INCIDENT CLOSED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18581, 15 December 1934, Page 15

INCIDENT CLOSED

JUDICATURE BILL HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE LORD JUSTICE SLESSER’S POSITION (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (Received Dec. 15, 3 p.m.) LONDON, Dec. 14. In the. House of Lords, tho Marquess of Reading resumed the debate, on the Judicature Bill. He said that Lord HewartV, statements on Tuesday were disturbing. The most serious suggestion was that Lord Justice Slesser was to lie prevented from presiding over the second Appeal Court because lip was appointed to the. Bench by a Labor Government.

Lord Hewart: I did not make that suggestion,’ but suggested that, the public might think so. Lord Reading said lie refused to believe that the Government was actuated by any such consideration. No Government would attempt to affect the position of a Judge because he had belonged to a political party. He suggested as a way out of an undesirable position that the Government should insert a proviso in the clause complained of to the effect that only future appointees would not operate as far as the present members of the Court of Appeal was concerned. The whole object was to prevent any thought of affront or indignity imposed on Lord Justice Slesser. Lord Ponsoiiby said lie disagreed with Lord Reading’s view that it was inconceivable that the supersession of Lord Justice Slesser was done from political motives. Plenty of examples could he quoted to siiow that the holding of Labor views did not result in social or nrofessional ostracism. Baron Ilanwortli said bis relations with Lord Justice Slesser ever since he had been appointed in 1929 bad been cordial. He desired to emphasise the fact-that he had had nothing to do with the genesis of the clause to which Lord Hewart objected. Simply as a friend, he had told Lord Justice Slesser that it appeared from the clause that he would not automatically preside over the second Appeal Court in the absence, of Lord Justice Greer, while he knew nothing cf Lord Hewart’* complaints till lie heard them on Tuesday. Viscount Hailsham said he never intervened in the debate more reluctantly, but lie felt he must do so in defence of a civil servant. Lord Hewart’* speech on Tuesday implied a scathing and sensational attack on Sir Claud Schuster, head of the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Lord Hewart suggested that there had been a. plan that the department should substitute the Minister of Justice for the Lord Chancellor in order that the department could control appointments to judicial offices. The plan for a Ministry of Justice dated back, to Viscount Haldane’s Lord Chancellorship in 1913, which was before Sir Claud Schuster's time. Actually Sir Claud, Schuster had throughout constantly opposed tile project. The whole idea of the chief offending dau.se was that the vice-presidency of the Appeal Court, would go to a Judge who had not sat with the Master of the Rolls in the First Court. The idea that the clause was designed against Lord Justice Slesser was most astonishing. The clause contained nothing sinister or improper regarding Lord Justice Smsser or anyone rise, ft proposed .a sensible, efficient "yvay of regulating the business of the Appeal Court. ■ • Viscount Sankey said that the whole idea of the offending clause was to have a common-law lawyer presiding over one court and a Chancery lawyer in the other, irrespective of the rights of seniority. There was no idea of discourtesy to Lord Hewart and no political bias against anyone throughout, but he proposed to adopt Lord Reading’s suggestion that no present Lord Justice should be affected.

Lord Hewart expressed gratitude at the kind references to him during Ihe debate. He said he did not desire to prolong the controversy. He was thankful to hear that the old proposal for a Ministry of Justice was dead and buried.

The second reading was carried without a division, after which Viscount Sankey and Viscount: Hailgham walked across the floor and shook hands with Lord Hewart.