The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

itybirb 'Ebition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
THE RAILWAYS BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Mr. ENTWISLE said there was now sought in this
Bill a power to regulate railway companies in their pro-
ceedings, even before coming to that House for their Act.
This was a power which might be exercised in a very
dangerous manner, and which, therefore, he should
strongly warn the House to be careful of conceding.
The Bill gave the power to receive the deposits of share-
holders—a thing unheard of before. Again, it was pro-
posed to invest in the Board of Trade a power to pur-
chase hereafter such railways as might now or at any
future period be contemplated and formed. These
things, he must really suggest, were eminently worthy of
the reconsideration of the Right Hon. President of the
Board of Trade.
Mr. BROTHERTON said he really could not see
why there should be so much hesitation in going into
Committee on this Bill. For his own part, he thought
there had been a good many railway schemes brought
forward in connexion with which, there had been more
fraud and felony than ever he had heard of before in
connexion with public matters.—(Hear, hear.) Many
persons were extremely anxious to have railway matters
excluded from the operation of this Bill; but, though he
was aware it was an unpopular opinion, he felt bound
to say they ought not to be excluded.—(Hear, hear.)
There were constantly bubble schemes going forward to
derange the market, and injure the honest bona fide
speculator, that, under the provisions of this Bill, would
never see the light at all.—(Hear, hear.) Let them go
into Committee, and then they might be able to correct
the defects of the Bill, and send it ferth to the world a
useful and valuable measure for the protection of the
community.
Sir J. GUEST explained.
Mr. WALTER JAMES thought the Bill a most use-
ful measure, encouraging, as it did, the trade of the
country on the one hand, and discouraging bubble com-
panies on the other. He approved of the preliminary
investigation which had been objected to by the Member
for Shefield. A preliminary investigation was insisted
on in all cases in which companies came to Parliament
for a Bill, and he thought such an investigation ought to
take place in all cases.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS had come down to the House
entertaining considerable prejudice against the Bill, but
the course which the debate had taken had convinced
hint of the propriety of going into Committee. He cer-
tainly, with regard to railways, thought considerable
caution ought to be exercised to prevent companies
making an improper use of names. He himself had been
asked some time ago by an Hon. Member to put his
name on the back of the Carlisle and Glasgow Railway
Bill, and, considering that a direct communication be-
tween Manchester and Glasgow would be advantageous,
he had consented to do so. To his surprise, a few days
afterwards he had seen his name in the newspapers as a
member of a provisional committee of a railroad in
embryo. He of course took measures immediately to
rectify the mistake.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY hoped that, while excluding
railroad companies from the operations of the Bill, they
would exclude sham railroad companies. One of
the grossest frauds ever perp.arated had been called a
',Airmail company. He thought the clause making those
who lent the guarantee of their names liable
a most wholesome enactment. He had no pity
for those persons who thus lent their names
and induced others to risk their property in undertakings
of this nature. He thought the word " promoter" ought
to be more clearly defined. Ile had himself, before he
had the honour of a seat in that House, been a promoter
of a Railway Bill before a Committee. He thought the
words of the clause ought to be so defined as not to in-
clude those who were professionally employed in
promoting Bills before Committees.—(Hear, hear.)
The lion. Member for Lambeth had agreed to the whole
of the resolutions of the Committee on which the Bill
was founded with one exception, a point on which he
divided the Committee. If the resolutions were com-
pared with the Bill, they would be found closely to re-
semble each other.

