Society at Berlin, on the 3rd of March, 1860, Dr. von Holzendorf, a name not unknown to this Association, made the first proposal of a meeting of German lawyers. The Society received that proposition most favourably, and authorised the Council of the Society to take any necessary preparatory steps for the purpose. The Council put themselves at once in communication with many distinguished members of the profession throughout Germany, and a speedy and cordial response convinced the authors of the project that a step had been made in the right direction. In the same laudable spirit the suggestion was received and supported not only by the various Governments of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover, Saxony, Wurtemberg and the minor German States, but likewise by the profession; so that it was possible to issue in the month of May the invitation for the first meeting at Berlin, on the 28th of August, 1860. This meeting was attended by seven hundred and seven members of all branches of the profession from all parts of Germany, and was opened by Count von Wartensleben, Councillor of the Town Court of Berlin. The President was Count von Wächter, Privy Councillor and Professor of Law at Leipsic. The proceedings passed off with general satisfaction.

At that meeting the rules of the Association were established, and its main object was defined to be :

To form an Association among German lawyers for the mutual exchange of useful suggestions, and for personal intercourse; to obtain more and more the general recognition of the necessity of uniformity in the principles and practice of civil and criminal law; to point out the difficulties which prevent the attainment of such uniformity, and to agree upon the fit measures to promote the same.

The following meetings were held with the same success in 1861 at Dresden in Saxony, in 1862 at Vienna in Austria, and in the present year at Mayence; when the number of German lawyers who had joined the Association amounted to 2,099.

Among the numerous questions brought before the meeting at Mayence, I will mention three legal education, the position of advocates, and capital punishment.

In regard to legal education the regulations vary in the different German States, and in order to understand the resolution of the Juristentag, it is necessary to say a few words on the existing state of things.

So far the rules of all German States agree that any one who intends to join the profession of law, must, before he can enter on its study, prepare himself in all branches of a liberal education. In this preliminary career he has to pass numerous examinations in order to complete a fixed course of general education. This course is usually completed from the eighteenth to the twentieth year of age of the candidate; he is then admitted to the final examination as to his fitness to be enrolled as a student in a university. Being so admitted he has to devote three years to the study of the theory of law in its various branches (triennium

academicum); after the end of these three years he is admitted to an examination as to his fitness to be admitted to a practical course, which usually is not done by joining a practitioner, but by being permitted to see the practice in a court of law, where the candidate assists according to his capabilities in the various branches of the Court under the guidance of one of the judges. After having completed this course, in one or two years he is admitted to another examination; having passed that, he again enters on the practice of the Court in more difficult branches, and after having completed about another two years he is admitted to the last and most severe examination, on passing which he obtains a certificate of fitness to be a judge; and on a vacancy occurring he may obtain an appointment as judge, provided that he has not incurred the displeasure of the minister of justice.

This is the outline of legal education in Prussia; it is nearly the same in other German States, with some exceptions; for instance, that instead of three examinations sometimes only two are required.

The obtaining of an appointment as judge, usually depends on the recommendation of the minister of justice made to the king. Generally speaking there is no distinction between attorney and advocate, and the same course of legal study is required for this branch as for making himself fit to become a judge. The judges, therefore, are not selected from eminent advocates. After a candidate has completed his professional education in the manner described, he may select whether he wishes to follow advocacy or whether he looks for an appointment as judge, but after he has decided for advocacy he is not at liberty to aspire to the bench.

The above system of education is generally considered to have proved deficient, and the present tendency is to introduce more liberal views.

The Meeting at Mayence gave assent to the following leading principles :

1. It is to be left to the option of the student what lectures in law he may choose to attend during the Triennium Academicum. Hitherto certain lectures had been compulsory,-to this principle the Meeting objected.

2. No certificates of the attending lectures shall be necessary. Hitherto the candidate in law had to produce a certificate of every course of law lectures which he had to attend compulsorily.

3. It shall be entirely optional with the student what university he desires to join for his studies. At present it is required that the student attend the greater part of the time at an university of his country.

Under the former system of the universities in Germany any one who had qualified himself could lecture in the university. Lately the various Governments have tried to limit this self-development of academical learning, and conditional permission to lecture has been granted.

The Meeting expressed its opinion that no revocable permission to lecture should be granted; no permission restricted to certain branches should be granted; no licence of Government should be required for a lecturer at an university.

As to legal examinations, the Meeting were of opinion that whoever desired to join the bench or to become an advocate or practitioner should pass severe examination; no more than two examinations should be required, at the utmost. The first examination to be conducted by professors of law and by practitioners (on the bench or advocates).

Another subject of peculiar importance was the discussion on the position of Advocacy.

In some of the German States the number of advocates is not only limited, but it is only by appointment of the Minister of Justice or of Government that any advocate or practitioner is permitted to practice in a certain Court, and in that Court only.

Advocacy and the functions of an attorney are usually combined. Conveyancing, however, is considered a special branch for this reason; a conveyancer is not only a draftsman, he is a sort of public officer, and bound to draw all deeds according to certain rules and forms legally settled.

Deeds drawn by such a practitioner and executed before him in legal form are received as public documents in every court of justice; a system entirely unknown in England, but apparently required here. Such a practitioner is called a public notary, and his business notarial business. Under the present Prussian law some advocates are at the same time appointed public notaries. The meeting of German jurists were of opinion :

1. That advocacy should be open to any properly qualified lawyer without any distinction as to the Court or as to the matters in which he desires to practice.

