This then was Lord Melbourne's wish, and we must say, that if he had any other idea, as he had in the previous May and June been in communication with Mr. Bickersteth, with respect to his views as to the Court of Chancery, nothing would have been easier than to have ascertained how far it accorded with those of Mr. Bickersteth.

As it was, he was offered the Mastership of the Rolls, and it is important to see on what grounds and for what reason. These are thus stated by Lord Melbourne:

"Suffice it to say that my principal motive arises from the knowledge which I have of your deep sense of the primary importance to the community of the due administration of justice; from my conviction of your anxiety to remove errors and supply defects; and from my certain assurance that for these purposes you will lend to the Lord Chancellor and to his Majesty's Government your cordial and active assistance and co-operation.

66

Considering the general state of parties, and considering the great pending legal questions, it is evident that we shall require your aid and support in Parliament, but whether in the House of Lords or Commons may be left for further consideration. I only wish to be informed whether you would be unwilling to accept a peerage if it should be thought expedient for the present arrangement or on general grounds that you should do so."

To this very great and handsome offer Mr. Bickersteth immediately raises a doubt: "the judicial office might immediately have been accepted, but the idea of giving assistance in Parliament made me seriously hesitate." Hesitation! The idea of gaining place and power by means of which Law Reform might cease to be a dream and a speculation, but grow into a reality, causes the Law Reformer to tremble. A willing Government, a co-operative Lord Chancellor, an assistant Parliament, an impatient public, all these concur; and yet the man who had devoted his best hours to the framing the work to be done, hesitates to put his hand to it or even to approach it.

The letter is received on the 26th. On the 27th, Mr. Bickersteth begs for time for reflection. On the 2nd of January,

Lord Melbourne and Mr. Bickersteth meet in South Street, at Lord Melbourne's house, to talk over what the former had justly called "an offer, which to a man who had subdued within himself the more violent struggles of ambition, was perhaps the most advantageous that could be made." p. 450.)

We now quote Lord Langdale's diary :

(Vol. i.

"At the close, Lord M. said, your view is to consent to take the judicial office by itself, but not connected with a seat in either House.' I said, 'exactly so.' Lord M. replied, 'I must take a little time to consider of it, and will let you know.'

“On Wednesday, 6th I saw Sutton Sharpe, to whom I communicated what had passed. He thought me entirely wrong in refusing a peerage, insisted that as Master of the Rolls with a peerage, I should be able to contribute greatly to Legal Reform, &c.

66

After a very long conversation he left me in doubt whether I had done right, and I determined to see Mill on the subject. I talked with him in a day or two afterwards, and found, somewhat to my surprise, that he agreed with Sharpe, and considered that I ought to have accepted a peerage."" (Vol. i. p. 452.)

Who, indeed, but Lord Langdale himself could have doubted it.

On the 10th of January Lord Melbourne renewed the offer and begged Mr. Bickersteth to acquaint him "whether upon reflection you continue indisposed to undertake the House of Lords." (Vol. i. p. 452.)

Then ensued a second interview, and in a second letter Lord Melbourne thus shaped his proposal, "If you are ready to undertake the Rolls, we are ready to give it upon the understanding you so clearly expressed this morning. We can hardly dispense with your assistance in the House of Lords, but you must not consider yourself bound to give support politically."

This arrangement was accepted; Sir C. Pepys became Lord Chancellor, and Mr. Bickersteth Master of the Rolls and Lord Langdale; and the latter took his seat in the House of Lords on the 4th of February, 1836, having been previously (19th January) appointed Master of the Rolls; pledged, however, most distinctly to assist the Lord Chancellor and

the Government in devising measures to improve the administration of justice, to remove errors, and to supply defects. How this pledge was fulfilled we are now to see.

Lord Langdale was here placed in a situation where, for the reasons we have mentioned, he could be of infinite service to the cause of Law Reform. He might have been in effect if not in name a Minister of Justice. This was the opinion of the gentlemen he consulted, Mr. Sutton Sharpe and Mr. Mill, upon whose advice he accepted office. He had been already reminded of his duty.

“As early as Jan. 1836, he was requested by Lord Melbourne to see to the preparation of several Bills that Lord Brougham had undertaken to introduce, but which the state of his health prevented." (Vol. ii. p. 2.)

We wish Mr. Hardy had printed this letter, which we presume he could have done. As it is, he says, Lord Langdale cheerfully complied, as is seen by the following letter.

Jan. 30. 1836.