Mr. HA WES explained. He contended that the Bill
went much further than the resolutions, conferring
powers which the resolutions never conternpiated.
Mr. ROEBUCK objected to part of the principle of
the Bill, and stated also that within a very few hours a
most important clause had been introduced into
the Bill. He did not see any objection to
including joint-stock companies and the for-
mation of railways in the Bill. If it was
to prevent fraud, it was as proper to prevent frauds
in railway companies as in any other. He com-
plained that the Solicitor-General was not present on
lin occasion of discussing a Bill so important as the pre-
sent °lie, and objected to the power under the Act given to
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was
no less than that of preventing parties from coming before
Parliament for Bills. This was a distinct principle, and
as it had not been discussed sufficiently, he hoped the
Committee would not be pressed.
Strangers .vere then ordered to withdraw, but
Mr. HAWES having stated that after the discussion
be would not divide the House, his amendment was
wittan..-awn, and the House went into Committee,
~..1--)RINGLE in the Chair.
Clause I was then agreed to.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr—HAWES asked how this Bill was to apply to
incorporated companies?
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Bill would certainly
apply to future incorporated companies, as, in some
points, it applied to those already formed. The Act did
not apply either to Scotland or Ireland, but to England
unly.
Mr. HAWES said the Bill applied to all Scotch and
Iris h companies having agencies in England. Unless it
reaelied all companies, this would have an unjust and
partial operation.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he applied the Act to these
companies- simply because they were not exclusively
Scotch or Irish companies, but carried on their opera-
tions in England. After some discussion, the Right
non. Gentleman suggested that the clause should be
passed as it stood, reserving the point, whether it should
extend to Scotland, for further consideration. . .

Mr. HAWES said he thought the clause ought to be
postponed.
After a few words from Capt. LAYIRD and Mr. J. S.
WORTLEY,
r. GILL moved that the Chairman do report progeess.
After some discussion the CHAIRMAN reported pro-
gress and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Bir-
mingham, praying for inquiry into railway charges for
goods and passengers ; also, a petition, agreed to at a
public meeting in Covent-garden, praying for the libera-
tion of Daniel O'Connell, Esq., M.P., and his fellow
prisoners.
Mr. WARD presented a petition from certain settlers
la New Zealand, praying that the titles to their property
might be established on a sure foundation.
mie,,BECKET presented a petition from Leeds against
the Joint-Stock Companies Registration and Regulation
Bill.
Lord SA NDGN wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the President of the Board of Trade at what time
there would be parties in Java and Manilla who would
be authorised to issue certificates of origin of sugar, and
also whether in cases where certificates could not be ob
tamed sugar would he admitted without a certificate ?
Mr. GLADSTON'E said that the advices which would
•go out by the July mail from this country to Java and
Manilla, would find persons there qualified to issue cer-
tificates as to the produce of those islands. In answer
to the other part of the Noble Lord's question, he said
that a discretionary power of course would be vested in
the Board of Customs as to the admission of sugar with-
out certificate.

In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES,
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that as the matter was not
.his department, he could not distinctly say what the
Poi C-office arrangements were in respect to communica-
tion with the East India Islands. But he understood
that Manilla was the port chosen for the Philippine
Islands, and that the Dutch Government would not allow
intercourxe with any,other than three ports in the island
of Java ; those were Samarang, Batavia, and another
place.

SMOKE PREVENTION BILL.
On the reading of the Order of the Day for the Com-
mittee on this Bill,
Mr. MACKINNON wished to know from her Ma-
jesty's Government whether be should proceed with this
13i11 or not?
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON said, that since the Bill
wa.= introduced it had been his business to make some
inquiries on the subject of the parties interested in the
Bill, and the result was so very unsatisfactory that he
felt the greatest difficulty in pronouncing any decided
opinion upon it ; and as he did not think the House was
then in a condition to come to a decision upon that im-
portant measure,-he hoped the further consideration of it
would be adjourned.
Mr. MACKINNON moved that the Speaker should
leave the Chair.
Mr. WARD moved as an amendment that the Speaker
should leave the Chair that day three months.
After a brief conversation, in which Mr. Brotherton,
'Lord F. Egerton, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Borthwick, Mr. M.
Philips, Mr. Parker, Mr. Ricardo, Sir John Easthope,
Mr. Protheroe, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Muntz took part,
Mr. .Mackinnon withdrew his motion for going into Com-
mittee, and also withdrew his Bill, with the intention of
bringing it forward again at an early period of the next
session.
The Courts of Common Law Process Bill, and the
Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill severally went
tiirough Committee, and were ordered to be reported
to-inorro W.
The Linen Manufacturers (Ireland) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
BRITISH CUSTOM-HOUSE IN CHINA.
Dr. SOWRING, according to notice, begged to ask
the Rig ht Hon. Gentleman at the bead of the Govern-
meat, whether the Government had given its sanction to
tbe introduction of oaths in Custom-house natters in
Ciiimi as directed by the British Consul at Ningpo.
Sir R. PEEL said that the administration of oaths was
-without the sanction -of the Government, and he had
taken rnettuires to introduce the English practice in
China.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved that this House will,
upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to,
take into consideration the Act 17 and 'lB Cara 2, c. 7,
intituled " An Act for provision of Ministers in Cities
And corporate Towns, and making the Church of St,
.Andrew's, in the suburbs of
the City of Dublin, presen.
Nave for ever," with view to the repeal of so much

