set forth in some detail the grievances of all who have to make use of the London arteries of traffic for purposes of business and who find those purposes hindered by causes some of which, at any rate, are shown to be remediable in part by the adoption of various methods of reform. The results derived from certain traffic experiments, both at home and abroad, justify the expectation that much improvement can be effected by very simple expedients, and, as the traffic problem of London is one met with in varying degrees of urgency in scores of other towns up and down the country, it may be feasible by legislation to adopt some uniform scheme applicable to the highways in general. The writer of the articles suggests that several elements in the general congestion are due to thoughtlessness or selfishness. Readers who pass to and from the Law Courts and such stations as Waterloo will have frequently observed a long string of fast vehicles held up by one cart neglecting to keep close to the kerb. Cyclists riding two or three abreast are also causes of wastage of space, although in fairness it must be allowed that the road camber and the grease so often found at the side have to be remembered in the case of vehicles of unstable balance. The removal of these two elements of congestion would in itself increase the carrying capacity of the streets. Sir Lynden Macassey draws attention to the experiments made in Paris and London along the lines of one-way traffic. Here again has been found a means of alleviating the pressure, and, incidentally, adding to the safety of the pedestrian. The plan, however, involves the existence of some alternative route and of some adequate cross roads by means of which a vehicle can reverse its direction without passing along the whole of the one-way road. The whole subject of uniform lighting requires revision so that drivers may know what they are meeting or overtaking. present law affords no adequate protection against projecting loads, nor does it compel hooded vans to carry mirrors so that their occupants can see, even if they cannot hear, the approach of an overtaking vehicle. It is often the most prudent driver who is the innocent cause of delay through his fear to attempt to pass. The law needs strengthening in all these particulars, and the pedestrian will probably, in London, as in certain foreign towns, have to submit to some restrictions upon his liberty to cross any road at any point where and when he may please. If the principle of action on the part of the advisory committee is to adopt all plans which can at once secure a more rapid flow of the street traffic, it is inevitable that individual selfishness and stupidity will have to give way before the paramount considerations of general convenience.

OCCASIONAL NOTES

The

Mr. Justice Shearman and Mr. Justice Greer have fixed the following commission days for holding the Winter Assizes on the Northern Circuit, viz.: Appleby, Wednesday, the 14th Jan.; Carlisle, Friday, the 16th Jan.; Lancaster, Wednesday, the 21st Jan.; Liverpool, Monday, the 26th Jan.; and Manchester, Monday, the 16th Feb. Mr. Justice Greer will go the circuit alone until Liverpool is reached on Monday, the 26th Jan., when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Shearman.

Mr. Justice Sankey has fixed the following commission days for holding the Winter Assizes on the Oxford Circuit, viz. : Reading, Thursday, the 15th Jan.; Oxford, Tuesday, the 20th Jan.; Worcester, Friday, the 23rd Jan.; Gloucester, Thursday, the 29th Jan.; Monmouth, Thursday, the 5th Feb.; Hereford, Thursday, the 12th Feb.; Shrewsbury, Tuesday, the 17th Feb. ; and Stafford, Monday, the 23rd Feb. The commission day for Birmingham is fixed for Saturday, the 14th March, and the presiding judges at this town will be Mr. Justice Avory and Mr. Justice Salter.

Mr. Justice McCardie has fixed the following commission days for holding the Winter Assizes on the first part of the South-Eastern Circuit, viz.: Huntingdon, Tuesday, the 13th Jan.; Cambridge, Thursday, the 15th Jan. (civil business not before Friday, the 16th Jan., at 2 p.m.); Ipswich, Tuesday, the 20th Jan. (civil business not before Thursday, the 22nd Jan.); Norwich, Saturday, the 24th Jan. (civil business not before 2 p.m. on Tuesday, the 27th Jan.); and Chelmsford, Saturday, the 31st Jan. (civil business not before Wednesday, the 4th Feb.). Mr. Justice Lush will go the second part of the circuit, commencing at Hertford and finishing at Lewes, but the commission days have not yet been fixed.

Mr. Justice Acton and Mr. Justice Branson have fixed the following commission days for holding the Winter Assizes on the North-Eastern Circuit-viz.: Newcastle, Tuesday, the 24th Feb.; Durham, Tuesday, the 3rd March; York, Tuesday, the 10th March; and Leeds, Monday, the 16th March. Civil and criminal business will be taken at every town on the circuit, and at Newcastle and Leeds divorce business will also be taken.

Mr. Justice Talbot has fixed the following commission days for holding the Winter Assizes on the North Wales Circuit, viz.: Welshpool, Tuesday, the 13th Jan.; Dolgelly, Friday, the 16th Jan.; Carnarvon, Monday, the 19th Jan.; Beaumaris, Friday, the 23rd Jan.; Ruthin, Wednesday, the 28th Jan.; Mold, Saturday, the 31st Jan. ; Chester, Tuesday, the 3rd Feb. ; and Cardiff, Tuesday, the 10th Feb. At Chester and Cardiff Mr. Justice Talbot will be joined by Mr. Justice MacKinnon.

