DOI Heft:
June 22, 1889
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17687#0305
June 22, 1889.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
297
THE TABLE AND BENCH QUESTION.
Coleridge ! We ’ll
Case.—Apparently as the outcome
of a practical joke, the Right Hon.
James Lowtheb, Prince Soltikoff
and the Earl of March were selected
to hold sittings as Arbitrators on a
libel case during the Whitsuntide
vacation. The Arbitrators having
subsequently been invited to make
use of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court for this purpose, at their first
meeting, occupied places usually
reserved for Her Majesty’s Judges.
In spite of the remonstrance of the
Members of the Bar present, the
Arbitrators refused to change their
chairs on the Bench for seats at the
Table. Subsequently, on a peremp-
tory command of the Lord Chief
Justice, that the Court should be
closed unless the Arbitrators descended from the Bench, the Arbitrators
expressed themselves satisfied with the less dignified resting-places indicated by
the Lord Chief Justice, which they thereupon occupied.
Counsel will kindly say :—
1. Whether there was any justification for Arbitrators occupying the Bench.
2. Whether the Lord Chief Justice was right in ordering the Court to be
closed if the Arbitrators failed to content themselves with seats at the Table.
3. Whether the Arbitrators acted wisely in making to the Lord Chief Justice
the concession required of them, and comported themselves discreetly.
And will advise generally.
Opinion.—1. I cannot, go so far as to say, that the Arbitrators were ‘ ‘ justified”
in taking the places reserved for Her Majesty’s Judges, but, I feel they had a
strong excuse. Ho doubt, it was the intention of the Arbitrators to invest the
proceedings, into which they seem to have been lured with so much humour,
with as much pomp as possible. To use a word frequently employed in this
case, they were “handicapped” at the. outset, by having to appear in morning
dress instead of the robes worn . by their Lordships when sitting in open Court,
and anything suggestive of “importance” no doubt would occur to them as
enhancing their dignity. It may be advanced, that they might have appeared
in hunting costume, and certainly this would have had a picturesque effect, but
it must he remembered that it would have been contrary to the traditions of
the Bar for the Counsel employed, so to speak, to have followed suit. In obedi-
ence to these traditions, the Counsel engaged dispensed with their robes with the
result, that when Sir Charles Russell aided by his learned Junior, Mr. Charles
Matthews cross-examined Sir George Chetwynd, the scene was not entirely
unsuggestive of a retired Doctor of Divinity assisted by a favourite pupil (who
having, come from school last, it was to he presumed would be less “rusty”
than his leader) conducting the viva voce portion of an attempted pass of a
somewhat backward (both in age and knowledge) undergraduate. It must he
remembered that as a Member of the Privy Council and an ex-State Official of
high standing, the Right Hon. James Lowther (the Chief Arbitrator) would
naturally desire to invest his proceedings with as much state as possible. It
would occur to him that an entrance from the Judges’ Apartments, through
curtains, would be infinitely more impressive than emerging, through a small
hole, from the subterranean regions below the level of the well of the Court.
It cannot be denied that this is a reasonable view of the matter, as the first
entrance would not seem to be an unworthy companion picture to the ‘ ‘ Doge of
Venice and two of the most influential Members of the Council of Ten taking
their seats in the Council Chamber,” while the second would not he unlikely to
conjure up a recollection of a severely reduced band mournfully occupying the
space devoted to the orchestra in a small provincial theatre threatened with
bankruptcy. There was this further excuse for the
Right Hon. Gentleman, that the surroundings he found in
the Queen’s Bench Division No. 5 were similar to those
in an ordinary cause celebre, and likely to create in his
mind some misconception of the part he should play
in the inquiry. For instance, the number of reporters
were legion, and the proceedings were of a nature to
suggest the dreariest hours of the Special Commission.
It was natural too, that he should wish to go down to
posterity at the pencil of Mr. Sydney Hall (who was
present) in that atmosphere of grandeur which does not
exist apart from the Bench. But after making all these
deductions I am unable to find an entire justification for
his conduct.
2. As the Lord Chief Justice has jurisdiction over the
Common Law Courts, both in Term and out of Term (I do
not myself find anything in the authorities upon this
matter, but no doubt this decision will in future he quoted
as a precedent), his Lordship was clearly within his rights
to order Queen’s Bench Division No. 5 to be closed
unless the Arbitrators consented (like the coon in a fre-
quently quoted American case) to “ come down.” I do
not see that the consideration that the possible result of
this closure might have caused a change of venue from
the interior to the exterior of the building should have
had weight with his Lordship, as there was nothing to
prevent (if required) the holding of the inquiry in the
green space hounded on the North by Carey Street, the
South by the Strand, the East by the Law Courts, and
the West by Clement’s Inn. I am the more of this opinion
as the matter, being heard out of Term, the proceedings
wrould not have distracted the attention of the Chief
Clerks of the Chancery Division, whose rooms overlook the
green space I have sufficiently indicated. Consequently
I concur in his Lordship’s decision.