thereof as relates to the payment of Ministers in corpo-
rate towns in Ireland. He said that the Act was passed for
the purpose of providing religious instruction for Pro-
testant immigrants from this country and the Continent
into Ireland. It was no longer necessary; and although it
produced no more than 15,000/. a year, it was at once
oppressive and offensive to the Roman Catholic population.
He knew many Protestant clergymen who derived a
portion of their stipend from this peculiar source, who
would feel grateful to the Government if it would devise
means for relieving them from getting their revenues
in such an unpleasant manner. He had read a statement
from a Protestant clergyman in Cork on this subject.
It was stated that the late Dr. Warren had distrained on
a portion of his parishioners for ministers' money. A
deputation waited on him and requested him to give back
the goods which he had distrained. His reply
was, that he wished to God some other mode of re-
munerating him could be devised by the Government,
but that he owed it as a duty to his successor to
maintain his rights, and he was justified in saying so.
—(Hear, hear.) They had replied to him that he had
many rich Protestants among his parishioners, and that
he should look to them. He replied that those who
made the observation knew little of Protestants, for they
were the worst paymasters he had. He trusted the
House would do him the justice to believe that he was
actuated by no sectarian motives in bringing forward
this subject, as all he wanted was to induce the
Government to provide a revenue for the clergy, with.
out having recourse to these charges. The Act had
established a valuation of all existing house, but it had
fixed certain limits, by enacting that no house should
be valued as being worth more than 60/. a year. The con-
sequence was, that the houses of the rich, which were
perhaps worth 200/., were assessed to the ministers'
money only at 601. a year, while the houses of the poor
were assessed at their lull rental, and if the assessmen
was not paid the goods were at once distrained, and there
was no appeal against the distraint. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman concluded by formally proposing his
motion.

Lord ELIOT had certainly promised last session to
take the subject into consideration. The Attorney-
General for Ireland had maturely considered the subject,
but he regretted to state that the Government had been
unable to devise any plan which would be satisfactory to the
persons subject to the payment of the tax, without de-
priving the clergy of that to which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman himself admitted they were fairly entitled.
Similar charges existed in the capitals of England and
Scotland, and it should be remembered that at the time
this Act passed Roman Catholics were incapacitated by
law from holding houses ; therefore it was a tax im-
posed upon Protestant property exclusively, and Roman
Catholics who had since become possessed of that pro-
perty, had acquired it subject to this tax, and, there-
fore, had purchased it for less than they would other-
wise have giren for it. He could not accede to the mo-
and he hoped the llon. and Learned Gentleman would
not press it.
Mr. BELLEW hoped that before another session the
Government would prepare a measure to get rid of the
grievance.

- Lord STANLEY hoped, that before the end of the
next session, something would be done upon this sub-
ject.
Mr. JOHN O'BRIEN, in supporting the motion, re-
ferred to the anomalous position of the Established
Church in Ireland, which he contended ought to be sup-
ported outief the general funds of the country, without
pressing directly upon a dissentient and reluctant
people.
Strangers were suddenly ordered to withdraw, and the
House was counted, but there being more than forty
Members present, the gallery was again opened, and'
Mr. O'BRIEN proceeded to argue in favour of the
motion. He was desirous to incorporate Great Britain
and Ireland most closely, but the Protestant Church—
the greatest anarchy in the history of nationo, prevented
the amalgamation. The Irish Pretestant Members
were compelled, however painfully, to legislate
against the temporalities of them. He wished to
rescue the Protestants from their ascendancy, and
the Catholics from their humiliation.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CURTEIS complained of the want of courtesy
shown by a supporter of the Government in counting
out the Howse in the middle of the eloquent and im-
portant speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but the
House did not divide, and tlie motion was agreed to with-
out a division, but amidst great laughter and cheering.
Mr. PUSEY then obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
alter and amend an Act passed in the fourth year of her
present Majesty, intituled "An Act to enable the owners
of settled estates to defray the expense of draining the
same by way of mortgage."
The House then adjourned.

