James Fitzjames Stephen: Difference between revisions

From Bharatpedia, an open encyclopedia
>JJMC89 bot III
 
imported>Atchom
 
Line 20: Line 20:
| death_date = {{death date and age|1894|03|11|1829|03|03|df=yes}}
| death_date = {{death date and age|1894|03|11|1829|03|03|df=yes}}
| death_place = Red House Park Nursing Home, [[Ipswich]], [[Suffolk]], England
| death_place = Red House Park Nursing Home, [[Ipswich]], [[Suffolk]], England
| nationality = English
| spouse = Mary Richenda Cunningham
| spouse = Mary Richenda Cunningham
| party = [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]]
| party = [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]]
Line 38: Line 37:
}}
}}


'''Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, 1st Baronet''', [[Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India|KCSI]] (3 March 1829 – 11 March 1894) was an English [[lawyer]], [[judge]] and writer.
'''Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, 1st Baronet''', [[Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India|KCSI]] (3 March 1829 – 11 March 1894) was an English [[lawyer]], [[judge]], writer, and philosopher. One of the most famous critics of [[John Stuart Mill]], Stephen achieved prominence as a philosopher, law reformer, and writer.


== Early life ==
== Early life and education, 1829–1854 ==
Born in [[Kensington]], [[London]], he was the son of [[James Stephen (civil servant)|James Stephen]] and Jane Catherine Venn, the older brother of the author and critic [[Leslie Stephen|Sir Leslie Stephen]], the uncle of [[Virginia Woolf]], and a cousin of the jurist [[A.V. Dicey]]. He was educated at [[Eton College]], and for two years at [[King's College, London]]. In October 1847 he entered [[Trinity College, Cambridge]].<ref>{{acad|id=STFN846JF|name=Stephen, James Fitzjames}}</ref> Although an outstanding student he did not win any prizes, mainly because he was uninterested in mathematics or classics, which formed the basis of the course. He was called to the Bar. Being conscious of the slightness of his legal education, he then read for an LL.B. from the University of London.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Heydon|first=John|date=2010|title=Reflections on James Fitzjames Stephen|url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/2010/5.pdf|journal=University of Queensland Law Journal|pages=24|via=Austlii}}</ref> He was already acquainted with [[Henry James Sumner Maine|Sir Henry Maine]], six years his senior, and then newly appointed to the [[Regius Professor of Civil Law (Cambridge)|Chair of Civil Law]] at Cambridge. Although their temperaments were very different, their acquaintance became a strong friendship, which ended only with Maine's death in 1888.
James Fitzjames Stephen was born on 3 March 1829 at [[Kensington Gore]], [[London]], the third child and second son of [[James Stephen (civil servant)|Sir James Stephen]] and Jane Catherine Venn. Stephen came from a distinguished family. His father, the drafter of the [[Slavery Abolition Act 1833]], was [[Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies]] and [[Regius Professor of History (Cambridge)|Regius Professor of Modern History]] at [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge]]. His grand-father [[James Stephen (British politician)|James Stephen]] and uncle [[George Stephen (abolitionist)|George Stephen]] were both leading [[Abolitionism|anti-slavery]] campaigners. His younger brother was the author and critic [[Leslie Stephen|Sir Leslie Stephen]], whilst his younger sister [[Caroline Stephen]] was a philanthropist and a writer on [[Quakerism]]. Through his brother Leslie Stephen, he was the uncle of [[Virginia Woolf]], He was also a cousin of the jurist [[A.V. Dicey]].


Stephen was introduced by Maine into the Cambridge society known as [[Cambridge Apostles]], forming friendships with some of its members. The society contained a remarkable group of men who afterwards became eminent in different ways: for example, developer of classical electromagnetic theory [[James Clerk Maxwell]] and Liberal Party leader Sir [[William Vernon Harcourt (politician)|William Harcourt]].
Stephen was first educated at the Reverend Benjamin Guest's school in Brighton from the age of seven, before spending three years at [[Eton College]] from 1842. Strongly disliking Eton, Stephen completed his pre-university education by attending [[King's College, London]] for two years.


==Career==
In October 1847 he entered [[Trinity College, Cambridge]].<ref>{{acad|id=STFN846JF|name=Stephen, James Fitzjames}}</ref> Although an outstanding intellect, he took an undistinguished BA in Classics in 1851, being, in his own words, one of the "most unteachable of human beings". He was, however, well-known as a strong debater at the [[Cambridge Union]]. He was also elected to the exclusive [[Cambridge Apostles]], his proposer being [[Henry James Sumner Maine|Henry Maine]], the newly-appointed [[Regius Professor of Civil Law (Cambridge)|Regius Professor of Civil Law]], who became a lifelong friend despite their differing temperaments. At Apostles meetings, he frequently sparred with [[William Harcourt (politician)|William Harcourt]], later leader of the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]], in debates described by contemporaries as "veritable battles of the gods". Another Apostles contemporary was the physicist [[James Clerk Maxwell]].


[[File:Sir James Fitzjames Stephen.jpg|thumb|left|180px|Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, by [[George Frederic Watts]], 1886.]]
Being conscious of the slightness of his legal education, he then read for an LL.B. from the University of London.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Heydon|first=John|date=2010|title=Reflections on James Fitzjames Stephen|url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/2010/5.pdf|journal=University of Queensland Law Journal|pages=24|via=Austlii}}</ref> This was an unusual step for its day, and it was there that he first seriously engaged with the works of [[Jeremy Bentham]].  
Stephen chose a legal career, which was on balance a notable one since he a member of the Viceregal Council and later Professor of Common Law at the [[Inns of Court]].  He was largely occupied with official work on [[codification (law)|codification]], some of which was introduced as bills in the Westminster Parliament though none of his codes ultimately became law in England. He was, however, responsible for the [[Indian Evidence Act|Indian Evidence Act, 1872]]. In 1879, he became a judge of the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]].


===Early career===
== Early career, 1854&ndash;1869 ==


After leaving Cambridge, Stephen decided to go into law. He was [[called to the bar]] in 1854 by the [[Inner Temple]].<ref name="ODNB" /> His own estimation of his professional success—written in later years—was that in spite of such training rather than because of it, he became a moderately successful [[advocate]] and a rather distinguished judge.
[[File:Sir James Fitzjames Stephen.jpg|thumb|left|180px|Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, by [[George Frederic Watts]], 1886.]]After leaving Cambridge, Stephen chose to enter a legal career, though his father had hoped for a clerical career. He was [[called to the bar]] in January 1854 by the [[Inner Temple]], and joined the Midland Circuit.<ref name="ODNB">{{ODNBweb|id=26375|first=K. J. M.|last=Smith|title=Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames, first baronet (1829–1894)}}</ref> His own estimation of his professional success—written in later years—was that in spite of such training rather than because of it, he became a moderately successful [[advocate]] and a rather distinguished judge.