Mr. Justice MacKinnon has fixed the following commission days for holding the Winter Assizes on the South Wales Circuit, viz.: Haverfordwest, Wednesday, the 14th Jan.; Lampeter, Saturday, the 17th Jan.; Carmarthen, Wednesday, the 21st Jan.; Brecon, Wednesday, the 28th Jan.; Presteign, Saturday, the 31st Jan.; Chester, Tuesday, the 3rd Feb. ; and Cardiff, Tuesday, the 10th Feb. At Chester and at Cardiff Mr. Justice Talbot will join Mr. Justice MacKinnon.

For the week commencing on Monday, the 12th Jan. there will be the following courts sitting at the Law Courts dealing with the Nisi Prius business, viz.: Two courts for the trial of special jury actions, two courts for common jury actions, two or three courts for the trial of non-jury actions and Order 14, and one court for the trial of commercial actions. The chambers of Mr. Justice Russell and Mr. Justice Tomlin will be open for vacation business on Tuesday next, the 6th inst., from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Master White will be in

attendance as vacation master.

Mr. Justice Talbot will now act as Vacation judge up to and including Saturday the 10th inst. He will sit in King's Bench judges' chambers on Wednesday next, the 7th inst., at 11 o'clock a.m. to hear applications, summonses, and other vacation business.

A Divisional Court for the hearing of Admiralty and Matrimonial appeals will sit on Monday and Tuesday, the 12th and 13th inst.

The undefended divorce list will be taken on every Monday during the Hilary Sittings, and before the President and Mr. Justice Horridge (subject to Divisional Court Admiralty work and ordinary Monday business) on Monday, the 12th Jan., until Friday, the 23rd Jan., both days inclusive. On Tuesday, the 17th Feb., until Friday, the 20th Feb., inclusive, and on Tuesday and Wednesday the 7th and 8th April.

Master Bonner will sit in masters' chambers as vacation master during the whole of next week, and on Wednesday next, the 7th inst., and two following days, he will be joined by Master Simner.

The January Sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday, the 13th inst., at the Oid Bailey at 10 o'clock.

The January Quarter and General Sessions for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, the 6th inst., at the Sessions House, Newington, at 10.30 a.m. The general sessions appeals will be taken on the following Friday, the 9th inst., also at 10.30 a.m. The Epiphany Quarter Sessions for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence on Saturday next, the 10th inst., at the Guildhall, Westminster, at 10.30 a.m.

66

The Hardwicke Society will hold their ex-president's debate on Friday, the 16th inst., in the Middle Temple Common Room, at 8 p.m. Mr. H. Du Parcq (president 1910-1911) will propose That in the opinion of this house the right to trial by jury as it existed before the War should be restored." Mr. F. W. Sherwood, Mr. A. W. Ewart Wort, and Mr. P. B. Morle will join in the discussion.

Mr. Ernest E. Bird will preside on Wednesday next, the 7th inst., at the second smoking concert of the thirty-second season of the Legal Musical Society, at Cannon-street Hotel, at 7.30 p.m.

A manifesto issued by the Scottish Home Rule Association "that in view of the terms of the Treaty of Union of 1707 the present House of Commons is incompetent to pass the Church of Scotland Bill now before it, and that until the restitution of a Scottish Parliament the passing of that Bill would be a gross interference with Scottish rights," betrays the impression, not uncommonly entertained, that one Parliament can irrevocably bind its successors by some piece of legislation. Every student of the Constitution is aware that such an impression is entirely erroneous. For the average non-professional reader of the provisions of the Treaty of Union there may, however, be some excuse for thinking that the articles relating to the maintenance of Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland are outside the category of mutable enactments, seeing that the constitution and government of the Church of Scotland are to “remain and continue unalterable" and to be observed as fundamental and essential conditions of the said Union"; but, notwithstanding this language, it remains true that one Parliament cannot restrain its successors so as to preclude them from altering the law on the demand, constitutionally expressed, of the people. As everyone knows, the provisions relating to the Church of Scotland, as those relating to so many of the other matters contained in the Act of Union, have been altered more than once, and there is no reason, from the point of view of constitutional law, why the provisions embodied in the Bill to which the manifesto refers, should not be passed into an Act of Parliament.

Although dictionaries, other than legal lexicons, are not generally considered as part of the necessary equipment of the lawyer's library we all know the value of such books of reference, and, in particular, of the magnificent Oxford English Dictionary which, after long years of travail, is now nearing completion. As he turns over the reports, the legal reader cannot fail to notice the frequency with which counsel and judges alike cite the Oxford Dictionary for the elucidation of some word that has given rise to discussion. Lord Bolingbroke somewhere tells of a pious Oxford student who, being anxious to express his gratitude for all intellectual aids, was overheard at his devotions thanking God for the makers of dictionaries. For the student the lexicographer is indeed a benefactor who deserves much greater recognition than he usually receives. We always welcome the announcement of the preparation of a new dictionary that is to make rough places plainer, and so we note with interest the proposal that is being put forward at the present moment for a Mediæval Latin Dictionary, and just as the Oxford Dictionary was built up by the co-operation of a large number of contributors who undertook to read particular books with a view to selecting suitable quotations and to note them on slips, so an appeal for the like assistance is invited for the creation of this new dictionary, a work which should have a particular value for those engaged in researches in the early history of our law.

