introduced in Parliament providing that, in case the parties agree, the decision of two judges shall determine the appeal, and the measure will doubtless soon become a law. An amusing and yet at the same time serious matter for one of the litigants occurred in one of the divisions of the Court of Appeal a few days ago. Two Lord Justices only were available, and the parties agreed to accept their decision rather than that there should be delay. The decision, however, could not be given by the judges in their capacity as judges, but only as arbitrators, and as an appeal does not lie from an arbitration, the decision was a final one. Unfortunately it happened that the judges could not agree, Lord Justice Rigby holding that the appeal should be dismissed, and Lord Justice Vaughan Williams that it ought to be up held! The result was that the decision of the nisi prius judge was affirmed, and there could be no appeal to the House of Lords. The counsel for the appellant urged that when he consented to accept the decision of two judges he meant their unanimous opin ions, and not that of two judges who dif fered. But his application for leave to re-argue the case before a full bench was refused. The need for additional judges is imper ative, and probably in no country in the world is the bench so obviously under manned. The Incorporated Law Society, the representative body of the solicitors' branch of the profession, the Bar Council, and even the judges themselves have urged upon the government that the appointment of at least one, and if possible two or three additional judges, is urgently required by the existing state of business. In Scotland and in Ireland there are nearly twice as many judges in proportion to the numbers and the needs of the people. The popula tion of England, the volume of its trade, the expenditures on the army and navy, and on the civil service, and the expansion of foreign commerce, have wonderfully in
creased in the past two decades, and yet there are no more judges to-day than there were a quarter of a century ago. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer, who alone blocks the way, shows signs of yielding at last, and it is now believed that it is only a question of a few months before the reform will be accomplished. Reference was recently made in this col umn to the report of the joint committee of the four Inns of Court on the duties, inter ests and discipline of the bar on the ques tion as to whether a law student not a British subject could be called to the Eng lish bar. The committee reported that in their opinion persons who are not British subjects should not be called to the English bar; but that if, under special circumstances, any Inn should desire to call an alien, it might exercise the right, after notice to the other Inns stating the special circumstances relied upon. The full text of the report is now at hand, and is of exceptional interest, but is of too great length to be reproduced in The Green Bag. It appears that until the Act was passed in 1868, which amended the law as to promissory oaths, every stu dent was required upon call to take the oath of allegiance. The only case known to the committee where the taking of this oath was waived was that of Judah P. Benjamin, the well-known secretary of war for the Con federate States of America, and that gentle man was " by reason of his great legal attainments, coupled with his expatriation (?) from his own country, called to the bar of Lincoln's Inn in 1868." He practiced as a leader with a patent of precedence, but he never received the appointment of Queen's Counsel, although the letters " Q. C." were always used as a designation of his rank. Mr. Benjamin, in his petition praying that he might be called to the bar without con forming to the established practice said : — "I was born on the 6th August, 1811, and am therefore nearly fifty-five years of age. My par ents were both natural-born British subjects, of