In his earlier years at the bar he supplemented his income from a successful but modest practice with journalism. He contributed to the ''[[Saturday Review (London)|Saturday Review]]'' from the time it was founded in 1855. He was in company with Maine, Harcourt, [[George Stovin Venables|G.S. Venables]], Charles Bowen, [[Edward Augustus Freeman|E.A. Freeman]], [[Goldwin Smith]] and others. Both the first and the last books published by Stephen were selections from his papers in the ''Saturday Review'' (''Essays by a Barrister'', 1862, anonymous; ''Horae sabbaticae'', 1892). These volumes embodied the results of his studies of publicists and [[theologians]], chiefly English, from the 17th century onwards. He never professed his essays to be more than the occasional products of an amateur's leisure, but they were well received.
In his earlier years at the bar he supplemented his income from a successful but modest practice with journalism. He contributed to the ''[[Saturday Review (London)|Saturday Review]]'' from the time it was founded in 1855. He was in company with Maine, Harcourt, [[George Stovin Venables|G.S. Venables]], Charles Bowen, [[Edward Augustus Freeman|E.A. Freeman]], [[Goldwin Smith]] and others. Both the first and the last books published by Stephen were selections from his papers in the ''Saturday Review'' (''Essays by a Barrister'', 1862, anonymous; ''Horae sabbaticae'', 1892). These volumes embodied the results of his studies of publicists and [[theologians]], chiefly English, from the 17th century onwards. He never professed his essays to be more than the occasional products of an amateur's leisure, but they were well received.


From 1858 to 1861, Stephen served as secretary to a [[Royal Commission]] on popular education, whose conclusions were promptly put into effect. In 1859 he was appointed Recorder of [[Newark-on-Trent|Newark]]. In 1863 he published his ''General View of the Criminal Law of England'',<ref>The second edition of 1890 was practically a new book.</ref> the first attempt made since [[William Blackstone]] to explain the principles of [[English law]] and justice in a literary form, and it enjoyed considerable success. The foundation of the ''[[Pall Mall Gazette]]'' in 1865 gave Stephen a new literary avenue. He continued to contribute until he became a judge.
From 1858 to 1861, Stephen served as secretary to a [[Royal Commission]] on popular education, whose conclusions were promptly put into effect. In 1859 he was appointed Recorder of [[Newark-on-Trent|Newark]]. In 1863 he published his ''General View of the Criminal Law of England'',<ref>The second edition of 1890 was practically a new book.</ref> the first attempt made since [[William Blackstone]] to explain the principles of [[English law]] and justice in a literary form, and it enjoyed considerable success. The foundation of the ''[[Pall Mall Gazette]]'' in 1865 gave Stephen a new literary avenue. He continued to contribute until he became a judge.  


===As civil servant===
Stephen's practice at the Bar was an uneven one, though he appeared in two notable cases. In 1861&ndash;62, he unsuccessfully defended the Reverend [[Rowland Williams (theologian)|Rowland Williams]] in the Court of Arches against charges of heresy, though he was ultimately acquitted in the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]]. In 1865&ndash;66, Stephen was retained (along with [[Edward James (barrister)|Edward James]] QC) by the [[Jamaica Committee]], which sought to prosecute [[Edward Eyre]], Governor of [[Jamaica]], for his excesses in suppressing the [[Morant Bay rebellion]] of 1865. They produced a legal opinion, which charged Eyre and his officers with serious breaches of English criminal law, some of them capital. 
 
In early 1867, Stephen was retained by the Jamaica Committee to prosecute [[Alexander Nelson (British Army officer)|Alexander Abercromby Nelson]] and Herbert Brand, two military officers who had sat on the court martial which sentenced [[George William Gordon]] to death; but the grand jury declined to return a [[true bill]]. He was then retained to prosecute Eyre: when he began his case, Stephen surprised observers by praising Eyre as a courageous man who had acted honourably in an emergency. Eyre was discharged and Stephen fell out with the Jamaica Committee. His friendship with [[John Stuart Mill]], who was a leading member of the Committee, was permanently damaged.
 
Meanwhile, Stephen's legal career proceeded apace, and in 1868, he became a [[Queen's Counsel]], one of fifteen that year. However, he suffered a setback in January 1869, when he was passed over for the [[Whewell Professor of International Law|Whewell Professorship of International Law]] in favour of his old rival William Harcourt.
 
== Stephen in India, 1869&ndash;1872 ==


[[File:James F. Stephen.jpg|thumb|180px|Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, ca. 1870s.]]
[[File:James F. Stephen.jpg|thumb|180px|Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, ca. 1870s.]]
The decisive point of his career was in the summer of 1869, when he accepted the post of legal member of the [[Imperial Legislative Council]] in India. His friend Maine was his immediate predecessor: Guided by Maine's comprehensive talents, the government of India had entered a period of systematic legislation which was to last about twenty years. Stephen had the task of continuing this work by conducting the Bills through the Legislative Council. The [[Christian Law of Marriage in India|Native Marriages Act]] of 1872 was the result of deep consideration on both Maine's and Stephen's part. The [[Indian Contract Act 1872|Indian Contract Act]] had been framed in England by a learned commission, and the draft was materially altered in Stephen's hands before, also in 1872, it became law.
The decisive point of Stephen's career was in the summer of 1869, when he accepted the post of legal member of the [[Viceroy's Executive Council]] in India. His appointment was at the recommendation of his friend [[Henry James Sumner Maine|Henry Maine]], who was his immediate predecessor. He arrived in India in December 1869. During his time in India, Stephen would draft twelve acts and eight other enactments, most of which are still in force.


====Indian Evidence Act====
Guided by Maine's comprehensive talents, the government of India had entered a period of systematic legislation which was to last about twenty years. Stephen had the task of continuing this work by conducting the Bills through the Legislative Council. The [[Christian Law of Marriage in India|Native Marriages Act]] of 1872 was the result of deep consideration on both Maine's and Stephen's part. The [[Indian Contract Act 1872|Indian Contract Act]] had been framed in England by a learned commission, and the draft was materially altered in Stephen's hands before, also in 1872, it became law.
 
