Mr. Watkin Williams pointed out, in a very sensible letter
to Tuesday's Times, that the real ground of the unpopularity with the Bar of the Court of Appeal proposed in the Judicature Act is simply that it is not a really independent and per- manent Court, consisting of the highest authorities in the pro- fession, whose judgments could be taken as collectively superior to that of any other Court,—but rather a "scratch" Court, got by nominations of certain Judges for three years, and liable to be superseded by other Judges appointed for any time mentioned in the warrant. That is not the kind of Court, said Mr. Watkin 'Williams, for a Supreme Court, which should command the pro- found respect of the Bar. No, but neither is the present House of Lords. If Mr. Watkin Williams is right, why don't the Bar follow their own healthy instinct, and agitate for a real Supreme Appellate Court of fitting dignity and adequately paid, instead of falling back on the old traditional prestige of the House of Lords, which, in the eyes of an educated legal public, would have no such prestige at all? What the Bar is now doing is to attempt to restore the faded prestige of an incompetent Court, rather than accept a Court without any prestige. It would be more sensible, and far more manly, to demand what is really wanted, —a Supreme Court of Appeal of the highest type.
Previous page
