Politics and Justice

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19451, 15 December 1934, Page 8

Politics and Justice

LORD HEWARTS STRICTURES 0 debate in the peers. SATISFACTORY COMPROMISE. United Press Assn. —Elec. Tel. Copyright. (Received Dec. 15, 2.30 p.m.) LONDON, Dec. 14. In the House of Lords, the Marquess of Reading resumed the debate on the Judicature Bill. He said the statements of Lord Hewart (the Chief Justice) on Tuesday were disturbing. The most serious suggestion was that Lord Justice Slesser was to be prevented from presiding over the Second Appeal Court because he had been appointed to the 'Bench by a . Labour Government. Lord Hewart: I did not make that suggestion, but suggested the public might think so. The Marquess of Reading 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 insert a proviso in the clause complained of to the effect that only future appoihtees shall not operate. As far as the present members of the Court of Appeal were concerned the whole object was to prevent any thought of affront or indignity imposed on Lord Justice Slesser. Lord Ponsonby said he disagreed with the Marquess of Reading’s view.

It was Inconceivable that the supersession of Lord Justloe Slesser had been done from political motives. Plenty of examples could be quoted to show that the holding of Labour views did not result in social or professional ostracism. Lord Hanworth (Master _of the Rolls) said his relations with Lord Justice Slesser ever since he was appointed in 1D29 had been cordial. He desired to emphasise that he 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 lrom the clause that he would not automatically preside over the Second Appeal Court' in the absence of Lord Justice Greer. He knew nothing of Lord' Hewart’s complaints till 'he had heard them on Tuesday. Lord Hailsham (Leader of 'the House) .said he had never intervened in a debate more reluctantly, but he felt he must do so in defence of the Civil Service. Lord Hewart s speech on Tuesday impUed a scathing and sensational attack on Sir Claude Schuster, the head o the Lord Chancellor’s department. Lota Hewart suggested that there haJ been a plan that'that department should sub stltute the Minister of Justice for the Lord Chancellor in order that the de partment should control appointments to judicial offices. The plan fo Ministry of Justice dated back to Lout Haldane’s Lord Chancellorship m which was before Sir Claude Schuster’s time. Actually Sir C. Schuster had throughout constantly opposed the project. The whole idea of the chief offending clause was that the vicepresidency of the Appeal Court would go to a judge who had not sat with the Maste* of the Rolls in the Inst Court. The Idea that the clause was designed against Lord Justice Slesser was most astonishing. The clause contained nothing sinister or Improper regardind Lord Justice Slensor or anyone else. It proposed a sensible and efficient way of regulating the business of the Appeal Court. Lord Chancellor’s Reply. •Lord Sankey (Lord Chancellor), said the whole idea of the offending olause 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 the Marquess of Reading’s suggestion that no present Lord Justice should be affected. Lord Hewart expressed gratitude at the kind references to himself during the debate. He did not desire to prolong the controversy. He was thankful to hear that the old proposal of the Ministry of Justice was dead and buried. The second reading was carried without division." Thereafter Lord Sankey and Lord Hailsham _ walked across the floor and shook hands wlh Lord llewart.