The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-17 00:00:00

SECOND EDITION

qh.
etitertilt t t

LONDON, SATURDAY. JANUARY 17, 1846.

Two questions are involved in the recent exclusion
of Mr. HAYWARD from the Bench of the Inner
Temple—a public question and a personal question ;
and though the public question is of far the greater
importance, it would stand but little chance of en-
gaging attention but for the personal question which
is bound up with it. A case of individual wrong
goes straight to the feelings of every man, while few
will trouble themselves for an abstract principle. If
the gross injustice which has been done to Mr.

HAYWARD be the means of abolishing the pre-
sent no less absurd than odious mode of
electing to the Bench of the Inner Temple,
that gentleman may rejoice at having been the
passive instrument of a much-needed reform; and in
no case whatever can he have more to regret than the
inconvenience inseparable from any dispute, even
where one is entirely in the right ; for this incident
has only served to call forth from all quarters expres-
sions of sympathy and respect, and journals differing
most widely in politics agree to condemn, while none

Is found to defend or even extenuate the exclusion.

A pamphlet which has been circulated, entitled
Remarks on the Mode of Electing Benchers at the
Inner Temple," gives the following account of the
cause of quarrel, Anno Domini 1832 : —" A. complained
that B. had mentioned a report concerning him. B.
replied that it had been current so long, that he really
could not say that he had not, though he had no
recollection of the fact. A. named C. (one of B's
friends), as his witness, and thereupon 8., supposing
he must have mentioned it es C. said so, expressed
his regret, and promised to contradict it ; but, on
being required to give up an authority, or name
some other person who had mentioned it, positively
refused, and expressed himself ready to abide by the
alternative. A. went away apparently satisfied. Each
party had a friend present, and their evidence
must be held conclusive. Both the friends,
agree that B. acted with spirit and propriety, and that
it was not even alleged that B. had mentioned the
report otherwise than inadvertently, if at all. At this
distance of time, it is quite immaterial who mentioned
a current rumour inadvertently ; but C. states posi-
tively that he never saw A. on the subject ; that his
name was used without his knowledge and much to
his regret; and all that he ever said (to a third person)
was, that he had heard the report at a party in 8.115

chambers."
And so A., having (let us not inquire how) become a
Queen's Counsel and Bencher of the Inn er Temple before
8., magnanimously wreaks his vengeance' of thirteen
years' keeping on 8., by blackballing him for a post
of professional dignity, the mode of electing to which,
we venture to say, would have been long ago altered,
if the use of the monstrous power now given to one
black ball had been supposed possible. We may
mention that the above account of the quarrel is

founded on a printed statement of facts which has
been widely circulated by Mr. HAYWARD, with his
name appended, and to which no answer has been
made.

If Parliament once begins to inquire into legal
abuses, there is no saying where it may stop ; and
the transition will not be difficult from the election of
Queen's Counsel to be Benchers to the prior process
of manufacturing Queen's Counsel. Many a time
has public feeling been outraged, and an injury in-
flicted on professional prospects, by the refusal of the
rank of Queen's Counsel to a political opponent of the
Government, whose professional claims are undis•

puted. There is no defence of this system of mak-
ing the distribution of professional honour dependent
on politics. Yet it is no Lord Chancellor's fault :
established custom binds each succeeding occu-
pant of the Woolsack to follow in the
path of his predecessors. But discussion
must seal the fate of so objectionable a system ; and
as we have said before, if discussion of legal abuses
begin, there is no saying where it may end. There
would, indeed, be something of just retribution in the
late insult to Mr. HAYWARD leading to inquiry into
certain recent appointments of Queen's Counsel.
We regret to learn that the appearance in the pub-
lic papers of the requisition to the Benchers of the
Inner Temple, which we printed yesterday, some days
after its first appearance, is thought likely to be of
some disservice to Mr. HAYWARD'S cause; the docu-
ment having been published in the first instance,
to the great surprise of the gentlemen who have
signed it, before it was presented to the Benchers.
We trust, however, that the Benchers will be above
allowing this extraneous accident to affect their de-
cision in a case of individual hardship. We are
assured that none of the promoters of the requisition
published it, and that all greatly regretted #eeing it