=== Indian Evidence Act ===


The [[Indian Evidence Act]] of the same year, entirely Stephen's own work, made the rules of evidence uniform for all residents of India, regardless of caste, social position, or religion. Besides drafting legislation, at this time Stephen had to attend to the current administrative business of his department, and he took a full share in the general deliberations of the viceroy's council. His last official act in India was the publication of a minute on the administration of justice which pointed the way to reforms not yet fully realized, and is still a valuable tool for anyone wishing to understand the judicial system of [[British India]].
The [[Indian Evidence Act]] of the same year, entirely Stephen's own work, made the rules of evidence uniform for all residents of India, regardless of caste, social position, or religion. Besides drafting legislation, at this time Stephen had to attend to the current administrative business of his department, and he took a full share in the general deliberations of the viceroy's council. His last official act in India was the publication of a minute on the administration of justice which pointed the way to reforms not yet fully realized, and is still a valuable tool for anyone wishing to understand the judicial system of [[British India]].


===Return to England===
== Return to England, 1872&ndash;1879 ==


Stephen, mainly for family reasons, returned to England in the spring of 1872. During the voyage he wrote a series of articles which resulted in his book ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'' (1873–1874)--a protest against [[John Stuart Mill]]'s neo-[[utilitarianism]]. Most famously he attacked the thesis of J S Mill's essay ''[[On Liberty]]'' and argued for legal compulsion, coercion and restraint in the interests of morality and religion.<ref>{{cite book|last= Stephen|first= James Fitzjames |title= Liberty, Equality, Fraternity |publisher= Holt & Williams |location= New York |year= 1873|url=https://archive.org/details/libertyequality01stepgoog |access-date=7 November 2014}}</ref><ref>Kimball, Roger (2005). [http://www.newcriterion.com/posts.cfm/liberty-equality-fraternity-3835 "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,"] ''Arma Virumque, The New Criterion''.</ref>
Stephen, mainly for family reasons, returned to England in the spring of 1872. During the voyage he wrote a series of articles which resulted in his book ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'' (1873–1874)--a protest against [[John Stuart Mill]]'s neo-[[utilitarianism]]. Most famously he attacked the thesis of John Stuart Mill's essay ''[[On Liberty]]'' and argued for legal compulsion, coercion and restraint in the interests of morality and religion.<ref>{{cite book|last= Stephen|first= James Fitzjames |title= Liberty, Equality, Fraternity |publisher= Holt & Williams |location= New York |year= 1873|url=https://archive.org/details/libertyequality01stepgoog |access-date=7 November 2014}}</ref><ref>Kimball, Roger (2005). [http://www.newcriterion.com/posts.cfm/liberty-equality-fraternity-3835 "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,"] ''Arma Virumque, The New Criterion''.</ref>


Fitzjames Stephen stood in an [[Dundee by-election, 1873|1873 by-election]] as a [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] for [[Dundee (UK Parliament constituency)|Dundee]], but came in last place.
Fitzjames Stephen stood in an [[Dundee by-election, 1873|1873 by-election]] as a [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] for [[Dundee (UK Parliament constituency)|Dundee]], but came in last place. The same year, he was elected to the [[Metaphysical Society]]; he gave seven papers to the Society, making him one of its most active members. In 1875, he was appointed Professor of Common Law at the [[Inns of Court]]. He also sat on government commissions on fugitive slaves (1876), extradition (1878), and copyright (1878). He also appeared irregularly as counsel in the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]].


Experience in India gave Stephen opportunity for his next activity. The government of India had been driven by the conditions of the Indian judicial system to recast a considerable part of the English law which had been informally imported. [[Criminal law]] procedure, and a good deal of [[commercial law]], had been or were being put into easily understood language, intelligible to civilian magistrates. The rational substance of the law was preserved, while disorder and excessive technicalities were removed. Using [[Jeremy Bentham]]'s ideal of codification, he attempted to get the same principles put into practice in the United Kingdom. In spite of six years of effort on this task, Stephen was largely unsuccessful in making any reforms. Stephen also privately published digests in code form of the [[law of evidence]] and criminal law.
Experience in India gave Stephen opportunity for his next activity. The government of India had been driven by the conditions of the Indian judicial system to recast a considerable part of the English law which had been informally imported. [[Criminal law]] procedure, and a good deal of [[commercial law]], had been or were being put into easily understood language, intelligible to civilian magistrates. The rational substance of the law was preserved, while disorder and excessive technicalities were removed. Using [[Jeremy Bentham]]'s ideal of codification, he attempted to get the same principles put into practice in the United Kingdom. As a preparatory step, Stephen also privately published digests in code form of the [[law of evidence]] (1876) and criminal law (1877).


===Judicial career and legacy===
In August 1877, Stephen's proposals were taken up by the government and he was asked to draft a [[English Criminal Code|criminal code for England]]. He completed his draft in early 1878 and it was debated in Parliament, after which it was referred to a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of [[Colin Blackburn, Baron Blackburn|Lord Blackburn]], with Stephen as a member. In 1879, the Commission produced a draft bill, which received opposition from many quarters. It did, however, serve as the basis of the criminal codes of many parts of the British Empire, including those of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.


== Judicial career and final years, 1879&ndash;1894 ==
[[File:James Fitzjames Stephen Vanity Fair 7 March 1885.jpg|thumb|180px|''Judges,'' No. 14, [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]], 7 March 1885.]]
[[File:James Fitzjames Stephen Vanity Fair 7 March 1885.jpg|thumb|180px|''Judges,'' No. 14, [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]], 7 March 1885.]]
Stephen was in 1879 appointed a judge of the High Court. He had transient hopes of an Evidence Act being brought before [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]], and in 1878 the Digest of Criminal Law became a Ministerial Bill with the co-operation of [[Sir John Holker]], who was Attorney-General in the second government of [[Benjamin Disraeli]]. The Bill was referred to a judicial commission, which included Stephen, but ultimately failed, and was revised and reintroduced in 1879 and again in 1880.  It dealt with procedure as well as substantive law, and provided for a court of criminal appeal, though after several years of judicial experience Stephen changed his mind as to the wisdom of this course.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}} However, no substantial progress was made during any sessions of Parliament. In 1883 the part relating to procedure was brought in separately by [[William Ewart Gladstone|Gladstone]]'s law officer [[Henry James, 1st Baron James of Hereford|Sir Henry James]], and went to the grand committee on law, which found that there was insufficient time to deal with it satisfactorily in the course of the session.
After his return from India, Stephen had sought a judgeship for both professional and financial reasons. In 1873, 1877, and 1878, he went on circuit as a [[Commissioner of Assize|commissioner of assize]]. In 1878, he was considered, but not selected as [[Recorder of London]] in succession to [[Russell Gurney]]. In 1873, he had also been proposed as [[Solicitor General for England and Wales|Solicitor-General]] by [[John Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge|Sir John Coleridge]], the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|Attorney-General]], though [[Henry James, 1st Baron James of Hereford|Sir Henry James]] was chosen instead.  


