the total want of it on the part of Britain, that the armaments of Brest and Toulon had formed a junction in Lagos bay, where they continued quiet, in expectation of their prize, without any of the commanders in the combined squadrons being in the slightest degree aware of the circumstance, or of the danger that awaited them. The misfortune, though great, was alleviated, in a considerable degree, by the ability and activity of Sir George; more than three-fourths of the fleet were preserved, and, of the ships sent for its protection, three only, and those belonging to the Dutch, who behaved with the most conspicuous gallantry on the occasion, fell into the hands of the Count de Tourville.

In 1698 Sir George was chosen representative for the town of Portsmouth, and he soon afterwards had an opportunity of displaying his abilities as a statesman as well as a naval commander. A formidable confederacy had been entered into between the northern powers of Russia, Denmark, and Poland, the avowed object of which was the destruction of the young king of Sweden. Britain could not calmly look on and permit so dreadful an invasion of the rights of nations; and Sir George was accordingly sent into the Sound with a fleet, fitted out with the intention of acting in conjunction with the Dutch, not only for the purpose of freeing Sweden from the terrors of annihilation, but com. pelling her confederated foes to agree to an equitable peace. The moderation and the firmness of the British admiral on this occasion, reflected the highest honour on his judgment as an officer, and his integrity as a man. While, on the one hand, he declared himself to the Danes and their allies fully determined to crush their injurious project, on the other he most peremptorily resisted every solicitation made to him by the youthful sovereign of Sweden to continue the war even for an instant longer than was absolutely necessary for the acquisition of a fair and honourable peace. His answer to the king himself is too memorable for us to omit:-"I was," said Sir George in reply to him, "sent hither to serve your majesty, but not to ruin the kingdom of Denmark." The treaty of Travendahl was accordingly concluded in despite of every remonstrance the impetuous Charles could make, and every objection which his heated imagination could propose.

On the prospect of a war with France in 1701, Sir George was again invested with the chief command; but that power considering the hour of hostility not yet arrived, peace remained unbroken till after the accession of Queen Anne. Among the very first acts of her majesty's reign, is to be reckoned the appointment of Sir George to be vice-admiral of England, and commander-in-chief of the British fleet. The first enterprise resolved on by government was the attack of Cadiz; and the failure of it, though not in the slightest degree imputable to Sir George, was most uncandidly attempted to be attributed to him by some of the virulent party-writers of the time, and by Burnet in particular. Fortune, however, seemed ready to afford him some recompense for his recent disappointment; for he had scarcely left Cadiz on his return home, when he received intelligence that a most valuable fleet of Spanish galleons had put into Vigo, together with their escort, commanded by that well-known officer, Mons. Chateau Renaud. Sir George instantly resolved on attempting the capture of the fleet, and succeeded beyond his most sanguine expectations. The treasure and articles of merchandise taken and destroyed on this occasion amounted

to between four and five millions sterling; while the injury sustained in respect to ships of war, had never been exceeded, except in the instances of the destruction of the Armada, and the battle off Cape La Hogue. Twenty ships and vessels of war, fifteen of which were of two decks, together with thirteen galleons, were included in the destruction and capture made and effected on this occasion.

The year 1704 formed a very distinguished epoch in the life of Sir George. In the month of January the very honourable trust of conveying King Charles III. to Spain was confided to him. By his firmness added to the greatest complacency of manners, he got over a variety of delicate and absurd punctilios on this occasion, particularly one where the honour of the British flag was concerned, with the highest credit to himself, and the maintenance of his country's dignity. In respect to more active service, the capture of Gibraltar still stands with undiminished lustre, one of the brightest gems that ever ornamented British valour or British conduct, as well in respect to the execution as to the plan of the enterprise.

He is said, when on his deathbed, to have made the following impressive answer to some persons present at the execution of his will, and who could not refrain from making some remarks on the narrowness of his circumstances. “ What I leave," said he, “'tis true, is not much, but what I do leave, has been honestly acquired. It never cost a seaman a tear, or the nation a farthing." From the time he quitted the line of active service, he was intolerably afflicted with the gout, which put a period to his life at a very premature age. This event took place on the 24th of January, 1708-9, Sir George being then in his fiftyeighth year. His executors caused a magnificent monument to be erected to him in Canterbury cathedral.

Henry, Earl of Clarendon.

BORN A. D. 1638.-DIED A. D. 1709.

