The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-01 00:00:00

___________—.
Tilt, Great Yorkshire Srake (50 do°')
hv V. ' 8 s C 1101naes's
- ‘.• Watson'sßesLlution and Mr. G.
Motley',
were divided
The Lendesborough Stakes were won by Mr. Fobert's
Reath,r
Jock; Mr p
‘\ Bailey's The Three Blues ran u NOIITH BERWICK AND DIRLE lON, OCT. 28.
J.TT,liebs(lh St.
Sta Leger Stakes (26 puppies) were won by Mr.
e North
6ill's nley •, Mr. Ewi,,g's Jolly Miller rsu up.
Berwick Stakes, filr all ages (12 dogs),
Pero won by Mr. liwiog's Equinox and Exotic.
The Champion Stakes were won by Mr. J. Gibson
411 Chemist' Mr. H. Deans na Auricula ran up.
HUNTING APPOINTMENTS.
farrow.
Bryton. harrs., Mon. Patcham; Wed. Thunders
"crow; Iri yke—lCli,
Thu Brookside harrs , Mon. Newmarket-hill; Thurs.
Telscombe Tye-10i. .
litiThe Crawley anu Hor.sham hds., Mon. Crawley vini-
c") Wrd 13utler'•il reen Cuckfiehl; Fri. Buck Bar o
west Grinstead-10.4 '
to,TdheiToiiv.erton hds.,•Mon. Spurwey Mill;
b The East Essex hds Tues. Mark's Hall; Thurs. Bird-
Thurs. Wins-
r/tblic,t11111; ai. Grzi:n. Dragon--l 0 .
4-5,x Union lids., Wed. Furlergb Wash;
S'''n'ili Hatiaiazaelii Ty
dit'll)iit .c.outli. ,4tatx 1,41-",,7ru,..;, Tilbury Mill; Sat.
The
tex---11,
,i
~.L!
tfrouble House; Hand ;
v0...,..._Duke of BQaufort's hds., Mon. Cross
Sal. Pad-
iill;
„Craven hds., Monad.. KFrillogxtfleilldS;t.
i'; Fri, Field-ridge; Sat. Liley-10,7‘N. 'ed.
Michael.
the Somerset
Abbey;
1,1, ,erset Subscripton bds., Tues. Hinton
Hampstead
i. yongleat--101.
X.V4.

MARKET RACES.
(THIS DAY.)

TUE SUN,

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM TUE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TIMES.—It the omnibus proprietors bad got pos.-
seosion of a particular line, and should, in order to
avert a threatened competition, offer to pay the com-
petitors one-half of the gross proceeds of his bus:nesse
we should naturally inter that such e person was
making a very good thing of it at the public expense,
and regard such a compact as little else than an
agreement to share in the profits of extortion and
plunder. We should desire that such a contract
should not be carried out, and should wish to see the
exorbitant profits of the monopolist restrained within
a fair limit by wholesome competition. The attorneys
are alarmed at a rumoured combination among the
barristers to take business in the County Courts with-
out inflicting on the client the needless expense of
employing one man to employ another, and, in ordsr
to prevent them from carrying their threat into exe-
cution, effcr to halve the proceeds with them. Surely
these gentlemen must have been driving a very com-
fortable trade when its profits admit of so very sweeple
g
a icheotioe, and die public will he much to blame it
it do not itself oi the Idl:, and secure ttl itself
slil
ome sbape or other emeneipetion titan the grevions
to; which tie lower branch of the lee.l pio!ession
have hitherto levied upon it. The attorneys heve
heretofore enjoyed the monopoly of giving legal ad-
vice in the first instance ; they are the janitors of the
temple of the law, and it is only by satisfying their
demands that the laity are admitted to consult the
oracle within. The supposition seems to have been
that enough could be extracted from the public to
support two persons, and that it was therefore neces-
sary to divide between them the work which could
have been better executed by one. Now, however,
that the payment has fallen below this comfortable
standard a struggle seems likely to ensue between the
two branches of the profession somewhat analogous
to that on going between landlords and tenants. The
landlord endeavours to persuade the tenant that the
loss occasioned by diminished prices must be deducted
from profits, while the tenant, with much more justice,
maintains that the deduction should fall on rent. In
this struggle it is easy to predict that the advantage
will ultimately remain with the tenant, be-
cause it is through his hands that the
landlord receives his produce in the shape of rent,
and that share will in the long run only be paid
after sufficient profit has been reserved. Just
so, there is no doubt that in the struggle pending be-
to
tweeu barrister and attorney, supposing the etiquet
of the profession to remain the same, the advantage
must remain with the latter ; the attorney will
care of himself first, and if any loss is to be sus-
tained, will be sure to throw it rather on fees than on
costs. Thus the barrister will gradually be ground
down, his independence destroyed, his social position
deteriorated, till talent, despairing of remuneration,
shall be obliged to seek some other field for its exer-
tions. We do not wonder that with such a prospect
before them the junior bar should combine to rescind
the rule of etiquette which forbids them to commu-
nicate with their client directly, and requires the
intervention of an attorney. In such an under-
taking we wish them all possible success, because
their interests are identical with those of the public
at large. Place a person requiring legal advice as
near as possible in the centre of PLIMp•COIat.