Criminal appeal was discussed and an Act passed in 1907; otherwise nothing has been done in the UK with either part of the draft code since. The historical materials which Stephen had long been collecting took permanent shape in 1883 as his ''History of the Criminal Law of England''. He lacked time for a planned ''Digest of the Law of Contract'' (which would have been much fuller than the Indian Code). Thus none of Stephen's own plans of English codification took effect.  The [[Parliament of Canada]] used a version of Stephen's Draft Bill revised and augmented by [[George Burbidge]], at the time Judge of the [[Exchequer Court of Canada]], to codify its criminal law in 1892 as the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|''Criminal Code, 1892]]. New Zealand followed with the ''New Zealand Criminal Code Act 1893'' and a number of Australian colonies adopted their own versions as Criminal Codes in following years.
When Stephen was charged with the preparation of the English criminal code, he was virtually promised a judgeship, though no explicit promise could be made. Finally, in January 1879, Stephen was appointed a [[High Court judge (England and Wales)|Justice of the High Court]], in succession to [[Anthony Cleasby|Sir Anthony Cleasby]]. He was initially assigned to the Exchequer Division. When that division was merged into the Queen's Bench Division in 1881, Stephen was transferred to the latter, where he remained until his retirement. Occupied with the preparation of the criminal code, he only made his first appearance as a judge in April 1879 at the [[Old Bailey]], when he passed a death sentence against a matricide.  


An eleven-volume set of his collected writings is currently{{when|date=May 2020}} being prepared for [[Oxford University Press]] by the [[Editorial Institute]] at [[Boston University]].
Distracted by his literary and intellectual pursuits, his time as a judge was unimpressive relative to the rest of his career, though his judgments were of a high quality. He had transient hopes of an Evidence Act being brought before [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]], and in 1878 the Digest of Criminal Law became a Ministerial Bill with the cooperation of [[Sir John Holker]], who was Attorney-General in the second government of [[Benjamin Disraeli]]. The Bill was referred to a judicial commission, which included Stephen, but ultimately failed, and was revised and reintroduced in 1879 and again in 1880. It dealt with procedure as well as substantive law, and provided for a court of criminal appeal, though after several years of judicial experience Stephen changed his mind as to the wisdom of this course.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}} However, no substantial progress was made during any sessions of Parliament. In 1883 the part relating to procedure was brought in separately by [[William Ewart Gladstone|Gladstone]]'s law officer [[Henry James, 1st Baron James of Hereford|Sir Henry James]], and went to the grand committee on law, which found that there was insufficient time to deal with it satisfactorily in the course of the session.
 
Stephen's final years were undermined first by physical and then steady mental decline. In 1885, he had his first stroke. Despite accusations of unfairness and bias regarding the murder trials of [[Israel Lipski]] in 1887 and [[Florence Maybrick]] in 1889, Stephen continued performing his judicial duties. However, by early 1891 his declining capacity to exercise judicial functions had become a matter of public discussion and press comment, and following medical advice Stephen resigned in April of that year, whereupon he was made a [[baronet]].<ref name="ODNB" /> Even during his final days on the bench, Stephen is reported to have been 'brief, terse and to the point, and as lucid as in the old days'. Having lost his intellectual power, however, 'as the hours wore on his voice dropped almost to a whisper'.<ref>''Law Times'' (21 March 1891), p. 370.</ref>
 
Stephen died of chronic renal failure on 11 March 1894 at Red House Park, a nursing home near [[Ipswich]], and was buried at [[Kensal Green Cemetery]], London.<ref name="Paths">{{cite book|title=Paths of Glory|date=1997|publisher=Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery|page=94}}</ref> His wife survived him.
 
=== Honours ===
Stephen was knighted as a [[Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India]] (KCSI) in January 1877. He was created a [[Stephen baronets|Baronet]], of [[De Vere Gardens]] in the parish of Saint Mary Abbott, Kensington, in the County of London, on 29 June 1891, shortly after his resignation from the bench. He was a member of the [[American Academy of Arts and Sciences]], a corresponding member of the [[Institut de France]] (1888). He received honorary doctorates from the University of Oxford (1878) and the University of Edinburgh University (1884), and was elected an honorary fellowship of Trinity College, Cambridge (1885).
 
== Legacy ==
Criminal appeal was discussed and an Act passed in 1907; otherwise nothing has been done in the UK with either part of the draft code since. The historical materials which Stephen had long been collecting took permanent shape in 1883 as his ''History of the Criminal Law of England''. He lacked time for a planned ''Digest of the Law of Contract'' (which would have been much fuller than the Indian Code). Thus none of Stephen's own plans of English codification took effect. The [[Parliament of Canada]] used a version of Stephen's Draft Bill revised and augmented by [[George Burbidge]], at the time Judge of the [[Exchequer Court of Canada]], to codify its criminal law in 1892 as the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|''Criminal Code, 1892'']]. New Zealand followed with the ''New Zealand Criminal Code Act 1893'' and a number of Australian colonies adopted their own versions as Criminal Codes in following years


His book ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'' was called the "finest exposition of conservative thought in the latter half of the 19th century" by [[Ernest Barker]].<ref>Ernest Barker, ''Political Thought in England: 1848 to 1914'' (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1915), p. 150.</ref> It was listed as one of Ten Conservative Books to read in the chapter of that name in ''The Politics of Prudence'' by [[Russell Kirk]]. According to Princeton University political theorist Greg Conti, Stephen's political thought had liberal characteristics, even though he has frequently been characterized as conservative or religious authoritarian.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Conti|first=Gregory|date=2021|title=How to Read James Fitzjames Stephen: Technocracy and Pluralism in a Misunderstood Victorian|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/how-to-read-james-fitzjames-stephen-technocracy-and-pluralism-in-a-misunderstood-victorian/80D8FF87160258FCE0C48DF424B7D1E8|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|doi=10.1017/S0003055421000411|issn=0003-0554}}</ref> According to Conti, Stephen "articulated robustly both technocratic and pluralistic visions of politics. Perhaps more stridently than any Victorian, he put forward an argument for the necessity and legitimacy of expert rule against claims for popular government. Yet he also insisted on the plurality of perspectives on public affairs and on the ineluctable conflict between them."<ref name=":0" />
His book ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'' was called the "finest exposition of conservative thought in the latter half of the 19th century" by [[Ernest Barker]].<ref>Ernest Barker, ''Political Thought in England: 1848 to 1914'' (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1915), p. 150.</ref> It was listed as one of Ten Conservative Books to read in the chapter of that name in ''The Politics of Prudence'' by [[Russell Kirk]]. According to Princeton University political theorist Greg Conti, Stephen's political thought had liberal characteristics, even though he has frequently been characterized as conservative or religious authoritarian.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Conti|first=Gregory|date=2021|title=How to Read James Fitzjames Stephen: Technocracy and Pluralism in a Misunderstood Victorian|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/how-to-read-james-fitzjames-stephen-technocracy-and-pluralism-in-a-misunderstood-victorian/80D8FF87160258FCE0C48DF424B7D1E8|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|doi=10.1017/S0003055421000411|issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free}}</ref> According to Conti, Stephen "articulated robustly both technocratic and pluralistic visions of politics. Perhaps more stridently than any Victorian, he put forward an argument for the necessity and legitimacy of expert rule against claims for popular government. Yet he also insisted on the plurality of perspectives on public affairs and on the ineluctable conflict between them."<ref name=":0" />


