unworthy were the means to which he resorted to attain it. He was a man of transcendent talent, but equally unprincipled and ambitious. In one respect he was the very antithesis of his predecessor. To every party in turn, however opposite were their principles of government, did he successively adapt himself. Starting as a partizan of his Tory fellow-countryman, Lord Bute, he soon became a violent Wilkite. Next he joined Lord North, and then announced himself the ally of Fox, and he held the Seal under Pitt and Sidmouth. His own words, aimed at others, were soon most applicable to himself. "Bit by the tarantula of opposition, he is cured by the music of the Court." Though Lord Loughborough's career may be considered an instance of success without virtue, it can weigh little against the general testimony of these volumes, and we think few would envy him even his success. Nor can we doubt that had he adhered consistently, either to the party of the Crown, or that of the people, his very great abilities, which can alone account for his actual rise, must have secured him far higher eminence, and he would have left behind him a name as highly honoured as it is now universally despised. In this life, Lord Campbell has some very interesting new matter in relation to the period of the King's first illness.

Lord Eldon held official appointments for a longer period than any other statesman on record. In 1788 Eldon was appointed Solicitor-General; five years after, AttorneyGeneral; in six years more, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Then in two years he obtained the Great Seal. This he held first for five years, and then, after an intermission of one year, again continuously for twenty years more, the whole of these extending over a period of nearly forty years. Lord Eldon was the son of a Coal-fitter at Newcastle, and was first intended for his father's business. Having been called to Oxford by his elder brother, William, the future Lord Stowell, he would have entered the Church had a College Living opportunely lapsed; and failing that, he studied for the Bar. In his early elopement few could have discerned either an embryo Bishop or Chancellor.

In public life, Eldon was the most complete realization in modern times of a "Tory." Though we have had so complete a history of Lord Eldon, in Mr. Twiss' Life and

Mr. Surtees' Supplement, yet the variety of an account by a writer of opposite politics is very acceptable, and the correspondence with Sir Robert Peel is a valuable addition.

Lord Erskine, who held the Seal during the short break in Lord Eldon's Chancellorship, was a Scotchman, like Lord Loughborough, and like him made many changes. Lord Erskine's changes were not of his principles, but his profession. He was the youngest son of the Earl of Buchan. On the completion of his education, he entered the navy. This he changed for the army: we do not find that he ever studied for the Church, but he did act as Chaplain to his regiment, and at last he turned to the Bar. Here his success is without example. In five years he received a patent of precedence. Lords Erskine and Eldon made their maiden speeches in Parliament, on the same occasion. This was on Fox's India Bill, taking of course opposite sides.

Erskine's forte, however, was not in Parliament, but before a Jury, and his noble and splendid eloquence in advocating high principles, on the many important questions which were brought before Juries during his career, has left a most valuable and lasting impression not merely on the memories, but on the hearts and minds of his countrymen.

It remains for us to notice some few of the more important subjects of these volumes not immediately connected with the personal histories.

The possessors of the right to appoint the spiritual teachers of the people are often perplexed by the inopportune death of the incumbent. The Bond of a locum tenens to resign in favour of some particular person has always been held good, but the validity of a general Bond of resignation was doubtful. The question was brought before the House of Lords in the case of the Bishop of London against Fytche, when Thurlow was Chancellor. The Judges were divided in opinion, but the Chancellor spoke strongly in support of the Bonds. At this period decisions were not yet left to the Law Lords, and the Bishops voting against the Bonds, they were condemned by nineteen to eighteen. A Bond is good in favour of an infant son, if he come of age and be in Orders; we think it might be at least extended to the future clerical husband of any

daughter, which would considerably increase the value of the property, and obviate much scheming and anxiety. To be serious, it is really difficult to know how to treat this subject. We fear the time is still far distant when the members of the Established Church will awake from their present truly marvellous apathy and indifference to what so deeply concerns their most important rights, and highest welfare, not to name the claims of deserving clergymen.

