with the attorney." Now the 150 gentle- | he might mention also that a noble and men whose cause he represented had no learned Friend of his, whom ill health desire at present to infringe the rule of the rendered unable to attend in his place in profession, but only wished to be protected that House, and one who commanded the against such processes as these. Among highest respect of all, both in the profession these 150 petitioners were a serjeant-at- and out of it, the late Lord Chief Justice law, two recorders, double first-class men (Lord Denman)-in a letter to him that at Oxford, several wranglers at Cambridge, morning, not written in answer to one from five fellows of colleges, an ex-colonial chief himself on the same subject, strongly judge, and twenty authors of esteemed urged him (Lord Brougham) to persevere works on legal subjects. He mentioned in his intention; and expressed his hope this to show the respectability of the class that the prohibition would be left to the of individuals who had signed the declara- professional etiquette, uninterfered with tion he had referred to. There were from by statutory enactment. When he (Lord 90 to 100 others, amongst whom were Brougham) reminded their Lordships that of seven Queen's Counsel, twenty gentlemen the 80,000 suits brought in the year 1849, behind the bar, but in full practice, several hardly as many as 2,000 came to trial, to gentlemen connected with law reports, and a verdict, and a judgment; and that in others of a similar standing, all of whom the County Courts 6,000 cases a year were had declined to sign their names to a docu- tried from 201. to 50l. in amount; he thought ment which it was intended to make public they would agree with him that it was cruel, with the signatures attached; and he be- in this state of the law business of the counlieved their reason for declining it was an try, that this branch of the profession should exceedingly justifiable one, for he knew be excluded, as they now were, from the well what the effect might have been on County Courts. He would leave the subnot a few, respectable as they were in ject in their Lordships' hands, confident standing respectable in character he ven- that they would do justice to the parties tured to say they were all-but respectable whom he represented, and simply remindin their standing in the profession, and in ing them that although this clause had the amount of business which they now been struck out of the Bill before it was obtained. They had not chosen to sign passed by their Lordships, yet it was retheir names, but he had been furnished stored in the other House of Parliament with a copy of them. But all these per- almost by acclamation. sons in these different classes were strongly of opinion that the rule should be left to the etiquette of the profession, which was flexible, and liable to exception; not from a wish that it should be bent if it was not absolutely necessary, but that, if it should become absolutely necessary for purposes of self-defence, then they should be able to bend it. And the mere knowledge on the part of the wrong-doers that barristers were furnished with such a means of defence, and could practise in the County Courts without an attorney, their Lordships might trust him, would be most effectual to preclude the necessity of their almost ever having recourse to such a remedy. Not only were the gentlemen-thought it highly necessary and expedient between 200 and 300 in number-that he had mentioned in favour of this proposition; but it was supported by the Gentleman at the head of the Bar at this moment, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who had distinctly stated in the other House of Parliament that his opinion went to the full length of their prayer to their Lordships for protection. And not only the Attorney General, but LORD CAMPBELL said, this was a subject in which the public had such a deep interest that he must trouble their Lordships with a few observations. The due administration of justice, he believed, greatly depended on keeping distinct the profession of an attorney and the profession of a barrister or an advocate; and there would be great danger of that distinction being obliterated if they allowed attorneys to practise in the County Courts who had been instructed by other attorneys. That would be a great encroachment on the privileges of the Bar, and he was sure it would be extremely detrimental to the administration of justice. At the same time he to restrain barristers from practising in the County Courts unless they had been instructed by attorneys; and it was his firm conviction, after much reflection, that if this prohibition were not continued, there would be constituted all over the country a class of persons calling themselves barristers who would practise merely as attorneys, and who would get up the suit from the very beginning, and would con duct it all through, and who would not in any degre be subject to the control of the Courts at Westminster or of the County Court Judges. It was very important that those who conducted suits should be under the superintendence of the Judges, because it was most essential, if there was any malpractice with regard to costs, or the mode of executing judgment, or any other point, that the person who acted as attorney should be liable, on a summary application, to punishment for his misconduct; and this could not be the case if the party performed the functions of a barrister, because he could only be reached by application to the Inn of Court to which he belonged. That was the reason why the 91st section was introduced into the County Courts Act in 1846 for the first time; and if it had not been introduced before, he thought it would have been most politic to introduce it now. It had worked most beneficially; and if it were now to be withdrawn, he was sure the most mischievous consequences would ensue, because it would go forth that this