Jump to content

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ironholds (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 27 March 2009 (3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For descendants of the first Lord Mansfield, see Earl of Mansfield and Mansfield.
William Murray
1st Earl of Mansfield
SL PC
Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench
In office
8 November 1756 – 4 June 1788
Prime MinisterThomas Pelham
Preceded byDudley Ryder
Succeeded byLord Kenyon
Lord Speaker
In office
February 1783 – 23 December 1783
Prime MinisterThe Duke of Portland
Preceded byThe Earl of Hardwicke
Succeeded byThe Earl of Northington
Chancellor of the Exchequer
In office
5 April 1757 – 8 April 1757
Prime MinisterThomas Pelham
Preceded byHenry Bilson Legge
Succeeded byHenry Bilson Legge
Attorney General for England and Wales
In office
6 March 1754 – 8 November 1756
Prime MinisterThomas Pelham
Preceded byDudley Ryder
Succeeded bySir Robert Henley
Solicitor General for England and Wales
In office
15 December 1742 – 6 March 1754
Prime MinisterSpencer Compton, 1st Earl of Wilmington
Preceded bySir John Strange
Succeeded bySir Richard Lloyd
Personal details
Born(1705-03-02)2 March 1705
Scone Palace, Perthshire, Scotland
Died20 March 1793(1793-03-20) (aged 88)
Kenwood House
SpouseElizabeth Finch
ResidenceKenwood House
Alma materChrist Church, Oxford

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield SL PC, (2 March, 1705 – 20 March, 1793), commonly known as Lord Mansfield, was a British barrister, politician and judge noted for his reform of English law. Born to Scottish nobility, Murray was educated in Perth before moving to London at the age of 13 to take up a place at Westminster School. He was accepted into Christ Church, Oxford in May 1723, and graduated four years later. Returning to London from Oxford, he was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn on 23 November, 1730, and quickly gained a reputation as an excellent barrister.

Murray became involved in politics in 1742, beginning with his election as a Member of Parliament for Boroughbridge, and appointment as Solicitor General. In the absence of a strong Attorney General, he became the main spokesman for the government in the House of Commons, and was noted for his "great powers of eloquence" and described as "beyond comparison the best speaker" in the House of Commons.[1] With the promotion of Dudley Ryder to Lord Chief Justice in 1754, Murray became Attorney General, and when Ryder unexpectedly died several months later, Murray took his place as Chief Justice.

As Lord Chief Justice Murray modernised both English law and the English court system; he sped up the system for submitting motions and reformed the way judgements were given, in order to reduce the cost in time and money for the parties. For his work in Carter v Boehm and Pillans v Van Mierop, Murray has been called the founder of English commercial law. He is perhaps best known for his judgement in Somersett's Case, where he held that slavery was unlawful in England.

Early life and education

William Murray was born on 2 March, 1705, at Scone Palace in Perthshire, Scotland to David Murray, the 5th Viscount of Stormont and his wife, Margaret née Scott. Both his parents were strong supporters of the Jacobite cause.[2] Murray was educated at Perth Grammar School, where he was taught Latin, English grammar, and essay writing skills.[2][3] He later said that this gave him a great advantage at university, as those students educated in England had been taught Greek and Latin, but not how to write properly in English.[4] While at Perth Grammar School, it became apparent that Murray was particularly intelligent, and in 1718, his father and older brother James decided to send him to Westminster School, as James knew the Dean Francis Atterbury.[4] The distance from Perth to London was around 400 miles, and the journey took Murray 54 days.[5] Murray flourished at Westminster, and was made a King's Scholar on 21 May 1719.[5]

After an examination in May 1723, Murray was accepted into Christ Church, Oxford, having scored higher in the examination than any other King's Scholar.[6][3] He was admitted as a commoner on 15 June, 1723, and matriculated on 18 June; the records say that he came from Bath rather than Perth, because the person recording the names of the new students was unable to understand his Scottish accent.[6] James was a barrister in Scotland, and his family decided that a career as a barrister would be best for Murray. The Scottish Bar at the time was overcrowded, which made it difficult for a young barrister build a reputation, yet qualifying for the English Bar was extremely expensive.[7] Thanks to the patronage of Thomas Foley, 1st Baron Foley, who gave Murray £200 a year to live on, Murray could afford to study at the bar, and became a member of Lincoln's Inn in 23 April 1724.[7]

