London Legal Letter.
547
LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, Nov. i, 1897. THE manner of making judges m England must lie a matter in which lawyers in America are deeply interested. To begin with, there are, not counting the law lords of the House of Lords, no less than twenty-nine judges of the High Court of Justice. At the head of this large staff is the Lord Chancellor, who has a salary of 550,000 a year. Next comes the Lord Chief Justice with a salary of #40,000, and after him the Master of the Rolls with a salary of $30,000; then there are live judges of the Court of Appeal, who receive £25,000 each. The fuisiif judges are five chancery justices and fourteen Queen's bench justices, and there are two judges of the probate, divorce and ad miralty division. All of these judges receive $25,000 each. As all of these appointments, except that of the I/>rd Chancellor, are for life, and any of the judges may retire after fifteen years* service ona pension of two-thirds of the salan.', there are therefore no less than thirty very large plums within the reach of the practicing members of the bar, from whiim alone these appointments can lie made, for no meml*r of the solicitors' branch of the profession is eligible for promotion to the bench. Besides these large-salaried officials, there is an attorney general who receives a salary and fees, and a solicitor general who is compensated in like manner. Last year the attorney general's combined income from salary and fees amounted to over 565,000, and that of the solicitor general to over $41,000. These law officers must also be barristers, no solicitor being within the range nf appointment to these distinguished and lucrative posi tions. All of these appointments are part of the patronage of the Ix>rd Chancellor. Theoretically and practically, in the majority of cases, the vacancies on the bench are rilled by promotion from I he ranks of the leaders of the bar, those who have earned the right to selection by large experience in the trial of cases and general fitness and position. The Lord Chancellor is the only one of the judges who is not appointed for life, he coming in and going out with every change in the politics of the ministry. Naturally he selects for appointment to the lœnch one of his own party, but it not infrequently happens, to the great credit of the system, that a lawyer of eminence at the bar of the opposite party is promoted over the head of a partisan of the ministry. Within the past fortnight no less than six appointments have been made to the bench, a greater number than has occurred within the same space of time fur many years. First Mr. Justice Cave resigned, and before his resignation took effect he died. To till the vacancy on the Queen's bench the Lord Chancellor appointed Mr. Bigham, Q. C., who for twenty years has been a leader of the Northern Circuit and more recently of that branch of the High Court to which is assigned the trial of purely commercial cases. This was the beginning of the judicial changes, for Mr. Higham's appointment was hardly announced before Lord Ksher, the Master of the Rolls, who for thirty years, has oc cupied a conspicuous position on the English bench, resigned, closely followed by his friend, Lord Justice Lopes
of the Court of Appeal, upon his elevation to the peerage as Lord Ludlow. As the Master of the Rolls Kexofflcio president of the Court of Appeal, two vacancies were thus created. These were filled by the promotions of Mr. Jus tice Ilenn Collins from the Queen's bench, and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams from the bankruptcy branch of the Queen's liench Court, two of the ablest of the fnisnt judges. To fill their places two new Queen's bench judges have been selected from the bar — Mr. Darling, Q.C., and Mr. Channell, Q.C. The latter is an able and skillful lawyer, and his appointment has been received with general appro bation; but the former owes his new and responsible position to political influence as he has had but little practice, although having been at the bar for nearly thirty years. The fact that only one out of six appointees to judicial positions by the Lord Chancellor is ojien to the charge of political favor speaks well for the system and to the strong control which is exercised over the ministry by public opinion. Unfortu nately there have been other appointments within a com paratively recent date which have been severely criticised, and there are now four judges on the bench whose selec tion has unquestionably been dictated by political pressure. Still, four out of twenty-nine is a small proportion, and the bench as now constituted is quite up to the average. It is a matter of congratulation that the appointees have no participation in politics and that once appointed they en deavor to live up to the high traditions of the English judiciary. Ina recent letter I referred to the recently enacted Em ployers' Liability Act. The provisions of that law, so far as the scale and conditions of compensation are concerned, are strikingly at variance with recent Undings of juries in the United States, particularly in the West. It is provided by the Act that where death results from the injury if the work man leaves anyone wholly dependent upon his earnings the compensation shall be a sum equal to his earnings during the three years next preceding the injury which resulted in his death, but not exceeding in any case ¿300, or $1500. If the workman does not leave anyone wholly, but only in part, dependent upon his earnings, then the amount pay able shall be such sum not exceeding ¿£300 as may be agreed upon or maybe determined upon by arbitration. In case he leaves no dependents, the employer shall pay the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and his burial, not exceeding .£10. Where the injury is no! fatal, but re sults in total or partial incapacity for work, the injured man's compensation is a weekly payment during the inca pacity not exceeding fifty per cent of his average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, but such weekly payment is not to exceed one pound. In fixing this amount, regard shall be had to the difference IxMwecn the amount of the average weekly earnings before the accident and the average amount which the injured man may be able to earn after the accident, and also to any payment other than wages which he may receive from his employer in respect of his injury during the period of his incapacity. To prevent fraud ujxm the employer, the Act provides that