HENRY, second earl of Clarendon, was born in 1638. He was early initiated by his father into the mysteries of politics, being employed by him in the king's secret correspondence, so that he generally passed half the day in writing in cypher or decyphering. In this trust young Hyde conducted himself with extreme faithfulness and the greatest prudence. After the restoration he was appointed chamberlain to her majesty.

On his father's death, he took his seat in the house of lords, and, though he warmly resented the usage which his parent had received at the hands of the court, yet, as he keenly opposed the bill of exclusion, he was taken into favour, and made a privy-councillor. On the accession of James II. he became lord-privy-seal, and afterwards lordlieutenant of Ireland. His attachment, however, to the protestant cause would not allow him to support the king in his designs on the religion of the country, and he was ultimately stripped of his official employments.

He declined to take the oath of allegiance at the revolution, and was subjected to a brief imprisonment in the Tower in consequence.

He

died in October, 1709. His state-letters and diary, from 1687 to 1690, have been published,' and form an interesting contribution to English history. He appears to have been a man of moderate talents, and simple domestic habits. His son, Lord Cornbury, was a person of considerable literary taste, and the friend and associate of Pope.

Sir John Holt.

BORN A. D. 1642.-died A. D. 1709.

SIR JOHN HOLT, lord-chief-justice of the court of king's bench, was the son of Sir Thomas Holt, serjeant-at-law, and recorder of Abingdon. He was educated at Abingdon and Oxford. In 1658 he entered of Gray's inn, and was soon called to the bar, where he rapidly attained eminence as a pleader.

In the reign of James II. he was made recorder of London, in which situation he conducted himself with great firmness and integrity. The court wished him to become subservient to their crooked policy; and, on his refusal to co-operate in some objectionable measures, especially the abolition of the test, he was discharged from office.

On the arrival of the prince of Orange, he was chosen a member of the convention-parliament, and appointed one of the managers for the commons in the conferences with the lords, relative to the abdication of the late monarch. He displayed great constitutional knowledge in this commission, and, as soon as the government was settled, was made lordchief-justice of the court of king's bench, and a member of the privycouncil. Bishop Burnet says, "That though he was a young man for so high a post, yet he maintained it all his time with a high reputation for capacity, integrity, courage, and great despatch; so that, since the lord-chief-justice Hale's time, that bench had not been so well filled as it was by him." In 1700, when Somers resigned the great seal, it was offered to Holt, but he declined it, modestly alleging his want of qualifications for so important a trust. As chief-justice, his merits were very great, and generally acknowledged. He was perfect master of the common law, and possessed a remarkable facility in clearly and logically expounding and applying its principles. His unimpeachable integrity is celebrated by the author of the Tatler in his 14th number. A remarkable instance of his spirit and integrity is exhibited in the famous case of Lord Banbury. An indictment had been found at Hicks' hall against the defendant, Lord Banbury, by the name of Charles Knollys, Esq., for the murder of a Captain Lawson, who had married the sister of the defendant, and the indictment was removed by certiorari into the king's bench, where the defendant pleaded a misnomer in abatement, viz. that William Knollys, Viscount Wallingfort, by letters patent under the great seal of England, bearing date the 18th August, 2d Car. I. was created earl of Banbury, to have and to hold the dignity to him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten; that William had issue Nicholas, who succeeded William in the dignity, from whom the dignity descended upon the defendant, as son and

Oxford, 1763, 2 vols. 4to.

