The Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Bart., K.C.S.I. / A Judge of the High Court of Justice

by Leslie Stephen

III. JUDICIAL CHARACTERISTICS

I will here say what I can of his discharge of the judicial functions which were henceforth almost his sole occupation. In the first place, he enjoyed the work, and felt himself to be in the position most suitable to his powers. Independent observers took, I believe, the same view. I have reported the criticisms made upon his work at the bar, and have tried to show what were the impediments to his success. In many respects these impediments ceased to exist, and even became advantages, when he was raised to the bench. The difficulty which he had felt in adapting himself to other men's views, the contempt for fighting battles by any means except fair arguments upon the substantial merits of the case, were congenial, at least, to high judicial qualities. He despised chicanery of all kinds, and formed independent opinions upon broad grounds instead of being at the mercy of ingenious sophistry. He was free from the foibles of petty vanity upon which a dexterous counsel could play, and had the solid, downright force of mind and character which gives weight to authority of all kinds. I need not labour to prove that masculine common sense is a good judicial quality. Popular opinion, however, is apt to misconstrue broad epithets and to confound vigour with harshness. Fitzjames acquired, among careless observers, a certain reputation for severity. I have not the slightest wish to conceal whatever element of truth there might be in such a statement. But I must begin by remarking a fact which, however obvious, must be explicitly stated. If there was one thing hateful to Fitzjames, and sure to call out his strongest indignation, it was oppression in any form. The bullying from which he suffered at school had left, as I have said, a permanent hatred for bullies. It had not encouraged him, as it encourages the baser natures, to become a bully in his turn, but rather to hate and trample down the evil thing wherever he met it. His theories, as I have said, led him to give a prominent place (too prominent, as I think) to what he called 'coercion.' Coercion in some form was inevitable upon his view; but right coercion meant essentially the suppression of arbitrary violence and the substitution for it of force regulated by justice. Coercion, in the form of law, was identical with the protection of the weak against the strong and the erection of an impregnable barrier against the tyrannous misuse of power. This doctrine exactly expressed his own character, for, as he was strong, he was also one of the most magnanimous of men. He was incapable of being overbearing in social intercourse. He had the fighting instinct to the full. An encounter with a downright enemy was a delight to him. But the joy of battle never deadened his instinct of fair play. He would speak his mind, sometimes even with startling bluntness, but he never tried to silence an opponent by dogmatism or bluster. The keenest argument, therefore, could not betray him into the least discourtesy. He might occasionally frighten a nervous antagonist into reticence and be too apt to confound such reticence with cowardice. But he did not take advantage of his opponent's weakness. He would only give him up as unsuited to play the game in the proper temper. In short, he represented what is surely the normal case of an alliance between manliness and a love of fair play. It is the weaker and more feminine, or effeminate, nature that is generally tempted to resort to an unfair use of weapons.

When, therefore, Fitzjames found himself in a position of authority, he was keenly anxious to use his power fairly. He became decidedly more popular on the bench than he had been at the bar. His desire to be thoroughly fair could not be stronger; but it had a better opportunity of displaying itself. The counsel who practised before him recognised his essential desire to allow them the fullest hearing. He learnt to 'suffer fools' patiently, if not gladly. I apologise, of course, for supposing that any barrister could be properly designated by such a word; but even barristers can occasionally be bores. Some gentlemen, who are certainly neither the one nor the other, have spoken warmly of his behaviour. The late Mr. Montagu Williams, for example, tells with pleasant gratitude how Fitzjames courteously came down from the bench to sit beside him and so enabled him to spare a voice which had been weakened by illness. His comment is that Fitzjames concealed 'the gentleness of a woman' under a stern exterior. So Mr. Henry Dickens tells me of an action for slander in which he was engaged when a young barrister. Both slanderer and slandered were employed in Billingsgate. The counsel for the defence naturally made a joke of sensibility to strong language in that region. Mr. Dickens was in despair when he saw that the judge and jury were being carried away by the humorous view of the case. Knowing the facts, he tried to bring out the serious injury which had been inflicted. Fitzjames followed him closely, became more serious, and summed up in his favour. When a verdict had been returned accordingly, he sent a note to this effect:—'Dear Dickens, I am very grateful to you for preventing me from doing a great act of injustice.' 'He was,' says Mr. Dickens, 'one of the fairest-minded men I ever knew.' His younger son has described to me the kindness with which he encouraged a young barrister—the only one who happened to be present—to undertake the defence of a prisoner, and helped him through a difficult case which ended by an acquittal upon a point of law. 'I only once,' says my nephew, 'heard him interrupt counsel defending a prisoner,' except in correcting statements of fact. The solitary exception was in a case when palpably improper matter was being introduced.

