SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 July 1863)

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he rose to move that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged. He had introduced the measure early in the Session, and on several occasions represen- 1488 tation had been made to him by the Benchers of the different Inns of Court that the subject would be taken into consideration by them, and that they wished to have full time given them for that purpose before the Bill was further proceeded with. He had acceded to those suggestions, and the result of the various postponements had been that the measure could not be carried further during the Session. Before the Bill was, however, allowed to drop, he wished to remark that public opinion was quite decided that something ought to be done in the matter. The jurisdiction exercised by the Benchers, especially in cases in which they disbarred members of the Bar, or censured them, and also in cases in which they refused to call persons to the Bar, or refused to admit them as students, was not in a form that was satisfactory to the public. It was perfectly idle to say that the tribunal of the Benchers of an Inn of Court was merely a sort of domestic forum. Take the case of their disbarring a man. The man whom they disbarred was deprived of his livelihood, and to a great extent was a ruined man. Again, a censure pronounced by them was a grave matter, and might inflict irreparable injury on a member of the Bar. Then in the case of their refusing to call a student to the Bar, their refusal rendered useless all the expense and trouble devoted to his education, and cast him upon the world to seek a new avocation with a grave slur upon his character. The Benchers, therefore, exercised a jurisdiction which was virtually of a criminal nature, although the penalties they inflicted might be different from those inflicted by a criminal court. A defendant, under the present jurisdiction of the Benchers, had no means of compelling the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents, however essential they might be to his defence. He alluded to the case of the late Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, in which the Benchers decided that he was disqualified to become a member of the Bar—a decision which involved his character and prospects for life; but a Select Committee of that House, having investigated the matter, came to an opposite decision, because they had access to a witness who did not appear before the Benchers, and whose evidence entirely vindicated the character of Mr. Harvey. That showed the imperfection of the jurisdiction of the Benchers. Another case had occurred more recently, in which a witness, having got possession of a document, refused to give 1489 it up, and a squabble took place, which was only terminated by the intervention of the police. A properly-constituted court would have committed the party for contempt. The hon. Baronet was proceeding to point out other anomalies in the jurisdiction of the Benchers; when—