and the other House of Parliament were of opinion that there should be no distinction between a barrister and an attorney, and not only that barristers and attorneys, but that all who chose to come forward, should be allowed to conduct cases. It was true that the prohibition was not necessary for the gentlemen who had signed the declaration that had been entrusted to his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham); but the noble Lord must be aware that in their profession, as well as in every other, there were always certain unscrupulous and unprincipled members, and it was to control the conduct of such persons that the restriction was demanded. His noble and learned Friend had referred, he thought rather indiscreetly, to the opinion of a very eminent member of the profession, the Attorney General; for that hon. and learned Gentleman had taken a most sanguine and zealous view of what ought to be done for the benefit of his own order. Now, he (Lord Campbell) looked to the benefit of the public; but the Attorney General had proposed that in all causes over 201. barristers should have pre-audience in the County Courts, the consequence of which would be that the client would require to employ two agents, a barrister and an attorney. He (Lord Campbell) considered that there ought to be no necessity for employing a barrister, or more than one agent, and that the wife, or a clerk, or Lord Campbell any one selected by the suitor, might appear; so that it should not even be necessary to employ an attorney-so anxious was he that there should be full freedom and facility for the public in seeking for justice through the instrumentality of the County Courts. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it appeared that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had a paper signed by 150 persons, having a bearing on this subject; and that he had the names of some 100 other persons who had refused to sign it. Now he should have thought that the signatures of the first 150 would have been a sufficient guarantee to the other 100, if they were really in favour of the declaration; and he, therefore, could not understand why they had refused to sign it, if they so highly approved of it. His own communication with the profession led him to a conclusion exactly the reverse of that come to by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham); for he believed the Bar were by no means desirous of the protection which it was sought to afford them. What was the noble Lord's argument? That the attorneys had entered into a combination not to employ barristers at sessions, assizes, or elsewhere, who thought fit to appear in a County Court. It was wished to protect the Bar against that combination. How? Why, by allowing them to appear in the County Courts without being instructed by an attorney; that was, to place themselves in a position to be the direct objects of that combination. When their Lordships heard the number of causes tried in the County Courts, and if they had the means of abstracting from that number the portion of them in which counsel would be employed, not through an attorney, but directly by the client, he should wonder what sort of a Bar would be found attending the County Courts, and what kind of fortunes they would make. They could not go on circuit, because their Lordships were aware how the County Court Judges travelled through the counties. If the etiquette of the profession had hitherto been sufficient to prevent barristers practising without the intervention of attorneys, and to a great extent it had been sufficient, the barristers would still be influenced by that etiquette, notwithstanding any enactment that might be made on the subject. But if, indeed, his noble and learned Friend supposed that after the passing of that Bill, barristers would attend the County Courts, and act on their own account, with- LORD BROUGHAM said, that his noble out regard to the etiquette of their profession, then he (the Lord Chancellor) believed the result would be greatly to deteriorate the administration of justice, and to lower the dignity and respectability of the Bar. He apprehended that up to the present moment nobody had doubted the great importance of preventing the barrister from having direct communications with his client. No rule had been more inflexibly observed, and exceptions to it were only permitted in rare and important cases; for instance, where witnesses had to be examined on scientific matters. But the general rule, which it was of the last importance to preserve, was, that a barrister should never communicate with his client or with witnesses; and one of the most essential duties of an attorney consisted in the examination of witnesses to find out what they knew, and to ascertain how far the evidence would go to establish the main points of the case. But if you admitted barristers to communicate with clients, you could not prevent them from communicating with witnesses; and if a system of that kind were once established, infinite mischief would be done to the Bar, and he believed to the administration of justice also. He hoped it would not go forth as the opinion of Lord Brougham that it was not fit to prevent a barrister from communicating with parties without the intervention of an attorney. and learned Friend seemed to think that he (Lord Brougham) was an advocate for barristers going into court without an attorney. Now he did not maintain anything of the kind, and he did not wish it to go forth that he or either of his noble and learned Friends whom he had mentioned were of that opinion. What they said was this-not that barristers ought to go into court without an attorney-not that they would do so on the contrary, he thought that they ought not, and he believed, moreover, that they would not do so, but what he maintained was, that barristers ought to have protection afforded to them against a gross and crying abuse, and that