THE RIGHT HON. HENRY LORD LANGDALE, MASTER OF THE ROLLS, ETC.*

WITH A PORTRAIT.

THE cause of law reform at present is in the ascendant; and a aefender of the old usages of Westminster Hall would now be looked upon with as much surprise and dislike, as fell to the share of Jeremy Bentham, when he first came forward to denounce the venerable mass of mouldy judicial abuses. But in these palmy times of common law and equity commissions, of law-amendment societies, and local courts, though the great conflict of Reason against Authority is no longer to be fought, we ought to look back with interest and gratitude on the career of those, who first had the courage to begin the battle, and who persevered in it for years, in spite of the heavy personal sacrifices which it brought on them, and although their cause was long uncheered by popular favour, and indeed was often the subject of popular ridicule. We believe that Lord Brougham is right in calling Jeremy Bentham the father of law reform;† but we are also certain that this patriarch Jeremy, would have effected little towards improving our jurisprudence, if he had not been seconded by a race of disciples as sincere and enthusi astic as himself, but who were gifted also with the common sense, in which he was so eminently deficient; and who did not disdain to express Bentham's doctrines in intelligible English, instead of the original Benthamee dialect, "that harsh style," as Lord Brougham justly terms it, which the old philosopher of Queen Square generally adopted, "full of involved periods and new-made words, which, how accurately soever it conveyed his ideas, was almost as hard to learn as a foreign language." High among the band of efficient law reformers we ought to honour Henry Bickersteth, who became Baron Langdale of Langdale in the county of Westmoreland, Master of the Rolls, a Privy Councillor, and keeper-general of the public records; one of the few reformers, who when advanced to rank and power have been as honest and industrious in the good cause, as they were before their promotion; a statesman who truly held the maxim which his favourite author, Lord Bacon, professed, that power and rank are nothing in themselves, and that they are only to be prized as the means of doing good. "Power to do good

is the true and lawful end of aspiring; for good thoughts, though God accept them, yet towards men are little better than good dreams, except they be put in act, and that cannot be without power and place as the vantage and commanding ground.” ‡

Lord Langdale's labours in the advancement of law reform were far less showy than those of many, who, in reality, cared less and did less than he, for the cause, in which they sought distinction. Lord Langdale was no notoriety-hunter; though he never shrank from publicity when the avowal of his opinions seemed likely to aid the progress of Memoirs of the Right Honourable Henry Lord Langdale. By Thomas Duffus Hardy.

+ Lord Brougham's Speech, vol. ii. p. 287.

Lord Bacon, as quoted by Lord Langdale in one of his early letters to his

brother, vol. i. p. 138.

VOL. XXXII.

S

those principles which he believed to be true: and he never disguised his character of a thorough-going law reformer, even at the time when that character was exceedingly unpopular, especially in his profession, and much impeded the increase of his practice at the bar. While he was Mr. Bickersteth, he did not write pamphlets; he did not harangue public meetings; nor did he seek in the House of Commons a theatre of display. This was not for want of opportunity. In 1818, when his professional success was still uncertain, he was offered, through the Hon. Douglas Kinnaird, a seat in Parliament. But though he was to be returned free of all expense, he declined the proffered distinction, to the great surprise of the friends, whose admiration of his abilities had induced them to place within his reach this great prize of most ambitious spirits. There is an entry on the subject in his private diary, which is cited by his present biographer; and which, as Mr. Hardy truly observes, shows forcibly the high principle by which he was ever actuated. He thus writes of the seat in Parliament, which English lawyers generally struggle for so eagerly; and which, when secured, they generally treat as the mere means of obtaining professional promotion.

"If I were rich I should be glad to accept it, and, being somewhat of an enthusiast, though far less vehement than in former times, it is probable, that, being once engaged in politics, I should be earnest in the pursuit; but my poverty will not permit me to devote my whole time to politics, and I cannot consent to be a mere political adventurer, or to form a plan of making my parliamentary duties a secondary consideration, or subservient to my profession. I am, therefore, determined to remain as I am."

Afterwards, in 1834, when his position as a leading counsel in the courts of equity was secure, Mr. Bickersteth was again offered a seat in the House of Commons. The offer this time embraced much more. He was now requested by the Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham) and the other leading members of the Cabinet to become their SolicitorGeneral, with the intimation that a seat in Parliament would be provided for him. But he declined the senatorial station and the professional dignity, which were thus simultaneously set before him, on the conscientious ground that he differed essentially in his opinions both of political and legal reform from Lord Brougham, with whom, as Lord Chancellor, he, as Solicitor-General, would constantly be brought in close and confidential connexion.