3. For the above reasons I think the Arbitrators acted
quite wisely in making the required concession. I also
believe that they have been most discreet. It was not
impossible that, after the foreign fashion, Prince Solti-
koff, in the heat of the moment, might have demanded
satisfaction. I am happy to hear no suggestion that this
has been the case. It is patent that the Lord Chief
Justice could not have agreed to meet his Highness
within the Queen’s dominions ; and, had his Lordship
consented to visit some distant land outside Her Majesty’s
jurisdiction, with a view to carrying out the Prince’s
hypothetical proposals, considerable, and, possibly, irre-
parable damage and delay might have been occasioned
in the due administration of the law. I also entirely
approve of the Arbitrators placing on their table volumes
of the Racing Calendar in lieu of law books, and concur
with them when a dispute on a difficult point of law
arises between Sir Charles Russell and Sir Henry
James in the advisability of seeking professional advice
from my learned (if somewhat youthful friend) Mr.
North—a gentleman no doubt quite capable of affording
them assistance of the utmost benefit and value.
Finally, I advise generally that those not engaged in
the case should carefully avoid Queen’s Bench No. 5, as the
proceedings therein are so dull that, compared with them,
aitchwater is an effervescing beverage, of the most exhi-
larating character.
(.Signed) A. Briefless, Junior.
Rump-handle Court.
HOLES AND CORNERERS.
An admirable society for the help of Bachelors, has
been started in London. The programme is to provide
persons who will sew on buttons, darn, mend, and other-
wise care for the neglected habiliments of unwedded
gentlemen. In future such a thing as a button off a
shirt, or a rent in a vest, or a little rift within a sock,
will he impossible. The Society issues its “No Rent”
manifesto, and will cure faulty garments by the process
of “ mending or ending.” All bachelors should in-vest
in the Society’s aid—“ first aid to bachelors,” it might be
called. How often, when we have discovered a “ missing
link,” or a link missing between collar and shirt, have
we been inclined to darn—hut no ; in future that sort of
thing can be done by the skilled fingers of the humble
workers provided by the “ Stitch-in-time Association.”
Won’t the result, however, be to remove one powerful
inducement to matrimony—the desire to have a mender
on the premises F If so, Mr. Punch cannot call the idea
admirable, hut only sew-sew !
C C
VOL. XCVI.
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
297
THE TABLE AND BENCH QUESTION.
Coleridge ! We ’ll
Case.—Apparently as the outcome
of a practical joke, the Right Hon.
James Lowtheb, Prince Soltikoff
and the Earl of March were selected
to hold sittings as Arbitrators on a
libel case during the Whitsuntide
vacation. The Arbitrators having
subsequently been invited to make
use of the Queen’s Bench Division
Court for this purpose, at their first
meeting, occupied places usually
reserved for Her Majesty’s Judges.
In spite of the remonstrance of the
Members of the Bar present, the
Arbitrators refused to change their
chairs on the Bench for seats at the
Table. Subsequently, on a peremp-
tory command of the Lord Chief
Justice, that the Court should be
closed unless the Arbitrators descended from the Bench, the Arbitrators
expressed themselves satisfied with the less dignified resting-places indicated by
the Lord Chief Justice, which they thereupon occupied.
Counsel will kindly say :—
1. Whether there was any justification for Arbitrators occupying the Bench.
2. Whether the Lord Chief Justice was right in ordering the Court to be
closed if the Arbitrators failed to content themselves with seats at the Table.
3. Whether the Arbitrators acted wisely in making to the Lord Chief Justice
the concession required of them, and comported themselves discreetly.
And will advise generally.
Opinion.—1. I cannot, go so far as to say, that the Arbitrators were ‘ ‘ justified”
in taking the places reserved for Her Majesty’s Judges, but, I feel they had a
strong excuse. Ho doubt, it was the intention of the Arbitrators to invest the
proceedings, into which they seem to have been lured with so much humour,
with as much pomp as possible. To use a word frequently employed in this
case, they were “handicapped” at the. outset, by having to appear in morning
dress instead of the robes worn . by their Lordships when sitting in open Court,
and anything suggestive of “importance” no doubt would occur to them as
enhancing their dignity. It may be advanced, that they might have appeared
in hunting costume, and certainly this would have had a picturesque effect, but
it must he remembered that it would have been contrary to the traditions of
the Bar for the Counsel employed, so to speak, to have followed suit. In obedi-
ence to these traditions, the Counsel engaged dispensed with their robes with the
result, that when Sir Charles Russell aided by his learned Junior, Mr. Charles
Matthews cross-examined Sir George Chetwynd, the scene was not entirely
unsuggestive of a retired Doctor of Divinity assisted by a favourite pupil (who
having, come from school last, it was to he presumed would be less “rusty”
than his leader) conducting the viva voce portion of an attempted pass of a
somewhat backward (both in age and knowledge) undergraduate. It must he
remembered that as a Member of the Privy Council and an ex-State Official of
high standing, the Right Hon. James Lowther (the Chief Arbitrator) would
naturally desire to invest his proceedings with as much state as possible. It
would occur to him that an entrance from the Judges’ Apartments, through
curtains, would be infinitely more impressive than emerging, through a small
hole, from the subterranean regions below the level of the well of the Court.
