Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Government, 1874-1880, gave Lord Cairns an opportunity of showing remarkable power as a judge, though the time was too short for its influence to be fully felt. Those judges who have in some degree moulded English law have had placed before them the same branch of law for a considerable period. To this cause eminent menStowell, Mansfield, Willes, Blackburn, and Esher, and to these names may be added Cresswell and Penzance-in no small degree owe the historical position which they now occupy. Lord Esher (Brett), for example, during a long judicial career, had to decide a large number of commercial cases. Early, experience and some predilection for this branch of law gave him a special aptitude for dealing with it, which, though he had not otherwise distinguishing judicial characteristics, has enabled him to take a place among those who have individually affected the body of English law.

The judgements of Lord Cairns are remarkable for the ease with which long and complicated facts are marshalled into a comparatively short and almost an agreeable as well as lucid narrative, so that principles of law appear to emerge from them ready for solution. Legal principles enunciated with simplicity and with an absence of judicial affectation become extraordinarily clear, and the whole series of judgements thus constitute balanced masterpieces of judicial reasoning. But in spite of qualities which in the opinion of many cause Cairns to rank as the most eminent of the Victorian judges and Chancellors, he has, as has been said, failed to impress himself on British jurisprudence, even though judicially and personally he may be regarded as the first of the Victorian Chancellors.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

To Lord Westbury's power of testing cases by means of ground principles, Cairns added the judicial gifts of self-restraint and patience and a capacity for precise reasoning and a quick insight, and was less unwilling than Lord Westbury to give weight to judicial precedents. Of his judgements it has been said that "they went straight to the vital principles on which the question turned, stated these in the most luminous way, and applied them with unerring exactitude to the particular facts. It is as a storehouse of fundamental doctrines that his judgements are so valuable. They disclose less knowledge of case-law than do those of some other judges; but Cairns was not one of the men who love cases for their own sake, and he never cared to draw upon, still less to display, more learning than was needed for the matter in hand. It was in the grasp of the principles involved, in the breadth of view which enabled him to see these principles in their relation to one another, in the precision of the logic which drew conclusions from the principles, in the perfectly lucid language in which the principles were expounded and applied, that his strength lay" (d).

It is undesirable to apportion with nicety judicial merit under the singularly varying circumstances of the several Chancellorships, but the testimony of competent critics appears to give Lord Cairns the first place as a judge among the Chancellors of the reign of Queen Victoria. He had, in addition to other qualities, one supreme merit as a judge, that of silence. A story is related of him which deserves to be remembered in every court in the

(d) Bryce, Studies in Contemporary Biography, p. 184.

land: "Lord Blackburn, one of the first Lords of Appeal under the Judicature Act, had acquired in the Queen's Bench a habit of interfering with the arguments of counsel by difficult questions in a harsh voice, which few who once heard it will ever forget. His first effort in this direction was checked, before an answer could be given, by a stern remark from the Woolsack, 'I think the House is desirous of hearing the arguments of counsel, and not of putting questions to him.'

To listen without interruption to the arguments of counsel is a rule now often more honoured in the breach than in the observance, though it is one which should be strictly observed, especially in cases of an appellate kind, since the constant interrogation of counsel by the Bench not only delays the progress of a cause, but detracts in no small degree from the dignity of the court.

It was said at the commencement of this chapter that the careers of the Victorian Chancellors formed a striking picture of the lawyers of the age. Men of the most opposite gifts, qualities, and tastes, born in different circumstances, trained under varying systems, have become Chancellors. But though to some extent, and on some occasions, the holders of this high office have been indebted to a kind fortune, it is unquestionable that no man has attained it without remarkable qualities, and in every case the Woolsack has been the reward of unremitting labour and patience, and of the exercise of considerable mental powers. If Lord James of Hereford had been willing to accept the Home Rule policy of Mr. Gladstone. Lord Herschell might never have attained the

Woolsack; and if Lord Selborne had acquiesced in Mr. Gladstone's attack on the Irish Church, Sir Page Wood would never have become Lord Chancellor Hatherley. But no one would dream of regarding either Hatherley or Herschell as unfitted for the post to which a combination of circumstances and personal qualities carried them. Lord Herschell was barely fifty years of age when he attained office, and he would never have been, to use a popular phrase, "in the running," had he not shown unusual capacity both as a lawyer and a politician. Lord Hatherley, on the other hand, was approaching seventy when, much to his surprise, Mr. Gladstone offered him the seals, but he would never have received them had he not, in addition to the political virtue of being a sound Liberal, added to it the qualification of being admittedly an equally sound lawyer and a painstaking judge. In a word, the several careers of the Victorian Chancellors prove that there is no special road to the Woolsack. Natural ability cultivated very highly in a particular profession, united with power of expression, and unusual capacity for work added to an adaptability for politics, are the main features of these various lives. So long as mind and will were concentrated on the practice of the law, no hereditary gifts, no special early training were requisite. Indeed, the difference in these respects is noteworthy. If we take-by way of example-four Chancellors: St. Leonards, Cranworth, Chelmsford, and Westbury, we find that the first was the son of a barber, the second of a clergyman, the third of a merchant, and the fourth of a doctor. The first seems to have had the slight and unsystematic education which was usual at the end of the eighteenth century, to have become a clerk in a solici

R.

Р

tor's office, and in that capacity to have attracted the attention of Mr. Duval, a well-known barrister, who took him as a pupil without a fee. Cranworth followed, as might be expected, a more normal course. From the Grammar School of Bury St. Edmunds he proceeded to Trinity College, Cambridge, and thence to the Bar. Chelmsford had a curious early carcer. Educated, if one may use the phrase, for the navy, with a short experience, yet he found himself in the West Indies, and having decided to become a member of the Bar in St. Vincent, he came to England to qualify himself for his future profession. When reading in the Temple he was persuaded by his master to relinquish the idea of a colonial life, and become a barrister in England.

The last of the four men whose careers for the moment we are noting was educated at home, and then sent at the carly age of fourteen to Wadham College, Oxford, and when called to the Bar he was only twenty-three. It would be interesting, if it were possible, to ascertain the actual quality which assured to each one of these men professional success. Lord St. Leonards at the very outset of his career published the now classical treatise on the law of vendors and purchasers. Lord Bowen once said that to write a law-book was to produce a work which redounded in time little to the credit of the author, because it was constantly being altered by changes in the law. But as the years advance the name of Lord St. Leonards will remain fixed and noteworthy in legal annals as an author as well as a judge. Other jurists have written books and have not become Lord Chancellors, and other lawyers have had intellects as clear as Westbury's, and have had but

« AnteriorContinuar »