Within twenty yards of the spot where be stands
are dozens of clear-headed men, thoroughly versed
in the law, who would think one guinea, oat
most two, an ample reward for the most complete
solution which industry and acuteness can give
thtoe
his difficulties. Why does he not, then,
ente
first staircase, knock at the first door, and receive
from the inmate, in exchange for his guinea, the mo-
dicum of information he requires? Simply because
such a process would be making the law far too easy
end accessible, would be a sparing of the Egyptians,
and an omission to levy the toll which the British pub-
lic has hitherto been compelled to pay. Our querist
must leave the learned purlieus of Pump -court, and
betake himself to his attorney in the City, to whom
he must propound the question which, but for insu-
perable etiquette, would have been already asked and
answered. The attorney writes down the question
and the statement, transmits it to Pump-court, and
returns the answer of the barrister to his
the cl ie nt
se
The barrister gets his guinea; theopinion, the only
client, if ca
has been stated rightly, gets his
difference being that he has to pay seven orr
m
hi eight
guineas more to the attorney for asking
fo
a question which be could just as well
takave he
asked for himself'. Suppose a person wants to a
house ; the attorney, if he is a reasonable ma,
l ease
will
prepare the lease for sixteen guineas, but thant
a barrister has probably drawn who thought himself
handsomely paid with two ; the fourteen guineas are
the toll paid for access to legal skill—the tax levied
on the public for the maintenance of the etiquette of
the bar. Now, we say it is the interest of the
that pub
theylic
that this state of things should cease, and
should be allowed, if they are so minded, to go straight
to their counsel, without being forced through the
expensive labyrinth of en attorney's office. We say
that the rule which compels the paying ten guineas
for having indirectly that which could be obtained
directly for one is contrary to the principle of politi-
cal economy which requires all commodities to be
produced as cheaply as possible, and regards artificial
and factitious dearness as a tax levied on the many for
the benefit of the few. Let any lande d proprietor
consider the legal expenses of his estate for a single
) ear, and r
fleet how much of them would have been
saved had he been able to go directly to first-rate
legal authorities, without being obliged
w to
ill emsee -
ploy the intervention of an attorney,
and he
at once the justice of our rearks. We say further,
th h
at in this matter te interemsts of the public and the
bar are identical, and that by altering their etiquette
they would not only confer a great benefit on us, but
on themselves. The most honourable and responsi
ble duty which a lawyer exercises is that of giving
advice; the duties of an advocate or of a manager of
the details of practice and business are, compared
with it, mean and technical. Yet this, the highest
function of the lawyer, the bar of England have
abdicated, from a mistaken feeling of delicacy, and
leaving to be exercised by the attorneys, have con-
fined themselves to the lower walk of advocacy, or
to the mere answering of such questions as the at-
torney may choose to place before them. It was not
thus that Sceevola, Hortensius, or Cicero dealt with
their clients, but in this matter the poorest com-
moner in England is more exclusive that the proudest
noble of Rome. By this voluntary withdr
profession
the bar has sacrificed to a phantom its considera-
tion, its emoluments, and, what is of infinitely
more consequence, its honour and independence. By
obliging the client in the first instance to place him-
self in the hands of the attorney, it has vested in him
the patronage of the profession ; it is only through
the good-will of that powerful class that a barrister
can hope to succeed. If they smile upon him, he
flourishes ; if they frown upon him, he is ruined.
