The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-19 00:00:00

stood when the term " barrister" or "barrister-at-

law" was used in any Act, that it did not include
Irish as well as English barristers—indeed, the Le-
gislature must mean by the term persons who are
competent to practise before its own tribunal, in any
of its branches, in that capacity; and it is now uni-
versally acknowledged that an Irish barrister is qua-
lified to appear at the bar of either House. But it is
important, not only that the privilege should exist,
but that it should be acted on and carried into prac-
tical effect—not merely that parties should be eligible
to office, but that there shouldbe a reciprocal opening
of the Courts in each country.
There can be no sufficient reason urged against
the admission of the Irish bar to a full participation
in all the rights and privileges conceded to their
brethren and vice versa. The privileges of the bar
are admittedly not for their own benefit, but for that
of the suitors in the several courts, of the clients who
may have occasion to avail themselves of their ser-
vices. The great ob'ect to be achieved in either
country is clearly to obtain persons of competent
ability and learning, and of unblemished reputation.
The Irish bar will not be found wanting in any of
these respects. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, a witness
whose authority as to legal endowments will scarcely
be impeached in this country, has borne the strongest
testimony to the merits cf the Irish bar, and stated
that in the depth of their research, the extent of their
attainments, and in the skill, talent, and integrity
with which they applied their knowledge, they were
second to none. A student in Ireland is subjected to
as many tests, before he is admitted to practice, as in
this country ; nay, more, he is compelled to become
a member of one of the Inns of Court in London,
and thus, in addition to the legal education afforded
in Ireland, to go through everything that is required
as a qualification for the English bar. Why, then,
should a system be kept up that perpetuates differences
between the nations that it is in every respect de-
sirable to have abolished? It is not for the benefit of
the suitors. If the Irish bar are so far beneath the
English, as alleged by some, they will speedily find
their proper level, and the English practitioners will
have little reason to shrink from the competition ;
nay, they would be the great gainers by the change,
for an extensive field would be opened to them, in
which they would speedily attain the pre-eminence
due to their superior acquirements.
The opinions of Lord CAMPBELL on this subject
are well known. That distinguished lawyer has long
expressed the greatest anxiety for the abolition of
every distinction. In his evidence before the Com-
mittee on Legal Education he says, in answer to
question 3,869, "My own opinion is, that there
ought to be one bar for England and Ireland, and
that a barrister who practises in England should be
entitled to practice at the Irish bar also." And to
the question (3,874), "Do you think it would be
advisable also that English judges should go the Irish
circuits, and Irish judges the English ?" he says, " I
feel that so strongly, that I have several times pro-
posed in the House of Lords that the system should
be adopted." Lord WELLESLEY was of opinion that
it would tend very much to benefit the United
Kingdom if there were one bar for England
and Ireland ; and that there should be an in-
terchange—" that English barristers should be
appointed as Irish judges and Irish should be
appointed as English judges." And, again
_

when asked, " whether there was not a considerable
difference in the law, and the practice of the law in
the two countries, and whether that would not inter-
fere with the interchange," replied, " I do not at all
agree in that, the difference between them is quite
trifling. The common law of England and Ireland
is the same, and there is no material difference in the
practice." To this convincing testimony, which must
be conclusive to every unprejudiced mind, we may
add that of Lord BROUGHAM, who states that "he
can see no objection to allow English and Irish bar-
risters to practise reciprocally in each country," and
that it might tend very much to correct the Irish
practises. His Lordship adds, "lam a great friend
to sending over from time to time an English Judge
to preside on the Irish bench, and I should
see no objection whatever to bring over an
Irish Judge occasionally to this country. I
see no objection whatever to that interchange."
Having thus stated the opinion of the two greatest
legal reformers of modern days, we shall quote those
of a sound practical man of business, a gentleman to
whom we have already alluded in favourable terms,
and whose character and reputation is well known in
both countries. Mr. PEIRCE MAHONT says—" I hope
I shall live to see the time when English barristers will
be made Irish Judges, and Irish barristers English
Judges; the more the distinctions of country are
broken, the better for the United Kingdom."
It is unnecessary to multiply proofs of the pro-

priety and expediency of the change. In fact, there
is nothing that can be urged in opposition, except the
advantage of preserving a monopoly to a certain class—
a sort of protection to native English industry, which
will not, we are sure, be resorted to by any of the
high-minded or able men that adorn the English bar.
We are sure that they would not interpose such an
objection to the adoption which would be for the
general benefit, even if their personal interests were
more deeply involved than could possibly be the case.