In spite of his patience, he occasionally gave an impression of irritability, for a simple reason. He was thoroughly determined to suppress both unfairness and want of courtesy or disrespect to the court. When a witness or a lawyer, as might sometimes happen, was insolent, he could speak his mind very curtly and sharply. A powerful voice and a countenance which could express stern resentment very forcibly gave a weight to such rebukes, not likely to be forgotten by the offender. He had one quaint fancy, which occasionally strengthened this impression. Witnesses are often exhorted to 'watch his lordship's pen' in order that they may not outrun his speed in taking notes. Now Fitzjames was proud of his power of rapid writing (which, I may remark, did not include a power of writing legibly). He was therefore nervously irritable when a witness received the customary exhortation: 'If you watch my pen,' he said to a witness, 'I will send you to prison': which, as he then had to explain, was not meant seriously. It came to be understood that, in his case, the formula was to be avoided on pain of being considered wantonly offensive.

He rigidly suppressed, at any rate, anything which could lower the dignity of the proceedings. He never indulged in any of those jokes to which reporters append—sometimes rather to the reader's bewilderment—the comment, 'loud laughter.' Nor would he stand any improper exhibitions of feeling in the audience. When a spectator once laughed at a piece of evidence which ought to have caused disgust, he ordered the man to be placed by the side of the prisoner in the dock, and kept him there till the end of the trial. He disliked the promiscuous attendance of ladies at trials, and gave offence on one occasion by speaking of some persons of that sex who were struggling for admission as 'women.' He was, however, a jealous defender of the right of the public to be present under proper conditions; and gave some trouble during a trial of dynamiters, when the court-house had been carefully guarded, by ordering the police to admit people as freely as they could. His sense of humour occasionally made itself evident in spite of his dislike to levity. He liked to perform variations upon the famous sentence, 'God has, in his mercy, given you a strong pair of legs and arms, instead of which you go about the country stealing ducks'; and he would detail absurd or trifling stories with an excess of solemnity which betrayed to the intelligent his perception of their comic side.

Fitzjames thought, and I believe correctly, that he was at his best when trying prisoners, and was also perhaps conscious, with equal reason, I believe, that no one could do it better. His long experience and thorough knowledge of the law of crime and of evidence were great qualifications. His force of character combined with his hatred of mere technicalities, and his broad, vigorous common sense, enabled him to go straight to the point and to keep a firm hand upon the whole management of the case. No rambling or irrelevance was possible under him. His strong physique, and the deep voice which, if not specially harmonious, was audible to the last syllable in every corner of the court, contributed greatly to his impressiveness. He took advantage of his strength to carry out his own ideal of a criminal court as a school of morality. 'It may be truly said,' as he remarks, 'that to hear in their happiest moments the summing up of such judges as Lord Campbell, Lord Chief Justice Erle, or Baron Parke, was like listening not only (to use Hobbes's famous expression) to law living and armed, but to justice itself.'[189] He tried successfully to follow in their steps.