2. The functions of an attorney and of an advocate should not be exercised by distinct persons, but by the same person.

3. The notarial practice (conveyancing) should be separated from advocacy.

4. In such places where these separate branches should not suffice to maintain the practitioner, both branches may be combined.

Another question of great importance was how far capital punishment should be adopted in a general German Criminal Code. An animated discussion arose on this subject, and after a lengthy inquiry in the Section the question was brought forward in the General Meeting. It is scarcely necessary to mention that the question of the infliction of capital punishment in Germany has lately much. occupied the attention not only of professional men but of philanthropists generally. A most elaborate review of the question has been lately furnished by Mittermaier, the well-known professor in Heidelberg; his treatise on the subject has excited the attention of numerous foreign jurists, and has been translated into various languages; it will therefore not excite surprise that this subject gave

rise to a most serious discussion. The Meeting finally passed the following resolution:-The meeting is of opinion that capital punishment should not be introduced into the future German Criminal Code except in martial law in cases of war, and in maritime law in cases of mutiny.

The foregoing subjects are those which seem to me most likely to be of interest to this Association. Both bodies, I may observe, are pursuing a common object, the enlightenment of the public mind, and the advance of social improvement. In the discharge of my duty I stated to the Juristentag the sympathy felt by this Association for their labours, which can only be fully carried out by the establishment of a federative legislature for the whole of Germany. The Meeting expressed their warm thanks to this Association, and requested me to present a copy of their Transactions to the Council, which I have had the honour of doing.

EDWARD ZIMMERMANN, LL.D.

DISCUSSION.

Mr. MUIRHEAD said this was not a Paper adapted for discussion in the Department, but he believed that they would cordially unite in the following resolution, which he begged to move:-" That the thanks of the Department be awarded to Dr. Zimmermann for his report, and to the Juristentag for the copy of its proceedings now laid upon the table; and that the Department cordially reciprocates the desire expressed by the Juristentag for a continuance of the mutual intercourse now established between it and the Association."

Mr. Sheriff FRASER seconded the motion; which was unanimously carried. The PRESIDENT said it gave him very great pleasure to be the medium of expressing to the learned Doctor the thanks of the Association for this communication, and for the opening up of free intercourse between the jurists of the two countries, which he hoped would not end with to-day's proceedings. He thought that nothing could be of greater importance, not only to Europe, but to the whole of the civilised world. In these days, when commerce between different nations had made such progress, and was likely hereafter to make greater progress, it would be very desirable if the law which regulated the transactions between parties in different parts of Europe and the world should be as far as possible the same. His Lordship expressed the entire sympathy of the Association with the efforts of the German jurists, and their desire for further intercourse. Dr. ZIMMERMANN returned his thanks for the kind reception he had met with.

Report of the Standing Committee of the Department.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.

THE following Acts of Parliament, passed since the Meeting of this Association, in June, 1862, require notice by the Committee ::

1. An Act to facilitate the proof of Title to, and the Conveyance of Real Estates: 25 & 26 Vict., cap. 53.

2. An Act for obtaining a Declaration of Title: 25 & 26 Vict., cap. 67.

Both of these Acts, the first introduced by Lord Chancellor Westbury, the second by Lord Cranworth, aim at simplifying the transfer of land. The first endeavours t› effect this object by establishing a Land Registry Office, and a system of Registration of Title, though on a different plan from that recommended by the Registration of Title

Commissioners. The Committee believe that a few applications have been made to the Land Registry Office under the provisions of this Act, but they consider that any opinion on its merits or probable operation would at this time be premature.

The second Act adopts the principle of the Landed Estates Court in England, and enables a proprietor of land to apply to the Court of Chancery for a declaration of his title after due investigation. As far as the Committee are aware no use has yet been made of this

enactment.

3. An Act to amend the law relating to lunatics: 25 & 26 Vict., cap. 111. The chief object of this enactment is to improve the procedure in conducting an inquisition in lunacy.

4. An Act to enable Her Majesty in Council to make alterations in the circuits of the Judges: 26 & 27 Vict., cap. 122. This Act will be very useful, if availed of from time to time to improve arrangements no longer suited to altered circumstances. The immediate object is to relieve the Northern Circuit of an inconvenient pressure of business by adding some portion of it to the Midland, a part of the latter again being transferred to the Norfolk Circuit.

5. An Act for promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary: 26 & 27 Vict., cap. 125. This measure, in itself sufficient to distinguish a Session, has effected a great step towards an object of which the importance has been frequently recognised in the Association,—the publication of a revised edition of the Statutes. The nature of the Act, and of the work of which it forms so important a part, was described in a paper read to the Department at the London Meeting by a member of this committee, Mr. F. S. Reilly, who is engaged, in conjunction with Mr. J. A. Wood, under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, and Attorney and Solicitor Generals, in preparing a revised edition of the Statutes.

BILLS.

THE following Bills were introduced during the last Session of Parliament, but failed to pass into law.

1. A Bill to Consolidate and Amend the Laws relating to the Court of Session (Scotland). This measure, which had for its main object to improve the procedure in the Superior Courts of Scotland, assimilating it in a great degree to that in force under the English Common Law Procedure Acts, is so well dealt with in two Papers contributed to the Department by Mr. Robert Stuart and Mr. John McLaren, that it is unnecessary for your Committee to notice it at length.

2. Writs Prohibition Bill. The object was to strictly confine actions for debt, for twenty pounds and under, to the jurisdiction of the County Courts; unless a judge of one of the Superior Courts should give leave to litigate in the Superior Courts of Common Law.

3. A Bill to Amend the Law relating to Partnerships. This Bill passed the House of Commons, but was carried to the House of Lords