wer　classes。
  Lawyers　are　attached　to　public　order　beyond　every　other　consideration；　and　the　best　security　of　public　order　is　authority。　　It　must　not　be　forgotten　that；　if　they　prize　the　free　institutions　of　their　country　much；　they　nevertheless　value　the　legality　of　those　institutions　far　more：　they　are　less　afraid　of　tyranny　than　of　arbitrary　power；　and　provided　that　the　legislature　take　upon　itself　to　deprive　men　of　their　independence；　they　are　not　dissatisfied。
  I　am　therefore　convinced　that　the　prince　who；　in　presence　of　an　encroaching　democracy；　should　endeavor　to　impair　the　judicial　authority　in　his　dominions；　and　to　diminish　the　political　influence　of　lawyers；　would　commit　a　great　mistake。　　He　would　let　slip　the　substance　of　authority　to　grasp　at　the　shadow。　　He　would　act　more　wisely　in　introducing　men　connected　with　the　law　into　the　government；　and　if　he　entrusted　them　with　the　conduct　of　a　despotic　power；　bearing　some　marks　of　violence；　that　power　would　most　likely　assume　the　external　features　of　justice　and　of　legality　in　their　hands。
  The　government　of　democracy　is　favorable　to　the　political　power　of　lawyers；　for　when　the　wealthy；　the　noble；　and　the　prince　are　excluded　from　the　government；　they　are　sure　to　occupy　the　highest　stations；　in　their　own　right；　as　it　were；　since　they　are　the　only　men　of　information　and　sagacity；　beyond　the　sphere　of　the　people；　who　can　be　the　object　of　the　popular　choice。　If；　then；　they　are　led　by　their　tastes　to　combine　with　the　aristocracy　and　to　support　the　Crown；　they　are　naturally　brought　into　contact　with　the　people　by　their　interests。　　They　like　the　government　of　democracy；　without　participating　in　its　propensities　and　without　imitating　its　weaknesses；　whence　they　derive　a　twofold　authority；　from　it　and　over　it。　　The　people　in　democratic　states　does　not　mistrust　the　members　of　the　legal　profession；　because　it　is　well　known　that　they　are　interested　in
  serving　the　popular　cause；　and　it　listens　to　them　without　irritation；　because　it　does　not　attribute　to　them　any　sinister　designs。　　The　object　of　lawyers　is　not；　indeed；　to　overthrow　the　institutions　of　democracy；　but　they　constantly　endeavor　to　give　it　an　impulse　which　diverts　it　from　its　real　tendency；　by　means　which　are　foreign　to　its　nature。　　Lawyers　belong　to　the　people　by　birth　and　interest；　to　the　aristocracy　by　habit　and　by　taste；　and　they　may　be　looked　upon　as　the　natural　bond　and　connecting　link　of　the　two　great　classes　of　society。
  The　profession　of　the　law　is　the　only　aristocratic　element　which　can　be　amalgamated　without　violence　with　the　natural　elements　of　democracy；　and　which　can　be　advantageously　and　permanently　combined　with　them。　　I　am　not　unacquainted　with　the　defects　which　are　inherent　in　the　character　of　that　body　of　men；　but　without　this　admixture　of　lawyer…like　sobriety　with　the　democratic　principle；　I　question　whether　democratic　institutions　could　long　be　maintained；　and　I　cannot　believe　that　a　republic　could　subsist　at　the　present　time　if　the　influence　of　lawyers　in　public　business　did　not　increase　in　proportion　to　the　power　of　the　people。
  This　aristocratic　character；　which　I　hold　to　be　common　to　the　legal　profession；　is　much　more　distinctly　marked　in　the　United　States　and　in　England　than　in　any　other　country。　　This　proceeds　not　only　from　the　legal　studies　of　the　English　and　American　lawyers；　but　from　the　nature　of　the　legislation；　and　the　position　which　those　persons　occupy　in　the　two　countries。　　The　English　and　the　Americans　have　retained　the　law　of　precedents；　that　is　to　say；　they　continue　to　found　their　legal　opinions　and　the　decisions　of　their　courts　upon　the　opinions　and　the　decisions　of　their　forefathers。　　In　the　mind　of　an　English　or　American　lawyer　a　taste　and　a　reverence　for　what　is　old　is　almost　always　united　to　a　love　of　regular　and　lawful　proceedings。
  This　predisposition　has　another　effect　upon　the　character　of　the　legal　profession　and　upon　the　general　course　of　society。　　The　English　and　American　lawyers　investigate　what　has　been　done；　the　French　advocate　inquires　what　should　have　been　done；　the　former　produce　precedents；　the　latter　reasons。　A　French　observer　is　surprised　to　hear　how　often　an　English　dr　an　American　lawyer　quotes　the　opinions　of　others；　and　how　little　he　alludes　to　his　own；　whilst　the　reverse　occurs　in　France。　　There　the　most　trifling　litigation　is　never　conducted　without　the　introduction　of　an　entire　system　of　ideas　peculiar　to　the　counsel　employed；　and　the　fundamental　principles　of　law　are　discussed　in　order　to　obtain　a　perch　of　land　by　the　decision　of　the　court。　This　abnegation　of　his　own　opinion；　and　this　implicit　deference　to　the　opinion　of　his　forefathers；　which　are　common　to　the　English　and　American　lawyer；　this　subjection　of　thought　which　he　is　obliged　to　profess；　necessarily　give　him　more　timid　habits　and　more　sluggish　inclinations　in　England　and　America　than　in　France。