After George I died on 11 June, 1727, Murray entered and won a competition to write a Latin poem titled "The Death of the King".[8] This was seen as Murray showing his support for the House of Hanover and the political status quo, something odd considering the strong Jacobite sympathies of his family.[8] He probably did this because, having no private income, he wished to secure patronage to help him advance politically.[8] There is very little information about Murray's time at Oxford; it is known that he studied both ancient and modern history, became fluent in French and gained a good understanding of Roman Law.[9] He gained his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1727, and traveled to London to train as a barrister.[9]

At the English Bar

Murray's first contact when he moved to London was William Hamilton, a Scottish-born barrister who was said to be the first Scot to practice at the English Bar, and one of the few people who was qualified to act as a barrister in both England and Scotland.[10] Hamilton had been one of Murray's sponsors when he joined Lincoln's Inn in 1724, and when Murray came to London, Hamilton helped find him a set of chambers.[10] At this time, there was no formal legal education, and the only requirement for a person to be called to the Bar was for them to have eaten five "dinners" a term at Lincoln's Inn, and to have read the first sentence of a paper prepared for them by the steward.[11] Thus, most of Murray's practical training came from reading the papers in Hamilton's chambers and listening to Lord Raymond speak in court.[11] Murray was called to the Bar on 23 November, 1730, taking a set of chambers at 5 King's Bench Walk.[11] He was introduced to Alexander Pope around this time, and through his friendship with Pope met members of the aristocracy, some of whom later became his clients, including Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough.[11] Pope also taught him oratory, something which helped him enormously in court.[11]

The 1707 Acts of Union had merged the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland into one national entity, but they retained separate legal systems. However the House of Lords became the highest court of appeal in both English and Scottish law, and as a result, 1707 Scottish cases on appeal from the Court of Session were sent there. To deal with these cases, a barrister would have to be familiar with both Scottish and English law, and Murray found his niche, acting in Scottish cases in the House of Lords.[12] His work in Moncrieff v Moncrieff in 1734 established Murray as a brilliant young barrister, with Lords Cowper and Parker both complimenting him on his performance.[12] After Moncrieff, Murray was involved in almost every case in the House of Lords, whether it had been appealed from a Scottish court or not.[12][13]

File:IMG 6721.JPG
Elizabeth Finch, wife of William Murray

In 1737, Murray acted as Counsel for the City of Edinburgh in the aftermath of the death of Captain John Porteous. In Edinburgh, it was traditional for criminals sentenced to death to be allowed to visit a church near the city jail the Sunday before the execution. Two criminals named Wilson and Robertson took this as an opportunity to escape, and although Wilson did not make it out of the church, Robertson escaped completely.[14] Wilson had been a smuggler who supplied his fellow citizens with goods, and because of this and the unpopularity of the city guard, public opinion was firmly on his side. Porteous was the captain of the Edinburgh city guard, and angry with Wilson's attempt to escape and aware of the possibility of an attempt to free him. Porteous ordered a guard of 80 men to be placed around the gallows for Wilson's execution.[14] When a man attempted to cut Wilson's body down after the execution Porteous ordered his troops to fire on the crowd, and seven people were killed.[14] Porteous was initially sentenced to death for murder, and when the execution was delayed, a mob of citizens rushed the city jail and lynched him.[14]

As a result a bill was proposed in the House of Commons that sought to punish the City of Edinburgh for the behaviour of its citizens by disenfranchising the city.[15] Murray represented the City in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and eventually whittled down the bill so much that by the time it was voted on it was simply a proposal to fine the city and disqualify the Provost.[15] In exchange for his work the citizens of Edinburgh gave him the Freedom of the City and a diamond, which is still in the possession of his family.[13][15] Murray's reputation continued to grow; in 1738, he was involved in 11 of the 16 cases heard in the House of Lords, and in 1739 and 1740 he acted as legal counsel in 30 cases there.[16]

