A Call Frustrated, 1848

From the Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser, 7 June 1848:

“AUDACIOUS PROCEEDING

A proceeding has taken place, which for monstrous violation of the rights of the subjects of this realm has never been exceeded – we know not, indeed, if any act of the same kind has ever been attempted – certainly never in any country save ours.

The circumstances are these. Dr Gray, of the Freeman’s Journal, and Mr Joseph Henry Dunne, a prominent member of Conciliation Hall, were to have been called to the Bar on Friday. All their certificates of having served their terms, English as well as Irish, had been lodged several days since with the proper officer, and from him they received on yesterday an intimation that they should present themselves this day, at half-past ten o’clock, in the Queen’s Bench, to be sworn.

Accordingly, they did present themselves, paid some fees, which were received, of course – put on the gown and wig, and in that costume were received by Mr Justice Moore, who called upon them to take the necessary oaths.  Having complied with this form – taking the oath of allegiance among others – Doctor Gray and Mr Dunne then left the Queen’s Bench in company with other gentlemen also to be called to the bar, and proceeded to the Bencher’s Chambers, in the rere of the Four Courts, there to take the barrister’s oath, and to be what is technically termed ‘called.’  

The hour was 11 a.m. when the gentlemen presented themselves to the Benchers.  Their companions had each their ‘call,’ and they were left to wait. At length at two o’clock, Mr Dobbs, the officer of the Benchers, came forward and told them that the ‘consideration of their memorials had been postponed till next term ‘ – in other words, the Benchers refused to call them.

Was ever anything more monstrous than this? Here are two gentlemen against whom there is no charge , political or social – neither sedition, treason, or immorality – nether debt nor ‘felony’ – and yet the Benchers in Ireland inflict upon them a punishment, the severest, morally speaking, which can be adjudged – one by which their hopes and fortunes may be ruined. Surely, there is neither law nor equity in this. It is a pure exercise of arbitrary power, and nothing else.

We understand the reason assigned for refusing Dr Gray is, that he publishes in his journal ‘seditious’ writings. Why not prosecute him if that is so? But how dare they punish him for that of which he is not only not found guilty but is not accused….”

The Weekly Freeman’s Journal, of which Dr Gray was the proprietor, subsequently featured a full account of a dialogue between its owner and Lord Chancellor Brady which had taken place in the Court of Chancery immediately after the Benchers had refused to call the former:

“Mr Gray rose, and, addressing the Chancellor, said –

My Lord Chancellor – If you look to the printed list now before you at No 6, you will find my name thus ‘John Gray Junior, Esq, third son of John Gray, of Claremorris in the County of Mayo, Esq certificate signed by John O’Donoghue Esq, to be proposed by the Right Hon the Lord Chief Baron.’ In pursuance of the notice, which I received from the official at the Queen’s Inns, I applied to know whether all my certificates were quite correct, and whether I had gone through all the necessary forms to entitle me to be called to the Irish Bar. He informed me by letter that all my documents were correct and intimated that it would be necessary for me to appear in court at half-past ten this morning. In accordance with that intimation I appeared, according to instructions, in bar costume, and by the direction of the Registrar of the Queen’s Inns proceeded to the Queen’s Bench, and there took the prescribed oaths before one of the justices of that court, Mr Justice Moore, and subscribed to the roll presented to me in the usual manner.  I then, my lord, proceeded by direction of the officer of the court, to the benchers’ chamber, and after waiting some hours, a gentleman, who I understand to be secretary to the benchers, informed me that the benchers had decided on not admitting me to the bar. I then applied for an interview with the benchers, in order to ascertain what was their reason for that decision, and that request having been refused, I now apply to you, my lord, to know whether there is any moral stain on my character to justify my exclusion from the Irish bar, I having –

Lord Chancellor – Oh certainly not, Mr Gray, but I wish to set you right on one point. The decision of the benchers, as far as I am at liberty to mention it to you, was that the consideration of your memorial should be postponed until Michaelmas term next.

Dr Gray – I wished to be admitted to the presence of the benchers, in order to ascertain from them what was the reason of this postponement, which was manifestly not caused by any omission of mine.

Lord Chancellor – Really, I can do nothing in the matter, and it is only throwing away your own time and that of the public to press it on me any further. As I said before, I have no power to alter the decision of the benchers and I am not at liberty to make any communication to you, save that the consideration of your memorial has been postponed. If you have any complaint to make of the benchers it must be by memorial.

Doctor Gray – I merely apply to your Lordship as the head of the Irish bar to know, why having fulfilled the prescribed course, and having his day gone through the  necessary forms and taken the necessary oaths I am now excluded because of my politics?

Lord Chancellor – I really cannot comment any further.”

On 31 May 1850, the Dublin Mercantile Advertiser reported that Dr Gray’s memorial was still before the Benchers and, after more discussion, had yet again been reserved for consideration ‘to a future day in the present term.’

The Benchers’ reluctance to admit Gray to the Bar seems to have stemmed from his involvement in the movement for Repeal of the Act of Union. Gray’s support of Irish barrister and politician Daniel O’Connell had previously resulted in his and O’Connell’s conviction for conspiracy and sedition in 1843.

Although it does not appear that Gray ever succeeded in being called to the Irish Bar, he assisted, through his counsel at the 1843 conspiracy trial, Gerald FitzGibbon, in making legal history when remarks by the latter famously provoked the then Attorney-General into issuing an in-court challenge to a duel.

Gray was knighted in 1863 in honour of his work in securing a clean water supply for the city of Dublin. Following his death in 1875, Gray’s statue was erected in O’Connell Street in appreciation of his ‘many services to his country.’ It remains in place to this day.

Possibly not the Benchers’ finest hour?