But

scurity there, the Reverend Sydney Smith, in an assize sermon delivered in York Cathedral, in 1824, from the text, "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him,"*-for the encouragement of the desponding young barristers, said, "Fifty years ago, the person at the head of his profession, the greatest lawyer now in England, perhaps in the world, stood in this church on such an occasion as the present, as obscure, as unknown, and as much doubting of his future prospects, as the humblest individual of the profession here present." in the four northern counties he had almost from his first start a good share of business. It is curious to think that this chiefly consisted in defending prisoners in the Crown court-or what is jocularly called in the profession the "rope-walk." But he had not the common reputation of lawyers who are eminent in this line,-that they greatly assist in the execution of the criminal law by hanging their clients;-instead of getting out the truth by indiscreet cross-examinations, he was wont to say that he had been a most effective advocate for prisoners, as he had seldom put a question to a prosecutor. He told this story to illustrate his practice: "I was counsel for a highwayman at Durham, who was certainly guilty, but against whom no sufficient case was made out by legal evidence: I would not aid the prosecution by cross-examination, and, remaining quiet, my client was acquitted and discharged. Sitting in my lodgings in the evening, a very ill-looking fellow, whose face I had seen before, but could not at first recollect where-for he had changed his dress-burst in, my clerk being absent-and said, Lawyer Scott, you owe me two guineas. You were my counsellor to-day, and you did nothing for me. I am, therefore, come to have my fee back again: and my fee I will have.' I seized the poker, and said, 'Sirrah, although you escaped to-day, when you deserved to be hanged, you shall be hanged to-morrow for attempting to rob me, unless you instantly depart. At that moment my clerk luckily came in, and the highwayman slunk off, or I am not sure that he would not have carried away with him not only his own fee, but all the fees I had received on the circuit."

He had for some time succeeded so much better in the country than in London, that he again seriously meditated becoming a "provincial." I believe that, if there had not been a speedy turn in his metropolitan practice, he would have carried it into effect; and, considering the important part he played during the King's illnesses, and on the dissolution of several administrations, who can tell how the history of the country might have been changed if he had been only Recorder of Newcastle, instead of being Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain!

But his extraordinary merit as a lawyer was now about to be disclosed to all the world; and from this time his rise was rapid and steady. He had only one brief before Lord Chancellor Bathurst, who was then entirely under the dominion of Thurlow, the Attorney General. After Thurlow and Wedderburn had argued the case at considerable length

*Luke x. 25.

for opposing parties, between whom it was supposed to lie, and Lord Bathurst had intimated a strong opinion in favour of Thurlow's clientScott, a very young man, and wholly unknown, appeared as counsel for a third party. The Chancellor was disposed (though with much courtesy,) to conclude that the young counsel could not cast much light upon the controversy. Still he suffered him to speak-but without indicating any symptom of being convinced-when Thurlow rose, and, in a very decided tone, exclaimed, "My Lord, Mr. Scott is right;" and dictated a decree accordingly." *

The first important case in which he seems to have been employed in the Court of Chancery was Green v. Howard,† in which [A.D. 1779.] he was junior to Mr. Ambler and Mr. Maddocks, and in vain tried to persuade Lord Thurlow, who had lately succeeded to the Great Seal, that a bequest to the testator's "relations" would extend beyond that class of relations who, had he died intestate, would have taken under the "Statute of Distributions." His argument on this occasion, though badly reported, seems to have been very creditable to him.

But his fortune was made by Akroyd v. Smithson.‡ Not more than three weeks before his death, he gave the following very interesting account of that case to Mr. Farrer, who was dining with him, and put a question to him respecting it:

Come, help yourself to a glass of Newcastle port, and give me a little. You must know that the testator in that cause had directed his real estates to be sold, and after paying his debts, and funeral and testamentary expenses, the residue of the money to be divided into fifteen parts-which he gave to fifteen persons whom he named in his will. One of those persons died in the testator's lifetime. A bill was filed by the next of kin, claiming, amongst other things, the lapsed share. A brief was given me to consent for the heir-at-law, upon the hearing of the cause. I had nothing then to do but to pore over this brief. I went through all the cases in the books, and satisfied myself that the lapsed share was to be considered as real estate, and belonged to my client, the (heir-at-law.) The cause came on at the Rolls, before Sir Thomas Sewell. I told the solicitor, who sent me the brief, that I should consent for the heir-at-law, so far as regarded the due execution of the will, but that I must support the title of the heir to the one fifteenth which had lapsed. Accordingly, I did argue it, and went through all the authorities. When Sir Thomas Sewell went out of Court, he asked the Register who that young man was! The Register told him it was Mr. Scott. "He has argued very well,' said Sir Thomas Sewell,

