Month: May 2021

From Saunders’s News-Letter, 27 November 1821:

“COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

On Saturday a conditional order was obtained by Counsellor Blackburne, the plaintiff, against Mr Hines, an attorney, for sending a Gentleman to him in the Hall of the Four Courts, to demand an explanation of account of some misunderstanding between them, and for telling him that he must abide the consequences of a refusal.

Mr Sergeant Vandeleur, on behalf of the defendant, contended that the rule ought not to be made absolute, for that when all the circumstances were detailed, they did not amount to a proof of a delivery of a challenge to fight.

Mr Wallace, for the plaintiff, said that Mr Blackburne, in the progress of an argument in the court, lately stated a particular passage of an affidavit, and contrasted that with another affidavit, in consequence of which Mr Hines felt hurt, and got up to controvert Mr Blackburne.  Mr Hines, on the next morning, sent a Gentleman to Mr Blackburne for explanation,; Mr Blackburne’s answer was, that whatever had been stated by him was stated in the discharge of his duty, and that he meant Mr Hines no personal offence whatever.  With this explanation, Mr Hines’s friend was satisfied.      

However, Mr Hines sent another messenger to meet Mr Blackburne, who did meet him accordingly in the Hall of the Four Courts, to whom Mr Blackburne again mildly explained in the presence of a Gentleman of the Bar, everything that he had done and said upon the occasion of receiving the former message whereupon the messenger asked him ‘Sir, have you any objection to put on paper what you have spoken by way of explanation?’  Mr Blackburne declined compliance and the reply was ‘then sir you must abide the consequences,’ the clear meaning of the last remark was that if Mr Blackburne, as a barrister, did not think proper to give satisfaction for what may displease an individual for an occurrence, which in the discharge of his duty takes place in open court, then he must be whipped.  

Lord Norbury: At my advanced period of life, I find a difficulty in believing the possibility of such an occurrence.  Two days have scarcely elapsed since the trial, from whence this matter emanated, took place in this Court.  It is our duty to protect the Gentlemen of the Bar, as well as the Public, and we should be unworthy if we did not so so with firmness on an occasion such as the present. 

At the trial alluded to, the Attorney stepped forward in his robes, and although the court did not commit him, he did everything in his power to commit himself.  What! Is he to be the hero of his profession? To use ‘pens for pistols, ink for blood’?  If he is suffered to run this race, to outstrip our brethren thus, the rights of the bar are lost, we injure society as well as the advocates of a free country, if we strip them, or consent to their being stripped, of those privileges which I hope they will long maintain.    

The conduct of Mr Blackburne was conciliating and kind, he stated that he had meant no offence, and yet what amounts almost to a challenge was delivered in our very court.  If such is to be the history of our profession, what will be its effect?   What the impression made, when this matter goes forth into our country, many parts of which are at present in a miserably disturbed state.  We had better strip off our robes, and fling them to the winds, if we do not protect the gentlemen of the Bar.   How can an Irish Gentleman, practising at the Bar in Ireland for many years, tell me that what has been stated in this case is not a challenge to fight?  

With respect to the individual concerned, he has not uttered one word of contrition, no acknowledgment of shame, or a word by way amends honourable to that profession he has so inured.  This has been the most levelling and audacious attempt I ever heard of.  If had ever used a hasty expression, and one that ought to be apologised for, to any member of a profession I have ever loved and regarded, I should conceive it my duty to make to him the best amends in my power.  I will, as far as I can, protect Counsel, and use every means in my power to defend the privileges of the Bar.”

John Toler, Lord Norbury, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland, 1800-1827, while not normally regarded as a sympathetic character, certainly stood up for the rights of barristers on this occasion!  His ruling above is characteristic of many of his judgments in containing a pun, a misquote, a self-deprecating comment about his age (a sprightly 81!)  and the sort of basic common sense which it is not necessary to be a lawyer to understand.  It also shows the value placed by judges of that era on their role as guardians of the public peace.

By the time of Lord Norbury’s retirement from the Bench six years later, Counsellor Blackburne was a Senior Counsel and King’s Serjeant at Law; he subsequently rose to the giddy height of Sir Francis Blackburne, Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

Mr Hines continued in practice as an attorney, becoming involved in at least one further physical dispute with a legal colleague (an attorney by the name of Boswell) on the steps of the Royal Exchange, Dublin, in 1835.  He later appears as a witness for Mr Robert Caldwell, in another great solicitor-barrister dispute of the early 19th century – the 1842 trial of Mr Caldwell, an attorney, for attempted violation by force of the wife of one of his briefed barristers.

Despite his reprehensible performance at the trial of Robert Emmet, we must thank Lord Norbury for formally recognising a barrister’s immunity from physical chastisement for offence caused to the other side in the discharge of our duty.  Without this, we would all be dodging beatings daily! 

Image Credits: (left)(middle)(right)

Irish barristers often have many unexpected talents – and Leonard McNally BL was no exception.

Not only did ‘McNally the Incorruptible’ purport to act as defence counsel for Irish barrister revolutionaries Robert Emmet (above) and the Sheares Brothers while simultaneously informing on them to the authorities, but he was also a songwriter on the side.

McNally (above, at Emmet trial) was in fact the unlikely protagonist of one of the Bar of Ireland’s legendary love affairs – a romance which graced the English stage in epic musical form for many years thereafter.

Fifteen years before the Emmet Rebellion, McNally, then a Dublin grocer’s son newly qualified as a barrister, had fallen in love with Frances L’Anson, of Hill House, Richmond, Yorkshire (portrait here) and written a song about her called ‘The Lass of Richmond Hill.’ First performed publicly at Vauxhall Gardens in 1789, and written some years previously, the song became one of the most popular of the time, and was said to be a favourite of George III.

