The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-18 00:00:00

net's, and he also objected to attorneys performing the
duties of barristers, for it was said that a certain class
of attorneys would usurp the place of barristers, and act
as advocates. If his Noble and Learned Friend persisted
in moving the clause he objected to, he should propose
an amendment to it.
Lord BROUGHAM said that in every court but the
co.unty courts a barrister could appear instructed by a
without the intervention of an attorney. The
prohibition
of barristers practising in cowry courts
without being instructed by an attorney was first made
in 1846; and the only question now was whether they
should continue that prohibition, or place county courts
on the same footing with the other courts, great and
little, leaving this matter in future to professional feel.
ing. He did not see why county courts alone should be
subjected to this rule. If the prohibition had never been
enacted, it was admitted that it would not now be de-
sirable to do so; but it was said that by repealing such
a clause, a legal sanction would be given to the practice
of barristers altogether independent of attorneys. This,
however, he did not believe would be the case if a strong
expression of opinion went forth that it was not de-
sirable and would be inconsistent with professional
etiquette. It was now the practice for attorneys to act
as advocates not only in county courts, but in various
other courts, greatly to the injury of the bar.
.Barristers
were told by attorneys to take briefs at their peril in
county courts; aud, unless they had attained eminence in
their profession, they were effectually excluded from
county courts, for if they took briefs in them they would
not get employed at the sessions and assizes. An attor-
ney, at a public meeting at Freemasons' Tavern, the
other day, said that as the attorneys had sufficient power
over barristers, they would not employ them in other
matters if they did not consent to divide the guinea with
attorneys when they took briefs in county courts. One
hundred and fifty barristers, and among them many men
of eminence, had signed a declaration on this subject, and
he represented their interests on this occasion. A hun-
dred others, among them seven Queen's Counsel, had ex-
pressed themselves in favour of this matter being left to
the etiquette of the procession; but they objected to sign
the declaration to that effect, because they did not wish
their names to be published for professional reasons.
The Attorney-General had also expressed his concur-
rence in the prayer of the memorialists, that they should
be allowed to practise in the county courts as in other
courts. Lord Denman was of the same opinion, and bad
written to him that morning urging him to persevere in
the retention of the clause giving to barristers the privi-
lege they claimed. And when he stated that of 80,000
suits commenced in 1840, 2,000 alone came to trial, ver-
dict, and judgment, and that in the county courts 6,000
cases a year were now tried, involving amounts from 201.
to 50/., he thought their Lordships would agree with him
that it was a cruelty, in this state of the law business,
the profession should bo excluded, as they now were,
from the county courts.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL considered that the distinctions
at present maintained between barristers and solicitors
were of the highest importance to the due administra-
tion of justice, and ought not on any account to be in-
terfered with. He feared that if the employment of
barristers were permitted without the intervention of
attorneys, a set of advocates might spring up, either
not barristers at all, or who, if they were, would be ef
the worst class of the profession. It should be recol-
lected that attorneys were under the direct control of
the court, and could be struck off the rolls in case of
any misconduct or irregularity. A barrister would not
be so controllable, as he could only be disbarred by ap-
plication to the benchers, and after a long previous in-
vestigation. It was from a foresight of these disad-
vantages that clause 91 had been introduced, and,
having been once introduced, and having worked so ad-
vantageously, he feared that mischievous consequences
would ensue if it were now repealed, because it would go
forth that that House was anxious to encour ege a free
trade in law, and that all who chose might come forward
as advocates. It was only very shortsighted persons who
declared that the State could not interfere to control
matters of this kind, in which the lives and properties of
mankind were so deeply interested. The gentlemen to
whom his Noble Friend had referred were men of high
intelligence and of unblemished honour; but there were
in the profession men of a very different kind , ready to
set every scruple at defiance, and who, far their own sel-
fish ends, would seriously embarrass the course of jus-
tice in these courts. His Noble Friend had referred to
a very eminent member of the profession, the Attorney-
General; but it should be remembered that that Gen-
tleman was actuated by the most anxious zeal for the
interests of his order, while the duty of their Lordships
.was. to look only to the public benefit. The Attorney-
General proposed that in all suits above 201. a barrister
should be employed, and that ie should have pre.
audience, which would lead to this in county courts, that
in every suit the employment of two law agents would
be necessary. He believed that it was for the benefit
of the public that the distinction between barrister and
attorney should be preserved, and therefore should sup-
port the amendment of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if he under-
stood his Noble Friend aright, he had stated that se-
veral persons had signed a paper to the effect that there
should be no intervention between barrister rind client.
Lord BROUGHAM—That the enactment of '46
should be repealed for the purpose of giving a bar to
the county courts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—If he untherstood his
Noble Friend aright, there were 100 barristers who had
signed, and 150 who had not signed, that paper.
Lord BROUGHAM—His Noble Friend had quite
misconceived him, The facts were quite the reverse.—
(A laugh.) His statement was that 150 had signed,
and 100 had declined to sign.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Well, there were 100
who had not signed, and he believed his Noble Friend
might have very much increased the number had he
tried.

