תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

he should of himself, or through the instigation of others, call eleven men, all of one religion, and pretty much of one political creed, in one day to the inner bar.

To be sure Mr. Charles Kelly, a Catholic, was called, and made up the dozen. Mr. Charles Kelly is a very respectable gentleman, a man who does not depend for support upon his profession, a member of the Kildare-street club, and therefore will never degrade his gown, and will always keep his wig as white, and his silk as glossy as they look this moment, whilst he sits before us shining, glistening, and rustling, fresh from the hands of his Four Courts dressing room ; but I believe there is not a Catholic in Ireland

who will regard Mr. Kelly's call as an acknowledgement of any principle of selection, or as shewing any desire in the Chancellor to recognize the Liberal Bar.

But, it has been said, and I hear, by Chancellor Napier,—" Brady promoted every man upon the Liberal side who should have been promoted, and a good many who should not have received the silk gown were called to the Inner Bar.” As this topic has been very frequently pressed by the newspapers believed to be under the inspiration, or dictation of the Chancellor, and of the AttorneyGeneral, it is right that it should be noticed at some length; and the following article from The Dublin Evening Post of Thursday, May 27th, supplies an answer to the most important portion of the objections QUEEN'S COUNSEL– PERSONAL AND FAMILY NEPOTISM.'

The Daily Express—the organ of Messrs. NAPIER and WHITESIDE-availing itself of the convenient testimony of what it designates a paper of ultra-Liberal politics” — a species of evidence ready on all occasions for the sustainment of the intolerant party now in office-lauds the present Lord Chancellor as a model judge, and thus concludes, referring to the new batch of Queen's Counsel :

We agree with our contemporary, that the rule of legal promotion amongst us has hitherto notoriously been that of political partisanship or personal and family nepotism,' and it is impossible that the Lord Chancellor can speedily make full reparation for the injurious operation of such a rule, extending over a period of six or seven years; but in the list of names which we have published the Chancellor

gives an earnest of his desire to yield to the voice of the public and the profession, and to promote real merit, irrespective of party or politics.'

We shall show, by-and-by, that the less said the better, in this case, about 'real merit irrespective of party or politics,' so far as a portion of the names in the new list is concerned.

Considering the close relations between the Lord Chancellor and the Daily Express, and giving credit to his Lordship for good sense and feelings of common courtesy, we think he could scarcely have sanctioned the publication of 80 wanton, so imprudent, and so utterly groundless an attack upon his immediate predecessor in the distinguished office which he had the rare good fortune so lately to obtain. We shall show, by dates, names, and facts, that never was there a more untrue charge than that hazarded against the late Chancellor, Mr. Maziere Brady; and, furthermore, we shall show that the imputation so wrongly directed against him can, with much more warrant of truth, be applied to Mr. Napier himself.

Mr. Brady first held the Irish Seals from 1846 to 1852, and during that period the following members of the Bar were called as Queen's Counsel :Richard J. Lane

Feb. 15, 1847.
Daniel Ryan Kane

Feb. 15, 1847.
Thomas Fitzgerald

Feb. 15, 1847.
Christopher Coppinger

Feb. 15, 1847.
Henry Hutton

Feb. 7. 1849.
Robert Andrews, LL.D. Feb. 7, 1849.
James A. Wall

Feb. 7, 1849.
James Plunkett

Feb. 7, 1849.
Walter Bourke

Feb. 7, 1849.
Francis A. Fitzgerald

Feb. 7. 1849.
Henry H. Joy

Feb. 13 1849.
Vincent Scully

Feb. 13, 1849.
Charles Rolleston

Feb. 13, 1849.
David Lynch

Feb. 13. 1849.
Rickard Deasy

Feb. 13, 1849.
Thomas O'Hagan

Feb. 13, 1849.
John G. Smyly

May, 23, 1850.
Thus, from 1846 to 1852-a period of fully six years

Mr. Maziere Brady had nominated but seventeen members of the Bar as Queen's Counsel. Does the list of those seventeen names exhibit any evidence or even indication of that political partisanship or personal and family nepotism' with which he has been so unjustly accused by the organ of his successor? Does that list manifest any tendency on his part to reject 'real merit, irrespective of party or politics ?' The direct contrary will be admitted even by his most strenuous political opponents ; for he selected men of standing and established reputation, most of whom occupy a high position at the profession, and several of whom are leaders in Dublin, and upon their circuits.

Mr. Brady again held the Irish Seals from 1853 to 1858-upwards of five years—during which the following gentlemen were called to the Inner Bar:John Thomas Ball

January 28, 1854.
Richard Armstrong

January 28, 1854.
Loftus H. Bland

January 28, 1854.
James Rogers

May 1, 1855.
F. W. Walsh, LL.D. May 1, 1855.
Thomas De Moleyns

July 3, 1855.
Joshua Clarke

July 3, 1855.
David Sherlock

July 3, 1855.
John E. Walsh

January 29, 1857.
James A. Lawson

January 29. 1857.
William Darley. LL.D. November, 1857.

