THE BAR GAZETTE
3
Some Remarks Upon the History of the Bar in
New South Wales
Under this title, one of the Reading Lectures was
given by the Solicitor-General of New South Wales
(Snelling Q.C.) on 9th May, 1961. The subject matter
is such that it is felt that extracts from it would be of
interest to all members of the Bar.
Perhaps the first chapter of the history of the Bar
in New South Wales may be said to commence with the
appointment in 1809 of Ellis Bent as Judge Advocate.
He was described by Lord Castlereagh as a “barrister
of eminence”. Governor Macquarie thought highly of
him (in spite of their later differences) and named Bent
Street after him. Macquarie recommended him for the
principal judgeship of the proposed Supreme Court but
in 1814 Ellis’ younger brother Jeffrey Hart Bent was
appointed to the position by the Colonial Office and ar­
rived in Sydney in July of that year. At that time the
only persons appearing in the courts of the colony were
a few ex-convicts who had hitherto been permitted to
practise. “The leader was George Crossley, who had
been struck off the roll of the King’s Bench for forgery.
The richest was Edward Eagar, who claimed to have be­
longed to the King’s Inns, Dublin. In addition, the Gov­
ernor’s amanuensis and poet laureate, Michael Robinson,
sometimes appeared in the courts, but was more admired
for his forged pardons; and the keeper of a pothouse
near the gaol also did some legal work”( l) . J. H. Bent
delayed the first sitting of the new Court until the 1st
June, 1815, and then the first business concerned the
admission to practise of the local attorneys. Bent an­
nounced that no persons who had been transported to
Australia would ever be allowed to practise before him
and persuaded his brother Ellis to make a similar rule
for the “Governor’s Court” over which he presided. The
first two applicants for admission had been originally
convicted, one of perjury and the other of forgery and
the two magistrates who sat on the Bench with Bent
while disagreeing with his general rule explicitly re­
served the right to refuse these applications. Bent sus­
pended all functions of the court until a final decision
could be received from London, and this and other con­
duct of his roused against him not only public feeling
in the Colony and the wrath of Macquarie but also the
severe displeasure of Earl Bathurst. “Whether convicts
be or be not authorized to practise” wrote Bathurst,
“is a question of little importance when compared with
the consequences arising out of its agitation, the closing
of the supreme court of the colony for at least twelve
months.” Bent was accordingly recalled and early in
1817 returned to England. About the year 1816 two
practising solicitors arrived following an earlier despatch
by Ellis Bent to Lord Bathurst wherein he suggested that
two barristers and two solicitors might be encouraged
to settle in New South Wales. It was 1824 before any
barristers and advocates were admitted as such. On May
the 17th of that year Saxe Bannister was admitted as
(1) Teece & Harrison— Law and Conduct of the Legal
Profession in New South Wales.
Attorney-General; on August 20th John Stephen as
Solicitor-General and on September 10th Dr. Robert
Wardell and William Charles Wentworth were admitted
as barristers. These admissions were pursuant to clause
10 of the Charter of Justice of 1823, issued under the
Act 4 Geo. IV, c. 96.
A few words about our first Attorney-General may
interest you. When on Commissioner Bigge’s recom­
mendation it was decided to appoint an Attorney-General
for New South Wales, Bannister, a member of Lincoln’s
Inn, obtained the appointment and reached Sydney on
the 5th April, 1824 bringing the Charter of Justice with
him. While able and high-minded it is said that he
was inclined to magnify his office and insisted upon his
personal rights to an extent which antagonised Gov­
ernor Brisbane. Later Governor Darling described him
as “a philanthropist almost in the extreme, often misled
by an injudicious zeal, but indefatigable, conscientious
and honourable in the highest degree”. He quarrelled
with both Brisbane and Darling though perhaps one
must concede some admiration for the independent stand
which he frequently took. In the latter part of 1826
Darling began to urge on the colonial office “his unfit­
ness for his situation” and the necessity for appointing
a successor at once. The Colonial Office agreed and
Bannister, dismissed by Darling, left in October, 1826,
determined to lay his case before the authorities in
London. The Colonial Office rejected his complaints
about Darling’s behaviour and a later appeal for com­
pensation was also unsuccessful.
