The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-28 00:00:00

rtitrti Witition

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
THE CASE. OF MR. WILLIAM HENRY BARBER.
This case, which came nn for argument at the sitting
of the Court this morning, seemed to have attracted a
good dell of atteDtion, as the court was filled with bar-
ratlrs, solicitors, and interested strangers. Same ladies
were present in one of the galleries. Mr. Barber sat by
the side of his counsel, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.
Sir I', ederick Thesiger and Mr. Bovill appeared for
the Law Society.

The cese.canie before ithe Court on an application by
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins to the Court, to direct the Master
to give Mr. Barber his certificate. The Master was
directed to report upon the facts, and accordingly this
morning he present d a report, which occupiel an hour
and a irelfae reading, and which contained a vast num-
ber of sffi4its bearing upon the facts of the case.
The repeat: &salt, with a number of cases in which
Mr. Barber. bad, been professionally engaged. So num-
berless, lager:el, were the instances reported upon, that it
was almost impossible to follow them. The result of
the report, and of the affidavits put forth in behalf of the
Law Society; which opposed the admission of Mr. Barber
to pia :ace, resulted in the opinion'that Mr. Barber knew
Ifletetier was 'acting f.audulently in the will for-
geries, and that he ought net to be admitted to prac-
tise as an attorney. Several minor charges were brought
against him.
The ca e, by the direction of the Court, reduced itself
into a motion for a rule nisi.
Mr. Sergeant Weratnes was allowed to address the
Court; first. He said, this case was a most important
one to his unfortunate and deeply-injured client, and
fraught with the most important consequences to the
community.' It Farmed to him that the Incorporated
Law Society were ignorant of what was meant by the
term " pardon"--eineeed, in opposing the admission of
Mr. Barbera they were usurping the royal prerogative.
According to Bacon, "pardon' implied that the man
pardoned was a new man, reinstated in his former posi-
tion, and the; an action would lie against any one who
called him a traitor or a felon; and other authorities
which he cited went to show that the King's
pardon placed a man in his former position, and ad-
mitted him to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.
The Master, he regretted to:say, had unduly magnified
many facts, whilst he had perverted others. If a pardon
by the Crown aid net hive the effect he had pointed out,
the most grievous disabilities would attach to a person
placed in the position of his client, and the great privi-
lege possessed by the Crown would be altogether inop-
erative. - The lett' r of Sir George Grey, whose conduct
in this matter entitled him to the atmott praise, clearly
exculpated his client from any guilty participation in
the w lls' forgeries, though he, at tee same time, inti-
mated that more caution on the part of Mr. Barber
would have spared him the consequences with which
he had been visited. Want of skill and want of
caution were the only charges alleged against him, and
he defied his Learned Friends to show a case in which an
attorney had been otherwise punished for a want of skill
and caution than being amerced in damages to his ne-
glected•and damaged client. Why if Mr. Barber had
been pardoned within a year of his conviction, it would
have been unnecessary for him to make an application of
this kind to the Court. He would have continued a so-
licitor as a right, and because by a mistake he had not
been pardoned for a year, on what principle was he not
to letaad in the same_ position? With God's help he
would show that tho conduct of Mr. Barber since
his conviction had been beyond all praise.
All mention of this the Master had: strangely
orni,ted from his report. The enemies of
Mr. Barber had come too late, ye; Mr. Barber was
struck off the rolls. Pullen in his book said that the
courts had held that such an application came too late
atter three years, and even alter three term. The Law
Society had, nu doubt, through the instrumentality of
some person behind the scenes, t-ated out the conduct of
Mr. Barber-from his boyhood. He bad 200 clients, and
his incom s the year before his expatriation was 3,0001.;
yet up to his conviction net one cf them had urged a
complaint against him, and now but one of his clients
had a charge against him, and that hal no relation to
his professional conduct. At the trial there were four
iudictreents; on the first Mr. Barber was declared not
guilty, bit upon the second he was found guilty; and he
and the other counsel did all they could to induce the
prosecution to try the other cares, because it was
likely he would be fiend innocent of them, and that being
found guilty of but one the prosecution would have been
placed in an awkward position. These tmo indictments
were entered upon and commented upon by the Master.
Fletcher bad b-en proved to be a man cf great sagacity
and of consummate cunning, and being a man of influ-
ence, property, and gentlemanlike bearing, was a man
very likely to impose upon a young man like Mr. Barber,
whose client he had b en far fire years, and his partner,
Mr. Birchatr, was equally blinded. Mr. Freshfield, the
brokers, the proctors, were all deceived like his client,
though day by day they were engaged in genuine
transacti :us. The Learned Counsel here paused
to explain that only Lefcre e trill he was asked
by Mr. Bramah, Bsr bees solicitor, if he would hold his
brief fur fi ty guineas ?, He said he would, and defended
him. At r the trial some one called at his chambers
and paid fifteen -guineas, which he appropriated to
baying Mr. Beater necessaries. He never made any
other to conduct his defsnce on the principle of "no
cure no pay," and he would never so degrade his profes-
siesn. There might be cases in which distress might
have claims upon his gratuitous services, but he would
never act in the way t which he referred.
ft was part f Mr. Barber's business to find
out the owners of money form-rly deposited in
the Bank of E 'gland, but'in consequence of no claims '
having b. e made had been handed over to the Commis-
sioners for the Reduction of the National Debt—acting
for parties who had claims upon such fends. Surely
c rual not be said that there was anything unprofessioe a!
or unusual in this. Unless this were done, many poor
persons entaled to prolerty would be deprived cf it.
It was not shown that Mr. t3arber made any money out
of the forgeries. Indeed, he received no more than his
professional.- services, and left the country a penniless
mat,. (The Learned Counsel read cases to show
that the miner charges alleged against Mr. Barber
that he had not paid certain small sums of money which
had been entrusted to him for professional services, bad
Lee:: held by the Courts not sufficicnt to justify the striking
him oar the role., and had only required the refunding cf
tho money.) His client was charged with having re-
tained for his own 'use 574 which had b- en placed in his
hands be Fletcher to pay the legacy debts on the ficti-
tous claims of M s. Stewart, who was personat d by one
of the fen ales implicated in the case. Now he swore that
he had paid the money back to a person named Griffin
or,Fletcher, but owing to the loss of his books ants papers,
he could nut, t cis distance of time, tell the date. The
Learned Counsel then referred at great length to the
affidavit of Mr. Barber, in which he entered into the
whole of the Lets in relation to the criminal eart'ci-
pstion in the forgeries imputed to him, and solemnly
swore that he was wholly and entirely innocent of any
participation in them. Indeed, said the Learned Coun-
sel, the whole conduct of Mr. Barber was that of an
innocent man, acting unconsciously and openly; that he
was an inst ument in the perpetretion of a systematic
fraud.