Justice implies fair play to the accused. I have already noticed how strongly he insists upon this in his writings. They show how deeply he had been impressed in his early years at the bar by the piteous spectacle of poor ignorant wretches, bewildered by an unfamiliar scene, unable to collect their thoughts, or understand the nature of the proceedings, and sometimes prevented by the very rules intended for their protection from bringing out what might be a real defence. Many stories have been told me of the extreme care with which he would try to elicit the meaning of some muddled remonstrance from a bewildered prisoner, and sometimes go very near to the verge of what is permitted to a judge by giving hints which virtually amounted to questions, and so helping prisoners to show that they were innocent or had circumstances to allege in mitigation. He always spoke to them in a friendly tone, so as to give them the necessary confidence. A low bully, for example, was accused of combining with two women to rob a man. A conviction seemed certain till the prisoners were asked for their defence; when one of them made a confused and rambling statement. Fitzjames divined the meaning, and after talking to them for twenty minutes, during which he would not directly ask questions, succeeded in making it clear that the prosecutor was lying, and obtained an acquittal. One other incident out of many will be enough. A man accused of stabbing a policeman to avoid arrest, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. On being removed by the warders he clung to the rail, screaming, 'You can't do it.

You don't know what you are doing!' Fitzjames shouted to the warders to put him back; discovered by patient hearing that the man was meaning to refer to some circumstance in extenuation, and after calling the witnesses found that the statement was confirmed. 'Now, you silly fellow,' he said, 'if you had pleaded "not guilty," as I told you, all this would have come out. It is true that I did not know what I was doing, but it was your own fault.' He then reduced the sentence to nine months, saying, 'Does that satisfy you?' 'Thank you, my Lord,' replied the man, 'that's quite right,' and left the court quite cheerfully. Fitzjames was touched by the man's confidence in a judge, and by his accurate knowledge of the proper legal tariff of punishment. Fitzjames was scrupulously anxious in other ways not to wrest the law, even if unsatisfactory in itself, out of dislike to the immediate offender. One instance is given by the curious case of the Queen v. Ashwell (in 1885). A man had borrowed a shilling from another, who gave him a sovereign by mistake. The borrower discovered the mistake an hour afterwards, and appropriated the sovereign. Morally, no doubt, he was as dishonest as a thief. But the question arose whether he was in strict law guilty of larceny. Fitzjames delivered an elaborate judgment to show that upon the accepted precedents of law, he was not guilty, inasmuch as the original act of taking was innocent.

Another aspect of justice, upon which Fitzjames dwells in his books, was represented in his practice. A judge, according to him, is not simply a logic machine working out intellectual problems, but is the organ of the moral indignation of mankind. When, after a studiously fair inquiry, a man had been proved to be a scoundrel, he became the proper object of wrath and of the punishment by which such wrath is gratified. Fitzjames undeniably hated brutality, and especially mean brutality; he thought that gross cruelty to women and children should be suppressed by the lash, or, if necessary, by the gallows. His sentences, I am told, were not more severe than those of other judges: though mention is made of one case in early days in which he was thought to be too hard upon a ruffian who, on coming out of gaol, had robbed a little child of a sixpence. But his mode of passing sentence showed that his hatred of brutality included hatred of brutes. He did not affect to be reluctant to do his duty. He did not explain that he was acting for the real good of the prisoner, or apologise for being himself an erring mortal. He showed rather the stern satisfaction of a man suppressing a noxious human reptile. Thus, though he carefully avoided anything savouring of the theatrical, the downright simplicity with which he delivered sentence showed the strength of his feeling. He never preached to the convicts, but spoke in plain words of their atrocities. The most impressive sentence I ever heard, says one of his sons, was one upon a wife-murderer at Norwich, when he rigidly confined himself to pointing out the facts and the conclusiveness of the evidence. Another man was convicted at Manchester of an attempt to murder his wife. He had stabbed her several times in the neck, but happened to miss a fatal spot; and he cross-examined her very brutally on the trial. Fitzjames, in delivering sentence, told him that a man who had done the same thing, but with better aim, 'stood at the last assizes where you now stand, before the judge who is now sentencing you. The sentence upon him was that he should be hanged by the neck till he was dead, and he was hanged by the neck till he was dead.' The words emphatically pronounced produced a dead silence, with sobs from the women in court. It was, he proceeded, by a mere accident that the result of the prisoner's crime was different, and that, therefore, the gravest sentence was the only proper sentence; and that is 'that you be kept in penal servitude for the term of your natural life.' This again was spoken with extreme earnestness: and the 'life' sounded like a blow. There was a scream from the women, and the prisoner dropped to the ground as if he had been actually struck. Fitzjames spoke as if he were present at the crime, and uttering the feelings roused by the ferocious treatment of a helpless woman.

