INDEPENDENCE OF THE BENCH.

Otago Witness, Issue 2152, 23 May 1895, Page 20

INDEPENDENCE OF THE BENCH.

SIR ROLAND WILLIAMS'S CASE. London, May 19. Mr T. Gibson Bowles, M.P. for King's Lynn, has in the House of Commons revived the threatened removal of Sir Roland Williams from the position of a judge in bankruptcy. In doing so he declared that the question was a grave one, and perhaps the gravest scandal was involved ; therefore he moved that a committee bo set up to inquire into the relations existing between the judges and the Board of Trade. The Hon. James Bryce, President of the Board of Trade, in reply, indignantly denied the charges of political influence, which, he declared, were both unfounded and disproved; and at the same time he considered it was not necessary to appoint a committee as suggested. The motion was adjourned. JUDGE MOLESWORTH CENSURED. Melbourne, May 15. Judge Molfisworth, in replying to Mr Turner (the Premier) in reference to the remarks he made frpm the bench in connection with J. B. Davies's insolvency, sayß he spoke in tho public interest. It was not for the public interest that an insolvency judge should be subject to a dependent position, and that there should be reasonable ground for the public to fear that in doing what he believed to be his duty he might ba acting against his own interests by offending influential members of Parliament. In cities there were numbers of cases where such members, with wide-reaching social influence, became insolvent for amounts ranging over a million, and the judges had i to decide all cases without the intervention t of a jury, thus urging a strong plea in favour I of making the Insolvency Court independent of political inflaence. His Honor farther says that the statement on the subject of judicial independence was signed by all the County Court judges and presented to the Government last August, but up to the present bad not been answered. He also stated that in applying for eick leave he was treated as a malingerer, and that in December last steps were taken by the Solicitor-general to remove him from Melbourne, but afterwards abandoned. In conclusion, he says it certainly appears to him that there are good grounds for believing that the public, who are the sufferers, where members of Parliament are concerned

might not believe that a Judge In snoh a position is able to dispense impartial justice without fear, favour, or affection. May 20. Government have severely oensurcd Judge Molepworth for his remarks respecting the position of judges in insolvency. Ministers express the view that the course adopted was not the best way to obtain an impartial public opinion. The whole matter convoyed distinct and unmerited aspersions upen Parliament. The Government hope that in future no judge will, on grounds devoid of foundation, avail himself of his position on the bench to cast discredit on members of the highest court in the country.