Populism is one of those words that means different things to different people, and on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Such differences may lead to transatlantic misunderstandings that may, as I hope to demonstrate, have calamitous consequences.
Another such source of misunderstanding is the notion of freedom, as in “Is it a free country?” This was the title of one of the Uncommon Cases of A. P. Herbert, the distinguished writer and undistinguished barrister (he wrote more than fifty books but never actually practiced law).
Populism means different things to different people.
The fictional Lord Chief Justice, Lord Light, considers the appeal of the veteran litigant Albert Haddock against his conviction for jumping off Hammersmith Bridge during a Thames regatta, for which he was fined two pounds. “The appellant himself said that he did what he did (to use his own curious phrase) ‘for fun.’ ” After considering in turn the six offenses with which Haddock was charged, and his answers to them, the Lord Chief Justice concludes his judgment as follows:
But in addition to these particular answers, all of which in my judgement have substance, the appellant made the general answer that this was a free country and a man can do what he likes if he does nobody any harm. And with that observation the appellant’s case takes on at once an entirely new aspect. If I may use an expression which I have used many times before in this Court,