new

The Lord Chief Justice, delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, in quashing the conviction of one Hussey, a coloured man, who had been sentenced at the Old Bailey to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour for unlawful wounding, emphasised the great principle that the dwelling of each citizen is inviolable, and shall not be entered forcibly except in accordance with law. Hussey, who had been living with his wife and children in a room in Brixton, refused to vacate on a four days' notice given him by his landlady. On the fifth day the landlady, accompanied with a man and woman, endeavoured to force an entry into the room, and after a panel of the door had been broken, and, according to the evidence for the defence, a hammer and waterbottle had been thrown into the room, Hussey fired a revolver, and two of the assailants were wounded. It was argued that the distinction between that of a man acting in self-defence and that of a man defending his house was not put to the jury. The court decided that as sufficient notice had not been given to Hussey to vacate his apartment he was engaged in the defence of his own house at the time of the wounding; and as the jury, by their verdict, negatived the allegation of violent intention, it was apparent that there were materials upon which, with proper directions, the jury might have acquitted Hussey. In these circumstances the conviction was quashed. The case is of importance as an object-lesson of the existence of an old law, which is as fully operative to-day as at the time of Magna Charta, which is declaratory of its force. A particular

and tender regard is paid by law, in the words of Blackstone, to the immunity of a man's house, which it styles his castle, and will never suffer to be violated with impunity, agreeing herein with the sentiment of ancient Rome as expressed in the words of Cicero: “Quod enim sanctius, quid enim religione munitius, quam domus unius cujusque civium." For this reason no outward door can be broken open in general to execute any civil process, though in critical cases the public safety supersedes the private. Hence, also, in part, arises the animadversion of the law upon eavesdroppers, nuisances, and incendiaries, and to this principle it must be assigned that a man may assemble people together lawfully (if they, at least, do not exceed eleven) without danger of raising a riot or unlawful assembly in order to protect and defend his house, which he is not permitted to do in any other case. Lord Camden, in Buckle v. Money (2 Wils., p. 205), spoke those memorable words: "To enter a man's house by virtue of a nameless warrant is worse than the Spanish Inquisition, a law under which no Englishman would wish to live. It is a daring public attack on the liberty of the subject, and a violation of the thirty-ninth chapter of Magna Charta (nullus liber homo, &c.), which is directly pointed against that arbitrary power."

Mr. Ingleby Oddy, the Westminster coroner, has done valuable service by directing public attention to the necessity of an immediate reform in the law removing the blot on our legal system and the peril to the security of the life of the subject from the fact that a certificate of death can be issued without a previous inspection of the body of the person whose death is certified. In an inquest on the body of a man a doctor gave evidence that he had issued a death certificate, without having seen the body, on the information supplied to him by another doctor for whom he had been acting, while a pathologist declared that death was due to heart failure and bronchitis-the cause of death which had been stated in the certificate. A verdict of death from natural causes was returned. The coroner observed that he had been obliged to stop the funeral owing to rumours that the deceased had been struck on the head. A doctor was not bound to see the body, but it was time that a law was passed making it compulsory to inspect the body before the issue of a certificate of the cause of death. A coroner's inquisition is the record of the finding of the jury to inquire super visum corporis concerning a death. The inquisition must be had super visum corporis, for if the body cannot be found, the coroner cannot sit except by virtue of a special commission issued for the purpose. The issue of a death certification by a person who had not seen the body of the deceased is subject to much more serious objection than a finding of a coroner's jury who have not viewed the body.

In the case of Morley v. Purdhy, tried before Mr. Justice Lush and a special jury at the Birmingham Assizes, in which the defendant was sued by the plaintiff for the loss of his daughter's services by the alleged seduction by the defendant under circumstances that amounted to felony, the jury found for the defendant, and the judge expressed himself in agreement with the verdict. The learned judge, in his charge to the jury, said that a verdict could not be found against the defendant which did not involve the commission of a felony by the defendant. The case is of interest having regard to the supposed rule that when facts affording a cause of action in tort are such as to amount to a felony there is no civil action against the felon for the wrong, at all events before the crime has been prosecuted to a conviction. On an allusion to this supposed rule, in the course of the trial counsel for the defendant, on his behalf, immediately disclaimed any desire to rely on it, and emphasised the anxiety of his client to have the case tried on its merits without any preliminary barriers a course which was adopted. Very eminent authorities are at issue as to the validity of such an objection. The rule is thus positively stated in the thirteenth edition of Harris' Criminal Law. It may be well to interpose an explanation of the courses open to the injured person when the same wrong is both a crime and a civil injury. He has not always the power of choosing in which way he will proceed. The rule is based on the distinction of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours. An action for damages based upon a felonious act on the part of the defendant committed against the plaintiff is not maintainable so long as the defendant has not been prosecuted or a reasonable cause shown for his not having been prosecuted, and the proper course for the court to adopt in such a case is to stay further proceedings in the action until the defendant has been prosecuted." Sir Frederick

