possible after the disclosures which had taken place, that his lordship could have retained the Great Seal. But independently of any circumstances of this nature, the House it appears to us would have stultified itself if it had not expressed its sense of the transactions brought before it in some resolution as decided as that to which it agreed. The feeling in the profession was certainly very strong on the subject, and there was much dissatisfaction in the public mind, that such things should have taken place as had come to light. It was impossible also for Lord Westbury himself not to feel conscious of the equivocal position into which he had been brought by those about him, and not to be aware that the woolsack could be no longer an easy seat for him, whether the blame that attached to himself personally was great or little. We see no reason for refusing to give credit to his lordship for such a very natural and obvious view of the case, although he has not formally given expression to it.

We have alluded to what we conceive to have been one great cause of the faults of Lord Westbury's conduct as Lord Chancellor his not taking the advice of men who were qualified to give even him wise counsel in difficult and delicate circumstances. But we feel bound to say, that had he consulted all the law lords, all the equity and common law judges, and even all the members of the cabinet, he could not have expressed himself in a more dignified and graceful manner than he did in announcing his resignation in the House of Lords. Distinguished as he was during his Chancellorship both as a judge and as a legislator, nothing in his high office, we venture to think, became him like the leaving it. Deeply as we are convinced that the resolution to which the House of Commons agreed was a true and righteous resolution, we cannot but feel that it involved a great sacrifice for the sake of justice; and there are few men, we believe, uninfluenced by party motives, who will not regret that so hard a necessity had arisen and so disastrous a result had become unavoidable.

On the woolsack the same wonderful power of analysis

and the same marvellous gift of expression were displayed by Lord Westbury as at the Bar. The only fault which can be fairly charged against his judgments, is, that they sometimes show more of an antagonistic spirit than is quite suitable to the seat from which they were delivered. In estimating his merits as an equity judge, we are forced to rely on the opinions of others; but we believe we are correct in stating that in this capacity he has not disappointed the expectations of the profession. With respect, however, to his judgments in appeals from the courts of common law we can speak for ourselves, and can have no hesitation in ranking them among the splendida arbitria of the English Bench. We have only to refer to one of the latest of them, that in Tapling v. Jones, 13 Weekly Reporter, 617, as showing the manner in which his powerful and comprehensive intellect could throw new light on a point which had been repeatedly considered by the Courts of Common Law. Of the judgments delivered by him in ecclesiastical cases in the judicial committee, we have, on former occasions, expressed our opinion. Although the views stated in these judgments were those of all the other lay members of the court who had heard the appeals, the arrangement and the language were his, and well illustrate the characteristic qualities of his intellect.

Respecting Lord Westbury's merits as a legislator there may be some difference of opinion, but no one can doubt his boldness and originality, his comprehensiveness of view, and the grand object to which his aims were directed. No equally energetic law reformer has sat on the woolsack since it was occupied by Lord Brougham. Perhaps Lord Westbury was too bold-had too little respect for prescription-and was not sufficiently regardful of circumstances which men of a different quality of mind are better fitted to appreciate. All his measures have not, therefore, been successful; but still he has laid the foundation of much which will be found beneficial and enduring, and if, in the future, it should be deemed necessary to modify and alter some parts of what he has done, we feel assured that

in no case will it be considered desirable to reverse his policy.

Not the least interesting part of Lord Westbury's farewell speech as Lord Chancellor, was the passage in which he says,

"My Lords, with regard to the future I can only venture to promise that it will be my zealous anxiety, in the character of a private member of the House, to promote and assist in accomplishing all those reforms and improvements in the administration of justice which I think are yet required."

Much may, no doubt, be done by his lordship as a private member of the House in furthering these great objects; and we cannot but think that after what has happened he owes it as a duty, both to himself and to the country, to adhere strenuously to the resolution thus expressed. In doing so he will best be able to realise the hope which he expressed on the same occasion that "at a future time other thoughts will prevail, and that a feeling more favourable may be entertained towards him." To promote this object we would also venture to suggest to his lordship that it would be well if he would assume a more conciliatory manner towards others, and avoid every word which can justly give offence. We trust that the severe trial through which he has passed may not be without effect in leading him to adopt a less objectionable bearing, and to make some allowance for the feelings, and even for the failings of other men. We gather some hope that this may be so from the general tone of his last speech, and especially from the concluding words which he used.

"I have nothing more to add than to thank your lordships, which I do with sincerity, for the kindness I have uniformly received from you; and if, unfortunately, by some word of inadvertence or some want of courtesy, I have given pain to any of your lordships, I beg you to accept this expression of my regret."

Acting in the manner we have pointed out, Lord Westbury would still, we think, have a great career of usefulness and honour open before him. He has not taken bribes as a

judge, like Lord Bacon-he has not sold the offices in his court, like Lord Macclesfield. Whatever his faults may have been, they have not been such as to shake in the smallest degree the confidence of the public in him as a judge or as a legislator, and it lies entirely with himself, therefore, whether he will still, as a member of the House of Lords, confer lasting benefits on the country, and add to the laurels he has already won. There is no man who has greater power for good than Lord Westbury, if he will exercise the talents he possesses with wisdom and discretion. Placed as he will be in new circumstances, there will be no disposition, we feel assured, in any quarter, to judge him unfairly, or to withhold from him any praise to which he may be justly entitled. On the contrary, the disposition on the part of the public generally, will be to do him the amplest justice in all that relates to his future course, and to give him the fullest honour for whatever he may do for which honour is due. Independently of all considerations of his great ability, the fact that much of what has happened has been owing to the conduct of one of his own family, cannot fail to excite a generous sympathy on the part of the people of this country; and we need scarcely say that the more impartially the public consider the real facts of the case, they will be the better able to discriminate between that for which his lordship is really responsible, and that which must be laid to the charge of those who surrounded him-a result which we are convinced will be eminently favourable to the reputation of Lord Westbury.

ART. VI.-CLERICAL DISABILITIES.

IN March, 1862, a petition was presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Bouverie, from twelve clergymen of the Church of England, complaining of a grievance by which they were affected. Since their ordination, these gentlemen had formed opinions which they considered to be at variance with

the doctrines of the Church. Consequently, they had ceased to act as clergymen. Some had become, as far as the law allowed them, dissenting ministers, others priests in the Church of Rome, and others, laymen of the Church whose ministers they were formerly. Still, though they had done all in their power to relinquish their profession, they felt that their action was not sanctioned by law, and moreover, that they were still liable to many penalties and disabilities. To alter this state of things, they accordingly petitioned the House of Commons.

Upon reading that petition, and considering the law as it at present stands, we think there can be little doubt that the grievance complained of is real. It does not affect a large number of persons, and therefore there is some difficulty of its obtaining a hearing. Moreover, though theoretically the law is very much against these gentlemen, practically it is not. They do, and are allowed to do, many things which strictly are illegal, but the difficulties of enforcing the law are so great, that there is little fear of its being put in force. This state of things, however, is very unsatisfactory, and the laws are doubtless anomalous.

We now propose to consider this state of the law, the alterations proposed, and how far such alterations are advisable. According to the 76th Canon (of the Canons of 1603)—

"No man being admitted a deacon or minister, shall from thenceforth voluntarily relinquish the same, nor afterwards use himself in the course of his life as a layman, upon pain of excommunication. And the names of all such men so forsaking their calling, the churchwardens of the parish where they dwell shall present to the bishop of the diocese, or to the ordinary of the place having episcopal jurisdiction."

There is no canon which defines the exact meaning of the phrase "using himself in the course of his life as a layman." It is plain, however, that the framers of the canon intended that no clergyman should engage in what are termed secular