The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-09 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP TEE ?lIBLI9 3OURNA.LO.

The Tinies observes that a course not only unusual, but, $
we believe, unprecedented, has been taken in the Court of
Queen's Bench. The Lora Chief Justice of England has
drawn the attention of the bar and of the public to a
statement in which he expressed his dissent from some of
the doctrines embodied in Mr. Justice Blackburn's charge
to the grand jury last week in the case of Ex-Governor
Eyre, and denied that the principles contained in that
charge had been approved by all the judges of
the Queen's Bench. It will be remembered that
when Mr. Justice Blackburn had finished his
exposition of the law in the case of Mr. Eyre, he informed
the grand jury that he had taken every opportunity of
consulting his brother judges, and he believed himself
authorised to declare that they all agreed in the principles
he had laid down. The judges of his own court were
specially and individually referred to as having been in
consultation with him upon the points involved in
the charge, and as having authorised him to ex•
press their agreement with him. Some surprise
was felt at these statements at the time, not so
much at their unusual character, because it was felt
that the case was of the lighest importance, and it was
fitting that the statement of the legal principles upon
which it depended should rest on the highest authority,
but because it was impossible not to see that many of the
expressions of the learned judge were irreconcilable with
the previous charge of the Lord Chief Justice. ,This
difficulty has been removed by the statement of the Lord
Chief Justice yesterday, but only to give place to another
equally embarrassing. When the Lord Chief Justice
had finished his communication to the bar, Mr.
Justice Blackburn followed with his statement, describing
the conferences between himself and the other members
of the court before he delivered his charge, and the way
in which the misunderstanding seems to have arisen. It is
painful to add that a comparison of the two statements
compels the conclusion that the misapprehension was due
to some negligence on both sides, while justice itself is
discredited by the fact that the grand jury threw
out the bill against Mr. Eyre under the influence of a
charge some of the leading doctrines of which are
now emphatically repudiated by the Lord Chief Justice.
The explanation of the circumstances under which the
misapprehension between judges of the Queen's Bench
arose does not diminish the regret of the Times. The
Lord Chief Justice said he had understood before the
trial that Mr. Justice Blackburn did not feel it necessary
to discuss the effect of the Jamaica statutes, and as
to the actual case of Gordon, he believed, up to
the eve of the delivery of his charge, that his
learned brother held his apprehension and removal
unjustifiable. " I believe," said the Lord Chief
Justice, " I am warranted in saying that the statement of
the learned judge to the grand jury on this head took the
other members of the court as much by surprise as it cer.
tainly did me." Yet this was part of the law of the case
in which Mr. Justice Blackburn claimed at the trial the
concurrence of the other judges. His statement yester-
day was much more guarded. He said he had reduced
the central proposition of his charge to writing, and
sabmitted it to his colleagues, explaining at the same
time briefly but sufficiently the other points. He
admits that, being himself charged with the facts and
principles of the case as he conceived them, he too hastily
inferred a complete coincidence of opinion from the ap
proval of this brief abstract. It might be satisfactory, if
this writing still exists, to know its exact contents, but if,
as one is led to suppose, it amounted to no more than that
a colonial governor, acting with judgment and good faith
within the scope of his legal powers, could not be
made criminally responsible for excesses or errors he
may have innocently committed—and it must have
been something like this to have secured the assent of
the Lord Chief Justice—it will be seen that the point on
which the charge turned, the definition of the legal powers
of a governor, is left wholly unsettled by it. The result
is painful, and, the leading journal adds, creditable to
neither party involved in it. If Mr. Justice Blackburn
unduly amplified the assent of his colleagues, his
colleagues ought to have seen that the narrow prine
ciple he stated to them was insufficient to justify that
expression of their approval they did authorise him to
use. There was great imprudence on all sides, the chief
And first being that Sir Colin Blackburn did not commit
the whole of his charge to writing before consulting his
colleagues, while the end has been a scandal in the
administration of our law for a parallel to which we must
vainly seek in recent years, perhaps not in recent genera-
tions.

