The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-03 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Dissenters are, as usual, very active ;
but they are also, we lament to say, somewhat
aggressive upon the Church of England, whet,
they pass beyond the limits of their own
grievances, and talk of the union • between
Church and State, or of the Church being
" established," that is, " having property,"
which property, nor any fraction of it, never
belonged to the Dissenters, being a wrong in-
flicted upon them. At a meeting of three
denominations, held at Coventry this day week,
the same course was pursued which has by us and
other friends of a Church Establishment been ob-
jected to from the outset—namely, that of con-
founding the temporal or political Church with a
spiritual assault upon the rights of conscience.
Often enough, as it appears to us, and perhaps too
often, have we—not admitted, but—insisted on
the necessity of altering the manner in which the
Church revenue has for many centuries been
collected ; but then we have done so on
grounds and considerations which are appli-
cable exclusively to the description of that
revenue, not to the amount of it, and still
less applicable as raising a question whether
it would be right, or, morally speaking, pos-
sible, to take away the entire of that revenue
from the Church, and divert it to purposes in
which religion and education (a part of religion)
would have no sensible concern. When the
Church by its intolerance and tyranny did really
interfere with the rights of conscience, the
Gospel was on the side of those who dissented
from it—they were aggrieved for conscience'
sake, and were justified both in complaints and
in resistance. Now it is clear to most reflecting
men, that the Dissenters have been seriously
aggrieved by the state of the law as to marriage,
burial, and the registration of births. It is, to
us at least, sufficiently manifest that Dissenters
might, with great advantage to themselves and
the community, be admitted to graduate in our
national Universities. But how, or under what
pretext, they should be entitled to any part of
that revenue which has for whole centuries been
appropriated to the Established Church, or
which has been vested by the law of the land
in certain learned ecclesiastical corporations, for
the promotion of learning and religion, is to us
utterly incomprehensible. Indeed, the Dissen-
ters affirm that they would not accept any share
of the spoils of the Establishment that it
would be unscriptural, and so forth. Let us
ask, then, what is it they are driving at ?
What is their complaint, but that a large body
of religious ministers, of a persuasion dif-
ferent from theirs, are possessed of a property
which never did belong to these complainers,
and against Lie notion of using or enjoying any
particle of which they revolt with even ostenta-
tious repugnance ? As for granting to Dis-
senters the right of holding fellowships in Uni-
versities, which fellowships are supported out of
land, or other property, bequeathed or otherwise
bestowed, upon conditions of which a commu-
nion with the Established Church was invariably
one, we presume it will be allowed that no more
palpable or flagrant outrage on the rights of
private property could be perpetrated than by
such an innovation. If in the actual state of
the Universities, and distribution and application
of their funds, the objects of the founders be lost
sight of, and the funds be diverted from their
proper uses, there are tribunals in the kingdom
to apply a fitting remedy ; so with the revenues
of the Church, there is a power in whose hands
the redress of any wrong must be vested. But
the wrong itself is one inflicted on the nation
generally, and more especially on the members
of the Church of England, who are imme-
diately interested in all Church reforms, which
the Dissenters undoubtedly are not.—Times.
We have time and space for but a line or two
in reference to the corn law meeting at the
Crown and Anchor last Friday, expressive of
our concurrence with most of the opinions ex-
pressed by Mr. Cranford, and our satisfaction at
the precise and ,s ell-authenticated tables then
produced by him, to show the enormous amount
of taxation imposed upon this country for the
exclusive profit of the corn grower, and the sad
and ruinous condition to which the poor la-
bourer was, through their influence, reduced. Mr.
Crawford proved that the daily labourer is taxed
twenty per cent. on his income for bread,whereas
the upper and middle classes are not taxed above
five per cent. He further showed a loss upon
onr exports of manufactures to the north of
Europe, amounting to not less than 30 per
cent., from the year 1817 to 1830. He proved
that the same quantity of corn which costs at
Amsterdam 42,000,0001., cannot be had in
London for less than 79,000,000/. ; and lastly,
that the produce of the taxes on foreign produce
actually paid by the people of this country, to
bolster up the agricultural interest, exceeds
7,000,000/. sterling. One almost shudders at
the iniquity of such legislation—a system which
none but barbarians would adopt, and none but
slaves would, with their eyes open; submit to.—
Times.