  The　French　codes　are　often　difficult　of　comprehension；　but　they　can　be　read　by　every　one；　nothing；　on　the　other　hand；　can　be　more　impenetrable　to　the　uninitiated　than　a　legislation　founded　upon　precedents。　　The　indispensable　want　of　legal　assistance　which　is　felt　in　England　and　in　the　United　States；　and　the　high　opinion　which　is　generally　entertained　of　the　ability　of　the　legal　profession；　tend　to　separate　it　more　and　more　from　the　people；　and　to　place　it　in　a　distinct　class。　　The　French　lawyer　is　simply　a　man　extensively　acquainted　with　the　statutes　of　his　country；　but　the　English　or　American　lawyer　resembles　the　hierophants　of　Egypt；　for；　like　them；　he　is　the　sole　interpreter　of　an　occult　science。
  The　station　which　lawyers　occupy　in　England　and　America　exercises　no　less　an　influence　upon　their　habits　and　their　opinions。　　The　English　aristocracy；　which　has　taken　care　to　attract　to　its　sphere　whatever　is　at　all　analogous　to　itself；　has　conferred　a　high　degree　of　importance　and　of　authority　upon　the　members　of　the　legal　profession。　　In　English　society　lawyers　do　not　occupy　the　first　rank；　but　they　are　contented　with　the　station　assigned　to　them；　they　constitute；　as　it　were；　the　younger　branch　of　the　English　aristocracy；　and　they　are　attached　to　their　elder　brothers；　although　they　do　not　enjoy　all　their　privileges。　　The　English　lawyers　consequently　mingle　the　taste　and　the　ideas　of　the　aristocratic　circles　in　which　they　move　with　the　aristocratic　interests　of　their　profession。
  And　indeed　the　lawyer…like　character　which　I　am　endeavoring　to　depict　is　most　distinctly　to　be　met　with　in　England：　there　laws　are　esteemed　not　so　much　because　they　are　good　as　because　they　are　old；　and　if　it　be　necessary　to　modify　them　in　any　respect；　or　to　adapt　them　the　changes　which　time　operates　in　society；　recourse　is　had　to　the　most　inconceivable　contrivances　in　order　to　uphold　the　traditionary　fabric；　and　to　maintain　that　nothing　has　been　done　which　does　not　square　with　the　intentions　and　complete　the　labors　of　former　generations。　　The　very　individuals　who　conduct　these　changes　disclaim　all　intention　of　innovation；　and　they　had　rather　resort　to　absurd　expedients　than　plead　guilty　to　so　great　a　crime。　　This　spirit　appertains　more　especially　to　the　English　lawyers；　they　seem　indifferent　to　the　real　meaning　of　what　they　treat；　and　they　direct　all　their　attention　to　the　letter；　seeming　inclined　to　infringe　the　rules　of　common　sense　and　of　humanity　rather　than　to　swerve　one　title　from　the　law。　　The　English　legislation　may　be　compared　to　the　stock　of　an　old　tree；　upon　which　lawyers　have　engrafted　the　most　various　shoots；　with　the　hope　that；　although　their　fruits　may　differ；　their　foliage　at　least　will　be　confounded　with　the　venerable　trunk　which　supports　them　all。
  In　America　there　are　no　nobles　or　men　of　letters；　and　the　people　is　apt　to　mistrust　the　wealthy；　lawyers　consequently　form　the　highest　political　class；　and　the　most　cultivated　circle　of　society。　　They　have　therefore　nothing　to　gain　by　innovation；　which　adds　a　conservative　interest　to　their　natural　taste　for　public　order。　　If　I　were　asked　where　I　place　the　American　aristocracy；　I　should　reply　without　hesitation　that　it　is　not　composed　of　the　rich；　who　are　united　together　by　no　common　tie；　but　that　it　occupies　the　judicial　bench　and　the　bar。
  The　more　we　reflect　upon　all　that　occurs　in　the　United　States　the　more　shall　we　be　persuaded　that　the　lawyers　as　a　body　form　the　most　powerful；　if　not　the　only；　counterpoise　to　the　democratic　element。　　In　that　country　we　perceive　how　eminently　the　legal　profession　is　qualified　by　its　powers；　and　even　by　its　defects；　to　neutralize　the　vices　which　are　inherent　in　popular　government。　　When　the　American　people　is　intoxicated　by　passion；　or　carried　away　by　the　impetuosity　of　its　ideas；　it　is　checked　and　stopped　by　the　almost　invisible　influence　of　its　legal　counsellors；　who　secretly　oppose　their　aristocratic　propensities　to　its　democratic　instincts；　their　superstitious　attachment　to　what　is　antique　to　its　love　of　novelty；　their　narrow　views　to　its　immense　designs；　and　their　habitual　procrastination　to　its　ardent　impatience。
  The　courts　of　justice　are　the　most　visible　organs　by　which　the　legal　profession　is　enabled　to　control　the　democracy。　　The　judge　is　a　lawyer；　who；　independently　of　the　taste　for　regularity　and　order　wh