One year after satisfying these requirements the applicant may proceed with his examination in law, provided he has not engaged in any trade or profession during the year, either as principal or agent, and, provided further, that he shall produce evidence of attendance such as is required for a law degree in a class in Scots law, and a class in conveyancing in a Scottish university and evidence of like attendance in a class of (a) civil law; (b) philosophy of law and international law, public or private; (c) constitutional law or history in a Scottish university or another university or school as may seem to the dean and council of advocates equivalent thereto, and (d) medical jurisprudence in a university or a school qualifying for university degrees. On the producing of the above evidence, the applicant is examined in the subjects heretofore set out.

If the applicant has obtained the degree of LL. B. from a Scottish university upon an examination on the subjects stated above, he is deemed qualified in law without further examination. Applicants are then admitted by vote of the faculty of advocates after defending publicly a thesis assigned from the Pandects by the dean of the advocates. The advocate is entitled to plead in every court in Scotland. The principal law offices of the Crown, the judges of the court of session, and the sheriffs are chosen from the faculty of advocates.

The examinations in both the schools of the professional societies and the universities are conducted by special examiners appointed for the occasion. The instructor who gives the course may be a member of the examining board, though not necessarily so. This practice is quite the reverse of the methods obtaining in the United States, where the instructor gives the examination in the subject taught by him. The English system resembles rather admission to the bar in most American States, where the board of examiners have no part in the instruction of the persons examined. It is customary for an instructor in one school to act as examiner in another school.

The common form of examination in American law schools is by hypothetical questions. This form is sparingly used in Great Britain, particularly in the intermediate examination; somewhat more so in the finals and honors examination. The examination would be

of inordinate length if the hypothetical case were alone used, because of the great scope of the examination. A great deal of narrative matter is demanded, on account of the historical emphasis which characterizes so many of the courses. Stress is laid on wide reading and information rather than on legal reasoning.

METHODS OF INSTRUCTION.

As to the methods of instruction it is difficult to speak with precision. In general, the formal lecture method obtains, a form of teaching that is now little employed in American schools. It is to

be remembered, however, that instruction in Great Britain does not. end with the lecture; in fact the lectures are supplemented by an elaborate tutorial system, and the bulk of the work is done under tutors and special coaches. While the practice of compelling attendance at lectures obtains in many of the newer universities, attendance is not required by the schools of the professional societies or the universities of Cambridge and Oxford. In addition to the lectures, readings in approved treatises are suggested, and the examinations are framed on the content of such treatises. Cases are not used as the sole basis of instruction, and, when used at all, are merely illustrative. The tendency, however, is away from the formal methods now so largely in vogue.

IN GENERAL.

It seems to be agreed that the best men who come into the professions do not as a rule do so through the law courses of the universities. The reason for this is partly due to the fact that the great academic prizes at Oxford and Cambridge are in the humanities and mathematics. The best-prepared men accordingly go into these subjects, for traditionally the winners of the big academic prizes have a certain prestige that later on stands them in good stead professionally. It is possible to keep terms at the inns while in residence at the university, and a year or so of study in chambers in London enables men to pass the rather elementary legal tests. Another reason doubtless is that no credit for the work done at the university, aside from a few topics, is given by the professional societies.

This situation is gradually changing, however. Outside of Oxford and Cambridge the number taking law degrees is very small. It is within the power of the professional societies to change the practice by insisting upon higher preliminary training and more thorough legal training. The royal commission on university education in London in its report in 1913 strongly advocates a great law school in London whose professors shall engage in scientific work and teaching, this school to be connected with a university. The commission seems to feel that it is a serious drawback to the law schools of the professional societies that they are so absolutely separated from general university influences. At present the bulk of the law teaching is done by members of the bar in practice, and it seems to be the sentiment of the profession that this is the proper arrangement. It is urged that university teachers are too theoretical; that they are not in a proper position to convey an adequate idea of the law. This attitude is in striking contrast to the continental idea and the growing practice in America of recognizing law teaching as a distinct profession.

One striking point of contrast between the curriculum of the English and American law schools is the attention given to Roman law, and

the general sentiment of teachers and lawyers that a correct understanding of the English common law can only be had through the portals of the civil law. There is much to be said for this attitude. and it is recognized by law teachers and legal scholars in America, but so far little progress has been made in offering effective courses, owing to the feeling on the part of students, reflecting the views of the profession, that such courses are not practical.

Another feature of the English practice that is of great value and to be commended is the emphasis placed on the study of the history of the law. Many doctrines of the common law are not intelligible when taken out of the historical setting, a fact which American law teachers appreciate but are not able as yet to realize in their teachings, owing to the pressure of time and demands for courses in practice.

The so-called practice courses, so much a feature of American law schools, are notably absent from the curricula of English schools. This is due in part, no doubt, to the conviction that such courses can not be effectively given in universities, and in part to the practice of reading in chambers and serving as articled clerks. The English schools are not expected to fit students for active practice while the American schools are, and have in many cases carried practice instruction to a length unjustified by the results obtainable. The large amount of time given to Roman law and history of law means a very brief course in English law, far too brief for effective training. American schools err on the other side, and while the training in the common law is admirable in the better American schools and in every way superior to anything that is being done in Great Britain, yet the history of law, comparative law, and Roman law are for the most part ignored. Among the many plans suggested for improving legal education in Great Britain, one of the most admirable is to give credit for substantive law courses pursued at the universities, the professional societies confining their activities to instruction in matters of practice. It is believed that this would encourage an extension of the English law courses in the universities and also compel the student to be trained in matters of practice before entering the profession, something that is not at present required of barristers, though it is of solicitors under the system of articled clerks. The present Scotch system carries out this idea in part, since the degree from the university satisfies the general knowledge of law requirement. In America the desired combination of thorough training in substantive law coupled with familiarity with practice can be worked out through requirement of an office apprenticeship in addition to the law-school training.

The English schools are distinctly inferior to the American schools of the better type in the point of teaching the English law. Yet,

in spite of this, the English bar as a whole is without question in point of efficiency and professional spirit superior to the bar in America. The administration of justice in England, particularly in the matter of criminal justice, is more speedy and efficient than in America. For this there are many reasons, but one of the most potent lies in the character of the bar itself. This superiority is due in part to the strong professional spirit, but largely to the thorough general education that in practice precedes the entry upon legal study and a professional career. Over one-half the barristers in England are university graduates. One of the lessons that America can draw from England is the insistence not so much on severe prolonged legal training for those seeking a legal career as upon a broad and thorough university training.

о