"The necessary expenses of a call to the bar with a view to practice are by no means confined to the Government stamp duties and the fees payable to an inn. The inns provide nothing in the nature of legal training except a few lecturers; and no lectures, however good, can qualify a student for practice. For practice experience is necessary, and experience can only be gained in the chambers of a practicing barrister. There, and there only, can a knowledge be acquired of what may be called the unseen,work of the bar-the advising of clients, the drafting of the 'pleadings' in an action, and the drafting of deeds and other documents. It is very commonly supposed that a barrister's business consists mainly, if not entirely, in arguing cases in court. This is by no means the case with 'juniors,' that is to says. barristers who have not attained the status of a Queen's Counsel. Every junior barrister (except those who devote themselves to criminal work) has a great deal more work to do in his chamber than in court. Many conveyancers rarely or never go into court at all. It may be safely said that a junior barrister's first acquaintance with an action is seldom gathered from his brief. In all probability he has advised on the subject matter of action, has drawn the pleadings, and has been responsible for all the preliminary stages before the actual hearing.

"Thus it is necessary for every student to learn his business in a barrister's chambers,and for the privilege of a seat in a pupil room during a year and the right to read any papers which may come in, the customary fee is a hundred guineas. Some barristers try to give their pupils some definite tuition, but the busiest men are those who have most pupils and the result generally is that the pupils are left to shift for themselves as best they can and pick up what knowledge they may. Two years' reading in chambers is usually considered the minimum equipment for practice at the bar, and this implies the disbursement of 200 guineas.

"It is not unusual to read in a solicitor's office as well as in a barrister's chambers, and there can be but little doubt that this is a wise course to pursue. By so doing the ordinary machinery of legal business is learned from the bottom upward and a solid foundation is laid for the knowledge of law which is to follow. Many who are best qualified to judge have expressed their opinion that the wisest course for the wouldbe barrister to pursue is to begin his legal career as a solicitor, and only to join the higher branch of the legal profession when of maturer years. However, this may be, a course of training in a solicitor's of fice must always prove of great practical value to a barrister; for there he has an opportunity of learning much that is useful and much that renders the course of business intelligible, which could only be learned indirectly and with some difficulty in a barrister's chambers. There is no customary fee for a course of reading, as suggested, in a solicitor's office, but the fee to be paid is a matter of arrangement in each particular case. Many young barristers continue reading in a barrister's chambers after they have been called to the bar; but it must be re

membered that professional etiquette strictly forbids a barrister from reading in a solicitor's office. Consequently such reading must take place, if at all, before call, and not after.

"The regulation two years' reading in chambers is usually divided between the Temple and Lincoln's Inn-that is to say, half the time is spent in the chambers of a common-law barrister and half in the chambers of one who practices on the chancery side. In the majority of cases this is probably wiser, for the young barrister ought to know something about each of the great branches of the law, and ought never to be obliged to refuse any work which may be sent to him. The nature of most men is shaped for them almost accidentally, and the barrister must be ready to seize his opportunities as they arise or they are quickly gone-perhaps never to return. Some, perhaps, feel that they have not the power of achieving success except in one particular line, and that an opportunity for distinction offered to them in any other would inevitably be wasted. For instance, one man may have a gift of advocacy without any power of storing up a knowledge of law. Such a one would be most likely to succeed on circuit and at sessions, and for him it would be a mere waste of time to enter any chambers where he would see nothing but the drier work of a chancery practice. Another, again, may have opposite powers and tastes, and may revel in the drafting of complicated deeds and wills and the grubbing out of obscure points of law.

"Apart, however, from the question whether the necessary reading in chambers ought to be wholly in the Temple or wholly in Lincoln's Inn, or equally divided between the two, some of a man's chances of success depend on a good choice with whom to read. If he has many friends who are able to help him when he is called to the bar he will probably be wise in entering the chambers of some barrister in very full practice with whom he can be sure of seeing plenty of work. If, however, he has not a practice of his own assured to him he had better read, for part of his time at least, with some barrister who is not overwhelmed with work, and who is likely to give his pupil work to do for him in the future in the capacity of his 'devil.' In the same way a young barrister who intends to join a particular circuit ought to read with some one who is already in practice on that circuit, and to whom he may hope more or less to attach himself in the future."-Pall Mall Gazette.

A VALUABLE LEGAL MAGAZINE.--We have just received from the D. B. Canfield Company of Philadelphia, a copy of the "Current Comment and Legal Miscellany," for March and admire its neat typographical appearance, Besides a fund of valuable legal information it contains an ably written sketch of Alexander Hamilton, from the pen of Chancellor James Kent and a fine engraving of the distinguished first secretary of the treasury and bosom friend of Washington. Our brother members of the bar will find upon examination, that “Current Comment" stands upon its own merits and will prove a valuable acquisition to any legal library. Subscription price only one dollar per year, or ten cents per copy.-St. Augustine (Fla.) Morning Democrat.