Pollock, however, deals thus with "the supposed rule of trespass,” to use his words, being “merged in felony." He writes : It has been correctly said, sometimes laid down, and once or twice acted on as established law, that when the facts affording an action of law in tort are such as to amount to a felony there is no civil remedy against the felon for the wrong, at all events before the crime has been prosecuted to conviction. And as before 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., c. 23) a convicted felon's property was forfeited, there would, at common law, be no effectual remedy afterwards, so that the compendious form in which the rule was often stated, that the trespass was merged in the felony,' was substantially, if not technically, correct. But so much doubt has been thrown on the supposed rule in several recent cases that it seems, if not altogether exploded, to be only awaiting a decisive abrogation. The result of the cases on the question is that, although it is difficult to deny that some such rule exists, the precise extent of the rule and the reasons of policy on which it is founded are uncertain, and it is not known what is the proper mode of applying it." Professor Courtney Kenny maintains that the defence certainly exists. 66 In the case of felonies," he writes, "it is not altogether easy for a defendant to defeat a civil action by raising the defence that he has not yet been prosecuted for the wrong which is complained of. So audacious an attempt to take advantage of his own wrong is not allowed by the courts to be raised in the form of an ordinary defence. Thus, in recent years, grave doubts have been occasioned as to the validity of this objection. But the defence does certainly exist. It was distinctly recognised in 1886 in Appleby v. Franklin (54 L. T. Rep. 135; 17 Q. B. D. p. 93), and later in the Irish cases of S. v. S. (16 Cox, p. 567). A defendant would probably set it up by a summons to stay the action, or the court might spontaneously refuse to hold the trial.”

LAW SOCIETIES

TO SECRETARIES.-Reports of meetings should reach the office not later than Wednesday evening to ensure insertion in the current number.

GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR

ANNUAL STATEMENT, 1924.

THE last annual general meeting of the Bar was held in the Inner Temple Hall on Friday, the 18th Jan. 1924, at 4.15 o'clock.

The Attorney-General (Sir Douglas Hogg, K.C., M.P.) presided. The chairman of the General Council of the Bar (Mr. T. R. Hughes, K.C.) moved the adoption of the annual statement for 1923. The statement was adopted.

Messrs. Edward Clayton, K.C. (Gray's-inn), C. C. Scott, K.C. (Middle Temple), A. M. Bremner (Inner Temple) and F. Whinney (Lincoln's Inn) were appointed auditors of the council's accounts for the ensuing year, the audit of any two of them to be sufficient. At the annual election of members to serve on the council the following twenty-four candidates were elected :

King's Counsel.—Mr. J. A. Compston, Mr. G. Thorn Drury, Mr. J. A. Hawke, M.P., Sir H. S. Cautley, Bart., M.P., Mr. J. M. Gover, Mr. Owen Thompson, Mr. J. F. W. Galbraith, M.P., Mr. W. GreavesLord, M.P., Mr. F. B. Merriman, M.P., Sir Henry Maddocks, Mr. R. Roope Reeve.

Outer Bar.--Mr. E. W. Hansell, Mr. C. F. Lowenthal, Mr. Dighton N. Pollock, Mr. Travers Humphreys, Mr. E. Percival Clarke, Mr. J. W. M. Holmes, Mr. H. H. Joy, Mr. Gavin T. Simonds, Mr. George F. Kingham, Mr. J. H. Thorpe, Mr. A. H. M. Wedderburn, Mr. R, F. Burnand, Mr. C. R. R. Romer.

The number of voting papers sent in was 1334, of which twentyfive were rejected.

At the first meeting of the council so re-constituted Mr. T. R. Hughes, K.C. was re-appointed chairman; Right Hon. J. F. P. Rawlinson, K.C., M.P., vice chairman; and Mr. J. F. W. Galbraith, K.C., M.P., treasurer.

By virtue of reg. 4, Sir Lynden Macassey, K.B.E., K.C., Mr. R. È. L. Vaughan Williams, K.C., Hon. Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, K.B.E., K.C., M.P., Mr. R. F. Bayford, K.C., O.B.E., Sir Arthur Underhill, and Mr. St. John G. Micklethwait were appointed additional members of the council.

The following Standing Committees were appointed :

The Executive Committee. Mr. J. H. Cunliffe, K.C., M.P., Mr. J. A. Hawke, K.C., Mr. E. W. Wingate-Saul, K.C., Mr. A. F. C. Luxmoore, K.C., Mr. E. W. Hansell, Mr. J. E. Harman, Mr. St. John G. Micklethwait.

The Committee on Matters relating to Professional Conduct.— Mr. H. T. Kemp, K.C., Mr. H. Holman Gregory, K.C., Mr. Owen Thompson, K.C., Mr. Rayner Goddard, K.C., Mr. Edward Beaumont, Mr. W. R. Sheldon, Mr. E. Percival Clarke.

The Committee on Business and Procedure of the Courts.Mr. J. A. Compston, K.C., Mr. J. F. W. Galbraith, K.C., M.P.,

Mr. F. B. Merriman, K.C., Mr. R. Roope Reeve, K.C., Mr. C. F. Lowenthal, Mr. J. Willoughby Jardine, Hon. Geoffrey Lawrence. The Committee on Court Buildings.-Mr. A. M. Langdon, K.C., Hon. Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, K.B.E., K.C., M.P., Mr. J. W. Manning, K.C., Sir Henry Maddocks, K.C., Mr. J. W. M. Holmes, Mr. Hugh L. Beazley, Mr. Gavin T. Simonds.

