THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1871.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 18, 27 October 1871, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1871.

The Bar of New Zealand must feel proud that Mr Smythies is again on the Roll of the Supreme Court. They must feel it a high honor to have a man who was struck oft' the rolls of England, and suffered a year’s imprisonment, for forging a client’s authority to sell out certain stock, added to their ranks. It is, of course, perfectly true that a man, having been convicted, and served his sentence, is again restored to society theoretically in the same position in which he was prior to conviction ; but it is perfectly certain that no man having been once convicted as Mr Smythies was would ever be put on to the roll again unless he could show that the

conviction was erroneous, as in the case of Barber*solicitor, who suffered several years’ penal servitude, and was afterwards found to be innocent, and received the Queen’s pardon, and consequent restoration to his forfeited rank. In Mr Smythies’s case, it was never set- out that he was innocent; but all that was said for him is that he had served his sentence, and had been admitted to practice in New Zealand for some time before objections were raised to his name being on the rolls, and he was struck off. Now, after conviction, it is perfectly clear ho ought never to have been allowed to practice at all, according to the usage and custom of the English Bar. In England, as many of your readers are aware, the legal profession is divided into two distinct branches, barristers and solicitors; whereas in New Zealand there is no distinction whatever. But we never heard of an instance in which a man, once disbarred or struck off the rolls, was ever allowed to practice, except in the case of Barber which we have cited, who was erroneously convicted, and in some other analogous cases. We do not for one moment hold that a man who has once made a slip should be for ever prevented from regaining a position in society; .but we do think it a most extraordinary thing' that the barristers, attorneys, solicitors, and proctors of the Supreme Court of New Zealand should be so particularly anxious to restore a black sheep to their flock. In this country we believe there .are more lawyers in proportion to the population than in any other country of the same size and exteut, and it is most desirable, in view of this aspect of the question, to preserve, if possible, a high tone to the profession, but this can never be done if men of the Smythies stamp are admitted. It is much to be feared that when there are too many practitioners in proportion to the business to be done, that there will be a class ready to do business under any circumstances. Thus we sec at home a class of practitioners who haunt Police Courts, and are known as the thieves’ lawyers, friends of turnkeys and policemen—the Pariahs of the law, —yet who contrive always to keep to the weather side, and never get convicted of any actual criminality. The etiquette of the legal profession has always been, so far as we understand the matter, like that of the Stock Exchange, and that a man who has once been struck off for felony should never again be re-admitted unless it could be shown that he had been innocent of the crime laid to his charge. There are few men in this or any other community who may not have their lives, liberty, or property to some extent committed to the hands of their lawyer, and it is most essential that so far as possible there should be some guarantee that the names on the roll are those of respectable men, as well as men possessing the requisite legal attainments but if men who could never practice, again in tlie old country are admitted here, there cannot be a doubt that the standing of the profession will be very generally lowered in public estimation. Mr Smythies is doubtless a man of education and ability who in many walks of life could find profitable employment, but that he should have the same legal standing conferred upon him as upon his colleagues, many of whom fire men of irreproachable character, is open to very grave doubt. We cannot help thinking that when Mr Smythies previous history was raked up and traced from Aylesbury to the Old Bailey, and then out to New Zealand, it would have been better if lie had retired into comparative obscurity, but it is quite certain that want of confidence in himself —“ want of cheek ” to use a vulgar expression, is not one of this gentleman’s disqualifications. Mr Smythies is now a barrister, attorney, solicitor, and proctor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, and no doubt possesses some high qualifications for these offices. We don’t suppose he is any worse than some who are on the roll, but we do say that the other members of that roll who have raised no objection to his admission must have rather singular nations of the etiquette and custom of the profession as it is usually understood. We have already a very large number of lawyers on' the roll, far larger than we think is necessary, and every day their number is being augmented. If there was any likelihood of there being an insufficiency of lawyers to carry on the business of the country there might be less excuse for admitting a man of ability, albeit his reputation was somewhat shady, but here there is no such excuse at'all. Mr Smythies has himself dragged his case before the public and it is for them to judge whether or not it is a very clean one, and whether or not we are justified in our remarks.