The attorneys have very naturally become conscious
of their power, and have brought up their own rela-
tions to the bar as the future recipients of those good
things whose distribution etiquette has forced upon
them. The bar is ceasing to be a profession, and be-
corning an inheritance. Mr. A. holds the brief for
the plaintiff by descent, inasmuch as he is the son of
the plaintifrs attorney. Mr. B. is seized of the
brief for the defendant in right of his wife,
who is the daughter of the defendant's solicitor.
It is now generally admitted that without strong
interest success at the bar is not to be hoped
for, and that interest is becoming daily more
and more restricted to the friends of attorneys, or
of those persons who are able to influence them. To
this cause, which reduces the effective competition of
the bar to a very small number of its members, we
must trace that mediocrity of talent so generally
complained of. We have no Scotts and Erskines,
because we have no longer the free competition which
forms them. For this state of things the attorneys,
who have besty turned the dvannotages of their posi-
tion to the account, are a
in way to blame. It
is the bar which has brought these evils on itself, by
refusing to exercise the functionthe profession a duty
f adviser, and forc-
ing on the other branch of
which necessarily placed them at its mercy. It is
the interest of the bar to reconquer its in n
depebndencade ;
it is the interest of the public to obai thebest -
vice with the least delay, and on the cheapesterms.
Both these objects can be attained bhery teepee n
of a single rule of etiquette. We therefore heartily
wish success to those gentlemen who are said to be
combined for this object, and trust that in this, as
the in
many other matters, the County Courts may lead
way to the improvement of Westminster-hal
amend
.
CHRONICLE—Lord Brougham's Act to
the Law of Evidence comes into operation to-dteay ;
and as it will unquestionably affect
alteration in the practice of our superiverory m
courts of
justice, we cannot serve the public better than by
a arial
drawing their attention shortly to some of its most
important provisions. By far the most remarkable
sectiontli iu the Act is the second, which_th-
renders every party to a suit and n exceptions, which we shall iresently mention—
whose behalf it '
behalf,et*
give evidence on his own compellable to
results we
testify on behalf of a and
this change in the lawnyevery person on
of the other parties. 1-i,b,
cannot
entertain‘Ail
t. bene-
ficial In courts
of law, will net
of exclusion, could which'
only enable IDl:ny honest persons
to establish just claims,
with any hope
of neversuccess have been brought to trial
the one hand, to enforce under the old system
but it will deter at least an
equal number of dishonest
.stfrnen from attempting, on
fraudulent dfmand, and on
the other to set up a fictitious
own d
jury cannot fail to operate strongly.n
that a defence. The knowledge
story to the Court and
went to the suitor who is th as an encourage-
witness of truth;
while the dread of cross-examination,e
quent exposure, will have a and of copse'
tendency
to check litigation in cases where a verdict can only

courts
bturotsoafineegduityth,rotuhgehsantlliee ilnield.aiunm of perjury. In
tages
willarise,so
far as respects the power now first granted to parties
of giving testimony in their own favour; while de-
fendants, who under the former law would have been
forced to file cross bills for the purpose of " scraping
the conscience" of plaintiffs, will be enabled to effect
that desirable object without having recourse to this
dilatory and costly proceeding. The exceptions to
the general rule, which makes parties witnesses, are
contained in the third and fourth sections of the Act,
and are fourfold :-1. No person can be compelled to
answer any question tending to criminate himself.
2. No person " who, in any criminal proceeding, is
charged with the commission of any indictable
offence, or any offence punishable on summary
conviction," is competent or compellable to testify
for or against himself. 3. Husband and wives
are neither competent nor compellable to give
evidence for or against each other in any criminal
proceeding; and lastly, the Act does not apply
to any proceeding instituted in consequence of
adultery, or to any action for breach of premise of
mbrriuge. The great exct:rion, above .sisal, shit
,111-
trOdLICA into the Act by the liuuee of Lord,, at the
pressing instance of Lord Truro, and ought most as
surediy never to have been inserted ; for, as Lord
Campbell pointed out at the time, it is merely calcu-
lated to raise doubts where none should exist. By
the general law of the land, every witness is pro-
tected from answering questions where the answers
would tend either to criminate himself or to expose
him to any penalty, forfeiture, or ecclesiastical cen-
sure.is obvious
; and as the Act simply makes parties witnesses,
obvious that, without any special enactment, they
might have claimed the same protection as all other
persons under examination. But, how stands the
matter now ? The Act states that they cannot be
forced to criminate themselves. Good ; but can they
be compelled to disclose what will render them liable
to penalties, forfeitures, or spiritual reprimands ?
