748 



ELDON, EARL OF. 



ELDON, EARL OF. 



760 



years also he read the law lectures, as deputy for Sir Robert Chambers, 

 the Vinerian professor; and for this service he had 601. a year. 

 Awkwardly enough, the first lecture he had to read was upon the 

 statue 4 and 5 Phil, and M., a 8, 'Of youiig men running away with 

 maidens;' and it so chanced that he had to deliver it immediately 

 after it was put into his hands, and without knowing a word that 

 was in it. "Fancy me reading," he said, when telling the story long 

 afterwards, "with about 140 boys all giggling at the professor. Such 

 a tittering audience no one ever had." 



Mr. Scott was called to the bar on the 9th of February 1776, on 

 which he came up with his wife to London, and took a small house 

 in Cursitor-street, from which he soon after removed to another in 

 Carey-street. He naturally joined the Northern Circuit ; but it was, 

 as usual, some time before he began to make much by his practice. 

 Indeed after a trial of two or three years his prospects of success in 

 London seemed so unpromising, that he had made arrangements for 

 settling as a provincial counsel in his native town, when, in July 1773, 

 he was brought into considerable notice by his argument in the cause 

 of Ackroyd v. Smithson (1 Bro. C. C. 503), heard before Sir Thomas 

 Sewell, Master of the Rolls ; and he obtained still more repute when 

 Sir Thomas's judgment, which was adverse to bis client, was reversed 

 in .March 1780, by Lord Chancellor Thurlow, in accordance with 

 Scott's reasoning, which has decided all similar questions ever since. 

 The question was what should be done with one of a number of shares 

 into which a testator had directed that the money obtained by the 

 sale of his real estates should be divided, the party to whom he had 

 given the share by his will having died in the testator's lifetime. Mr. 

 Scott contended that the share, being land, at the death of the testator 

 came to the heir-at-law. Even for some time after this success how- 

 ever he still retained the idea of settling in Newcastle; and had 

 actually made a house be taken for him in that town, of which he 

 had also accepted the Recordership. One year, apparently 1780, he 

 did not go the circuit, because he could not afford it ; he had already, 

 to use his own words, borrowed of his brother for several circuits, 

 without getting adequate remuneration. But when matters were in 

 this state he unexpectedly found such an opportunity of distinguishing 

 himself in an election case (that of Clitheroe) before a committee of 

 the House of Commons as at once changed his position, and with that 

 hu plans for the future. Having been applied to iu the absence of 

 the counsel who was to have led, Mr. Scott, upon the refusal of the 

 next counsel to lead because be was not prepared, was persuaded to 

 take the conduct of the casa at a few hours' notice. It lasted for 

 fifteen days. " It found me poor enough," said he, relating the 

 circumstances in hU old age, " but I began to be rich before it was 

 done : they left me fifty guineas at the beginning ; then there were 

 ten guineas every day, and five guineas every evening for a consulta- 

 tion more money than I could count. But, better still, the length 

 of the cause gave me time to make myself thoroughly acquainted with 

 the law." He was beaten in the committee by one vote ; but the 

 ability he had shown did not the less establish his reputation. 



All thought of leaving London was now abandoned ; his practice 

 from this time increased rapidly ; and in June 1783, on the formation 

 of the coalition ministry of Lord North and Mr. Fox, and the great 

 seal on Lord Thurlow's resignation being put into commission, he was 

 one of several junior counsel who were called within the bar. Erskine 

 was another ; and it was at first intended to give precedence to him 

 and Mr. Figott, both of whom were Scott's juniors ; but to this 

 arrangement the latter firmly refused to submit ; and his patent, as 

 ultimately drawn out, gave him precedence next after the king's 

 counsel then being, and after Harry Peckham, who had been made 

 one a few days previously, and had been placed before Erskine, though 

 Erskine's patent was of earlier date. A few days after he received 

 this promotion, he was made a bencher of his Inn of Court. 



About the same time he was returned to parliament for the borough 

 of Weobly, through the patronage of Lord Weymouth, with whom 

 however he stipulated that be should not be expected uniformly, or 

 as a matter of course, to represent his lordship's opiuions. The 

 election took place on the 16th of June. He and Krskine both made 

 their maiden speeches in the same debate, that on the 20th of 

 November, about a week after the opening of the session, on a motion 

 connected with the famous India Bill, which eventually upset Fox's 

 government. The two young lawyers were however on opposite 

 idea Erskiue with ministers, Scott with Pitt and the party destined 

 soon after to come into power. The Coalition ministry was turned 

 out on the 18th of December ; and on the 24th of March 1784, the 

 king prorogued, and the next day dissolved parliament, after the 

 opposition to Pitt and the new government had been gradually brought 

 down in the course of a long series of divisions to a majority of one. 