Some of his letters record his sense of painful responsibility when the question arose as to reprieving a prisoner. He mentions a case in which he had practically had to decide in favour of carrying out a capital sentence. 'For a week before,' he writes, 'I had the horrible feeling of watching the man sinking, and knowing that I had only to hold out my hand to save his life. I felt as if I could see his face and hear him say, "Let me live; I am only thirty-five; see what a strong, vigorous, active fellow I am, with perhaps fifty years before me: must I die?" and I mentally answered, Yes, you must. I had no real doubts and I feel no remorse; but it was a very horrible feeling—all the worse because when one has a strong theoretical opinion in favour of capital punishment one is naturally afraid of being unduly hard upon a particular wretch to whom it is one's lot to apply the theory.' On another occasion he describes a consultation upon a similar case with Sir W. Harcourt, then Home Secretary. Both of them felt painfully the contrast with their old free conversations, and discussed the matter with the punctilious ceremony corresponding to the painfulness of the occasion. There was something, as they were conscious, incongruous in settling a question of life and death in a talk between two old friends.

I must briefly mention two such cases which happened to excite public attention. On July 27 and 28, 1887, a man named Lipski was tried for a most brutal murder and convicted. His attorney wrote a pamphlet disputing the sufficiency of the evidence.[190] Fitzjames was trying a difficult patent case which took up the next fortnight (August 1 to 13). He saw the attorney on Monday, the 8th, and passed that evening and the next morning in writing his opinion to the Home Secretary (Mr. H. Matthews). On Thursday he had another interview with the attorney and a thorough discussion of the whole matter with Mr. Matthews. Some points had not been properly brought out on the trial; but the inquiry only strengthened the effect of the evidence. Mr. Matthews decided not to interfere, and Fitzjames went to stay with Froude at Salcombe on the Saturday. Meanwhile articles full of gross misstatements had appeared in certain newspapers. Fitzjames himself reflected that his occupation with the patent case had perhaps prevented his giving a full consideration to the case, and that an immediate execution of the sentence would at least have an appearance of undue haste. He therefore telegraphed to suggest a week's respite, though he felt that the action might look like yielding to the bullying of a journalist. Mr. Matthews had independently granted a respite upon a statement that a new piece of evidence could be produced. Fitzjames returned on the Monday, and spent a great part of the week in reading through all the papers, reexamining a witness, and holding consultations with Mr. Matthews. The newspapers were still writing, and 100 members of Parliament signed a request for a commutation of the sentence. After the most careful consideration, however, Fitzjames could entertain no reasonable doubt of the rightness of the verdict, and Mr. Matthews agreed with him. A petition from three jurors was sent in upon Sunday, the 21st, but did not alter the case. Finally, upon the same afternoon, Lipski confessed his guilt and the sentence was executed next day. 'I hope and believe that I have kept the right path,' writes Fitzjames, 'but it has been a most dreadful affair.' 'I hardly ever remember so infamous and horrible a story.' He was proportionally relieved when it was proved that he had acted rightly.

The other case, for obvious reasons, must be mentioned as briefly as possible. On August 7, 1889, Mrs. Maybrick was convicted of the murder of her husband. The sentence was afterwards commuted with Fitzjames's approval, and, I believe, at his suggestion, to penal servitude for life, upon the ground, as publicly stated, that although there was no doubt that she had administered poison, it was possible that her husband had died from other causes. A great deal of feeling was aroused: Fitzjames was bitterly attacked in the press, and received many anonymous letters full of the vilest abuse. Hatred of women generally, and jealousy of the counsel for the defence were among the causes of his infamous conduct suggested by these judicious correspondents. I, of course, have nothing to say upon these points, nor would I say anything which would have any bearing upon the correctness of the verdict. But as attacks were made in public organs upon his behaviour as judge, I think it right to say that they were absolutely without foundation. His letters show that he felt the responsibility deeply; and that he kept his mind open till the last. From other evidence I have not the least doubt that his humanity and impartiality were as conspicuous in this as in other cases, and I believe were not impugned by any competent witnesses, even by those who might doubt the correctness of the verdict.