A vacancy having occurred upon the council during the year, owing to the resignation of Mr. W. R. Sheldon on account of illhealth, the council appointed Mr. Alfred Adams to fill the vacancy. Mr. J. W. M. Holmes was appointed a member of the Professional Conduct Committee in the place of Mr. Sheldon, and Mr. Alfred Adams was appointed a member of the Court Buildings Committee in the place of Mr. Holmes.

In July last Mr. T. R. Hughes, K.C. was, upon the nomination of the council, re-appointed by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting a member thereof.

The Armstrong College of the University of Durham having become an approved school under the Solicitors Act 1922, invited the council to nominate a representative to serve on their Legal Studies Advisory Committee, and the council were pleased to nominate Mr. H. S. Mundahl as their representative.

The charter and statutes of the University of Liverpool provide that the General Council of the Bar shall appoint one member of the court, the supreme governing body of the university, and the period for which such appointment lasts is three years. In pursuance of such provision the council re-appointed His Honour Judge Dowdall, K.C. as their representative.

The charter of the University of Bristol provides that the General Council of the Bar shall appoint one representative on the court of the university, and in pursuance thereof the council have appointed Mr. H. Holman Gregory, K.C. in the place of the late Mr. J. Alderson Foote, K.C.

The council nominated Mr. J. W. M. Holmes for appointment by the Lord Chancellor to represent the council upon the Royal Courts of Justice Refreshment Committee in the place of the late Mr. P. S. Stokes.

The council passed a resolution expressing regret at the death of Sir Reginald Acland, K.C. who, as a member of the council for many years, had taken an active part in its proceedings, and in promoting the interests of the members of the Bar. A letter of sympathy was sent to Lady Acland in accordance with the resolution.

In accordance with reg. 8, which provides that one-half of the elected members of the council shall go out of office at the time appointed for the close of the election in 1925, the following members will then go out of office :

King's Counsel.-Right Hon. J. F. P. Rawlinson, M.P., Mr. T. R. Hughes, Sir Edward Marshall-Hall, Mr. H. T. Kemp, Mr. A. M. Langdon, Mr. H. Holman Gregory, Mr. J. H. Cunliffe, M.P., Mr. E. W. Wingate-Saul, Mr. A. F. C. Luxmoore, Mr. J. W. Manning, Mr. Rayner Goddard.

Outer Bar.-Mr. Edward Beaumont, Mr. J. E. Harman, Mr. Alfred Adams, Mr. J. F. Vesey Fitzgerald, Mr. J. Willoughby Jardine, Mr. Walter Hedley, Mr. Hugh L. Beazley, Hon. Geoffrey Lawrence, Mr. Arthur Bryan, Mr. A. F. Clements, Mr. H. O. Danckwerts, Mr. J. E. Murray-Smith, Mr. F. W. Gentle.

In accordance with reg. 4, the following gentlemen having been appointed additional members of the council, will also go out of office at the close of the election: Sir Lynden Macassey, K.B.E., K.C., Mr. R. E. L. Vaughan Williams, K.C., Hon. Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, K.B.E., K.C., M.P., Mr. R. F. Bayford, K.C., O.B.E., Sir Arthur Underhill, and Mr. St. John G. Micklethwait.

All the above gentlemen so retiring, if still in actual practice at the Bar, are eligible for re-election as members of the council. Twenty-four members have to be elected, of whom at least thirteen must be of the Outer Bar, and three at least must be of less than ten years' standing at the Bar.

The election will be held as soon as possible after the annual general meeting of the Bar, which is fixed for Friday, the 16th Jan. 1925.

Under reg. 11, every candidate for election shall be proposed in writing, and his proposal form, signed by at least ten barristers, shall be sent to the secretary within one week after the annual general meeting of the Bar.

Proposal forms may be obtained from the secretary.

VISIT OF THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.

In preparation for the visit of the Canadian and American lawyers, the Attorney-General, Sir Douglas Hogg, K.C., M.P., last year appointed a committee consisting of the law officers, a bencher from each of the Four Inns of Court, the chairman of the Bar Council, and the president of the Law Society, to consider what arrangements could be made for the entertainment of the visitors.

In July the reception committee consisted of the AttorneyGeneral, Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C., M.P., the Solicitor-General, Sir Henry Slesser, K.C., Mr. Justice Eve (Lincoln's Inn), Lord Justice Bankes (Inner Temple), Mr. Butler Aspinall, K.C. (Middle Temple), Sir Lewis Coward, K.C. (Gray's Inn), Mr. T. R. Hughes, K.C. (Chairman of the Bar Council), Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, K.B.E., K.C., M.P. (representing the Canadian Bar Association), Sir Claud Schuster, K.C.B., C.V.O., K.C. (Permanent Secretary

to the Lord Chancellor), and Mr. R. W. Dibdin (President of the Law Society), with Mr. Leonard Crouch (hon. secretary of the committee).

The members of the American Bar Association arrived in London on the 19th July, and were entertained as guests of the English lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association until the 26th July. The number of the visitors was 3141.

For some weeks prior to their arrival the clerical work, which involved the issuing of 75,000 cards of invitation and other documents, was carried out at the offices of the Bar Council, who placed the council room at the disposal of the reception committee.