On 20 September, 1738, he married Lady Elizabeth Finch, the daughter of Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham, at Raby Castle in Durham.[17] Her sister Mary was married to Thomas Watson-Wentworth, 1st Marquess of Rockingham, and Murray's connection with the Marquess was to have a significant impact on his future career.[17] After a short holiday, Murray returned to his work as a barrister.[17]

Member of Parliament

Murray had repeatedly refused to become a Member of Parliament, saying he had no interest in politics.[1] In 1742, however, the government of Sir Robert Walpole fell, and Murray's father-in-law, the Earl of Nottingham, became First Lord of the Admiralty in the new Cabinet. With this added political influence, Murray hoped to be appointed to a government office, and when Sir John Strange resigned as Solicitor General, Murray was made a Member of Parliament for Boroughbridge and took his place on 15 December, 1742.[1] Although the Solicitor General was the lowest legal appointment, a successful one could be appointed Attorney General, and by custom, the Attorney General was allowed to become Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench if a vacancy arose.[1] Although many barristers were not good politicians, Murray became a successful Member of Parliament, and one noted for his oratorical skills and logical arguments.[13][1]

In 1745, Murray defended the actions of the government in hiring 16,000 Hanoverian troops to help fight in the War of the Austrian Succession.[18] His argument (that it was the prerogative of the King to decide how a war should be fought, and he should not be second-guessed by politicians with no experience of warfare) defeated the motion to cease employing the Hanoverian troops by 231 votes to 181.[18] Murray became popular with both the government and George II as a result, and in the absence of a strong Attorney General, Murray spoke for the government in most matters.[18] In 1747, he helped Lord Hardwicke write and pass an act to abolish the old hereditary positions in Scotland.[18]

The death of Frederick, the heir to the British throne on 20 March, 1751, caused constitutional chaos; George II wished to appoint his favourite son Prince William, Duke of Cumberland as Regent (since the heir apparent, George III, was only a child), while the public favoured the child's mother Princess Augusta.[19] In an attempt to reach a compromise the government introduced a Bill to Parliament declaring that Augusta was to be a regent along with a council of others, and that George would become the heir when he reached maturity.[19] Murray made a speech supporting the government's proposal, but despite this, Parliament was not convinced that a council was necessary.[19]

On 6 March, 1754, the Prime Minister Henry Pelham died, and this necessitated a Cabinet reshuffle. The Attorney General Dudley Ryder became Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and Murray became Attorney General in his place.[13][20] A few months later the Master of the Rolls died, and Murray was asked to replace him; he declined however, as he "did not want to leave His Majesty's service".[20] After Dudley Ryder died unexpectedly on 25 May, 1756, however, Murray could not turn down the opportunity, and immediately applied to replace him as Lord Chief Justice.[20]

He was accepted, and although his appointment delighted Murray, the government was very concerned at the loss of a good Attorney General.[21] In an attempt to persuade him to stay, the new Prime Minister Thomas Pelham offered him the Duchy of Lancaster, in addition to the position of Attorney General, an extra £6,000 a year, and a pension, and finally attempted to blackmail him by saying that if he accepted the office of Lord Chief Justice, they would refuse to grant him a peerage.[21] It was customary for all Lord Chief Justices to be given a peerage, and Murray responded by saying that in that situation he would refuse to become either Lord Chief Justice or Attorney General.[21] Pelham gave in, and promised to freely allow him to become Lord Chief Justice and to recommend him for a peerage.[21]

Lord Chief Justice

Murray in his official robes as Lord Chief Justice

Anyone wishing to become a judge was required to be a Serjeant-at-law, which Murray was not; as such, he left Lincoln's Inn to join Serjeant's Inn.[22] He qualified as a Serjeant-at-law on 8 November, 1756, and was sworn in as Lord Chief Justice at the house of the Lord Chancellor that evening.[22] Immediately afterwards he was made Baron Mansfield, and from that point onwards was referred to as Lord Mansfield, due to his judicial post.[22] On 19 November, he was sworn in as a Privy Councillor.[23] He suspended his duties temporarily on 5 April, 1757, when he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, due to an old custom which said that the Lord Chief Justice took the position when it was empty. He only served until 8 April, and there is no evidence of him performing anything more than the standard day-to-day duties.[22]

