The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-22 00:00:00

lbr,-ve
.--r--,_- =, --r- Z -, • . -e7------
,
_ •,
•
' N
,'" --z__-<___.,--A--)--- -
.
I ,
• -,1:-..tir - .
s • , ~"-,4' ' '.' ': ' ..'..7 _ .; •',
......„...1,...;
~.--•
..••••"- '' V..-t•
.tp .--,..,
'.‘, -' .--
_I., '
~,,,,,
~,... 1r1:44': c..4.;,:' rr.„------2' -e,2181,ti:".,,;q*-7:.,.7
,-.-:::)
::,,,, : Tv-..,4:. ivolx.;/., . It
„.„..., .
t„,.,..,..
(..,. _ 4'' , ArVV -^ , $ 1V,11.,1 /I,
coa i j_iilk .
...
~ , .
All **
,
it5.,.........f....fr...,
/N +
S' e i , •>I
;.4t, N.,...
.7,
, s*,- _. , .f.. , r 4...,•,
..t - . . ;
~, V.I. '47' PC 44' ' Ofrikl,,,.----",...\'%411111\'„ir,%,41,A01:2 ,t,....,,H-t, 34;4, -
. . 1ttf2,1,21 , f• %.4 *5
'*. Vl' t* ''-
'' '
It -----;,,, ...,,,, Si.,-4 --, 1-1/2,,,•,.. , Ytt, • .160 . -....-. '- r bit .- . v.? w-- -
..., ~,, • -.,.. ' ,
.1,, • --- ~,,,.` 7, - 1 l';!;Iff ',, DIE %ta,.. ur-at •, , I -‘,4,. 1 v.,1,1 -?-,-- 0I T
- s
, . ~. ,
..;,/ ' i Nikv.t. --. Ne,.. -., '1%•.~ ,-,,-... ••,,, kn. :.
, •

attorney, should be permitted to go before the judges of thesk
courts of reconcilement as professional advisers. A clause‘:,/
had been inserted in the Bill to repeal a provision that had
most unfortunately and improperly found its way into the
Act of 1846. ll e was not aware of such a provision. He
could only account for this by the circumstance of the
Bill having been brought in at a late period of the session.
The provision to which he referred was that which prevented
a barrister appearing in court unless he had been instructed
by an attorney An attempt was lately made in Westminster
Hall to enforce this provision in the case of a barrister ap-
pearing there without being instructed by an attorney. The
application was, however, ,at once rejected, when it was
declared that a barrister had a right to appear there without
being instructed by an attorney. At the same time, the
judge said that it was certainly contrary to the rule of the
profession, and to professional etiquette, for a barrister to
appear under such circumstances. A Learned Friend of his
(Lord Brougham) had, however, lately enforced that proviso,
that no barrister, according to the rules of his court, should
appear there without being instructed by an attorney. Now
a party would naturally prefer to have an attorney at half
the expense than to have the attorney and the barrister to-
gether. One great objection to a barrister appearing in
court without an attorney was this : from whom was the
barrister to receive instructions from bat his client? He
would often, then, be obliged to examine a number of wit-
nesses, and thus to instruct himself so as to enable him
to discharge the duty he had undertaken. He was, there-
fore, in effect doing business both as barrister and attorney.
Notwithstanding all the advantages they would confer on
them, the attorneys would still have an advantage over bar-
risters in these courts. It was proposed, in order to do
justice between the two branches of the profession, that the
courts should be divided; that twelve courts should be held
annually, in which there should be jurisdiction in all cases
under 201., and in which attorneys should be allowed to
practise; but for the higher jurisdiction, in cases between
2( 1. and 501., that courts should be held every alternate
month, at a different day and place, but before the same
judge, in which the barristers should practice; and by that
means the attorneys would have the inferior, and the barris-
ters the superior courts of jurisdiction. It was, he would ob-
serve, of the greatest importance that there should be a judici-
ous selection of judges presiding in these courts; and in these
cases a most false economy was practised—first, in under-
paying thoseliamed judges ; and, secondly, in grudging com-
pensation to the judges who formerly held the county courts.
By that means the choice of the late Lord Chancellor was
restricted, because the effect of the miserable saving of a
few thousand pounds could not be put in competition with
the importance of selecting able and efficient men to preside
in courts where hundreds of thousands of cases were tried
annually. Certainly if any imperfection existed it was owing
to that false, and, as it might be termed, most extravagant
economy. Another error was the throwing the expense of
the erections of the county courts upon the suitors. If a poor
man had a case to bring before one of these county courts he
must contribute out of the costs to a fund for building these
courts. Then with regard to the remuneration to be awarded
to legal men, it was a great mistake to make the fees depend
upon the amount sought to be recoved, because every body
knew that the difficulty attending the recovery of small
sums was often greater than in recovering large amounts.
Instead of tying down the parties to certain sums to be paid
to the counsel, he proposed to give to the judges of the supe-
rior courts from time to time power to frame tables of costs.
He believed if clients generally knew the peculiar position in
which professional men were placed, it would be better for
them and the profession itself, because a solicitor or attorney
could not receive a single farthing of his costa until his bill
was taxed, and every overcharge was struck off. He had
stated to their Lordships the improvements that suggested
themselves to him. He believed that the amendments sug-
gested would be found to work well, and he now called upon
their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not understand that his
Noble and Learned Friend wished to invite discussion at the
present moment. Doubtless many of the suggestions of tke
Noble and Learned Lord were worthy of consideration. He
bore his testimony to the able and impartial manner in
which the judges of these courts had discharged their im-
portant functions. He certainly thought that the interven-
tion of an attorney between the barrister and the client had
been hitherto found to work well. With regard to the
question of arbitration, to which his Noble and Learned
Friend had referred, he might, with his great acumen and
legal experience, have devised some scheme that would be
found to work well. He for one would wait such a measure
from his Noble and Learned Friend with much anxiety.
With regard to the alterations proposed by his Noble and
Learned Friend in the measure before their Lordships, be
should reserve the expression of any opinion for the present,
although many of them, he doubted not, would be extremely

