Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

-

BRITISH SYSTEM OF JUDICATURE.

-

111

It is not to be considered, from the praise bestowed upon Mr. O'Loghlin in this most useful department of his profession, that he does not possess other and very superior qualifications. as extravagant-especially, as the offices (with the exception of the Chancellorship, which is political as well as legal) are held for life, or during good behavior, which is the same. Added to this is the system of granting pensions or retiring allowances to the judges — amounting to nearly two thirds of their annual salaries- -after fifteen years' service or in the event of earlier retirement from ill health. The British plan is based upon a very broad principlenamely, that of tempting the very best lawyers to become judges, by making it worth their while to surrender the great incomes which they can earn at the bar. In Great Britain and Ireland, a lawyer in full practice may earn from three thousand to twelve thousand pounds sterling per annum-some have obtained more. To tempt any of these men, in the prime of life and the fullness of profitable labor, to assume the ermine of the judge instead of the gown of the barrister, there are three or four conjunct inducements. There is a permanent station of honorable rank secured to him who becomes a judge. There is a certain income, which, though far lower than he may have previously earned, is obtained in comparative ease and repose. There is the removal of all doubt as to the future-for a failure of health may assail the most active lawyer, and speedily incapacitate him from future exertion, whereas, when a judge, he may retire after a certain length of public service, provided for, during the residue of life, by the bountiful gratitude of the public, which also provides for his future, in case of his health breaking up. On the bench, it is true, a lawyer does not wholly enjoy "otium cum dignitate," -for the judge, if he do his duty, has no sinecure. But he is removed from the cares, the bustle, the struggles, which are inseparable from the active life of a busy lawyer, and which form the wear and tear of his mind, and he assumes a position of dignified and honorable labor, in the discharge of duties more important than those of an advocate, while they are of a different and less mind-oppressing order. upon the judicial bench, therefore, is the object of a British lawyer's honorable ambition, for which he strives and competes - -not by linking himself with any political party, not by descending to canvassing or solicitation, but by knowl edge of the laws, by industry, and by unimpeachable conduct. These judicial appointments are virtually held for life, because the becoming entitled to a pension after fifteen years' service, does not necessarily cause a judge to retire at the expiration of that period. For the most part, we find the judges continuing in office to the end. Of late years there have been only two retirementsErskine (son of the Chancellor) from ill health, and, more recently, Patteson, from deafness. It is to the credit of George III. (who had the good sense, amid much obtuseness, sometimes to take advice) to commence his reign, in 1760, by recommending Parliament to enact that the judges should not be removable, as before, by the demise of the Sovereign cancelling their Commissions. It had been the custom to issue new Commissions, in such cases, and then a judge who had rendered himself obnoxious by independence, might be displaced, as

A seat

-

He is familiar with every branch of the law, and has his knowledge always at command. There are many whose learning lies in their minds, like treasure in rusty coffers which it is a toil to open, or masses of bullion in the vaults of the Bank of Ireland, unfit for the purposes of exchange, and difficult to be put into circulation. Mr. O'Loghlin bears his wealth about him he can immediately apply it- and carries his faculties like coined money, "in numerato habet." He is not a maker of sentences, and does not impress his phrases on the memory of his hearers; but he has what is far better than what is vulgarly designated as eloquence. He is perfectly fluent, easy, and natural. His thoughts run in a smooth and clear current, and his diction is their appropriate channel. His perceptions are exceedingly quick, and his utterance is, therefore, occasionally rapid; but, although he speaks at times with velocity, he never does so with precipitation. He is extremely brief, and indulges in no useless amplification. matter of routine, on the accession of a new sovereign. The result has been that, since this independence has thus been established, we have had some remarkable instances where a judge has acted directly in opposition to the desires and interests of the Government. For example, Lord Camden (when Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in 1763) decided that the Secretary of State had acted illegally, in arresting John Wilkes, on a general warrant — which ought not to be issued except in the urgent case of high treason. So, a few years ago, Lord Chief Justice Denman's denial, as a constitutional lawyer (in re Stockdale v. Howard) that either House of Parliament had a right to publish libels, as part of their proceedings, and to authorize their public sale. In England, there are few instances of a judge soiling his ermine by truckling to Power. I rec ollect only two instances in my own time. Once, on the trial of William Hone for publishing parodies on parts of the Bible (his real offence being that he had ridiculed the Prince Regent) when Lord Ellenborough actually desired the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty, which they declined doing. The other, during the trial of the Chartist rioters, when Lord Abinger, who tried the case, acted more like the prosecuting counsel than the judge, and roundly abused the prisoners on account of their politics. But in Ireland, where there are corrupt sheriffs and packed juries, partisan judges have not been so rare. That class did not cease with Lord Norbury: it still exists. In questions be

tween man and man, the bulk of the Irish judges have shown praiseworthy impartiality. When it was the Government against the subject, the case some times became different. The State Trials of 1844 and 1848, were conducted in a manner which reminded us of 1798, and which would have almost driven England into insurrection, had it occurred there.-M.

