« ZurückWeiter »
ficiency from these Examiners he must still undergo a final examination before the Benchers themselves; and unless they are satisfied in these respects, and as to his moral character, his property, and any other circumstances into which they may choose to inquire, they will not call him to the bar. These regulations are to take effect immediately, without any exception in favor of the present members. At present no practising attorney can be called to the bar until his name shall bave been taken off for two years from the rolls of the courts of Westminster, and no articled clerk can be called till two years after his articles shall have been cancelled. A new order will be issued, by which no solicitor, attorney, or articled clerk whatever, will be admitted a member, to be called to the bar, until three years after his name shall have been taken from the rolls, or his articles cancelled. It is said to be in contemplation to prevent special pleaders from practising below the bar, or to prevent those who choose that course from being called to the bar afterwards. It is said also that a schedule of his property will be required from every member before his call to the bar, and that £ 400 per annum will be his requisite qualification. The Examiners, who will be four in number, will be barristers; those at present named for the Inner Temple, are Mr. E. H. Anderson, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Scarlett, the son of the Attorney-General. It is expected that when these regulations are formally established in this Society, they will be extended to the other Societies. The special pleaders and the attorneys complain loudly at the proposed restrictions, which they contend will have the effect of rendering the bar a close monopoly, and of depriving it of the eloquence, talent, and energy which now distinguish it, and which result altogether from the facility of admission, and the consequent rivalry of a numerous body of competitors. The whole business of pleading will be thrown at once into the hands of the barristers, many of whom, it is well known, are utterly ignorant both of the science and practice of pleading. The pleaders take silver fees, but the barristers must take nothing less valuable than gold; half a crown fees are pot yet unknown among the pleaders; but the barristers can take nothing less than half guinea. The cost of advice will be raised to the client, and to such an extent that the already intolerable expenses of law will be increased three or four fold. These are the objections urged to these restrictions on free competition, the very object which, in every other profession and pursuit, it is the policy of the country to encourage and extend. The evil that will result from the power of exclusion is illustrated by the list of great men, the light and glory of the legal profession, who, beginning their career with Lord Thurlow's talisman of success, parts and poverty,' have risen to the highest bonors of the law. The late Lord Chancellor, and his brother, the greatest civilian of the age, Lord
Stowell, are the sons of a coal-fitter at Newcastle. Lord Stowell supported himself at college as a private tutor; and Lord Eldon was originally bred an attorney, and was prompted by private reasons to enter himself for the bar. He was indebted to Mr. Sinclair, the recorder of York, for the means of going circuit, for some time, and has often related himself anecdotes of the difficulty he experienced in getting into practice in chancery. There is a well known anecdote which he used to repeat pathetically, of his being cheated by a fawning Solicitor out of the first see he earned at the bar, by signing a bill, on a promise that he should receive the guinea immediately. The Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench is the son of a hair-dresser at Canterbury, and was educated at the Grammar School, which is a charitable foundation. The present Lord Chancellor is the son of Mr. Copley, the painter, and certainly had not £ 400 a year when he was called to the bar. The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas is the son of a country attorney. The Solicitor-General is also a hair-dresser's son, and was clerk to Mr. Groom, the late Lord Londonderry's Solicitor. His admission to the bar was opposed on that very ground, but granted by the exertions of Mr. Hargrave, who supported it with reference to the talents Mr. Sugden had displayed in a legal work he had published while a student. Mr. Serjeant Wilde was, within a few years, an attorney in the city, in partnership with his brother, who has had so long a contest with Mr. Winchester, for the Admiral's gown of Vintry Ward. Of the King's Counsel, Mr. John Williams is the son of an attorney in Cheshire, and Mr. Frederick Pollock of a saddler at Charing Cross; Mr. Bickersteth was lately a house surgeon and accoucheur in the family of Lord Clifford; Mr. Gurney's mother kept a bookseller's shop in Holborn ; Mr. Campbell was a reporter on a morning paper, as also was Mr. Serjeant Spankie, before he went to India, and Mr. Stephen, the Master in Chancery, who did himself honor by resisting an attempt to prevent the call of a reporter, avowing that he himself could never have gone to the bar, if he had not supported himself in that manner. Five colopial Judges have been reporters, and some of the most rising barristers at present were engaged in the same occupation.