It also says something for the independence of the
first Law Officers that Sir Francis Forbes writing in
1825 speaks of them as being “gentleman of very re­
spectable legal talents but a little inclining against the
powers that be”.
Dr. Wardell and William Charles Wentworth moved
promptly after their admissions and asked the Supreme
Court to rule that the “gentlemen at present practising
as solicitors and acting as barristers be compelled to re­
tire from the Bar”. The application was refused by the
Chief Justice (Forbes) who however observed that he
hoped that the period was not far distant when the
separation now sought for would be obtained. The local
press “Sydney Gazette” 16th September, 1824, opposed
the move commenting: “As far as the question affected
the public, perhaps we may be allowed to venture our
opinion—one that is tolerably universal—that, in the
event of a Bar being established here upon the same
footing as in the Mother Country, such an arrangement
would have been inevitably depressive to the rising
interests of the Colony. We are not old enough, neither
are we in the possession of sufficient wealth, to sustain
an independent Bar. Had the Rule been made absolute,
so far as preventing one party from transgressing on
the rights of the other, it is our conviction that the
Attorneys would not have lost a mite by the retrograde
movement, but we, the Colonists, would have had to
4
THE BAR GAZETTE
maintain the Barristers—a tax not well, as yet, to be
tolerated. The experience of three years, as wisely sug­
gested by His Honour, the Chief Justice, will not, how­
ever, be lost in influence with the Home Government.”
The matter was not allowed to rest and finally in
exercise of the authority conferred by 9 Geo. IV, c. 83,
s. 16, a Rule was promulgated in March, 1829 providing
that “in future there shall be the like severance as to the
mode of conducting the business and practice of the
said Court as prevails in the Superior Courts of Record
in England.” The Judges and the profession were in­
vited to give this matter consideration and as a result
a petition of remonstrance was signed by most of the
attorneys and presented to the Judges and fully argued
on the 1st July, 1829. The result was that on the 5th
September, 1829, a Rule of Court was made that legal
gentlemen on being enrolled should choose which
branch of the profession they would adopt. To avoid
the inconveniences that would result if the Rule was
disallowed by His Majesty, the Judges suspended its
operation until the King’s pleasure was signified. The
Rule was not transmitted by Governor Darling until
February, 1831, and nothing further having been heard
of it, the Chief Justice in October, 1833 requested Gov­
ernor Bourke to seek immediate sanction. The Rule was
sanctioned by the King and became operative as from
November, 1834 (see the full report in the “Sydney
Herald” on the 6th November, 1834, and the comments
in the “Sydney Gazette” of 12th February, 1835).
It might be mentioned that Wardell and Wentworth
soon after their admission founded the colony’s first in­
dependent newspaper “The Australian” and soon got into
holts with Governor Darling who remarked on one oc­
casion that Wardell and Wentworth “keep the Court and
the Bar by their effrontery equally in subjection.” Wardell
was one of the most sought after barristers in Sydney
and after some years was even employed as counsel for
the Government in several cases. Unfortunately for
himself, his deportment at the Bar was not conciliatory.
His defiant tone led him into the fighting of two duels,
in one of which he was the provoked, in the other the
provoking party. The first duel was with Mr. Bannister,
the Attorney-General. Some sharp expression that fell
from Mr. Bannister in Court led to the meeting. In
that instance, an exchange of shots took place without
damage to either party. Wardell’s second duel was with
Colonel Dumaresqe, aide-de-camp to his brother-in-law,
Governor Darling. In reference to one of the angry
political incidents of the time, Wardell wrote in “The
Australian” a passage to the effect that “when a dirty
job was to be done, the Colonel was a fit instrument to
do it.” A very sharp-shooting duel thence ensued; Wardell’s bullet grazed the Colonel’s chest, grazing the skin,
and causing a slight effusion of blood, but the wound
was not serious: the Colonel concealed it, and was
ready to exchange shots again. The Colonel is stated
to have shot off one of Warden’s coat-buttons. After
this, the seconds forbade further firing. His career came
to an untimely end in 1834, when he was murdered.
The death of this very able writer and advocate
created a great shock through the whole community.
He was cut off in the prime of life, and after he had
achieved, by his abilities, a competent independence.
He is said to have accumulated in ten years £30,000,
partly by his profession, and partly by successful specu­
lations in land.