Whatever may be the merit of the various Law Reforms, -and we are well aware that there have been great improvements, particularly of late; and we are by no means inclined to be niggardly of our praise, or to overlook the great difficulties in the way, and how little support is ever offered, and, on the contrary, how much opposition is aroused by every attempt,-yet we must still express our great disappointment at the comparatively small progress hitherto made. As early as King Edward's Chancellor, Burnel, immediate execution, without the expense of a suit, was granted on a debt acknowledged before the Mayor. Yet even at this hour, with regard to Bonds, Bank notes, and Bills of Exchange, in respect of which the proof of debt is held under the debtor's own hand, the unjustifiable delay and expense of process has to be incurred. In this respect we are behind Scotland, France, and nearly every other civilized country. Lord Campbell has himself in vain attempted a remedy. To take another instance: it is probably unknown to most of our non-professional readers that the term folio, meaning, according to the Court, 72 or 90 words, is actually the legal standard pint stoup of the contents of a folio or page of the copies of proceedings furnished by the Court officers, so that the contents of such a page as this before us is spread over six sheets of paper, the writing being only on one side, only twelve or fifteen lines in a page, and six words in a line. To give a specimen too of the mode of counting these words, the four figures representing the present year of our Lord have allotted to them a whole line and onesixth because they may be written with seven words. For these pages, the charge is fourpence each; and it is generally compulsory to take the copies. Now considerably more than a century ago, namely in 1732, a Committee

on the subject of Court fees was appointed by the House of Commons. After a delay of nearly ten years, they made a most mild report; but at least this grievous exaction was distinctly pointed out. Yet it still remains unabated.

In 1774, we find Lords Camden and Thurlow for once agreeing. This was in opposing the extension of literary copyright. On Serjeant Talfourd's late Act extending the period, Lord Campbell observes, "Literature may now be pursued as a liberal profession, offering to those who succeed in it the means of honourable support, and of making an adequate provision for their families."-Vol. v. p. 298.

Lord Camden appears to have been principally influenced by a wish to check the monopoly of the booksellers, whom he violently denounced; and the trade certainly still shows too much disposition to make their profit by high price rather than large sale. We do not at all concur in our author's anticipations. The very nature of literature, the chief motives to which have nothing in common with a desire of gain, must always cause its votaries to consist principally of those who can never hope to look upon their pursuit except as a luxury. Also the more advanced intellectual position of superior authors is inconsistent with their often attaining popularity during such period as would enable them to secure provision for themselves or their families. Such able works as have attained popularity within reasonable time have generally done so at once, or at any rate within a very few years. The somewhat later popularity of some good works has been obtained, through cheap trade editions, after the expiration of the copyright.

One of the greatest blots on the House of Commons has always been their conduct when deciding disputed elections. We had to note on occasion of an Aylesbury Election, how the notoriously partisan decisions of the House, then voting in a body on each case, led to corruption in the returning officers. So uniformly partisan were the decisions, that we find Walpole at once aware that his hour was come, when the first division was announced on the Election Petitions in his last Parliament. When Lord Grenville's Act, passed in 1774, was in discussion, under which petitions were referred to select sworn Committees, Lord

Thurlow in opposing prophesied, and but too truly, that the decisions under it would be deemed equally corrupt. There was throughout a very uniform coincidence between the opinions of the majority of each Committee and those of the candidate it seated. Lord Campbell fears that Sir R. Peel's Bill will be equally inoperative. It certainly has not succeeded. It appears to us that it is through the absence in Parliament of rules of evidence that Committees are principally enabled to influence the result, and that till this be corrected they will always be able to do so without direct dishonesty. If the House would submit, as they ought, to have their Committees assisted by legal assessors, and had authorised reports of all cases, the result would be a great improvement. The best Act is Lord J. Russell's, allowing proof of bribery to precede proof of agency.*

When treating of the strife with America, Lord Campbell, fully admitting the impolicy of attempting to tax America, still observes, and we think with justice, that there is no distinction between the right to legislate over colonies, and the right to tax them. He does not pursue the subject. The relation of colonies to the mother country is but little understood, or perhaps we ought to say, but little observed, yet it is a question that must again arise, and this before long. Few can doubt that when colonies are sufficiently powerful, their independence is for the advantage of both countries. No one can believe that if the United States had remained subject to the distant jealous legislation, and crippling regulations of England, if, indeed, such a thing were possible-they would have now become so great a nation, or our commerce with them so extensive. But be this as it may, we think it impossible to look upon legislation for colonies as any thing else than an arrangement made for mutual advantage, and determinable by either party when no longer desired. An attentive student of the last disturbances in Canada can

Since these observations were penned, we have observed in the papers the following words represented as uttered in the House of Commons itself by a member of it (Mr. O'Connor) as lately as on the 28th of February last: "He thought that he had only spoken consistently with precedent and experience in designating the Election Committees as so many farces. He had been canvassed on an Election Committee himself, and been upbraided by his party for voting according to his conscience." This was said in explanation of some disrespectful language in Mr. O'Connor's Newspaper, The Northern Star, and the apology was at once, without comment, deemed satisfactory!