MR. LECH- to administer honestly and conscientiously the charity funds of TON'S CASE. this borough. These are the persons that you, as a wise and MERE CHARL [ *321 ] incorruptible Judge, presume to recommend for that important trust, giving the depredators (for so they are if they attempt to purloin the charity funds for their own benefit) a majority of ten to seven, when you will remember, and I dare you to deny it, that after I had urged the same argument against the council having any thing to do with these funds that I have now, that you yourself admitted that they were improper persons, and you asked me if I would be satisfied if you gave to the petitioners a majority over the council, in order to prevent such misapplication of the charity money that I anticipated. Such conduct, Sir, may be becoming enough in Master Brummagem, but in Master Brougham it is as unexpected as it is inexcusable. In order to make out something like a case to justify you, you have, if I am to understand that this decision of yours is conclusive, and is to be reported to the Chancellor, thrown all the blame on me, to which I will not submit. Far be it, however, from me to throw out, in this stage of the business, a threat to you in your capacity of a Judge. I have too much respect for that high office, when it is held, as it ought to be, for the protection of its suitors, to be unmindful of my duty. All I ask is, that there should be a rehearing, and that you should set yourself right where you have been led into error. All I ask, in short, is, even-handed justice, in which case this letter shall never be made public, nor shall your serenity be again disturbed by any further remonstrance from "Your obedient and very humble servant, "E. L. CHARLTON. "P.S.-I shall be in London on the first day of Term, and shall wait for your answer at Fendall's Hotel,' Palace Yard. "To WM. BROUGHAM, Esq." The following are the inclosures to which the foregoing letter refers. "Copy of notes written on the state of facts: 'Stated and admitted to be true, that the corporation being in debt to the Ludlow Bank, and feeling doubtful whether they MR. LECHMERE CHARL ought to hand over the deeds and securities belonging to the corporation to the new council, deposited, under the advice of TON'S CASE. Serjeant Merewether, with the bank, who now claim a lien upon them; and also that there were important questions pending between the old trustees and the present town council. See also affidavit of Mr. Charlton respecting money borrowed by the late trustees from the same bankers, with whom deeds deposited: I think this makes it improper to appoint them new trustees. In addition to the objection to appoint any of the old trustees arising out of the above admission of Mr. Charlton, who appeared before me as counsel for the petitioners, Sankey and others, and also from what appears in the affidavit of Mr. Charlton, it is to be observed, that the said petitioners are in contempt, inasmuch as they have refused to comply with my order to produce before me the deeds, books, papers, and writings relating to the estates and property of the charity in question; I am therefore of opinion that in this case none of the old trustees ought to be appointed, and have accordingly selected some other names from the list proposed by the said petitioners, Sankey and others. The above seventeen names approved, subject to consent. '30th Sept. 1836. (Signed) 'W. B.' 'LUDLOW.-Stated that the estates under Edward the Sixth's Charity are solely for charitable purposes. Query whether, the corporation contending that this is corporate property, it is safe to appoint them? Assuming that the whole is [ *322 ] MR. LECH- applicable to charity, the present corporation ought not to be MERE CHARL TON'S CASE, appointed. 'Richard Marston. Sir E. Thomason. [ *323 ] Nor. 7. [ 324 ] 66 The above is not written on the state of facts, but on a separate sheet of paper; but to it there is neither the *name nor the initials of Mr. Brougham, so that it stands for nothing.' At the sitting of the Court, on Monday the 7th of November, the LORD CHANCELLOR said: I feel it my duty to state an occurrence in the office of one of the Masters of the Court, to which I have seen no parallel in the course of above thirty years' experience. Master Brougham has put into my hands a letter received from a gentleman, who describes himself as a barrister, and as having attended the Master upon a reference made by an order of this Court. I abstain, at present, from mentioning the name of the gentleman to whom I have alluded; but I think it right to say it is not the name of any gentleman whom I am accustomed to see practising in this Court. The letter states the proceedings in the Master's Office; and, after complaining of an opinion which the Master is supposed to have formed-not stating any report, but, on the contrary, that the case is still pending and after using expressions in the letter which no gentleman