By early in the year 1835 “The Australian” was being
conducted by Frank Stephen and George Robert Nichols
and articles published on the 10th and 13th February,
1835, contained the following passages: “The first civil
Term of the Supreme Court after the Division of the
Bar, which we scruple not to call an illegal and unjust
act, enforced in a most ungracious and ungentlemanlike
manner, will commence on Monday next. Their
Honours, it is understood, propose to appear in all the
dignity of silk and scarlet, and have intimated a desire
that the whole ten barristers should attend in the full
paraphernalia of wigs and gowns, silver buckles and
black satin small clothes . . . . Let the Judges smile
over the private ruin they have effected and the skill
they have shewn, after five years of abeyance, in secretly
procuring from home the gratifying confirmation of a
‘dead letter’. It is not to them that the attorneys need
look; for the same headpieces which can interpret the
plain English of the clause in the Act of Parliament to
give a power to make an ex post facto rule, will not
be wanting in sophistry to justify the act, nor in ob­
stinacy to preserve.”
“We have heard that the learned Judges of the Supreme
Court deny that the Rule for the ‘Division of the Bar’
was procured by their means. Now this is either true
or false. If the former, we regret being under the neces­
sity of charging them with a gross neglect of duty—for,
seeing that the division is a question of expediency as
well as legality, it especially behoved the Court to have
given to His Majesty’s advisers in England the best data
for deciding in a matter so deeply involving private and
public interests. This is one horn of the dilemma—we
shall forbear pressing upon the public attention the un­
fortunate predicament in which an escape from it leaves
the Court.” These articles gave rise to contempt proceed­
ings as reported in R. v. Stephen and Nichols (1
N.S.W.L.R. 244), Stephen, for whom W. C. Wentworth
appeared, being fined £50 and required to give security
to be of good behaviour.
In Mr. Justice Therry’s book “Reminiscences of Thirty
Years’ Residence in New South Wales and Victoria”,
2nd Edn., 1863, there is a passage which throws a little
more light on this matter. “Mr. Justice Burton (now Sir
William Burton) was for many years the associate on
the Bench with Sir Francis Forbes and Sir James
Dowling. Constituted as the Bench of New South Wales
then was, it stood as high in the respect of the public,
for talent and learning, as perhaps any Bench out of
England. It was much indebted for this character to
Mr. Burton, who had been previously a judge at the
Cape of Good Hope. His name is honourably connected
with one great and important service which he rendered
to the legal profession—the Division of the Bar. A
rule of court, as binding as a legislative enactment, had
been passed, previous to Mr. Burton’s arrival, dividing
the duties of barristers and solicitors, and moulding their
common profession into a form analogous to that in
England. This rule had been allowed—like the sword
rusting in the scabbard—to lie long dormant. To the
solicitors—then a very numerous and very money­
making branch of the profession—the rule was, of
course, very distasteful. The silencing of tongues, that
THE BAR GAZETTE
had long been heard by right in Court, was an alleged
infringement of a long-enjoyed privilege. It required a
person of Mr. Burton’s firmness and decision of char­
acter to encounter the earnest resistance offered to the
amended rule. However, he persevered and triumphed.
His colleagues, of course, assented to the change, which
they had previously sanctioned in theory, but to him
belongs mainly the merit of having insisted on its prac­
tical enforcement. The measure was certainly one of
great advantage both to the profession and the public.
From that time to the present, the profession has greatly
improved in general estimation. Nor were Mr. Burton’s
services limited to the division of the Bar. Wherever
fraud or wrong was committed by any member of the
profession, his vigilant eye watched it, and caused the
unworthy member to be lopped off.”
Under the then Rules of Court the native born who
could not proceed to England to qualify were denied
admission to the local Bar. This was deemed an affront
to Australian nationalism of which the children of ex­
convicts were the most vigorous exponents. G. R.