The 1957 [[Wolfenden report]] recommended the decriminalisation of homosexuality and this sparked off the [[H. L. A. Hart|Hart]]-[[Patrick Devlin, Baron Devlin|Devlin]] debate on the relationship between politics and morals. Lord Devlin's 1959 critique of the Wolfenden report (titled 'The Enforcement of Morals') resembled Stephen's arguments, although Devlin had arrived at his opinions independently, having never read ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity''.<ref name="Heydon">John Heydon, 'Reflections on James Fitzjames Stephen', ''University of Queensland Law Journal'', 29, no. 1 (2010), p. 49.</ref> Hart claimed that "though a century divides these two legal writers, the similarity in the general tone and sometimes in the detail of their arguments is very great".<ref name="Heydon"/><ref name="Hart">H. L. A. Hart, ''Law, Liberty and Morality'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 16.</ref> Afterwards, Devlin tried to obtain a copy of ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'' from his local library but could only do so with "great difficulty"; the copy, when it arrived, was "held together with an elastic band".<ref name="Heydon"/><ref>Patrick Devlin, ''The Enforcement of Morals'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. vii.</ref> Hart, an opponent of Stephen's views, regarded ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'' as "sombre and impressive".<ref>Heydon, p. 50.</ref><ref name="Hart"/>
The 1957 [[Wolfenden report]] recommended the decriminalisation of homosexuality and this sparked off the [[H. L. A. Hart|Hart]]-[[Patrick Devlin, Baron Devlin|Devlin]] debate on the relationship between politics and morals. Lord Devlin's 1959 critique of the Wolfenden report (titled 'The Enforcement of Morals') resembled Stephen's arguments, although Devlin had arrived at his opinions independently, having never read ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity''.<ref name="Heydon">John Heydon, 'Reflections on James Fitzjames Stephen', ''University of Queensland Law Journal'', 29, no. 1 (2010), p. 49.</ref> Hart claimed that "though a century divides these two legal writers, the similarity in the general tone and sometimes in the detail of their arguments is very great".<ref name="Heydon"/><ref name="Hart">H. L. A. Hart, ''Law, Liberty and Morality'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 16.</ref> Afterwards, Devlin tried to obtain a copy of ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'' from his local library but could only do so with "great difficulty"; the copy, when it arrived, was "held together with an elastic band".<ref name="Heydon"/><ref>Patrick Devlin, ''The Enforcement of Morals'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. vii.</ref> Hart, an opponent of Stephen's views, regarded ''Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'' as "sombre and impressive".<ref>Heydon, p. 50.</ref><ref name="Hart"/>
An eleven-volume set of his collected writings is currently{{when|date=May 2020}} being prepared for [[Oxford University Press]] by the [[Editorial Institute]] at [[Boston University]].


==Personal life==
==Personal life==
[[File:James Fitzjames Stephen, Kensal Green Cemetery.JPG|thumb|Monument, Kensal Green Cemetery]]
[[File:James Fitzjames Stephen, Kensal Green Cemetery.JPG|thumb|Monument, Kensal Green Cemetery]]
He married Mary Richenda Cunningham, daughter of [[John William Cunningham]],<ref>{{cite DNB|wstitle=Cunningham, John William}}</ref> on 19 September 1855. Their children included:
Stephen married Mary Richenda Cunningham, daughter of [[John William Cunningham]],<ref>{{cite DNB|wstitle=Cunningham, John William}}</ref> on 19 September 1855. They had three sons and at least four daughters surviving to adulthood, but only one grandchild:
* [[Katharine Stephen]] (1856–1924), Principal of [[Newnham College, Cambridge]];
* [[Katharine Stephen]] (1856–1924), librarian and Principal of [[Newnham College, Cambridge]];
* Herbert Stephen (1857–1932), who succeeded him in the baronetcy;
* Sir Herbert Stephen, 2nd Baronet (1857–1932), barrister and [[Clerk of Assize|clerk of assize]], who succeeded him in the baronetcy;
* [[James Kenneth Stephen]] (1859-1892), a promising poet who died before his father;  
* [[James Kenneth Stephen]] (1859-1892), poet and tutor to [[Prince Albert Victor]], who predeceased his father;  
* [[Harry Lushington Stephen]] (1860–1945), appointed to the [[High Court of Calcutta]] in 1901,<ref name="ODNB"/> and became the 3rd baronet on the death of his eldest brother;
* [[Harry Lushington Stephen|Sir Harry Lushington Stephen, 3rd Baronet]] (1860–1945), Judge of the [[High Court of Calcutta]], 1901–1914,<ref name="ODNB"/> who succeeded his eldest brother as the 3rd baronet;
* [[Helen Stephen]] (1862–1908);
* [[Helen Stephen]] (1862–1908);
* [[Rosamond Stephen]] (1868–1951);
* [[Rosamond Stephen|Rosamond Emily Stephen]] (1868–1951), lay missionary in the [[Church of Ireland]] in Belfast and advocate of ecumenism;
* [[Dorothea Stephen]] (1871–1965).
* [[Dorothea Stephen|Dorothea Jane Stephen]] (1871–1965), teacher of religion in India.
 
==Death==
Stephen's final years were undermined first by physical and then steady mental decline. Despite accusations of unfairness and bias regarding the murder trials of [[Israel Lipski]] in 1887 and [[Florence Maybrick]] in 1889, Stephen continued performing his judicial duties. However, by early 1891 his declining capacity to exercise judicial functions had become a matter of public discussion and press comment, and following medical advice Stephen resigned in April of that year.<ref name="ODNB">{{ODNBweb|id=26375|first=K. J. M.|last=Smith|title=Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames, first baronet (1829–1894)}}</ref> Even during his final days on the bench, Stephen is reported to have been 'brief, terse and to the point, and as lucid as in the old days'. Having lost his intellectual power, however, 'as the hours wore on his voice dropped almost to a whisper'.<ref>''Law Times'' (21 March 1891), p. 370.</ref>
 
Stephen died of chronic renal failure on 11 March 1894 at Red House Park, a nursing home near [[Ipswich]], and was buried at [[Kensal Green Cemetery]], London.<ref name=Paths>{{cite book|title=Paths of Glory|date=1997|publisher=Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery|page=94}}</ref> His wife survived him.