In relation to the important public principles
involved in the refusal of the Benchers of the
Inner Temple to call Mr. D. W. Harvey to the
Bar, we regret that our limits will not allow us
to publish the letter addressed by Mr. Harvey to
his Colchester constituents. Under the circum-
stances of injury and injustice, his indignant
feelings may be excused, but the letter strongly
represents the persecution of the Benchers' de-
cision. As we consider this question—the right
of a self-elected and irresponsible body of pro-
fessional men to sit in secret conclave on the
reputation of their fellow-citizens—to involve
civil rights of the highest importance, we make
no apology for the devotion of our columns to
:he record of all the facts and documents con-
nected with the individual case. We extract,
from a Sunday paper, the following temperate
letter addressed by Mr. Harvey to the Temple
Benchers, requesting from them a statement of
those points of his personal defence, which, as
unsatisfactory to the Benchers, may be supposed
to be the ground of their rejection of his claim
to be called :

" Great George street, Jan. 29, 1934.
" Sir—l have to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of
the decision of the Benchers on my renewed application
to be called to the Bar, by which it appears that Upon
taking into consideration the renewed application of Mr.
Daniel Whittle Harvey to be called to the Bar, and the
evidence adduced in support of tie same, and the argu-
ments of the Learned Counsel thereon—lt is unanimously
resolved, that the Bench do not see any sufficient reason
to alter the resolution of the Bench communicated to Mr.
Harvey by the Treasurer of the Society, on the 13th of
November, 1921, ageing his application to be called to
the Bar.'

" In a decision so important in its consequences as it
tespects myself, and, perhaps, not less important as it af-
fects the character of the tribunal by which it is pro-
nounced, the Bench, I fed assured, nil withhold no
information uhich can contribute to place either
me or themselves in that clear and distinct position
in which we ought to stand before ,the public.
Under this impression it is, that I complain most re-
spectfully to the Benchers that their present adverse

resolution is couched in language so indefinite as to
leave me utterly at a loss to ascertain ti e ground
on which it rests. lam informed by it that they 'do not
ste any sufficient reason to alter their resolution as corn
municated to me in Novena} er, 1821.' Am I to infer
from this that there is any deficiency in the evidence pro-
duced in respect of the charges alleged against me, as
arising either out of the case of ' Harvey v. Andrew' or
Frost v. Harvey?' If there is any such deficiency—of
which I can most truly say I am not aware—on its beina
Pointed out to me I pledge myself to supply it. I feel that
I ought to remove from the mind of the Bench any doubt
they may conscientiously entertain as to the validity of the
charges which they have been pleased to raise against my
admission to the Bar ; but, in order to do this, it is essen-
tial that I shout! be made aware of what point it is on
which the evidence has failed to satisfy them. It is one
among the many hardships to which any individual ac-
cused by you is subjected, that lie has no means of know-
ing, in the conduct of his case, what evidence is deemed
to be satisfactory, or what is regarded as inadequate; and
he is, consequently, not in a condition to perceive what
progress he has made towards producing conviction in
those by whom he is arraigned. This, it is manifest, must
throw an insurmountable difficulty on his endeavour to
obtain justice, if he is afterwards to be condemned, not
upon a specific statement of wherein his defence has failed,
hut upon an indefinite allegation on the part of his ac•.
curers, that they do not see sufficient reason to alter their
resolution to exclude him from the Bar.