The Post declares that whatever diversity of opinion
may exist in respect to the prerogative of the Crown to
proclaim martial law, no one can regret that the Lord
Chief Justice of England should have taken the opportu-
nity of expressing his dissent from some of the opinions
enunciated by Mr. Justice Blackburn in his recent charge
to the grand jury of Middlesex on the prosecution of Mr.
Eyre for misdemeanour. Irrespective of the legal merits
of the points at issue, it must be conceded that Mr. Justice
Blackburn transgressed equally against the canons of good
taste and the usages which govern the procedure of the
court of which he is a member. Entertaining, as
he did, a different opinion from that of the Lord Chief
Justice on a point of great constitutional importance, he
seems to have seized the opportunity accidentally afforded
to him of giving, apparently in the name of the full court,
directions in point of law which in effect overruled the
expressed opinions of the chief of that court. There may
have been a misunderstanding upon his part, but most
persons will probably be inclined to share the opinion evi-
dently entertained by the Lord Chief Justice, that if
there was a misunderstanding he must be much more
stupid than the world believes him to be.
The Daily News lays down that if the deliberate con-
victions of a majority of the judges are misrepresented by
a single judge, the court is bound to take notice of the
fact. The Lord Chief Justice therefore only did his duty.
Our contemporary has always more to dread from the con-
servatism than from the innovating principles of our
judges. It is their duty to uphold authority, but only
that authority which is consistent with the law. There are
too many instances on record of judges who did not blush
to be complimented on their skill in getting obnoxious
offenders sentenced to the gallows. Even in our own day
we have witnessed a political bias on the bench which ill
accords with the clue administration of justice. It is,
therefore, the more commendable when, as in the present
case, the head of the Court of Queen's Bench throws the
weight of his learning and influence into the scale wherein
justice has been outweighed by prejudice and passion.
Moreover, it is satisfactory to learn that the modern
doctrines about martial law are based on a legal quick-
sand.

The Herald greatly regrets that any misunderstanding
should have arisen between two judges. The complaint
against Mr. Justice Blackburn is, that he erroneously, but
of course unintentionally, represented himself as speaking
in the name of all his colleagues. His lordship was bounG
to admit his mistake when they assured him that he had
made one ; but if so, it had been occasioned by a mutual
misunderstanding of what was said wad what was assentee
to. But if no reference to other judges had beer
made, the Herald apprehends that it would still have
been the duty of the senior puisne to propound
his own views of the law, and that any contention
or debate upon the bench, while the jury were in
court, would have conduced neither to the dignity nor the
harmony of the proceedings. In a measure the same ob.
jections attach to the scene when the Lord Chief Justice
se emphatically stated his own views as to administer
something very like a rebuke to his non-assenting col-
league. The Eyre case has been fruitful in surprises and
novel situations, but we think it is peculiarly unfortunate
that to them the Court of Queen's Bench should have con-
tributed its quota. Nevertheless, everyone knows that
both Sir Alexander Cockburn and Sir Colin Blackburn
have acted from the best motives, and with the greatest
anxiety; to do their duty, nor will any one find fault
with thembecause they have failed to hit
_its exact line.

The Standard refrains from any attempt at so invidious
a task as that of comparing the relative soundness of the
views of the law propounded by these learned and eminent
personages, though we confess that we prefer the junior's
reading, because it makes the right to proclaim martial
law a matter of plain common sense, resting on the natural
instinct of self-preservation. That Sir Alexander
Cockburn was influenced by none but high and honour.
able motives in taking a somewhat extraordinary course
we are perfectly convinced • but we aeb
sure that therein he has acted wisely, or deKircl.mweellan3 'l-39
The Telegraph notes what good work was done in the
House of Commons on Monday, the Scotch Reform Bill
having been passed through committee by half-past nine
o'clock. Perhaps the purposeless talkers were kept away
or were awed into silence by the idea that the Scotch la
N
of rating is incomprehensible to any man bore south of
the Tweed. At all events, the House settled down to
business with a will, and the speeches were models of
brevity. The fact is 'that if not endowed with startling
brilliancy, the Scotch members are sound business men,
who know that the best way to get their tabus done is tO
do as much of it out of doors as they can, and to make
little fuss in the House itself. So they come to debate in
something like a compact body, with well-defined views,
vnd with clear ideas as to what they have power to do.
If in this respect the English members would take a lesson
from the dull, demure north-countrymen, perhaps they
would waste less time on the profitless task of talking
in
the

The Star has had placed under its notice a pamphlet on
the employment of women, from which it culls certain
facts, skewing conclusively that something must be done
ft.r giving employment to the female portion of our popu.
lation. Our contemporary is struck with shame with one
portion of this pamphlet, which sets forth that there are
no less eidlp 66,057 men connected with bush:teasel
oecupiedr,ll,l women's dress and such matters exclusively.
It will lib thew to some of our readers to learn thili
there are no less than 803 male milliners and dress-
makers, 884 stay and corsetmakers, and 1,165 washer-
men and laundrykeepers in England and Wales. It
is a negative credit to the country that we only find thir-
teen baby-linen makers. So that not only do we pre-
vent women from fulfilling occupations suited to them
(the persistent opposition of medical men to female ob.
stetric practitioners has been never justified to the public
by the former), but we positively drive them off their own
grounds, displacing them in situations for which men Art
no more adapted 42041110 Y w9i4 ko fQr dry-um-dm