trines。 〃There is nothing so dangerous；〃 wrote Lord Campbell； 〃as for one not of the craft to tamper with our freemasonry。〃 A layman is certain to betray himself by using some expression which a lawyer would never employ。 Mr。 Sidney Lee himself supplies us with an example of this。 He writes （p。 164）： 〃On February 15； 1609； Shakespeare 。 。 。 obtained judgment from a jury against Addenbroke for the payment of No。 6； and No。 1。 5s。 0d。 costs。〃 Now a lawyer would never have spoken of obtaining 〃judgment from a jury；〃 for it is the function of a jury not to deliver judgment （which is the prerogative of the court）； but to find a verdict on the facts。 The error is； indeed； a venial one； but it is just one of those little things which at once enable a lawyer to know if the writer is a layman or 〃one of the craft。〃
But when a layman ventures to plunge deeply into legal subjects； he is naturally apt to make an exhibition of his incompetence。 〃Let a non…professional man； however acute；〃 writes Lord Campbell again； 〃presume to talk law； or to draw illustrations from legal science in discussing other subjects； and he will speedily fall into laughable absurdity。〃
And what does the same high authority say about Shakespeare？ He had 〃a deep technical knowledge of the law；〃 and an easy familiarity with 〃some of the most abstruse proceedings in English jurisprudence。〃 And again： 〃Whenever he indulges this propensity he uniformly lays down good law。〃 Of Henry IV。； Part 2； he says： 〃If Lord Eldon could be supposed to have written the play； I do not see how he could be chargeable with having forgotten any of his law while writing it。〃 Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke speak of 〃the marvelous intimacy which he displays with legal terms； his frequent adoption of them in illustration； and his curiously technical knowledge of their form and force。〃 Malone； himself a lawyer； wrote： 〃His knowledge of legal terms is not merely such as might be acquired by the casual observation of even his all…comprehending mind； it has the appearance of technical skill。〃 Another lawyer and well…known Shakespearean； Richard Grant White； says： 〃No dramatist of the time； not even Beaumont； who was the younger son of a judge of the Common Pleas； and who after studying in the Inns of Court abandoned law for the drama； used legal phrases with Shakespeare's readiness and exactness。 And the significance of this fact is heightened by another； that it is only to the language of the law that he exhibits this inclination。 The phrases peculiar to other occupations serve him on rare occasions by way of description； comparison or illustration； generally when something in the scene suggests them； but legal phrases flow from his pen as part of his vocabulary； and parcel of his thought。 Take the word 'purchase' for instance； which； in ordinary use； means to acquire by giving value； but applies in law to all legal modes of obtaining property except by inheritance or descent； and in this peculiar sense the word occurs five times in Shakespeare's thirty…four plays； and only in one single instance in the fifty…four plays of Beaumont and Fletcher。 It has been suggested that it was in attendance upon the courts in London that he picked up his legal vocabulary。 But this supposition not only fails to account for Shakespeare's peculiar freedom and exactness in the use of that phraseology； it does not even place him in the way of learning those terms his use of which is most remarkable； which are not such as he would have heard at ordinary proceedings at nisi prius； but such as refer to the tenure or transfer of real property； 'fine and recovery；' 'statutes merchant；' 'purchase；' 'indenture；' 'tenure；' 'double voucher；' 'fee simple；' 'fee farm；' 'remainder；' 'reversion；' 'forfeiture；' etc。 This conveyancer's jargon could not have been picked up by hanging round the courts of law in London two hundred and fifty years ago； when suits as to the title of real property were comparatively rare。 And beside； Shakespeare uses his law just as freely in his first plays； written in his first London years； as in those produced at a later period。 Just as exactly； too； for the correctness and propriety with which these terms are introduced have compelled the admiration of a Chief Justice and a Lord Chancellor。〃
Senator Davis wrote： 〃We seem to have something more than a sciolist's temerity of indulgence in the terms of an unfamiliar art。 No legal solecisms will be found。 The abstrusest elements of the common law are impressed into a disciplined service。 Over and over again； where such knowledge is unexampled in writers unlearned in the law； Shakespeare appears in perfect possession of it。 In the law of real property； its rules of tenure and descents； its entails； its fines and recoveries； their vouchers and double vouchers； in the procedure of the Courts； the method of bringing writs and arrests； the nature of actions； the rules of pleading； the law of escapes and of contempt of court； in the principles of evidence； both technical and philosophical； in the distinction between the temporal and spiritual tribunals； in the law of attainder and forfeiture； in the requisites of a valid marriage； in the presumption of legitimacy； in the learning of the law of prerogative； in the inalienable character of the Crown； this mastership appears with surprising authority。〃
