carefully, and a man is scarcely fit for the station unless he can sit tolerably easy under censures which even these may pass upon him.  Yet, imputations of partiality or corruption are somewhat hard to bear when they are made by persons of your station and character.  When the Judicial Committee sits on appeals from the Spiritual Courts, it may certainly be under God’s displeasure, the members may be visited with judicial blindness, and deprived of the integrity which in other times and cases they manifest.  Against such a supposition there is no direct argument, and I will not enter into such a disputation.  I have so much confidence in your generosity and candour, on reflection, as to believe you would not desire I should.

    In the individual case I simply protest against the insinuation.  I
    add a word or two by way of general observation.

No doubt you have read the judgments in all the cases you allude to carefully; but have you read the pleadings and arguments of the counsel, so as to know accurately the points raised for the consideration of those who were to decide?  To know the offence charged and the judgment pronounced may suffice in some cases for an opinion by a competent person, whether the one warranted the other; but more is required to warrant the imputation of inconsistency, partiality, or indirect motives.  He who takes this on himself should know further how the pleadings and the arguments presented the case for judgment, and made this or that particular relevant in the discussion.  Every one at all familiar with this matter knows that a judgment not uncommonly fails to reflect the private opinion of the judge on the whole of a great point, because the issues of law or fact actually brought before him, and which alone he was bound to decide, did not bring this before him.  And this rule, always binding, is, of course, never more so than in regard to a Court of Final Appeal, which should be careful not to conclude more than is regularly before it.  Let me add that a just and considerate person will wholly disregard the gossip which flies about in regard to cases exciting much interest; passing words in the course of an argument, forgotten when the judgment comes to be considered, are too often caught up, as having guided the final determination.

Such words are a just rebuke to much of the inconsiderate talk which follows on any public act which touches the feelings, perhaps the highest and purest feelings of men with deep convictions.  Perhaps Mr. Liddon’s words were unguarded ones.  But at the same time it is necessary to state without disguise what is the truth in this matter.  It is necessary for the sake of justice and historical truth.  The Court of Final Appeal is not like other courts.  It is not a pure and simple court of law, though it is composed of great lawyers.  It is doubtless a court where their high training and high professional honour come in, as they do elsewhere.  But great