THE ALLEGED BIAS OF JUDGES. [To THE EDITOR OF THE
" Srverstos."] SIR,—I agree with you that it was an error of judgment on the part of Mr. Churchill to make the remark which he did regarding the decisions of the Courts in trade-union disputes, but it must be admitted that he merely stated a fact which everyone who is intimate with his fellow-creatures knows perfectly well, viz., that a belief in the impartiality of judges is very rare, even among well-educated people. An amusing instance of this came within my own experience a few years ago. A lady who is the sister of a former Prime Minister, and owns land in a parish adjacent to this, had a dispute with the District Council about a footpath. The Council took action, which led to a lawsuit in which the decision was given against them. The Clerk of my Parish Council remarked, "What fools they were ! Of course the judge decided in her favour. He was appointed by her brother ! "—I am, Sir, &a,
CHAIRMAN OF' PARISH COUNCIL. [That is our ease against Mr. Churchill. There is a wide- spread, but perfectly unfounded, suspicion as to the impar-
tiality of the judges. Mr. Churchill by his unjust and reckless words has done his best to increase that suspicion. He could not, had he tried, have done the State a greater injury. How are we to disabuse the public of their prejudices if the Home Secretary, the Minister who is our nearest approach to a Minister of Justice, adds fuel to the flame by insinuating that the Trade Unions do not get fair treatment when they come before the Courts P—En. Spectator.'