[blocks in formation]

There is not the smallest trace of affectation in anything which he either does or says; and it is surprising with what little appearance of exertion he brings all the powers of his mind into play. His points are put with so much brevity, simplicity, and clearness, that he has, of necessity, become a great favorite with the Judges, who give him a willing audience, because he is sure to be pertinent and short; and having said all that is fitting to be said, and no more, has immediately done. He is listened to the more readily, because he is apparently frank and artless; but he merely puts on a show of candor, for few possess more suppleness and craft.

No man adapts himself with more felicity to the humors and the predispositions of the judges whom he addresses. Take, for example, the Exchequer, where, both on the law and equity sides of the court, he is in immense business. He appeals to the powerful understanding, and sheer common-sense, of Standish O'Grady,* in whom Rhadamanthus and Sancho

* Of Standish O'Grady, Chief-Baron of the Irish Exchequer, from 1803 to 1831, a notice has already been given (vol i., p. 135), but an anecdote can scarcely be out of place here. He had a caustic wit, which was the more keen because ever unobtrusive. The quiet manner in which the Chief-Baron would insult a man, barbed the shaft. For example, a certain Mr. Burke Bethell was at the Irish bar. He had ability, learning, eloquence, and industry, but was one of the men who appeared as if born under an evil star, and never could get on. It was stated, and believed, that he took business at any rate- - that is, he would initial a brief marked two, five, or ten guineas, as if he had received that amount (for without such proof of payment the taxingmaster would strike the item out of the attorney's bill of costs), and accept a fourth of the nominal sum. This had reached the ears of O'Grady, who had never known the want of money, and had a lofty idea of what is called "the dignity of the profession." On one occasion, Burke Bethell had the luck, by some accident, to receive a brief in some small case in which the Crown was seeking penalties, under the Excise laws, from some fiscal delinquent. The Court of Exchequer was the tribunal before which the case was to be tried, Bethell, determined to cut a figure, had somewhat Adonized his attire, and presented himself before the Chief-Baron, who, affecting not to recognise him (wearing the unusual disguise of a clean shirt), surveyed him through his eyeglass, and, stooping down, asked who the gentleman was— with an air like that which Brummell must have worn when he asked his companion, who stopped to speak to George IV., "Who is your fat friend?"-Bethel, with an air of great importance, thus commenced: "My Lord, on this occasion, I have the honor to appear for the Crown." The Chief-Baron, interrupting him, in his

[ocr errors]

Panza seem combined. He hits the metaphysical propensities of Baron Smith, with a distinction, in which it would blandest manner, and with his sweetest smile, interjected, " And, sometimes, I believe, Mr. Bethell, for the half-crown !" -- On the subject of taking less than the regulation fee or honorarium, I recollect an illustration or two. Fitzgibbon, father of Lord-Chancellor Clare, was a lawyer in good practice, and very fond of money. A client once brought him a brief and fee, that he might personally apologize for the smallness of the latter. Fitzgibbon, muttering that they should have intermediately reached him through the hands of an attorney, took both but looked very gloomily on the very limited amount of the fee. The client sorrowfully admitted the cause for discontent, but added, that it was all he had in the world."-"Well, then," said Fitzgibbon, "as that's the case, and you have no more, why, I must -- take it." Which he did, no doubt. - To match this, there is an anecdote of a certain Mr. Sergeant Cockle, of the English bar, who was accused of the grave offence of having taken a half fee, and even of having accepted part of the money in the copper coin of the realm. The charge duly came before the bar-mess for adjudication, and was fully sustained by evidence. In defence, Cockle briefly said: "It is quite true that I took half a guinea, where the fee should have been a guinea, and that it was made up of a crown-piece, four shillings, two sixpences, and sixpence in copper." There was a great sensation on this confession of the charge. But Cockle went on: "But, gentlemen, before I took the money, I ascertained it was the last farthing the poor devil had, and I appeal to the honorable profession, whether, under such circumstances, taking his last penny from him, I was not quite justified, and have maintained the character of the bar?" It was unanimously agreed that he had done all that a lawyer could do, in such a case, and, honorably acquitting Cockle, the bar-mess inflicted the fine of s basket of claret upon his accuser- -the grand rule at all mess-trials being that somebody must be mulcted in the generous juice of the grape!-How different is this merely professional acquisitiveness from the generous feeling of the sailor at Gibraltar, during the early and warlike years of the present century. Landing at "the Rock," with his comrades, all agreed, having plenty of money, that it would be suitable and creditable for each to purchase a goldlaced cocked-hat. On reassembling at night, one man had a silver-laced hat and was immediately denounced (with a promise of early cobbing, when they were on board) as a shabby fellow. His protest had all the energy of truth. "Messmates," said he, "I scorn the charge. When I went to the man who sells the gold-lacers, I found that he had not one left. So, I took this silverlacer, but paid him for it all as one as if 'twere gold." Of course, Jack was honorably acquitted. -- M.

