sion. The inquiry before him is not what the law ought to be, but what it is, and how it is to be applied in the particular cases which are under consideration. It may be regretted that the law upon any subject should be in such a state as to induce eminent Judges and writers to express their disapprobation of it, and their regret that they are bound to give it effect; but it would be still more to be regretted if Judges should be found who thought themselves at liberty to declare the law according to their own fancies of what it ought to be; all stability would be lost, and every thing tend to confusion."

CHAPTER VI.

HIS

HIS READINESS TO ALLOW OF APPEAL FROM HIS DECISIONS. OPINION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE OF AN INTERESTED WITNESS.-REFLECTIONS ON THE SUBJECT.-HIS ACQUAINTANCE WITH CIVIL AND CANON LAW, AND CONTINENTAL CODES.-REMARKS IN THE CASE NELSON V. BRIDPORT."- -ATTENDANCE AT THE SITTINGS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

LORD LANGDALE never discouraged appeals, or felt offended at the suggestion that his decision would be taken before a superior tribunal. In important and doubtful cases, it was a satisfaction to him to know that the mischief which he might occasion by an erroneous opinion was not irremediable, and he was in the habit of proposing or facilitating the appeal. Thus, in the case Tullett v. Armstrong, he said, "As this subject has given occasion to considerable discussion, and as a decision pronounced here cannot settle the question, which is of very great importance, I am desirous that the case should be brought under the consideration of a higher tribunal without any unnecessary delay, and to afford every facility in my power for the correction of any error into which I may have fallen."

In a similar case, Lord Cottenham, when Master of the Rolls, had come to a different conclusion to Lord Langdale, and as Lord Cottenham was then his

superior judge he could not but feel more than usual anxiety.

An appeal did take place, and Lord Cottenham confirmed, though reluctantly, Lord Langdale's judgment.

It was for this judgment, that Sir Edward Sugden is reported to have said that the ladies of England ought to erect a statue in gold to Lord Langdale.

If the case of Tullett v. Armstrong affords an illustration of the readiness with which Lord Langdale submitted his opinions to appeal, his remarks in the case of Hutchinson v. Stephens, 15th of July, 1837, exhibit in a characteristic manner the tenacity with which he abided by opinions he had once formed. He said, “I am obliged to Mr. Tinney for the candour with which he has expressed himself respecting the nature and circumstances of this particular cause, and for the zeal and ability with which he has argued against the expediency of the course which was adopted by me in the case of Mountford v. Cooper, and other cases of a similar kind. There is no error so great as that of persevering in an error pointed out, and I hope that I shall always be open to conviction; but I did not adopt the course now observed upon, without great consideration; and I am still so entirely persuaded of its expediency, that until other arguments have convinced me that it is erroneous, or until I am corrected by a higher authority, I shall consider it to be my duty to adhere to it."

A case had been heard before Lord Langdale, which involved a question as to the admissibility of a witness on the ground of interest: Lord Langdale decided

against the admission of his evidence, on the ground that he had an interest, and the report of his decision was ready for the press. In the mean time, the Lord Chancellor reversed that decision, and Lord Langdale was asked whether it was his pleasure to have the case published, as it had since been overruled. He seemed indifferent on the point, but in connexion with it remarked, "It is curious how different are the constitutions of men's minds. I agree entirely with the Lord Chancellor, that it is better to admit evidence of this description, and to let the circumstance of interest weigh well in the consideration of what credit is due to it, but that is against the principle of the law as it now stands, and I think that while that principle remains undisturbed by any legislative enactment, it is the duty of the Court frankly and fairly to act upon it, and not to try to fritter it away by nice distinctions. The rule itself might, I think, be altered with great advantage to the interest of justice, but then it is the Legislature which should do it. I said as much on this very case to the Lord Chancellor, and he admitted I was right on principle, but then, he says, 'You must recollect that all the improvements in the law have in fact been made by devices of the judges in getting rid by a sidewind of obnoxious rules.' 'True,' I replied, but that was owing to the unacquaintance of the Legislature with such matters, and to the want of a proper officer in the Ministry who should from time to time look to the administration of the law, and to the improvements and alterations which the lapse of time and the growing intelligence of the people may require. But is such a

state of things to continue?' The Chancellor shrugged his shoulders and made no reply."

The question of what is judicial evidence is a subject of vast importance in the science of jurisprudence, and Mr. Bentham conferred no slight benefit upon the public when he brought forward his great work on the subject; if he had done nothing more, he would be entitled to a high rank among Law Reformers. It is not necessary to enter into that question here; and reference has been made to the subject only to show that Lord Langdale entertained similar opinions to that eminent man, on the impolicy of excluding evidence on the ground of interest.

At the rising of the Court, on the 6th May, 1842, Lord Langdale went down to the House of Lords, to attend a committee on the Evidence Bill, for he said he thought no testimony should be rejected on the ground of interest; what weight should be given to it is another question. Lord Langdale's is certainly the common sense view of the subject, and is undoubtedly the right one, though many men who have given attention to the subject, are of a different opinion.

Certainly no law can be good which is against reason and common sense, and that rule which entirely excludes the evidence of persons having an interest in the result of the cause seems to be utterly inconsistent with reason and justice.

What, for instance, would be the conduct of a sensible man, unfettered by the rules of law, in endeavouring to inform himself upon a question of fact? Take