==Quotations==
==Quotations==
Line 151: Line 165:
* Colaiaco, James A. (1983). ''James Fitzjames Stephen and the Crisis of Victorian Thought.'' London: Macmillan.
* Colaiaco, James A. (1983). ''James Fitzjames Stephen and the Crisis of Victorian Thought.'' London: Macmillan.
* DeGirolami, Marc O. (2012). [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1875970 "Against Theories of Punishment: The Thought of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen,"] ''Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law,'' Vol. 9, pp.&nbsp;1–57.
* DeGirolami, Marc O. (2012). [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1875970 "Against Theories of Punishment: The Thought of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen,"] ''Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law,'' Vol. 9, pp.&nbsp;1–57.
* [[Russell Kirk|Kirk, Russell]] (1952). "The Foreboding Conservatism of Stephen," ''Western Political Quarterly,'' Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.&nbsp;563–577.
* [[Russell Kirk|Kirk, Russell]] (1952). "The Foreboding Conservatism of Stephen," ''Western Political Quarterly,'' Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.&nbsp;563–577.
* Lipincott, Benjamin (1931). "James Fitzjames Stephen: Critic of Democracy," ''Economica,'' No. 33, pp.&nbsp;296–307.
* Lipincott, Benjamin (1931). "James Fitzjames Stephen: Critic of Democracy," ''Economica,'' No. 33, pp.&nbsp;296–307.
* Livingston, James C. (1974). "The Religious Creed and Criticism of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen," ''Victorian Studies,'' Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.&nbsp;279–300.
* Livingston, James C. (1974). "The Religious Creed and Criticism of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen," ''Victorian Studies,'' Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.&nbsp;279–300.
Line 185: Line 199:
[[Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Burials at Kensal Green Cemetery]]
[[Category:Burials at Kensal Green Cemetery]]
[[Category:British India judges]]
[[Category:Administrators in British India]]
[[Category:People educated at Eton College]]
[[Category:People educated at Eton College]]
[[Category:Stephen-Bell family]]
[[Category:Stephen-Bell family]]
[[Category:English legal writers]]
[[Category:English legal writers]]
[[Category:English male non-fiction writers]]
[[Category:English male non-fiction writers]]
[[Category:Judges of the Calcutta High Court]]
[[Category:English Queen's Counsel]]
[[Category:English Queen's Counsel]]
[[Category:Members of the Middle Temple]]
[[Category:Members of the Inner Temple]]
[[Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the Star of India]]
[[Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the Star of India]]
[[Category:Queen's Bench Division judges]]
[[Category:Queen's Bench Division judges]]
[[Category:Exchequer Division judges]]
[[Category:Exchequer Division judges]]
[[Category:19th-century English lawyers]]
[[Category:19th-century English lawyers]]
[[Category:Queen's Counsel 1801–1900]]
[[Category:English political philosophers]]
[[Category:Utilitarians]]
[[Category:Liberal Party (UK) parliamentary candidates]]

Latest revision as of 04:42, 3 August 2021

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen
James Fitzjames Stephen.jpg
James Fitzjames Stephen, by Bassano, 1886.
Judge of the High Court
In office
1879–1891
Personal details
Born(1829-03-03)3 March 1829
Kensington, London, England
Died11 March 1894(1894-03-11) (aged 65)
Red House Park Nursing Home, Ipswich, Suffolk, England
Political partyLiberal
Spouse(s)Mary Richenda Cunningham
Children7, including Katharine Stephen
Parent(s)
Alma materKing's College, London
Trinity College, Cambridge
University of London
OccupationQueen's Counsel, Legal member of the Council of India, judge

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, 1st Baronet, KCSI (3 March 1829 – 11 March 1894) was an English lawyer, judge, writer, and philosopher. One of the most famous critics of John Stuart Mill, Stephen achieved prominence as a philosopher, law reformer, and writer.

Early life and education, 1829–1854[edit]

James Fitzjames Stephen was born on 3 March 1829 at Kensington Gore, London, the third child and second son of Sir James Stephen and Jane Catherine Venn. Stephen came from a distinguished family. His father, the drafter of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, was Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. His grand-father James Stephen and uncle George Stephen were both leading anti-slavery campaigners. His younger brother was the author and critic Sir Leslie Stephen, whilst his younger sister Caroline Stephen was a philanthropist and a writer on Quakerism. Through his brother Leslie Stephen, he was the uncle of Virginia Woolf, He was also a cousin of the jurist A.V. Dicey.

Stephen was first educated at the Reverend Benjamin Guest's school in Brighton from the age of seven, before spending three years at Eton College from 1842. Strongly disliking Eton, Stephen completed his pre-university education by attending King's College, London for two years.

In October 1847 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge.[1] Although an outstanding intellect, he took an undistinguished BA in Classics in 1851, being, in his own words, one of the "most unteachable of human beings". He was, however, well-known as a strong debater at the Cambridge Union. He was also elected to the exclusive Cambridge Apostles, his proposer being Henry Maine, the newly-appointed Regius Professor of Civil Law, who became a lifelong friend despite their differing temperaments. At Apostles meetings, he frequently sparred with William Harcourt, later leader of the Liberal Party, in debates described by contemporaries as "veritable battles of the gods". Another Apostles contemporary was the physicist James Clerk Maxwell.

Being conscious of the slightness of his legal education, he then read for an LL.B. from the University of London.[2] This was an unusual step for its day, and it was there that he first seriously engaged with the works of Jeremy Bentham.

Early career, 1854–1869[edit]

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, by George Frederic Watts, 1886.

After leaving Cambridge, Stephen chose to enter a legal career, though his father had hoped for a clerical career. He was called to the bar in January 1854 by the Inner Temple, and joined the Midland Circuit.[3] His own estimation of his professional success—written in later years—was that in spite of such training rather than because of it, he became a moderately successful advocate and a rather distinguished judge.

In his earlier years at the bar he supplemented his income from a successful but modest practice with journalism. He contributed to the Saturday Review from the time it was founded in 1855. He was in company with Maine, Harcourt, G.S. Venables, Charles Bowen, E.A. Freeman, Goldwin Smith and others. Both the first and the last books published by Stephen were selections from his papers in the Saturday Review (Essays by a Barrister, 1862, anonymous; Horae sabbaticae, 1892). These volumes embodied the results of his studies of publicists and theologians, chiefly English, from the 17th century onwards. He never professed his essays to be more than the occasional products of an amateur's leisure, but they were well received.