It cannot be denied that this is a reasonable view of the matter, as the first
entrance would not seem to be an unworthy companion picture to the ‘ ‘ Doge of
Venice and two of the most influential Members of the Council of Ten taking
their seats in the Council Chamber,” while the second would not he unlikely to
conjure up a recollection of a severely reduced band mournfully occupying the
space devoted to the orchestra in a small provincial theatre threatened with
bankruptcy. There was this further excuse for the
Right Hon. Gentleman, that the surroundings he found in
the Queen’s Bench Division No. 5 were similar to those
in an ordinary cause celebre, and likely to create in his
mind some misconception of the part he should play
in the inquiry. For instance, the number of reporters
were legion, and the proceedings were of a nature to
suggest the dreariest hours of the Special Commission.
It was natural too, that he should wish to go down to
posterity at the pencil of Mr. Sydney Hall (who was
present) in that atmosphere of grandeur which does not
exist apart from the Bench. But after making all these
deductions I am unable to find an entire justification for
his conduct.
2. As the Lord Chief Justice has jurisdiction over the
Common Law Courts, both in Term and out of Term (I do
not myself find anything in the authorities upon this
matter, but no doubt this decision will in future he quoted
as a precedent), his Lordship was clearly within his rights
to order Queen’s Bench Division No. 5 to be closed
unless the Arbitrators consented (like the coon in a fre-
quently quoted American case) to “ come down.” I do
not see that the consideration that the possible result of
this closure might have caused a change of venue from
the interior to the exterior of the building should have
had weight with his Lordship, as there was nothing to
prevent (if required) the holding of the inquiry in the
green space hounded on the North by Carey Street, the
South by the Strand, the East by the Law Courts, and
the West by Clement’s Inn. I am the more of this opinion
as the matter, being heard out of Term, the proceedings
wrould not have distracted the attention of the Chief
Clerks of the Chancery Division, whose rooms overlook the
green space I have sufficiently indicated. Consequently
I concur in his Lordship’s decision.
3. For the above reasons I think the Arbitrators acted
quite wisely in making the required concession. I also
believe that they have been most discreet. It was not
impossible that, after the foreign fashion, Prince Solti-
koff, in the heat of the moment, might have demanded
satisfaction. I am happy to hear no suggestion that this
has been the case. It is patent that the Lord Chief
Justice could not have agreed to meet his Highness
within the Queen’s dominions ; and, had his Lordship
consented to visit some distant land outside Her Majesty’s
jurisdiction, with a view to carrying out the Prince’s
hypothetical proposals, considerable, and, possibly, irre-
parable damage and delay might have been occasioned
in the due administration of the law. I also entirely
approve of the Arbitrators placing on their table volumes
of the Racing Calendar in lieu of law books, and concur
with them when a dispute on a difficult point of law
arises between Sir Charles Russell and Sir Henry
James in the advisability of seeking professional advice
from my learned (if somewhat youthful friend) Mr.
North—a gentleman no doubt quite capable of affording
them assistance of the utmost benefit and value.
Finally, I advise generally that those not engaged in
the case should carefully avoid Queen’s Bench No. 5, as the
proceedings therein are so dull that, compared with them,
aitchwater is an effervescing beverage, of the most exhi-
larating character.
(.Signed) A. Briefless, Junior.
Rump-handle Court.
HOLES AND CORNERERS.
An admirable society for the help of Bachelors, has
been started in London. The programme is to provide
persons who will sew on buttons, darn, mend, and other-
wise care for the neglected habiliments of unwedded
gentlemen. In future such a thing as a button off a
shirt, or a rent in a vest, or a little rift within a sock,
will he impossible. The Society issues its “No Rent”
manifesto, and will cure faulty garments by the process
of “ mending or ending.” All bachelors should in-vest
in the Society’s aid—“ first aid to bachelors,” it might be
called. How often, when we have discovered a “ missing
link,” or a link missing between collar and shirt, have
we been inclined to darn—hut no ; in future that sort of
thing can be done by the skilled fingers of the humble
workers provided by the “ Stitch-in-time Association.”
Won’t the result, however, be to remove one powerful
inducement to matrimony—the desire to have a mender
on the premises F If so, Mr. Punch cannot call the idea
admirable, hut only sew-sew !
C C
VOL. XCVI.