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian of this day.)
There continues to be a good healthy demand for
yarns for all numbers up to 40's, but more particularly
for the low numbers, which obtain a trifling advance
in price. For goods generally there is also a steady
demand ; iths printing cloths commanding a little
higher :prices. For 40-inch shirtings the market was
heavy, and not much business done ; parties waiting the
daily expected arrival of the Overland Mail. The ac-
count of its arrival in the London 7'imes reached here
later in the day, and the commercial intelligence there
contained was considered to be rather unfavourable as
respects manufactured goods.

FLANNEL MAUBET, Mcgnik..v, JULI: 1.-
The demand for flannels continues brisk ; but there is
no change in prices. The wool trade has undergone
little variation since last Monday. There is a fair busi-
ness doing, and prices have advanced a shade.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

GLOBE.—The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill was among the
measures which,:to lighten the Ministerial ship, were cast
overboard on Monday night by Sir Robert Peel, in his state-
ment as to the course proposed to be taken by the Govern-
ment with reference to the pending business of the session.
The history and fate of this unfortunate Bill is fraught with
instruction. and warning to the present, and to all future
Cabinets. It exhibits the folly and danger of sacrificing
principle to expediency—of conunitting the preparation and
conduct of a legislative measure to the individual whose per-
sonal and pecuniary interests are involved in the changes it
proposes to effect, and who must be more or less than
man if he do not avail himself of the opportunity
to improve his own position, personal or relative, by
its means. To this fatuity—for it is nothing less—do we
attribute the successive defeats, involving diminished influence
and damaged fame, the Government has sustained in connec-
tion with the Bill which they have now consigned to its fate ;
and its equally bad precursor, which was withdrawn from
the consideration of the House of Commons, by the consent
of both sides of the House, in the course of the last session.
The history of modern legislation affords no instance of
the kind so disgraceful to a Ministry. The cumbrous
and expensive proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts
had been long and loudly complained of, as injurious to
the suitors and disgraceful to the jurisprudence of the coun-
try. A Commission, issued by the Crown, had inquired into
the state of these Courts ; and, in a clear and well-digested
-report, had:recommended certain changes by which the ad-
ministration of the laws, with reference to the matters over
which these Courts had jurisdiction, should be assimilated to
the changed circumstances of society in this country. The ma-
terials for legislation were thus provided to their hands. An
opportunity for effecting a valuable alteration in the law, by
removing an acknowledged nuisance—and thus earning for
themselves the gratitude of the public—was supplied. It
was lost. The evil spirit of patronage—the desire to render
the opportunity, thus offered, subservient to party objects,
deprived the country of the advantages it would have
derived from an honest government. The Bill introduced
by Dr. Nicholl in the last session was " too bad"
to be entertained by the House of Commons."
However well. disposed a majority of that House was,
at that time, to gratify the Government in anything reason-
able, that experiment upon its compliance with Ministerial'
wishes was too bold to be admitted. Its manifest design to
aggrandise one individual—and he the concoctor of the mea-
sure—at the expense of the public interests, was demon-
strated by the Opposition. After struggling hard to overcome
the objections, Dr. Nicholl withdrew the Bill in its original
shape, and introduced many alterations and modifications.
