Yet, although Day appears to have underestimated the effectiveness of the society, and to have been as ready to discern selfish motives behind their conduct as they were to see them in his own, there was probably some truth in his claims that only a society which was officially authorised to govern the profession, to which all attorneys would belong, and which would conduct a rigorous examination of their qualifications, would be sufficiently powerful to perform the Herculean task that confronted it. What he proposed was a Royal College of Attorneys and Solicitors, similar to that of the surgeons and physicians. It would be established by royal charter, and entrusted with the task of examining and governing the profession. Its governors would include the Lord Chancellor, the judges, and the Master of the Rolls, and they would be assisted by the attorneyand solicitor-general and other senior barristers. This board would appoint examiners who would award a certificate. Day further suggested that a library should be established, lectures given, and a register of practitioners maintained. Membership of such a society as this would clearly mark off the upright and honourable attorney from the pettifogger, and guarantee to his client a certain standard of professional competence and behaviour.

According to Day, many distinguished legal figures supported this plan. But attorneys, and the Society of Gentlemen Practisers, objected that it placed the profession under external control, and gave the impression that it was incapable of ruling itself. To Day, however, only a society constituted in the way he suggested would have the appearance of dignity and impartiality that was necessary if the public was to be brought to respect the profession. ‘Incorporating the attorneys', he maintained, 'would create a marked distinction and oppose an insurmountable barrier against the host of evils which daily assail the really respectable practitioners from the misconduct of those of another description. '1

The society was not convinced. It paid scant attention to his advances, and even suggested that he wanted to create such a college mainly in order to become its first secretary. But Day was not easily discouraged. Thurlow, Kenyon, the king himself, were told of his plans. George Rose assured him that the government would support the necessary bill if it were backed by the judges. It was all in vain. The society would have none of it, and Day's plan fell through. It voted him substantial sums for his expenditure

1 Day, An Address, p. 173.

of time and trouble,1 but he was not to be mollified. 'But the die is cast', he wrote, 'I have promised acquiescence, and I will honestly keep my word. I now see that there are interests to combat, which, though formidable, would perhaps not be unconquerable; but I will submit, and not oppose them."2

Day's professed aims, and those of the society, were closely akin. Both were concerned to distinguish the respectable attorneys from those of another complexion, but Day's proposals would have created an institution which in the scope of its work and in the social ideals it embodied went far beyond those of the type represented by the Society of Gentlemen Practisers. The present Law Society, which performs many of the functions which Day planned for his own, was founded in 1825. The minutes of its predecessor end in 1810, and those who founded the new society apparently conceived of themselves as founding a new society, not as reviving an earlier institution. This is surprising, for the older body had been influential and respected, and it is strange that it should have been forgotten. The new society was given a royal charter in 1831; in 1832 it possessed a library of more than a thousand volumes; in 1836 the first examination of articled clerks was held under its auspices.3

Attorneys and solicitors, however, never attained that degree of independence accorded to barristers. The new society, like the old, was in essence an instrument for putting into effect parliamentary regulations concerning the profession. In accordance with new social ideals and in answer to more pressing social needs, the powers given it were such as its increased jurisdiction demanded. But for its successful working, it depended on a spirit of professional pride and social responsibility such as that which had brought the Society of Gentlemen Practisers into being, and enabled it to perform its most useful work, in an age with which these qualities are not usually associated.

1 He was given £98. 18s. 8d. for his expenses in this matter, and £100 for his trouble. Day is not mentioned in the published minutes of the society. 2 Day, An Address, p. 182.

3 See E. B. V. Christian, A Short History of Solicitors, pp. 176 et seqq.

CHAPTER IV

THE PROVINCIAL LAW SOCIETIES

MEMBERSHIP of the Society of Gentlemen Practisers was, as has been shown, practically restricted to attorneys in London and the Home Counties, if only for the reason that they alone would be able to attend its meetings. This, indeed, was an objection raised by Joseph Day in his attack on the society. But it is true that the cases of malpractice dealt with by the society were not restricted to those which occurred in London, and further, that it scrutinised the entire lists of those seeking admission to the Roll at the beginning of each Term-though here also, the difficulty of obtaining reliable information increased with the distance from London, even if it was mitigated by the development of the practice of every country attorney having a London agent.

