Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/419

 Rh

3^4 LORD ESHER.

William Baliol Brett, Lord Esher, has been a typical instance of the identity which may exist between physical and mental power. The son of the Rev. Joseph George Brett of Ranelagh, Chelsea, he was born in 1 8 1 5, and educated first at Westminster School and afterwards at Caius College, Cam bridge, where he graduated as B. A. in 1840 and M. A. a few years later, and exhibited prowess as a rower which is one of the most cherished memories of his College at this day. He was called to the Bar of Lincoln's Inn in 1846, and joined the Northern Circuit where he distinguished himself so highly as a mercantile and admiralty lawyer that he was able to take " silk " in 1860 and to enter upon the political career to which every law yer looks forward. At first fortune did not crown his efforts. He was defeated in his attack, as conservative candidate, on Roch dale, first by Mr. Cobden — of Free Trade and Corn-Law Repeal immortality — and af terwards by Mr. T. B. Potter. But in 1886 Mr. Brett was returned for Helston in Corn wall. In August, 1868 he was raised to the solictor-generalship and the honor of knight hood, and soon afterwards, partly in recog nition of the henchman's service he did in Parliament in connection with the passing of the Registration and Corrupt Practices Act, 1868, but far more as a tribute to his great legal abilities he was appointed a Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. In 1876 he was raised to the Court of Appeal and in 1883 — on the advice of Mr. Gladstone, long his political opponent — he became Master of the Rolls in succession to Sir George Jessel. When Lord Salisbury accepted the premiership in 1885, it was universally ex pected that Lord Esher — who had been raised to the peerage on his appointment as Master of the Rolls — would be made Chan cellor, and he is said to have been congrat ulated in Lincoln's Inn Hall on the honor that was supposed to be awaiting him. But

Sir Hardinge Gifford had the prior claim, and he ascended the woolsack as Baron Halsbury. The Master of the Rolls could ill have been spared to the Court of Appeal. He has been for the last ten years the great apostle of judicial common sense. He has been the idol of solicitors, for his judg ments were always couched in language which they could thoroughly comprehend, and yet in robustness of intellect and breadth of view, and at the same time in legal acu men, Lord Esher has not been surpassed by many of his contemporaries. His deci sions were delivered in a style of running comment which was apt to conceal at times his strong sense and great intellectual abil ity. In point of courageous independence of precedent Lord Esher stands second to Sir George Jessel among the lawyers of this gen eration. His judgment in the Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone (1892, 8 Times, L. R. 408) is a fine illustration of this quality. The plain tiffs sued to recover the balance due upon a promissory note signed by the defendant as surety. The defendant pleaded that when he signed the note he was — as the plaintiffs well knew — of unsound mind and incapable of understanding what he was doing. The action was tried before Mr. Justice Denman and a jury. The jury found that the defen dant was not of sane mind but could not agree as to whether or not the plaintiffs were aware of the fact. Thereupon Mr. Justice Denman entered judgment for the defendant being of opinion that the onus lay upon the plaintiffs, to show that they did not know the defendant to be of unsound mind. This judgment was however reversed by the Court of Appeal, and Lord Esher said, " If one went through all the cases and endeavored to point out the grounds on which they rest, one would get into a maze. The time has come when this Court must lay down the rule. In my opinion the result of the cases is this. When a person enters into a con tract and afterwards alleges that he was in sane at the time, and that he did not know