Those playing down the song’s Irish connection have argued that the music accompanying these lyrics was composed by an Englishman, James Hook, but credit must be given to McNally for introducing into the English language the phrase ‘rose without a thorn’.

A less romantic side of the McNally/L’Anson relationship is that Dublin legal society of the time regarded them as a particularly smelly couple – neither being fastidious in matters of washing, or indeed dress, it was regarded as unwise to ask them to dinner without the windows being fully open!

McNally’s early, unexpected, prowess in the world of musical theatre is intriguing, to say the least. Why not read about his subsequent history, expertly detailed by Adrian Hardiman and Eoin O’Connor BL, while listening to Sweet Lass of Richmond Hill?

Image Credits: (first) (second)

From the Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, 17 March 1927:

“A remarkable story of the perpetration of frauds on many prominent people both in this country and in Ireland was told at Highgate yesterday, when John LM Reddington, alias Edward McLaughlin (59), of 451 Archway Road, Highgate, was charged with obtaining £1 by false pretences from Mr Andrew Charles O’Connor, formerly Master of the Rolls In Ireland and further with obtaining £25 by false pretences from the Benevolent Society of the Bar of Ireland.

Accused was the son of William McLaughlin QC, who died in Dublin 30 years ago.  His father was one of the founders of the Benevolent Society of the Bar of Ireland.  Accused was never connected with the Bar, and had no real occupation.  He was independent up to about 1910, when his wife lost her money through speculation.  He remembered his father’s connection with the Benevolent Society of the Bar of Ireland, and applied to them and was assisted with £10 and £5.  He subsequently recollected that a Mr Staveley, who was a barrister, had died some years ago.  He wrote to the Society for assistance for Miss Staveley.  He said she was going blind, and he received £25 from the Society for the purpose of getting her into a Thanet home for the blind.  For this purpose he also obtained money from Lord Carson, Lord Atkinson, and other people.  Miss Staveley was a myth so far as he was concerned.  He was sorry now he had done it.

Mr Andrew Charles O’Connor, formerly Master of the Rolls in Ireland, giving evidence, said he sent the accused £1.

When asked if he pleaded guilty, the accused said ‘I am guilty,’ and in reply to a further question said ‘I don’t want to speak.’

Detective Inspector Parsons said the accused had been carrying on a remarkable series of frauds for a number of years, and had obtained money from a large number of people.  In 1923 he wrote in the name of Mary McLaughlin to a very old and retired Judge of Ireland, who was also bedridden, stating that she was very ill and under the care of a Dr Nash.   The Judge sent some money.  Eventually, Mary McLaughlin was supposed to have died, and ‘Dr Nash’ then wrote to the judge for money on the plea of need.

Detective Inspector Parsons said that the accused had a daughter living with him; and, as far as he understood, the daughter had done no work, but had been supported by her father.”

Mr McLaughlin was subsequently sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment.

The Benevolent Society of the Bar of Ireland – established in 1895 for the purposes of providing a fund applied wisely, delicately and prudently in aid of less fortunate members of the profession overtaken by sickness and distress – was the brainchild of Irish barrister Edward Gibson, who, in his later incarnation of Lord Ashbourne, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, presided over its initial meetings.   Gibson was an enthusiastic chairman with no compunction about imposing pressure to donate; at the 1901 AGM he publicly regretted the fact that, in contrast to their High Court brethren, members of the County Court Bench were still displaying a ’rather temperate enthusiasm’ as regards their annual contributions.  Presumably they mended their hand the following year!

Gibson’s brother, John, also a judge, left a large donation to the Society when he died in 1923, although, as one newspaper remarked, like many another famous judge and lawyer he failed to comply with the requirements of the law in his own will and an affidavit of due execution was required before it could be admitted to probate.  John Gibson’s will, made shortly before his death, expressed his sadness at having with deep regret quitted Ireland and having finally decided to make England his home for the rest of his life, ‘which cannot now at my advanced age be long.’        

A separate Benevolent Society was formed by the Northern Irish Bar following Partition, chaired by Sir James Andrews, Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.  In 1930, Hugh Kennedy, the first Chief Justice of the Irish Free State, reached out to Sir John Ross, the last Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to ask him to act as President of the Society of the Bar of Ireland.   A letter of refusal was read out at the Society’s AGM of 1930, in which Sir John, now resident in Tyrone, stated that, although gratified and honoured by the invitation, 

‘I belong to, and represent a system and a state of things that has passed away, a return of one from the Shades to take part in the actual work of the present is hardly likely to advance the admirable work your committee has in hand.’

The blow was softened somewhat by Sir John’s statement that he was pleased to note from his continued reading of the Law Reports that Free State judges were continuing the great traditions of strict justice and impartiality and the Bar of Ireland was upholding the traditional courage and skill for which it was at all times famous.

The Benevolent Society of the Bar of Ireland is still active today.  One unresolved mystery, the answer to which may perhaps be found in its records, relates to the death of a ‘Mrs Laura Wingfield’ from gas poisoning in Ealing, London, in January 1927 – shortly before Mr McLaughlin’s arrest. An inquest subsequently found that she had taken her own life as a result of temporary insanity.  An accompanying note read

“Will the finder of my dead body communicate with the Honorary Secretary of the Benevolent Society of the Bar of Ireland? My poor effects here I desire to be sold to defray funeral expenses. The contents of my life story I wish to be published in an Irish paper, or in ‘The Daily Mail’ or ‘Daily Sketch.“

Presumably the mysterious Mrs Wingfield must have had some family or marital connection to the Irish Bar. According to the policeman who investigated her death – subsequently found to have been as a result of temporary insanity – there was no sign of any MSS among her papers, I wonder what her life story would have told?

Image Credits: (top left) (top right) (middle)(bottom)