* This anecdote rests on Lord Eldon's own authority.-Sir Vicary Gibbs told me, that on the Western Circuit, when counsel for the plaintiff, Baron Graham was for deciding in his favour; but he insisted on being nonsuited, conscious that the law was against him, and that his client would have been put to the expense of correcting the Judge's error.

† 6th Feb., 1779. Br. Chancery Cases, p. 31.

Brown's Chancery Cases, vol. iii. p. 300.

'but I cannot agree with him.' This the Register told me. He decreed [A. D. 1780.] against my client. The cause having been carried, by appeal, to the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, a guinea brief was again brought to me to consent. I told my client, if he meant by • consent' to give up the claim of the heir to the lapsed share, he must take his brief elsewhere, for I would not hold it without arguing that point. He said something about young men being obstinate, but that I must do as I thought right. You see the lucky thing was, there being two other parties, and, the disappointed one not being content, there was an appeal to Lord Thurlow.-In the mean while they had written to Mr. Johnston, Recorder of York, guardian to the young heir at-law, and a clever man, but his answer was, Do not send good [MARCH 4.] money after bad: let Mr. Scott have a guinea to give consent; and if he will argue, why, let him do so, but give him no more.' So I went into Court, and when Lord Thurlow asked who was to appear for the heir at law, I rose, and said modestly that I was; and as I could not but think (with much deference to the Master of the Rolls, for I might be wrong,) that my client had the right to the property, if his Lordship would give me leave I would argue it.'-It was rather arduous for me to rise against all the eminent counsel. I do not say that their opinions were against me, but they were employed against me. However, I argued that the testator had ordered this fifteenth share of the property to be converted into personal property, for the benefit of one particular individual, and that therefore he never contemplated its coming into possession of either the next of kin nor the residuary legatee; but, being land, at the death of the individual it came to the heirat-law.—Well, Thurlow took three days to consider, and then delivered his judgment in accordance with my speech, and that speech is in print, and has decided all similar questions ever since.-As I left the Hall, a respectable solicitor of the name of Forster came up, and touched me on the shoulder, and said, ' Young man, your bread and butter is cut for life,' or You have cut your bread and butter.' But the story of Akroyd v. Smithson does not stop there. In the Chancellor's Court of Lancaster, where Dunning (Lord Ashburton,) was Chancellor, a brief was given me in a cause in which the interest of my client would oblige me to support, by argument, the reverse of that which had been decided by the decree in Akroyd v. Smithson. When I had stated to the Court the point I was going to argue, Dunning said, Sit down, young man.' As I did not immediately comply, he repeated, 'Sit down, Sir, I won't hear you.'-I then sat down. Dunning said, I believe your name is Scott, Sir?'-I said it was. Upon which Dunning went on:-" - Mr. Scott, did not you argue that case of Akroyd.v. Smith[A A.D. 1780.] son?--I said that I did argue it.--Dunning then said, 'Mr. Scott, I have read your argument in that case of Akroyd v. Smithson, and I defy you, or any man in England, to answer it. I won't hear you.' 999*

*Twiss, vol. i. ch. vi.

6

Mr. Scott's argument in Akroyd v. Smithson made a great sensation in Westminster Hall, and, in the words of Lord Byron, "next day he awoke and found himself famous,”—although from the nature of the subject the éclat could not be compared with that acquired nearly about the same time by Erskine as counsel for Captain Baillie. But erroneous accounts have been given of its immediate consequences. Several writers have said that Lord Thurlow immediately offered him a Mastership in Chancery. Such an offer would have been gladly accepted, but was never made. The fulfilment of the promise of a Commissioner of Bankrupts was still in vain expected, and the Chancellor being some years afterwards interrogated on this subject, said that, "from his high opinion of Scott he had not given him the appointment, as it might have been his ruin.”* Again, it is said that not long afterwards an offer was made to him of the Recordership of Newcastle, and that, having accepted it, he caused a house to be engaged for him there; but Mr. W. S. Surtees has satisfactorily proved that he never was Recorder of Newcastle, and that no offer of that office could ever have been made to him. The story of the residence must have originated from the circumstance of his having actually, in 1777, engaged the house which he assigned over to his brother Henry.†

The year 1780 continued a very lucky one for him. On the dissolution of Parliament, Mr. Bowes being returned, with Sir Matthew White Ridley, for Newcastle, there was a petition against them by Mr. Delaval, the unsuccessful candidate; and Mr. Scott being their counsel, with Jack Lee-after the committee had sat many days, and many fees were received, the petition was voted "frivolous and vexatious."

