Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Leedham, J., 513

W., Mortimer, W., & Leek, T., 305

Lees, R., 192

Keddy, J., & Keddy, T., 66, Legassick, J., 287

75

Markins, E., 139

Marks, S., 76

T., 326

Marriott, T., 297
Marsdon, W., 236
Marshall, E., 127

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

519

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

No. 523-VOL. XI.

JAN. 16, 1847.

Price 1s., with Supplement, 2s.

* The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity:-

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

business, is a system natural and proper for the maintenance of the Profession, if it is to remain a public body of public utility. Further, it is quite true, that the system which has of late grown up in parliamentary practice, has a tendency to deteriorate the status of the bar; and it has so for this simple reason, that it substitutes, to an enormous extent, patronage instead of professional character, as the cause and source of employment. It is impossible for a man who, either by the early development of extraordinary ability, or by the more tedious process of the determined application of ordinary ability, has fought his way in the courts of law or equity to a respectable position in bu

SOME observations have lately appeared in a public journal respecting the practice of counsel at the parliamentary bar. There is much in those observations with which we in substance agree, though the tone of some parts of them, is not very consistent with the importance which the writer professes to attach to the status of the bar. It is quite true, that, in this country, it is important to the public, that a body of men whose influence over the administration of justice is so great as is that of the bar, should not only maintain, but have the reputation of maintaining, a high tone of feeling, and, in particular, should look at their Profes-siness, to go into one of the committees, and not to be sion rather as the means of obtaining honourable distinction, than mere money. It is right that such a position of the bar should be sustained by all the inducements that can be offered, and, if the inducements supplied by the desire of other men's esteem and by the dictates of ordinary principle are not sufficient, it is well that the adventitious aids of etiquette and special professional regulations should be called in. It is quite true, also, that, in order to attain and maintain such a position, the Profession ought not to offer to its members, as a matter of course, daily bread for daily labour. That is, or ought to be, the attribute of ordinary business pursued by ordinary men; whereas the tendency of the regulations for such a Profession as that of the bar, ought to be to fill it with men of capacity and energy far bove the ordinary standard. The system, therefore, under which, in the ordinary pursuit of practice in the superior courts, counsel are (with very few exceptions) obliged to bide their time, and, during a long period of severe probation, (the en- The truth is, (and it is well known), that, in the durance of which is of itself almost the only safe test parliamentary committees, at least twice the number of of their possession of one of the most necessary quali-counsel must be retained, that is at all likely to be reties), to strengthen and mature their qualifications for quired to conduct the business; not because the busiVOL. XI.

A

astonished at the number of very young juniors who are sitting at the committee-tables, covered with robes that have scarcely ceased to be redolent of the dyer's vat, and with tonsures whose almost dazzling whiteness contrasts pleasingly with their rosy cheeks, and who are gaining there, in modest silence, incomes which would be thought brilliant by men leading behind the Bar in the ordinary courts, and wearing out body and soul in a daily toil of from twelve to fourteen hours. That many of these young men are men of talent is most probable; and that many, or most, of them might become in time good lawyers, is also highly probable; but it is quite impossible, that, without any severer training than their brethren undergo, their professional services in attending a parliamentary committee, occasionally examining a few witnesses, and very rarely addressing the committee, can be worth to their clients from five to ten times as much as those of men almost conducting causes in the courts of law and equity.

mittee business, like other legal business, will be done without the expenditure, in counsel's fees, of more than is requisite to secure competent ability. But to talk of prescribing what amount of fees counsel shall receive for their services, or in what form they shall receive them, is as purely ridiculous as it would be to say, that Mr. Barry shall build the Houses of Parliament for so much, whether he will or not, and shall agree to receive his remuneration in silver, whether he will or not.

ness requires in itself more counsel to conduct it than any other, but because parliamentary arrangements are such, that the presence of counsel much esteemed, cannot be counted upon with tolerable certainty. As it is calculated, and with great chances that the calculation is accurate, that the two or three supernumerary counsel will not be called upon to do or say anything, it is not as important to the clients as it is in ordinary business (where seldom more than two, and, at the outside, three counsel are allowed) that the supernumeraries should be men really what is technically called, "up to their work." The result is, that those in whose hands the retainer of parliamentary counsel is placed, having, with regard to a considerable number of their EQUITY CAUSE LISTS, HILARY TERM, 1847. counsel, but slight responsibility as regards the conduct. of the case, are more open to influence, and, therefore, the more readily may, and in fact do, succumb to mere patronage.