[PRICE SD.

useful.
Lord CIIANWORTH thought it would be advisable that
their Lordships did not commit themselves to any opinion
upon the amendments of the Noble and Learned Lord until
they had them fully before them. With regard to the
courts of reconcilement suggested by the Noble and Learned
Lord, he doubted whether they would be found to work well
in this country. In cases of simple debt their services could
never be called into requisition, and in cases of dispute it
would be like establishing a corps of consulting barristers to
give advice that could be obtained by the litigants in another
manner. Knowing the habits and feelings of this country,
he doubted whether such tribunals would ever become
popular.
After a few words of explanation from Lord
B ROUGHAM,
Lord ABINGER said the county courts were, in point o
fact, already to a great extent courts of reconcilement.

The Bill was then read a second time, and
Their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS„March 21.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
MANCHESTER IMPROVEMENT BILL.

The report was brought up from the Standing Orders
Committee, stating that the rules of the House had been
complied with.
SHEFFIELD AND GLOSSOP ROAD.

The report on this Bill was brought up.
LEICESTER SEWERAGE BILL.
Tho report on this Bill was brought up.
OUSEBURN BRIDGE AND APPROACHES BILL.
The report upon this Bill was also brought up, and
ordered to lie upon the table.
PAPAL AGGRESSION.