These are the living instances of the advantages of free admission ; and there are abundant examples among those who are departed; Lord Kenyon was an attorney's clerk; Lord Hardwick, first a peasant, and afterwards an attorney's writer and office boy; Lord Thurlow used to boast of his own self elevation ; Chief Justice Saunders, famous for his reports, was actually a beggar boy, and was taken from charity into an attorney's office. Lord Clifford was the son of a grocer at Bristol, and owed his rise entirely to having attracted the attention of Sir Vicary Gibbs, who used to lodge at his father's house. Lord Erskine was a half-pay officer, without a shilling of property when he came to the bar; and Curran owned truly, at the Prince of Wales' table, that he had been raised from the condition of a peasant only by the bar. All these great men must have been excluded by the regulations now about to be imposed, and doomed to inferior stations in life, where their talents would have been useless. Two other striking instances of the injustice of these restrictions might be afforded in the cases of Sir James Mackintosh and Sir Samuel Romily, both of whom it is known commenced their professional career with no fortune of four hundred pounds a year. The Benchers legislate in their secret chamber, over their wine, and give no reason for what they enact; but they may perhaps be taught the impolicy of agitating a question, which, being brought before Parliament, may lead to a further inquiry into the fitness of leaving such powers in their hands as they now even possess, and as they have acquired-nobody knows how.
Law-Suit about a Surname. [This is translated from the French. It first appeared in the Paris Constitu
tionel. The translation was made for the Boston Daily Advertiser.] A law-suit about a sur-name! Ridiculous enough, and yet not the less true, that the Royal Court of Nismes was so occupied through four solemn sittings, which were attended by a numerous and respectable auditory. The parties concerned were of the bighest rank of society. There we saw a Prince of the Church, the Cardinal de la Fare, with the two Marquises, his brothers, who had cited before the court the two Marquises, Cabot de la Fare, one a knight of St. Louis, and formerly Chef d'Escadron, in the Light Cavalry; the other decorated with honors at Wagram, and Dresden, and having also gained the rank of Chef ’dEscadron at the point of the sword. Of what, then did the Archbishop of Sens, and Auxerr complain? What did this Prelate require ? He charged them with having usurped his name to make a surname for themselves. He charged them with having unduly taken the title of Marquis. He called on them to renounce both the title and the surname, and for the future to style themselves Cabot merely. What said the defendants? That they took the surname of de la Fare, in pursuance of an acquisition made in 1719 by their family, of an estate belonging to them, which descended with all its honorary and seignorial rights, that in so doing, they had followed an immemorial custom, that they had been Marquises quite as long as the Messieurs de la Fare; they had enjoyed both the title and the surname for a great number of years, without either being questioned; and that they had used them in a great number of public proceedings.
It was not one of the least remarkable features of this case, to hear the anti-feudal and even highly constitutional language used by the counsel for the Cardinal de la Fare; Our adversaries,
said M. Bechard, “pretend to hold the name of La Fare as a feudal surname! We leave them to defend property against usurpation, the law against abuse, constitutional principles against the decrepid pretensions of the old system. How many gentlemen peasants are there then whose nobility arises from the possession of a morsel of ground, or the remains of a ruined mansion. How many noble citizens are there whose titles were probably lost in the revolutionary disorders ? Public irony does ample justice to their fallen vanity. Let us leave to the descendants of our ancient nobility, stripped as they have been of so many other benefits by our civil troubles, let us leave them that wreck of their last splendor, the lustre they owe to their name.'
