Statute law of the Dutch Provinces (as far as it was applicable), the works of the Roman Dutch jurists. These not only remained the great sources from which successive generations drew their knowledge of Roman Dutch law, but to three of them legislative sanction was given by the Governments of the former Republics.

These circumstances have had a peculiar effect on the law as it exists at the present day in the South African colonies and upon its interpretation. Inroads have been made into Roman Dutch law by the legislation of the nineteenth century which partly introduced changes on English models, partly superseded the law of the colony by English law, as for example the law of evidence, mercantile and criminal law, the law of shipping and of insurance, bills of lading, bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments.

What the legislature left untouched-and this embraces the law of persons, the law of things, and the greater part of the law of inheritance and obligations, subjects which generally form the contents of the Civil Code in countries where the law is codifiedhas developed on the same lines as it originally did in the Dutch Republic. Custom has retained its creative force and has moulded the common law according to the changes in the circumstances and habits of the population. Local legislation has followed this development, and the Courts have recognized it in their decisions.

In interpreting the law, the judges have not stopped at the Roman Dutch jurists, nor taken their works and decisions as conclusive. They have, under the guidance of the old jurists, gone back to the same source from which these derived their opinions and arguments, viz. to the law of the Roman Empire. Here this tendency should not stop. In order to understand the Roman Dutch law as it prevails in the British colonies, and in order to interpret it properly, not only Roman law principles should be traced from their origin, but historical researches into all the institutions which form part of the Roman Dutch law should be made.

Fortunately the Colonies have for the last sixty years possessed a judicature which, far from fostering a contempt for the Roman Dutch law which has thus, historically, become the law of their country, has at the instance of jurists like O'Connor, de Villiers, Kotze, and Rose Innes nursed and developed it into a new, a modern Roman Dutch law.

Where the circumstances are so similar to those of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, modern Roman Dutch law may have as great a future as the Roman Dutch law which grew up in the Dutch Republic.

W. R. BISSCHOP.

THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. II.

INCOLN'S INN1. The earliest authentic records of this Society-the Black Books-begin in 1422. Their varied contents describe the life of the Society; but they tell us nothing of its origin. It is a settled Society when they begin with a fixed constitution and settled traditions. The Inn and the greater part of the site belonged originally to the see of Chichester. It was leased to the Society in 1422 at a rent of ten marks. In 1537 Bishop Sampson sold the property to William and Eustace Sulyard, from whom it descended to Edward Sulyard. He sold the property to the Society in 1580 for £520. This being the history of the property, it is difficult to account for the name 'Lincoln's Inn,' and the fact that for two centuries and a half the Society used the arms of the earls of Lincoln. Mr. Baildon's theory 2 is that the Earl of Lincoln was the founder or patron of the Society 'in another place'; that this 'other place' was Thavy's Inn, situated opposite to the Earl of Lincoln's inn, and, as we know, occupied by the apprentices as early as 1348; that the premises growing too small the Society moved first to Furnivall's Inn 4, and then to the Inn of the Bishop of Chichester, keeping however the name of its early founder or patron. This theory would no doubt account for the name of the Society, and for its connexion with these two Inns of Chancery. It cannot at present be said to be proved 5. Mr. Turner has recently made another conjecture as to the origin of the name ". It appears that in 1380 the Abbott of Malmesbury sold a property lying on the south side of Holborn, east of Staple Inn, which is described as 'totum hospicium nostrum vocatum Lyncolnesynne.' It appears

1 Black Books, i, Introd.; Registers, i, Introd.; Dugdale, Orig. Jud., c. lxiv. 2 Black Books, iv. 263-297.

3 Thavy in his will, cited Dugdale, Orig. Jud., c. lxvi, among other things devised, 'Totum illud Hospicium in quo Apprenticii ad Legem habitare solebant.'

Dugdale, Orig. Jud., c. lxv.

5 See paper by Mr. Turner in which he maintains that the older view, that Lincoln's Inn was originally the residence of the earls of Lincoln, is not disproved. Henry Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, purchased a house in another part of Holborn in 1286; it does not follow that either he or his ancestor was not a predecessor in title of the Bishop of Chichester.

