On this page

• Text (3)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    undertaken the cause , they were bound—not to be its advocates , the which , not knowing its merits , they could not conscientiously be—but to be its exponents ; to state in what form they pleased , the contents of their briefs and , with their best acumen , to insist on their evidence in support being logically , and by credible witnesses , refuted . Their adversaries had at the same time to see that the claim of the plaintiff was clearly propounded , and that the testimony on which it was based was without flaw . The barristers on each , side ought then to have waited for the issue ; the judge and jury ought to have decided , and neither ought to have usurped the others' functions .

    In short , the immorality we protest against is in the taking of briefs on such terms as barristers do , rather than in the throwing them up after the Bovill fashion . Indiscriminate advocacy is the sin ; the having now and then ignominously to desert the client is but a consequence . For suppose Mr . Bovill ' s relation to " Sir Hicbard" had been what it ought to have been ; suppose it had been understood by his client , by the opposing counsel , and by the Court , that what he had Undertaken was simply for a given fee to

    tell , in lawyerlike fashion , the tale of a person to him unknown , to divest it of all the superficial and unnecessary matter with which laymen embarrass their statements on legal questions , to produce the facts , and the evidence of the facts , given him by " Sir Richard , " and to ask the Court—rafter examinations and cross-examinations , after tests of all descriptions , and the allowance of a fair field to all parties—to say on which side lay the right . Suppose he had remembered that advocacy should be confined to

    questions of damages , or of doubtful law , and that in matters of fact the barrister is only asked to be legal and logical in his statements , pledging himself to nothing but the exposition of his case —where , then , would have been his shame at finding the evidence breaking down and the truth coming out ? He would have been doing no more than his duty ; he would have been no " accomplice" of his client ' s . The jury would

    have pronounced their vei'dict—they were there for that purpose , —and the barrister would have been innocent , though the plaintiff might have been hanged . But when the barrister becomes the advocate—adopting , instead of merely stating , facts , —when he talks like a witness instead of like a lawyer—then it is that , in cases such as this , his client ' s detection becomes his shame . Of course he is disconcerted when he finds it known

    that he has identified himself with a scoundrel . Even then , however , though he must perforce ease to be the advocate , he ought , at least , to remember that ho is the paid lawyer , and to leave with those to whom the law entrusts it the decision of which he has provided tho materials . It must always be an injustice for him at the last hour to desert his paymaster ; and though , as in the Smyth case , tho actual result of his withdrawing may merely bo tho expediting of the legal decision , he is , evon in such instances ,

    establishing a precedent stiro to bo of dangerous consequence hereafter . And lot it not bo forgotten , that there have been cases in which this precipitancy of the counsel has proved an injury to tho client , nor overlooked that younger barristors less able to judge than Mr . Bovill , may any day prejudice , mid perhaps ruin a just cause , by too hastily retiring from a contest , in which

    only perseverance is needed to ensure success . In Smith v . l ^ orrors , if wo romembor rightly , a mistake of precisely this character was made , counsel throwing up their briefs at tho announcement of some " stubborn fact" telling against tho fair plaintiff , which hJio afterwards—it was a breach of promise—explained in a pamphlet so satisfactorily as at least to have loll a doubt to tho jury .

    Wo conclude , then , that 'Mr . Bovill lias dono no immediate harm in this case , but that tho course- which he adopted ia not one to bo generally approved . As regards his entire conduct of tho action , looked at from tho professional point of viow , wo hoar no voices but in commendation . Ab rogards tho result , it has given universal satisfaction ; but us regards thoso questions of promiscuous advocacy , in tho first instance , and discroet or indisoreot dcaortion of tho client in tho noxt , wo must retain , and , as occasion suggests , wo shall onforco , our original opinions .