The Learned Counsel spoke until near five o'clock,
when his further arguments were adjourned until to-
mirrow mornirg.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Stings in Banco.)
TME RELAY SYSTEM IN FACTORIES.-RYDF.R V. MILLS.
This was a special application made by the Attorney-
Goneral under the following circumstances. For some
months differences have existed between the mill-owners,
rorkpeople, and the Government factory inspectors
ai to the power of the mill-owners to adopt the Illay
system with rego'ird t.) children and young persons in
factories. The rail!-owners contend that they have a
right to adopt the system, whilst the factory inspectors
are of a conti a-y opinion, and the result has been an
agreement between them to bring a special case fur the
opinion of this Court.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in stating the case, said
the Factory Act required that the working of women
and young persons, male and femalee, in factories,
should be limited to ten hours a day, and the question
in the present case was as to whether, under the terms
of the statute, the working of all of them was to com-
me nee at a certain hour of the morning, and continue
consecutively from hour to hour, allowing an interval
for dinner, to a certain hour in the evening, when all
were to terminate their employment; or whether gangs
or shifts might not begin and end their work in one fac-
tory at different home>, so long as each of them did not
work more than ten out of 6f.eeu hours a day. He con-
tended there would be a clear violation of the 36th section
of the stetuta if shifts were allowed at intervals, because
the object of the Legislature was that these women and
young persons should, on the one hand, while they were
at work at the factory, be under the superintendence of
the in!pector, arid that on the other, when they had
ceased working, they should be enabled to go home and
be under the care of their parents—an object
which could rot be accomplished if they had
to remain idle about the factory for hours
during the day, and thus become more liable to conta-
mination and evil influence.
Mr. MARTIN, who appeared for the mill-owners, said
as this was a case of very considerable importance,
affecting materially the interests, not only of the prc-
prietors of factorier, but of the workpeople, that a fair
and liberal and not a forced interpretation should be
put upon the statute, and if that were done, he appre-
-lended they were fully justified in adopting the re-
ay system, provided the time during which each yeung
person %RS employed did not exceed ten hours;
The real question, in fact, was whether the Government,
who had failed to get an Act to limit the work of men
in faeturies to ten hours, should be allowed to accomplish
their object by means of a side-wind, f)r the present
application amour ted to nothing more than that the du-
raeou of the woevemenrk of adult males should be regulated
by that of the . The duty of women in these
fee was of a very simple nature, having simply
to keep the threads in order in the process of
spinning ~,d weaving, end it was found not only
nadrp economical to employ women, but the work
r(Aired such a delicacy if jiand that it I+ as more
suitedf for them than for men. It, therefore, they were
limit?d to ten hours the effect would be to put a stop to
spinning and weaving, which was done by the men after
that time, and cons, quontly if the men worked now
twelve hours their wages would have to be reduced.
Mr. Baron PARKE said it might have been overlooked
by Perliament,?vvhen women were classed with young
persons, that the employment of the women regulated
that of the men.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that that was
taken into consideration vs hen the Act was under dis-
cussion.

t Mr, Ittuvriti said the construction which he put upon

the stotute was this; that the labour of young persons
was to be confined between half-past five in the morning
and half-past eight iu the evening, and that it was per-
fectly competent for the employer or the employed to
agree to carry on the work at the most convenient hours
during those periods, provided they were not engaged
altogether more than ten hours.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied; and
The COURT intimated that they would take time to
consider the arguments in the case, and give their judg-
ment to-morrow week. :The case had beers most ably
argued on both sides, and the Court did not think it ne-
cessary to hear the second case, involving the same
questions; but if the Court still doubted, due informa-
tion would be given of their intention to hear further
arguments.