"PROGRESS AND POVERTY."

One of the most important social movements in the world's history-the Single Tax idea-is everywhere and every day more and more absorbing the attention of thinking people, under the brilliant leadership of the author of "Progress and Poverty."

The discussion of the Single Tax question as a political movement, since the publication of "Progress and Poverty," has for the first time given the study of Political Economy, as a science of economic government, that impetus and prominence which its great importance in the domain of statesmanship so richly merits.

Political Economy had been too long neglected,—our Colleges and Universities merely skimmed it over in a meaningless and informal manner, to fill out their curriculums; but to-day, the newspapers, magazines and the people's representatives in their legislative halls, are everywhere vieing with each other in emphasizing its importance,—and last but not least, the common people in their workshops and homes, have taken an iron-handed grip upon the subject, by taking an active part in its discussion.

Being in full sympathy with the general principles involved, and having read with care all of Henry George's books and writings, in that frame of mind, including "The Standard," the organ of the Single Tax movement, from its first number, as well as other works bearing upon the subject, that came to my notice, together with many adverse criticisms upon the fundamental and practicable principles involved, I will attempt to present a concise review of the status of the discussion, as it strikes me at this time.

The reader will kindly bear in mind that the limits of an article like this will necessarily make the review of such a question very brief and unsatisfactory, and must assume a general knowledge, on the part of the reader, of the progress and discussion of the subject matter. Let us concisely examine some of the leading criticisms and objections thus far urged against Henry George's celebrated "Progress and Poverty."

Edward Gordon Clark, in the North American Review of January, 1887, makes a most remarkable statement. He says: "Mr. George's 'Progress and Poverty' is so superb a work, so persuasively constructed, and so full of great, needed truth, that he has almost overwhelmed the very elect with one of the most glaring and disjointed non-sequiturs, that ever broke itself in two with its own logic." Is this so?

George Gunton, in "The Forum" of March, 1887, essayed to demolish the same work. The gist of his argument was, that "the doctrine which will take possession of the 'unearned increment' in land, will justify the taking of increased values, not only of productive investments, personal property and improvements, but of personal service also, which would be fatal to all industrial and social progress." Is this analogy sound, or is it a;“ disjointed non-sequitur?" But of all critics, William Nelson Black, in the New York Sun, advanced the most wonderful and the most conclusive objection, to such as have faith in its soundness. He strongly insisted, that to make a tax of any value or use, there must be something to be taxed, and before a tax on land values could be collected, you must first have land values. Mr. Black proceeded to demonstrate that there is really no such thing as land values. It is referred to here as a novelty, and for the purpose of calling attention to the reckless drift of current criticism upon this important question.

It will be remembered that the Duke of Argyll, in the "Nineteenth Century," as long ago as April, 1884, attempted to ridicule and demolish "Progress and Poverty." The sequel is well known. But the learned Duke did not, even as "a very humble citizen in the Republic of letters," as he styled himself, claim to have discovered any "disjointed non-sequiturs." He admitted the work to be a "logical reduction to iniquity," as he called it.

Richard T. Ely, Professor of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins' University, has given some important contributions. to this question, in the "New York Independent" and in "The Baltimore Sun." He shows with great force and clearness, the true character of economic rent, and its beneficial effects upon the whole people, if it were appropriated to public use,

according to the principles of the Single Tax Party," as advocated by Henry George. But his powerful voice falters just at the very point where it should be clearest and most articulate.

Prof. Ely says: "Why should not landlords lay down their titles for the common good? If it were really necessary, they ought to do it. But it is not necessary; consequently it is a needless hardship, consequently cruelty and injustice. We have not yet decided that private property in land is not, after all, the best thing. If we do so decide, any burdens which that decision may entail should be distributed among all the people." Let me ask, in what substantial manner is the equitable or the legal right of compensation to landlords, any more valid than it was in the case of the slaveholders, when the slaves were emancipated by the President's Proclamation?

To admit the equity and right of compensation would be an admission of the fundamental right of private property in economic rent; and so it would have been of the rightfulness of slavery, if compensation had been allowed. The rights and equities involved in Prof. Ely's objection were ably discussed and judicially settled, by the Supreme Court of the United States in a line of cases where the constitutionality of a statute law was called in question, because it did not make any provision to compensate dealers in spirituous liquors for losses occasioned by prohibitory laws, enacted by a State in its sovereign capacity. The rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States on the subject of the public health, also suggest an analogy which will help to such an understanding of George's views on land, as is required for their intelligent refutation, no less than for intelligently accepting them. It is now the settled law that the governmental power to make laws for the protection of the public health is inalienable, the reason as stated by the Court being, that such power is so "indispensable to the public welfare that it cannot be bargained away by contract; " (e. g. the exclusive right, within a designated area, to keep a place for slaughtering animals and preparing their meat for market), yet property so acquired, is held subject to the right of the Legislature to qualify or destroy it at will, according to its judgment of what the public interest requires, and without