On Monday, the 21st July, an official reception was given in the morning by the English lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association in Westminster Hall, when the Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C., M.P., and Mr. R. W. Dibdin, President of the Law Society, presented representatives of the American Bar Association to the Lord Chancellor and His Majesty's Judges. Sir James Aikins, K.C., President of the Canadian Bar Association, and Lieut.-Governor of Manitoba, also took part in the presentation of the guests on behalf of the Canadian lawyers. Viscount Haldane, the Lord Chancellor, delivered an address of welcome, to which Mr. Secretary Hughes, President of the American Bar Association, and Mr. Justice Sutherland, Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, responded.

On several evenings during the week all the visiting members of both associations were entertained at dinners in the halls of the Inns of Court and the Law Society.

On Tuesday, the 22nd July, the American Ambassador's reception at Crewe House, on Thursday, the 24th July, the Royal Garden Party at Buckingham Palace, and on Friday, the 25th July, an evening reception by the Lord Chancellor and the exLord Chancellors in the Palace of Westminster, were attended by the visitors, with many lady members of their families.

On Wednesday, the 23rd July, a statue of Mr. Justice Blackstone, presented by the American Bar to the English Bar as a memorial of their visit, was unveiled by the Hon. George W. Wickersham, vice-chairman of the memorial committee. The ceremony took place in the Central Hall of the Royal Courts of Justice.

The Lord Chancellor, and the Attorney-General, in accepting the gift, expressed their gratitude on behalf of the English Bar.

The programme of the week included: Reception and banquet by the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of London at the Guildhall; garden parties at Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn; reception by the Mayor and Mayoress of the City of Westminster at Caxton Hall; reception by the University of London at the Imperial Institute; reception by the Master of the Grocers' Company, the Right Hon. Sir Ernest Pollock, Bart., K.B.E., Master of the Rolls, at Grocers' Hall; reception by the City of London Solicitors' Company at Salters' Hall; garden party by Lord and Lady Phillimore at Cam House; visit to Sulgrave Manor on the invitation of Sir Charles Wakefield, Bart., and the Sulgrave Institution of Great Britain; garden party by Viscount and Viscountess Astor at Clieveden-on-Thames; visits to Oxford and Cambridge; garden party by Sir John Simon, K.C.V.O., K.C., M.P., at Wadham College, Oxford; garden party by Mr. R. A. Wright, K.C., at Trinity College, Cambridge.

Special services were arranged at Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedral, Westminster Cathedral, and the Temple Church.

Permits were obtained for the visitors to the Tower of London, the Record Office, Somerset House, the British Museum, and other places of antiquarian interest.

Over sixty members of the English Bar conducted parties of the visitors round the Inns of Court, the Royal Courts of Justice, and the Central Criminal Court.

A bureau was established at the Hotel Cecil where the vast correspondence and matters of detail were dealt with by the staff under the direction of the hon. secretary, Mr. Leonard Crouch, with the voluntary assistance of members of both branches of the Legal Profession.

The visit gave the greatest possible pleasure to the Legal Profession in this country, and, from expressions of appreciation received from the Canadian and American Bar Associations, it would appear that the pleasure was mutual.

ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BELGIAN BAR AT GHENT.

The council received an invitation from the Fédération des Avocats Belges to send representatives to attend their annual meeting, which was held this year at Ghent on the 5th July. Sir James Greig, C.B., K.C., and Mr. Colquhoun Dill attended at the request of the Bar Council and Lincoln's Inn.

The proceedings began with a reception on Friday, the 4th July, in the Court of Appeal at Ghent, when a lecture was delivered by M. Joseph Verspeyen. On the following morning the Bar of Ghent held a reception in the Assize Court, at which M. Vanden Bossche, Bâtonnier of the Advocates at Ghent, presided, and this was followed by the ceremony of dedicating a memorial to the Ghent Advocates who fell in the War.

In the evening 130 advocates and barristers attended the banquet in the Salon of the Grand Theatre, when speeches were made by M. Vanden Bossche, M. Carton de Wiart, M. Vaunois, Bâtonnier of the Advocates in Paris, Sir James Greig, representative of the English Bar, M. Bonn, representative of the Bar of Luxemburg,

M. Jean Appleton, President of the National Association of French Advocates, and Mme. Suzanne Grinberg, Advocate of Paris.

The programme included visits to interesting antiquities and various factories at Ghent, an excursion on the river Lys, and a visit to an old Flemish farm, the country residence of M. de Weerdt.

The English representatives, Sir James Greig and Mr. Colquhoun Dill, were given a cordial welcome and were most hospitably entertained.

CONFERENCE OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

A communication was received from the Foreign Office inviting the council to nominate a representative to attend the conference of the League of Nations at Geneva on the 30th July to discuss Sir proposals relating to procedure, &c., in poor persons' cases. Thomas Willes Chitty, Bart., accepted the nomination of the council and attended the conference.

THE CIVIL SERVICE LEGAL SOCIETY.

A communication was received from the Civil Service Legal Society relating to the society's petition to the Treasury on behalf of the Junior Legal Grade in the Civil Service composed of barristers and solicitors. A similar communication having been received by the Law Society, a joint letter by the chairman of the council and the president of the Law Society, expressing sympathy with the objects of the petitioners, was sent to the Lords of the Treasury.