heir to Nicholas. The attorney-general replied to this plea, that the defendant, upon the 13th December, 4th William and Mary, had preferred a petition to the house of peers, that he might be tried by his peers; and that, after long consideration and debate, the lords had dis. missed his petition, secundum legem parliamenti, disallowed his peerage, and made an order, that the defendant should be tried by the course of common law. To this replication the defender demurred, and the attorney-general joined in demurrer. The case was several times solemnly argued at the bar by Sir Edward Ward, attorney-general, Sir Thomas Trevor, solicitor-general, and Sir William Williams, counsel for the crown; and by Serjeant Pemberton, Serjeant Levinz, and Sir Bartholomew Shower, for the defendant. The court of king's bench unanimously decided in favour of Lord Banbury; but lord-chief-justice Holt chiefly distinguished himself on this occasion. He gave it as his opinion, in the strongest terms, that Lord Banbury was entitled to the privilege of peerage; and that the court of king's bench could pay no regard to the order of the house of lords, because peerage was an inheritance, and all inheritance must be determined by the law of the land, and not by an ordinance of the house of peers. He observed "that the house of lords has no jurisdiction in an original cause, because that supreme court is the last resort. If the parliament took cognizance of original causes, the party would lose his appeal, which the common law indulgeth in all cases, for which reason the parliament is kept for the last resort; and causes come not there until they have tried all judicatories. If a peer commits treason, or any other crime, he ought to be tried by his peers; but that does not give them any right to deprive him of his peerage, when the discussion of his title does not come in a legal manner before them. The house of peers has jurisdiction over its own members, and is a supreme court; but it is the law which has invested them with such ample authorities; and, therefore, it is no diminution of their power to say that they ought to observe those limits which this law has prescribed for them, which, in other respects, hath made them so great." His lordship said also, "that as to the law of parliament, which had been talked of, he did not know of any such law; and every law which binds the subjects of this realm ought to be either the common law and usage of the realm, or an act of parliament." The lord-chief-justice was afterwards summoned to give his reasons for this judgment to the house of peers, and a committee was appointed to hear and report them to the house. But Holt refused to give the reasons for his judgment in so extrajudicial a manner. He said, "that if the record was removed before the peers by writ of error, so that it came judicially before them, he would give his reasons very willingly; but, if he gave them in this case, it would be of very ill consequence to all judges hereafter in all cases.'

In 1698 a remarkable cause was tried before his lordship at Guildhall, wherein Richard Lane brought an action against Sir Robert Cotton and Sir Thomas Frankland, as postmasters-general, "for that a letter of the plaintiff's being delivered into the post-office, to be sent by the post from London to Worcester, by the negligence of the defendants in the execution of their office, the said letter was opened in the post-office, and divers exchequer bills therein inclosed were taken away." In the course of the trial some difficult points of law being started, the

jury brought in a special verdict. The case was several times argued at the bar, and three of the judges were of opinion that judgment ought to be given for the defendants; but Holt gave his opinion in favour of the plaintiff. He said "It would be very hard upon the subject, if the action, brought in this case was not a good one; for as the crown has a revenue of £100,000 per annum for the management of the post-office, care ought to be taken that letters were safely conveyed, and that the subjects should be secured in their properties." Judgment was, however, given for the defendants. But a writ of error was afterwards brought, and allowed on the reasons which had been advanced by Holt. In the second year of Queen Anne, a very important cause was agitated by the judges, of what was then called The queen's bench,' relative to the right of election of members of parliament. On this occasion, Holt greatly distinguished himself as a steady friend to the liberties of the subject. An action had been brought against the con stables of Aylesbury, at the suit of one Ashby, a burgess of that town, for refusing to receive his vote in an election of a member of parlia ment: the constables being the returning officers in that borough. This was tried at the assizes, and the constables were cast in damages. But a motion was made in the court of queen's bench, in arrest of judgment. When the case came to be argued, three of the judges, Powel. Powis, and Gould, gave it as their opinion, that no wrong had been done to the man, or at least none considerable enough to deserve the notice of the law; that the judging of elections belonged to the house of commons; that as this action was the first of its kind, so, if it was allowed, it would bring on an infinity of suits, and involve all officers concerned in elections in great difficulties. Lord-chief-justice Holt, however, differed totally from his brethren on this subject, and expressed his surprise at some arguments which they had advanced. He maintained that the plaintiff had the right and privilege to give his vote; and if he was hindered in the enjoyment or exercise of that right, he might legally bring an action against the disturber. "If the plaintiff," he said, "has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy, if he is injured, in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and, indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal. It is no objection to say that it will occasion multiplicity of actions; for if men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too; for every man that is injured ought to have his recompense. And if public officers will infringe men's rights, they ought to pay greater damages than other men, to deter and hinder other officers from the like offences. To allow this action will make public officers more careful to observe the constitutions of cities and boroughs, and not to be so partial as they commonly are in all elections, which is indeed a great and growing mischief, and tends to the prejudice of the peace of the nation. right of voting at the election of burgesses, is a thing of the highest importance, and so great a privilege, that it is a great injury to deprive the plaintiff of it. A right that a man has to give his vote to the election of a person to represent him in parliament, there to concur to the making of laws which are to bind his liberty and property, is a most transcendent thing, and of a high nature, and the law takes notice of it as such in divers statutes. The right of voting is a right in the

The