Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/270

 London Legal Letter.

243

LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, April 7, 1894.

THE Annual General Meeting of the Bar took place this afternoon in the spacious hall of Lincoln Inn. The Attorney-General, Sir Charles Russell, presided; on his right sat Sir Henry James and Sir Edward Clarke, on his left the SolicitorGeneral and Sir Richard Webster. Other emi nent men clustered round, and every inch of space was occupied. The occasion of so much interest in these usually dull and formal pro ceedings was the intimation that Mr. Crump, Q.C., was at last to submit to the Bar of England his cherished project of a Bar association. I have so often obtruded this topic on the atten tion of your readers that I must not do more than refer to this afternoon's gathering. Those in favor of superseding the Bar Committee by a great central organization which should gradually absorb the powers of the Inns of Court and educe order out of chaos, assembled with high hopes at Lincoln Inn; a smile of coming triumph played on the pleasant countenance of the leader of the movement, for the agitation now purports to rank as a movement, and it was whispered that the hearts and imagination of English lawyers were stirred at the prospect of their scattered segments being at last fused into an imposing unity. It was not long before the facts of the situation were revealed; the audience at least maintained its gravity and indicated its respect while Mr. Crump developed his now familiar ideas on the subject with an ardor of manner well calculated to rep resent the depth of his personal conviction; but when the course of the subsequent discussion dis closed that the so-cilled movement was almost en tirely supported by the babes and sucklings of the profession, who seemed to be utilizing the occasion as an opportunity of practicing public speaking, loud merriment became the prevailing rule. One callow youth after another rose to demand further organization for the profession, and as the tide of juvenile indignation against existing systems ebbed and flowed, one profound conviction swayed the legal throng, to wit, that no further oratory should be tolerated. Accordingly loud shouts of applause greeted the chairman when

he rose and called on Mr. Crump to reply to his adversaries. Sir Henry James and Sir Richard Webster had proposed an amendment referring the present constitution of the Bar Committee to the consideration of a special committee, which of course was equivalent to politely shelving the ques tion. When the vote was taken, Mr. Crump was left in a hopeless minority. The Bar went solidly for use and wont. The pros and cons of the matter I have wearied you with often enough be fore without repeating them now. Since last I wrote we have lost Lord Hannen and Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. The charac ter of the former is now too familiar to require an appreciation of one of the most dignified figures that ever graced any bench. As to Sir James Stephen, he was one of the foremost lawyers of his time, and yet his greatest admirers would not style him a great judge. He was an excep tionally strong man; if one may be paradoxical, with certain weaknesses of intellect and heart he would have been greater and stronger; but he was what he was, one of the most unique figures that have sat on the English bench in recent times, yet not one of the, greatest judges. An intellect wider than was necessary for being even a great judge, rather that of the man whose business it is to determine the legal rules which other men as judges are to interpret than to be an interpreter of such himself. What has been said is not for the purpose of enabling a bystander to go away and allege that Sir James Stephen was unfit for the bench; he was admirably fitted for that exalted vocation, but on a critical estimate of his character and attainments it must inevitably be recorded that interjudices he was not of the fore most; moreover, it must not be forgotten that he was one of the first journalistic writers, one of the most considerable thinkers of our day, while the writings which bear his name authenticate his rank as the most accomplished and scientific exponent of the criminal law of England and a jurist of whom the ancient or modern world would have been proud. Does the Lord Chief Justice sleep while en gaged in the discharge of his exalted functions? Such is the impious question which most English