they should not be prevented by positive law from acting without an attorney in order that they might have the means of defending themselves in case of a combination being formed against them. His noble Friend called this a provision for doing away with attorneys. But surely it was a different thing for a person to have arms in his house for the purpose of defending himself in case of attack, and using those arms to commit murder and robbery upon the whole parish. What he wished to point their Lordships' attention to, however, was this-Was it to be supposed that the hundreds of respectable men who were subjected to those combinations to which he had alluded, would quietly lie down and die; or was it not more likely that they would reconsider the etiquette of the profession a little? Eti LORD BROUGHAM: It is also the opinion of Lord Denman and Lord Lynd-quette was more or less a matter of feelhurst. ing, nay, of fancy; and if they were driven to it, with the simple authority of their own judgment on their own case, they would be exceedingly likely when they found themselves shut out by the state of the law from all participation in these great and increasing branches of professional business, to reconsider that etiquette which alone prevented them in other courts, and to attempt to drive the Legislature (which he ventured to predict the Legislature would not do) to apply to all other courts that which, in an evil hour, they had inconsiderately applied to the County Courts, and to them alone. The consequence would be the universal practice of barristers acting without attorneys, except in these County Courts. The LORD CHANCELLOR: Then, if that principle, dignified by the approbation of those noble and learned persons, should once be recognised by law, a class of men would spring up in connection with the County Courts, who would attend publichouses, picking up causes, finding out defences in cases where no one would ever dream of a defence, and devising means of establishing claims which could never enter into an honest man's head. Such a class of men would not be subject to that restraint and discipline which prevailed where the Judge had more authority. He (the Lord Chancellor) feared that if that Bill should pass in its present shape, it would, notwithstanding the etiquette, prevail to a considerable extent, and that barristers would be found to act without the inter-made. vention of attorneys. Amendment made; other Amendments House adjourned to Thursday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, February 17, 1852. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Parliamentary Representation (Ireland); Parliamentary Representation (Scotland); Law of Evidence (Scotland). ARMY ALLOWANCES. the people, felt bound to attend to the interests of the Army. As to questions in relation to different rates of pay in the two branches of the Army, it was almost impossible to enter into them without entering also into the details of the different regimental papers. The regulations to which the questions of the hon. and gallant Member had reference, were of ancient standing, and he could not take upon himself to alter, on his first entrance into office, a practice that had received the sanction of so many of his predecessors. With regard to the continuance of the good-conduct pay to individuals who were appointed sergeants, the hon. and gallant Member must know when a soldier attained the rank of sergeant it was considered to be a reward for good conduct, and therefore that from that period the good-conduct pay should cease. If the hon. and gallant Member could persuade the House that it was desirable to continue that pay to the sergeants, no person would be more willing to agree to it than he (Mr. V. Smith); but it would entail a great expense upon them, because almost every sergeant in the service would be entitled to the good-conduct pay. The hon. and gallant Member knew that the pay of a sergeant was higher than the ordinary pay COLONEL CHATTERTON begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of War if he intends to recommend the discontinuance of the deductions to which officers of the cavalry are subject in paying for the forage of their regimental charges, kept for the public service, whilst other mounted officers in the service receive an allowance for that purpose: also, if he has directed his attention to the justice and expediency of granting to officers in command of cavalry regiments the allowance called "command money, which the officers commanding infantry regiments receive; also, if the right hon. Gentleman has directed his attention, or intends to direct his attention, to the expediency of recommending to Her Majesty to grant to the sergeants of the Army a continuance of that " pay for good conduct" which they enjoyed as privates and corporals, but were compelled to resign upon promotion to the rank of sergeant; also, if he intends to re-received by him before his appointment, and commend an increase of the allowance of 2,000l. per annum to sergeants of the Army as a gratuity for good conduct whilst serving; and also, if he intends to recommend an increase of the Vote of last year of 2,000l. per annum granted as a reward to deserving non-commissioned officers and privates of the Army on discharge? MR. VERNON SMITH said, that the questions that had been put by the hon. and gallant Member would perhaps have been better put on the discussion on the Army Estimates; but he would endeavour to answer them as briefly as possible. With regard to the first question which had been put to him by the hon. and gallant Member, he begged to say that, being but a short time in office, his attention had not as yet been directed to the matter to which it referred. With regard to the second question, he could assure the hon, and gallant Gentleman, that it was his intention to direct his attention to all questions affecting the comforts and interest of the Army; and that in zeal for the service he hoped he should not be found inferior to any gallant officer who, in the double capacity of an officer in the Army and a representative of that, therefore, as a sergeant, he received as much as he had previously received, including the good-conduct pay. This answer would also apply to the subsequent question of the hon. and gallant Member. There was a vote of 2,000l. taken for gratuities to the men. That had been done ever since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) was Secretary at War, and he (Mr. V. Smith) was not prepared this year to alter or increase the amount. