ity keeps watch, and this has arisen from the same healthy interest in society which pre scribes such measures, not only for those who pledge themselves to be faithful dispensers of God's Holy Word, but also for those who pledge themselves no less solemnly to further among men the cause of God's Eternal Justice. But the lawyer is by no means confined in his Work to the prosecution and defense of suits, the giving of counsel and other functions connected with his position in the administration of justice. There is another duty which he is called upon to perform, and for which as a student of law, a special ist we might say, he is peculiarly fitted. It is the enactment of laws, and in this capacity especially he is misunderstood and assailed. The lawyer, as a law-maker, has been the object of the most violent attack on the part of several large organizations and associa tions which have at times assumed the pro portions and guise of political parties. A very extensive organization devoted to the interest of agriculturists has been especially hostile to the presence of jurists in the coun cils of the nation. Another, led by dema gogues, would in the interest of the lower classes drive every lawyer, not only from the House and Senate chamber, but from the bench. Support for the position of the anti-legal faction has been sought in the peculiar com position of the British Parliament, in which the proportion of lawyers is much less than with our legislatures. In Great Britain we find a large class of men debarred by the conventionalities of society or relieved by circumstances from the active pursuit of busi ness. Landed proprietors, country gentle men, younger sons of the nobility are prom inent in the debates of Parliament, while lawyers, as we use the term, arc by no means conspicuous. It has been argued that our legislative bodies should not include more than a certain proportion of lawyers and that the model which in England is the
result of circumstances should become a law in this country, despite our peculiar social structure. But the difference is immense. In the first place we have no class corre sponding to the English landed gentry, men frequently of the most liberal culture and born with an interest, we might say, in the legislation of the empire. For their ante cedents, their positions as local magistrates, as landlords with more than a personal in terest in their estates, these and other grounds lead them naturally, even when ambition and patriotism have but small part in their na tures, to work in Parliament and make juris prudence a part of their education. With us, the only considerable body able to study law, or to prepare for the work of the legislature, is the legal profession. The customs of the land induce those whose wealth renders it immaterial whether they engage in business or not, to follow some active pursuit, and very few, except dema gogues, are led to devote themselves to politics as a profession. Our pernicious system of rotation in office renders a diplo matic or official career impossible. We must draw upon new men, and the only class in which anything like adequate pre paration is to be found is the legal profes sion. Then again, the parliamentary methods are so different that no support can be found in the legislative assembly of the mother country for the proposed change. In the British Parliament the important bills are prepared by a select body of experts, the cabinet. Details are cared for by these few experts, and the general tenor of the pro posed legislation, with its moral and eco nomic effect and its relation to the govern mental policy is studied by men in an especially fortunate manner fitted for the work, by wide culture and liberal interest. In this country, however, the whole method of procedure is different. There is no cab inet, in the British sense, to prepare the principal bills. The Congressional commit