could permit to be used towards himself, and proceeding in terms which I at present abstain from characterising, and throwing out insinuations of the most calumnious nature, concludes with a direct threat, the object of which is to induce the Master to alter the opinion he was supposed to have formed, and to come to a conclusion favourable to the case advocated by the writer of the letter; and the writer then adds, that he shall be in London on the first day of Term, and shall wait for the Master's answer at the place which he mentions. It is quite obvious what course the Master should have pursued. He should have referred the letter at once to the Court. It appears, however, that the Master adopted a course which I cannot approve. He put the letter into the hands of a friend. That friend doubted whether he could permit the matter to proceed in a hostile manner, and consulted with another gentleman of high rank and character. They both agreed that it was impossible the matter should proceed in that course, and that the Master could not treat it as a personal quarrel; but that it being a letter, addressed to him in the exercise of his judicial functions, it should be referred to me. It is impossible not to disapprove of the course the Master took in the first instance for it is quite obvious, that if the Masters are to take up such matters as personal quarrels, not only do they put themselves at the mercy of those who might wish to attain their ends by any means, but there may arise an influence of a private or personal nature, which cannot but interfere materially with the due administration of the law; and I, therefore, entirely approve of the advice which the Master has received, to place the case before the Court. It remains for me to consider what course I ought to adopt. It is obvious, that if the Masters are not to consider matters of this kind in the light of personal quarrels, it is the duty of the Court to throw its protection round them. What I have said, however, has been necessarily said in the absence of the party whose name was subscribed to the letter; and, indeed, I have no judicial knowledge that it was written by him. A case of this nature has never occurred within my knowledge. It has often occurred that letters have been improperly addressed to Judges, sometimes from *ignorance, and sometimes from improper motives, with reference to matters pending before them; but never before, that I have known, in such insulting language, and in absolute threats. In all those cases, the practice has been adopted, of handing over the letter to the opposite side. I propose, therefore, in this instance, to direct, that as many copies should be made of this letter as there were parties before the Master upon the inquiry in question, and that each party should be furnished with a copy. The course which the parties may take, may render it unnecessary for me to adopt any further measures. Let the further consideration of this matter be adjourned to Saturday next. MR. LECH MERE CHARL- [ *325] MR. LECH On the 9th of November, 1836, Mr. Lechmere Charlton TON'S CASE. addressed the following letter to the Lord Chancellor : MERE CHARL [331] [ *332 ] 66 "MY LORD, "FENDALL'S HOTEL, Palace Yard, "By the report in the Times newspaper of yesterday, of the proceedings in Chancery on the preceding day, I am given to understand that your Lordship says that you have no legal knowledge' that a certain letter of the 24th of October, signed with my name, and dated from my residence, to Master Brougham, respecting his conduct in the matter of the charity trusts of Ludlow, was written by me. I am uncertain, therefore, whether this letter will throw any additional light on the subject; but the motive I have in writing it is, to avow the authorship, and to say, with all becoming respect, that I shall not shrink from the responsibility." [The letter then recapitulated at length the opinions which the writer had expressed in his letter to Master Brougham, and concluded as follows:] "Towards Master Brougham I freely declare that I harbour no sort of ill-will; it is of his judicial conduct alone that I complained, and which I hope would have been corrected. If I had been in any way misinformed respecting the accuracy of his notes, or if, in my zeal for the object that I had at heart, I had done anything unbecoming a man of honour, or lowered, in the slightest degree, the high functions of the judicial character, which it has been the object of my life to venerate and uphold, I should have been willing to make any atonement that a gentleman can; but if, on the contrary, I have, by my conduct, attempted to preserve the dignity and sanctity of the office, by resisting, as became me, the abuse of power, I glory in what I have done, and will willingly brave your Lordship's *authority before I will retract or apologise for a syllable that I have written. "I have, &c. "The Lord High Chancellor, &c. &c. &c." "E. L. CHARLTON. |