information, and its invariable con- "Not that they-'the clergy,'- Alas, is it not shocking that the Woolsack should be polluted by such filthiness and abuse? To see Lord Brougham-ætatis suæ 55-di ving into the forgotten depths of Mr Henry Brougham's scurrilities, in search of the dirtiest drop he could find, to spurt it upon a gentleman before whose superior learning he trembled daily? Indeed, ever since he has occupied the seat of the Chief Equity judge, he has displayed a petty spite-a paltry, peevish, irritable humour-towards Sir Edward Sugden, which nothing can explain, but his galling sense of inferiority. Well may the latter exclaim "Let the galled jade wince-our withers are unwrung." reason He Indeed, Lord Brougham is not the Parliamentary Debates, July 26th, 1832. 66 Lord Chancellor, (interrupting ↑ Selections from Mr B.'s Speeches, pp. 98-99, (1832.) It would seem that his Lordship adds to his many acquirements the science of entomology, from the use he makes of the terms "insects," "vermin," "bugs," "gnats," &c. &c. They supply him with his choicest allusions in matter of sarcasm, or rather abuse, and nearly earned him a summary chastisement from a Yorkshire gentleman-Mr Martin Stapleton, whom he termed on the hustings, "a paltry INSECT!" Counsel. Most certainly, my Lord! His Lordship drew back in his seat, confounded at the pertinacity of Counsel, simply through his ignorance of the hackneyed, the notorious, and very fundamental principle of equity, that "it considers that to be done, which is directed to be done!"* We wish, for the credit of the country, that this were a solitary instance! It is painful thus to have cause for exposing Lord Brougham's ignorance of that system which he has so rashly undertaken to administer, so presumptuously to overturn-but we think it our duty to do so. We belong ourselves to the English Bar; and, in common with our brethren, feel indignant at the spirit of ungenerous, virulent depreciation towards us,- of mean sycophancy towards "the people" which his Lordship has manifest ed in his recent attacks upon our honour and independence. Lord Brougham, as he was always-and is-ready to snatch at any opportunity of pointing out the Aristocracy to the hatred and contempt of the people, so groans in spirit to render the same kindly offices to the Baror render it subservient to his own purposes. Verily, he that hates "those damned attorneys," may yet be anxious to bribe the Bar! Lord Brougham and his friends have one ready answer to every exposure of his ignorance and quackery, that "the profession" are "interested" in opposing him. Interested! What would his Lordship think of a gaping ploughman finding his way into the midst of complicated steam machinery, and forthwith finding fault with it, and directing alterations in every part of it? If the engineers were to protest against his interference, and represent his incompetence, he would, with Lord Brougham, find a ready answer—“Oh, I daresay I know nothing about it! Very likely! But can you get my partisans to believe you-you, who are so deeply interested in continuing the abuses I am correcting?"-" Deeply interested!" quoth the indignant engineers-" of course we are! We know the machinery, its working, and uses-but do you?" We affirm boldly that Lord Brougham is utterly unfit for his office-none knows it better than he; and hence his anxiety to "shuffle off the mortal coil" of business, to sever the political and legal functions of the Lord Chancellor. These latter, the newspapers inform us, his Lordship coolly offered to-Sir Edward Sugden-an amende, perhaps to the victim of his former insult. Sir Edward will not be the man we take him for, if he accepts them! One of the grounds on which Lord Brougham founds his frequent appeals to popular commiseration, is "the falsehoods which are vented touching his disposal of the patronage of office." Without ripping up every appointment he has madeand we are tempted to do so-we shall glance at one or two instances of his disposal of patronage, glaringly at variance with his deliberately formed, at least deliberately expressed, opinions on that subject, as " Mr" Brougham. Thus fairly and ably he spoke on the 7th February, 1828, in the House of Commons: "The great object of every government, in selecting the judges of the land, should be to select the most skilful and learned men in their profession."-" There ought not to be, in choosing judges from the bar, See also (Drax v. Grosvenor) the case of Moncktou v. Attorney-General, (2 Russell and Mylne's Rep. 157,) in which Lord Brougham utters, deliberately, the following" It is not more true that things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one another, than that persons related by blood to the same individual, are more or less related by blood to each other!" There is a mathematical Chancellor for you! any exclusion or restriction. He alone ought to be selected in whom talent, integrity, and experience most abound, and are best united. The office of a judge is of so important and responsible a nature, that one should suppose the members of Government would naturally require that they should be at liberty to make their selection from the whole field of the profession-that they would themselves claim to have the whole field open to their choice. Who would not believe that a Ministry would not eagerly seek to have all men before them, when their object must be to choose the most able and accomplished? *** But is this the case? Is all the field really open? Are there no portions of the domain excluded from the selector's