CLOSE OF THE " BAR MONOPOLY" CONTROVERSY. TO TIIE EDITOR
OP TELE SPECTATOR.
SIR,---As the original cause of a somewhat lengthy discussion in your columns, I rely upon your impartiality for the privilege of a final reply. In my first paper, I commented on the bar monopoly as useless in its effects.
as unjust in itself, and as a ready instrument of oppression. In my second, I asserted that it was in trivial causes a useless burden upon the suitor ; and I stateaLthat the privileges and the practices of the bar added very considerably and very unnecessarily to the expenses, and called loudly for some reformation. These statements C. did not venture to deny ; but he made some trite and allite- rative observations upon lawyers and litigation, doubted whether the monopoly added greatly to the expenses,* and treated that question itself as one of no in- terest to the public. The former point, I have already replied to. Upon the bitter 1 shell merely observe, that if no abuse is to be reformed but what is of universal or even of general concern, the progress of improvement will be slow indeed.
The same want of precision is visible in his remarks upon Aristides. That writer admitted the dishonesty of some attornies, but stated, that for their mal- practices you had a remedy, (he might have added there was the punishment of depriving them of their practice altogether), whilst the law left you entirely at the mercy of counsel. Upon this admission C. asks, if any thing worse than dishonesty can be urged against barristers; as if that had any relation to the in- ferences Aristides wiled to draw,—viz. that both classes should be made equally responsible for their misconduct ; and that whilst the dishonesty of attornies was that of individuals, time dishonesty of counsel (for such it certainly is) was chargeable upon them as a body.
Admitting that a practical reformer would attack law expenses generally, a general reform was not what I aimed at. I saw what I considered an unjust, and in its effeets a singular monopoly, and animadverted upon it, without the slightest idea of the subject exciting the attention it appears to have done. Had I proposed a thorough dissection of the present system, and possessed the know- ledge it would require. I might have proceeded in a difkrent manlier; but I
confined my attention to a single part of it, (though from the remarks the ill-timed Regulations elicited on all sides, it does not appear to be considered the least grievous one) ; and the only points between C and inyself are—Is the bar mono- poly uujust in itself, and productive of any practical injury ? Are any unneces- sary expenses created by the prescriptive privileges or established usages of the liar?
It is, however, by no means clear to me that the plan I have followed might not be adopted with effect by a general refornier. Any extensive and useful change would greatly lessen (in certain cases perhaps destroy) the • business of a special pleader, an equity draftsman, and a conveyancer : by simplifying the law, it would render the advice of counsel less necessary ; and by overturning their *monopoly, it would deprive them of a very—perhaps the most—profitable portion of their business. The abolition of useless forms would press equally hard upon them, besides sweeping away a number of offices, which answer no other purpose than to delay the cause and to plunder the suitor. But when we consider the numbers, the wealth, and the influence of the bar, both in society and in the Senate,—when we remember that the lucrative offices are mostly in the gift of the Judges, and are bestowed upon their connexions,—when we bear in mind that law either finds or makes a man connected with the aristocracy, and that all the classes I have mentioned are united to uphold the present systene—it is perhaps as politic to endeavour to break the ranks of our adversaries as to enumerate their specific acts of pillage. But this by the by ; I have already stated the real points between us.
Though the situations of an individual has nothing, to do with the truth of his arguments, it may be as well to state, in reply to the liberal insinuations of your correspondent about interested individuals that I am not a lawyer, nor am I in any way connected with the law. I started the subject without any person:a ob- ject ; and to abler and more interested hands I now commit it. But as C. indi- rectly professes to be anxious for legal reform—and as, from the tenderness with which " the privileges of the gentlemen of the bar" are treated, anti Ids evident wish to divert attention from the lawyers to the law, it is possible he may be at the bar, or below it—probably he will favour the public with
I. A list of all the fees paid to counsel out of court, for things either quite un- necessary, or for services which the solicitor could perform as well and with as little trouble to hinnself as attending on counsel.
2, One or more complete bills of costs, in a debtor and creditor form ; stating on one side the whole expense, on the other such charges only as are necessary' to elicit trolls or to forward the cause—the balance would give the extortion.
3. An idea of the capital, the income, and the expenditure, of any or ail of the. Inns of Court. As probably the property, or at all events the monopoly, which has raised it to its present amount, was originally granted for purposes which are not fulfilled, it would seem a very legitimate subject for public or even Parlia- mentary inquiry. Should he be unable or unwilling to give the required information, perhaps it may be afforded by others; which will be equally beneficial to the public, if moot- benefit is to be derived front this course of proceeding. I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient humble servant, August 31st, 1829.
* Individually perhaps it does not, but collectively the amount must be enormous. I should think, even in the Palace Court alone, considerably more than arty guineas are paid in undefended causes every day it sits (which I believe is twice a week), for doitig what an attorney's clerk could dojust as well for as many half-crowns. E.snongve leonent. Be it remembered too, that this guinea, small as it seems, is about one-sixth of the costs. In the other conrts the ratio would vary (as one or two counsel were employed) from one-tenth to one-sixth on the sum total. Of the amount of the unnecessary fees which the law requires to be paid to the bar in a Chancery suit, I have no means of determining. 111,y oteiComent Mates only to the erects of the monopoly.
Previous page
