Of the various sections of enlightened organised society, none more deservedly holds the high position it occupies than the department of the Law. Being the science which governs the actions of men when collected in communities, directing their conduct towards each other in their various relations arising out of the circumstances of private and public economy, encouraging their industry, supporting their rights, and throwing its strong protecting arm around their property, liberties, and lives, the Law is naturally looked up to with love, reverence, and awe. The high ministers of the Law, as being the exponents of that grand science, are accordingly clothed with power as their position necessitates, and as a rule the nature of their lofty calling makes itself seen in the erudition, impartiality, self-control, self-respect, conscientiousness, and dignity of these Titans of a noble profession. Indeed, happily for the reputation of British law, these attributes have been exemplified so long, so faithfully, and so consistently by its officers that in our times to speak of an English Judge is at once suggestive of an embodiment of the qualities spoken of. Occasionally, however, it happens that the unsophisticated mind receives a shock upon witnessing the descent of a justice from the pedestal to which by association public opinion has exalted him. An ebullition of temper, a cruel cut, an unseemly action, and the ideal calm dignity of the judge becomes lost in contemplation of the ordinary mortal's infirmities.
Some such shock must have been received by those who were so unfortunate as to suffer from, or be witness of, the extraordinarily hostile attitude assumed by Sir JOHN SMALE, Chief Justice of Hongkong, yesterday. A report of the circumstances will be found in another column. The case for hearing on the occasion in question was that of Kway Hor CHUNE and Others v. Foxa Sur FUNG and Others. The Attorney-General and barristers who represented the parties were in attendance, and twelve special jurors were present in answer to their summonses. Amongst the spectators were some English-speaking Chinese. As will be seen from the report, the case was not heard, the Court collapsing in consequence of the querulousness and impatience of the Chief Justice. His Lordship was evidently in one of the worst of his occasional ill humours, and, so far from taking pains to conceal it, he gave it a free rein and permitted it to trample bar, officers, and jurors alike under foot.
It is unnecessary to dilate upon the lamentable facts (for lamentable it must always be to witness conduct so opposed to the usual preconceived notions of judicial propriety); they speak for themselves to all lovers of common courtesy, civility, and order; and the only conclusion to be drawn is that the Chief Justice permitted himself to carry matters further than he intended; we charitably hope so. Even allowing this, the fact remains that everyone in the Court was insulted, the Attorney-General was flouted and denied a hearing, much in the same manner as some mothers refuse an application for pudding on the ground that the child had previously stated they required none. This sort of nursery ethics is scarcely strong enough when Judges and Attorneys-General are concerned. When individuals, although high legal functionaries, become advanced in years perhaps some excuse may, in charity, be made for petulance of the kind, but we know not what can justify the slight offered to those gentlemen who attended as Special Jurors; what had they done that they should have been left without a word? Scant ceremony, too, did the Registrar and Usher receive; indeed, unlike Phillis, everyone "failed to please."
In spite of numerous judgments reversed on appeal, it is our pleasure to say that Sir JOHN SMALE has been a most worthy and creditable occupant of the Bench. In the Criminal Court, he has shone as a lecturer of the first water; it is to be hoped that for yesterday's performance he will call himself to task and rate himself as he so well knows how to rate others. His Lordship should know that in making the solemn business of the law a matter for laughter and derision, he has not been slightly at fault.
We say this with profound regret, not less so for His Lordship himself than for the British law as a grand and stately institution. It may be that the ebullition referred to was induced by his Lordship's ill health, and if that be so he has the sincere sympathy of all. That circumstance would, however, point to the necessity for his early retirement from official life. A judge should not only be able to perform his duties, but to do so well; and we affirm that to give rein to the temper, whether arising from indisposition or not, incapacitates a judge from the due performance of his duties, wherein so much of calm consideration, keen penetration, and searching analysis are demanded. Should, however, the loss of temper be attributable to causes other than indisposition we can only say tant pis. Fortunately, it is seldom that a member of the British judiciary leaves the bench followed by derisive laughter from bar and jurors; it is therefore to be hoped that the unpleasant sound may long linger in His Lordship's ears, reminding him of what a departure from customary judicial composure is capable of evoking, and warn him of a repetition of it in future. Quantum mutatus ab illo!
468