Reform

Murray first sat in court on 11 November, 1756, and one of his first acts was to reform the system for submitting motions.[24] Every day that court was in session, all barristers were invited to submit motions in order of seniority.[24] Because they were allowed to submit as many motions as they wanted, by the time junior barristers were allowed to submit, their motions it was normally the end of the day.[24] This meant that almost all the work went to the senior barristers, who were so overworked that they often did not have time to prepare properly before going to court.[24] In addition it meant that work for junior barristers was scarce, hindering their careers.[24] Murray changed the system so that barristers were only allowed to submit one motion a day, and that if not all barristers had been heard by the end of the day, they would continue where they left off the next morning.[24]

At the time it was also traditional for all judgements to be reserved.[24] Although in a small number of cases this was useful, in the majority of cases it simply made coming to court more expensive and wasted time.[24] As soon as Murray became Lord Chief Justice he changed the rules so that unless the court had doubts over the evidence presented to them, a judgement was to be made immediately.[24] This had a far-reaching effect on the English courts, and judges from the Court of Appeal and High Court of Justice now only give reserved judgements in a minority of cases.[25]

Mercantile law changes

In the eighteenth century, English merchant law was still based on the Lex mercatoria, a medieval series of customs and principles used to regulate trading.[26] Other countries in Europe had reformed and modernised their law, and the result of this was that English merchant law was about a century behind the merchant law of other European countries.[26] A merchant was, by his very nature, international, and the massive inconsistencies between English law and the law of other nations made business very difficult.[26]

Murray made a great effort to bring English merchant law up to the same standards as that of other European nations, defining his position by saying that "the daily negotiations and property of merchants ought not to depend on subtleties and niceties, but upon rules easily learned and easily retained because they are dictates of common sense drawn from the truth of the case".[27] In most European countries, the principle was that a merchant was bound by his promises, not just his signed legal documents, while English lawyers maintained that a merchant could only be legally bound by documents that he signed.[27] The European principle was based on the assumption of good faith on the part of the merchants, or uberrima fides, something completely lacking in English law.[27] In Carter v Boehm [1766] 3 Burr 1905 Murray got a chance to reform the law relating to the assumption of good faith. Carter was the Governor of Fort Marlborough (now Bengkulu), which was built by the British East India Company in Sumatra, Indonesia.[28] He took out an insurance policy against the fort being taken by a foreign enemy with Boehm.[28] A witness called Captain Tryon testified that Mr Carter knew the fort was built to resist attacks from natives but not European enemies, and the French were likely to attack. The French did attack, and Boehm refused to fulfill the insurance claim.[28]

Murray decided in favour of Boehm, saying that he had failed his duty of uberrima fides. In his judgement Murray said that:

Insurance is a contract based upon speculation. The special facts, upon which the contingent chance is to be computed, lie most commonly in the knowledge of the insured only; the underwriter trusts to his representation and proceeds upon the confidence that he does not keep back any circumstance in his knowledge, to mislead the underwriter into a belief that the circumstance does not exist, and to induce him to estimate the risque as if it did not exist. Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.[29]

This was an attempt by Murray to introduce the assumption of good faith into English law,[29] and although it failed for the most part (as most areas of English commercial law no longer use uberrima fides) it is still used in insurance contracts.[30]

In the earlier case of Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins [1765] 3 Burr 1663, Murray had attempted to challenge the doctrine of Consideration.[31] In English law, Consideration is a vital part of the contract; without valid consideration, any contract is void.[32] However Murray argued in his judgement that it should only be treated as evidence of a contract, not as a vital element.[31] His judgement has been much criticised by legal academics,[31] and was effectively overruled by the House of Lords in Rann v Hughes [1778] 7 T. R. 350. Although the doctrine of Consideration is not a valid element of commercial contracts,[31] Murray failed to make this clear in his judgement, meaning that it read that Consideration was not required for any contract.[31]