    Untitled Article

    HOW PEACE IS SECURED . —MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS . ( To tho Editor of tho Zeadcr . ) Sin , —The smirking impotence of tho Ministerial explanations of Tuosday last has discouraged tho most obstinate faith in tho defenders of our national honour . Minds unaccustomed to weigh important interests with tho polished nicety of ofhciul references and diplomatic mystifications , havo even been bo far disrespectful as to utter

    energetic philippics against the Aberdeen Administration , and to take the address of the noble Lord , the sleeping partner of the Cabinet , as t he text for their vituperation . I propose adopting the same disrespectful course in the present com . munication , not only because the Government convicts itself better than anybody else convicts it , but also because , whatever is quoted under such circumstances is derived from an official

    source . ¦ After a mass of confused fanfaronades and " subjects of regret , "the first bland and apologetic assertion of the noble Lord stated , that" therefore no actual hostilities beyond the occupation of these ( the Danubian ) provinces had taken place . " His Lordship then paid a compliment to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs , " a gentleman whose talents , moderation , and judgment it is impossible too greatly to admire , " and proceeded to wind up with the gratifying ^ fac ts that the Vienna r > roieet contained no allusion to the

    evacuation ot the Principalities ; that it had not yet been signed by the Porte , though it was hoped it soon would be , that it would then hare to be transmitted to St . Petersburg !! , when it was once more hoped Russia would agree to it also . There then remained the question of the Danubian provinces , and his Lordship announced that " no settlement could be satisfactory which did not include , or immediately lead to , the evacuation of the Principalities . " This , Sir , is

    positively all that the Government has stated ; the last assurance is the only spirited one in the official address , and even that is afterwards qualified by a long-winded and somewhat undignified paragraph , asking for a still continued confidence and a still uninterrupted accordance of Parliamentary silence and indiscretion . The Government demands a prolongation of this child-like trust , since there is now a fair prospect of bringing the affair to a conclusion , " without involving Europe in hostilities , or exposing the independence and integrity of Turkey . !"

    The integrity of Turkey , if not also its independence , has already been destroyed ; any fear of exposing it , therefore , would seem to be somewhat superfluous . Surely if the actual invasion of two provinces by a large army , the seizure of the Government of these provinces , and the appropriation of the revenues , does not " expose the integrity" of the ruling empire , his Lordship must put an interpretation upon his words which no other person would bo likely to comprehend . But this last piece of clap-trap is just as unworthy as the continued demand for secresy and confidence . The other Governments have all

    published their respective negotiations and addresses , whilst England alone has preserved silence . Silence is , perhaps , commendable , where deeds take the place of words , but , if it should afterwards be found that the dark and mysterious veil spread over our diplomacy will have concealed nothing but weakness and pusillanimity , tho ridicule will be difficult for us to sustain . The whole or the reasoning against Parliamentary publicity resolves itself into this : " that unwholesome truths , snokon hv irnrmirlnnf ; mrnnhfirB . would WOUlw

    the feelings of dignified and highly rospectab o crowned heads , and that plainly outspoken iacw might excite the nation to force a more encrgcu policy upon tho Government . " Tho danger" m such a policy have been mxich commented on . , the commencement of tho negotiations , sixinon irc ago , they were continually adverted to , th ° y " .,. , noticed less and less , and now tho most pac ' and most powerful organ of the kingdom n « cates that determination and that very unBVv c

    ing resolution , which were boforo held up »<* { tives of conduct to bo carefully avoided , in all that has fallen from Lord John IIubscJJ . , this subject , wo remark a strange i " conB , jjj between the force with which ho dwells ^ 'J ^ integrity and independence of tho t > , ompiro , * —ns if ( says tho Times ) ' that ^ . ^ istie oxproKsion had power to heal ti » ° ' and raise tho dead , '— -and the feeble i » - used to oflbct that object . If wo are y > ju r eewl—as wo trust wo shall — in dcioawnj , .

