for wager by battle in the Court of Queen's
Bench, in the year 1818.

Though trial by battle is now a thing of the
past, the simplicity of mediæval advocacy
still survives in some parts of the world.
For instance, M. le Berquier is our authority
for saying that, in Persia, things are
still unchanged since the end of the seventeenth
century, when a French traveller
in that part of the world, the Chevalier
Chardin, was much astonished by the local
methods of procedure. The parties to a
suit pleaded their own cause: standing if
they were of the common people; sitting
if they were of rank; and made such a
noise about it, that the judge would often
put his hand to his head, and cry " Gau-
gaumicouri" (you chew dung): whereupon
if they refused to be quiet, the judge
ordered an usher of the court to hit each
party over the nape of the neck and the
back. In contrast with this primitive
method we may take the Austrian system,
as it existed until the reconstruction of the
bar of that country last year only, which
narrowed and confined the office of the
advocate by rules of the most absurd formality.
Twenty conditions were required
for a "complete proof," which might be
accomplished by a mathematical arrangement
of "half-proofs," and "second half-proofs."
"Five combinations of methods
of proof," wrote one of their professors
"constitute a half-proof of the first degree;
to make a second half-proof, there is the
supplementary oath, a doubtful witness, or
a damaged witness. Lower than the half-proof
is the 'presumption,' which has no
foundation in law." Touchstone, one would
think, must have studied for the Austrian
bar. M. le Berquier, who in the book we
have so often cited gives a brief summary
of his observation of the foreign systems
of advocacy, represents the Germans generally
in a most unfavourable light in that
respect, and quotes a Bavarian magistrate's
account of his own country. " Scarcely
have the advocates come into court," he says,
"than all their good feelings leave them;
love of truth, conscience, reason, honesty,
good faith, all disappear. In following
their profession, they hold themselves
absolutely free of all obligation to honesty,
and lie without the slightest embarrassment,
or the smallest scruple, on the strength
of old custom and usage." But professional
advocacy has never flourished in Germany;
in Russia it had no existence till 1866,
until which date all proceedings, civil and
criminal, were conducted and decided in
the strictest secrecy.

The first signs of the revival of advocacy
as a profession during the middle ages are
to be sought in the records of the famous
"Assises de Jerusalem," when Godfrey de
Bouillon ascended the throne of Jerusalem
at the end of the eleventh century, and
founded on existing custom and usage a
complete code of laws. By that code the
advocate became once more an institution.
Two courts of justice, the High Court and
the Court of the Commons, were established
by Godfrey's code; and for the functions
and management of each— the one constituted
for the nobles, and the other for the
people—various rules were laid down. In
the High Court, a litigant might appear in
person or by counsel. If he preferred the
latter, he applied to the president to assign
to him the best pleader attached to the
court; and even if he were himself an
advocate, might ask for another to help
him. The king, it seems, had special
advocates of his own; but, those excepted,
any counsellor demanded was assigned. In
the Court of Commons, the parties were not
only allowed, but constrained, to appear by
counsel. For the guidance of the advocate
many directions were given; he was enjoined
to plead "wisely, legally, and courteously,"
he was to be a man of sense, and
to keep his wits about him; he was not to
be shy, or careless, or inattentive; neither
for fear of shame or loss, not for gift or
promise, was he to refrain from giving the
best advice he could to the client to whom
he was assigned. And finally he was
blandly assured that " the more he knew
the better advocate he would be." It is
further worthy of note, that special instructions
were given to such counsel as
should appear in a trial for murder, on
behalf of the "next friend" of the murdered
person. The advocate's fee was to be
"according to the conveniences which he
had done to the party;" of the extent of
which it does not appear, however, whether
the advocate or the party was to be the
judge.

We have more than once alluded to
France as the country where, though far
more fettered by rules and ordinances than
in England, the bar has been held in the
highest honour and achieved in modern
times the greatest fame.

Gallia causidicos docuit facunda Britannos.

And it is no matter of wonder that she
should. That sparkling language—the
despair of the ?é????s à??????í of all other
races who court literary, social, or oratorical
distinction in less flexible and