The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-26 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 h3lding 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 ro-
fused to be called to tho bench by the benchers of one of the
inns of court. The inns were subject 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, tho 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. It must 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. He 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 in 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 were now
monopolised by the benchers.

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
desired 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 had been brought against him. But
Mr. James never required that the proceedings should
be published. The benchers asked Mr. James if he wished
to hhve 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 bonchers. 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 any 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 case, but no doubt there were friends of his who were,
and who would no doubt give explanation.
Mr. ROEB LICK seconded the amendment.

Mr. CRAUFORD considered that the bill
.ought to ba
read a second time, in order that it might be discussed in
committee.

Mr. M. SMITH opposed the bill.
Mr. IV I.LTER suggested the withdrawal of the bill for
the present.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the bill. Ho
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, ho 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-
suasion must be, he was glad to think that it would result in
some benefit by bringing the subject of this bill before the
house. He hoped that the hen, and learned baronet would
not retire from this measure without promising that ho
would bring the subject before the house. He did not
.5.2.1 r ill at f• aystom Weui Oath ithiaer
which no one can obtain impartial justice. After referring
to the charges brought against him, the hen. gentleman
said the whole matter would be brought before a judge and
jury, and if the house thought it necessary to vindicate his
character as being entitled to retain his seat as a member of
Parliament, he would be happy if a committee were ap-
pointed to investigate the charges that had been brought
against him.
Mr. BOVILL, as one of the benchers of the Middle
Temple, who had adjudicated on the case of the hon. and
learned member, said they were bound to institute an in-
quiry into the charges that were preferred against him.
The hon. and learned member had been accused of defraud-
ing Mr, Parker of £5OO, and allowed judgment to go by
default. When Mr, Parker heard that the hon. and learned
member denied the correctness of the transaction between
them, he offered to let the matter be tried by a jury.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR-1 accepted the challenge.
Mr. BOVILL—The judgment was still on the file.
Mr. SEYMOUR was understood to dissent from this
statement.
Mr. BOVILL then entered into some further details
tending to incriminate Mr. Digby Seymour.
Alter some further discussion, Sir G. Bowyer withdrew
the bill.
The house then went into committee on
house resumed.
and clauses 1 to 7 were agreed to, andthe juries Bill,
he
I was discharged.
Voluntary Commutation Bil reading of the Church Rates
Tho order for the second
committee, the other order
The Consolidated Fund
s(t0;e0OdiOs,OpOoOs)edBoilfl,
awnednttht he rho
ouug
she
adjourned at 10 minutes to 6 o'clock.