THE SCARE AS TO MR. JUSTICE VAUGHAN WILLIAMS'S REMOVAL.
WE assume, as every person who stops to remember the high character of the Lord Chancellor must assume, that there is not the least atom of truth in the story that Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams is going to be taken away from the work of winding up bankrupt com- panies, and set to other legal business, because his conduct in the New Zealand and other cases did not give satisfac- tion, and because he proved too ruthless in his exposure of the methods of fraudulent directors. Whatever else is true, that must be false. One would as soon believe that Lord Herschell and Mr. Asquith had connived at the escape of Jabez Balfour. Lord Herschel', besides being a great lawyer, is a man of unblemished honour and of entire rectitude of purpose, and the notion of his doing what people have been wondering whether he has done, or is contemplating doing, is simply preposterous. No one in his senses can seriously imagine that the Chancellor would contemplate an act from which the most corrupt of ContinentalMinisters would shrink,—i.e., supersede a Judge for not being willing to acquiesce in the policy of hushing- up. Depend upon it, if Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams's duties in the Bankruptcy Court are for a time to be under- taken by Mr. Justice Romer, it is only because such an arrangement is temporarily convenient, or for some technical reason desirable in the interests of judicial business.
But, it may be asked, if this is our feeling in the matter, and if we scout the rumours of the week as necessarily absurd, why should we trouble to give them further publicity ? Our answer is a simple one. Though we cannot entertain fora moment the supposition that Lord Herschell ever contemplated the stifling of Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams's methods of investigating the doings of company directors, the protests which the mere rumour that he was doing so excited, are of quite sufficient interest and importance to warrant their being noticed by all who observe our public affairs, and try to understand the moving spirit within them. From one point of view, we regret those protests, for they may have been painful to Lord Herschell. No man likes to be doubted, even for a moment, or only through a misapprehension. On wider grounds, however, we are heartily glad that they were made, for they show that public opinion in England is as intensely alive as ever to the necessity for maintaining the absolute independence of the Bench. It is on that inde- pendence that our liberties were founded, and by that independence that they are preserved. Superior people sometimes talk as if this were conventional rhetoric, and sneer about the want of elasticity and administrative force in our judicial system. It is clear, however, that the public at large still realise what a priceless possession is the independence of our Judges, and are even liable to grow unfairly auspicious in their eager determina- tion to maintain it entirely unimpaired. This jealousy, though it may sometimes be overdone, is a sign for which we should all be devoutly thankful. Judicial independence is the one effective safeguard against social tyranny,—the oppression of the poor and weak by the rich and powerful. The best laws in the world are of no avail if they are corruptly or inefficiently administered in the Courts of Justice. Take the case of America. Examine in detail the municipal corruption and the tyrannical actions done by the rich against the poor or the public at large, and try to discover a remedy, and you will always find your- self pulled up and defeated by the fact that either the Courts cannot be depended on, or else that there are arrears or appeals which will prevent punishment in any effective form from overtaking the offender. You ask, " Why is this ' boodling ' Alderman not punished ? " The reply is, " He has a pull' on the Court which would try him." Such and such a great Company commits some totally illegal act in regard to its humbler competitors. It goes scathless because the Judges are " Corporation Judges." The millionaire, again, grossly infringes on his neighbour's rights, but no one Bipeds a Judge on £500 a year, and with an insecure tenure of his office, to stand up to a man with £100,000 a year. When, therefore, the rich man in effect defies the order of Mr. Morley's proposals. We may easily retain all our most the Court, the Judge as often as not contrives to get out eager adherents at a cost far too great, if it be at the cost of the unpleasant task of enforcing it. No doubt there of reason and justice. are plenty of upright and high-minded Judges in America, even outside the Supreme Court, and within the States that possess them lawlessness is to some extent kept in check. The strength of a chain is, however, that of its weakest link, and if the Magistrates and the inferior Courts are open to fear or favour, it is little use having a High Court which is above suspicion. Can any one doubt that if the American States generally would create Judges as entirely independent as ours, they would very soon clear out the " boodlers " and " bull-dozers " Sharp sentences for actual offences, a stern enforcement of obedience to the orders of the Court by imprisonment for contempt, and a refusal to wink at compoundings of felony, would soon free Chicago from its corrupters. The Americans are not worse people than we are, and if we can boast of a healthier public life it is not owing to superior virtue, but simply and solely to the fact that our Judges are independent and incorruptible, and swayed by neither fraud, fear, nor favour. If it were known that you could get " a pull " on the Judges of the High Court, that a rich man could always buy protection in one way or another, and need. not fear any consequences from such purchasing, and, lastly, could undertake to secure immunity for the instruments by whose means he carried on his illegal actions, depend upon it we should very soon have London "a pocket (or rather folio) edition of hell." Fortunately for us, our people consciously or unconsciously realise this fact. Unfortunately for the Americans, theirs do not. The last thing which the Americans seem to think of doing is to appoint all their Judges for life and pay them £8,000 a year,—a sum about equivalent to our £5,000. If they did that, and made the Judges realise that their business was not merely to settle legal points, but to protect Society within the law, the millionaire would no longer be able to say to an inconvenient band of competitors,—" Gentlemen, I mean to smash your business unless you accept my terms. You may take the case to every Court in the land, but I tell you plainly it is no good, I must and will have my own way here." In America, when a certain sort of big man says that, and means it, there is no more use fighting. He will have his way, if he has to kidnap the Judge, spirit away the witnesses, and " fix " the jury. We are, then, heartily glad that newspapers like the Daily Chronicle and the Westminster Gazette, which repre- sent the feelings of the masses, should have taken so strong—indeed, we ought to say so exaggerated—a line on the supposed supersession of Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams from motives that would not bear stating. For once, at any rate, screaming and sensationalism were not to be deprecated, but had their uses. We cannot regret even fuss and fury, when the cause of the fuss and fury is the suspicion that some one, in however remote a way, is trying to tamper with the Judges of the land. The storm over Mr. Justice Williams's alleged removal may in the end prove not a little useful. Some day, a politician may be tempted to da something analogous to the thing which Lord Herschell was only rumoured to have contemplated, and of course did not really contemplate. That tempted politician will naturally consider, as men always do under such circumstances, whether it is worth his while to do anything approaching the attempt at tampering with the Judicial Bench, in order to hush up this or that scandal. If he remembers the state of excitement produced by the rumour of Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams's supersession, we may be pretty certain that he will not touch the matter. He will argue, if a mere rumour, without any foundation of fact, caused such a stir, what will be the result of an actual removal with a substantial object, and one which is liable to be dis- covered ? In all probability he will be saved from yielding to the temptation, and be obliged to declare that the action contemplated would not be worth carrying out.
Previous page