" It must always be painful to any class of persons to
xercise their functions as accusers of an individual bold-

:ng a respectable station in society, and their natural
wish, as men of humane and honourable minds, will be,
that the accused should he able to acquit himself of the
chat Res alleged agsinst him. They will be pleased to see
that he has effectually repelled them, and will withhold
nothing which can assist his legitimate and fair exculpa.
firm. Assuming, as lam most willing to assume, that
this sentiment actuates the Benchers, as my accusers, I

trust you will enable me to ascertain in what it is you
consider my defence as incomplete, as, if any further
evidence is required than what is already before you, I will
moat promptly furnish it; but this, you will readily per-
ceive, it must be impossible for me to do, while what you
may still require remains known only to yourselves.
" I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your
obedient servant,
"D. W. HARVEY.
" To E. H. Lushington, Esq., Treasurer, &c."

We originally stated that our argument, on
this subject--against the Star Chamber powers of
this extraordinary censorship of private character
—is wholly independent of the particular in-
stance of rejection. We contend that if it be
expedient for the public interest to con,ider
integrity of character an essential to the call of
a barrister—an admission we are not disposed
thus broadly to allow—that there never was a
tribunal less competent to test reputation, or one
the mode of whose procedure is more odious
and unjust. In what instances, in any of
the Inns of Court, is the qualification really
exacted ? What number of bad characters, in
comparison with all other professions, have
been thus excluded from the Bar ? and how
many Attorneys and Solicitors of bad or du-
bious reputation are annually admitted on
the roll, and turned loose on society to exercise
their craft and calling ? If personal character
is to constitute part of a legal qualification to
practise the profession of the law, where are the
just limits and securities of such an inquisition ?
Dishonesty, it appears, may be an impediment to
the " call" of an individual who has duly "eaten

his terms ;" but when once in the circle of the
Bar a man who with legal impunity violates every
moral rule is not and cannot be ejected ! Such
an absurd doctrine can never be upheld. We
have never said that admission to the Bar should
be free from all control, though we verily believe
that as far as the personal character of a Bar-
rister is important, the public may be safely left
to exercise their own tests and discretion. In '
some of the learned professions it is palpably im-
portant
that a professor should be duly qualified
to discharge the duties of his calling. A medical
man, in his inexperience and ignorance, may kill
a patient, and for that there is no cure ; but the
mere personal character of a member of the
College of Surgeons or Apothecaries' Hall, is
wisely left to the discrimination of the public. If
we are to have " a trial at Bar" of all students in
the learned professions ; if all the clergy, bar-
risters, attorneys, and medical men of doubtful
and ambiguous private character are to be weeded
out of their calling in life, the learned professions
would be by no means so overloaded with prac-
titioners as at present; and nothing but a general
war would take off the surplus population. The I
inquisition, which custom and the spirit of mo-
nopoly have established in the Inns of Court,
cannot be justified by any liberal mind. We I
are assured that many of the Benchers detest
the nature of the powers reposed in them by
their self-ordained laws, and we are confident
that nothing but an esprit de corps could have
induced some Benchers of the Inner Temple to
exercise the inquisition in the present instance.
The professional bias is remarkably displayed in
a respectable legal periodical the Law Magazine,
which devotes a long article to the case of Dir.
Harvey, and confines itself to a simple issue on
the facts of the report, instead of a grave discus-
sion on the principles involved in the tribunal
and decision of the Benchers. The writer even
insinuates that there are two other verdicts im-
pugning the character of Mr. Harvey, and thus
perpetrates an additional injury on his profes-
sional character. Surely such a systematic op-
position of a single individual must have origi-
nally been founded on motives other than
those which were put forth in the assumed jea-
lousy of the character of the Bar. If we are to
tolerate such an odious case of individual oppres-
sion the consequences are obvious, the reputation
of no man is safe in a court where no accuser stands
forward,—where the doors are closed,—against
whose decision there is no real appeal, and no
possible redress. If hypocrisy is silently to wit-
ness groups of disreputable men, notoriously
practising the law, and to rejoice over one man
of accused ill character refused admission within
the precincts of the profession, all public respect
for such a profession must be speedily extin-
guished. The Bar, it is well known, have esta-
blished a variety of by-laws among its own
members whieh " send to Coventry" many in-
telligent men of small pecuniary resources who
cannot conform to them ; these are amply suffi-
cient to keep up the " caste,"without any morbid
precautions against vice breaking into the
society. We repeat that the constitution of
this tribunal of the Benchers is utterly inconsis-
tent ,with the free institutions of this country,
and that the government of the inns of courts
calls loudly for inquiry and improvement. It will
be said by their members that "it works well,"
but such has ever been the stale and
weak defence of every bad system; and we
trust that the attention of a reformed House
of Commons will be directed to an examina-
tion into the constitution and revenues of
the Inns of Court—public property for public
objects—and that lectureships may be reformed,
libraries increased and rendered more accessible
and useful, and such real qualifications of. ad-
mission be thereby insured as the spirit of the
times and the interest of the public loudly de-
mand. Different persons may view the parti-
cular circumstances of Mr. Harvey's case in