Murray made another notable judgement in Millar v Taylor [1769] KB, in relation to copyright law.[33] Andrew Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the publishing rights to James Thomson's poem "The Seasons." After the term of the exclusive rights granted under the Statute of Anne expired, Robert Taylor began publishing his own competing publication, which contained Thomson's poem. Murray, sitting with three other judges, concluded that despite the Statute of Anne there was a perpetual common law copyright, and therefore that no works can ever be considered public domain.[33] This was a massive victory for booksellers and publishers, as it meant that they could effectively make it impossible for new companies to compete, as in the absence of new texts there was nothing they could print.[33] Murray's judgement was finally overruled by the House of Lords in Donaldson v Beckett in 1774.[33] Murray's judgement has been criticised as being unusually short-sighted because he failed to see that while his decision was correct for that particular case, the precedent it would set would create an unfair monopoly for the booksellers and publishers.[33]

Junius

In 1695 Parliament failed to renew the Licensing Acts, and as a result, the press were free to print material attacking the government.[34] Although there were eight attempts to force a new Licensing Act through Parliament between 1697 and 1713, none of them succeeded.[34] Despite the freedom of the press from censorship by the government, the judiciary held a different view, and regularly tried people for seditious libel if they printed material attacking the government.[35] From 21 November, 1768, letters written by a man under the pseudonym of Junius were published in the Public Advertiser, a London newspaper run by Henry Sampson Woodfall.[36] In them, Junius attacked many political leaders, including Lord Granby and Murray. His letters were wildly popular, with the circulation of the Public Advertiser doubling in just five months.[36]

On 19 December, 1769, Junius wrote a letter attacking the King, and incensed at this, the government ordered several people to be arrested and tried for seditious libel, including Woodfall for publishing the letters, John Almon for selling them, and John Miller for republishing them.[36] Almon's case was heard at Westminster Hall by Murray and a special jury on 2 June, 1770, and he was found guilty. Woodfall was tried on 13 June, 1770, by Murray, who held that the language used was libelous.[37] The jury, however, disagreed, and held that he was "guilty of printing and publishing only," and innocent of seditious libel. Miller was tried on 13 July, 1770, and after six hours of discussion the jury found him innocent.[37] As a result of these two trials, it became clear that no jury would convict a printer, leaving Junius free to continue sending his letters.[37]

On 14 November, 1770, a letter by Junius directed at Murray was published by the Public Advertiser and the London Evening Post, a newspaper run by John Miller.[38] In it, Junius attacked Murray, first for being Scottish, then for being a lapsed Jacobite, and finally for attempting to suppress the freedom of the press.[38] Although the Attorney General William de Grey advised that the publishers should again be prosecuted, Murray disagreed, saying that if they failed to respond to Junius, he would become bored and stop writing.[38] Murray was evidently correct, because other than a letter printed on 5 October, 1771, Junius ceased to write at the beginning of 1772.[38]

Abolition of slavery

Murray is best known for his judgement on the legality of keeping slaves in Somersett's Case.[39][40] The English had been involved in the slave trade since 1553, and by 1768, ships registered in Liverpool, Bristol and London carried more than half the slaves shipped in the world.[39] James Somersett was a slave owned by Charles Stewart, an American customs officer who sailed to Britain for business, landing on 10 November, 1769.[39] A few days later Somersett attempted to escape. He was recaptured in November and imprisoned on the ship Ann and Mary, owned by Captain John Knowles and bound for the British colony of Jamaica.[39] However, three people claiming to be Somersett's godparents, John Marlow, Thomas Walkin and Elizabeth Cade, made an application before the Court of King's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus, and Captain Knowles was ordered to produce Somersett before the Court of King's Bench, which would determine whether his imprisonment was legal.[39]

Murray ordered a hearing for 22 January, 1772. In fact, following an adjournment, it was not until 7 February, 1772, that the case was heard.[39] In the meantime, the case had attracted a great deal of attention in the press, and members of the public were forthcoming with donations to fund lawyers for both sides of the argument.[41] An activist layman, Granville Sharp, who continually sought test cases against the legal justifications for slavery, was Somersett's real backer, and when the case was heard, no fewer than five advocates appeared for the slave, speaking at three separate hearings between February and May.[41] These lawyers included Francis Hargrave, who was later to become a noted barrister.[41]