The Athenacum, Sept. 22, 1906, 335, Thomas of Lincoln the serjeant was a likely person to have gathered round him a body of apprentices at law such as those who formerly inhabited, and those whose successors still occupy the present Lincoln's Inn. . . . Thomas of Lincoln may on selling his Inn to the Abbott of Malmesbury have taken up his residence at the Lincoln's Inn of to-day, which then belonged to the Bishop of Chichester, bringing there a body of apprentices who had lived with him in his old Inn.'

also that the name of this property was derived from one Thomas of Lincoln, a legal practitioner of the reign of Edward III. Mr. Turner thinks it possible that this Thomas may have gathered round him a school of apprentices; that when this school grew it may have removed to the house of the Bishop of Chichester; and that there it developed into the Lincoln's Inn of the time of Fortescue. Though as yet much of this theory is conjectural it provides us with an account, both of the origin of the Inn and an explanation of its name, which is by no means improbable.

Gray's Inn. That this House,' says Dugdale, ' had its denomination from the Lord Grays of Wilton, whose habitation it anciently was, there are none I presume that doubt.' The oldest records which we possess begin with the Pension Book of 1569; but there is an older volume, to which Dugdale had access, which is now lost. The exact period, therefore, when the apprentices of the law became tenants of the Inn is uncertain. Probably the date was somewhere about 13702. It is clear from the Paston Letters that the Society was the tenant of the Inn in 14543. In 1456 Reginald de Gray granted the property to Thomas Bryan, a member of the inn, and afterwards serjeant and C. J. of the King's Bench, and others in fee; and by deed of release Thomas Bryan became the sole owner. In 1493 it was transferred to Sir J. Gray of Wilton, R. Brudenall, serjeant-at-law, and others. In 1506 it passed to Hugh Denys and others; and in 1516 it was conveyed by them to Shene Priory. From 1516 to 1539 the Priory was the landlord of the Society. At the dissolution of the monasteries the property passed to the king, by whom it was granted in fee farm to the Society. Under an arrangement made in 1315 by John de Gray the convent of St. Bartholomew paid the Society £7 138. 4d. for the provision of a chaplain; and this obligation passed to the king on the dissolution of the monasteries; on the other hand, the Society owed the king £6 138. 4d. as successor in title to the convent of Shene. 'The Court of Augmentations balanced the debit and credit sides of the account by deducting a pound a year from the king's debt 4." It is probable that Staple Inn and Barnard's Inn were attached to Gray's Inn in the middle of the fifteenth century 5.

Orig. Jud., c. lxvii; Pension Book, xv, xxviii.

2 In 1589 Yelverton speaks of Gray's Inn as founded two hundred years ago at least, and he had access to MSS. now lost. There is a list of Benchers and Readers compiled by one Segar, the butler of Gray's Inn, in Charles II's reign, which takes the date back to 1355. The authenticity of this list is denied by Foss (Judges, iv. 273-278) and by Pulling, op. cit., 153 sqq.; Mr. Fletcher thinks that it is not wholly untrustworthy, as it is confirmed in some of its details by the Paston Letters, and by some published accounts of the churchwardens of St. Andrews of that date, Pension Book, xxii, n. 1.

i. 297, Billing refers to himself as a 'felaw in Gray's In.' * Pension Book, xxviii.

VOL. XXIV.

" Dugdale, Orig. Jud., cc. lxviii, lxix.

N

The Temple. The older records of the Temple, like the older records of the other Inns, have disappeared. The registers of the Inner Temple begin in 1505, and those of the Middle Temple in 1501, but they contain references to older records'. Though, as we shall see, we have little certain information as to the origin of the tenancy of the Temple by the lawyers, the history of the property is quite clear. On the dissolution of the Order of the Templars the property passed to the king, who granted it to Thomas, Earl of Lancaster. After his rebellion it passed successively to the Earl of Pembroke and Hugh Despenser. On the latter's attainder it passed once more to the crown. In consequence of a decree made at the Council of Vienna (1324), the lands of the Templars passed to the Hospitallers; and Edward III granted the Temple to this body. That Order was dissolved in 1539; and in 1609 the crown granted the property to the societies of the Inner and Middle Temple at a rent of £10 each. The earliest mention of the tenancy of the Temple by the lawyers is in 13472, at which date the Hospitallers let it to the apprentices of the law. According to a MS. of Charles I's reign, the writer of which had access to documents which are now lost, these apprentices came from Thavy's Inn. Tradition ascribes the separation of these apprentices into the two societies of the Inner and Middle Temple to the beginning of Henry VI's reign 5. This is borne out by the evidence of the Chroniclers, of Chaucer, and of the Paston Letters 7. Probably the MS. already referred to gives a substantially true account of the division.