BRITISH LAW ASSOCIATION IN EGYPT.

The council received a communication from the Secretary of State asking for the views of the council on the proposed constitution and rules of the British Law Association in Egypt, which was seeking recognition and powers of discipline over practitioners in the British Consular courts and other persons in Egypt having British legal qualifications.

The matter was referred to a committee, who, with the assistance of Sir Malcolm McIlwraith, K.C.M.G., K.C., drafted a report, which was approved by the council and communicated to the Foreign Office.

A reply was received from the Secretary of State, thanking the council for the expression of their views, which had been of great assistance to the department.

BAR OF TRINIDAD AND Tobago.

The council received a communication from Trinidad stating that the Bar Council of Trinidad and Tobago had been re-organised and asking what course should be adopted with a view to affiliation with the General Council of the Bar of England.

The secretary was directed to send a copy of the regulations and by-laws and annual statement, and to say that the council is pleased to recognise and give assistance to similar councils in the Colonies, but has not adopted any system of affiliation.

PUBLICATION OF DAILY CAUSE List.

A resolution was passed by the council: That it is desirable that Monday's cause list should be published on Friday."

The matter was referred to the Business and Procedure Committee to take such steps as they thought necessary to give effect to the resolution.

The proposal was submitted to the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, with the gratifying result that the cause lists for Monday are now published on Friday evening.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND PRACTICE.

The attention of the council has again been directed to numerous matters affecting the conduct and practice of the Profession, amongst which the following may be mentioned :

I. Attorney-General of a British Colony, being a King's Counsel, appearing without a Junior.

A letter was received from the Attorney-General of a British Colony, asking for advice in the following circumstances: Lawyers in the colony, whether barristers or solicitors, are admitted to, and practice at, the local Bar as "advocates and solicitors under regulations provided by certain ordinances relating to the courts. The Attorney-General and SolicitorGeneral are entitled to appear on behalf of the Crown in all the courts without being admitted as "advocates and solicitors under the ordinances (courts). They are public officers appointed by the Crown and are paid by the Crown. They do work solely for the Crown, and their remuneration is fixed in the annual estimates for the year.

It was further stated that no person is admitted to the Bar of the colony as a "barrister " only, or as a "solicitor" only, but as an "advocate and solicitor," and the two professions are not distinct and separate as they are in England.

The Attorney-General, who has been appointed a King's Counsel, has not been enrolled as a member of the local Bar.

The question submitted was whether the Attorney-General, when appearing on behalf of the Crown, could appear without a junior.

The council were of opinion that the Attorney-General, being a King's Counsel, was not exempt from compliance with the rule

prevailing in England, viz., that a King's Counsel should not, as a general rule, appear without a junior.

II. Chancery K.C. and Special Fee.

The council were asked for their opinion on the following question : A. signs a defence in an action in the Chancery Division, and subsequently takes silk. B., a junior, signs further pleadings in the action. The brief for the trial is delivered more than twelve months after A. took silk. A. on taking silk became attached to the court of a judge, who was not the trial judge. Should A. require a special fee?

The matter was referred to a committee for consideration, and the following report was adopted by the council:

"Your committee, having considered the matter, with the assistance of six Chancery leaders, not members of the committee, beg to report that in their opinion the leader should not in the circumstances require a special fee.

"Your committee desire to add that the twelve months period does not apply to the case of a leader following cases in which he has acted as a junior, such period has reference only to the right of roving allowed to a new silk, before he becomes attached to a particular court."

III. Stipendiary Magistrate doing Conveyancing Work or acting as Arbitrator.

A letter was received from a barrister, who is a stipendiary magistrate, asking for the opinion of the council as to (1) whether he could do conveyancing work in his spare time, and (2) whether he could act as arbitrator.

The council expressed their opinion as follows:

1. It is not in accordance with professional etiquette for a stipendiary magistrate to act as a conveyancing counsel.

2. There is no objection on professional grounds to a stipendiary magistrate acting as arbitrator. Whether there is anything in the terms of his appointment, which precludes him from so acting, is a question with which the council cannot deal.

IV. Practice and Etiquette of the Parliamentary Bar. The council received a letter from the Bar Council of Northern Ireland asking for information on certain questions relating to practice and etiquette at the Parliamentary Bar. The matter was referred to the executive committee, who, with the assistance of Sir Lynden Macassey, K.B.E., K.C., replied to the questions as follows:

1. Whether a member of the Inner Bar should accept a brief for (a) promoters of or (b) petitioners against a private Bill without a junior being briefed with him?

A member of the Inner Bar may not accept a brief to promote a private Bill without a junior being briefed with him, but he may accept a brief to oppose a private Bill without a junior.

2. Whether two members of the Inner Bar should accept briefs for (a) the promoters of or (b) the petitioners against a private Bill without a junior briefed with them?

Two members of the Inner Bar may not accept briefs to promote together a private Bill without a junior being briefed with them, but they may, without a junior, accept briefs to oppose together a private Bill on behalf of a single petitioner against the Bill.

3. Whether a member of the Inner Bar should draft or settle a petition against a private Bill, which petition has not been drafted or settled by junior counsel ?

A member of the Inner Bar may not draft a petition against a private Bill, and may only settle a petition against a private Bill along or in consultation with a junior.

