The alleged reason, therefore, given by Mr. Bickersteth, was a mere pretext or, perhaps, an excuse to his own mind for not taking this office. The real reason was obviously an unwillingness to incur serious responsibility, even for the purpose of promoting his darling projects.

On this occasion Lord Campbell, then Attorney-General, wrote Mr. B. a letter, warmly urging him to accept the office of Solicitor-General:

"I cannot help expressing my anxious hope that the office may be accepted. It would be most delightful to me to have such a colleague, and I confess I am not aware of any good reason why your country should now be deprived of your service."

In reply, Mr. Bickersteth said:

"It would have been a great satisfaction to me to assist you in promoting legal and political reform, and I should not have feared any want of cordial and confidential co-operation."

Mr. Hardy adds the following:

"Mr. Bickersteth received many other letters from his friends and well-wishers urging him to take the office which had been offered him; but he persisted in his refusal as he felt that he differed essentially in his notion both of political, and legal reform from the principal Judge in the realm, and with whom he would constantly be brought in close and confidential connexion." (Vol. i. p. 404.)

In what way he differed Mr. Hardy does not attempt to explain, nor can we imagine; and this assertion is directly contradicted by his own letter to the Attorney-General. But thus it was that Mr. Bickersteth reconciled it to himself to decline the opportunity of serving the cause which he most loved. This, we submit, was a grave fault in his character, and we proceed to a still less doubtful passage in his life, showing this infirmity of mind in a still more remarkable point of view.

In December, 1834, Mr. Bickersteth was invited to become a member for the borough of Marylebone, but he declined this honour as he had previously declined a similar offer when he was a younger man. He says that reasons which he does

not state induce him to decline it. What those reasons were we cannot divine, but his refusal of this seat, which would have given him the effectual means of advancing his views as to Law Reform, and in a manner totally independent of any minister or any government, we must consider as showing still more clearly the great defect in his character. We may dwell on it a little.

In 1819 he was offered a seat through the Hon. Douglas Kinnaird, and to be brought in without expense; but to the great surprise of his friends he declined. In his Diary he thus explains his refusal:

"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 in 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.” (Vol. i. p. 333.)

Mr. Bickersteth had been then about eight years at the Bar, and was a rising barrister; but although a bold man might then have accepted this offer so made, yet, on the whole, we approve of his conduct on this occasion, and admit the validity of his excuse. In 1834 he had no such good reason. He was a prosperous and successful advocate, he had no family, he had a sufficient station and fortune, a few months afterwards, to ally himself to a lady of rank and title; all his friends urged him to consent, friends whom he listened to when they advised his acceptance of a peerage; his success in his election was certain; but he still persisted in his refusal.

"Messrs. Grote, Warburton, Sutton Sharpe, and Joseph Parkes called on Mr. Bickersteth to urge him to consent to be put in nomination for the borough of Marylebone, and it was not without some trouble that he got them to accept a refusal." (Vol. i. p. 406.)

He not only refused, but he lectured the worthy electors on their idea of taking pledges from candidates. This was

his peculiar forte, and what he most liked, to shrink from responsibility, and to lecture others on their duty. He saw himself that this was egotistical, and merely sent the letter to Mr. Hovenden, who acted for the electors.

"On the 24th," he says, "I met Hovenden in Court, and as he expressed a desire to see what I had written about pledges, I afterwards sent him my letter, with a request that he would return it, which he accordingly did." (Vol. i. p. 412.)

But these were not the only occasions on which Mr. B. shrank from what we cannot but think his duty in Parliament. It appears that he was also proposed to stand for Finsbury, when he said he would "as soon go on a scaffold as to the hustings in a populous district, and endure its coarseness." (Vol. ii. p. 102.) But what, perhaps, is the crowning defalcation in this particular is his refusal to stand for Westminster, in a former year when his success was certain, and when all his friends urged him to stand. This refusal Mr. Hardy has discreetly omitted, or perhaps has not inquired into the circumstances connected with it. If he wishes to learn them we can refer him to the survivor of those whom he mentions as Lord Langdale's intimate friends and advisers.

