The

The fancy respecting the coronation oath which so entirely obtained possession of George III.'s mind and actuated his conduct during the whole discussion of Irish affairs, is now generally believed to have been impressed upon it by Lord Loughborough, and probably was devised by his subtle mind, as it was used by his intriguing spirit, for the purpose of influencing the king. But if this was the object of the notable device, never did intriguer more signally fail in his scheme. cabinet to which he belonged was broken up; a still more crafty successor obtained both the place he had just quitted in the king's service, and the place he had hoped to fill in the king's favour; he was made an earl; he was laid on the shelf; and, as his last move, he retired to a villa remarkable for its want of all beauty and all comforts, but recommended by its near neighbourhood to Windsor Castle, where the former Chancellor was seen dancing a ridiculous attendance upon royalty, unnoticed by the object of his suit, and marked only by the jeering and motley crowd that frequented the terrace. For three years he lived in this state of public neglect, without the virtue to employ his remaining faculties in his country's service by parliamentary attendance, or the manliness to use them for his own protection and aggrandisement. When he died, after a few hours' illness, the intelligence was brought to the king, who, with a circumspection abundantly characteristic, asked the bearer of it, if he was quite sure of the fact, as Lord Rosslyn had not been ailing before, and, upon being assured that a sudden attack of gout in the stomach had really ended the days of his late servant and once assiduous courtier, his majesty was graciously pleased

to exclaim-"Then he has not left a worse man behind him.”*

It is the imperative duty of the historian to dwell upon the fate, while he discloses with impartial fulness, and marks with just reprobation, the acts of such men; to the end that their great success, as it is called, may not mislead others, and conceal behind the glitter of worldly prosperity, the baser material with which the structure of their fortune is built up. This wholesome lesson, and indeed needful warning, is above all required when we are called upon to contemplate a professional and political life so eminently prosperous as the one which we have been contemplating, which rolled on in an uninterrupted tide of worldly gain and worldly honours, but was advanced only by shining and superficial talents, supported by no fixed principles, illustrated by no sacrifices to public virtue, embellished by no feats of patriotism, nor made memorable by any monuments of national utility; and which, being at length closed in the disappointment of mean, unworthy desires, ended amidst universal neglect, and left behind it no claim to the respect or the gratitude of mankind, though it may have excited the admiration or envy of the contemporary vulgar.

*The liberty has been taken to translate the expressive though homely English of royalty, into a phrase more decorous and less unfeeling upon such an occasion.

LORD THURLOW.

THE other helpmate upon whom Gibbon paints the pilot of the state as reposing, was as different a person from Lord Loughborough in all respects as can well be imagined. We refer of course to Mr. Thurlow, who filled the office of attorney-general until the year 1778, when he took the great seal. The remains that have reached us of his exhibitions as a speaker, whether at the bar, in parliament, or on the bench, are more scanty still than those of his colleagues; for, while he sat on the bench, the reports in Chancery were on the meagre and jejune footing of the older books; and it is only over a year or two of his presiding in the Court, that Mr. Vesey, junior's, full and authentic reports extend. There seems, however, from all accounts, to have been much less lost of Lord Thurlow than there would have been of subsequent judges, had the old-fashioned summaries only of equity proceedings been preserved; for his way was to decide, not to reason; and, in court as well as in parliament, no man ever performed the office, whether of judging or debating, with a smaller expenditure of argument.

This practice, if it saves the time of the public, gives but little satisfaction to the suitor. The judges who pursue it forget that, to satisfy the parties, or at least to give them such grounds as ought to satisfy reasonable men, is in importance only next to giving them a right judgment. Almost as important is it to

satisfy the profession and the country, which awaits to gather the law, the rule of their conduct in advising or in acting, from the lips of the judge. Nor is it immaterial to the interest even of the party who gains, that the grounds should be made known of his success, especially in courts from which there lies an appeal to a higher tribunal. The consequence of Sir John Leach deciding generally with few or no reasons assigned was, that appeals were multiplied; the successful party had only obtained half a victory; and it became a remark frequent in the mouths of successive chancellors, that causes were decided below, but heard before them. It is an unaccountable mistake into which some fall, when they fancy that the more weight is attached to such mere sentences, because prefaced by no reasons; as if the judge were to declare the law, infallible like an oracle, or omnipotent like a lawgiver, and keep to himself all knowledge of the route by which he had arrived at his conclusion. The very reverse is true. With an enlightened bar and an intelligent people, the mere authority of the bench will cease to have any weight at all, if it be unaccompanied with argument and explanation. But were it otherwise, the reason would fail, and signally fail; for the only increase of weight derived from the practice would be that to which the judgment had no claim, namely, the outward semblance to the ignorant multitude of a determination more clear and positive than really existed. Add to all this, that no security whatever can be afforded for the mind of the judge having been directed to the different parts of each case, and his attention having been held awake to the whole of the discussions at the bar, still less in equity

proceedings of his having read the affidavits and other documentary evidence, unless he states explicitly the view which he takes of the various matters, whether of law or of fact, that have been brought before him. With the exception of Sir John Leach, Lord Thurlow is the last judge who adopted the very bad practice of unreasoned decisions. But his habit of cavilling at the reasons of the common law courts, when a case was sent to them for their opinion, a habit largely followed by Lord Eldon, extended to those courts, in a remarkable and very hurtful manner, Lord Thurlow's own practice for the temper of those learned individuals became ruffled; and, impatient of criticism upon their reasonings, instead of rather courting a discussion of them, they adopted the evil method of returning their answers or certificates without any reasons at all—a conduct which nothing but the respect due to the bench could hinder men from terming childish in the extreme. This custom having been much censured by succeeding chancellors, and the House of Lords itself having of late years departed altogether from the old rule of only assigning reasons where a judgment or decree is to be reversed or varied upon Appeal, it is to be hoped that the commonlaw judges will once more deign to let the profession know the grounds of their judgments upon the highly important cases sent from Chancery, as they do without the least fear of cavil or criticism upon any trifling matter that comes before them, and do (be it most reverently observed in passing) with very little desire to avoid either prolixity or repetition.

If Lord Thurlow, however, has left no monuments of his judicial eloquence; and if, indeed, his place among