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.
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". 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. 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. He was not well known in London and mainly practiced on the Midland Circuit; he also practiced as a revising barrister. He was appointed Recorder of Derby in 1879 and was a JP for Lincolnshire.
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. That constituency was abolished by the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, and at the 1885 general election Lawrance was elected MP for Stamford. He was appointed a Deputy Lieutenant of Lincolnshire in 1886.
High Court judge
Appointment
Lawrance was appointed a Justice of the High Court in 1890, in succession to Mr Justice Field. He was assigned to the King's Bench Division, receiving the customary knighthood on 30 June 1890. 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".
The appointment was greeted with "hoots of derision". 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". 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."
"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.
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". 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'.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.