time. The witness had never known any
surplus funds. With regard to the original creation
of the society he was not able to afford full
information, but he had seen papers relating to
a period as far back as 1677, when there was a
conveyance by Lord Clare to a person named
Killett. Soon after that there was a chancery
suit between Killett and the principal and
ancients; and under the decree, part of the
property (which was the part that Killett
bought of Lord Clare) was conveyed to the
inn. It was from that period that the society
commenced its claim. "Have your documents
been burnt?" asked a commissioner. "Yes,"
answered the witness; "and some of them we
cannot read." The inn, he believed, was
formerly a monastery, and took its name from
St. Clement. The society was once in
connexion with the Inner Temple, but he could
never find any papers bearing upon the
relations between the two hon. societies, "except,"
he added, "that a reader comes once a term,
but that was dropped for twenty years; I
think till about two or three years ago, and
then we applied to them ourselves, and they
knew nothing at all about it; the under-treasurer
said that he did not know anything about
the reader, and had forgotten all about it."

"Did you persuade them to send you a
reader?" asked one of the commissioners.

"Yes," answered the witness; "they sent us
three names as usual [this was the mode of
proceeding which the previous witness said was
once pursued in the case of New Inn] and we
chose one; but then they said that the gentleman
was out of town, or away, and that there
was no time to appoint another."

This was certainly not encouraging to the
society's efforts in the cause of legal education.
But the loss does not seem to have been
very great; for it appeared from a subsequent
statement of the witness that the functionary
in question, when attached to the inn, did
nothing more than explain some new act of
parliament to the principal, ancients, and
commoners, there being no students in the society.

The financial arrangements seem to have been
peculiar. The witness said that he had never
known such a luxury as a surplus. On the
contrary, looking back for a hundred years, he
found that the ancients were always borrowing
money; but on the other hand he found that
they sometimes lent money "in order to pay
certain things." There was a general cutting
down of expenses from time to time, and latterly
the principle was carried out to such an abject
extent that the society dined together only
once every term. When there were six dinners
in a term the last day was called a "grand
day," and then only was wine allowed—half a
pint to each person. The inn, it further
appeared, has no library and no chapel, but as a
substitute for the latter it has three pews in
St. Clement's Danes Church, and also a vault,
where, the witness said, "any of the principals
or ancients may be buried if they wish it." The
society, he added, pay ten pounds a year to the
rector of the parish, in the absence of a chaplain
of their own. The last question was in
reference to the class of persons occupying
chambers. The witness stated that they were
men occupying public situations, "one in the
Tithe Office perhaps, others in banks." There
were no students for the bar; "they would
consider it derogatory to live in our inn; no
counsel reside there." Rather an humble state
of things this, for a society designed for the
promotion of legal education!

Staples Inn was the next institution brought
under the ordeal of the commission. It
furnished two witnesses. The first was Mr.
Andrew Snape Thorndike, the principal. With
regard to the constitution of the society, he
said that it consists, besides himself, of
ancients and juniors, numbering eight and twelve
persons respectively. The qualification for a
junior is becoming a tenant of the inn; and
this honour is open to anybody, whether an
attorney or otherwise. But it is by no means
to be supposed that a tenant would also be
a member. If he wishes to be elected he has
to apply to the pensioner, the name given to
the treasurer, who is selected from the ancients
and manages the affairs of the society under
the principal. The privilege of membership,
however, does not seem to be very great. The
member is simply entitled to dine in the hall,
upon what terms let the witness explain:

"Does he pay for his dinner?" asked a
commissioner.

"Yes," replied the witness, "he does not
pay us anything; he only provides some part
of his dinner."

"The payment is actually made to the cook?"
suggested the commissioner.

"Yes," replied the witness, "we have nothing
to do with it. If they (the juniors) choose to
have a piece of boiled mutton of the commonest
order, or a rich dinner, they can have it; but
they pay for it themselves, and it does not all
come into the accounts of the inn."

So it seems that a society for the provision of
legal education may be conducted very much
like an eating house.

There is some dignity, however, in the
arrangements. The junior, it appears, upon
admission subscribes to a bond, which costs him
about twelve shillings, for the payment of
absent commons, and as an engagement not to
bring strangers to sleep in the inn.

The ancients, it was further stated, are
selected from the juniors, who are called from
time to time from the lower to the upper table.
The principal is elected from the body of juniors
and ancients by the ancients and juniors
together. An ancient must be qualified by having
freehold chambers, for which he pays full
value. The chambers, it was added, which
compose the property of the inn, have not been
obtained from the inn itself, but they have been,
held for a couple of centuries; they do not all
belong to the inn. There is a curious provision
with regard to the tenure of these chambers,
which was thus explained: "A person holds