"My dear Lord, — I will take the earliest opportunity of conferring with the Attorney-General on the several Bills. which you mention; and on every occasion in which Legal Reform is in question your lordship may be assured that I will give the best attention in my power to the subject."

Of these Bills, the only one which he considered "in a fit state to be safely and properly recommended for adoption was that for regulating the Execution of Wills." The remarks he makes on the Bill for abolishing Imprisonment for Debt, and the Local Courts Bill are unfavourable, although it is to be observed that they have passed nearly in the form in which they then stood.

His first speech was in opposition to the measures for the reform of the Court of Chancery, which were prepared by Lord Melbourne's Government.

"On this occasion," says Mr. Hardy, "it was said that he deserted his party the first opportunity he had; but that is an unfair accusation, for he could not desert what he had never joined." (Vol. ii. p. 5.)

But it will be remembered, that in the Letter of Lord Melbourne, which we have printed antè, p. 28., the understand

ing was, that Lord Langdale was to give his cordial support to the Law Reform measures of the Lord Chancellor and the Government. The opposition which he gave to the Reform proposed by the Lord Chancellor had the effect of defeating the measure, as it was not pressed by the Government. We do not say that Lord Langdale's views were unsound: they will be found stated in another part of this Number: we only say, that it appears to us that his conduct on this occasion was not quite consistent with the footing on which he obtained his seat in the House of Lords; and this was thought to be the case at the time, as Mr. Hardy admits; and he adds, "If Lord Cottenham was displeased with the speech made by the Master of the Rolls when the Bill was read the first time, he was doubly mortified at his speech on the second reading.” (Vol. ii. p. 5.) And he had said before, "Lord Langdale's speech gave great offence to the Chancellor." (Vol. ii. p. 4.) And Mr. Hardy seems to state this as a sort of triumph of Lord Langdale. But we do not think that the mortification and displeasure of the Lord Chancellor, and the great offence given to him, ought to have been, under the circumstances, quite agreeable to the Master of the Rolls.

"The next speech of any length that Lord Langdale delivered in the House of Peers was on moving the second reading of the Bill for the Amendment of the Law respecting Wills." (Vol. ii. p. 5.)

This, indeed, is the chief legislative effort of Lord Langdale. This is really the only Bill of importance that he ever introduced. He talked about others, he opposed others, he criticised others, he supported some very few others; but this (unless the Bill for appointing a third Vice-Chancellor is to be mentioned) is the only Act which he has left on the Statute-Book. The "Wills Act" is all that remains to us as the complete work of one who, we are now told, was the great Law Reformer of his age. But this Act, alas! which, we are informed, "he carefully considered with Mr. Tyrrell, and made such alterations as he deemed necessary "(vol. ii. p. 6.), has been, without doubt, the most questionable of the whole

series of Law Reform Acts. Whatever merit it has belongs to the Real Property Commissioners. The present Lord Chancellor, when Sir E. Sugden-which Mr. Hardy, with some want of candour, does not notice attempted to have this Act suspended and repealed at the commencement of the Session 1837-(an attempt which was foiled only by the admirable speech of Lord Campbell, then Attorney-General,)

and in last Session a portion of it was, in fact, repealed by the "Wills Act" of that year. Indeed it must be allowed, that the measure is a very doubtful one, and certainly it has brought about more practical hardship and injustice than any other Statute, be it what it may. Indeed this is admitted by Mr. Hardy himself, who says, "it has not worked well." (Vol. ii. p. 6.)

On the occasion of the Common Law Courts' Bill, in June and July, 1837, Lord Langdale gave his views in the House of Lords, derived from Bentham, and which, we believe, had been previously stated in that House by Lord Brougham, that the expenses of the Judicial Establishment, and its officers, should be supported by the Government. He was right in this principle, which was acted on last Session to some extent, but he should have restricted it to the payment of such establishments for contentious and litigatory purposes, and not for ministerial purposes. This distinction is properly taken in the Report and Papers on this subject of the Committees of the Law Amendment Society.1

On the 26th of February Lord Langdale said on the Borough Courts' Bill,—

"I hope I may be excused for expressing my opinion, that for facilitating procedure and inquiries in the Court of Chancery there is a great need of local authorities both ministerial and judicial. The jurisdiction of the Court extends over the whole country, and many things are to be done personally by persons required to obey the orders of the Court. Great unnecessary expense is occasioned to the suitor. What reason can be given why officers should not be provided to enable suitors living at Carlise and Liverpool, or in Cornwall, to swear their answers and examine their

1 Printed, 7 L. R., pp. 361-373.