Nichols was foremost in trying to persuade the Legis­
lative Council to legislate so as to enable “Australian
youths to aspire to the honour of pleading at the tri­
bunals of their native land”. The opposition to the pro­
posal was supported by the then Chief Justice Sir James
Dowling. The matter came to a head in the lively and
protracted discussions arising out of Mr. Edward Brew­
ster’s attempt by Bill to abolish the division of the pro­
fession. Mr. Brewster, one of the representatives from
Port Phillip and a former Melbourne magistrate, main­
tained that the division was (“Sydney Morning Herald”
25th September, 1846) “unsuited to the circumstances
of the colony and prejudicial to the interests of the
community at large”. Here is an account of the matter
in Mr. Brewster’s own words: “Another measure I
brought forward was one in which I took considerable
interest, being of opinion it would confer a great benefit
on the legal profession, and be the means of saving
much expense to the community. This was a bill to
amalgamate the professions of barrister and solicitor.
Here, however, I was unsuccessful, although zealously
supported by Mr. Robert Lowe, afterwards Viscount
Sherbrooke. The failure is attributable altogether to Mr.
W. C. Wentworth, who, as member for Sydney, a native
of the colony and a member of the Australian bar, com­
manded a majority so strong as to hinder the passing of
any bill he thought proper to resist. I am happy to
find, however, that an identical measure became an Act
of the Legislature of Victoria in 1891.”(2) Wentworth
had had the Bill referred to a Select Committee and the
upshot of this was a Bill by Wentworth in 1848 which
provided, inter alia, for the creation of a Barristers’
Admission Board and the admission to the Bar of persons
of good fame and character who satisfied the prescribed
academic tests. The first set of Rules in respect of such
tests was published on 4th April, 1849. They required
the candidates to satisfy the examiners that they had an
adequate knowledge of Stephen’s Commentaries, Books
2 and 3, Phillips on Evidence, Stephen on Pleading,
Archbold’s Practice Book IV, Selwyn’s Nisi Prius, ex­
cepting certain chapters, Cicero’s De Officiis, Books 1 and
(2) J. L. Ford— Story of the Bar of Victoria.
5
2, the Aeneid Books 1, 2 and 3, the first book of the
Iliad and the Gospel of St. John (in Greek), Algebra
as far as quadratic equations, the first four books of
Euclid, Hallam’s Constitutional History and the con­
cluding chapter of Stephen’s Commentaries. The logical
outcome of this step was the appointment of locally
qualified barristers to the Bench for which statutory
provision was made in 1855 (19 Vic. No. 31).
It might be noted that in 1842 solicitors were permitted
to appear in the Court of Requests (6 Vic. No. 15, s. 46).
In 1849 (13 Vic. No. 7) they were given the right of
audience in Courts of Quarter Sessions and a complete
right of audience was conferred by the Legal Practi­
tioners’ Act, 1892.
Therry’s book previously referred to contains an ac­
count of the Bar of his time which you may find of
interest. “At the time of my arrival, though several
members of both branches of the profession were men
of talents and respectability, the profession generally
was not in high estimation. The Bar was creditably rep­
resented in its leaders, Mr. Wentworth and Dr. Wardell.
Amongst the solicitors were the late much-esteemed Mr.
Norton, Mr. George Allen, and others of high character;
but there were also a few adventurers of damaged repu­
tation from England, Canada, and other Colonies, who
had found their way to New South Wales at an early
period. The division of the Bar in 1833, as it was
termed—a measure by which barristers and solicitors
were respectively restricted to their appropriate duties—
has been already mentioned as a very serviceable measure
for promoting the better administration of justice. It is
due to the two principal barristers of the Colony at the
time, Messrs. Wentworth and Warded, to say that, though
in a pecuniary point sufferers by the altered arrange­
ment, they earnestly promoted it, and to mere profit
preferred to assume their proper position as members
of the English Bar.”
