REVIEWS
| Published date | 01 May 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb00740.x |
| Date | 01 May 1966 |
REVIEWS
LIVES
OF
TEE
LORD
CHANCEUORS,
188&1040.
By
R.
F.
V.
HEUSTON.
[Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
1904.
082
pp.
68s.
net.
J
Paomssoa
HEUSTON
does for
the
twelve Lord Chancellors who held office
between
1886
and
1040
what Lord Campbell and Atlay did for their prede-
cessors,
though the methods of research and the style of writing have changed
so
much in the present century that it
seems
pointless to draw
a
comparison,
especially with Campbell. Heuston admirably serves tlie needs of
our
day.
The twelve Clianccllors
arc
Halsbury (Giffard), Herschell, IAreburn (Robert
Iteid), Haldane, Buckmaster, Finlay, Birkenhead
(P.
E.
Smith), Cave,
Hailsham (Douglas Hogg), Sankey, Maugham and Caldecotc (Inskip). Nine
of tliem had previously been Law Officers, and Haldane had held otlier
ministerial office.
It
is
n
pity that Simon
was
not included,
as
he was really
a
contemporary of Birkcnhend. Professor Heuston in several short chapters
on each takes
us
through their parentage, school and university days; Arst
steps
at
the
Bar,
professional advancement, political and parliamentary career
(except for the non-politicians, Sankcy and Maug1iam)-the personal rivalria
and jealousies, appointments and disappointments; their work
a9
Lord
Chancellor, political crises, the exercise of judicial and magisterial patronage,
and tlie trial of
caw08
ctlldbrer;
down to their retirement, death, burial and
probate. Much
use
is made of unpublislied
papers
of Lord Chancellors,
Prime Ministers and other eminent lawyers and statesmen. Haldane
and
Birkenliead arc’ already the subjects of excellent biographies. The author wm
unable
to
obtain nccess
to
the Herschell
papers,
but fresh information
is
provided especially on Loreburn, Buckmaster and Hailsham.
Hnlsbiiry through his long tenure of
office
as
Chancellor, and Haldane
through his work
at
the War Oflice, were most infiitential in their day and
arc
among the more interesting today. Herschell gives the impression of
being not only very able but also very pleasnnt. Loreburn fought an
honourable struggle over tlie selection of
J.P.8.
We do not form
a
very
vivid impression of the quiet and reserved Buckmaster, who later dissented
in
Donoghue
v.
~~QVQWO~Z.
Finlay strikes one
as
solidly competent in his
Scottish fashion. Birkenhead we know
to
have been brilliant and glamorous.
What other ex-Lord Clianccllor’s entry into the Oxford Union debating hall
would have an effect on the audience similar to Sir Laurence Olivier’s entry
in the theatre? Surely the reason for his becoming
a
law don
at
Merton
was that he wanted to pny
off
his Oxford debts before going to tlie Bar,
where even the most brillinnt beginner often has
to
go
through a briefless
stage. Cave fails to engage
our
Attention, In spite of mcmbcrsliip of Grillions
Club. HaUsliam emerges
as
a
good all-rounder. Sankey was tlie most
genuinely interested in social problems and law reform. Maugliam
appears
fastidious and aloof, not
our
notion of
a
Cambridge rowing blue; Caldccote,
rather dull but very worthy.
Academics will be interested to lcnrn that
of
tlicsc twclvc, eleven went to
a
university-six to Oxford, two each to Cambridge and Edinburgh, and one
to London. Five read Greats
or
Classics, two read Matlicmntics, and one
each Law (F.
E.
Smith), History, Science and Medicine. Nine gained first
or
second class lionoiirs, and two of the seconds would have been
firsts
if
one had not worked too hard and the other too little. Haldane failed the
external London LL.B. before getting
a
first in Science
at
Edinburgh.
Caldccote got
n
third in the Classical Tripos, and Halsbury in his spare
time set
n
precedent by getting
a
fourth in Greats.
a41
To continue reading
Request your trial