4. Whether there is any practice or understanding with regard to counsel's fees peculiar to practice before Parliamentary committees ?

The practice in regard to counsel's fees at the Parliamentary Bar is in some respects exceptional.

(a) A "retainer of £5 5s., with clerk's fee of 10s. 6d., making in all £5 15s. 6d., for King's Counsel and juniors alike, is paid, and if not paid before the delivery of the brief, is marked as a separate fee upon the brief, both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. The "general retainer for King's Counsel and juniors alike at the Parliamentary Bar is £11 11s., viz., £10 10s. for counsel and £1 1s. for the clerk.

(b) A" day fee of £10 10s., with clerk's fee of 10s. 6d., making in all £11 Os. 6d., for King's Counsel and juniors alike, is paid for each day that a Bill is entered in the list for hearing, and (if not entered in the list) for each day on which any discussion before a committee has taken place touching a Bill which the counsel in question are either promoting or opposing; but it is always open to petitioners, even although briefs have been delivered to "enter their appearance before a Parliamentary committee as "counsel reserved," in which event no day fee is payable until an appearance with counsel " has been "entered," or if an appearance with counsel" has at any time been entered to Isuspend the appearance," in which event no day fee is payable so long as the appearance is suspended. Provided that one day fee must always be paid upon every Parliamentary brief.

66

66

66

(c) The consultation" fee for King's Counsel and juniors alike at the Parliamentary Bar in respect of Parliamentary work is £5 5s., with clerk's fee 10s. 6d., making £5 15s. 6d. in all, and some King's Counsel and juniors in large practice consider a half hour as the maximum length of a consultation, and charge a further fee after the expiration of the first half hour.

(d) The brief fee at the Parliamentary Bar is a matter of arrangement, and the two-thirds rule as to juniors applies. 5. Whether there are any rules of professional etiquette with regard to any other matter peculiar to practice before Parliamentary committees.

At the Parliamentary Bar no barrister not briefed in a case may hold a brief for another barrister who is briefed, and it is not customary for a barrister to appear in robes in a Parliamentary committee room or in the " corridor unless he is actually engaged in a Bill which is either being heard or just about to come on.

V.-Counsel Acting Without a Solicitor.

A letter was received from the Law Society complaining that a barrister was acting for lay clients in conveyancing matters without the intervention of a solicitor.

The report of the professional conduct committee, which was adopted by the council, was as follows:

The business referred to is business of a kind ordinarily done by a solicitor, and not by counsel. In non-contentious matters it is permissible, though not desirable, for counsel to advise or prepare drafts without the intervention of a solicitor; but it is contrary to the etiquette of the Profession for counsel to carry through conveyancing matters by sending requisitions, examining deeds, and attending completion. This applies whether remuneration is received or not.

VI.--Barrister Complainant at Petty Sessions.

A barrister asked the opinion of the council upon the question whether he was right in claiming the privilege at Petty Sessions of opening a case in which he was the complainant.

Council were of opinion that a barrister appearing in person has no more right than any other complainant. The barrister only has rights different from any other member of the public when he is instructed by a solicitor on behalf of a client. A complainant is entitled to conduct his case, examine and cross-examine witnesses, but his right to open his case depends upon the discretion of the justices.

VII. Barristers' Robes.

(a) At the Court of International Justice at The Hague. (b) At Public Functions.

(a) A communication was received from the Foreign Office relating to the robes worn by barristers when appearing before the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. It was stated that advocates of the different nationalities appear in such costumes as they think fit, e.g., academic dress, evening dress, &c. In 1922, when the Court at The Hague was established, the practice was introduced for English barristers to wear the barrister's gown and bands, but not the wig. This practice continued until the present year, when it was considered desirable that the practice should be altered and that the wig should be worn with the gown and bands. The proposal was submitted to the authorities, and with their approval the change has been effected.

(b) The council were asked whether it was in accordance with professional etiquette for a barrister to appear in wig and gown at a public function when the invitation contained the request that "academic dress be worn.

The council referred to their ruling on the point in 1915, and expressed the opinion that barristers' robes should not be worn in such circumstances.

COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER BARS.

The council have during the past year received communications from members of the Belgian, Irish, Indian, Straits Settlements, Paris, New York, Jamaica, New South Wales, Peking, Chicago, Trinidad and Tobago Bars and the Law Society of South Australia with reference to organisation, rules of professional conduct and practice, &c., and they have been able to afford information which they have reason to believe has proved useful.

In addition to the matters above referred to, the secretary deals with very numerous inquiries and communications from members of the English Bar and others, and from the councils of Colonial Bars and individual barristers in the Colonies, where reference to the council is not necessary.

CAUSE LISTS, &c.

The council have continued to obtain and post daily in the Temple, the House of Lords, Privy Council, High Court, Mayor's Court, and City of London (Admiralty) Lists.

The General Cause Lists for the House of Lords, Privy Council, High Court of Justice, and the Weekly King's Bench Lists may be seen on application at the offices of the council.

Calendars of Prisoners at Assizes and Sessions.-A suggestion having been made that it would be a matter of convenience to members of the Bar if the Calendars of Prisoners could be consulted in the Bar library instead of at the council's offices as heretofore,