On this page
-
Text (3)
-
8bh THE LEADER. \ r. y ;^y _ ^^n6A.ti
-
CONVOCATION AGAIK. The latest incident i...
-
now ruAcrc vs shcurwo. — ministeiual 10X...
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.
-
-
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.
A Barrister's Duty To His Client. In Ano...
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 clearl y ; 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 . Tor suppose Mr . Bovill ' s relation to " Sir
Hicham 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— -after 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 righ £ . Suppose he had remembered tljafoiadvocacy 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 — -whereY then , would have been his shame at
imding 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 verdict—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 = ± hen 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 j > erforce ease to be the advocate , he ought , at least , to remember that he is the paid lawyer , and to leave with those to whom the law ' entrusts it the decision of which he has provided the materials .
It must always be an injustice for him at the last hour to desert his paymaster ; and though , as in the Smyth case , the actual result of his withdrawing may merely be tho expediting of the legal decision , he is , even in such instances , establishing a precedent sure to be of dangerous consequence hereafter . And let it not bo forgotten , that there have been cases in which this precipitancy of the counsel lias proved an injury to tho client , nor overlooked that younger barristers loss able to judge than Mr . Bovill , may
any day prejudice , and perhaps ruin a just cause , by too hastily rotiring from a contest in which only perseverance in needed to ensuro success . In Smith v . Ferrers , if wo remember rightly , a mistake of prcoisoly this character was made , counsel throwing u ] i their briefs at tho announcement of some " stubborn fact" telling against the fair plaintiff , which hIio aftorwards—it was a breach of promise—explained in a pamphlet bo satisfactorily as at least to have left a doubt to the jury . Wo conclude , then , that Mr . Bovill has done
no iiAmedialo Jmmi in this ease , but that the . course which he adopted is not one to bo generally approved . Ah regardh his entire conduct of the action , looked at from the professional point of view , we hear no voices but m commendation . tVh regards the result , it has given uiuvernal satisfaction ; but as regards these questions of promiscuous advocacy , iu the first instan < : o , and discreet or indiscreet desertion , ok the client Ju (;] , „ uOX (; j wo must retain , and , aw occasion suggests , wo shall enforce , our original opinioiiH .
8bh The Leader. \ R. Y ;^Y _ ^^N6a.Ti
8 bh THE LEADER . \ r . y ;^ y _ ^^ n 6 A . ti
Convocation Agaik. The Latest Incident I...
CONVOCATION AGAIK . 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 . Sumher 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 rightabout . Dignified Prolocutor Peacock , dignified members of the Lower House , assembled at the usual time , eleven , but found no Archbishop , nor any intimation p f 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 Sunmer walked in with Registrar- Dyke and others of the same feather incompany . DignifiedProlocutor Peacock then properly conveyed to the Arehbisliop 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 only 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 onlv 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 tho Church and cheated the people for their own behoof , actually makes it a sin in tho gentlemen who , on Thursday , attended the Jerusalem Chamber , that they hunted the Archbishop about the Abbey , and dod for
ged a sitting . Why , the case was just the reverse . It was the Archbishop who obliged the reverend gentlemen to wait upon him ; it was ho who dodged them : it was his want of politeness that induced the ludicrous ; if Capel Court speculator there was , then the patron Archbishop of the Globe was he . Wo make bold to say that had the prolate given due notico of tho hour , and then politely intimated his
intention of proroguing Convocation , nothing of what has happened would have occurred . But the Globe is practical . The " Convocation Party " are sarcastically advised to get something like a mandamus from the Parliament to compel the Archbishop to hold tho sittings . Wo have only to say that tho " Convocation party" are man of
principle , as we understand them , and not Whigs . 1 hoy stand on the right of tho Church to her Convocation ; to ask the Parliament to grant that right would be conceding their sole position and admitting t ] m ( , i \ i ( iy lmvo no prinoiplo . No ; the agitation must go on ; if its supporters be honest , m its principle is vital , scenes liko thoso of Ihurmlay will not arrest it , but rather damage ArchbishopB uiul other obstructives .
Now Ruacrc Vs Shcurwo. — Ministeiual 10x...
now ruAcrc vs shcurwo . — ministeiual 10 XI'I . A NATIONS . ( To 1 . 1 , o . Editor of tho leader . ) Sin , —¦ The smirking impotence of the Ministerial explanations of Tuesday last has discouraged the most obstinate faith ' in the defenders of our national honour . Minds unaociiHtomed to woiirh important intorenl H with the polished nicety of oflieml roferenees and diplomatic mystifications have even been bo far disrespectful " us to uttor
energetic philippics against the Aberdeen . Administration ' -,-and .. to take the address of the noble Lord , the sleeping partner of the Cabinet , as the text for their vituperation . I propose adoptin g the same disrespectful course in the present con £ 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 jud gment it is impossible too greatly to admire , " and proceeded to wind up with the gratifying facts that the Vienna proiect contained no allusion to the
evacuation of the Principalities ; that it had not yet been signed by the Porte , though it was hoped it soon would be , that it would then have to be transmitted to St . Petersburgh , 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 mde . pendence , has already been destroyed ; any feai of exposing it , therefore , would seem to bo soniewhat superfluous . Surely if the actual invasion of two provinces by a large army , the seizure ol 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 be 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 , the ridicule will be difficult for us to sustain . The whole ot tho reasoning against Parliamentary publicity resolves itself into this : "thatunwholesome truths , spoken by imprudent members , would wound the feelings of dignified and highly respectable crowned heads , and that nlainlv outsnokou facts
might excite tho nation to forco a more eiicrgolifi policy upon tho Government . " Tho dangers ot such a policy have boon much commented on . in the commencement of tho negotiations , six months ago , they were continually adverted to , they were noticed less and less , and now the most pnoiiw and most powerful organ of tho kingdom advocates that determination and that very unswerving resolution , which were before held up ! ia ™ , ' tives of conduct to be carefully avoided . " J * "' in all that has fallen from Lord John llussell ,
this subject , wo remark a strange inconsistency between the forco with which he dwells on ' i | l ( 1 integrity and independence of tho Ofctoni » empire , '—as if ( says the Times ) * thai cum ' istie expression had power to heal tho »>« and raise the dead . ' - —and tho feeble nn' »» used to effect that object . If we are to W ('~ coed—as wo trust we shall —in defeating > " ¦ ( ituKsia ' s ) designs , rejecting her demands , «¦» causing her forces to retire , it must bo W strong resolution to upholutho common , nf of Europe . If the opinions und tbo intoreHtH England are ntill to be felt in the East , we i ^ be prepared to act with as much energy «*» ° ,
antagonists , and , above all , to give full * 'vl •< - '•< "' ' every assurance of support hold out in the n » . of tne British Government . " That the J 3 rrt » 0 '
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 20, 1853, page 16, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_20081853/page/16/
-