 Mr. Scott was again returned for Weobly ; and in the new parliament 

 be took a prominent part in most of the legal questions that came 

 before the House. In the session of 1785, on the 9th of March, he 

 spoke and voted with Fox against ministers on one of the questions 

 connected with the great Westminster scrutiny ; and his speech was 

 considered to have established the doctrine " that the election must 

 \M Jinally closed before the return of the writ, and that the writ must 

 be returned on or before the day specified in it." This principle the 

 government soon after consented to enact as law by the statute 

 26 Oeo. III. c. 84, "To limit the duration of polls and scrutinies." 



In March 1787 Mr. Scott was appointed chancellor of the bishopric 

 and county palatine of Durham, by the bishop, who was a brother of 

 Lord Thurlow, and had just been translated to the see. In June 

 1788, on Lord Mansfield's resignation and the appointment of Sir 

 Lloyd Kenyon as his successor in the chief-justiceship of the King's 

 Bench, the attorney -general, Mr. Pepper Arden, was made master of 

 the rolls, in room of Kenyon; the solicitor-general, Sir Archibald 

 Macdonald, became attorney-geaer.il ; and the office of solicitor-general 

 was conferred on Scott. At the same time he was also knighted. A 

 few days afterwards he was re-elected for Weobly; and he was a 

 fourth time returned for the same place to the new parliament which 

 met in November 1790. He held the office of solicitor-general till 

 February 1793, when he waa made attorney-general on the promotion 

 of Sir Archibald Macdonald to the place of Chief Barou of the 

 Exchequer. On this occasion he was returned a fifth time for Weobly. 

 To the next parliament, which met in September 1796, the last iu 

 which he sat as a member of the House of Commons, he was returned, 

 along with Sir Francis Burdett, for the Duke of Newcastle's borough 

 of Boroughbridge. 



The period of Sir John Scott's tenure of the office of attorney- 

 general extends to the year 1799. It is memorable for the state trials 

 connected with the political excitement produced in this country by 

 the breaking out of the French Revolution. Muir, Palmer, Skirviug, 

 Margarot, and Gerald, had all been convicted of sedition in Scotland, 

 and sentenced to fourteen years transportation, when in October 1794, 

 Hardy, Home Tooke, Thelwall, Holcroft, and their associates, were 

 indicted for high treason at the Old Bailey. Only Hardy, Tooke, and 

 Thelwall were tried ; all three were acquitted ; and the prosecutions 

 against the other prisoners were dropped. There has been much 

 difference of opinion as to the wisdom of the course taken by the 

 government on this occasion, but perhaps too much stress has com- 

 monly been laid on the single fact that none of the trials issued iu a 

 conviction. There can be no doubt that the evidence, although it 

 was held insufficient to support the charge of high treason, produced 

 an immense effect upon the public mind ; and the accused were dis- 

 missed from the bar unharmed, but to a great extent disarmed. The 

 attorney-general naturally came in for a principal share of the obloquy 

 which the proceedings excited ; but his demeanour in the conduct of 

 the trials was admitted on all hands to have been characterised by 

 moderation and good temper. His answer to the question so often 

 asked, Why he had not prosecuted for a misdemeanour? always 

 was, that in his deliberate opinion the offence was treason or nothing; 

 but he never could get over the next question, How could anyone 

 expect a jury to convict of treason, when it required a speech of 

 eleven hours to state the charge ? In his own written account how- 

 ever, as quoted by Mr. Twiss from the ' Anecdote-Book,' vol. i. 

 pp. 282-86, he lays the principal stress upon the desirableness of 

 bringing out all the evidence. His words are, " The mass of evidence, 

 in my judgment, was such as ought to go to the jury for their 

 opinion, whether they were guilty or not guilty of treason. Unless 

 the whole evidence was laid before the jury, it would have been 

 impossible that the country could ever have been made fully acquainted 



with the danger to which it was exposed ; and it appeared to 



me to be more essential to securing the public safety that the whole 

 of their transactions should be published, than that any of these 

 individuals should be convicted." 



In July 1799, on the death of Sir James Eyre, chief justice of the 

 Common Pleas, Sir John Scott claimed and obtained that office, 

 agreeing at the same time to go into the House of Lords. His title 

 of Baron Eldon was taken from a manor of that name, consisting of 

 above 1300 acres, in the county of Durham, which he had purchased 

 for 22,0002. in 1792. It appears from Lord Eldou's fee books, as far 

 as tbey have been preserved, that his annual receipts when at the bar 

 had been iu 1785, 60542. ; in 1786, 68332. ; in 1787, 76002.; in 1788, 

 84192. ; in 1789, 95592. ; in 1790, 96842.; in 1791, 10,2132.; in 1792, 

 90802.; in 1793, 10,3302. ; in 1794, 11,592*.; in 1795, 11,1492.; in 

 1796, 12,1402. ; in 1797, 10,8612. ; and in 1798, 10,557. His removal 

 to the bench was a great sacrifice of income, but he considered that 

 his health and comfort required his retirement from the laborious 

 office of attorney-general. His claim however was at first opposed 

 by both Pitt and Loughborough the chancellor, who were desirous of 

 giving the office to Sir R. Pepper Arden, theu master of the rolls. 



When it became known that Sir John Scott was to be the new chief 

 justice of the Common Pleas, Lord Kenyon, then chief justice of the 

 King's Bench, publicly congratulated the profession upon the appoint- 

 ment of one, who, he said, would probably be found " the most 

 consummate judge that ever sate in judgment : " and Lord Eldou 

 proved an admirable common law judge. "On the benoh of a 

 common law court," it is remarked by his biographer, " no scope was 

 allowed to his only judicial imperfection, the tendency to hesitate. 



Compelled to decide without postponement, Lord Eldon at 



once established the highest judicial reputation ; a reputation indeed 

 which afterwards wrought somewhat disailvantageously against him- 

 self when lord chancellor, by showing how little ground there was for 

 his diffidence, and consequently how little necessity for his doubts and 

 delays." He was also much attached to his office, and to the end of 

 his life used to express the strong regret with which he had left the 

 Court of Common Pleas, 



