killed his brother. He chafes under the ennui of peace and clamours for the rush and thunder of war; as a simple Christian he receives the local homage of the community, but as a Christian soldier who leads to battle with the Bible and the sword he is worshipped by a nation. This well illustrates the falseness and humbug of our modern morals and theology, in the same way that peace congresses and treaties are openly praised and advocated, while those who are foremost in such philanthropic work are secretly negotiating some war loan on advantageous terms-are coining the money that will make rivers run red with blood. So it is that the mob and mob-law rule the world to-day as they have always done, and until human nature changes will probably continue to do. While human passion may not be eradicated, it may be controlled and brought within reasonable submission, at least for a time. To accomplish this is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, work that remains for man's accomplishment. He who can suppress and blot out the possibility of mob-law will be something more than human. It is as difficult to exterminate mob-law as it is to do away with illicit sexual intercourse and drink; but it can be controlled in a measure and made less likely to occur, and this is a work deserving the highest praise. The remedy must come from within, and not from without. Laws, authority, social opinion, power, and force will prove inefficient, for they are like throwing earth on a charcoal fire—they suppress the flames but heighten the fiery heat beneath. The cure must be found within those conditions of social and commercial life, progress, and prosperity that restrain the passions of the brute in man and make him amenable to reason. So long as he can be reasoned with man is not

dangerous, but the moment self-control is lost he becomes a raving maniac who defies God and the universe. Where and how is this self-control to be found? There is no limit to what the mob, as represented by the mass of the people -the populace-may not do if they are united and in the majority, and there is no law, human and divine, that they will respect while under the fury of passion. All that can be done is to control and direct public sentiment and opinion, and to teach men the wisdom and profit of honesty, order and moderation; to let them see that their own interests and prosperity lie in the maintenance of constituted authority as recognised by law, and in their respect for honest government.

C. A. HERESHOFF BARTLett.

THE

V. THE BAR IN RUSSIA.

I.

HE Russian Bar is one of the youngest members of the European family of advocates. It was not till 1864, when the Russian Courts were entirely reformed, that it came into existence. Up to this time the legal profession as an organised body was unknown in Russia, although we find mention in Russian law of the representation of litigants in the Courts in the fifteenth century.

The right to act as attorney was free to anyone with a few exceptions enumerated in law, namely, minors, priests, monks and nuns, officials, persons deprived by sentence of their rights and reputations, &c.

The constant demand for legal advice resulted in the formation of a group of professional attorneys who acted without any control except their duty to their clients, and no moral or educational standard was required of them.

In order to make the circle of their activities and their moral level clear, it is necessary to indicate in outline the organisation of the law courts, and the administration of justice in Russia prior to 1864.

The procedure by open pleading, which was familiar to the Russian Courts in ancient times, gave way by degrees to one of an inquisitorial nature. From the time of Peter the Great this latter method entirely predominated in criminal, and partly in civil, procedure. The preliminary inquiry was in the hands of an ignorant and easily-bribed police. The confession of the accused was deemed to be the strongest proof of guilt, and all possible means to obtain it were employed. Torture was forbidden, but in the entire absence of publicity and of the security of public rights there can be no doubt that physical suffering was often inflicted.

The inquiry closed, the case was sent to the Court of First Instance. The secretary of the Court wrote a report on the merits of the case and quoted the Articles of the Code which, in his opinion, should be applied to it. This report was only the foundation of the future judgment. The accused was not even summoned to the Court, and no explanations were demanded from him. The judgment given, the case went, without any appeal, to a higher Instance for confirmation, and from thence to a higher one still. There were many Instances, and a long period of time frequently passed before the final judgment was given. A similar method of procedure was applied to civil cases, the same report of the secretary, successions of Instances, and endless writing of papers, which grew to such bulk that sometimes several carriages had to be hired to convey the documents relating to a single case. The secretary's report to the Senate as Highest Instance in one case filled two hundred printed sheets, and no fewer than five hundred different Articles which could be applied to the