This cause gave a fine opportunity, no doubt, for satirical eloquence; let us see whether Mr. Cremieux, who was counsel for the defendants, turned it to their advantage. His biting sarcasms more than once excited the laughter of the auditory. A Prince of the Church,' exclaimed the orator, 'a Grandee of the State, the Cardinal de la Fare, the Archbishop of Sens and Auxerre, Primate of the Gauls and of Germany, Duke and Peer of France, awakes all at once from a long slumber; he directs his noble looks to the extremities of his kingdom; from the interior of a palace of our kings, where he dwells, he perceives at the bottom of the province a peaceful family, whose audacity has led them to assume the surname of La Fare! In the circle of the immense horizon, he sees a speck which annoys him: it is the maker's cottage which offends the proud vanity of the Prince; it must fall
. Yes, the same hand which at the conclave puts into the sacred urn the inspired suffrage which gives a Pope urbi et orbi (to the city and to the world), this hand writes and signs a declaration, that the Cardinal is our chief, and also our adversary. At the sight of such a plaintiff in such a cause, have I not the right to exclaim, Vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas !-(Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.) We have smiled,' continued the counsel, in thinking that the Primate of the Gauls and of Germany should be critical upon feudality : we were rejoiced to hear the Cardinal de la Fare render such brilliant homage to our constitutional charter. But why these complaints in favor of ancient families? Of what has the Prelate been despoiled in our troubles, who appears here to-day with so many titles, and whose splendor is supported by accumulated allowances from the state, which exceed 100,000 francs (£4000 sterling), when we ourselves receive a pension of 1200 francs ( £ 48 sterling) for wounds which compelled us to leave the service of our country? Again, have not those that reproach us done the very same thing themselves ? Look at our adversaries: they used to be La Fare Latour, and La Fare Tornal, they now are La Fare Allais, and La Fare Venejean. In earlier days your family had for its surname Bringuier;
at a later period you took the surname of La Fare, deriving it from an estate where your ancestors dwelt, if you be really descended from the ancient La Fares, which is very
doubtful. On this estate was a castle, which was crowned by high towers, called whares or fares, because, each being surmounted by a light, they serve as guides to navigators; you have them in your arms, and your motto is, "Lux nostris, hostibus ignis,” (light for our friends, fire for our enemies.) It was for this surname you gave up that of Bringuier.'
M. Injalric, the King's Advocate, who next addressed the court, shewed an equal degree of acuteness, in speaking of the mania of surnames and noble distinctions, and of talent, in discussing the considerations connected with this trial; as well as great independence in his conclusions. Though they were unfavorable to the Archbishop, we are sure his eminence could not hear the concluding words of the advocate without deep emotion:
There is no law that compels us to judge this case; and there is, on the contrary, a custom of eight centuries in favor of the Messrs. Cabot. It is difficult to make one's way through the cases of those who have used, or abused, as it may be, the silence of the law; and in this doubtful state of things, I am called on to make a victim of a respectable and aged man, and on the brink of his tomb—to plunge a poinard in his breast; I am called on to take away from him a name he has borne with honor, under which he is known, he has served, and he has done the most important deeds of his long career. In so doing I shall, I may say, tear from his breast the cross of St. Louis, which in that name he received; I shall carry despair into a heart devoted to the august family of our king: I should tarnish and disgrace him and his. Neither the honorable wounds of his son, Camille, nor the cordon of officer of the Legion of Honor which decorates him, nothing shall prevent me; and his two brothers, one a Lieutenant Colonel of the Guard, and the other a Captain, I shall see forced perhaps to quit their corps, or prove by their sword that they are not unworthy of the name they bear. I shall even reach him who was the companion of his Majesty in exile (M. de Bruges.) I shall even reach that General, brave in every battle, wise in every counsel, and always forward to support in the tribune the unfortunate who called for his aid, (Gen. Brun de Villeret, who is married to a daughter of the Cabot family,) and I shall listen to 110 considerations in carrying into effect I know not what law which has never yet been executed, and which is not capable of application to any case. Ah, no! I shall not; for the Messieurs de la Fare will not have it done themselves. Their noble heart denies what their mouth demands.'
The Court, in agreement with the King's Advocate, confirmed the judgment of the Great Tribunal, and decided that the Mes