From 1858 to 1861, Stephen served as secretary to a Royal Commission on popular education, whose conclusions were promptly put into effect. In 1859 he was appointed Recorder of Newark. In 1863 he published his General View of the Criminal Law of England,[4] the first attempt made since William Blackstone to explain the principles of English law and justice in a literary form, and it enjoyed considerable success. The foundation of the Pall Mall Gazette in 1865 gave Stephen a new literary avenue. He continued to contribute until he became a judge.

Stephen's practice at the Bar was an uneven one, though he appeared in two notable cases. In 1861–62, he unsuccessfully defended the Reverend Rowland Williams in the Court of Arches against charges of heresy, though he was ultimately acquitted in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In 1865–66, Stephen was retained (along with Edward James QC) by the Jamaica Committee, which sought to prosecute Edward Eyre, Governor of Jamaica, for his excesses in suppressing the Morant Bay rebellion of 1865. They produced a legal opinion, which charged Eyre and his officers with serious breaches of English criminal law, some of them capital.

In early 1867, Stephen was retained by the Jamaica Committee to prosecute Alexander Abercromby Nelson and Herbert Brand, two military officers who had sat on the court martial which sentenced George William Gordon to death; but the grand jury declined to return a true bill. He was then retained to prosecute Eyre: when he began his case, Stephen surprised observers by praising Eyre as a courageous man who had acted honourably in an emergency. Eyre was discharged and Stephen fell out with the Jamaica Committee. His friendship with John Stuart Mill, who was a leading member of the Committee, was permanently damaged.

Meanwhile, Stephen's legal career proceeded apace, and in 1868, he became a Queen's Counsel, one of fifteen that year. However, he suffered a setback in January 1869, when he was passed over for the Whewell Professorship of International Law in favour of his old rival William Harcourt.

Stephen in India, 1869–1872[edit]

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, ca. 1870s.

The decisive point of Stephen's career was in the summer of 1869, when he accepted the post of legal member of the Viceroy's Executive Council in India. His appointment was at the recommendation of his friend Henry Maine, who was his immediate predecessor. He arrived in India in December 1869. During his time in India, Stephen would draft twelve acts and eight other enactments, most of which are still in force.

Guided by Maine's comprehensive talents, the government of India had entered a period of systematic legislation which was to last about twenty years. Stephen had the task of continuing this work by conducting the Bills through the Legislative Council. The Native Marriages Act of 1872 was the result of deep consideration on both Maine's and Stephen's part. The Indian Contract Act had been framed in England by a learned commission, and the draft was materially altered in Stephen's hands before, also in 1872, it became law.

Indian Evidence Act[edit]

The Indian Evidence Act of the same year, entirely Stephen's own work, made the rules of evidence uniform for all residents of India, regardless of caste, social position, or religion. Besides drafting legislation, at this time Stephen had to attend to the current administrative business of his department, and he took a full share in the general deliberations of the viceroy's council. His last official act in India was the publication of a minute on the administration of justice which pointed the way to reforms not yet fully realized, and is still a valuable tool for anyone wishing to understand the judicial system of British India.

Return to England, 1872–1879[edit]

Stephen, mainly for family reasons, returned to England in the spring of 1872. During the voyage he wrote a series of articles which resulted in his book Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (1873–1874)--a protest against John Stuart Mill's neo-utilitarianism. Most famously he attacked the thesis of John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty and argued for legal compulsion, coercion and restraint in the interests of morality and religion.[5][6]

Fitzjames Stephen stood in an 1873 by-election as a Liberal for Dundee, but came in last place. The same year, he was elected to the Metaphysical Society; he gave seven papers to the Society, making him one of its most active members. In 1875, he was appointed Professor of Common Law at the Inns of Court. He also sat on government commissions on fugitive slaves (1876), extradition (1878), and copyright (1878). He also appeared irregularly as counsel in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Experience in India gave Stephen opportunity for his next activity. The government of India had been driven by the conditions of the Indian judicial system to recast a considerable part of the English law which had been informally imported. Criminal law procedure, and a good deal of commercial law, had been or were being put into easily understood language, intelligible to civilian magistrates. The rational substance of the law was preserved, while disorder and excessive technicalities were removed. Using Jeremy Bentham's ideal of codification, he attempted to get the same principles put into practice in the United Kingdom. As a preparatory step, Stephen also privately published digests in code form of the law of evidence (1876) and criminal law (1877).

In August 1877, Stephen's proposals were taken up by the government and he was asked to draft a criminal code for England. He completed his draft in early 1878 and it was debated in Parliament, after which it was referred to a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Blackburn, with Stephen as a member. In 1879, the Commission produced a draft bill, which received opposition from many quarters. It did, however, serve as the basis of the criminal codes of many parts of the British Empire, including those of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Judicial career and final years, 1879–1894[edit]

Judges, No. 14, Vanity Fair, 7 March 1885.

After his return from India, Stephen had sought a judgeship for both professional and financial reasons. In 1873, 1877, and 1878, he went on circuit as a commissioner of assize. In 1878, he was considered, but not selected as Recorder of London in succession to Russell Gurney. In 1873, he had also been proposed as Solicitor-General by Sir John Coleridge, the Attorney-General, though Sir Henry James was chosen instead.

When Stephen was charged with the preparation of the English criminal code, he was virtually promised a judgeship, though no explicit promise could be made. Finally, in January 1879, Stephen was appointed a Justice of the High Court, in succession to Sir Anthony Cleasby. He was initially assigned to the Exchequer Division. When that division was merged into the Queen's Bench Division in 1881, Stephen was transferred to the latter, where he remained until his retirement. Occupied with the preparation of the criminal code, he only made his first appearance as a judge in April 1879 at the Old Bailey, when he passed a death sentence against a matricide.

Distracted by his literary and intellectual pursuits, his time as a judge was unimpressive relative to the rest of his career, though his judgments were of a high quality. He had transient hopes of an Evidence Act being brought before Parliament, and in 1878 the Digest of Criminal Law became a Ministerial Bill with the cooperation of Sir John Holker, who was Attorney-General in the second government of Benjamin Disraeli. The Bill was referred to a judicial commission, which included Stephen, but ultimately failed, and was revised and reintroduced in 1879 and again in 1880. It dealt with procedure as well as substantive law, and provided for a court of criminal appeal, though after several years of judicial experience Stephen changed his mind as to the wisdom of this course.[citation needed] However, no substantial progress was made during any sessions of Parliament. In 1883 the part relating to procedure was brought in separately by Gladstone's law officer Sir Henry James, and went to the grand committee on law, which found that there was insufficient time to deal with it satisfactorily in the course of the session.