“The Bar of Sydney is modelled, as nearly as circum­
stances will admit, on the practices and observances of
the English Bar. Many of its members are English bar­
risters, and have had similar advantages in qualifying
themselves for their profession by attendance at the
chambers of special pleaders and conveyances and other
legal offices in England. The reports of the English
Courts reach the Colony in two months after their pub­
lication in England. The same amount of application,
with equal talents, may fairly be expected to produce
similar results, and to raise the Colonial barrister to a
level, in point of qualification, with his brethren in
England. If an ill-qualified member of either branch of
the profession at home, who may think that, though he
has failed in England he might succeed in Sydney, were
to emigrate and ‘try his hand,’ he would soon find that
he had committed a grievous error. For the Bar of
New South Wales, as it now exists, I may confidently
claim the merit of its being a faithful reflex of the Bar of
England—as high-minded in its tone and character, and
as deservedly respected and influential in its relative
position to general society. The average income of the
leading members of the New South Wales Bar may
be estimated at about £3,000 a year. In some years the
average may be stated, I believe, at a higher sum. There
are several barristers there who enjoy incomes varying
from £1,000 to £1,500 and £2,000 a year. Sir W. Man­
6
THE BAR GAZETTE
ning, Mr. Martin, Mr. Darvall, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Broadhurst, and Mr. Faucett, were the Bar-leaders when I left
the Colony. There were others, in particular branches of
the profession, who might be regarded as occupying a
leading position. Mr. Blake and Mr. Gordon (of Gor­
don and M’Naghten’s Reports) are well-qualified equity
lawyers; Mr. Holroyd is a skilful cross-examiner, especi­
ally in criminal cases. As a general practitioner Mr. M.
Stephen held a foremost place. These gentlemen and
others are qualified to sustain a high reputation for the
Bar of New South Wales.”
Perhaps at this point something should be said about
the founding of the Law School of the Sydney Uni­
versity in view of the great impact which it has had
upon the legal training and education of the Bar. A
Faculty of Law operated from the year 1859 but the
main work of the Faculty was examining not teaching
—though from 1859 to 1869 lectures on “English Juris­
prudence” were given for two terms each year by a
barrister who was styled “Reader in General Juris­
prudence”. In 1887 three barristers were appointed for
a year to give evening lectures on Equity and Real Pro­
perty, Contracts, Personal Property and Torts and
Criminal Law.
The Challis Benefaction enabled the Senate of the
University to create a Law School with a Challis Chair
of Law and four Challis Lectureships. Pitt Cobbett was
appointed Professor to teach Jurisprudence, Roman Law,
Constitutional Law and International Law and as Dean
of the Faculty he gave twenty years of eminent service.
The other Challis lecturers were Dr. Cullen who later
became Chief Justice of New South Wales, Mr. G. E.
Rich who later became a Justice of the High Court and
died not long ago, Mr. Frank Leverrier, a distinguished
member of the Bar and Dr. Coghlan. The lectures were
at first given in Wentworth Court which in those days
ran through from Phillip Street to Elizabeth Street on
the site now occupied by the Government Insurance
Office. The then quarters of the Law School were des­
cribed by a student in an issue of “Hermes” as follows:
“a garret with acoustic properties perfect in themselves
but monopolized by passing trams, and floors devoid of
covering and unscrubbed because the washerwoman was
on leave of absence for a trip to England.”
After a short time the Law School was moved to the
building which now houses the Pioneers Club. One writer
says that at this time “Phillip Street was thronged with
lawyers and theatrical people, and even law students
could pick out the ‘eminent Q.C.’ and the ‘charming
member of the chorus’ as easily as a newspaper-man.”
The same writer commenting on the lecturers I have
mentioned said: “They did manful work, very necessary
indeed at a time when men from overseas had only begun
to lose a monopoly of the law in New South Wales and
the locals needed a good lead. And they were individu­
ally respected and liked.”(3)
Now as to the growth of the organisation of the Bar.
Prior to 1902 there existed some form of Bar Association
but it had become defunct and I can give you no parti­
culars of it. In that year the formation of a Council of
the Bar of New South Wales was initiated by a circular
(3) G. E. Flannery in the Jubilee Book of the Sydney
University Law School.
dated the 13th March, 1902, over the signature of the
then Attorney-General Mr. B. R. Wise. The first meet­
ing took place on the 20th March, was held in the Banco
Court and a provisional committee was elected. The
Weekly Notes (Covers) of the 3rd July, 1902, com­
mented on the establishment of the Council in the
following terms: “The new organisation is excellent so
far as it goes but its members must necessarily depend
on the amount of interest which it enlists and on the
amount of support which it receives from members of
the Bar generally.” A good deal of interest seems to
have been enlisted as is evident from the first Annual
Report, an account of which is to be found in Vol. XI
of the Weekly Notes (Covers) p. 29. I quote: “The
Council, indeed, appears to have discharged, almost
categorically, the list of duties prescribed to it on its
foundation. It has dealt with various questions of pro­
fessional conduct and etiquette; it has reported on pro­
posed legislation affecting the interests of the profession;
it has made some valuable proposals for simplifying and
cheapening legal procedure; it has put forward some use­
ful suggestions with regard to the system of law report­
ing; it has ventilated the question of the right of local
practitioners to practise in the Court of the Transvaal
and Orange River colonies; and it has, finally, been
instrumental in bringing about some useful minor changes
in relation to the use of the Supreme Court Library and
the issue of cause lists.” Resolutions were adopted on
the right of a King’s Counsel to appear alone, the right
of a barrister to interview witnesses but save in excep­
tional cases not more than one being present at a time.