The Madrid mail of the 12th had not reached Paris
when the post left on Saturday.

We have received the Paris papers of Friday and
Saturday.
On Saturday the Court of Peers pronounced
judgment in the case of General CUBIERES and his
co-accused. They are all found guilty of corruption.
TESTE is sentenced to three years' imprisonment, to
deprivation of civil rights, and to pay a fine of
94,000 f., besides refunding the 95,000 f. he had re-
ceived as a bribe, and which sum is confiscated for
the benefit of the hospitals. CUBIERES is deprived
of his civil rights and condemned to pay a fine of
10,000 f.; and PARMENTIER has had passed on him a
similar sentence, with the addition of being mulcted
in all the costs of the trial. M. PELLAPRA was
expected to arrive in Paris on Sunday in order to
surrender and take his trial.

The Reform Banquet at the Chateau Rouge still
continues to be the great subject of comment in all
the Paris papers. Had the Minister who inspires the
Journal des Debats been wise he would have adhered
to his first resolution, and have made no allusion
whatever to the matter. In the exuberance of his
dynastic loyalty, however, he could not resist com-
menting on the omission to drink the health of Louis
PHILIPPE, and stigmatising that meeting, in
consequence, as one compromising public order.
This attack has brought forth the following crushing
reply from the National:—
" All is lost. Public order is compromised. Anarchy
is raising its hideous head. We are rolling from abyss
to abyss to the follies of communism. The question be-
fore us relates to the ruin of society! It is the Journal
des Debats which this morning utters this cry of alarm
—not apropos of complaint—not with respect to the
scandalous trial—not with regard to the ignoble pro-
ceedings of the Government. No; those are great, pure,
and glorious! But the Reformist banquet of the Chateau-
Rouge, that is the destruction society! That is the
commencement of the abyss! MM. Duvergier de Hau-
reanaisonsttinus epteilrnrLogpeon colleagues,M a l 1 ey i 1
havele, 0 du iel
el oun
gßuairl rt
yo t,e
fa nt
hde eiingfhatmy
y. fivet
east a banquet
edl
cunyeaut whichfigure tthee
yourself
helfualstihmwil'amsr
horror? The King, the living and incarnate law! At
that impious meeting it was preferred to toast the
sovereignty of the people and the revolution of July .
What abomination! The guests dared to utter ardent
wishes for the reform of a legislation which has given
us 225 satisfied Deputies, comprising M. Dugalie!
What oblivion of every morality! They went further
—they spoke of the rights of those excluded from
political power, of the tifferings and the merits of all
those citizens whose political laws pay labour by ingra-
titude. They appealed to the justice and the solicitude
of public opinion against those odious iniquities of social
organization its opposition to the most numerous and ill-
treated classes. in that assembly of privileges, in the
name of the census, all sentiments were in accord to
proclaim the necessity for modifying the political instru-
ment which supports, propagates, and increases all
disorders. And, as if all these facts were not sufficient
to characterise that infernal meeting, those present
carried their audacity so far as to propose, a toast to the
press'.—and
they did not drink to the lung! Our feel-
ings become excited when we tbinl: of that. ignominy!
KHionwg,scohueldultul.? Duvergier dine dpinepeutlisthobuetunddruauukdinegr
.t.h
the
penalty of outlawry to commence by a monarchical
benedicite? As soon as they happen to meet, in an
official assembly or not, they are obliged to renew
their oath of fidelity and homage to his Majesty,
even should they expose that Majesty to receive
the. worst compliment ! The elect of the legal
n.atio ar, conseuent, regarded as a flock of func-
tionan. ries! e
They are cowards o r poltroons because they
associate with the most select of the electors of Paris,
I who, leaving aside men, wish to occupy themselves