Lord BROUGHAM—But the 100 highly approved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then, if they ap-
proved, why had they not signed? His experience led
him to believe that the bar were by no means desirous
of obtaining the protection so generously offered them
by his Noble Friend. What was his argument? That
the attorneys had entered into a combination, and de-
clared that they would not employ, either at sessions or
assizes, any barrister who appeared in a county court.
His Noble Friend's object was to protect the bar from
that combination, and his means were, to allow them to
appear in a county court without having been previously
instructed by an attorney. Why, that would oppose
them more directly to the effects of the combination. If
their Lordships calculated the number of cases carried to
the county courts, and then extracted the portion in
which counsel would be employed directly from the client,
they would find the emoluments such as to support only
a ve:ry inferior bar. 'He feared the members would
hardly belong to the more respectable grades in the
profeesion. He thought it a matter of the highest im-
portance that the barrister should not communicate
directly with his client, because if he did he must com-
municate also with the witnesses, who, as a rule, were
never admitted to consultation. He hoped it never would
be said that the House of Lords had sanctioned such a
practi
Lord BROUGHAM—Recommended by Lord Den-
man.
Tho LORD CHANCELLOR—Even recommended
by Lord Denman.
Lord BROUGHAM—And Lord Lyndhurst.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—His Noble Friend
might, quote as many more names as he liked, but he
feared' that if barristers were permitted to act without
the intervention of attorneys in these courts, they would
have a class of men frequenting the neighbouring public.
houses, and picking up grounds of defence in all sorts of
impossible cases, and setting up claims which never could
have entered any honest head. Was not such a state of
things calculaked to tarnish the administration of justice?
He believed that if the proposed privilege were conferred
it would prove a serious mischiet both to the public and
the bar.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had been totally misap-
prehended by his Noble Friend. His Noble Friend's
argument was based on the assumption that he (Lord
Brougham) was an advocate for barristers going into all
had
courts without the intervention of attorneys. Set at
proposed no such thing, he had merely proposed
they should be protected from a gross and crying
Friend
One word as to the result. Did his Noble
n who were
hundreds of respectable nao
down and
abuse.
pose that the
victims to this combination would quietly lie
die, without an attempt to defend the
uette of the au-
they might reconsider and alter the
or
less a matter of
• courts. Etiquette was
perior iikel
re
that
ly
eintisgelves? Perhaps
finding them-
fancy, and it was exceeding
selves shut out by statute fromthe en-
all participation in the
. tion
would reconsider
business of those courts, the Yt: in the superior courts.
ht a
quette which alone ties thew
hP
t et
ven his Noble Friend
If they did so, he thong
would hardly venture to legislate against their deter-
would
The clause proposed by the Lord Chancellor was then
reporte d to the Rouse.
agreed to, and the Bill was
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 17.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before
Four o'clock.

PETITIONS.
Mr. MOODY presented a petition from Kerry, pray-
ing for an amendment of the Irish poor. laws.
Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from Berwick
against the post horse duty.
Lord C. MANNERS presented a petition from a place
in Leicestershire, praying that the annual grant to May-
nooth may be abolished.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from
Marylebone, praying for the repeal of the
,p2;lt-h
duty. Also a petition from the solicitors 0! Kentish-
town, praying for the repeal of the attorneys certificate
duty.
Mr. CARDWELL presented a petitionnefirdoem. Brighton
in favour of the enfranchisement of °
Mr. COBDEN presented a petifn favour of secular ioeP
nfrom the Sunday-
school teachers of Manchester
education.
Mr. M. GIBSON Presennteetd a petition from Wisbeach
of the Stamp authorities,
ent of the jaw relating to
of the coendndm
and praying for an am
newspaper stamps-
TAX. 4 ON KNOWLEDGE.
g re notice that this day fortnight
Mr. M. GI.B6°N is motion in reference to the paper
he should bring onin
p_imposed on newspapers.
duties and the sta
THE MILITIA.
Lord PALMERS fON gave notice that on bringing
up the report of the resolutions agreed to in Committee
esterday, with regard to the amendment of the Militia
Laws, he should move to add after the word " amend-
ment" the word " consolidate." He should also move to
word." local" with the view theg a mea-
omit the
sure brought in_ which shall prf,virk% means of dc-
alers, ju thy untort!thato evor.:l of v ae, not to Ei:giaLd
only but for all parts of the United Kingdom.—(Cheers.)
MAYNO 0 TH.

Mr. SPOONER postponed his motion on the subject
of Atynooth to thin day fortnight,.