But, admitting the public evil, the question remains what is its cause, and what is the remedy? Now, it is the fashion to throw the cause upon the alleged rapacity of counsel, and to suppose that the remedy consists in Parliament exercising the very simple piece of despotism of dictating for what fees counsel should work; whereas the cause consists, as we most respectfully suggest, in the excessive greediness of Parliament for jurisdiction, and its equally excessive slovenliness in the exercise of its jurisdiction; and the remedy would almost of itself follow, if Parliament would so organise its committees' as to insure competent judges and a regular bar. It is easy to talk, as laymen will talk, of the abolition of a daily fee, and to suppose that that daily fee is the stimulus to excessive protraction of business. The daily fee, however, seems inevitable, whenever there are no tolerable means of knowing the length of time that the trial of a case may last. In the courts of common law and equity, the average duration of the hearing of a cause is so easy to calculate, and so well known, that there is no difficulty in making counsel's fees irrespective of the mere time taken up in attending court: but who can venture to say, à priori, whether carrying a bill through committee will take three days or sixty? As to the other branch of the objection, we have practical proof that the daily fee does not produce on the part of counsel, unnecessary protraction of business; at least, where counsel are pleading before judges whose knowledge they can rely upon; for both in the House of Lords and in the Privy Council, the system as to fees is exactly the same as in Parliament; yet no one has ever heard of its being complained, that there counsel make prolix speeches or raise unnecessary or captious difficulties in order to increase their gains.

If the public really thinks it a grievance that such large sums should be paid to counsel by companies and their opponents in parliamentary committees, they should direct their clamour to the root of the evil, the loose and inefficient organisation of the committees themselves. Let them urge upon Parliament the formation of regular courts for the transaction of railway business, presided over by men of legal learning and judicial responsibility, whose reputation will attract, and whose capacity will enable them to control, a powerful and regular bar. Let this be done, and com

Court Papers.

**The following abbreviations have been adopted to abridge the space the Cause Papers would otherwise have occupied:-A. Abated-Adj. Adjourned-A. T. After Term-Ap. Appeal-C. D. Cause Day-C. Costs-D. Demurrer-E. Exceptions-F. D. Further Directions-M. Motion-P. C. Pro Confesso-Pl. Plea-Ptn. Petition-R. Re-hearing-S. O. Court of Chancery.

Stand Over-Sh. Short.

[blocks in formation]

Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.
PLEAS, DEmurrers, Causes, and Further Directions.
Cooper v. Webb (D)
Wait v. Horton (F D, C)
Lenaghan v. Smith (D) Montague v. Cator (F D, cau.)
Daniel v. Hill
Groom v. Stinton (4 causes)
Cope v. Lewis
Baxter v. Abbott (F D, C)
Attorney-Gen. v. Trevelyan De Beauvoir v. De Beauvoir
Stert v. Cooke
(F D, C)
Beale v. Warder (Re-hearing)
Turner v. Simcock (F D, C)

Hodgkinson v. Barrow (FD,C)
Colbourn v. Coling

Hickson v. Smith (at deft.

request)

Palmer v. Pattison (F D, C)
Minter v. Wraith (FD, cause)

Hemming v. Spiers (E)

Chambers v. Waters (E)
Smith v. Robinson

Foster v. Vernon (F D, C)
Vale v. Sherwood (7 causes, F
D, C)
Haffenden v. Wood (E)

Booth v. Lightfoot (F D. C)

Ludlow v. Guilleband (F D,
C)
Howell v. Saer

Att.-Gen. v. East India Co.
Roberts v. Cardell (E)
Warwick v. Richardson (E, F
D)

Morgan v. Kingdon (F D, C)
Lewis v. Hinton (F D, C)
Wilson v. Williams

Branscomb v. Branscombe (F Robotham v. Amphlett (E)
D, C)
Ellison v. Clark
Stammers v. Halliby (3 ca.,
F D)

Ditto v. Battye (by order)
Dorville v. Wolff (F D, C)
Woodman v. Madgen (FD, C)
Richards v. Patterson (F D, C)
Attorney-Gen. v. Pearson (E,

F D)
Dawson v. Chappell (F D, C)

Bailiff, &c. of Bridgnorth v.
Collins (F D, C)
Gaches v. Warner (2 causes)
Birch v. Joy (F D, C)
Day v. Slade (F D, C)
Wilson v. Jones (E)
Lufkins v. Lufkins (F D, C)
Nightingale v. Goulbourn (F
D, C)

« EelmineJätka »