Since 1347, says the writer, the 'professors and students of the common law have there resided, who in tract of time converted and regulated the same first into one Inn of Court and afterwards, viz. in the reign of Henry VI, divided themselves into those two Societies or Inns of Court, viz. the Inner and Middle Temple. That

1 Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, i, ix-xi; Middle Temple Records, i. 1, the first entry tells us that the late Treasurer handed to his successor 'The Book of the Constitution of the same place with the Rolls.'

2 Mr. Hutchinson (Minutes of Parliament of the Middle Temple, i. (7) (8)) believes that there was a settlement of lawyers in the Temple before it came to the Hospitallers, and while it was owned by the Earl of Lancaster (1315-1322); he thinks that there was a later migration from Thavy's Inn; and that these two sets of lawyers may have formed the Inner and Middle Temples. This theory, however, seems to conflict with the Inner Temple records; and the confusion of boundaries in later days, below, p. 175, seems to point to original unity. Dugdale, Orig. Jud., c. lvii. Calendar, Inner Temple, i, xvii. See L.Q.R. xxiii, 458, n. 1 and 2.

5 Ibid., xiii.

6

7 The evidence from these letters is stated at length in the Inner Temple Calendar, i, xiv-xvii; it may be summed up as follows:-in 1426 there is a reference to the 'ostel du Temple bar'; in 1440 to 'your college the Inner Temple'; in 1443 to the Inner Temple'; in 1445 to the Inner In in the Temple'; in 1449 to the Inner Temple'; in 1451 the Mydill Inne' and the Inner Inne' are both mentioned. It is noted in the Calendar, i, xvi, that in a folio not printed (44) of the Black Books of Lincoln's Inn the Middle Temple is referred to in 1442; cp. also in Y. B. 3 Ed. IV, Mich. pl. 7, in which an account is given of a call of serjeants. 8 Cited Inner Temple Calendar, i, xvii, xviii.

they were at first but one is apparent by all the records of that time, which make no [sic] mention only of the Temple in the singular number, without any addition or distinction.'

At that time the lawyers

" were so multiplied and grew into soe great a bulke as could not conveniently be regulated in one Society, nor indeed was the old hall capable of containing so great a number. Whereupon they were forced to divide themselves. A new hall was then erected which is now the Junior (Middle) Temple Hall. Whereunto divers of those who before took their repast and diet in the old hall resorted, and in process of time became a distinct and divided Society.'

Perhaps, as Mr. Inderwick conjectures, the damage done by Wat Tyler suggested a convenient occasion for rebuilding and division. The division, however, was not thoroughly carried out. The two Temples still have their common church; and in 1630 it was stated in the proceedings in a Chancery suit between the two Societies that the church, the buildings, lodgings, courts, ways, lanes, belonging to the Inner and Middle Temples are so intermixed that they can hardly be distinguished the one from the other 1.' There was no formal deed of partition till 1732.

We cannot here go into the details of the separate constitution of these Inns. It will be sufficient to say that the governing body was then as it is now the Benchers, who possessed powers of education, discipline, and government over the members of the Inns very similar to those possessed by the fellows of an Oxford or Cambridge college 3. The Benchers were presided over by a member or members of the governing body who were annually elected. Other annually elected members managed the finances of the Society; while the Readers, assisted by the Benchers, were, as we shall see, responsible for the education of the members. In addition there was a staff of paid servants, such as the butler, who, at Lincoln's Inn, did most of the clerical work and assisted in maintaining order, the steward, the cook, the manciple, the porter, and the laundresses. Here we are chiefly concerned with the legal education given by the Inns of Court, and the effect which that education had upon forming the various grades of the legal profession.

The most authentic account of the system pursued is to be found

1 Calendar, Inner Temple, ii, App. viii.

2 They met in a Council at Lincoln's Inn, in Parliaments in the Inner and Middle Temple, in a Pension at Gray's Inn.

3 See e. g. Black Books, i. viii, ix; Inner Temple Calendar, i. xli, 46; Pension Book, xli, 78; cp. Select Cases in the Star Chamber (Seld. Soc.), cx. [Our readers beyond seas must not assume that the Inns of Court still exercise powers aptly so described. ED.]

Black Books, i. xiv-xxiii; Inner Temple Calendar, i. xxxi, xxxii.