JUDICIAL COSTUME IN ENGLAND.
BY J. FERGUSON WALKER.
ABOUT fourteen years ago there was a
keen controversy in America as to
whether the judges ought to wear robes when
performing their judicial functions. The dis
cussion was caused by the New York State
Bar Association, resolving that the robe was
a suitable emblem of judicial office, and re
questing the members of the New York
Court of Appeals to adopt it. " Is it true
that the judges are going to put on gowns?"
said a lady to one of them at the time. " Yes,"
he said. " When? " asked the lady. " At
night," was the reply. The judges, how
ever, complied with the resolution, and thus
followed the example of the members of the
Supreme Court of the United States, who
have always worn robes of office. The
change was not so much an innovation as a
return to former custom, for the American
judges of our fathers' time wore robes as in
signia of their lofty functions.
If judicial costume be merely a relic of
feudalism, and have no moral or practical
value, there is nothing to be said in its fa
vour. It has even been asserted that its
only effects are to tickle the vanity of its
wearers and to tempt them into an exagger
ated conception and exercise of their powers
over the people. But men of intellect and
character, who have attained the judicial
bench after years of laborious effort and
business training, are not affected by such
trivialities. Robes cannot diminish a judge's
ability, learning and integrity, while they
have a beneficial influence over the multitude
under his jurisdiction by increasing respect
for the executive of the law. The uniform
of the soldier serves the same purpose, though
in this case there is the further object of in
creased efficiency, a special dress being nec
essary not only for physical convenience in
the operations of war, but in order to distin
guish the military from civilians, and one reg iment or one army from another. The reason why judicial robes inspire respect does not seem very difficult to de termine. It is analogous to the feeling of solemnity produced on entering a great ca thedral or on viewing any unwonted spectacle. Sudden change in external surroundings al ways produces this sentiment, provided there is nothing ludicrous in the transformation. The simplest divergence from the ordinary externals of life is a change of dress. What, then, can be simpler, more graceful and con venient, or more appropriate than the robe? Only in the idle and cynical will it raise a mere ripple of curiosity. The ermine of the bench has been for centuries the emblem of spotless justice and strictest integrity. Though wigs and gowns cannot inspire the people with confidence in a corrupt judge or with reliance on a weak one, they have made many a wise judge look wiser and many a dignified judge appear still more dignified. In an especial sense it befits the judge elected by popular vote to wear the judicial robe, which then represents the majesty of the people. That a political caucus may have assisted him to his position of eminence, is beside the question. Lord Salisbury once remarked that though he revered the crozier and mitre of an Archbishop, his reverence was changed to amusement, when he saw peering from behind them the familiar fea tures of a certain political wire-puller. But the judge upon the bench no longer plays a political part. His. robes do not merely ele vate the popular idea of a law court. They elevate the beholder himself by appealing to a certain nobleness in his nature, by gratify ing sentiment, and by exemplifying the dig nity of the law and of its authors. The judges of England have from time