authority? True, and no law prevents it *** but a custom, more honoured in the breach than the observance,' that party, as well as merit, must be studied in these appointments! It must be admitted, that if a man belongs to a party opposed to the views of Government, if which the best and ablest of men, and the fittest for the Bench, may well be -he is known for opinions hostile to the Ministry, he can expect no promotion rather let me say, the country has no chance of his elevation to the Bench, whatever be his talents, or how conspicuously soever he may shine in all the most important departments of the profession. In Scotland, it is true, a more liberal policy has been pur. sued, and the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Sir Robert Peel) has done himself great honour by recommending Mr Gillies, and Mr Cranstoun, and Mr Clerk-all as well known for party men there as Lord Eldon is here-though, unfortunately, their party has been what is now once more termed the wrong side; but all men of the very highest eminence among the professors of the law. But, sir, what is our system? If, at the present moment, the whole of Westminster-Hall were to be called on, in the event of any vacancy unfortunately occurring among the Chief Justices, to name the man best suited to fill it-to point out the individual whose talents and integ rity best deserve the situation, whose judicial exertions were most likely to shed blessings on his country-can any one doubt for a moment whose name would be echoed on every side? No, there could be no question as to the individual to whom would point the common consent of those most competent to judge. But then he is known as a party-man-and all his merits, were they even greater than they are, would be in vain extolled by his profession, and in vain desiderated by his country. I REPROBATE THIS MISCHIEVOUS SYSTEM by which the Empire loses the services of some of the ablest, the most learned, and the most honest men within its bounds.” * It is to be presumed that the frank and upright speaker did not wish to point the attention of the House to himself, as the person possessing such eminent qualifications for the Bench-though this would seem questionable-since he finds it necessary to say, shortly after, "I cannot take the situation of a judge-I cannot afford it." Oh, no, the eye of this disinterested and philosophical reformer was, it seems, all the while, fixed on the glistening summit of the profession! "No sparrow's hop from twig to twig was his Whose powerful pinions seek the higher air!" The House-the whole profession -assumed, and correctly, that SIR JAMES SCARLETT was the individual alluded to. This consummate lawyer has long occupied the proudest station at the Bar-and none knew his admirable qualities more thoroughly than his sincere and eloquent panegyrist. Well!-Since the delivery of this speech, the two Chief Justices have fallen vacant, and been filled up by two different Administrations. Under that of the Duke of Wellington, the Chief. Justiceship of the Common-Pleas, by the direction of Lord Lyndhurst, was adorned by the elevation of Sir Nicholas Tindal of whose character, as a lawyer, both practical and constitutional, and qualities as a man, it is needless to speak, seeing they speak for them. • Speech on the Administration of the Law, pp. 17, 18, 19. "Lips are now forbid to speak That once familiar word " in the ears of Lord Grey ! Why ? Because Littledale, Parke, Patteson, Taunton-the eminent puisne judges -were, one of them, entitled to the preference? No, but Sir James had perpetrated a certain enormityhad committed the "sin never to be forgiven" by the present Ministry -he had presumed to oppose the Reform Bill, skilfully but temperately. Did that impugn his legal knowledge? blot out his thirty years' experience? warp his discretion and independence, and so render it not only impolitic, but unsafe, to invest him with the judicial ermine? Did that change the opinions "echoed on every side of Westminster Hall," as to his legal fitness for the office? Did that afford ground for " depriving the country of the chance of his elevation?" Oh no! Was he, then, becoming childish,—were his faculties "falling into the sere and yellow leaf?" Oh no! Witness him at this moment, the most active, brilliant, and powerful advocate at the bar! No, Lord Brougham bethought himself of Sir Thomas Denman his coadjutor in the Queen's trial-the King's Attorney. General! He was the lucky winner in the Government lottery of law prizes, and he sacrificed his prodigious practice at the bar to take the premier seat on the Bench, in order to "guide, control, correct" those young and inexperienced lawyers, Littledale, Parke, Patteson, and Taunton! God forbid that we should say aught to impeach Sir Thomas Denman, one of the most courteous, amiable, and dignified gentlemen that ever graced the seat of justice, one whose personal qualities have long endeared him to every member of the profession, as his eloquence and elegant acquirements have won him applause from the public; but surely the blooming bouquet of such accomplishments was but ill suited to flourish upon the bleak barren eminence of the ChiefJusticeship-in an atmosphere of law "chilly and ungenial!" Though we sincerely love Sir Thomas, we shall not flatter him, and therefore give utterance here to the indignant astonishment of the profession that he should have been selected, in preference to Sir James Scarlett-to ten, or even twenty others! Suppose the Duke of Wellington-suppose Lord Lyndhurst had "done this deed," what blighting diatribes