John Lawrance

Sir John Compton Lawrance, PC (30 May 1832 – 5 December 1912) was an English judge and Conservative Party politician. He was Conservative MP for South Lincolnshire from 1880 to 1885 and for Stamford from 1885 until 1890, when he was appointed to the High Court, where he served until 1912.

The Right Honourable
Sir John Lawrance
"Long Lawrance", caricature in Vanity Fair, 1897.
Justice of the High Court
In office
24 February 1890 – 15 April 1912
Preceded bySir William Field
Member of Parliament
for Stamford
In office
1885–1890
Preceded byMarston Clarke Buszard
Succeeded byHenry Cust
Member of Parliament
for South Lincolnshire
In office
1880–1885
Serving with Sir William Welby-Gregory, Bt. (1880–1884)
Hon. Murray Finch-Hatton (1884–1885)
Preceded byEdmund Turnor
Sir William Welby-Gregory, Bt.
Succeeded byConstituency abolished
Personal details
Born
John Compton Lawrance

(1832-05-30)30 May 1832
Died5 December 1912(1912-12-05) (aged 80)
Political partyConservative
Spouse
Charlotte Georgina Smart
​
​
(m. 1861)​
Children1

One of Lord Halsbury's political appointments to the bench as Lord Chancellor, Lawrance acquired a degree of notoriety for his incompetence as a judge, at least in commercial cases. His conduct of one commercial action was said to be so inept that it was credited with the creation of the Commercial Court, earning him the moniker "the Only Begetter of the Commercial Court".[1][2] He was, however, said to be a good criminal judge and was personally well-liked.

Background and political career

Lawrance was the only son of Thomas Munton Lawrance of Dunsby Hall, Lincolnshire and his wife Louisa, née Compton.[3] He was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn in 1859, became a Queen's Counsel in 1877, and a bencher of Lincoln's Inn in 1879.[3] He was not well known in London and mainly practiced on the Midland Circuit; he also practiced as a revising barrister.[4] He was appointed Recorder of Derby in 1879 and was a JP for Lincolnshire.[3]

In 1878, Lawrance stood unsuccessfully for Parliament as a Conservative at a by-election in Peterborough, but at the 1880 general election he was elected as Member of Parliament (MP) for South Lincolnshire.[5] That constituency was abolished by the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, and at the 1885 general election Lawrance was elected MP for Stamford.[6] He was appointed a Deputy Lieutenant of Lincolnshire in 1886.[7]

High Court judge

Appointment

Lawrance was appointed a Justice of the High Court in 1890, in succession to Mr Justice Field.[4] He was assigned to the King's Bench Division, receiving the customary knighthood on 30 June 1890.[8][9] Lawrance had been nominated by Lord Halsbury, who had a reputation for choosing judges on party political grounds, especially from the ranks of "unsuccessful Tory M.P.s with large majorities and no incomes".[10]

The appointment was greeted with "hoots of derision".[11] The Daily News said Lawrance was unfit for the lowest judicial appointment. The Law Times wrote that "This is a bad appointment, for although a popular man and a thorough English gentleman, Mr. Lawrance has no reputation as a lawyer, and has been rarely seen of recent years in the Royal Courts of Justice".[12][13] The Law Journal, however, cautiously welcomed the appointment, noting his professional experience, knowledge of business, and high character, though it also commented that "probably Mr. Lawrance does affect to be a great lawyer". It also noted that his appointment, "on personal grounds... will be very acceptable to every member of the profession."[14]

"The Only Begetter of the Commercial Court"

The case for which Lawrance achieved lasting notoriety was Rose v Bank of Australasia (1891), which involved a complex issue of general average contribution from cargo-owners. The case was tried without a jury by Lawrance J over 22 days in May 1891, who then reserved judgment. It was argued by some of the leading figures of the commercial bar: Arthur Cohen QC (with him Thomas Edward Scrutton) appeared for the plaintiffs; Gorell Barnes QC (with him J. A. Hamilton) appeared for the defendants.[2]