In the new Parliament, in which Mr. Bickersteth might have taken so useful a part, Sir Robert Peel's Government was defeated on the motion relating to the Irish Church, and on the 24th of April, 1835, "the veteran and talented Lord Lyndhurst," to use Mr. Hardy's expression, resigned the Great Seal, and Sir C. Pepys, Sir L. Shadwell, and Sir J. B. Bosanquet were appointed Lords Commissioners.

We now come to a portion of Mr. Hardy's work which we cannot understand.

Alluding to the formation of Lord Melbourne's Cabinet in 1835, and the non-appointment of a Lord Chancellor in that Cabinet, Mr. Hardy says:

"The noble Lord who had been appointed to that office by Earl Grey could not be reinstated. The feeling of his former colleagues towards him made it impossible to consult with him in the Cabinet." (P. 413.)

But in the very next page the putting the Great Seal in Commission is said to have " excited the surprise and indignation of the Profession and the Public." (P. 414.) And then, p. 415., Mr. Hardy observes, "The whole affair seemed inconceivable, unless it was done for the object of keeping the place open for Lord Brougham, in the hope that the letter which he was known to have written to the King would, in time, have the desired effect of removing His Majesty's personal objection."

The whole affair, as Mr. Hardy states, is, indeed, “inconceivable;" for, first we have colleagues who cannot consult with their former Chancellor, and yet so construct their Cabinet as to contrive his return, which construction they hope will have the "desired effect."

Mr. Hardy had better have let such matters alone, or have given some useful information. As it is, he makes statements which the next page contradicts, and sometimes the very same page, as at p. 415., where he says the King had

66

a personal objection" to Lord Brougham; and in a note states a current report that Lord Melbourne, having sounded the King "as to the policy of delivering the seals to Lord Brougham," expecting that His Majesty would at once interpose his veto, and thus take upon himself the responsibility of having refused, the King replied, "My Lord, it is for you, the head of the Government, to name whom you please, and submit your choice to me, for my confirmation."

Now, on these statements, we protest that we cannot understand what it is Mr. Hardy wishes us to believe. Whether Lord Brougham's colleagues refused to consult with him in the Cabinet, or whether they desired his return and constructed the Government with that view.

Whether the King had a personal objection to his late Chancellor, or whether he wished him to resume the Great Seal.

All these statements cannot be correct, yet Mr. Hardy makes them all in the space of three pages, leaving us only certain of this, that his assertions on such matters are entirely unworthy of regard.

But in this unhappy page 415. there is yet another asser

tion, which Mr. Hardy also contrives to contradict in the same

"It was known to many persons," he says, "that Lord Melbourne had said, on going out of office in November, 1834, that if he should ever return to power again he should certainly make Mr. Bickersteth Lord Chancellor; and when he did come into office he wished to nominate him to the post, but there was a difficulty in passing over the Master of the Rolls and the AttorneyGeneral, and that was the reason why the Seals remained so long in commission."

Now, if Lord Melbourne had made any such declaration or had any such wish, why did he not offer Mr. Bickersteth the Great Seal at this period? The reasons given are vain. He was reforming his Cabinet. The Master of the Rolls could have no such claim on a new government nor even the Attorney-General of a former government. If Lord Melbourne had any such idea we should have had a proposition from that very direct and straightforward statesman to Mr. Bickersteth, but as it is, we must pronounce this declaration of his Lordship, "known to many persons," as a mere idle piece of gossip resting on no foundation better than Mr. Hardy's

statement.

The putting the Great Seal in Commission was doubtless open to great objection, and on the 25th of December, 1835, Lord Melbourne made a communication to Mr. Bickersteth, not offering him the Great Seal, as Mr. Hardy again states, p. 445., that "he greatly desired, as I have already stated," but of the following nature

"The Cabinet have decided upon taking His Majesty's pleasure upon the appointment of a Lord Chancellor, and having found upon communication with the Master of the Rolls that he is deeply impressed with the conviction that the time is come when it is absolutely necessary to consider both the equity and the appellate jurisdiction, with a view to their speedy and effectual amendment; and that he is prepared to grapple with the difficulties of the question, I have offered to submit his name to His Majesty for the custody of the Great Seal. I have not yet received his final answer, but I entertain very little doubt that it will be in the affirmative; and in that case I should be very desirous of naming you to His Majesty for his successor at the Rolls."