consciousness of the survivor, there had been too many missing links for him to be able to give a connected and complete account of what happened-is all there is to tell.

On the 4th of August, 1871, at the Highgate Cemetery, in the presence of a large number of those who most loved and honoured him, his mortal remains were laid in a vault next to that in which rest those of his friend, Henry Crabb Robinson.

V.-PROTEST OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND.

THEN the Lord Chief Justice of England speaks on a question relating to law, and when the occupant of his high judicial position not merely speaks but protests, his protest ought to challenge the ear, not only of the Government and of the Bar of England, but of the whole Empire. As a judge, for keenness of intellect, for calmness and severe impartiality, for all the faculties and endowments required to make a great and able jurist, it may be safely affirmed that none of the Chief Justices of the Queen's Bench has ever excelled Sir Alexander Cockburn. That so distinguished a judge should record his emphatic and solemn protest against any appointment made at the suggestion of the Government, should certainly, one would hope, induce the Government, and especially the Lord Chancellor, to pause, and to reflect, whether a most unfortunate mistake may not have been made in the appointment of Sir Robert Collier to the "Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." Let it not be supposed that we wish for a moment to raise an outcry against the Ministry, or in any way to embarrass it in the coming Session of Parliament. It is far otherwise. The appointment which has given rise to the protest of the Lord Chief Justice of England involves matters of a grave character, and lying very far remote from the sphere of political partizanship.

Notwithstanding the profound respect we entertain for the character and the high position of the Lord Chancellor of England, we feel bound, from a sense of duty, to place on record the fact that after the Parliament of the United Kingdom had passed a Statute, which enacts clearly enough that experience on the Bench shall be required as a qualification for the discharge of a certain high judicial function, Lord Hatherley has apparently unwittingly lent himself to use the words of the Lord Chief Justice-to a mere "subterfuge and

evasion of the Statute" in order to raise Sir Robert Collier to a judicial position and dignity, for which he would not otherwise have been qualified. We would yield to no one in our respect for the late Attorney-General, and would gladly express our satisfaction at his professional advancement and success; but public duty obliges us to add, that it would have been well even for Sir Robert Collier himself, it would, we are convinced, have been much for his future reputation, satisfaction, and happiness, if he had hesitated before accepting the position which he now occupies at the cost of so great a shock to the feelings of every lawyer, and to the regret of all the judges of the land. There are many positions that the men who but the other day were struggling and fighting at the Bar by the side of Sir Robert would be glad to occupy; but, thank God, the old sense which has for ages animated the Bar of England, and which has rendered it even independent of the Crown itself, still survives. We inherit the splendid traditions as we are privileged to walk in the very footsteps of our noble professional ancestors; and we would not purchase for money, we would not obtain by an evasion or violation of law, we would not have at the sacrifice of honour, the honourable positions that as lawyers we may aspire to, and that we may or may not hereafter some day obtain. Let it not, however, be supposed that we charge the Lord Chancellor with knowingly and deliberately doing that which we regard as most unfortunate and improper. We fully absolve the Lord Chancellor in conferring and Sir Robert Collier in accepting the appointment to the Judicial Committee from all intentional impropriety. But when we have said thus much, we have said all we can say in extenuation, and we are forced to add, in the language of the Chief Justice, "that a colourable appointment to a judgeship for the purpose of evading the law" has been made; and we feel bound to join with Sir Alexander Cockburn in saying, that all the parties concerned stand charged with a "grievous impropriety.'

When the Lord Chancellor resolved to appoint Sir Robert Collier to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," he had before him the 34 & 35 of Vict. c. 91." That Statute enacts that:-" Any persons appointed to act under the provisions of this Act as members of the Judicial Committee must be specially qualified as follows: that is to say, must at the date of their appointment be, and have been, judges of one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts at Westminster, or a Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature, at Fort William in Bengal, or Madras, or Bombay, or of the late Supreme Court of Judicature in Bengal." No lawyer doubts the meaning and intention of the Legislature. It without doubt intended that the judges of the Judicial Committee should be men of large experience,

having occupied the highest judicial positions in the realm. It is a vain and irrelevant plea to state that Sir Robert Collier might have become, by direct appointment, Lord Chief Justice of England if there had chanced to have been a vacancy. No doubt he might have become such both lawfully and with the utmost propriety, for the law does not require previous judicial experience for the Chief Justice. But the sovereign legislative power in the State had solemnly decreed that judicial experience gained in the highest tribunals in the empire should be an indispensable qualification for the appointment; and it is manifestly absurd to argue that a flitting tenure of office in the Common Pleas-a tenure so short and evanescent that it is amusingly enough alleged that the newmade justice did not even procure his robes of officesufficed to create the important qualification demanded by the Statute. Two distinct qualifications were required for the appointment, namely, judicial experience and dignity. Many County Court judges are possessed of great judicial experience, but notwithstanding their honourable positions, they are not regarded as possessing the dignity of the judges of the high judicatures mentioned in the Statute. They lack the dignity, though they have much judicial experience. Robert Collier was possessed of neither the experience nor the dignity required, and we maintain that neither of these qualifications could be properly imparted by so brief an advent to the Bench in Westminster Hall.