Scrutton described Lawrance was "a very popular Judge—who had practised in a purely agricultural county, and whose elevation was not wholly unconnected with his devoted services to his party".[15] Sir Frank MacKinnon, who was later Scrutton's pupil, reported that:

The judge knew as much about the principles of general average as a Hindoo about figure-skating. He listened with a semblance of interest to Cohen and Gorell Barnes, reserved judgment, and forgot all about the case. After a long delay he was somehow reminded that he ought to give judgment. This he did—in favour of the plaintiff. To his horror Gorell Barnes then rose and said he had failed to deal with a very important point. Not having the least idea what the point was, he pulled himself together and said: 'Oh, yes; I meant to say that having considered that I think the adjusters took the right view, and in that respect also I think the claim as made out by them ought to succeed'.[2]

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed Lawrance on questions of law and fact. On further appeal, the House of Lords (Lord Herschell LC, Lord Watson, and Lord Morris) restored the judgment for the plaintiffs, though they did not rely on his reasoning.[16]

Sir John Lawrance in his gowns.

According to Scrutton and MacKinnon, Lawrance's performance in this case incensed the mercantile community so much that it led to the creation of the Commercial Court in 1895, thus making him "the Only Begetter of the Commercial Court".[2] This account has been largely accepted by modern commentators such as R. F. V. Heuston and Sir Roger Toulson, although some recent writers have argued that this was either something of an exaggeration or remains unproven.[17][18]

Later years

Lawrance continued to sit in the King's Bench Division, eventually becoming the most senior judge in the King's Bench Division.[4] In 1898, he tried the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Burtsev and the typesetter Klement Wierzbicki for publishing a pamphlet which called for the murder of Nicholas II.[19] The same year, he was one of the judges called upon by the House of Lords to provide an advisory opinion in Allen v Flood. Lowrance was strongly criticised in Lord William Beauchamp Nevill's book, Penal Servitude (1903), Lowrance having sent Nevill down for fraud in 1898 with a strong reprimand and five years in Wormwood Scrubs and Parkhurst.[20]

In 1906, he was one of the two judges appointed to hear election petitions arising from that year's general election. At the hearing of the Maidstone petition, he sat with Mr Justice Grantham, another former Conservative MP elevated by Halsbury, who was subsequently the subject of a motion of censure in the House of Commons for his perceived partiality toward the Conservative candidate, but Lawrance's conduct was not questioned.[4][21] In 1903, he presided over the second trial of William Gardiner for the murder of Rose Harsent: as with the first trial, the jury was unable to come to a verdict, and the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi.

In November 1911, Lawrence fell ill, and resigned on 15 April 1912. He was sworn of the Privy Council on 19 July,[22] and died on 5 December 1912, aged 80.[22]

Family

In 1861, Lawrance married Charlotte Georgina Smart,  daughter of Major Smart of Boston, Lincolnshire. They had one son, Thomas Dalton Lawrance (1865–1930), sometime Assistant Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal; he married in 1898 Millicent Emma Rachel Fane, daughter of W. D. Fane, of Fulbeck Hall.[4][23]

Assessments

Assessments of Lawrance as a judge tend to be negative. Lord Justice MacKinnon wrote that:

Mr. Justice J. C. Lawrance was a stupid man, a very ill-equipped lawyer, and a bad judge. He was not the worst judge I have appeared before: that distinction I would assign to Mr. Justice Ridley [another Conservative MP controversially elevated by Halsbury]. Ridley had much better brains than Lawrance, but he had a perverse instinct for unfairness that Lawrance could never approach. It is perhaps not without significance that Lawrance and Ridley both failed to get admission to the modern Valhalla, the Dictionary of National Biography."[2]

However, Lawrance had his defenders, especially from the criminal bar. Frederic Holman and Sir Travers Humphreys both praised him for his common sense, while Ernest Bowen-Rowlands KC said that on circuit he was "a good judge and in crime one of the best judges I have practiced before".[13] The Times commented that:

In the conduct of a trial with a jury he was usually patient and reasonable, and as a Criminal Judge he appears to have had no prepossession either towards undue severity or a flabby leniency. In this respect he was a satisfactory Judge, but he was hardly equal to a sustained course of reasoning or to the interpretation of intricate Acts of Parliament. In case involving these he was generally content simply to express his concurrence with a senior colleague, or in revenue cases to decide in favour of the Crown.[4]

Lawrance was personally well-liked: he was said to possess "an unostentatious sense of humour and a commendable gift of reticence".[24] Another otherwise critical account credited him with "prudence and self-restraint, and is irreproachable in word and act, and is, in fact, liked and admired for many qualities."[21] On his retirement, The Law Journal commented that although this "has not seriously reduced the judicial store of erudition, it has deprived the King's Bench Division of one of its most attractive personalities."[24] Lawrance was nicknamed "Long Lawrance", both in reference to his height (he was said to be the tallest judge on the bench) and to distinguish him from A. T. Lawrence.[1]

Heuston wrote that Lawrance was "as undistinguished on the Bench as [he] had been at the Bar", but that although he was not a clever man, "before the Great War, the English did not always want clever men in public positions. They often preferred an honest gentleman."[25]

References
  1. Veeder, V. V. (April 1994). "Mr Justice Lawrance: the "true begetter" of the English Commercial Court". Law Quarterly Review: 292–306.
  2. MacKinnon, Frank Douglas (October 1944). "The Origin of the Commercial Court". Law Quarterly Review. 60 (4): 324–325.
  3. Mair, Robert Henry, ed. (1886). Debrett's House of Commons and the Judicial Bench. London: Dean & Son. p. 92.
  4. "Sir John Compton Lawrance". The Times. 6 December 1912. p. 11.
  5. Craig, F. W. S. (1989) [1977]. British Parliamentary Wlection Results 1832–1885 (2nd ed.). Chichester: Parliamentary Research Services. pp. 238, 423. ISBN 0-900178-26-4.
  6. Craig, F. W. S. (1989) [1974]. British Parliamentary Election Results 1885–1918 (2nd ed.). Chichester: Parliamentary Research Services. p. 343.
  7. "No. 25623". The London Gazette. 7 September 1886. p. 4330.
  8. "No. 26026". The London Gazette. 25 February 1890. p. 1044.
  9. "No. 26070". The London Gazette. 15 July 1890. p. 3923.
  10. Heuston, R. F. V. (1964). Lives of the Lord Chancellors, 1885–1940. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 36.
  11. Stevens, Robert (2002). The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution. Hart Publishing. p. 95.
  12. "The Law and the Lawyers". The Law Times. 88: 305. 1 March 1890.
  13. Heuston, p. 45.
  14. "Obiter Dicta". The Law Journal. 25: 135. 1 March 1890.
  15. Scrutton, Thomas Edward (1921). "The Work of the Commercial Courts". Cambridge Law Journal. 1 (1): 6–20. doi:10.1017/S0008197300101990. S2CID 145274792.
  16. [1894] AC 687
  17. Foxton, David (2013). The Life of Thomas E. Scrutton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 101.
  18. "The Origins of the Commercial Court". The Commercial Court of England & Wales. Retrieved 14 May 2021.
  19. "VLADIMIR BOURTZEFF, KLEMENT WIERZBICKI". Old Bailey Proceedings Online. 1898.
  20. Nevill, Lord William Beauchamp (28 January 1903). Penal Servitude. London: William Heinemann.
  21. "Notes from London". The Scottish Law Review. 22 (258): 181. June 1906.
  22. "No. 28628". The London Gazette. 19 July 1912. p. 5291.
  23. "Obituary". The Law Times. 170: 524. 20 December 1930.
  24. "The Resignation of Mr. Justice Lawrence". The Law Journal. 47: 209. 30 March 1912.
  25. Heuston, p. 65.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.