PARLIAMENTARY.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1443, 1 October 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

[pee pbess agency.]

Monday, Septembee 30. JUDICIAL commission bill.

Mr Bowen followed Mr Rees in the debate on the Judicial Commission Bill. Mr Bowen was glad to hear the remarks that had fallen from the Attorney -General. It was absurd to suppose that, ai the member for Auckland City East asserted, judges had the power to do just what they pleased without appeal. The power of commitment for contempt had rested with the judges in England for six centuries past. Judges had been removed from the Bench in England for misconduct and they could be removed from the Bench in New Zealand if the case could be made out against them. He should be exceedingly sorry to say anything harsh against a gentleman who was so highly esteemed in private life as Mr Barton, but he must say the conduct of the hon. member for Wellington in the Supreme Court was such as to render the progress of the judicial business of the Court impossible. The hon. member for Wellington seemed to have a monomania about judges, and ever since this unfortunate occurrence the conduct of judicial business in the Supreme Court had been brought into contempt by scenes which had taken place from time to time. He hoped the House would not take any steps in the matter, or interfere with the judges, unless there was a clear case for their removal from the Bench. Mr Moss considered the fact of a member of the Bar, standing up in defence of his client, being committed to gaol for a month and then imprisoned with common criminals, was sufficient ground on which to ask for an enquiry. |He studied the whole circumstances of the case carefully, and it was his firm conviction that for some years past certain Judges of the Supreme Court had regarded Mr Barton with a peculiar feeling of dislike. It was evident in their words, in their acts, and latterly in the harsh treatment to which Mr Barton had been subjected. The public of Wellington had given evidence of what they thought on the subject. The Dunedin and Ohristchurch bar had each considered an inquiry necessary, and was it now for Parliament to deny that investigation ? He sincerely hoped not. The Judges so outraged their powers in this case that there was no longer the same respect for the Supreme Court of New Zealand that previously existed. Ho did not say Mr Barton was right and that the Judges were wrong, but the circumstances were so strong as to establish the necessity for an inquiry. Not only did Mr Barton suffer a month's imprisonment, but there was no doubt it would ruin his professional business. Was it likely that litigants would entrust their cases to a barrister who had incurred the hostility of the judges before whom their case would be heard. He never heard of a case similar to Mr Barton's. There were instances (which the hon. member cited) where counsel in England had shown a great deal more independence and firmness of speech than Mr Barton had done, but in England the judges felt the importance and responsibility of the powers entrusted to them, and where they had a doubt they never acted with undue haste. Things had come to such a pass in New Zealand that the floor of the House was the only place in which men could express their opinion as to the conduct of judges. Mr G-isboene considered the Bill now under consideration would have a tendency to interfere with the independence of the judges. If the House passed this Bill, the effect of it would be to put the Judges on their trial before a commission—to put them on their trial, not on any charge of incompetency or corruption, but for having committed what might be an error of judgment. If the Judges were to be put on their trial for this, it would be sapping the very foundation of the Supreme Court, and would be striking at the very root of the liberties of the people. He opposed the Bill. Mr Whitaker considered it was absolutely essential that the Judges should hold the power of commitment for contempt, in order to enforce the proper administration of justice. Unless there was a power conferred to punish contempt, it would be quite impossible to carry on the business of the Courts. The question of whether the punishment awarded was justified by the conduct of the person committed, the Bill did not deal with, but that of inquiry alone. The whole question resolved itself into a narrow compass, as there was no dispute as to the facts proposed to be investigated as they were well known, being beyond question and without doubt. The Supreme Court in a democratic country was a matter of great importance, and its powers should be extended instead of restricted. It would be an unfortunate thing if such limitation took place. Ho expressed no opinion on the particular case with which the Bill dealt. There were different versions of what occurred, and there was a difficulty in determining whether the judges used their powers well or ill. The House was asked to institute an inquiry into what was the state of the law, when this was well known, and not to investigate matters of fact, and the member for Mount Ida had not informed the House what his next step would be. Mr Joyce moved the adjournment of the debate. The House rose at 12.40.