should we presently have heard from Mr Henry Brougham in the House of Commons! How the press would have rung with execrations of such outrageous partiality and favourit ism! But perhaps a subsequent occasion would enable Lord Brougham to vindicate his character as an impartial dispenser of judicial preferment,-to look into his own speech, and act upon the principles it developes. Let us see. Mr Baron Bayley-clarum et venerabile nomen retires from the Exchequer, and and MR JOHN WILLIAMS, K. C., is popped into his place! Think of that; meditate upon it; append a memorandum of the appointment, as an illustrative note to some future edition of the speech from which we have been quoting-which we are illustrating! Let it serve as On the Queen's trial, in answer to the suggestion of the King's Attorney-General (now Lord Lyndhurst), that "Bergami should be called to the bar, to state that the whole charge was a fiction," [Trial, vol. iii. p. 288,] the present Chief-Justice of the King's Bench deliberately asserted, that "from the beginning of the world no instance could be found of an individual, charged with adultery, being called to disprove it," the precise case having occurred on the occasion of a Divorce Bill in the House of Lords, in 1792! But fourteen years' experience have, no doubt, improved the law of Sir Thomas. It is an error, by the way, to suppose that etiquette requires this office to be offered to the Attorney-General. Lord Tenterden was a puisne Judge when he was promoted. a memento of Lord Brougham's sincerity, consistency, impartiality, wisdom! 'Tis true that this eminent individual, Baron Williams, has edited an edition of Blackstone, and compiled a little treatise on the study of the law-works that he will now have time to look into on his own account; that he also was employed for Queen Caroline; that he has long been an able writer in the Edinburgh Review; that he has relinquished a practice of about L.10,000 a-year at the Bar; that he has been engaged in almost all the heaviest commercial and other cases that have happened in his time; that the Law Reports are studded with innumerable masterly arguments of his; that a many years' close intimacy with his illustrious friend Lord Brougham, has had the effect of communicating to him much of that personage's minute, various, and profound knowledge of the principles and practice of the common law, and will now attract into the Court of Exchequer more business even than in the time of his predecessor; that he is proverbial for patience, tact, and temper: BUT ship by an explicit promise, which you knew it would be impossible to keep, but easy to back out of? Was there any proposition hinted at by your Lordship, which was at once rejected by Sir William as unconstitutional, but which you spoke of as furnishing matter for only a “nine days' wonder?" Is Sir William to be looked upon as a dupe? a victim? Whose dupe? Whose victim? We further congratulate your Lordship on your delicacy and discretion in filling up certain vacancies occasioned by the retirement of Sir William Horne. Mr John Williams and Mr Pepys being, whilom, her present Majesty's law officers, thought fit rudely to resign with Lord Grey; and her Majesty-Heaven bless her, as the country loves her!-lost no time in supplying herself with better men-Serjeants Taddy and Merewether, who now retain their offices. Your Lordship gracefully selects your Royal Mistress's two discarded servants, the one to be Baron of the Exchequer, and the other King's Solicitor-General! There is a piece of practical sarcasm for you! Sic itur ad astra! O rare Lord Brougham! -What say you to all this, my Lord Again, let us reverently request Chancellor? Oh-if your own heart your Lordship-" passing swiftly do not condemn you, "neither do we. over" the uproar and confusion Go in peace, and sin no more!"* you have created in your own court But, "rumours are abroad-whis--rule issuing against rule, and order pers fill the air-every species of tale is afloat," my Lord, about one Sir William Horne! It is hinted that he has been atrociously jockeyed; that he has been perfidiously manoeuvred, not only out of the Baronship of the Exchequer, but his Attorney-Generalship, and flung back with contemptuous unkindness upon the surges of precarious private practice, amidst the sympathy-the amazement of his brethren. How is this? Had your Lordship any thing to do with it? Did you consider him competent for the office of AttorneyGeneral, but inept to continue such, or receive the ordinary compliment of elevation? Can it be true that your Lordship inveigled him into a resignation of his Attorney-General countermanding order-to cast your eyes upon a certain Bankruptcy Court-What! do you start! do you shudder to look at your hideous handiwork? Well, we shall not detain you long. We wish merely to remind you of a passage already quoted from your speeches, and ask a single question. "The great object of every government, in selecting the judges of the land, should be to select the most skilful and learned men in their profession." Did this "truism, with which you were ashamed to trouble the House," escape your Lordship's recollection in your hasty flight from the Bar to the Woolsack? In nominating the Judges of the Court of Review, how was it that only one was selected who * See the extraordinary use made of this quotation in the peroration of Sir Thomas Denman's speech for the Queen. Lord Brougham's reply on the Local Courts' Bill.-9th July, 1833. See his Lordship's advice to Lord Wynford in the last Local Courts' Debate. VOL. XXXV. NO. CCXX. 2 P |