The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-21 00:00:00

It is more than probable that if no special provision
had been made that there would have been

little, if any, interference by the barristers with
the privileges of the other branch. Had the mem-
bers of the profession been allowed to regulate their
own conduct, few would have accepted briefs except
through the intervention and from the hands of an
attorney, and the opinions of their brethren would
have run so strongly against those who exhibited
greater laxity, that the practice would have speedily
been relinquished, and matters would have been placed
on a satisfactory footing. But,unfortunately, as in many
other transactions, the course adopted led to a totally
different result from that contemplated. The attor-

net's would never have attempted to establish a mo-
nopoly if the bar could have adopted measures of self-
defence or, possibly, of retaliation. The fatal facility
afforded by the unwise and impolitic provision pro-
duced the very mischief that was to be deprecated.
Hence the loud complaints on the part of the com-
munity at being deprived of the aid of counsel, and
of the junior bar, at having so legitimate a field for
emulation shut out from them.

This crying grievance will, however, be remedied by
the present Bill, if suffered to pass without mutilation.

- --
The absurd restrictions will be removed, and most ear.

nestly do we hope that no effort will be made through
any, no doubt, conscientious desire to maintain the
dignity of the profession, to perpetuate the present
untoward state of affairs—one so eminently injurious,
and, we will add, unjust to the junior bar. The
_ _

vast diminution of business in the superior courts

is well known, and it is more than probable that
there will be a further reduction in consequence of
the abolition of special demurrers and other legal re-
forms. Why, then, prevent the juniors from entering
into the new courts to which the business has been,
and will to a still greater extent be, transferred ? It

would be unfair to all parties, and lead at no distan

day to a total revolution in the position and practice
of the profession.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of Saturday
and Sunday.
Tile decision of the Council of State in the case of
the " conflit" relative to the Orleans property was
pronounced on Saturday. The judgment was to the
effect that—
" The President of the Republic, issuing the decree of
the 22d of January, was declared to have acted in the
plenitude of his legislative and executive power, and that
the cognizance of the enactment relative to the property
included in the donation of the 7th August, 1830, was
not within the jurisdiction of the tribunals to whose
decision all questions relative to the property of Madame
Adelaide, or that purchased by Louis Philippe, since his
accession to the throne are to be alone referred."
The following is the text of the preamble and
decree :
"Considering that the decree of the 221 January,
1852, declares formally that the personal and real pro-
perty which was the object of the donation made on the
7th of August, 1830, by the King Louis Philippe to his
children is restored to the domain of the State:
" Considering that the decree of the 22d January,
1852, is a political and governmental act, the execution
and effects of which cannot be submitted to the appre-
ciation of the judiciary authority, in what touches the
portions of the domain of Neuilly acquired by King
Louis Philippe since his accession to the throne, and the
portion of the domain of Monceaux which belonged to
the late Princess Adelaide d'Orleans:
" Considering that the acquisition made by the King
Louis Philippe, since his accession to the throne, and
annexed to the domain of Neuilly, as also the portion of
the domain of Monceaux, which belonged to the late
Princess Adelaide d'Orleans, have not been the object of
the donation of the 7th of August, 1830, and conse-
quently are not comprised in the restitution ordered by
the decree of the 22d January, 1852; that then, in case
of dispute, the questions relative to the property of these
portions of the domains of Neuilly and Monceaux are,
conformedly to the rules of common law, within the com-
petency of the civil tribunals:
" Considering that the question of ascertaining if the
laws of the 15th and 16th Floreal year X continue to
be in vigour, and are applicable to the property between
the state and the Due d'Orleans, is not one of those the
cognizance of which is reserved to the Council of Pre-
fecture by the 4th clause of the law of the 28th Pluviare
year VIII.:
" The Council of State, au contentieux, decrees—

" ArLiclo 1. The conflit (opposition) raised by the
Prefect of the Seine is confirmed, so far as it is reterable
to the portions of the domains of Neuilly and Monceaux
which are the object of the donation nude on the 7th of
August, 1830, by the King Louis Philippe to his children.
"It (tho conflit) is annulled so far as it has for object
to withdraw tram the judiciary authority the cogniz Anne
of the questions relative to the portions of the domains
of Neuilly which have been acquired by the King L'aiis
Philippe after his accession to the throne, and to the por-
tion of the domain of Monceaux belonging to the late
Princess Adelaide d'Orleans.