I quote again: “On the subject of proposed legislation,
the Council made certain recommendations with respect
to the Official Shorthand Writers Bill, recommending,
amongst other things, that shorthand writers should be
employed in all cases in the Supreme Court; that they
should be paid by the State; that transcripts required
by law (as in appeals) should be supplied at a low
rate; and that typewritten copies should be received for
filing in lieu of printed copies.” The Council further
recommended that it was desirable to establish a Com­
mercial Court on the lines of the tribunal which has
for some time past existed in England but thought that
it did not appear practicable with the limited number
of Judges on the Supreme Court Bench to adopt the
system of contemporaneous sittings of an Appeal Court
and Jury Courts.
The senior member of the Council elected for the
year 1903-1904 (apart from the Attorney-General) was
the famous Sir Julian Salomons, K.C. There are many
stories of incidents of his career including that of his
appointment as Chief Justice followed by his immediate
resignation when he found that he would not be ac­
ceptable to the Supreme Court Judges. The Chief Justice,
Sir James Martin, had died on the 4th November, 1886,
and the Government appointed Salomons who had a
leading practice at the Bar as his successor. Twelve
days later Salomons resigned his position stating publicly
that he had been made aware that his appointment was
distasteful to the other Judges especially Mr. Justice
Windeyer who, Salomons said, had “uttered expressions
and opinions which would make any intercourse in the
future between him and me quite impossible.” The
Judge in a letter to the newspapers denied that he had
THE BAR GAZETTE
made use of the expressions complained of but admitted
that he thought the appointment was “a grave mistake”.
Salomons considered that the situation “could not fail
to affect most unfavourably the whole business of the
Courts” and refused to reconsider his decision to resign.
It is undoubted that the Bar Council before its
incorporation did much useful work but in 1936 it was
felt that many advantages could be achieved by incor­
poration and the Bar Association of New South Wales
came into existence in that year. Amongst its objects
were to uphold the honour and promote the interest
of the Bar of New South Wales and to promote fair
and honourable practice amongst barristers.
I now come to a chapter in the history of the Bar
which has been and will be I think one of considerable
significance. I refer to the conception and execution of
the scheme to build this building Wentworth Chambers
for the use of the Bar.
I cannot do better than to give you almost verbatim
the account of this matter which was given in a speech
by Meares to the assembled Bar on the occasion of the
presentation of the portraits of Sir Garfield Barwick and
Mr. Justice Manning which now hang in the Common
Room. Hence the somewhat personal note of what
follows. I make all due acknowledgments to Meares.
In the immediate post War years shortage of accom­
modation for the Bar in Phillip Street was acute. The
Bar Council had considered the availability of practically
every building and piece of vacant land in Phillip Street,
and Barwick and Manning were very active on the sub­
committee formed for that purpose.
At this time there lay between Denman and Selborne,
a piece of vacant land which had been acquired by the
Public Trustee’s Office before the depression, but, after
the War, the Public Trustee acquired premises in
O’Connell Street and thereafter the site was used as a
car park. It was considered too small for purposes of
the Bar.
Adjoining this site was the home of the late Dr.
Fiaschi and upon his death this property was resumed
by the Crown for the purpose of accommodating part
of the Crown Solicitor’s Office.
It was following upon this resumption that Barwick
envisaged the suitability for a home for the Bar of the
total area of the two sites, which would give a frontage
of some 70 feet. The first blow in the plan was struck
when an approach was made to the then AttorneyGeneral, the Hon. C. E. Martin, to see if the land could
not be acquired for the Bar. It is proper to say that
the Attorney-General was not only sympathetic to the
proposal but most eager to help. However, since
Fiaschi’s home had been acquired for public purpose,
it was regarded as politically impossible to sell the site
to a private organisation. After many conferences and
much correspondence, the Bar Council made an offer
not to buy but to substitute a long term building lease
for a straight out purchase with the assurance that some
part of the building should be used for public purposes.