He was about this time in serious peril from Lord George Gordon's mobs, and, what was worse, Mrs. Scott was exposed to insult-when he was taking her for safety to the Temple, which was fortified. I observe that the lawyers all pretended to great prowess in this emergency. We have seen Erskine's boasting narrative of his putting the insurgents to rout with a piece of artillery. Lord Eldon, after stating how his wife's hat was lost, and every article of her dress was torn, proceeded with much quiet humour: "We youngsters at the Temple determined that we would not remain inactive during such times; so we introduced ourselves into a troop to assist the military. We armed ourselves as well as we could, and the next morning we drew up in the court, ready to follow out a troop of soldiers who were there on guard. When, however, the soldiers had passed through the gate, it was suddenly shut in our faces, and the officer in command shouted from the

* Lord Eldon said "I have now a letter in which Lord Thurlow promised me a Commissionership of Bankruptcy when it would have been most valuable to me in point of income; he never gave it me, and he always said it was a favour to me to withhold it. What he meant was, that he had learned (a clear truth,) that I was by nature very indolent, and it was only want that could make me industrious." This could only have been meant as a bantering apology for a broken promise.

Surtees, ch. ii.

other side, 'Gentlemen, I am much obliged to you for your intended assistance, but I do not choose to allow my soldiers to be shot; so I have ordered you to be locked in,'-and away he galloped."

The following year saw Mr. Scott fully established in business, and an uninterrupted tide of prosperity flowed in upon him for the rest of his life. Fond of making people stare when he referred, in his old age, to his early history, he would sometimes ascribe all his success to the accident of being employed as counsel before the Clitheroe election committee-which he thus narrated:

"Mr. (afterwards Lord) Curzon, and four or five gentlemen, came to my door and woke me, and when I inquired what they wanted, they stated that the Clitheroe election case was to come on, that morning at ten o'clock, before a committee of the House of Commons; that Mr. Cooper had written to say he was detained at Oxford by illness, and could not arrive to lead the cause; and that Mr. Hardinge, the next counsel, refused to do so, because he was not prepared. Well, gentlemen,' said I, 'what do you expect me to do, that you are here?' They answered, they did not know what to expect or to do, for the cause must come on at ten o'clock, and they were totally unprepared, and had been recommended to me as a young and promising counsel.' I answered, I will tell you what I can do; I can undertake to make a dry statement of facts, if that will content you gentlemen, but more I cannot do, for I have no time to make myself acquainted with the law.' They said that must do; so I begged they would go down stairs and let me get up as fast as I could. Well, I did state the [A. D. 1781.] facts, and the cause went on for fifteen days. It found me poor enough, but I began to be rich before I was done: they left ine fifty guineas at the beginning; then there were ten guineas every day, and five guineas every evening for a consultation-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.On the morning on which the counsel for the petitioner was to reply, Hardinge came into the committee-room, meaning to reply. I saw the members of the committee put their heads together, and then one of them said, 'Mr. Hardinge, Mr. Scott opened this case, and has attended it throughout, and the committee think, that, if he likes to reply, he ought to do so: Mr. Scott, would you like to reply?'-I answered that I would do my best.' I began my speech with a very bad joke. You must know that the leading counsel on the other side, Douglas, afterwards Lord Glenbervie, had made one of the longest speeches ever known before a committee, and had argued that the borough of Clitheroe was not a borough by prescription, for it had its origin within the memory of man. I began by saying, 'I will prove to the committee, by the best evidence, that the borough of Clitheroe is a borough by prescription; that it had its origin before the memory of man. My learned friend will admit the commencement of this borough was before the commencement of his speech; but the commencement of his speech is beyond the memory of man: therefore the borough of Clitheroe must