different lights, and political parties may va-
riously estimate his political character as a
public man ; but we should ill deserve the re•

putation of liberal journalists if we did not
protest against the principal and evil conse-
quences involved in the extraordinary inquisi-
torial powers claimed by the Inner Temple
Benchers, and exercised by them, be it ob-
served, in a chary and Epicurean spirit. When
such an obnoxious power is thus rarely exer-
cised, it will be considered as a mere blind to
obtain credit to the Bar for more virtue than its
members are justly entitled to, and to prevent
the public from exercising that vigilance which
they would otherwise adopt against characterless
barristers.—Morning Chronicle.
The retirement of Baron Bayley has deprived
the Bench of one of its greatest ornaments.
As a lawyer, he has scarcely left his equal behind
him for extensive knowledge of the science of
law, sound judgment, and legal acumen—as a
Judge, his patience, serene temper, and spotless
integrity rendered him a model of judicial dig-
nity and virtue. The known worth of his cha-
racter and the kindliness of his manner endeared
him to the profession. His independence,
humane disposition, and purity in the high
station which he so long filled, have made his
resignation of office a public loss, which will
not be easily repaired. The sincere regret and
esteem of the Bar and of society follow him
into private life, and his name shall henceforth
be enrolled among those of the righteous Judges
who have held the balance with equal hand,
and " seasoned justice with mercy." The
writer of this never having had any intercourse
with " the venerable personage to whom this
tribute of respect is paid, except in the discharge
of professional duties, cannot be accused of that
personal bias which sometimes unconsciously
gives to the portrait which the hand of friend Ship
sketches the colours of the flatterer. It is of as
great moral utility and national importance that
incorruptible virtue in high places, and more espe-
cially on the judgment-seat, should be held
up to public admiration, as that vice and
corruption, when clothed in the robes of power
should be exposed, scorned, and detested. The
brand which impartial history has stamped on
the memory of a Scroggs or a Jeffries is a warn-
ing to all who might be induced to pervert the
administration of justice to the oppression of the
people. It is the final and irreversible sentence
of a tribunal, before which they who judge
others must themselves be judged, and from
which they can have no appeal on earth. As
there is no infamy greater than the perversion of
the laws to the gratification of the passions, or
the insuring the personal advantage of those
who administer them, so there is no praise too
great for the conduct of those appointed guar-
dians of the laws who make their office reverenced
by the purity and clemency with which they
exercise it, who show in all their judicial actions
that neither fear nor favour taint their decisions,
and that they offer from their hearts a pure
allegiance to time majesty of justice. After what
we have stated, we need not say that Baron
Bayley was of the latter class of Judges ; and
though some have displayed more splendid
talents, and others have been clothed with
more of worldly honours, none have merited a
purer fame for preserving from blemish the sanc-
tity of the great trust which he now returns un-
defiled to his sovereign. On the celebrated trial
of Mr. Hunt and others, for the share which