Is the maxim, " ezpressuni facit cessare taciturn,"
to apply, or can the party give the go-by to the
statute, and rest on the common law ? The Lord
Chancellor, aided by his new lieutenants, the
Lords Justices of Appeal, will probably, ere long,
have to settle this knotty point, and we shall be anxi-
ous to see whether his judicial and legislative opinions
coincide. The second exception, which still leaves
defendants in our criminal courts, and parties charged
before magistrates with minor otTeuces, incompetent
to testify on oath either for or against themselves, is
certainly a prudent, and, fur the present at least, pro-
bably a wise provision ; although we are well aware
that many sensible men, and among others the Re-
corder of London, entertain a different opinion. The
third exception, which relates to married people, has
been misunderstood by more than one writer on the
subject, and it has been suggested that this exception,
when read in connexion with the second section,
raises a doubt, by implication, whether, in civil suits,
wives are not rendered by the Act admissible wit-
nesses either for or against their husbands. In reality,
however, no doubt exists. It was certainly in-
tended, in the first instance, that wives should
be made competent witnesses, and a clause
to that effect was embodied in the Bill ; but
this provision, though sanctioned by the Commons,
met with so strenuous an opposition in the Lords
that it was withdrawn at the last moment. The Act,
therefore, finally passed in a form which left the law
of husband and wife precisely where they found it—
excepting only in those few cases where both of them
are either parties to the record, or persons on whose
behalf an action, suit, or other proceeding is brought
or defended. Whenever this state of things occurs,
the wife, as a party, or an interested person, may,
under the express terms of the second section, give
evidence for or against her husband, and the hus-
band, in like manner, may give evidence for or
against his wife ; and it was merely because a
married couple occasionally find themselves aisle by
side in a dock—being both of them parties to the
same indictment—that the exception which pro-
hibits them from testifying, under these circum-
stances, for or against each other, was retained in
the Act, although the general enactment respect-
ing husbands and wives was struck out. had it not
been for this exception, a wife, conjointly indicted
with her husband for murder, might have been called
by the prosecutor to establish the man's guilt, and
the man might have been examined by the counsel
for the defence to prove the woman's innocence. The
wide distinction established by the Act between those
wives who are parties to the record, and those who
are not, will doubtless call into play much profes-
sional maneeuv ring in that class of cases, well known
to lawyers, in which it is optional with the plaintiff
whether the wife be joined with the husband, or
whether the action be brought by or against him
alone. If the lady's testimony be required by the
plaintiff she will be made a party; if her evidence be
inconvenient, her name will be omitted from the
record. The clause which excludes from the
operation of the Act all proceedings insti-
tuted in consequence of adultry, and all
actions for breach of promise of marriage,
was obviously dedicated by feelings of deli-
cacy ; and, although it may be questionable
whether such feelings ought to interfere a ith the as-
certainment of truth and the administration of justice,
few people will feel inclined to quarrel with the ex-
ception on that ground. It has been objected to this
clause, that by using the words " nothing herein con-
tained," instead of " nothing hereinbefore contained,"
the exception is made to extend the whole Act, and
out merely to the second section. This is no doubt
true, but the objection founded upon it is somewhat
hypercritical, as it is difficult to discover any section
in the statute, except the second, which could by pos-
sibility apply to either of the proceedings excluded.
