In conclusion let us again quote De Tocqueville :

"The authority of the Government has gradually been introducing itself into the natural sphere of the Courts; and there we have suffered it to remain-as if the confusion of powers was not as dangerous if it came from the side of the Government as if it came from the side of the Court, or even worse. For the intervention of the Courts into the sphere of Government only impedes the management of business, whilst the intervention of Government in the administration of justice depraves men, and makes of them at once both revolutionaries and slaves." 1

TH. BATY.

ΤΗ

III. POLITICS AND THE LAW.2

HOSE who are constant readers of the Liberal daily press cannot fail to have noticed, from time to time, bitter attacks upon the legal profession. The attack has taken many forms. Sometimes there has been a definite onslaught on the profession as a "vested interest," and sometimes the attack has appeared in a less noticeable obiter dictum, both of which clearly indicate the growing opposition which some politicians feel towards the Law. As an instance of the latter method of attack, I would cite a passage in the leading article of the Daily News and Leader of May 29th, 1912. In a discussion of the report of Sir Edward Clarke upon the dock labour disputes occurs the following passage: "The prompt appointment of Sir Edward to inquire into the facts of the dispute was very creditable to the Government, a new departure in the handling of a grave and instant problem; the manner in which Sir Edward conducted the inquiry, in particular his rigorous exclusion of lawyers, was admirable."

1 De Tocqueville: L'ancien régime et la revolution.

2 This article has been unavoidably held over owing to the exigency of space. -Ed. L. M. & R.

I do not propose to discuss the merits of Sir Edward Clarke's decision not to permit the contending parties to appear before him by counsel. I would only draw attention to the cordial approval which this decision received from the leader writer. I quote the preceding passage in order to show the inconsistency of the view taken. The appointment by the Government of a prominent lawyer to report upon the points in issue is hailed with delight; the exclusion of the profession from the exercise of its ordinary work is equally popular. It is obvious, therefore, that lawyers are not necessarily disliked quâ lawyers. There is something else which arouses the wrath of the Liberal press.

A more direct attack appeared in the same paper of 19th January, 1912, and I quote the following passage from the leading article. "How much light and leading, how much inspiration or common social service, how much pure intellectual work, comes out of the Inns of Court? The Bar needs something more than dinners and papers if it is not to be condemned off-hand as a parasitic industry. It needs the civic spirit."

On 24th April, 1911, the Daily News published a bitter article which included the following: "One would have thought that the public in these democratic days would have insisted by now upon having a voice in the control of the profession which is most nearly connected with the administration of justice." "The opinions of the masses of the people rarely receive fair consideration from the judges." And again, "The confining of the Bar to the middle and upper classes has created that class administration of justice which is felt so strongly among the Trade Unionists and the general body of the working classes."

If these passages were from the pen of a man like H. G. Wells, they would be intelligible. He objects to lawyers generally, and maintains that they should have nothing to

do with the affairs of State. He has denounced a Cabinet in which the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Minister for War, were lawyers, and this is at least a consistent view. But the Liberal party has never raised any objection to the presence of lawyers in the House of Commons or the Cabinet. Yet these constant attacks upon the profession indicate a growing feeling of resentment, and it is to the origin and growth of this opposition that I would direct attention.

In the past, lawyers have been great friends of the working man. Few things have done more to popularise the administration of justice amid the "working classes" than the erection and extension of County Courts. And up to the present the more inaccessible High Court has always commanded undisputed respect. The British working man and the public generally have always shown great respect for the administration of the Law. This is well shown by the frequent appeals to eminent lawyers on occasions of exceptional industrial or other emergency. Lord Mersey was hailed as an ideal president of the Titanic wreck inquiry. Several prominent lawyers were appointed to settle the minimum wage for miners under the recent Act.

But at the present time there undoubtedly exists a growing feeling of resentment and opposition. Let it be at once admitted that in all probability there always exists a certain amount of cause of complaint against the administration of justice. Judges may not all be perfect; decisions may occasionally be contrary to common sense; the law may sometimes be dilatory.

But the present opposition is no mere criticism of individual failings. It denotes a deep-rooted and growing hostility to the fundamental principles on which our Law is based. The outburst of 1911 is not yet forgotten. It will be remembered how certain decisions of judges on

election petitions did not command the approval of sections of the community, and how attempts were made in Parliament to denounce these decisions.

I think that there are two main causes for this opposition. In the first place we must consider the enormous growth in the power of Officialdom. Government functions have greatly developed in recent years, and side by side there has been a large increase in the jurisdiction of officials. Lawyers are often charged with an indecent desire to "feather their own nest." The charge would be difficult to substantiate, but it could certainly be made with equal justice against officials as a class. It is Officialdom that is largely responsible for the present discontent with the administration of the Law. It is usually officials who prompt Acts of Parliament. In the formation by officials of some new scheme to which Society is to be made to conform, it is not convenient that such scheme should be upset by an appeal to judicial Courts who are independent of official control. Thus it is that we find in recent Acts of Parliament that decisions of officials are to be final. To cite two instances only: the Town Planning Act and the National Insurance Act. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, prevents all ordinary recourse to the Courts of Law.

For the public, this is a serious matter. Decisions by officials mean, usually, decisions behind closed doors. Judicial trial has at least the merit of publicity. There is there no chance for adverse influences being set at work. The independence and security of judges is a very different thing from that of officials who have political masters, who themselves have to consider constituencies and a Party.

It is precisely the independence of the administration of Justice that incites wrath in certain quarters. On 6th June, 1912, the Daily News declared, in a leading article, that,

"The speculative solicitor ought to be abolished, but he will not be abolished until the State renders the Courts really accessible to all by making lawyers a public service." This reveals the aim of the "reformers." Lawyers of all kinds are to be converted into officials. A beginning has been made in the erection and development of the Land Registry, where all the subtle powers of Officialdom are used to bolster up an impossible system. There is no profession where individuality and personality have so much force as in the Law. Other professions (e.g., doctors and valuers) are being gradually converted and brought under official control, and it is along this road that lawyers are to be driven. A start has been made with solicitors, and barristers are to follow.

The second point that I would urge is, that this opposition to present methods of administering Justice has developed, hand in hand, with the consolidation of Labour. One bitter cause of complaint is the attitude adopted by the Courts of Law towards Trade Unions. I admit that I wish our Courts had at the outset recognised the existence and inevitable growth of Trade Unions. But, if the present position of the law as to Trade Unions is unsatisfactory, Labour has reaped the advantages as well as the drawbacks. As Parliament has never supplied a system of Law to regulate Trade Unions, judges have perforce had to apply old Common-law doctrines.

But the spirit which animates modern Trade Unionists can brook no force which opposes it. Trade Unionism feels that it has suffered under recent judicial decisions; it forgets that it has also benefited. And it is Trade Unionism that is prompting these attacks upon the present administration of the Law. Federated Labour is finding itself in opposition to the Law, and, while it can bully the Legislature, it cannot overawe the Judiciary. We are at present only at the early stages of this antagonism. But no-one who reads