To all this testimony （and there is much more which I have not cited） may now be added that of a great lawyer of our own times； viz。： Sir James Plaisted Wilde； Q。C。 created a Baron of the Exchequer in 1860； promoted to the post of Judge…Ordinary and Judge of the Courts of Probate and Divorce in 1863； and better known to the world as Lord Penzance； to which dignity he was raised in 1869。 Lord Penzance； as all lawyers know； and as the late Mr。 Inderwick； K。C。； has testified； was one of the first legal authorities of his day； famous for his 〃remarkable grasp of legal principles；〃 and 〃endowed by nature with a remarkable facility for marshalling facts； and for a clear expression of his views。〃
Lord Penzance speaks of Shakespeare's 〃perfect familiarity with not only the principles； axioms； and maxims； but the technicalities of English law； a knowledge so perfect and intimate that he was never incorrect and never at fault 。 。 。 The mode in which this knowledge was pressed into service on all occasions to express his meaning and illustrate his thoughts； was quite unexampled。 He seems to have had a special pleasure in his complete and ready mastership of it in all its branches。 As manifested in the plays； this legal knowledge and learning had therefore a special character which places it on a wholly different footing from the rest of the multifarious knowledge which is exhibited in page after page of the plays。 At every turn and point at which the author required a metaphor； simile； or illustration； his mind ever turned FIRST to the law。 He seems almost to have THOUGHT in legal phrases； the commonest of legal expressions were ever at the end of his pen in description or illustration。 That he should have descanted in lawyer language when he had a forensic subject in hand； such as Shylock's bond； was to be expected； but the knowledge of law in 'Shakespeare' was exhibited in a far different manner： it protruded itself on all occasions； appropriate or inappropriate； and mingled itself with strains of thought widely divergent from forensic subjects。〃 Again： 〃To acquire a perfect familiarity with legal principles； and an accurate and ready use of the technical terms and phrases not only of the conveyancer's office but of the pleader's chambers and the Courts at Westminster； nothing short of employment in some career involving constant contact with legal questions and general legal work would be requisite。 But a continuous employment involves the element of time； and time was just what the manager of two theatres had not at his disposal。 In what portion of Shakespeare's （i。e。 Shakspere's） career would it be possible to point out that time could be found for the interposition of a legal employment in the chambers or offices of practising lawyers？〃
Stratfordians； as is well known； casting about for some possible explanation of Shakespeare's extraordinary knowledge of law； have made the suggestion that Shakespeare might； conceivably； have been a clerk in an attorney's office before he came to London。 Mr。 Collier wrote to Lord Campbell to ask his opinion as to the probability of this being true。 His answer was as follows： 〃You require us to believe implicitly a fact； of which； if true； positive and irrefragable evidence in his own handwriting might have been forthcoming to establish it。 Not having been actually enrolled as an attorney； neither the records of the local court at Stratford nor of the superior Courts at Westminster would present his name as being concerned in any suit as an attorney； but it might reasonably have been expected that there would be deeds or wills witnessed by him still extant； and after a very diligent search none such can be discovered。〃
Upon this Lord Penzance comments： 〃It cannot be doubted that Lord Campbell was right in this。 No young man could have been at work in an attorney's office without being called upon continually to act as a witness； and in many other ways leaving traces of his work and name。〃 There is not a single fact or incident in all that is known of Shakespeare； even by rumor or tradition； which supports this notion of a clerkship。 And after much argument and surmise which has been indulged in on this subject； we may； I think； safely put the notion on one side； for no less an authority than Mr。 Grant White says finally that the idea of his having been clerk to an attorney has been 〃blown to pieces。〃
It is altogether characteristic of Mr。 Churton Collins that he； nevertheless； adopts this exploded myth。 〃That Shakespeare was in early life employed as a clerk in an attorney's office； may be correct。 At Stratford there was by royal charter a Court of Record sitting every fortnight； with six attorneys； beside the town clerk； belonging to it； and it is certainly not straining probability to suppose that the young Shakespeare may have had employment in one of them。 There is； it is