It was changed, but not mended. The House still showed
so determined a dislike to the measure, that it was with-
drawn. The Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill of the pre-
sent session. It was to have been expected that experience
would have imparted wisdom. The new measure, it might be
safely predicted, would be, if not perfect, at least free front
great errors and defects. A third failure would, at any rate, be
guarded against by a Ministry not wholly indifferent to cha-
racter, nor insensible to the necessity ofpreserving appearances,
in order to maintain themselves in office. This, we say, was to
be
_expected; but this expectation was far from being rea-
lised. iven to tire rtouse or Lords, altlioUgn introduced by,
the Lord Chancellor, the manifest errors and defects or the
Bill were so forcibly exposed by Lord Cottenham, Lord
Campbell, and other Noble and Learned Lords on the Oppo-
sition benches, that the Lord Chancellor, and the Peers who
are his echoes in that House, were unable to screen it from
merited reproach : they, merely apologised for its imperfec-
tions. The Bill came down to the House of Commons with
a character by no means recommendatory; and the debate
which arose, and the division on its second reading, followed
by the Opposition in Committee to passing its first clause, in-
dicated too plainly to the Premier the hopelessness:of endea
vouring to preserve it from the fate of its predecessor. The
solemn asseveration of Sir Robert Peel, with reference to the
former Bill, "So help me, God, I have no personal interest
in the measure 1" was abortive for the purpose for which it
was employed on the former occasion ; to have repeated the
oath would have been an act of prodigality in swearing
which would have looked like profligacy. There remained,
then, no alternative but to throw the measure over-
board, And this has been. done ; and in a way signi-
ficant of the chagrin which Sir Robert Peel has expe-
rienced by the necessity laid upon him to free himself
from the incumbrance. The history of this signal miscarriage
in legislation is a sad comment on the promise of law reform
with which the present Ministers entered upon office. What
they would do in this respect was trumpeted forth in the
speech from the throne ; and public trumpeted eh wereraised
high as to the measures which were to follow the announce-
ment. What they have done has been seen. Their only
matured measure is their Bankruptcy Act ; and of that, and
their appointments under it, there are scarcely two'opinions.
STANDARD.—The debates in the two houses of Parlia-
ment, last night, were long and interesting. In the House of
Lords the Sugar Bill was discussed pretty fully. The argu-
ments upon this measure are already familiar, but the genius
of Lord Brougham gave to the discussion an attraction of
almost as much force as the charm of novelty. His
Lordship disposed of the suggestion, that in Java, the
Manillas, and China, there may linger a system of
qualified slavery, greater or less, but in all of small amount,
by making the broad distinction between these countries
and countries like Cuba and the Brazils. In the former, if
there is (which is doubtful) slavery, there Is certainly
no slave trade; consequently the taking or refusing
of their produce cannot go to augment or
to diminish the amount of slavery, This distinc-
tion decisive. Slavery in substance exists every-
where—for everywhere the very poor are the slaves of the
very rich, to say nothing of the slaves whom superstition en-
thrals, as in the more Ignorant popnhttbps domineered over
by tug plumb of Rome. A. long as poverty and iginorance
are inseparable frpp the condition of humanity, the sub.
stance of slavery must .aftlipt JnOSt countries in one.
shape or another ; but "w-ell-gowertwl- countries this
slavery, OA pain a constant course of diminution. In coun-
tries, nu the AP' 4.9444 in which a slave trade is practised,

