Rolls Court, Nov. 16th, 1850. "MY DEAR LORD CHANCELLOR, "As I had the honour of stating to your Lordship before Term, it depends entirely upon you whether I shall or not attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council after Term. If you think that I ought, I will do so with pleasure, as I did in Lord Cottenham's time, at his request; but I told him, as I informed your Lordship, that I do not think it right for the Master of the Rolls to leave his duty in his own Court even to attend the Judicial Committee, without the knowledge and approbation of the Lord Chancellor. I therefore await your orders, and with a view to the notices which ought to be given, it is important that I should receive them early. I am much obliged by your kind inquiries. I have struggled on pretty well, but almost my whole time. during the Term has been occupied in only part hearing one case of exceptions, which is not yet finished. Ever faithfully yours, LANGDALE." ERCANTIL LIBRARY CHAPTER VII. OPINIONS OF LORD LANGDALE ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS.-ANECDOTES. I HAVE already said that, if it were possible to give a journal of the fifteen years Lord Langdale presided over the Rolls Court with so much honour to himself and satisfaction to his country, it would be very uninteresting to the general reader: no such thing, therefore, will be attempted; but such of his opinions and sentiments on various subjects, as I have gleaned from his Diaries, or have been communicated to me by friends, I shall throw together, without any strict arrangement, thinking it the better way of bringing out his character and feelings. ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. "in "Acts are passed," Lord Langdale once said, such a state that it is almost impossible for the Courts to act upon them, and the Judges often toil in vain to find a meaning-blunders are so continually being made in legislation, that it becomes necessary to repeal in one year what has been done in the former year, because it is manifestly erroneous. As soon as a defect is discovered, or what appears to be a conflicting course of proceeding, the Judge ought to report it to the Government, in order that a remedy might be considered." ATTENDANCE OF JUDGES ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ETC. In February, 18—, Sir Edward Sugden brought in a Bill for improving the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords. Among other things there was a clause empowering the House of Lords to send for the Master of the Rolls and Vice-Chancellor (if not Peers) to assist them. "From this," said Lord Langdale, "it would seem that Sir Edward Sugden was not aware that the Queen every Parliament summons the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Justices, the Puisne Judges, the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and the Queen's Serjeants, to assist her, and her good men and prelates, with their advice, and this is done by a Writ called a 'writ of attendance.' With respect, therefore, to the Master of the Rolls, such an enactment is unnecessary, and with respect to the Vice-Chancellor, nothing further was required than to petition the Queen to direct a writ of attendance, to be addressed to him as well as to the other Judges. "The Masters in Chancery also attend the House of Lords, but on inquiry at the Petty-Bag Office, and the Crown Office, no writ is now addressed to them, nor do the Masters know by what authority they attended the House; but they considered it to be by prescription only; at least they did not know the origin of it. However, it is clear from Lord Hale that the Masters also were originally summoned by writ, and I suppose that in process of time it has been neglected, and they continued to attend without that ceremony. * Several instances of summonses to the Masters of Chancery LORD CARDIGAN'S TRIAL. The following is Lord Langdale's description of Lord Cardigan's trial:— "The House was rather thin of Peers. The case went off in a very absurd way. The indictment was for firing at Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, with intent to kill, &c.; but when they came to prove this, there was may be seen on the early Parliament Rolls, and, if I mistake not, both Bracton and Fleta mention the fact of the Master in Chancery attending the King's Councils. On the calling of a new Parliament, a writ of attendance is issued directed to each of the Judges, not being Peers (if Peers, they are summoned according to their rank in the Peerage), viz. :— The Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. The Master of the Rolls. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. The Solicitor-General. The Queen's Serjeants. The following is the form of the writ: VICTORIA, &c. To day of , greeting.-Whereas by the advice and assent of our Council, for certain arduous and urgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our United Kingdom and the Church, We have ordered a certain Parliament to be holden at our City of Westminster, on the next ensuing, and there to treat and have conference with our Prelates, Great men, and Peers of our Realm, We strictly enjoin and command you that, waiving all excuses you be at the said day and place personally present with us, and with the rest of our Council, to treat and give your advice upon the affairs aforesaid. And in this in no wise do you omit.-Witness ourself at Westminster, the day of no witness produced who knew Lieutenant Tuckett by any other name than Harvey Tuckett;' and the consequence was that Sir William Follett immediately objected that there was no evidence to sustain the indictment. Strangers were thereupon ordered to withdraw, and Lord Denman stated, that he considered the objection valid, and in this he was supported by Lords Abinger, Brougham, Wynford, &c.; and then, after a little debate whether the House should at once proceed to judgment, it was decided that they would; and the question of Guilty, or not Guilty?' being put, Lord Cardigan was immediately acquitted." Lord Langdale thought the case most carelessly and indifferently got up, and he was not pleased with the Attorney-General's delicate way of opening the case, and his saying there was no moral turpitude, &c. Nor was he satisfied with the way in which Lord Denman delivered judgment, merely congratulating the prisoner on his acquittal, and informing him that the decision was unanimous. Lord Langdale thought he should have stated the technical grounds on which he was acquitted, but at the same time have read him a lecture on the serious nature of the offence with which he was charged, supposing such charge had been properly borne out by evidence. CHANCERY PROCESS. Talking about Chancery Process, he once said, that the reasons why the process in Chancery is so unsatisfactory and so different from that in the common Law Courts were, (1), that Chancery was originally a disputed |