ELECTIVE JUDGES.
A N abuse, as such, must be very dear to Conservative hearts, or they would not defend one which is associated in other countries with the most exaggerated pretensions of democracy. That there is something consecrating in the operation of elec- tion is a common delusion enough among Continental Radicals, and the extension of the process to Judges is usually accounted among the gravest faults of the American political system. The recent history of New York is little else than a catalogue of the mischiefs which spring directly from this cause. That the Conservatives should have supported Sir Henry James's motion with regret would have been natural enough. The Corporation of London is a highly Conservative institution, and the Conservatives have made a fair share of party capital out of the supposed desire of the Liberals to deprive the City of its ancient privileges. We should have expected, therefore, that they would very much dislike being made to choose between their friends and their principles, that they would have abused Sir H. James in their hearts for placing them in such a .dilemma, that they would have voted with the most obvious unwillingness, and that such speeches as they chose to make on the question would be mainly composed of attacks on the author of the motion. 'What we were not prepared for was an entire abandonment of their principles, when these principles were found to conflict with friendship. They have swallowed elected Judges as willingly as they swallowed household suffrage. That one famous instance of political education has had such a lasting effect on them that they do not now require the services of a Prime Minister to continue the process. They are not above being taught by the Court of Aldermen. The conversion is as complete as it was unexpected. Mr. C. Lewis, who moved the amendment to Sir H. James's motion, seemed to think that the seven millions or so of people who live within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court ought to be thankful that they have an elected Judge to try them. The Corporation may safely, he thinks, be trusted to elect the Recorder of London, but he hints darkly that if the Recorder were appointed as other Judges are ap- pointed, there might not be much cause for satisfac- tion. It is idle, according to Mr. Lewis, to say that appointments to the highest Judicial offices are not sometimes made through "avenues and channels" which will not bear the very closest investigation. How different is this from the appointment of a Recorder of London! The Court of Alder- men is an avenue and a channel that will bear the very closest investigation. It has been continuously engaged picking out the best men it could find, ever since the days of Sir Peter King. Of course that sense of propriety, the absence of which in Sir Henry James Mr. Lewis so much lamented, prevented him from saying anything about the latest appointments. But for this, he would gladly, no doubt, have dwelt on the philosophical breadth of Sir Thomas Chambers's intel- lect, and the severe dignity which has characterised every incident of Mr. Charley's chequered career. These things he had to deny himself. But at all events, the fact that Mr. Lewis made no exception to the marvellous generalisation that the Corporation had invariably shown great wisdom and judgment in making these appointments is in itself the highest com- pliment that the present holders of the offices could desire. For 150 years the Corporation have gone on picking out the best men for these posts' and by this time the inherited and con- genital acumen of the Court of Aldermen is so extraordinary, that the Crown itself has been in a measure, forced to confer judicial dignity upon Officers who, in the first instance, were merely the servants of the Corporation. An Alderman has by this time a nose for finding out a Judge which is possessed by no other class of persons in the same degree. The Lord Chancellor may be mistaken, he may even —if he allows himself to become an avenue and a channel— be corrupt, but the Court of Aldermen is above suspicion, either of error or of fault.
The Attorney-General's speech in bringing in the Criminal Code was a curious because undesigned commentary on what had happened earlier in the evening. The Code which he introduced was the work, he said, of Sir James Stephen. He had been selected to prepare it because, in his "Digest of the Criminal Law," he had produced a work which had been hailed with the greatest satisfaction by the Government, demonstrating the possibility of reducing one most compli- cated branch of the Law into an exceedingly narrow compass, and of rendering it comparatively simple and plain. In the circumstance that Sir James Stephen was anxious to continue his labours, and to assist the Government in reducing the Law to shape, the Government saw an opportunity of which they would have been most unwise not to avail themselves. Accordingly they took Sir James Stephen into their councils, and confided to him the task of preparing a Code of criminal offences and procedure. So highly did they think of Sir James Stephen's ability, that they employed him not only to consolidate the Criminal Law, but to amend it ; and it takes three columns of the Times to enumerate the improvements which, by Sir James Stephen's help, the Government are enabled to lay before Parliament. It might be supposed that a man who has the qualifications necessary for such a task as that which has just been com- pleted by Sir James Stephen would, beyond most of his con- temporaries, be the man whom the Court of Aldermen would select for their Recorder. Even the Corporation of London may gain some additional glory from having an eminent Judge to fill this office, and apparently here was the eminent Judge ready to their hand. Now mark the skill of the Court of Aldermen! They are not men to be taken in by appearances. The ability to prepare a Criminal Code may be a mere showy accomplishment. The Alder- men go deeper than this, in their search after perfection. Anybody could have elected Sir J. Stephen, but to elect Sir Thomas Chambers when Sir J. Stephen was his opponent, required that fine instinct in choosing men which is pos- sessed in its perfection only by the Hohenzollerns and the Court of Aldermen. Nothing could have been better timed than Sir John Holker's speech. The mere unconscious exercise of his duty became a stupendous rhetorical artifice. 'See,' he seemed to say, how great a man the man whom the Aldermen did not elect, is, and learn from this how great must be the man whom, in the exercise of their inscrutable wisdom, they thought fit to put over his head !' It was idle, perhaps, to suppose that the House of Commons would show itself ready to lop off one particular abuse from the long list of abuses which the records of the Corporation could probably show. In matters of this kind, moderate reforms are hardly ever effected, because the body which needs them can never be convinced that it is wise to make any sacrifice to fortune. If the Corporation had either been content to make Sir James Stephen Recorder, or having re- fused to do this, to make no resistance to the proposal to change the mode of election, the case for reform would have lost one of its most important elements. The Court of Aldermen would either have been shown to have exercised its privilege in accord- ance with the highest professional opinion, or have disarmed criticism by resigning a privilege which it felt itself incompetent to exercise, except on a theory of fitness so recondite that it is easily mistaken for entire indifference to what fitness means. They have taken the more common-place view that the best way of staving off reform is to resist it in its first beginnings. We do not say they are not wise in their generation,—that is a question which depends for its answer on the future ; but they have rejected all idea of a middle course, and shown that every privilege they possess, whether it be consistent with public policy or not, will be defended with equal tenacity. Happily for the Corporation, there can be few abuses associated with their name for which more may not be said than for the right of electing their own Recorder and Common Serjeant.
Previous page