Sir It. H. INGLIS presented petitions from Pershore
and several other places against the Papal aggression,
and praying for a more stringent measure.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented a petition, signed
by the Corporation of Chester and a great number of the
inhabitants, to the sumo effect.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented petitions from the Wes-
leyan congregations of several places in Devonshire,
against the Papal egression.
Mr. DODD and Mr. BECKETT also presented petitions
from similar congregations and to the same effect.
Mr. MUNTZ presented petitions from Worcester-
shire, stating that the petitioners were as anxious to pre-
serve the political rights of the Roman Catholic subjects
of the realm as their own, but expressing a trust that
the House would pass somo measure whereby the au-
thority of the Pope, or the authority of any other
foreign potentate, may be prevented from exercising any
power in this land.
Mr. SPOONER presented 16 petitions from different
parts of the country deprecating any trifling with the
subject of the Papal aggression, and praying that the
House would adopt some stringent measures for its im-
msdiate repression.
Mr. Child, Lord Seakam, and several other members
presented petitions from various Wesleyan congregations
against the Papal aggression.
The Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Mr. Morgan John
O'Connell, and other Members presented petitions against
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL also presented a petition from
Bally cotton, in the county of Cork, stating that a peti-
tion had been presented from that county, signed by a
number of children, the eldest of whom was not more
than twelve, and many of whom not more than three
years of age. He, therefore, wished to draw the atten-
tion of the House to the fact, that the petitioners prayed
that ts Bill, supported by such discreditable means, might
not pass into a law.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented eighteen petitions
from different parts of Kesteven, in the county of Lin-
coln, complaining of the distress in which the agricultu-
rists were now placed, and praying for a revision of the
tariff.
Mr. FITZROY presented two petitions praying that
the fifth clause of this Bill may not become part of the law.
Mr. W. EVANS presented petitions from several
places in Derbyshire against the Papal aggression, and
praying for a more stringent measure than that which
was now before the House. He also presented petitions
from the Roman Catholics of the same county against the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Sir J. TROLLOPE also presented several petitions
against the Papal aggression.
Sir J. TROLLOPE also presented petitions from
Sleaford, signed by 4,000 persons, who, in very strong
language, complained of the distress into which they had
been sunk by the alteration of the corn-laws, and pray-
ing for a revision of the income-tax.
PETO presented several petitions from the
Wesleyan bodies of Norfolk and Suffolk 'Against tho
Papal aggression.
Similar petitions were presented b Mr. Miles from y
the Wesleyan Methodists of Somerset; by Mr. B. Deni-
son from the Wesleyan Methodists of the West Riding;
by Mr. Hildyard , from the Wesleyan
Methodists
of Whitehaven; by Mr. Williams, from Kennington,
Stockwell, Camberwell, Brixton, and other placesin the
borough of Lambeth; by Mr. Grogan from the Wes-
leyan Methodists of Dublin ; by Sir F. Baring from
the Wesleyan Methodists of Chester; by Mr. Stewart
&ring
from the same body in Newark, and by •me li
Mr. Da
from Buckingamshire.

Petitions against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill were
presented by Mr. Keogh, from
Carlow; by Mr.
Reynolds, from various places in Ireland; by Mr. John
O'Connell, from the county of Dublin; and by Mr.
Grattan, from Longford.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR
presented a Petition from a
large number of the subscribers to the Land Company,
the
complaining of conduct of the located members and
praying the House to pass the winding-up Bill.
THE SCENE IN THE HOUSE LAST NIGHT.
Mr. REYNOLDS at this stage of the proceeding,
moved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Mon-
day next, when
(Mr. MOORE immediately rose to recall the attention
of the House to the scene that occurred last night.
h
He said he felt compelled,owever painful it might be
to himself and the House, to call the attention of the
IlouEo to the subject for the sake of his own cha.
meter and position, and in doing so, he assured
the House that if he had
en expressions
to feelings of indignation last evening which
were not called for by the circumstances ui the case, it
was to be attributed to his ignorance of the rules of
that house and the authority of the Speaker, both of
which it was their interest as well as duty to maintain
inviolate.—(Hear, hear.) He could not, however, allow
the slightest misconception to exist as to what were the
opinions which he expressed on that occasion. His
opinion was that to speak, not only with irreverence
but with levity almost amountieg to indecency, of
that sacred name which all generations of Chris-
tians called blessed
in any assembly professing
blessed, ought not to be permitted
to be Christian.—(4, Rear,„
from the Irish Members.) If those allusions, instead of
being applied to the mother of God, had been applied to
the mother of princes in this country, such profanation
would have been immediately checked.—(Hear.) He
would not, as the Honourable Member for Ripon
had said, sully his lips by repeating such a term, which
he considered ought not to bo permitted in an assembly