"Art. 2. Are considered as of no effect, in all that is
contrary to the present decree; Ist, the petition to the
president of the civil tribunal of the department of the i
Seine of the 13th of April, 1852, and the ordinance s-
sued on the said petition; 23, the writ of final process of
the same date; 3d, the motion of the dernandants; 4th,
the judgments of the civil tribunal of the Seine of the
23d of April, 1852. The Keepor of the Seals, Minister
of Justice, and the Minister of Finance are charged, each
in what concerns him, with the execution of the present
decree.

" The present project of decree hag been deliberated
and adopted by the Council of State au contenting., at the
sitting of the 15th of June, 1852, at which were present
MM. Baroche, Vice• President of the Council of State;

most distinguished members, and by the practice
whereof they attained their present exalted rank and
station. The measure has now been long and atten-
tively considered. It has not been introduced f6r the
first time in their Lordships' House. Last year it ad
but received the legislative sanction, and we believe
that it was only some trifling differences between the
two branches of the Legislature that prevented it
from being already many months in full operation.
It would, indeed, be greatly to be lamented if any
unfortunate disagreement should once more disappoint
the reasonable expectations of the people, and prevent
the legitimate results of the great experiment which,
notwithstanding some palpable blemishes, has, taken
as a whole, proved so eminently successful. The present
measure seems a natural corollary of the Acts that
have already come into operation, and if it be admitted
that a retrograde policy is no longer possible, every
effort should be made, even by those opposed to the
change, and to the withdrawal of the business from
the superior courts, to render the new code for the
recovery of small debts as useful in its operation as
practicable.
The chief defect of the existing law arises from the
operation of the 9th and 10th Vic., cap. 95, which
imposes disabilities on barristers to which no other
class in the community is subjected. It would cer-
tainly appear as if it were amply sufficient to deprive
members of the profession of the privileges they had
previously enjoyed, to refuse them exclusive audience
or even pre-audience, and to leave it perfectly op-
tional with the parties themselves whether or not
they would avail themselves of professional assistance.
But not so—any person in the community might
appear by leave of the judge, and argue any
question, except a barrister. He should also be
instructed by an attorney, and his fee could
not be allowed if less than Si. had been
recovered if he appeared for the plaintiff, or if less
than Si. had been claimed if he appeared for the de-
fendant, and not in any case without the order of
the judge.
It is unfortunately but too notorious that these pro-
visions acted as a practical prohibition to the employ-
ment of counsel before these tribunals, and prevented
the suitors from obtaining the services of educated
and honourable men, whose very attendance, even
without taking any part in the proceedings; must
have exercised a most beneficial effect. Had it been
otherwise, it is more than probable that there
would have been a regular bar in attend-
ance in each of the more important
and populous districts, whose assistance could be ob-
tained without the necessity of a special retainer, and
the extra expense thereby occasioned, and who would
have rendered material aid to the judge in enforcing
order, and securing the regularity of the proceedings.
The clause above referred to, however, prevented
such attendance, and, in many instances, induced the
other branch of the profession to avoid such formi-
dable competition, and to obtain a monopoly for
themselves. Combinations were entered into, under
which the parties regularly pledged themselves
not to employ a barrister under any cir-
cumstances ; and there have been cases where,
the monopoly being secured, all the prec •
titioners have pledged themselves not to accept less
than certain fees, much higher than those sanctioned
by Parliament, and where they have regularly pre-
pared briefs, and banded them, with handsome fees
endorsed, far argument to other members of their
own profession, who returned the compliment
in due course, thus keeping
up the double set o
charges, although the barrister was excluded from a
participation.