nor any other counsel, then confined themselves to that branch of practice. Lloyd, with the undistinguishing panegyrics he bestows on all, says of Littleton, that "his learning was various and useful; his skill in the maxims of our government, the fundamental laws of the monarchy, with its statutes and customs, singular; his experience long and observing; his integrity unblemished and unbiassed; his eloquence powerful and majestic, and all befitting a statesman and a Lord Keeper." But Clarendon, though inclined to screen him, having some regard to candour and truth, is obliged to say-"Being a man of grave and comely presence, his other parts were overvalued. From the time he had the Great Seal he seemed to be out of his element, and in some perplexity and irresolution in the Chancery itself, though he had great experience in the practices and proceedings of that Court; and made not that despatch that was expected at the Council table; and in the parliament he did not preserve any dignity, and appeared so totally dispirited that few men showed any respect to him, but they who most opposed the King, who indeed did exceedingly apply themselves to him, and were with equal kindness received by him." In 1683 there was published a folio volume of his Reports of Cases decided in the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer in the beginning of the reign of Charles I. They are in Norman French, and they are not very valuable; but he had not intended them for publication, and they were found among the papers of his brother, Sir Timothy Littleton, a Baron of the Exchequer. The Lord Keeper never aspired to the honours of authorship. e He was twice married, but his only issue was a daughter, and his title became extinct. It was revived, however, in the elder branch of his family,-Sir Thomas Littleton, descended from William, the eldest son of the founder, having been created Lord Lyttleton in the reign of George II. In the south window of the Inner Temple Hall there is a fine shield of the Lord Keeper's arms, with fifteen quarterings, distinguished by a crescent within a mullet, which shows him to have been of the third house. f e The title is curious as showing the strange Gypsy jargon then used by English lawyers: "LES REPORTS des tres Honorable EDW. SEIGNEUR LITTLETON, BARON De MOUNSLOW, CUSTOS de le Grand Seale d'Angliteur, et de ses Majesty pluis HONORABLE PRIVY COUNCEL, en les Courts del CoмMON BANCK et EXCHEQUER en le 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ans del reign de Roy CHARLES le I." f I am indebted to Lord Hatherton, representative of the second house of the Littletons, for several interesting particulars of the Lord Keeper, which I have above related. A.D. 1639-41. LORD KEEPER LANE. 301 CHAPTER LXVII. LIFE OF LORD KEEPER LANE. I HAVE now to introduce to the reader a man who, although he never was installed in " the marble chair" in Westminster Hall, nor ever presided on the woolsack, was the legitimate successor of the illustrious Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers whose names are known to fame. I regret that my researches respecting him have not been more successful, for all that I have discovered of him is to his honour. He was a very high royalist, but sincere, firm, and consistent. His father was Richard Lane, of Courtenhall, in the county of Northampton, who, though of little wealth, was A.D. 1639. entitled to arms. 8 Young Lane seems to have raised himself from obscurity by talent, industry, and perseverance. Having never sat in parliament, nor been engaged in any great state prosecution, he had not much celebrity till the troubles were breaking out; but he was known to discerning men as an admirable lawyer as well as a steady friend of the prerogative, and in the hope that he might be useful to the Crown in the proceedings which were now anticipated, he was made Attorney-General to the Prince of Wales. Mar. 1641. Soon after this promotion the Long Parliament met, and Strafford was impeached for high treason. However much Charles wished to protect him, he could not be defended by Banks or Herbert, the Attorney and SolicitorGeneral to the Crown,-and Mr. Lane was retained as his leading counsel, along with Gardiner, Recorder of London, a man of great eminence in his profession, and Loe and Lightfoot, two promising juniors. An order being made by the House of Lords for assigning them and giving them access to their client, the Commons most unreasonably complained that such a step should be taken without their consent, and inveighed with much bitterness against those lawyers who durst be of counsel with a person accused by them of high treason. Nay, one member 8 Herald's Hist. of Northamptons. A.D. 1618, c. 14. went so far as to move that they should be sent for and proceeded against for their contempt; but it was suggested that they not only were obliged to it by the honour and duty of their profession, but that they would have been punishable for refusing to submit to the Lords' order. It appeared too revolting to make this matter a breach of privilege, and the debate dropped. Such attempts at intimidation have ever been scorned by the bar of England, and Lane and his brethren were now only more eager and determined to do their duty at every hazard. When Strafford was brought up to be arraigned, Lane made a heavy complaint of the length of the articles of impeachment, which contained the actions of the Earl's service for thirteen years past, both in England and Ireland, and he prayed farther time to prepare the answer. This, after considerable difficulty, he obtained. During the seventeen days which the trial lasted on matters of fact, Lane and the other counsel were not allowed in the slightest degree to interfere, and the noble prisoner, unassisted, carried on against the most distinguished lawyers and statesmen of the country party, and against public prejudice and