On behalf of Somersett, it was argued that while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither the common law of England, nor any law made by Parliament recognised the existence of slavery, and slavery was therefore illegal.[41] Moreover, English contract law did not allow for any person to enslave himself, nor could any contract be binding without the person's consent. The arguments thus focused on legal details rather than humanitarian principles.[41] In actual fact, a law passed in 1765 said that all lands, forts and slaves owned by the Africa Company were a property of the Crown, which could be interpreted to mean that the Crown accepted slavery.[41] When the two lawyers for Charles Stewart put their case, they argued that a contract for the sale of a slave was recognised in England, and therefore the existence of slaves must be legally valid.[41]

Finally, on 22 June 1772 Murray gave his judgement, which concluded:

The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.[42]

This was not an end to slavery, as this only abolished it in England and Wales, not in the rest of the British Empire.[42] As a result of Murray's decision between 14,000 and 15,000 slaves were immediately freed, some of whom remained with their masters as paid employees.[42] The decision was apparently not immediately followed; African-Americans were still hunted and kidnapped in London, Liverpool and Bristol to be sold elsewhere, and Murray was so uncertain about how it would be applied that he specified in his will that his "mulatto" greatniece Dido Elizabeth Belle was to be considered a free woman.[42] Although slavery was not completely abolished in the British Empire until 1834, Murray's decision is considered to have been a significant step in recognising the illegality of slavery.[42]

Resignation

Despite failing health, Murray refused to officially leave his post as Lord Chief Justice because George III was opposed to the appointment of Murray's protégé Francis Buller to the position after Murray resigned.[23][43] The government of the time instead suggested Lloyd Kenyon as a possible successor, and Murray clung to power until 1788, (despite not sitting in court for two years) in the hope that the government would fall before he was forced to retire.[44] This was not to be, and on 3 June, he wrote a letter of resignation effective the next day.[44]

House of Lords

After the formation of the Fox-North Coalition, Murray agreed to act as Speaker of the House of Lords, taking up his post in February 1783.[45] The main item of debate during the Coalition Ministry was the East India Bill, which provoked bitter arguments in both the House of Lords and House of Commons.[45] In an attempt to speed up the process of passing the Bill, Murray left his position as Speaker to debate directly on 15 December; when this failed to help he returned to the Woolsack the next day.[45] The failure of the Bill caused the government to be immediately dismissed, and Murray left his position on 23 December 1783.[45]

Murray had been made Earl of Mansfield in the County of Nottingham on 31 October, 1776 and this allowed him to sit in the House of Lords regardless of his position in the government.[46] As such, he regularly attended the House of Lords, with the last record of his attendance being on 23 March, 1784.[46]

Retirement

After his retirement in 1788, Murray spent the remainder of his life at Kenwood House.[47] Most of this time was spent maintaining the grounds, although in the summer, groups of barristers would visit him and inform him of the goings-on at court.[47] On 1 August 1792 he was made Earl of Mansfield of Caen Wood in the County of Middlesex.[48] On 10 March 1793, he complained of feeling sleepy, and although he recovered the next day, by 12 March, he was again complaining of a need for sleep.[47] He went to bed early and remained asleep until 18 March, when he finally died.[47]

Legacy and character

English law saw significant changes during Murray's career.[49] As Lord Chief Justice, Murray had done much to reform the way the courts worked, making it easier for people to gain access to legal aid, and also making the process much less expensive.[49] He was also noted for his insistence that equity should be applied by all courts, not just the Court of Chancery, a view that provoked much disagreement during his lifetime, but which was eventually confirmed by Parliament in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, which allowed all courts to take cases of equity.[49] He also established the principle that rather than blindly following precedent, judges should seek to find loopholes in rules that were no longer applicable, something that later received the support of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who said, "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is more revolting still if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."[50]

