witnesses in their own neighbourhood, and have their answers and depositions officially conveyed to London? But I But I go further, and think that other duties having more of a judicial character might well be entrusted to such local authorities. My Lords, I am persuaded that such regulations might be framed and such a system of control established as would make it perfectly safe and satisfactory to the suitors, and a great saving of expense, to have many operations of the kind and many important inquiries conducted in the country."

This was all well, but he brought in no Bill to establish this principle; and here we are, thirteen years afterwards, without any such measure in operation, although it is true that such a Bill has been brought in, though proposed by that very Law Reformer who, according to Mr. Hardy, abandoned Law Reform when he obtained power. That power, we are thankful to say, still remains to him, and with it the will to effect these and other useful reforms which Lord Langdale was so fond of talking about, but not of trying to effect.

In May, 1840, the Court of Chancery again came before the House, when he no longer opposed a moderate Reform, which consisted in giving additional assistance to the Court. Among other things he said, according to Mr. Hardy (vol. ii. p. 22.), that, under proper arrangements, and by the addition. of appropriate strength, the House ought to be enabled to dispose of all the appellate judicial business of the country, and that the appellate business of the Court of Chancery ought then to be transferred to the House of Lords.

But Mr. Hardy does not state that when Lord Campbell in 1842 brought in a Bill - Lord Campbell does not content himself with mere talk about Reform-to effect this change, Lord Langdale opposed it, and the Bill was consequently abandoned.

Mr. Hardy next adverts to Lord Langdale's speech on the second reading of the Attornies' and Solicitors' Bill, and says:

"On one point, that of the examination of articled clerks prior to their admission on the roll of attornies, he spoke with considerable approbation: the orders establishing the examination in this

Court were made soon after his appointment to the Mastership of the Rolls, and he always took great interest in the conduct of the examination and its successful progress." (Vol. ii. p. 25.)

He approved, then, of an effective and compulsory examination of attornies previous to admission, but he took no step. to secure the effectual and compulsory examination of barristers previous to their being called to the Bar, although, as one of the Benchers of the Inns of Court, he was charged with this especial duty. It seems that he was called to the Bench of the Inner Temple on the 22nd of June, 1827, was Reader in 1835, and Treasurer in 1836 (vol. i. p. 369. n.), and he died in 1851, so that for twenty-four years he received an allowance of from 1007. to 2007. out of revenues expressly granted for educational purposes, and not so applied. We do not know how the high-souled Fellow of Caius College, whose conduct we have already praised, justified in the pure Equity Judge this breach of trust, or soiled his hands by participating in it. Nor can we understand on what principle he adhered to the practice of the exclusion of Mr. Hayward and others from that Bench by secret voting, or how, when the Judges as visitors of the Inns of Court recommended the adoption of some other rule, Lord Langdale continued the practice of voting by ballot. These are points which it would have been well if Mr. Hardy, who has all the necessary papers, had explained, but he has not alluded to them. We may state, that we have heard, on good authority, that at the Inner Temple he was always indifferent about Legal Education, and was rather a stumbling block to progress in this respect than an assistant. This we heard from two of that learned body, who themselves assisted as lecturers.

In April, 1843, Lord Langdale opposed the Bill brought in by Lord Campbell for shortening Conveyance, declining to go into Committee on the Bill, or to permit Lord Campbell even to put it in an amended form. He opposed this Bill, and brought in no better; he preferred to lecture the House on general principles, to declaim on the abuses of the Law, and object to all practical attempts to amend them. He had, indeed, two or three pet subjects for declamation of this kind, on which he delighted on all occasions to discourse,

which he never attempted to enforce as practical measures, and which, if any one else attempted to do, he then usually opposed. He seemed to like to keep them unpassed, that he might talk about them. They were, in fact, his stock in trade as a Law Reformer.

We next come to his share in the Act for abolishing the Six Clerks' Office, and granting those compensations which have been called the 10,000,000l. compensations:

"The speech," says Mr. Hardy, "he delivered on the 22d of May, 1843, was one which might have been expected from him on account of his strong sense of rectitude, and his objection to the exaction of fees from the suitors of the Court." (Vol. ii. p. 29.)

He had frequently objected, and properly objected, to the payment of compensations to officers of the Court, but in this case he brought himself to consent to it, and was of opinion, on the whole, that "it was better to make the reform, and continue the charges on the suitors for the limited time during which the compensations may be payable, than to perpetuate the charge, together with all the inconvenience and evils which it has become so desirable to remedy."