Yet this was a private society, owing its existence to the initiative of a few men in London, and the development of the provincial law societies took place independently of it. So far as can be seen, there was no formal connection between them and the London society in the early stages of their existence. During the period up to about 1830, indeed, there were occasions when the provincial societies seemed to resent the increasing importance and presumptions of the London society. But it seems likely—and the records of the Yorkshire Law Society amply support the impression-that when the interests of the profession were at stake, provincialism would give way to professional solidarity. It is probable that the provincial societies, like the Society of Gentlemen Practisers itself, can in origin best be regarded as examples of a phenomenon that was common enough in the eighteenth century-groups of men with common interests meeting together for reasons that were primarily social and convivial, and finding that collectively they were able to do things for their common benefit which as individuals they were unable to accomplish. And, as the secretary of the Manchester society told the Select Committee on Legal Education in 1846: 'These Societies are altogether voluntary, and have originated from the zeal and exertions of a few respectable individuals.”1

1 Reports, Committees (1846), x, xvi.

In addition to those bodies which are to be described, there were apparently others even more informal in character, such as that which met at King's Lynn in 1797 to draw up a list of conveyancing charges, and the meetings of the Northern Agents mentioned by William Hodgson at the end of the century.1

There are four provincial law societies which were founded in the eighteenth century: Bristol, founded in 1770, Yorkshire in 1786, Somerset in 1796, and Sunderland in 1800.2 Between 1800 and 1835 fourteen were founded: Leeds in 1805, Devon and Exeter in 1808, Manchester in 1809, Plymouth in 1815, Gloucester in 1817, Birmingham, Hull, and Kent in 1818, Bolton and Newcastle upon Tyne in 1826, Liverpool in 1827, Carlisle in 1831, Preston in 1834, and Dorset in 1835. It is not surprising that Bristol should be the first city outside London to have its own law society, nor that Yorkshire should follow it, when it is remembered that it was from Yorkshire that the first moves came which culminated in the act of 1729.3 And it was to be expected also that such centres of growing size and importance as Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Liverpool, and Hull, would early support their own law societies. It is interesting that there is no immediate connection between these early societies, nor are they the result of any pressure exerted by the judges or by the London society. This, and the similarity of their early histories and functions, lends some support to the view suggested elsewhere that it was during the latter years of the eighteenth century, and the early years of the nineteenth, that ideas about professional conduct and professional solidarity began to be common and important, calling for societies like these to express and implement them.

The Bristol Law Society was apparently founded in 1770, but the minutes which survive do not begin until 1774, and there is an unfortunate gap for the crucial period 1780-1819. It may even be the case that the society expired shortly after 1780; a letter of 1814 seems to suggest that there was no society in existence then, and

1 Some sort of arrangement must also have been available to arrange for the presentation of a petition of 1169 attorneys protesting against a threatened prosecution for infringing the laws relating to Stamp Duties (Calendar of Treasury Books, xxx, ii (1706–7), 440; 16 September 1707).

2 This date is not claimed by the existing Law Society in Sunderland, but it is given by other authorities.

3 It was in Yorkshire that the first Land Registry was set up, at Wakefield.

another of 1805 advocates the setting up of a law library, apparently in the absence of any other comparable organisation.1

The minutes from 1774 to 1780 give the impression of a society interested almost exclusively in social activities. The rules were revised and printed in 1774, and begin: 'Whereas divers attorneys at law and solicitors in chancery, did in the month of October in the year 1770 upon consideration of the many advantages which might arise from a regular and well ordered association of the practisers of the laws of this realm, form themselves into a society, which has continued from that time to the present to be held at the Bush Tavern in Corn Street, Bristol....' The society was to include barristers as well as attorneys and solicitors. It was to meet for dinner every second Tuesday, and on the first and last days of each Term. There were fines for non-attendance, and for the infringement of the rules such as that which forbade dice, cards, and betting. Eight members attended the first meeting mentioned in the minutes, and the number continued to be fairly small.2

There are only a few indications that the society was anything other than a social one. In July 1775 new regulations were adopted 'as to the manner of stating and debating law questions in this society'. At the same meeting it was suggested that £5 be paid out of the society's funds towards the cost of the funeral of an attorney, William Edwards. This proposal was not agreed to, but it was agreed that 6s. 3d. should be paid to the landlord of the Bush who had supplied Edwards with certain provisions during his illness. From time to time law books were bought for the use of members, but these can never have been very numerous, for they were kept along with other records of the society in a single chest locked by three keys, and in July 1775 a proposal that Viner's Abridgement of the Law should be bought was dropped because the proposer did not turn up at the meeting at which the matter was to be discussed. In January 1776, 20 guineas were subscribed to the fund raised in Bristol for the relief of soldiers, widows, and children who had suffered 'in the prosecution of the measures lately adopted by Government against rebelling North Americans', and in January 1778, £50 was given to the fund for raising men in support of

1 The present secretary of the Bristol Law Society kindly arranged for me to see these records.

2 The Law List for 1777 gives the names of 35 attorneys in Bristol; that for 1790, 61. The Bristol Directory for 1794, 72.