James Peebles, LL.D. November, 1857. Is there, we ask, a single name in the list to which any man at all acquainted with the Bar could object, upon professional or any other ground? In eleven years and a half Mr. MAZIERE BRADY had nominated twenty-nine Queen's Counsel. The entire of the names we have now placed before the public. With the exception of a few who have left the Bar for Parliament, or other causes, or been removed by death, those gentlemen are now engaged in the duties of the profession-most of them occupying the highest positions, and enjoying the rewards of complete success. It is a list upon which the late Chancellor may look back with pride, as containing evidences of the strict impartiality and sound judgment which had dictated his selections. The majority are Conservatives; but Liberals

and Roman Catholics, speaking by comparison with other lists, obtained their fair proportion. Amongst the Conservatives on the list are some of the most distinguished men now at the Bar; and amongst the Liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics are names which the public will at once recognise as those of eminent and most successful men. Yet those are names upon which a stigma has been cast by the organ of Chancellor Napier!

In simple truth, it would be impossible to produce a list more completely free from political partisanship, or personal and family nepotism,' or one in which there was a more careful consideration for real merit, irrespective of party or politics.'

However, as the organ of Chancellor Napier has forced upon us the duty of comparison, we shall again turn to Thom's Directory, for lists of Queen's Counsel nominated by two conservative Chancellors-Mr. Blackburne and Mr. Napier. In 1852, Chancellor Blackburne called the following sixteen gentlemen to the Inner Bar, all in one batch. A single date, November 9, 1852, will, therefore, answer the entire : G. W. Creighton,

Henry West, Hans H. Hamilton,

Robert Longfield, Echlin Molyneux,

Sterne Ball Miller, Edmond Hayes,

W. W. Brereton, Bartholomew Lloyd, LL.D., Hamilton Smythe, R. J. Berkeley,

James Robinson, T. Lefroy, jun.,

Patrick Blake, John H. Otway,

Sir Colman M. O'Loghlen. We have no intention of offering a single remark upon any individual name in this list, nor is it necessary that we should make any invidious objection. Most of the names are those of highly respectable members of the Bar; but, as a whole, it certainly is not more free from the unworthy imputation of the Daily Express than the appointments of Chancellor Brady. We shall not go further; for we would not select any individual name for commentary.

And now we come to the list of Queen's Counsel just called by Chancellor Napier, twelve all in one batch :Robert R. Warren,

William C. Dobbs, M.P., Thomas Rice Henn,

Edward Pennefather,

Hedges Eyre Chatterton, Charles Andrews,
Edward Sullivan,

Charles Kelly,
Alexander Norman,

Edward Burroughs, William C. Henderson, Henry Ormsby.

Neither shall we offer any individual comment on this list. We shall not imitate the evil we condemn on the part of a contemporary journal. But, with all respect for the gentlemen in the preceding list, and allowing that several of them are rising men in good business, we say unhesitatingly, and we are certain that the sound opinion of the Irish Bar will go with us, that this list of Chancellor Napier, as a whole, cannot stand comparison with the lists we have given of the appointments of Chancellor Brady. We need scarcely say that the list of the present Chancellor presents characteristics quite peculiar to itself; for, in the main, it is very exclusive and partisan. Most of the names are professionally unobjectionable, and some are rising and successful men ; but in others the Napier list, as every man acquainted with the Bar must know, is really open to the charge made by the Napier organ, on the ground of 'political partisanship, or personal and family nepotism.' The

Family Party' are duly considered ; and the list is also open to the imputation of not including 'real merit, irrespective of party or politics ;' for members of the Bar on the respective Circuits are passed over—we need only mention Mr. Samuel Ferguson, Mr. T. K. Lowry, and Mr. James Kernan, on the North-East; Mr. Dominick M'Causland, on the North-West; Mr. T. Harris and Mr. Edmond Lawless on the Leinster; Mr. W. Sidney, on the Connaught; and Mr. C. Barry, on the Munster Circuit, as names that the profession and the public will at once recognise as much better qualified for the Inner Bar than some of the names included in the list of Lord Chancellor Napier.

We learn from Saunders's News-Letter of this morning that silk gowns were offered to Mr. Charles Shaw, of the Leinster Circuit, and Mr. William Exham, of the Munster Circuit, but that both declined. We commend their good taste and judgment in waiting for a future opportunity when their legitimate claims can be recognised, in a list more free from political partisanship, and in which real merit alone shall be the test.

6

« הקודםהמשך »