* Sir William Cusack Smith, one of the Barons of the Exchequer in Ireland, was a remarkable man. He was born in January, 1766, and died in August, 1836, in his seventy-first year. His father, Sir Michael Smith, was a great lawyer, and finally became Master of the Rolls. The younger Smith studied at Oxford, and there obtained the friendship of Edmund Burke, at whose

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

have puzzled St. Thomas Aquinas, without the aid of inspiration, to detect a difference: when every other argument has failed with Baron M'Cleland, he tips him the wink, and pointcountry-house, in a neighboring county, he passed all his leisure. In 1788, he was called to the Irish bar, and soon after became Doctor of Civil Law, to qualify him for practice in the Ecclesiastical Courts. In 1795, Mr. William Smith was made king's counsel, and entered Parliament in the same year. He strenuously supported the Union, not only by his votes and speeches, but as a pamphleteer. In 1800, he was made Solicitor-General, and in 1802, when his father, who then was a puisne Baron of the Exchequer, was raised to the higher dignity of Master of the Rolls (the second equity Judge in Ireland, and not removable as the Chancellor is, on a change of ministry), the younger Smith succeeded him. In 1808, by his father's death, he succeeded to the baronetcy. Sir William Smith, who had studied in the school of Burke, was what is called "an old whig," and strongly advocated the justice and policy of Catholic Emancipation. When this was granted, and the Repeal agitation followed, Sir William Smith denounced it as impolitic, ungrateful, and illegal. Up to that time, he had been in high favor with the Catholic leaders. But, in February, 1834, Mr. O'Connell moved that the House of Commons should appoint a Committee to inquire into Sir William Smith's judicial conduct― mainly complaining that, in his charges to grand-juries at the Assizes, he largely introduced political subjects, and that his habits were singularly at variance with what ought to be the habits of a judge. It was stated by Mr. O'Connell (und not denied) that Baron Smith commonly came into the Court about half-past twelve at noon- that he thus delayed the despatch of business-that, at Armagh, he had tried fourteen prisoners between six o'clock in the evening and six in the morning-that one of these trials had actually commenced long after midnight, and that his whole course was irregular. This primâ-facie case against Baron Smith was so strong, that (the whig ministry siding with Mr. O'Connell) the motion for inquiry was carried by a majority of 167 to 74. A week after, however, Mr. Peel and his party reopened the question, defended Baron Smith, accused O'Connell of personal and vindictive motives, and proposed that the vote for inquiry be rescinded--which was done, by a majority of 165 to 159. There is no doubt that Baron Smith's habits had latterly become very eccentric. As a judge he was impartial, and was humane even to a fault. He had a horror of sentencing a culprit to death, and "leant to mercy's side" on the trial of all capital offences. He was attached to letters, and published several pamphlets, chiefly on politics, which are forgotten. He also was author of an examination of the Hohenloe miracles. The only work by which he is likely to be remembered as an author, is a singular production called " Metaphysical Rambles."- His second son, Thomas Berry Cusack Smith, Attorney-General under the Peel administration, conducted the O'Con nell State Trials in 1844. He is now (1854) Master of the Rolls, as his grandfather was, and completes the singular instance of three out of one family having successively worn the ermine.-M.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »