boundary of a certain piece of land when I was a judge. One of the parties produced as evidence a written judgment of the Tokugawa time to which a survey of the land was attached. The opposite party disputed the reliability of the survey, as having been made two hundred years ago. When a new survey was made upon the European method, the result exactly coincided with the one attached to the judgment.

I will now pass on to the punishments for crimes under the Tokugawa system. The mere mention of their name is enough to illustrate the nature of their severity. Crucifixion, burning, sawing, beheading, and whipping, with other punishments such as transportation, were inflicted upon unfortunate criminals according to the nature of their crimes. Even a Japanese of the present age would hardly believe, when told, that his ancestors employed such cruel methods of punishment.

Such having been the system of law and practice under the Tokugawa Government, the brighter sun of the New Empire begun to shine after the Revolution of 1868. But the revolution of the judicial system did not come all at once, but slowly and steadily. For a short period most of the laws. used by the Tokugawa Government were still observed as a matter of necessity. However, the new government was eager to adopt the European system in this, as in other branches of our institutions. In 1870 the Judicial Department, as a separate board, was established, and the late unfortunate, but misguided, Yeto Shinpei was appointed the Minister of Justice. He had a great influence in the Cabinet, and attempted to make reforms on a grand scale. The imperfections and severity of criminal law induced him to pass a new criminal code, which was framed after the Chinese criminal code. All severe punishments except that of beheading were abolished, together with the horrible practice of torture. He employed French and English lawyers as legal advisers. It is said he was SO influenced by European ideas of law that he intended to adopt the Code Napoléon as the Japanese law. As he was a very energetic man, he might have succeeded in his attempt had he retained office much longer.

A little later on, M. Boissonade, Professor in the University of Paris, was employed as a legal adviser. He was entrusted not only with the teaching of French law, but also with the compilation of civil and criminal codes. The Judicial Department established a law school for the teaching of French law. The Imperial University was not idle, and English law. was taught there by English and American lawyers. Some students of these two schools were sent to England, America, and France to complete their studies, and I am one of those who were sent to England.

Between 1870 and 1878 much time was occupied in the preparation of judicial reforms. In the latter year the new Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure were promulgated. These were framed by M. Boissonade after the French codes. By this new code the capital punishment of beheading was supplanted by that of hanging, which is

arson.

inflicted only upon those who are convicted of high treason, murder, and Perhaps the punishment for arson may seem to be too severe; but most Japanese houses being built of wood, fire often has dreadful results. To prevent this, the punishment is still kept in the code, although it is very seldom inflicted, except in cases of a grave nature accompanied with loss of life. I am convinced that it will soon be changed for a milder punishment. Penal servitude, imprisonment with or without hard labour, fines, and certain periods of police supervision are the only other punishments inflicted for other crimes. We have no such corporal punishment as flogging or whipping. Young criminals are sent to reformatory schools in the prisons. instead of being punished in the ordinary way. These codes have been since revised, and work remarkably well.

One thing which I may mention in addition is the law relating to duelling. No express mention of duelling is made in our Criminal Code. A few years ago a young man sent a challenge to another, who courageously declined it. The question having been much discussed by lawyers, the government immediately passed a law by which duelling is now forbidden under pain of punishment varying from imprisonment with hard labour to death. Thus, happily, not a single case of duelling has ever occurred in my country.

The Code of Criminal Procedure is almost similar to that of France. The public prosecutor, the examining judge, and the ordinary judge are three principal factors of criminal justice. The prosecution is conducted by the public prosecutor, and the examining judge after examining the case, either commits the prisoner for trial or acquits him. The ordinary judge tries and decides all cases committed for trial. One point which requires particular mention is that the preliminary examination is conducted privately by the examining judge, as in the French system. The reason assigned for this secret examination is this, that unless it is kept secret, necessary evidence may not be forthcoming. But as the law permits the ordinary judge to use at his discretion the written evidence taken down by the examining judge, there is some fear that sometimes injustice may occur. The prisoner is permitted to give evidence, and is examined like a witness both in the preliminary examination and upon trial. The philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, who wrote so much on this subject, would be satisfied with our system.

There are three grades of criminal courts-the Court of First Instance, the Appellate Court, and the Court of Cassation. The Appellate Court is the final court of facts, and the Court of Cassation is the final court of law. The difference between the English system and ours is that we allow an appeal upon questions of fact.

As to civil law and its procedure; it was not until 1891 that any actual reform on a large scale was effected. But it must not be thought that we had no civil law until that time. Even at the time when our criminal law had only assumed a Chinese shape, European principles of civil law had

been freely adopted, and as there was no general written law, judges might adopt these at their discretion, as their ratio decidendi. I say "no general written law," for there were many written regulations, which already adopted European principles. The progress of civilisation has introduced various transactions hitherto unknown to us, and this naturally made it necessary to pass new regulations. Thus we had regulations for bills and notes, banking, shipping, mining, patents, copyrights, etc., besides an immense quantity of regulations that affected administration.