slavery must, from the nature of things, grow with their
growth and strengthen with their strength ; and whoever
adds to the resources of such countries, either by enlarging
their commerce, or otherwise, is in effect as much a slave trailer
as he who exchanges muskets and gunpowder for
human beings on the African coast. There is one
passage of Lord Brougham's speech reflecting honour upon
his Lordship, because, it says, far better than we could say
it, what we have a thousand times laboured to inculcate, not
only with reference to the slave trade, but to the new poor-
law and the factory question, namely, that every system of
political economy, which does not take for its basis the moral
law and the spirit of Christianity, is unsound, and must lead
to disappointment.

THE OLD BAILEY BAR.
(From the Sunday Times.)

In the course of the allusions-which we made a short
time since to the case of the wills forgeries we stated
that our object was not so much to trace that case
through its circumstances, which was the province of the
jury, as to make it the foundation of a general call upon
the public to consider, aud, if possible, tocorrect, through
these representations, the evils which have grown out
of the the license indulged in by counsel in the defence
of guilty men. It would scarcely be possible to select a
better case to illustrate these evils than that of Barber.
defended as it was in the full tone of the Old Bailey ver-
nacular, b' Mr. Wilkins. His client was the most in-
jured man in the!world • nothing could surpass his wrongs
evcept his virtues. The purity required by Caesar in his
wife, was a moderate qualification compared with the
purity ascribed by Mr. Wilkins to his client. Caesar,
indeed, was guilty of a moral cowardice when he could
think of repudiating his wife merely because she was
slandered. But Mr. Wilkins betrayed no such pusil-
lanimity. On the contrary, he seemed to consider it
a feather in his client's cap to be tried for fraud by the
justice of his country. It was an honour to be employed
by him—quite a moral distinction to touch a fee from
such a hand. Neither the verdict of a jury nor the sen-
tence of the judge could disturb the implicit confidence
of the advocate in the rectitude of his client's conduct.
Juries were fallible, judges were fallible—in short, every-
thing on earth was fallible but Mr. Wilkins's pene-
tration and Mr. Barber's virtue. As for prosecutors
and witnesses, they were not only fallible, but
congregated and combined, like evil spirits in a
league for the overthrow of innocence. But, to speak
seriously upon a matter which is, after all, of very se-
rious importance, it is, as we have said, in vain to look
to the judges for the protection of prosecutors or wit-
nesses ; they seldom or never interfere. They did not
interfere with the case of which we have been speak-
ing, when Mr. Wilkins thought it not beneath him
to attack the character of such a man as Mr.
Fresh field, the Bank solicitor, in the hope that some
ignorant person on the jury might be persuaded to
consider his conduct oppressive and unjust. It is nut
for Mr. Freshfield's sake that we regret the indiffer-
ence manifested by the judge on this occasion. His
character stood 'too high to be affected by anything that
Mr. Wilkins could say or do ; but if judges will not
sympathise with such men as Mr. Freshfield, how can
they be expected to sympathise in more doubtful cases
with men who are not so well known, and consequently
not so well protected from misrepresentation ? It is,
therefore, a delusion not to suppose that prosecutor
—or witnesses, and especially the latter—find pro-
tection from the judge, and, therefore, it is
the more necessary that something should be done,
now that the evil is on the increase, to protect the
public by other means. The gentlemen of the bar call
such a case as that of the will forgers, in the Old Bailey
slang, " a good sporting case," that is, a case in which
prosecutors and witnesses are to be run down and every-
thing, and, amongst the rest, that ill-fated personage
Truth, sacrificed to the worthy character in the duck.
According to this interpretation of the word sport, Mr.
Wilkins is certainly a keen sportsman ; he cares no-
thing for himself, he rides, as beggars are said to ride,
straight onward to a certain destination. There is no dif-
ficulty, however formidable, that can arrest his pro-
gress, or turn him from the one great object of
sacrificing everything to the interest of his client. So
confident were the conductors of the prosecution that
brow-beating would be resorted to in the case of Barber,
that they felt it necessary to subpoena the Lord Mayor,
and Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk at the Mansion-house,
and to keep them in attendance day after day, as a check
upon the imaginative faculty of Mr. Wilkins. Even
after all the precautions that could be adopted, the Bank,
the Bank solicitor, the magistrate, the press, the wit-
nesses for the prosecution, nay, the very judge him-
self, were, all of them, in one shape or other, ex-
posed to the animadversions or insinuations of the
prisoner's counsel. But this out-and-out mode
of defence, although it is certainly calculated to attract
the notice and admiration of the great mass of indivi-
duals charged with offences., has never failed to obtain
for him who uses it the scorn of those who think that
society is likely to be endangered by the escape of an
ingenious villain, defended by a dextrous lawyer, whose
sense of right and wrong, however perfect in itself, is
never permitted to interfere with what he calls his duty
to his client. One would think, from the exaggerated
language of lawyers respecting this duty, that there was
something in the connection of counsel and client which
exempts parties from the ordinary obligations of truth and
justice. No barrister will pretend that he would be
justified in imputing falsehood directly or indirectly to a
person who, he knew in his heart, had told the truth.