Fitzjames's powers were such as naturally gave him unsurpassed authority with juries in criminal cases. A distinguished advocate was about to defend a prisoner upon two similar counts before Fitzjames and another eminent judge. The man was really guilty: but, said the counsel, and his prediction was verified, I shall obtain a verdict of 'not guilty' before the other judge, but not before Stephen. In civil cases, I am told that an impartial estimate of his merits would require more qualification. The aversion to technicality and over-subtlety, to which I have so often referred, appears to have limited his powers. He did not enjoy for its own sake the process of finding a clue through a labyrinth of refined distinctions, and would have preferred a short cut to what seemed to him the substantial merits of the case. He might, for example, regard with some impatience the necessity of interpreting the precise meaning of some clause in a legal document which had been signed by the parties concerned as a matter of routine, without their attention being drawn to the ambiguities latent in their agreement. His experience had not made him familiar with the details of commercial business, and he had to acquire the necessary information rather against the grain. To be a really great lawyer in the more technical sense, a man must, I take it, have a mind full of such knowledge, and feel pleasure in exercising the dialectical faculty by which it is applied to new cases. In that direction Fitzjames was probably surpassed by some of his brethren; and he contributed nothing of importance to the elaboration of the more technical parts of the law. I find, however, that his critics are agreed in ascribing to him with remarkable unanimity the virtue of 'open-mindedness.' His trenchant way of laying down his conclusions might give the impression that they corresponded to rooted prejudices. Such prejudices might of course intrude themselves unconsciously into his mind, as they intrude into the minds of most of us. But no one could be more anxious for fair play in argument as in conduct. He would give up a view shown to be erroneous with a readiness which often seemed surprising in so sturdy a combatant. He spared no pains in acquiring whatever was relevant to a case; whether knowledge of unfamiliar facts or of legal niceties and previous judicial decisions. Though his mind was not stored with great masses of cases, he never grudged the labour of a long investigation. He aimed at seeing the case as a whole; and bringing out distinctly the vital issues and their relation to broad principles. He used to put the issues before the jury as distinctly as possible, and was then indifferent to their decision. In a criminal case he would have been inexpressibly shocked by a wrongful conviction, and would have felt that he had failed in his duty if a conviction had not taken place when the evidence was sufficient. In a civil case, he felt that he had done his work when he had secured fair play by a proper presentation of the question to the jury. His mastery of the laws of evidence would give weight to his opinion upon facts; though how far he might be open to the charge of cutting too summarily knots which might have been untied by more dexterity and a loving handling of legal niceties, is a question upon which I cannot venture to speak positively.

I will only venture to refer to two judgments, which may be read with interest even by the unprofessional, as vigorous pieces of argument and lucid summaries of fact. One is the case (1880) of the 'Attorney-General v. the Edison Telephone Company,'[191] in which the question arose whether a telephonic message was a telegram. If so, the Company were infringing the act which gave to the Post Office the monopoly of transmitting telegrams. It was argued that the telephone transmitted the voice itself, not a mere signal. Fitzjames pointed out that it might be possible to hear both the voice transmitted through the air and the sound produced by the vibrations of the wire. Could the two sounds, separated by an interval, be one sound? The legal point becomes almost metaphysical. On this and other grounds Fitzjames decided that a telephone was a kind of telegraph, and the decision has not been disturbed. The other case was that of the Queen v. Price,[192] tried at Cardiff in 1883. William Price, who called himself a Druid, was an old gentleman of singularly picturesque appearance who had burnt the body of his child in conformity, I presume, with what he took to be the rites of the Druids. He was charged with misdemeanour. Fitzjames gave a careful summary of the law relating to burials which includes some curious history. He concluded that there was no positive law against burning bodies, unless the mode of burning produced a nuisance. The general principle, therefore, applied that nothing should be a crime which was not distinctly forbidden by law. The prisoner was acquitted, and the decision has sanctioned the present practice of cremation. Fitzjames, as I gather from letters, was much interested in the quaint old Druid, and was gratified by his escape from the law.