The drafts of the new Civil and Commercial Codes (though I submit the distinction is rather unscientific, however convenient) had been prepared long before this, and repeated attempts had been made to pass them as law. But the questions which they affected were so wide and grave that the government did not press them, as I think, very wisely. Only with the year 1891 did the time of our great judicial reform arrive. In that year the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Commercial Code, and the Code of the Constitution of Courts were promulgated. Of these, the Code of the Constitution of Courts, the Code of Civil Procedure, and Chapters on companies, partnerships, banking, bills and notes, and registry for trade books in the Commercial Code were put in force, whilst the operation of the Civil Code and main parts of the Commercial Code were postponed until 1894. In the meantime lawyers have been active in examining as to their propriety; and it is no wonder, considering the nature of such voluminous codes, that a great many defects and errors have been found. The consequence is that the Parliament has already passed a law to appoint a committee for their revision. This committee, of which I am one of the members, is now sitting for that work. I am happy to say that England recently took the lead of making a new treaty with Japan, and other countries are now going to follow your just example. Henceforth Japan must undertake a very onerous duty in sight of the civilised world, and for this we must be prepared with good laws.

Now it is quite idle to recapitulate here what is contained in these codes. I will content myself with stating that the Civil and Commercial Codes are very much like the French and German codes, and that the Code of the Constitution of Courts and the Code of Civil Procedure are nearly German.

I will, however, mention some points which may interest the British public on account of the difference from their own procedure.

The constitution of the civil courts is similar to that of the criminal courts. There are three courts-the Court of Cassation, the Appellate Court, and the District Court-besides the courts called Divisional Courts, which have jurisdiction over small matters like your county courts. Three judges sit in the District Courts, five in the Appellate Courts, and seven in the Court of Cassation.

We have no jury system in civil and criminal trials. The jury system has been a great bulwark of liberty in England, and you are justly proud

of it. But in a country like Japan I believe it much safer to leave the trial of fact as well as of law in the hands of experienced judges rather than in the hands of a dozen uneducated men.

One point which I wish to mention particularly is the mode of appointing judges. The position of judges is made secure by the Imperial Constitution, and they are irremovable except by the decision of the Disciplinary Court. But they are not appointed invariably from barristers, but are more frequently appointed from those who are specially educated for that purpose. This is the German method. The candidates must of course pass examinations, one for their legal knowledge and the other or their practical knowledge. It seems to be a very ingenious rule, but I doubt whether experienced and good judges can be obtained in that way. I am happy to mention that the present Minister of Justice lately appointed many judges from barristers—a thing which has seldom happened before.

It is said that the salaries of Japanese judges are very small. I admit that they are small-varying from 400 yen to 5000 yen per annum—if we compare them with the salaries of English judges. But, living in my country being very cheap, the officials are not so badly paid as you think.

I will now make a few remarks on our civil and commercial codes. All commercial transactions being much alike in civilised countries, it is not difficult to adopt European principles. The same thing may be said in civil cases, such as contracts and torts. The most difficult branches are those which relate to land and family relations. We have done away with the feudal system completely, and no such complicated system of tenure remains now. Every owner of land has an absolute property, subject, of course, to the right of eminent domain. The only customs which are the relics of the feudal system are three rights of common-that is, the common of pasture, the common of piscary, and the common of drawing water. These are rights which Japanese farmers have exercised from time immemorial, and are valued so much that it is impossible to abolish them unless we break up our land system. So we must maintain and protect them by law. In other respects it is not so difficult to adopt the advanced principles of property as it was at first supposed.

The reform in the law of family relations need not be difficult. The paternal power is undoubtedly great in my country, and filial duties to parents are considered the greatest of all duties; hence the consent of parents is required for the marriage of their children. Still, change is steadily taking place in our customs, and no educated parents would make objections to the free marriage of their children, except when a young couple would rush into a hasty marriage, which will in the future cause misery and unhappiness. Marriage with the deceased wife's sister, which has been the subject of so much discussion in England, is tolerated. It is said that the number of divorced is very great in Japan. It is very great, but this is on account of the freedom of divorce which married parties can obtain if they

are mutually agreed. Otherwise the court would never allow divorce except on the grounds enumerated in the Civil Code, which are not very different from those of any European law. The only institution that is firmly estab lished is adoption. The family name is so much revered in my country that it is necessary to have the institution of adoption to keep up an unbroken succession of the family name. In short, the provisions which are contained in the Civil Code as to family relations may fairly be put into execution, however they may seem difficult to the European mind.

I shall now refer to our legal education. The Imperial University has, ever since its establishment, been very active in the matter of legal education. Since the new codes came out attention has been mainly directed to the study of the principles contained in these codes. Still, the English, German, and French laws are taught there by native and foreign professors. It has already produced several hundred graduates in law. Some of these have also established private law schools, where thousands of students are now prosecuting their studies.

Lastly, I come to my own profession. The profession of barrister was entirely unknown in the time of the Tokugawa Dynasty and for some time after the Revolution. Parties were obliged to conduct their cases themselves or through their relatives. Gradually those who were not relatives appeared in courts as such in order to undertake the task for remuneration. These fictitious relatives were considered to be a class of dangerous persons, and were much dreaded by the name of Kujishi, or suit-makers. However, the reform of our judicial system made it necessary to have the profession. As early as 1881 a regulation was passed by which an examination was made obligatory for the qualification of admission to the bar. This examination was at first very easy, although perhaps not so easy as the keeping of terms by eating dinners. Gradually, with the progress of legal education, the examination for the bar has attained an equal footing with that of the Imperial University, which, I think, may compete with examinations conducted in any university in Europe or America. I may add that there is no such distinction of professions as between barristers and solicitors. All legal business is transacted by barristers only.