His most important contributions were to commercial, merchant and common law.[50] Murray spent much time bringing the law of England on par with that of other countries, particularly in cases such as Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins [1765] 3 Burr 1663, and Carter v Boehm [1766] 3 Burr 1905.[50] As a result of his work, he was described by a later judge as "the founder of the commercial law of this country".[33][40] Edward Foss said that "there has never been a judge more venerated by his contemporaries, nor whose memory is regarded with greater respect and affection", and described him as "the great oracle of law".[3]

Murray was noted at the Bar, in Parliament, and while sitting as a judge, for his eloquence and skill as a speaker; in particular Lord Chesterfield described him as "beyond comparison the best speaker" in the House of Commons.[1] He was also a hard worker; he would sometimes do court paperwork himself, as well as do his judicial duties, in an attempt to speed up the legal process.[51] He was, however, criticised for his resistance to the freedom of the press and his refusal to go against the King,[23] as well as for his blatant nepotism which was highlighted in his attempts to have Francis Buller made Lord Chief Justice after his retirement.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Heward (1979) p.30
  2. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.2
  3. ^ a b c d Foss (1870) p.469
  4. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.3
  5. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.4
  6. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.7
  7. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.8
  8. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.9
  9. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.10
  10. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.12
  11. ^ a b c d e Heward (1979) p.13
  12. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.14
  13. ^ a b c d Foss (1870) p.470
  14. ^ a b c d Heward (1979) p.15
  15. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.20
  16. ^ Heward (1979) p.23
  17. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.24
  18. ^ a b c d Heward (1979) p.31
  19. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.33
  20. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.40
  21. ^ a b c d Heward (1979) p.42
  22. ^ a b c d Heward (1979) p.45
  23. ^ a b c "Oxford DNB article: Murray, William (subscription needed)". Oxford University Press. 2004. Retrieved 2009-03-02.
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i Heward (1979) p.46
  25. ^ Heward (1979) p.47
  26. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.99
  27. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.101
  28. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.102
  29. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.103
  30. ^ "House of Lords - Manifest Shipping Company Limited v. Uni-Polaris Shipping Company Limited and Others". House of Lords Information Office. Retrieved 2009-03-03.
  31. ^ a b c d e Heward (1979) p.104
  32. ^ McKendrick (2007) p.87
  33. ^ a b c d e f Heward (1979) p.105
  34. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.125
  35. ^ Heward (1979) p.126
  36. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.127
  37. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.128
  38. ^ a b c d Heward (1979) p.129
  39. ^ a b c d e f Heward (1979) p.139
  40. ^ a b Foss (1870) p.471
  41. ^ a b c d e f g Heward (1979) p.140
  42. ^ a b c d e Heward (1979) p.141
  43. ^ Foss (1870) p.472
  44. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.166
  45. ^ a b c d Heward (1979) p.162
  46. ^ a b Heward (1979) p.163
  47. ^ a b c d Heward (1979) p.168
  48. ^ Heward (1979) p.161
  49. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.170
  50. ^ a b c Heward (1979) p.171
  51. ^ Heward (1979) p.178

Bibliography

  • Foss, Edward (1870). A Biographical Dictionary of the Justices of England (1066 - 1870). Spottiswoode and Company.
  • Heward, Edmund (1979). Lord Mansfield: A Biography of William Murray 1st Earl of Mansfield 1705-1793 Lord Chief Justice for 32 years. Chichester: Barry Rose (publishers) Ltd. ISBN 0859921638.
  • McKendrick, Ewan (2007). Contract Law (7th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0230018831.
Legal offices
Preceded by Solicitor General
1742–1754 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Attorney General
1754–1756 		Succeeded by
Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench
1756–1788 		Succeeded by
Political offices
Preceded byas Lord Chancellor Lord Speaker
1783 		Succeeded byas Lord Chancellor
Preceded by Chancellor of the Exchequer
1757 		Succeeded by
Peerage of Great Britain
Preceded by
New Creation
 Earl of Mansfield
1776–1793 		Succeeded by
Preceded by
New Creation
 Earl of Mansfield
1792–1793 		Succeeded by
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Murray,_1st_Earl_of_Mansfield&oldid=280067740"