they had in the deplorable occurrences at. Man-
chester, in the year 1819, Mr. Justice Bayley,
by his exemplary patience of investigation, his
conscientious anxiety to afford the fullest means
of defence to the accused, his dispassionate and
impartial conduct, raised the judicial charaCter
in the eyes of an observant public; but it has
since been thought that the virtues of the Judge
impeded the fortunes of the man. It has been said
that had he acted as a partisan on the Bench— had
he lent himself to the vindictive feelings of party
—had he expounded the law in the voice of pas-
sion rather than serene justice, he would have
risen to a higher station on the Bench. We
would fain hope the assertion is groundless ;
but, whether it be true or not, the fact is unde-
niable, that he remained from that day to this
an example of unswerving but neglected integrity.
It reflects no credit on either of the political
parties who alternately govern the nation, that
the abilities, learning, and virtues, of Judge
Bayley found no favour in their eyes. He
has now the proud consciousness, which can
never be taken away from him, of having pre-
served the purity of the ermine from all political
stain, and we can only hope that, whoever may be
clothed with the judicial mantle which he has just
put off will leave it as unsullied to his successor.
He has been accused, in a contemporary journal,
of severity to the Press. We imagine that in
this instance the oppressive spirit of the law is
imputed to the Judge whose duty it is to enforce
it. In answer to this charge we will adopt the
words of the Standard in preference to any
which we could ourselves employ—" It has been
well anti truly said that the business of a Judge
is legein dicere non legeni dare, and it is one of
the worst consequences of our execrable libel
code that it leads unthinking men, who confound
the mischief of the law with the disposition of
the faithful Magistrate pronouncing it, to enter-
tain an ill disposition towards the ministers of

ustice themselves—officers whom it is above all

things important to preserve in the affections
and veneration of the people." In our opinion
the sanguinary spirit of the criminal laws might
as well be attributed to the Judges whose pain-
ful duty it is to administer them,- as that -they
should be made responsible for the anomalous
character and oppressive rigour of the law of
libel. The salutary and enlightened reforms
introduced into our criminal code, of late years,
have relieved our Judges of a considerable por-
tion of that unpleasant duty against which—we
have it on the authority of Judge Blackstone—
the judicial conscience was apt to struggle, and
often evaded the edicts of blood by humane in-
genuity. We have seen Baron Bayley preside at
important criminal trials, and on such occasions
pure and passionless justice never had a better
representative. The more atrocious the crime of
which the prisoner stood accused, the greater was
his anxiety to prevent the prejudice which such a
charge would naturally excite from operating
against the fullest and calmest investigation of
the case before him. Never did an expression
fall from him which showed that he was a man

of first impressions, or was ambitious of being
distinguished for that smartness of prejudgment
which foreruns proof. He left that paltry am-
bition to men of shallow understanding and
flippant expression, who mistake a lively dulness
for sagacity, and heartless conduct for energy
of mind. Baron Bayley was content to wait for
the whole evidence before he formed his opinion
.
upon any case. He knew it to be the duty of
a Judge to protect innocence as much as, to
punish guilt ; and he invariably acted upon the
wise and humane maxim of the English law—
of never presuming against innocence until guilt
was proved. In the science of pleading, if he
did not excel all his contemporaries on the

bench, he was certainly not surpassed by any.
In the moral worth of his private character, and
the unaffected energy of his religious feelings,
he strongly resembles the great Sir Matthew
Hale. We trust the day may be far distant
when it will be necessary to write his epitaph ;
but, when it is written, it may with truth inform
posterity that no individual has graced the
Bench of this country who left behind him a
purer example of an English Judge and a Chris-
tian gentleman.—Morning Herald.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 1.