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

THE SUN,

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
IIMES —lt the omnibus proprietors bad got pos-
se-sion of a particular line, and should, in order to
avert. a threatened competition, cffer to pey the corn-
petitcrs one-half of the gross proceeds of his business,
we should naturally infer that such a person W 65
melting 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 order
to prevent them from carrying their threat into exe-
cution, off, r to halve the proceeds with them. Surely
these gentlemen must have been driving a very com-
fortable trade when is profits admit of so very sweeping
a reduction, and the public will be much to blame if
it do not avail itself of the hint, and secure to itself in
some shape or other emancipation from the grevious
tax which the lower branch of the legal profession
have hitherto levied upon it. The attorneys have
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 bands 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-
tween barrister and attorney, supposing the etiquette
of the profession to remain the same, the advantage
must remain with the latter ; the attorney will take
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 soma 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 Pump-court.
Within twenty yards of the spot where he stands
are dozens of clear-headed men, thoroughly versed
in the law, who would think one guinea, or at
most two, an ample reward for the most complete
solution which industry and acuteness can give to
his difficulties. Why does he not, then, enter the
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 tar too easy
and 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 queriet
must leave the learned purlieus of Pump-ceurt, 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 client.
The barrister gets his guinea; the client, if the case
has been stated rightly, gets his opinion, the only
difference being that he has to pay seven or eight
guineas more to the attorney for asking for him
a question which be could just as well have
asked for himself. Suppose a person wants to takeia
house ; the attorney, if he is a reasonable man,
will
prepare the lease for sixteen guineas, but that lease
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 public
that this state of things should cease, and that they
should be allowed, if they are so minded, to go straight
to their counsel, without being forced through the
expensive labyrinth of an 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 es a tax ,levied on the many for
the benefit of the few. Let any landed proprietor
consider the legal expenses of his estate for a single
year, and rt fisct how much of them would have been
saved bad he been able to go directly to rst-rate
legal authorities w
, ithout being obliged fi
to em-
ploy the intervention of an attorney, and he will see
at once the justice of our remarks. We say further,
that in this matter the interests of the pubrliceti and the
bar are identical, and that by altering theiquette
they would not only confer a great benefit OD us, but
on themselves. The most honourable and resp.ohsi-
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 d
have
function of the lawyer, the bar of his,
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 Setevola, Hortensius, or Cicero dealt with
their clients, bat in this matter the poorest com-
moner in England is more exclusive that the proudest
noble of Rome. By this voluntary withdrawal
from the highest department of their 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-
coming an inheritance. Mr. A. holds the brief for
the plaintiff by descent, inasmuch as he is the son of
the plaintiffs 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 nowgenerally admitted that without strong
interest success at the bar i▪ s not to be hoped
for, and that interest is becoming daily more
and more restricted to the frie•
nds 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 merely turned the advantages
to blame. of their posi-
tion to the best account, ae in no way lt
is the bar which has brought these evils on itself, by
refusing to exercise the function of adviser,. and forc-
ing on the other branch of the
.profession a duty
which necessarily placed them at
its
.mercy. It is
the interest of the bar to reconquer itshndependence ;
it is the interest of the public to obtain the best ad-
vice with the least delay, and on the cheapest terms.
the relaxation
Both these objects can be attained by
of a single rule of etiquette. We thereforeheartily
wish success to those gentlemen who
are said to be
combined for this object, and trust that
in this, as in
many other matters, the County Courts may lead the
way to the improvement of Westminsterhall.
CHRONICLE.—Lord Broughara's Act to amend
the Law of Evidence comes into operation to-day
and as it will unquestionably affect v
e
ry material
alteration in the practice of our sup
justice, erior courts of
ustice, we cannot serve the public better than by
drawing their attention shortly to some of its most
important. provisions. By far the most remarkable
section in
cienpithioens, Act is the second, which—with. cer-
which we shall presently mention—
renders every party to a suit, and every person on
whose behalf it is brought or defended, competent to
give evidence on his own behalf, and compellable to
testify on behalf of any of the ther parties. That
this
. change in the law will produce the most bene-
ficial results we cannot entertain a doubt. In courts
.
of law, will net only enable many honest persons
to establish just claims, which, under the old system
of exclusion, could never have been brought to trial
with any hope of success ; but it will deter at least an
qual number of dishonest men from attempting, on
the one hand, to enforce a fraudulent demand, and on
the other to set up a fictitious defence. Theknowledgethat a party may tell his own story to the Court and
jury cannot fail to operate strongly as an encourage-
mentnlet
checkthe exposure,d re
litigation
d of
willcira o schsaa-sevex: aami
correspondingn ati cross-examination, n ,
. to the suitor who is the witness of truth;
while d o f
tendencyconie:
where a
conse-
quentverdict CAD only