But the layman, on the other hand, is free from those ideals which upset the judgment of the lawyer; he is not defending a system in which he has been bred, the details of which he has mastered with great difficulty, and which long habit has taught him to consider irrepressible.
It is always a moot point whether professional or non-professional men make the better reformers.
For our own part we incline to think the latter more likely to become so, from the very fact that they are enabled to take an independent and unprejudiced view of the law as it stands.
The first have the knowledge and experience; but they cannot see themselves from without or appreciate the criticism of common sense, when brought to bear upon their long-established maxims.
The second can take broader views of the questions submitted to their judgment, and see the immediate defects of existing rules and regulations, though they are not always able to comprehend the full consequences which might flow from their suggestions.
It must readily be owned, therefore, that such animadversions ought to be uttered with some diffidence, and received with considerable caution.
But he must stand up for the right of the public, to protect itself against the abuse of privilege, when those who ought to protect it are forgetful of their duty.
Witnesses in our courts of law are entitled to be treated with common courtesy.
They ought not to be exposed to the insolence and contumely of pettifogging lawyers and tenth-rate barristers, who have nothing to recommend them but their wigs and their unblushing impudence.
An incalculable amount of mischief accrues from the latitude allowed to counsel. Witnesses have a natural dread of being subject to the painful ordeal of impudent questions being put to them by a bullying coarse-minded legal freelance, and hence it is that there is a natural reluctance on the part of many persons to give their testimony at all, and the consequence is that many scoundrels escape the punishment which they so justly merit.