This was a reasonable and practical view of the subject. The Government would not take the burden; the reform was necessary, it could only be accomplished in this manner. There were good reasons for a reasonable compensation, to be assessed in the usual way by the Treasury, but there were no excuses for the atrocious (we can use no other word1) compensations which were most unjustly fixed by that Act. With respect to this Act, the charge of carelessness, amounting to unconscientiousness, lies heavy at the door of those who had a principal share in passing it. Lord Lyndhurst, as Chancellor, is not free from blame, but if one public man de

66

'Mr. Hardy admits these to be enormous. Talking about the enormous compensation on the abolition of the Six Clerks' Office, his Lordship said, that during his late sleepless nights he had turned over in his mind a plan for having the compensations valued, and purchasing Government annuities for them." (Vol. ii. p. 109.) Well might his nights be sleepless from such a cause, but if he had taken ordinary care at the time all real mischief would have been prevented.

serves more blame in this respect than another, we regret to say it is Lord Langdale, simply from trusting details to others which he should in his position have mastered himself.

While feeling it our duty to speak thus harshly, let us mention one speech of Lord Langdale's, about this period, in which we cordially agree. This was on the 6th of March, 1846, on the Parliamentary Proceedings Bill:

"He said that the best if not the only means of guarding against hasty, rash, and indiscreet legislation, is to bestow adequate care on the preparation of Bills before they are introduced in either House. A business so important ought not to be left to the diligence and caution of individual members of Parliament, or even to the responsible government officers, or ministers charged with other duties sufficient to occupy their whole time. No business is so difficult or requires so much care, attention, and caution as the business of making new laws; and no new laws should be proposed without the official report of a responsible minister, stating accurately and authoritatively what is the present state of the law with reference to the subject; what are the inconveniences which are found to arise from it; upon what principles it is proposed to provide a remedy; and how these principles are intended to be applied. If this were carefully done, we might reasonably hope to have less of rash and inconsiderate suggestions from ignorant and incompetent persons; less difficulty in dealing with such suggestions when made; less time wasted in idle and unnecessary discussions; more of useful deliberation and less hurry; a greater facility of preserving uniformity of enactment and expression; in short, better laws. Further, if proper means were taken to ascertain and correct the errors which must be found in almost every application of new laws, we might hope that the whole system of new laws would be gradually, effectually, and safely improved. To do what ought to be done towards attaining this great and important object would require the constant and unremitting attention of Government. By the exclusive employment of a Minister charged with the particular duty of attending to the affairs of legislation and justice, you might probably reduce to a small amount not only the inconveniences which this Bill is intended to diminish, but many other inconveniences of still greater importance." (Vol. ii. pp. 35, 36.)

This is admirable alike in intention and expression, and

for his steady and repeated assertion of the principle of establishing a MINISTER OF JUSTICE, Lord Langdale deserves great praise. We could have wished that he had brought this proposition distinctly before the Legislature; and here let us remember, that at the last Annual Meeting of the Law Amendment Society, on the 23rd of June, 1852, even our Economical Reformer, Mr. Hume, expressed his hope that such a Minister would be appointed, and declared that he would do what he could to promote such an appointment.

In the last speech made by Lord Langdale, on the 7th of March, 1851, and very properly given entire by Mr. Hardy, we entirely concur, and consider it a valuable contribution to the cause of Law Reform. He then asserted the necessity of the State relieving the suitor from all expense connected with the judicial establishment of Courts, including the buildings necessary for Courts of Justice'; the advantages of the local administration of justice, as well in matters of equitable as of legal jurisdiction (he had not foreseen that ultimately the fusion of these jurisdictions must take place); and insisted on the necessity of sufficient judicial power in these Courts:

"Unless,' he said, 'there be ample judicial power for the transaction of the increased business which will be thrown upon them, there will be delays and confusion. Without a sufficient number of judges, arrears will accumulate; or, what would be still worse than arrears, hasty and unsatisfactory decisions, erroneous orders, and even right orders appearing erroneous, because so hastily pronounced. You must, therefore, have no scanty provision of judges."" (Vol. ii. p. 44.)

But he further insisted on the simplification of the law, and, as a means of obtaining this, on Codification:

"As to the simplification of the law, I request your Lordships to observe that the more the jurisdiction of the Local Courts is extended, the greater is the obligation upon the Legislature to use all practical means to simplify the law. There are too many cases in which you cannot by any means prevent very complicated statements of facts, and very nice, difficult, and doubtful questions of law from arising. No rational person, I suppose, imagines that the law is in as clear and simple a state as it might be by skill and