This scheme found favour with the Attorney-General
and details were worked out; eventually Cabinet approval
was obtained provided the scheme was sanctioned by
Parliament.
It then became necessary to agree upon the form of
legislation but eventually on 28th November, 1952, the
7
Attorney-General was able to send with his compliments
to Barwick a copy of an Act known as the “Phillip
Street, Sydney, Land Lease Act, 1952”. The Act autho­
rised the Minister for Public Works to grant a lease to a
Company to be formed by the New South Wales Bar
Association for 99 years which should contain covenants
that the Company would proceed expeditiously to pro­
vide a building of at least nine floors for the Bar and
two floors for the Crown.
The negotiations which were thus brought to a suc­
cessful conclusion were largely due to the foresight of
Barwick and of the great tenacity of purpose and en­
thusiasm of both Barwick and Manning when the scheme
was once envisaged. Firstly, there was at the time an
acute building material shortage and secondly, the
amount standing to the credit of the Bar Council was a
modest sum which was not even enough to pay Con­
sultants’ fees, far less building a building.
As far as the short of building materials was con­
cerned, the problem was tackled by devising a plan,
after consultation in a semi-official way with a well
known firm of Builders, Paynter & Dixon Pty. Ltd. and
a well known firm of Structural Engineers, of using re­
inforced cement pillars instead of steel.
Contemporaneously with negotiations to get the land,
the services of Paynter & Dixon were enlisted. After a
terrific amount of joint effort that firm produced a sketch
plan and between the 25th June, 1951 and the 24th
April, 1952 a contract was entered into with them to
produce detailed plans, drawings, quantities and an
estimate of cost.
Contemporaneously with these negotiations Barwick
and Manning had the task of considering the structure
of the Company to be formed and later the detailed work
involved in the preparation of Memorandum and
Articles. Eventually on the 24th October, 1952, Coun­
sel’s Chambers Limited was incorporated. Ordinary
shares of £1,500 each were to be issued upon the basis
that one share would entitle the holder to the lease of a
room but except in event of liquidation or a special
resolution, only £1,000 would be called up. The scheme
provided that the Company would not go to allotment
unless 150 shares were subscribed, thus ensuring a
working capital of £150,000.
As time went on it was envisaged that the building to
be erected would cost in the vicinity of £600,000 and
questions arose as to how to raise the money.
An approach was made to the Mutual Life & Citizens
Assurance Co. Ltd. and after considerable negotiations
that Company very generously agreed to loan on security
of a building lease £450,000 or 75% of the estimated
cost. The negotiations were completed on Christmas
Eve, 1953. It is unnecessary to stress that unless Bar­
wick and Manning had had the respect and confidence
of the Board and management of the M.L.C. the loan
would never have been made.
Notwithstanding this highly satisfactory deal there
was still £150,000 to be found. If 150 members of the
Bar took shares, and if they could and were prepared
to pay the total amount of £1,000 to be called upon
them in a comparatively short time then there would
have been £600,000 available to meet the cost of the
building, but it was envisaged that a lot of young men
would be wanting to take up shares who could not do
8
THE BAR GAZETTE
more than pay a small deposit and instalments of £10
per month, so what they did was to pay a visit
to Mr. A. Osborne, late General Manager of the Com­
mercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd. They turned
out their empty pockets to him, and they said this—
“The M.L.C. will back us for £450,000. If 150 members
take 150 shares of £1,500 each that will create a liability
on those members to pay £225,000. We shall only call
up £150,000 of that sum so there will be £75,000 of
uncalled capital. You lend us the whole of that amount,
viz. £150,000”. This the Bank agreed to do.
On 8th February, 1954, details of the scheme were
put to the Bar. It was realised that before the scheme
could be launched 150 shares would have to be applied
for. It was hoped to close the list by 15th March, 1954.
By that date sufficient applications had not been received.
On 26th March, 1954, Barwick said in a circular:—
“The erection of this building affords the major hope of
preventing the dispersal and disintegration of the Bar.
