The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-25 00:00:00

INNS OF COURT GOVERNMENT BILL.

Sir G. BOWYER, on moving the second reading of
this bill, gave a very interesting and erudite account of the
origin, progress, and government of the four Inns of Court,
comprising the Temple, Lincoln's-inn, and Gray's-inn.
He said it had been contended that as these societies
were of a voluntary character there should be no
interference in their management. The duties of the
benchers were very important, because they held the keys
of admission to the bar, which was frequently the stepping-
stone to some of the most elevated political offices. Such
being the case, and holding property as they did under the
Crown, he considered that these institutions should be
amenable to the control of Parliament. He alluded to the
case of an eminent barrister who had attained to the dignity
of Queen's counsel, and who some time back had been re-
fused to be called to the bench by the benchers of one of the
inns of court. Tho inns were sul ject to the visitation of
the judges, to whom the gentleman in question appealed,
and they investigated his case. He was unable, however,
to obtain any redress, for the judges reported that the
benchers of the Inner Temple, the institution in
question, had a right to regulate the number
of those whom they should call to the bench, but at the
same time they recommended that they should not exercise
their privilege too stringently. No doubt his hon. and
learned friend behind him (Mr. Bovill), who had under-
taken the defence of these inns, would quote the authority
of the commissioners who sat in 1845, and like Cicero, pro
domo sue, make an eloquent oration on the class of which
he was a member. "flutist be remembered that the com-
missioners were either benchers, or were expecting to be-
come so; but, at the same time, they suggested that there
might be improvement in the management of these insti-
tution. Ho did not for an instant impute to the benchers any

improper application of the funds entrusted to their care ;
but not only did he object to the arbitrary power of the
benchers, but he contended that there had been extrava-
gance in regard to what were called the embellishments of

the Inner Temple. Some of these ornaments, as they were
called, were of a most ridiculous character; and, as an in
stance of this, he alluded to a statue of a knight templar in
the Inner Temple, who was represented with a bridle in his
right hand and flourishing a sword ie his left. (Laughter.)
The chief object of this bill was to extend a control over the
admission of students to the members of the inns generally,
and to give them also other functions which wore now
monopolised by the benehers.
Mr. COLLIER moved, as an amendment, that the bill
be read a second time that day three months. He believed
that, with the exception of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey,
the persons whose cases had been tried before the benchers
1 desieed the secrecy which it was now proposed to abolish.
in the case of Mr. Edwin James, so far from his objecting
to the jurisdiction of the benchers, he (Mr. Edwin James)
wrote to the benchers to say that he had been calum-
niated, and that he would be able to disprove the
charges that Lad been brought against him. But
Mr. James never required that the proceedings should
be published. The benchers asked Mr. James if he wished
to have any number of his friends present during the inves-
tigation, and a shorthand writer attended by the direction,
not of Mr. James, but of the benchers. A printed copy of
the evidence, which had been taken down fully, was sup-
plied to Mr. James, who said that if the benchers
would not decide in his case he would retire from
the practice of the bar in this country. He
never heard any journal or sny person assert that
the conduct of the benchers was unjust in the case of Mr.
James. As regarded another barrister, who was a mem-
ber of the house, he was not present at the investigation of
his ease, but no doubt there were friends of his who were,
and who would no doubt give explanation.
Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the amendment.
Mr. CRAUFORD considered that the bill ought to be
read a second time, in order that it might be discussed in
committee.
Mr. M. SMITH opposed the bill.
Mr. WALTER suggested the withdrawal of the bill for
the present.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the bill. He
said that there had been no representation or petition from
the legal body in favour of this bill, and from the frequent
communion which took place between the members of that
profession, he thought he would have become acquainted
with the fact if they were favourable to the measure.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR said be was placed in a situa-
tion of great difficulty. If he remained silent those who
read the reports of this debate might put an unjust con-
struction on that silence. However painful to him this dis-
eussion must be, he was glad to think that it would result in
some benefit by bringing the oubject of this bill before the