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman could induce the House to increase the sum, there were many instances in which it could be made available, and he thought there was no proposition in which the country would more perfectly agree. THE CABOOL DESPATCHES. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: Sir, to make intelligible the question I am about to put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, I must state the fact that a gentleman of great ability (Mr. Kay) has written a work on the war in Cabool, and in that work it is stated, in the strongest language, that the MR. PEEL: In the year 1836 an Act of Parliament was passed bringing British subjects in territories adjacent to the Colony of the Cape, and south of the 25th degree of south latitude, under the jurisdiction of criminal laws and courts of the colony of the Cape. The object of that Act was to protect the natives against the outrages and violence of any of the British subjects. That Act was, I believe, found to be of considerable service in checking outrages; but a difficulty arose with respect to assigning limitations, and fixing upon the exact latitude of the spot where a crime was committed; and a recommendation was made, with a view of removing that objection, to do away with the limitation of the degree, and, at all events, to extend the jurisdiction of the courts of the colony as far as the Equator; and Earl Grey did an nounce to Sir Harry Smith that it was his intention to bring in a Bill, and to act upon that recommendation. If matters had proceeded in conformity with that recommendation, a Bill would have been introduced last Session; but, seeing the state of affairs on the eastern frontier of the colony, it was not thought advisable to proceed with that measure; and as the war still continues on the eastern frontier of the Cape, no step has been taken for the preparation of such a measure as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes were | Colonies, whether the Government have in garbled and emasculated by the State ana- preparation the Bill for the extension of tomists that the pith and marrow of the British Jurisdiction in South Africa to the despatches were taken out of them-that Equator, which Earl Grey stated his intenlie upon lie was palmed upon the world, tion to introduce this Session, in a despatch and that the characters of Dost Mahomed to Sir Harry Smith given in the papers, on and Sir Alexander Burnes were lied away. the assumption of the Orange territory, He gives various extracts from the de- presented to the House on the 19th of May spatches of Sir Alexander Burnes, dated last. 26th January, 1838, which portions, if genuine, are not to be found in the despatches laid before Parliament on the 26th of March, 1839; and the question I have to ask of the right hon. Gentleman is, whether he will place on the table of the House copies of the entire despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes to William Henry Macnaghten, Esq., the secretary to the Governor General of India, from the 4th of October, 1837, to the 30th of April, 1838? MR. FOX MAULE: Sir, in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I can only state that I have looked into the subject to which his notice refers; and I must remind him, in the first instance, that those papers which were presented to the House of Commons to which he alludes, never pretended to be the entire despatches to which he has referred. They were laid upon the table of the House as the extracts which, at that time, it appeared to my noble Friend then at the head of the Board of Control, would be sufficient to inform the House of Commons with reference to the policy pursued in regard to Cabool, without producing papers which then would have been inconvenient for the public service. The House will, perhaps, recollect that this question has been twice discussed with reference to those despatches. The last discussion that took place was a full one, in 1842, on which occasion my noble Friend (Lord Broughton) justified himself and the Government of the day for not producing any more of those despatches. In reply to the direct question of my hon. Friend, I may state that it is not my intention to lay those despatches now, in extenso, before the House. I do not see why, by doing so, we should bring under discussion again the policy and conduct of the Affghanistan war and its misfortunes-questions that have altogether become matters of history—and I hope the House will not ask me to do so. EXTENSION OF BRITISH JURISDICTION IN SOUTH AFRICA. MR. ADDERLEY: I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the SAVINGS BANKS. MR. H. HERBERT said, that in rising to propose the Resolution of which he had given notice, relative to the neglect of Her Majesty's Government in not introducing any measure for the regulation of Savings Banks, he felt that some apology was due to the House. It might be fairly said, that, considering the immense importance of the subject, and the interests it involved, it was one which should have been brought before the House by a more experienced Member than himself; but if the House would bear with him while he stated very shortly the position of this question as regarded the country and the House, he thought they would acquit him of any un |