But though he was thus honourably self-denied the power of advocating the principle of law reform as a member of the House of Commons, he did more than most men living to aid it by the evidence which he gave before the commission which was appointed to inquire into the state of the courts of equity in 1824. It was much desired that some of the chief practitioners before those tribunals should give evidence as to their actual working; but, though the abuses of Chancery were notorious, there was a difficulty in getting Chancery barristers to come forward. Men thought that they would injure their own prospects by doing so; they had a dread of making themselves unpopular with the Judges before whom they had to argue, and a still stronger dread of offending the solicitors who brought them briefs. Bickersteth acted differently.

"In August 1824, Mr. Merivale, one of the Commissioners, proposed to examine Mr. Bickersteth, and asked him if he had any objection. On this occasion Mr. Bickersteth, writes:- I might have avoided the examination, as I should have been very glad to do; but on consideration it did not seem that I could pro

perly refuse. I had attended to the subject-I was asked to give any information I possessed, and to withhold it, would not only have been inconsistent with my own notions of right, but would, as I thought, have been without excuse, if I should afterwards disapprove of the report, and think fit to criticise it. How could I take upon myself to blame an error if I had previously "refused” or “declined" to point it out? I therefore consented to be examined, and was accordingly summoned. The examination took place on the 6th, 11th, 13th, and 16th of August, 1824. It stopped short, as I thought, very abruptly. I had a good deal to say on the Masters and their duties; and some of the evidence that I gave was imperfect, or only intelligible with reference to things intended to be said afterwards about the Masters, but which were not said, because there was no inquiry on the subject.

"My evidence was given under the full persuasion that it would be offensive to the judges and to the attorneys, and to me in every way prejudicial. I certainly exaggerated nothing, but at the first I heard of nothing but my wild and visionary schemes.

"After a lapse of some time the case was very different. There were persons who thought that the evidence displayed an extensive and familiar knowledge of the subject of inquiry, and of the practice of the Court. After its publication I received many marks of attention and respect from strangers who had read it; and when reforms of the Court of Chancery were talked of, I found that I had become a sort of authority, and inquiries what I thought on the subject became very frequent.'

This was a public service done publicly; but it is impossible to overestimate the amount of exertion privately bestowed by Mr. Bickersteth in the same cause. His influence over Burdett, Kinnaird, and other members of the House of Commons with whom he was on terms of friendship, was steadily exercised for that purpose. He acquired also, notwithstanding the difference in their politics, the marked esteem of Sir John Copley, who when Attorney-General, and afterwards when Baron Lyndhurst and Lord Chancellor, repeatedly consulted Mr. Bickersteth with respect to reforms of the Court of Chancery.

Lord Melbourne was brought into personal intercourse with Mr. Bickersteth in 1834, on the occasion of the offer of the Solicitorgeneralship, which has already been mentioned. Few men were better judges of character than was Lord Melbourne; and he saw and fully appreciated the worth of the independent barrister. When Lord Melbourne reconstructed the Whig Government, in 1835, he had repeated interviews with Mr. Bickersteth on the subject of Chancery reform, and requested him to draw up a statement of the evils attendant on the constitution of the Court of Chancery, and the best remedies to be adopted for their cure. That document is printed in Mr. Hardy's first volume, and it fully justifies Lord Melbourne's choice of an adviser. The Premier was anxious to make Mr. Bickersteth Lord Chancellor, but was unable to pass over the claims which his then Master of the Rolls (the late Lord Cottenham) was supposed to have to that high office. On Pepys being made Chancellor, Lord Melbourne at once offered the mastership of the Rolls, with a Peerage, to Mr. Bickersteth. A correspondence then ensued, in the highest degree honourable to both parties, Mr. Bickersteth firmly refusing the proffered honour, except on the distinct understanding that he was to be politically independent, and to give no further support to the Ministry in the House of Lords than his own conscientious opinions enjoined. When the difficulties of Lord Melbourne's position as a party-chief at that period are remembered, and especially the need he had of support in the House of Lords, his frank and manly acquiescence in Mr. Bickersteth's stipulations must be regarded as a rare instance of political generosity and probity. It