We have hitherto been content to comment upon the
Act as it will affect the practice of our courts of
law and equity ; but they who wish thoroughly
.to
appreciate the extent of the alterations made by its
first five sections, will do well to contemplate their
bearing on proceedings instituted befor our eccle-
siastical tribunals. To those who have not con-
sidered the subject in this light, it will perhaps
scarcely have ,occurred, that, henceforth, in all suits
of nullity of marriage, whether founded on impotence
or on prior nuptials ; in all suits for;divorce by reason
of cruelty ; and in all suits for jactitation of mar-
riage, or for restitution of conjugal rights, the respec-
tive husbands and wives, whether de jure or decto
will be competent or compellable, as parties to the
suit, to be examined as witnesses on either side. Yet,
such beyond all dispute the operation of the Act,
and is
we rejoice that it is so. Again, we suspect that
it is not at present so generally known.as it ought to
be, that, in every penal proceeding which may here-
after be instituted in the Ecclesiastical Courts—as,
for instance, if the office of the judge be promoted
against a clergyman for immora.l co.nduc.t—the deifenlf-
d int will be competent to testify in his own be ,
and may even be subjected to exainationhe will not be
the part
of the prosecutor. It may be true that
compellable to answer any question ex-
compellable .s tending to .
pose him to conviction, though this is a tter whic ,
as we have before observed, is by no mattes. clear ,
but should he rely on this legal protection,
.and d.e-
cline to answer, the necessary inference against him,
raised by such conduct will indeed be st.ron. g. W e
doubt whether
the this distinction between cr.pro-
ceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts and th.oseiminal insti-
tuted at Common Law was present to the mind. s of all
our legislators when the Bill was before Parliament ;
but, however this may be, the Act can only bear the
interpretation which we have put upon it. The second
exception, as we have already stated, is confined to
persons charged either with an indictable offence, or
s itb on offence punishable on summary conviction ;
and it is quite clear that the offences over which the
Spiritual Courts have cognizance fall within neither
of these two categories. If, however, this result was
not contemplated by our lawgivers, we can only re-
gard it as a happy accident; for it will afford the
most favourable opportunity for ascertaining how far
the rule of law which closes the mouths of defendants
in our Criminal Courts can be safely relaxed. We
shall take an early opportunity of renewing our
comments on the new Law of Evidence, and of
drawing attention to the remaining sections of that
remarkable Act.

WINDSOR.—On Thursday her Majesty honoured
Mr. 11. C. Selous with a first sitting of upwards of an hour's
duration for his picture of the Inauguration of the Great
Exhibition of all Nations, which he is painting for the firm
of Messrs. Lloyd, Brothers, and Co., with a view to publica-
tion. Last week his Loyal highness Prince Albert sat on
several occasions, to the same artist, for that important his-
torical work. During this week his Royal highness the
Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal conferred the same
honour on the distinguished artist.
THE NEW LAW or EVIDENCE ACT.—To-day
(Saturday) the New Law of Evidence Act comes into force.
In all courts in the United Kingdom, with the exception of
Scotland, plaintiffs and defendants are now competent and
compellable witnesses. In the ensuing term the principle
will be carried out, and the operation of the Act anxiously
watched. The words of the statute are very comprehensive.
On the trial of any issue joined, or of any matter or ques-
tion, or in any inquiry arising in any suit, action, or other
proceeding in any court of justice, or before any person
having by law or by consent of parties, authority to hear,
receive, and examine evidence; the parties thereto and the
persons in whose behalf any such suit, action or other pro-
ceedings may be brought or defended, shall, except as herein-
after excepted. be competent and compellable to give evi-
dence, either viva voce or by deposition, according to the
practice of the court, on behalf of either or any of the parties
to the said suit, action, or other proceedings.' The excep-
tion is in criminal cases, and to proceedings instituted in con-
st (pence of adultery, end to any action for breach of promise
of Ft, arriage. In alt other actions—assault, slander, &c., the
parties can be examined, as well as in matters relating to bill
discounting. The Act extends the admission of documentary
evidence. More than ordinary interest will be attached to
the trials in the superior courts in next term, commencing
on Monday.
ArOTDECARIES' HALL.—Names of gentlemen who
ved their examination in the science and practice of me-
dicine,'s' and received certificates to practice on Thursday,
eio-b r,30, 185' I :—Charles Edward Bowman Damien, Pock-
iington, Yorkshirec;hEatsine,Jßosiriamhilllrlglhilaesm, 6;rillltuileghliaarmd ,NDuogrseentt:
Boyl?
Nk Warn Owen, Llanfair, Alontgomeryshire.
Aptigua;