    ( Russia ' s ) designs , rejecting hor demand fl causing her forces to retiro , it must . i () r ( ; gls Btrong resolution to uphold tho common i" ' of of Europe . If tho opinions and tho intor ^ t England aro titill to be felt in the Jfiusfc , ^ r bo prepared to act with aa much onergy (( l 0 antagonists , and , abovo all , to givo i . JL nlu ' every assurance of Bupporfc held out in «* ^ 0 of tho Britieh Government . " That tho v

    Untitled Article

    CONVOCATION AGAIN . The latest incident in the agitation for the revival of the Church ' s Parliament is of the seriocomic kind . Let us detail the plain facts . 'In February last , Dr . Sumner prorogued Convocation to the 18 th of August , trusting that Parliament would be prorogued in the meantime , and so Convocation evaded . But as we see , Parliament was not prorogued , and Convocation therefore had to meet . It so happened that the

    Archbishop of Canterbury assumed that no business would be entered upon ; and , therefore , he did not notify to the Members of either House the hour when it would graciously please him to send them to the right about . Dignified Prolocutor Peacock , dignified members of the Lower House , assembled at the usual time , eleven , but found no Archbishop , nor any intimation of his coming . [ Registrar Dyke , like other individuals dressed in authority , totally ignored the existence of Prolocutor Peacock and his brethren , and

    sent a private letter to a porter , stating Convocation would be prorogued at three o'clock . So the Prolocutor and several Members met again at that hour , and Archbishop Sumner walked in with [ Registrar Dyke and others of the same feather in company . Dignified Prolocutor Peacock then properly conveyed to the Archbishop the respectful representation of the Members of the

    Lower House , stating that they had not been informed of the hour of meeting , and trusting his Grace would so order that it might not occur again . Registrar Dyke , almost before Dr . Peacock had finished , struck in with the formal opening of the writ of prorogation ; but Dr . Sumner stopped him , and expressed his regret that the Lower House had been so treated ; it had been understood there would be no business

    done , and he 6 nly came to go through a formal ceremony . He was very sorry , and so on . Vanish Convocation , murmuring . Now what is the meaning of all this ? Supposing the Archbishop has the right to prorogue at his discretion , did that authorize him to assume that no business would be done ? It is monstrous . He had no right to understand anything ^ of the kind . Under any circumstances , the Prolocutor should have been officially informed of the intentions of the Archbishop . But Dr . Sumner is not a man of quick parts ; and mayhap it never occurred to him , that not only duty , but courtesy , dictated a course the opposite of that taken on Thursday .

    We are amused at the Globe of yesterday , which never contained an article more true to its " Whig principles . The organ of the great Revolution families , who degraded the Church and cheated the people for their own behoof , actually makes it a sin in the gentlemen who , on Thursday , attended the Jerusalem Chamber , that they hunted the Archbishop about the Abbey , and dodged for a sitting . Why , the case was just the reverse . It was the Archbishop who obliged the reverend gentlemen to wait upon him ; it was he who dodged them : it was his want of

    politeness that induced tho ludicrous ; if Capel Court speculator there was , then the patron Archbishop of the Glohc was he . Wo make bold to say that had the prelate given duo notice of the hour , and then politely intimated his intention of proroguing Convocation , nothing of what has happened would havo occurred . But tho Globe is practical . Tho " Convocation Party " aro sarcastically advised to get something like a mandamus from the Parliament to compel the to hold the

    Archbishop sittings . Wo havo only to say that the " Convocation party" aro men of principle , as we understand them , and not Whigs . They stand on the right of tho Church to her Convocation ; to ask tho Parliament to grant that right would bo conceding their sole position , and admitting that they havo " no principle . No ; tho agitation must go on ; if its supporters bo honest , as its principlo is vital , scenes like those of Thursday will not urrost it , butmthor damage Archbishops and other obstructives .

    Untitled Article

    308 . / . ¦ ¦ ; - : T [ Satukday ,

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 20, 1853, page 808, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2000/page/16/