passion, that heroic struggle which seemed to render the result doubtful, and which shed such a lustre on his closing scene. "Now private pity strove with public hate, He then prayed that he might be heard by his counsel upon the question, whether any of the charges amounted to treason in point of law? and in spite of a stout resistance by the managers of the Commons, who felt that the case was going against them, leave was given. The 17th of April, 1641, was the most memorable day in the life of Lane. The Commons resentfully refused to attend as a body, but almost all the members of the House were present from curiosity. The Scottish and Irish Commissioners filled the galleries; the King and his family were known to be in the royal closet, the Prince occasionally showing himself and nodding to his Attorney-General; the uninclosed part of Westminster Hall was filled by an immense mass of anxious spectators from the city and from the provinces, once strongly incensed against Strafford, but now beginning to doubt his A.D. 1641. HIS ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF STRAFFORD. 303 guilt, and strongly inclined to admire and to pity him. How insignificant in comparison was the trial of Warren Hastings, of which we have heard such boastful accounts from our fathers! Lane surpassed all expectation. Knowing that a majority of Peers were now favourable to his client, and being unchecked by any opponents,-although he professed to carry himself with all content and satisfaction to the House of Commons, and to abstain from touching on the merits of the cause,-he said that it was impossible to argue the question of law without stating the facts (as he understood them) out of which that question arose. Accordingly he took a short, rapid, and dexterous view of the evidence adduced. Having then shown very distinctly and incontrovertibly that none of the charges amounted to treason under the statute of Edward III., which provides against "compassing the King's death, levying war against him, violating his companion, and counterfeiting his Great Seal," but is entirely silent with respect to "subverting the fundamental laws of the kingdom," he came to the main point which had been urged by the Commons, "whether the salvo in that statute as to parliament declaring a new case of treason could apply to a parliamentary impeachment?" and he argued to demonstration that this power could only be exercised by parliament in its "legislative capacity," that the House of Lords was then acting judicially according to promulgated law, and that the Earl must be acquitted, unless he could be proved to have done an act which had been legislatively declared treason before it was committed. He finally contended that, assuming the subversion of the fundamental laws of the kingdom to be high treason, one or more acts of injustice, whether maliciously or ignorantly done, could in no sense be called the subversion of the fundamental laws; for otherwise, possibly as many judges, so many traitors," and all distinction and degrees of offences being confounded, every man who transgresses a statute may lose his life and his estate, and bring ruin on his posterity. He then went over all the cases supposed to be in point, from that of John de la Pole downwards, showing that, in the worst of times, no man had been convicted of treason except upon a specific charge of having violated one of the express provisions of the Statute of Treasons—a statute made to guard the subject from constructive and undefined offences against the government--a statute which had been the glory of Englishmen-for which 66 respect had been professed by our most arbitrary sovereigns --but which was now to be swept away by those who avowed themselves the champions of freedom, and the reformers of all abuses. He sat down amidst great applause; and, after a short address from the Recorder on the same side,-it being as late as between two and three o'clock in the afternoon, the House adjourned." An acquittal was now considered certain; but in the night the parliamentary leaders entirely changed their plan of proceeding. Instead of praying the judgment of the Lords upon the articles of impeachment, they said they intended not to offer any reply to the argument of law made by Mr. Lane, it being below their dignity to contend with a private lawyer ; and, next morning, they put up Sir Arthur Hazelrig, absurd, bold man, a pupil of Pym, and employed by the party on any desperate occasion, to prefer a bill in the House of Commons "for the attainder of the Earl of Strafford of high treason." 66 an This bill was opposed by Selden and the more moderate lawyers on the liberal side, and could hardly have been pushed through but for the newly-discovered evidence brought forward by Sir Harry Vane respecting Strafford's declaration in council, "that the King having tried the affection of his people, was absolved from all rule of government; and that the army from Ireland might reduce this kingdom to obedience." The effect was heightened by the disgraceful opinion obtained from the trembling Judges, that this charge amounted to high treason. When the bill came up to the Lords, Lane having no longer an opportunity of being heard, Oliver St. John, who had accepted and retained the title of "King's Solicitor-General," but was the most furious of the prosecutors of Strafford, boldly attempted to answer Lane's argument; and, feeling that he had failed, he unblushingly said, "that in that way of bill, private satisfaction to each man's conscience was sufficient; and why should they take such trouble about law in such a case? It was true we give law to hares and deer, because they are beasts of chase; but it was never accounted either cruelty or foul play to knock foxes and wolves on the head, where they may be found, because they are beasts of prey "i h 3 St. Tr. 1472. 2 Parl. Hist. 732. i 3 St. Tr. 1477. |