LORDS SENSATION

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18579, 13 December 1934, Page 5

LORDS SENSATION

CHIEF JUSTICE’S PROTEST AN ABNOXIOUS MEASURE “RIGGING THE BENCH” POLITICAL INFLUENCES (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) LONDON, Dec. 11.

In the House of Lords, a second sensation arose to-day when Lord He wart, Lord Chief Justice of England, intervening in She second reading debate on a bill dealing with the King’s Bench Appeal Court, said that judges had complained that he was not consulted about either a commission being appointed to inquire into the .working of tho courts, or the provisions of the present bill. Referring to a proviso limiting the numbers of judges who might he appointed to the King’s Bench, ho said this would put the composition of tho Bench in tho hands of the Government whip, which was an intolerable situation. Referring to a clause providing for the appointment of the vice-president of tho Court of Appeal, he said that Lord Justice Greer now presided over the second Appeal Court. If he were ill, absent, or resigned, tho next senior who, in ordinary circumstances would preside, was Lord Justice Slesser. .“We at the Law Courts have nothing to do' with political opinion. Lord Slesser holds some opinions with which I profoundly disagree, but he is a judge, scholar and lawyer in whom I have complete confidence. If Lord Slesser did not preside over the second court, it would vary the practice of the last 60 years.

KEEN FIGHT PROMISED "Under the bill the Lord High Chan cellor could appoint whom he liked to the second Appeal Court. Lord Slesser came to me in a state of agitation and sought my advice,” said Lord Hewart. “Ho told me that he had been informed by the Master of the Rolls that he was not to preside over the second Appeal Court. I told him that, if I personally faced such a menace I would decline to sit.

“I wonder if members of this House think it desirable, when elections take place,” continued Lord Hewart, “that there should be flaming posters on the walls, ‘Rigging the Judicial Bench in order to affront an ex-Labor Minister.’ When the committee stage is reached, if the features to which I have protested are not removed, I will adjourn my court daily and come here, and fight the obnoxious parts line by line and word by word.” The debate was adjourned on the suggestion of Lord Hailsham. The Supreme Court Judicature Amendment Bill, on which Lord Hewart spoke, provides for the appointment of the vice-President of the Court of Appeal from the existing Lords Justices without regard to seniority. This is defended by the Lord Hich Chancellor on the ground that it might he embarrassing for a judge to take cases of which he had no experience, and he gave an instance of a judge recently protesting when he was asked to take a case in the Commercial Court.

Lord Hewart’s speech monopolised the conversation all the evening. HISTORICAL 'DRAMA

A high legal authority, interviewed, expressed the opinion that it was dreadful that the Lord Chief Justice was not consulted in reference to either the commission or the provisions of the bill. He did not think it had ever been suggested that Lord Slesser had displayed political views in the Appeal Court, of which he is a safe and sound member, and dispenses justice well.

The Daily Mail describes Lord Sankcy, who moved tho second reading, and Lord Hewart as two of the greatest judges in the land facing each other, as probably the strongest historical drama that has ever occurred in the House of Lords.

The Morning Post describes Lord Hewart’s speech as one of the most astonishing in the Houso of Lords for many years. It has long been known that ho suffered a sense of injustice through tho manner in which recent legal reform had been "devised and carried out. There is no precedent for a public dispute between the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. Tt is expected that the Lord High Chancellor will raise the question at a meeting of the Cabinet to-day.