Sir

In interpreting the enactment above cited, it was without doubt the duty of the Government and of the Lord Chancellor to regard carefully the intention of Parliament. Guided by this fundamental principle, no one can be in doubt for a moment, that whilst the finger-post set up by the Legislature pointed in one direction, the Government and the Lord Chancellor have walked in another. That the course taken has been obtained by artifice or "subterfuge" as the Lord Chief Justice expresses it, does not make it a less dangerous path, and one, both on account of the parties concerned, and also as a precedent that some Government may be tempted to follow, to be infinitely deplored. Many, may we not say all the members of the Bar as well as the judges of the land, would be glad if possible, from feelings of respect for the Lord Chancellor, to cast a mantle over the unfortunate transaction. But such a thing cannot be done. So dangerous a precedent must not be established. As the judge dare. not soil the ermine which it is his honour to wear, without suffering rebuke, so the most powerful minister, and the most estimable and honoured Lord Chancellor must learn, for the dignity of our tribunals and for the honour of the State, that the forum of justice is not to be hurriedly invaded by the political

partizan, and the Bench of the judge just pounced upon for a few brief hours or days that the aspirant for high legal dis tinctions may obtain a quasi qualification, in order that he may be rewarded for past services to his party, or gratify his personal ambition. Again, we repeat, that we have no other feeling than one of personal respect for Sir Robert Collier, but we join Sir Alexander Cockburn, and in the interest of law and of justice, of England and the empire, we denounce the appointment and protest against it, as a colourable evasion and palpable violation both of the letter, and also, we believe, of the spirit of the Statute.

The thanks of the public and of the profession are due to the Lord Chief Justice for the noble protest which he has placed upon record. To his lordship it must have been a duty painful in the extreme. His protest, however, will do much to prevent the present appointment being adduced in the future as a precedent to be followed. It will be always remembered that the appointment did not pass unchallenged. But great as is the value that we attach to the protest of the Chief Justice, it is not all that we desire to see done in the matter. Are not Mr. Gladstone and the Lord Chancellor powerful enough to admit that they have fallen into an error. It would be far more dignified in Lord Hatherley to admit this, than to enter upon a defence that cannot but fail upon reflection to satisfy his own mind, and that we can assure him will not convince the judgment of Her Majesty's judges or of the Bar of England. We should deplore the appointment of Sir Robert being made a party question. It is far too grave a matter to be made a party foot-ball in the arena of St. Stephen's. Let Parliament pass an Act, sanctioning the present appointment, and the future appointment of any Attorney-General. Better give up judicial experience as a qualification demanded in time to come, than labour to conceal a subterfuge, or varnish over a violation of law. How can the rulers of the land look for good faith on the part of the people in their obedience to the law when the Government itself shows how easily a Statute may be violated? We can only regret the occasion that has rendered it necessary to write these lines.

VI. THE NEW LAW COURTS.

THE profession to which our pages are addressed is obviously more interested in the question of the construction of the Law Courts than any other portion of the public. We propose, therefore, in the following remarks to consider this subject mainly from a professional point of view. With this object we shall devote most of our attention to laying before our readers as clear an account as we can of what has been done, and what is intended to be done, towards the construction of the great pile of buildings destined to occupy the space between Carey Street and the Strand.

It will be in the recollection of our readers that for many years the want of increased accommodation, and of concentration of our law courts and offices, has been keenly felt. It has been pointed out scores of times that loss of time and money in the conduct of suits arose from the way in which these various courts and offices were separated. The remedy naturally suggested was, that a block of buildings should be erected in the midst of the legal quarter. After years of discussion this came to be universally admitted as the right thing to be done.

But the difficulties in bringing the public to see that it was their interest mainly that called for a concentration of the law courts and offices were enormous. It had to be pointed out that the loss of time spent in journeying to and fro between Westminster and the Temple, between Bedford Row and the various comparatively distant regions where the scattered courts and offices exist fell upon the suitors and the public. It had to be shown that the requirements of the nineteenth century had altogether outgrown the accommodation of the eighteenth. And when the public came to admit that such a concentration would be in every possible respect advantageous, nay, was absolutely necessary, it devolved upon the representatives of the suitors and of both branches of the profession to demonstrate to an unsympathising and stiffnecked Chancellor of the Exchequer that the money in the suitors' fund could legitimately, and ought to, be applied to the purpose. These were but a few of the preliminary difficulties. At length they, and others equally formidable, were surmounted, and a royal commission was appointed to advise and report as to the buildings proper to be erected, and the plans upon which such buildings should be erected for the new courts. It held its first meeting on July the 5th, 1865. Having decided on what was the amount of accommodation required, in March of the following year it invited architects to compete. Eleven sent in designs. In February,