THE LICENCE OF COUNSEL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 94, 21 April 1874, Page 2

THE LICENCE OF COUNSEL.

[From the Otago Daily Times, Mtroh 30.] The days are gone by, in the colonies at least, when the free expression of opinion in religious matters, was invariably visited with social exclusion in this worhl, nnd with menaces of eternal damnation in tha next. We have got the grisly giant — prießtly intolerance — that gave our forefathers so much trouble, fairly under foot, aod mean, on the whole, to keep him there. But tyranny is a mnny-headeJ beast, and has ou ugly habit when scotched in one quarter, of springing up in another. There is no little danger just now, lest the lawyer should take up the part that the priest ha 3 been forced to lay aside. And we do not see that we should gain much by exchanging the ihraldom of the ecclesiastic for the red tape bonds of the attorney. To tell how, on various pretences, the members of the legal profession have gradually contrived to make their intervention necessary in almost every — the simplest transaction — how it has been brought about by their ingenuity that the most trivial bargain may not safely be entered into without first consulting one of these mystery-msn of civilised life — how lawyers have managed to transfer to themselves most of the powers and privileges that mediaeval churchmen enjoyed as "clerks;" all this cannot well be told within the compass of a siogle article. We Bhall therefore reserve for a future occasion (he discussion of the lnrger subject, contenting ourselves in the meantime with pointing out what mischiefs ensue from a single phase of legal domineering — the abuse of the privilege of counsel We wish it however to be distinctly understood that in dealing with this suhject we by no means desire to say that all memb'eis of the legal profession are heinous offenders in this respect. There are those in the profession, we believe, by whom what follow here will be regarded with approval. Although too many of our readers must bave iearnt from bitter experience how grievous and how common is the particular form of evil of which we now complain, yet there must be a favoured few who still enjoy an immunity from the barbarous practices that are allowed by a long-suffering public to disgrace our Courts of Justice. For tbe edification of these unscathed ones we will try to describe what may happen to any man, however inoffensive or reputable, when put into that nineteenth century pillory — the witness-box. Smith happens to be present while a bargain is boing struck between Jones and Brown. The bargainers subsequently differ as to the precise terms agreed upon, and go to law. Smilb, who has no interest, direct or indirect, in the matter, is subpoenaed as a witness by Brown. Though at first disconcerted at the novelty of his position, he is somewhat reassured by the studied mildness of his examination by Brown's counsel, and by observing that the barrister wbo is about to cross-examine him is young Noakes. Noakes, whom he probably remembers having coached a year or two ago in the skimpy Latin and fragmentary mathematics that a stony-hearted judicature still exacts from the candidates for admission to n learned profession. But he speedily discovers that Noakes stumbling over his Ca33ar, and Noakes arrayed in the panoply of wig and gown, are two very different beings. Though the bewildered Smith has been sworn in only ten minutes before, he is significantly reminded " that he is on his oath/ He is bullied into answering plain "yes," or " no," when either " yes," or " no," without qualification or explanation, is equally false. He is badgered into admitting tho substantial truthfulness of some ridiculous or equivocal version of the most innocent actions of his pa3t life, however seemingly irrelevant to the matter in hand. Does he give his evidence "in a sweet voice and low," he is adjured "to speak up." Does he '* speak up," he is sharply admonished " not to bawl." But why dilate upon the permitted savageries that the diffusion of good manners has successfully banished from the intercourse of cabmen, costermongers, and bargeeß, to find a last refuge among the members of a liberal profession? We come to the question which justifies us in referring at all to these odious practices. Is all this really indispensable to the ends of justice? Is it indeed true tbat there is some necessary connection between sutnmum jus and swmma injuria? Or shall we not rather turn against the lawyers their own favourite maxim, that every wrong has its remedy? Society has a right to demand very cogent reasons why special immunities so liable to abuse, and so frequently abueed, should be conferred upon any caste. We do not believe for nn instant tbat any such reasons can be given. Yet, remembering how strong is tbe esprit de corps among lawyers, we must not underrate the difficulty of putting an end to an abuse so widespread and so inveterate. This reform, like all other reforms, will requite its martyrs. One cannot make omelets without breaking eggs. The first man who ventures to resent, bewever temperately, the bullying of counsel, will infallibly be brow beaten by the judge, himself an ex-barrister, and it may well be, not unmindful of tho days of his youth when he, too, was an adopt in the noble art of torturing the victim bound to the stake. Tbe second offender will also be assuredly committed for contempt of court, unless he promptly and abje t y apologises. Bur, after a few victims have been offered up to Themis, if pub-

lic opinion continues to support the eluio-,8 of society to decent treatmeut — wo ask for no morc-^both BeDch and Bnr will begin to discover that the business within the walls of a Court of Justice can actually be carried on without abandoning those courtesies which are cot found to obstruct the business of the world outside. There is another remedy, which, however, has tho double drawback of being somewhat heroic, and of being incapable of anything like universal application. Our meaning will be best illustrated by a story from actual life. We knew a gentleman who had the misfortune to be subjected fo the crossexamination of au eminent master of the art of cutting and stabbing, as practised by the most approved legal gladiators. Our friend, a scrupulously truthful man, bad no interest whatever in the case, and not a soul in Court, including his examiner, had the slightest doubt us to his veracity,. But it was necessary — for forensic purposes — that his testimony should be discredited eomehow, as it was very damaging to the eminent practitioner's client. Accordingly, the usual senrifying process, with which we are all too familiar, was gone through. The poor man's word was called in question in the most offensive manner — the loog repented foHtes of his youth were dragged into light, to make food for a coarae jocularity. His very brogue (he was an Irishman) was turned iuto ridicule. He made no sign, but resolved to bide his time. Though far from beiog clever, he had the warm and impulsive temperament of his race, nnd ho was uncommonly muscular. Months afterwards he happened to meet the eminent practitioner at another bar, where spirituous refreshments were sold. To pick a quarrel with his old enemy, snd to pummel him (0 his heart's content was tor the injured son of Erin but tho work of a few minutes. After the conclusion of this expiatory ceremony, he rrerely remarked, blandly, "I think, Sorr, we have met before !" Now, this was all very wrong. Yet there may be some who will think that our common friend — if our readers will allow us to call him so after his outrageous conduct — was not altogether without excuse.