Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 03.pdf/571

 532

evening in a public house, drinking with a number of friends; every one of the man's companions testified to their friend's complete sobriety; no effort of counsel could attach the slightest stain of intemperance to the hard-headed boon com panion. As the last witness was leaving the box, the judge inquired : " Had your friend spent the whole afternoon and evening at the bar?" The witness : " Yes, my Lord." The judge : " Did you notice any change in his complexion?" Wit ness : " It was, perhaps, a little redder than usual." The judge: "Was his manner at all excited?" Witness : " Yes, I dare say he was, perhaps, rather excited." The judge smiled at the jury, who in common with every one were convulsed with laugh ter, and at the close of the trial found a verdict in volving the gentleman whose sobriety was at stake with the odor of intemperance. The members of the Scottish Bar constantly cherish the hope of a change being effected in the system of private bill legislation. At present all Scottish private bills are heard in London, before committees of the Houses of Parliament. Consequently almost the entire legal business con nected with them falls into the hands of English counsel who are on the spot, Scottish counsel being only occasionally employed. There is now some faint chance, however, of an arrangement being made to constitute a tribunal in Kdinburgh for the purpose of hearing private bills of Scottish origin. It is contended that this would secure an immense saving of expense; but many experts entertain very serious doubts as to whether the resulting economy would be at all considerable. Were such a system introduced, it is calculated that the annual receipts of the Scottish bar in point of fees would be exactly doubled. To the northern practitioner this is of course an inspiring prospect. At the same time no one is agreed as to the nature or constitution of the tribunal which would take over the functions of a parliamentary committee.

The fees paid to counsel practising before these committees are enormous. It is not likely that the present standard of remuneration in the case of Scotch business would survive its transference to Edinburgh. If the fees ordinarily paid were cut down to one half, the practitioner would generally be amply rewarded. The present leader of the Parlia mentary Bar is Mr. Samuel Pope, Q. C. Mr. Pope is an elderly gentleman, and as he is very stout he is privileged to remain seated while pursuing his professional duties. He is a very powerful and eloquent advocate. His income is estimated at ,£30,000 a year. Mr. Pitt-Lewis, an eminent lawyer, has drafted a bill which is exciting a good deal of attention. Its object is to establish a system of district courts which would enlarge and strengthen the scope of the present county court jurisdiction, and remedy the defects of the existing assize system, which de prives the High Court in London of most of the common law judges at various periods throughout the year. A majority of the Judicature Commis sioners of 1872, including such eminent names as Lords Hatherley, Selborne, and Bramwell, were in favor of the county courts becoming branches of the High Court, with unlimited jurisdiction; and further the commissioners recommended that the judges of the more important centres should be adequately remunerated, and consequently men of high standing; and that the judges of proved ability should from time to time be promoted to the High Court. The bill in question seeks to carry into effect and develop in detail the princi ples foreshadowed by the commissioners. It is not probable that the measure will do more than stimulate discussion of the subject with which it is concerned. Changes so radical in our institutions are not generally left in the hands of private indi viduals. It would be premature to criticise Mr. Pitt-Lewis's proposals, and in detail they would scarcely interest your readers.