If the Bar has no enthusiasm for it it is no purpose
or function of ours to press it on an apathetic group. We
have done no more than to offer our good offices to
promote and foster the scheme.”
On 1st April, 1954, Barwick stated that unless the
response from the Bar improved by the end of the
following week a halt would have to be called. By
then only 135 shares were applied for and the scheme
was doomed unless something could be done. They
made then the final throw—the idea of calling on some
of the Senior men to see if they would underwrite the
extra shares necessary and a meeting was held on 12th
April in Barwick’s Chambers.
“I think” said Meares “that was the only time in two
years that their courage and their enthusiasm faltered a
little.” However, seven members agreed to underwrite
the additional shares; Barwick and Manning headed the
list by each taking three further shares, involving them
in a liability of £4,500 each. With 150 shares applied
for the scheme could proceed.
A building contract was let on 27th August, 1954,
and as a result of the then response of the Bar it was
ultimately decided to provide two further floors for Bar­
risters’ Chambers, making a total of 11 floors for them.
On 8th November, 1955, the Builders advised that
they were in financial difficulties and asked to complete
on a costs plus basis but in view of the undertakings to
shareholders such an offer could not be accepted. Man­
ning and the Architect then undertook the task— (a)
of finalising the contract with the Builders; and (b) of
preparing new bills of quantities and finding a firm
prepared to complete a building half completed.
There were conferences with the Architects, the
Builders, the Receiver for the creditors and the former
builder. The Architect described the problem as a
gigantic one, but it was overcome and on the 24th
January, 1956, a contract was signed by Sir Lindsay
Parkinson (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. to complete the building
which involved an expenditure of something less than
£5,000 more than the original contract price.
You will appreciate the supervision entailed in a
building of this nature—all sorts of problems, ventilation,
sprinkling systems, types of windows, floor layouts and
hundreds of other building problems were dealt with and
finally it became necessary to consider rents to be
charged and the arrangements for the occupation of the
building in stages because of the delay in completion.
On 20th August, 1957, the building was officially
opened. I will quote again: “Barwick spoke at length
of what everybody else had done. He made no mention
of his own efforts but referred to the great personal
spirit and unflagging enthusiasm of J. K. Manning. If
one tries to get the whole story from Barwick he speaks
of the terrific enthusiasm and energy of Manning; if
one goes to Manning he can think of nothing but stories
of the wisdom and foresight and efforts of Barwick,
and so perhaps it can best be said of them that they
worked together for two years in harmony, the one
helping the other to provide a home for the Bar and
to advance its corporate existence. So many others
helped them but theirs was the vision—they dreamed
the dreams and by their foresight, wisdom and untiring
efforts they converted those dreams into reality.”
In September, 1954, a copy of Barwick’s address as
Chairman of the Company was sent to the Chief Justice
and he replied in these terms:— “It is true, in the
words of Horace, that their monument is more lasting
than bronze.”
Meares concluded his speech by saying that it was
proper that firstly we should know what these men had
done and secondly that we should respect and honour
them for it.
The Common Room
On 24th March, 1961, the Premier of New South
Wales (the Hon. R. J. Heffron) was the guest of the
Association at an end-of-the-week party held in his
honour. The party was attended by large numbers of
the Bench and Bar.
On 5th April, 1961 the President entertained at lunch
in the Common Room Mr. Justice McCarthy, a Justice
of the Supreme Court of New Zealand who was visiting
Sydney on vacation and on 26th April, 1961, he had
as a guest Sir Francis Adams formerly a Justice of the
Supreme Court of New Zealand.
On 7th April, 1961, the Dean of the Faculty of Laws
in the University of Sydney (Professor K. O. Shatwell)
and the senior lecturers in the faculty visited the common
room as guests of the President and members of the
Council in the late afternoon. Dean Russell Niles, Dean
of the New York Law School, who was visiting Sydney
at the time, accompanied them.
On 15th June, the members of the Taxation Board
of Review (Messrs. J. L. Burke, R. C. Smith Q.C. and
R. E. O’Neill) had lunch in the common room as guests
of the Vice-President.
The Trustees of the Nielsen Vaucluse Park Trust
have recently presented to the Association a plaster
cast bust of William Charles Wentworth. When the
Association’s premises are remodelled, provision will
be made for its display in the common room.