Stephen's final years were undermined first by physical and then steady mental decline. In 1885, he had his first stroke. Despite accusations of unfairness and bias regarding the murder trials of Israel Lipski in 1887 and Florence Maybrick in 1889, Stephen continued performing his judicial duties. However, by early 1891 his declining capacity to exercise judicial functions had become a matter of public discussion and press comment, and following medical advice Stephen resigned in April of that year, whereupon he was made a baronet.[3] Even during his final days on the bench, Stephen is reported to have been 'brief, terse and to the point, and as lucid as in the old days'. Having lost his intellectual power, however, 'as the hours wore on his voice dropped almost to a whisper'.[7]

Stephen died of chronic renal failure on 11 March 1894 at Red House Park, a nursing home near Ipswich, and was buried at Kensal Green Cemetery, London.[8] His wife survived him.

Honours[edit]

Stephen was knighted as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India (KCSI) in January 1877. He was created a Baronet, of De Vere Gardens in the parish of Saint Mary Abbott, Kensington, in the County of London, on 29 June 1891, shortly after his resignation from the bench. He was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding member of the Institut de France (1888). He received honorary doctorates from the University of Oxford (1878) and the University of Edinburgh University (1884), and was elected an honorary fellowship of Trinity College, Cambridge (1885).

Legacy[edit]

Criminal appeal was discussed and an Act passed in 1907; otherwise nothing has been done in the UK with either part of the draft code since. The historical materials which Stephen had long been collecting took permanent shape in 1883 as his History of the Criminal Law of England. He lacked time for a planned Digest of the Law of Contract (which would have been much fuller than the Indian Code). Thus none of Stephen's own plans of English codification took effect. The Parliament of Canada used a version of Stephen's Draft Bill revised and augmented by George Burbidge, at the time Judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, to codify its criminal law in 1892 as the Criminal Code, 1892. New Zealand followed with the New Zealand Criminal Code Act 1893 and a number of Australian colonies adopted their own versions as Criminal Codes in following years

His book Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was called the "finest exposition of conservative thought in the latter half of the 19th century" by Ernest Barker.[9] It was listed as one of Ten Conservative Books to read in the chapter of that name in The Politics of Prudence by Russell Kirk. According to Princeton University political theorist Greg Conti, Stephen's political thought had liberal characteristics, even though he has frequently been characterized as conservative or religious authoritarian.[10] According to Conti, Stephen "articulated robustly both technocratic and pluralistic visions of politics. Perhaps more stridently than any Victorian, he put forward an argument for the necessity and legitimacy of expert rule against claims for popular government. Yet he also insisted on the plurality of perspectives on public affairs and on the ineluctable conflict between them."[10]

The 1957 Wolfenden report recommended the decriminalisation of homosexuality and this sparked off the Hart-Devlin debate on the relationship between politics and morals. Lord Devlin's 1959 critique of the Wolfenden report (titled 'The Enforcement of Morals') resembled Stephen's arguments, although Devlin had arrived at his opinions independently, having never read Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.[11] Hart claimed that "though a century divides these two legal writers, the similarity in the general tone and sometimes in the detail of their arguments is very great".[11][12] Afterwards, Devlin tried to obtain a copy of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity from his local library but could only do so with "great difficulty"; the copy, when it arrived, was "held together with an elastic band".[11][13] Hart, an opponent of Stephen's views, regarded Liberty, Equality, Fraternity as "sombre and impressive".[14][12]

An eleven-volume set of his collected writings is currently[when?] being prepared for Oxford University Press by the Editorial Institute at Boston University.

Personal life[edit]

Monument, Kensal Green Cemetery

Stephen married Mary Richenda Cunningham, daughter of John William Cunningham,[15] on 19 September 1855. They had three sons and at least four daughters surviving to adulthood, but only one grandchild:

Quotations[edit]

On capital punishment:

"Some men, probably, abstain from murder because they fear that, if they committed murder, they would be hung. Hundreds of thousands abstain from it because they regard it with horror. One great reason why they regard it with horror is, that murderers are hung with the hearty approbation of all reasonable men".[16]

On evidence obtained by duress or torture:

"It is far pleasanter to sit comfortably in the shade rubbing red pepper in some poor devil's eyes, than to go about in the sun hunting up evidence."

Source: The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 3–22 40 1 J.F. STEPHEN, A HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND 442 n.1 (1883). Stephen's forceful quotation has been cited for this point elsewhere; McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 344 n.8 (1943); J. LANGBEIN, supra note 1, at 147 n.14; Alschuler, supra note 11, at 1103 n.137.

Arms[edit]

Template:Infobox COA wide

Works[edit]

Selected articles[edit]

Miscellany[edit]

References[edit]

  1. "Stephen, James Fitzjames (STFN846JF)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
  2. Heydon, John (2010). "Reflections on James Fitzjames Stephen" (PDF). University of Queensland Law Journal: 24 – via Austlii.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Template:ODNBweb
  4. The second edition of 1890 was practically a new book.
  5. Stephen, James Fitzjames (1873). Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. New York: Holt & Williams. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
  6. Kimball, Roger (2005). "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," Arma Virumque, The New Criterion.
  7. Law Times (21 March 1891), p. 370.
  8. Paths of Glory. Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery. 1997. p. 94.
  9. Ernest Barker, Political Thought in England: 1848 to 1914 (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1915), p. 150.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Conti, Gregory (2021). "How to Read James Fitzjames Stephen: Technocracy and Pluralism in a Misunderstood Victorian". American Political Science Review. doi:10.1017/S0003055421000411. ISSN 0003-0554.
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 John Heydon, 'Reflections on James Fitzjames Stephen', University of Queensland Law Journal, 29, no. 1 (2010), p. 49.
  12. 12.0 12.1 H. L. A. Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 16.
  13. Patrick Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. vii.
  14. Heydon, p. 50.
  15. "Cunningham, John William" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
  16. Stephen, James Fitzjames (1863). "The Classification and Definition of Particular Crimes." In: A General View of the Criminal Law of England. London and Cambridge: Macmillan & Co., p. 99.
  17. Cardinal Manning. "Ultramontanism and Christianity," The Contemporary Review, Vol. XXIII, December 1873/May 1874.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Baronetage of the United Kingdom
New creation Baronet
(of De Vere Gardens)
1891–1894
Succeeded by
Herbert Stephen