Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/607

 466

THE GREEN BAG

startling to read in the recent issue of the London Law Journal that, at a meeting of the Law Society, amalgamation of the two branches of the profession, at least as far as practice in the county courts is concerned, was seriously discussed. Apparently no little support was obtained for the proposal from the fact that solicitors' apparel at present makes it impossible to distinguish them from ushers of the court, and it is sagely suggested that a distinctive wig or head dress would solve the problem. A subject perhaps more important which was discussed at the same meeting was the establishment of a general school of law. For a generation this has been advocated by the most eminent barristers and it is said that it is now blocked only by oppo sition of- one powerful member of one of the Inns of Court, and that the realization of this much needed reform awaits simply the death of that individual. What satisfaction can be obtained from such eminence? A BARRISTER AS PREMIER The English weeklies remind us of a fact, which most of our readers will recall with sur prise, that the elevation or Mr. Asquith to the post of Prime Minister of England is the first time that a barrister in the front rank of his profession has risen to the highest political honor. The imjx3rtance of the event was cele brated with a banquet of the Bar in the hall of the Inner Temple, which was an enthu siastic tribute to the force of intellect and character of the new Premier.' Mr. Asquith modestly insisted upon the impersonal char

acter of the event and described the com radeship of the profession in the following happy phrase: "The arduous struggle, the blows given and received, the exultation of victory, and the sting of defeat, which are our daily experience, far from breeding division and ill-will, only bind us more closely together by the ties of a comradeship for which you would look in vain to any other arena of the ambitions and rivalries of men." WITNESSES Lord Justice Buckley in a recent decision attempted a classification of witnesses. There are, he said, four classes of witnessses — (i) the timid witness, who is afraid to say too much and therefore seldom comes up to his proof; (2) the enthusiastic witness, who always exaggerates, however unwittingly; (3) the witness who is neither nervous nor given to exaggeration, and tells a plain and straightforward story; (4) the witness who tells the truth, but not [the whole truth, and keeps back something. " A fifth class" says the Law Times, " ought to be added, whose existence the Lord Justice's kindly nature has seemingly led him to ignore — namely, the witness who does not shrink from deliberately saying whatever suits his purpose, if he thinks that he can do so with advantage and impunity. He is more fre quently met with than would be the case if juries did not show a strange reluctance to convict on charges of perjury, which dis courages judges from exercising their power of committing a perjured witness for trial."