No man of common honesty would dare to make such ari
assertion. Wherein, then, consists the magic of that
extraordinary and mysterious compact implied in the
phrase " duty to his client," which justifies, or is sup-
posed to justify, him in Aoing for another what he dares
not do for himself—to obtain the acquittal of a guilty
person, and the ill-treatment of one or more innocent
persons by the misrepresentation of their motives, their
characters, and their conduct ? "What is there, then, we
would ask, in the connexion between counsel and client
—what is there in the sense of duty arising out of such
a connexion, that should exonerate either of them from
the universal obligations of morality, and the ordinary
rules of right and wrong ? Is it in virtue of any
mystic influence communicated from palm to palm by
the transmission of a fee, that the lawyer becomes
not merely invested with the privilege, but charged with
the duty, of sacrificing every principle to the one
paramount object of vindicating his client, pe
fas aut nefas, at the expense of every consi-
deration, human and divine ? If so, we should
like to hear some aciount of the process from those who
are familiar with the operation. It was stated some
time ago by the Attorney-General, in the House of
Commons, on contending in favour of this extravagant
privilege, that he supported it for the sake of the suitors
themselves. Now, what we want to know is wherein
the advantage to suitors consists? We think it will be
readily granted that it is no advantage to prosecutors to be
vilified and traduced,nor to witnesses to be treated in the
same manner. The accused party, whether he be asa in-
dler, a robber, or a murderer, may certainly derive an ad-
vantage from the obloquy which he is permitted to cast,
through his counsel, on those who are endeavouring to
bring him to justice. In fact, the only person to whom
this monstrous privilege can be of use is the guilty person,
who can only be saved from merited punishment by
the adoption of such execrable means. What then, let
us ask is the real effect of this privilege, or license, or
whatever it may be called, upon the administration of
justice itself ? We will not mince matters. The effect is
not to benefit suitors, but to drive them out of Court by
the mere force of the Old Bailey philosophy. We would
appeal to Mr. Clark, the clerk of the arraigns, and to
Mr. Goodman, whose experience in the same office
renders his testimony invaluable—we would appeal to
these gentlemen, whose characters, as private indivi-
duals and as public officers, give the highest authority to
their statements, whether it is not a common case to bear
prosecutors express their regret at having prosecuted, and
not only express their regret but declare that they would
rather submit to the loss of their property, and allow
the thief to escape, than expose themselves or any mem-
bers of their families to the observations with which
they had been unjustly assailed by the prisoner's counsel.
The effect of this privilege, therefore, is to obstruct the
administration of justice in limine, by driving people
away from the Court, and inducing them rather to
submit to their losses than apply for redress, or even
accept of redress, with its invariable accompaniment
of abuse and detraction. Lord Brougham was as-
suredly carried away by professional enthusiasm,
or by that love of wrangling which is, perhaps, in-
separable from a great advocate and debater, when he
could think of referring to the progress of a trial as
affording a favourable instance of the display of human
talent. However interesting such proceedings as are daily
exhibited in our courts may be to the Noble Lord, and to
those who think with him, we can conceive nothing more re-
pulsive to a benevolent mind than that scene of noisy decla-
mation and gross humbug, and virulent invective and brutal
demeanour, which combine to make up what is called an
important trial, or a good sporting case, at the Old Bailey.
His Lordship's own description of the process, though
evidently coloured so as to favour his views, will scarcely
inspire such a man as we have described with any violent
inclination to be present at the performance.
" The jury," observes his Lorship, " see the witness ;
they have the opportunity of watching his demeanour
while giving his evidence, and then they see him
submitted to a cross-examination ; after which comes
his counsel, comforting and restoring, as it were,
the poor man, after the flagellation he has under-
gone, and setting up the broken credit of the
witness, damaged by the cross examination. Af-
ter the cross-examination of the adverse counsel,
which has impaired the credit of the witness for a mo-
ment, then comes the skilful counsel, who restores and
comforts the poor man, and gives a better opportunity of
explaining the case and setting himself right with the
jury, until at last the conflict being over on both sides,
the evidence of the witness is fairly before the Court."
But how often does it happen that the evidence of the
witness is never fairly before the Court ? Suppose the
case of a poor nervous man, or of a delicate and timid
woman, how difficult would it be to restore and coin-
fort either of them after flagellation, so as to enable
them to become collected and appear in their proper
characters of truth and honesty ! But let any one who
suspects us of exaggeration go to the Old Bailey and
judge for himself—let him observe the conduct of coun-
sel to female witnesses on the opposite side, and if he
do not feel his heart throb with indignation and shame,
we can only say that he is fit for the place to which we
have sent him. But, as it is possible that we may revert
to this subject again, we shall say no more for the pre-
sent than express an ardent hope that something will be
done to correct an evil which, so far from showing any
disposition to cure itself, is evidently on the increase,
and the effect of which is most injurious to the ends of
justice and the reputation of a great country.