nand, who hated him in his heart, at his death appointed him regent of his kingdom." A parallel between Ximenes and Richelieu was written by the Abbè Richard in 1705, which Prescott has quoted and referred to. The points of resemblance are somewhat forced, and the balance inclines heavily in favor of the Spaniard. A marked distinction attended the circumstances of their deaths. Richelieu was so universally execrated, that a popular tumult accompanied his funeral, and his remains were in danger of being torn from the grave and scattered in the elements. Ximenes was carried to the sepulchre amidst universal tears and lamentations. But in one point there was a striking similarity between them. Both were true members of the church militant, and braved the dangers of war with the alacrity of practised soldiers. Richelieu fought at Rochelle in the panopoly of a man at arms, and Ximenes headed his troops against the infidels of Oran. His biographer Gomez de Castro says, that he once declared himself that the smell of gunpowder was more grateful to his senses than the sweetest perfume of Arabia." His military propensities may have influenced his decisive and arbitrary legislation.


Most readers like to know something of the personal appearance and habits of any remarkable individual who has excited their curiosity or interest. No one will figure Ximenes to their mind's eye as other than gaunt, graceless, and unprepossessing Long before he attained middle life, the penitential severities to which he had accustomed himself reduced his frame to the attenuated appearance of an anatomie vivante. Conti

nence and abstemiousness, while it rendered him outwardly rugged and repulsive, strength⚫ened his constitution, and gave vigor to the seeds of life. Yet he carried his personal privations to such an extent that his health

suffered in consequence, and during his latter years he endured much from changes of the atmosphere and inclement weather. He slept little, eat less, and listened more than he talked. He cared not for general conversation, and was seldom roused to participate eagerly, unless when the topic happened to be some leading question of theology. His style was short, clear, and straight to the point. If a tedious visitor wearied him, he took up a book as a signal that it was time for the intruder to go. When he spoke, his voice was clear, though somewhat harsh, and the accents came slowly from his lips. His carriage was erect, his forehead unwrinkled, his stature tall, his features sharp and thin, his eyes small, dark, and deep set, and the general expression of his countenance, repulsive and severe. His cranium was examined forty years after his death, and found to be totally without sutures. That of Richelieu, on the contrary, was ascertained to be perforated with small holes. The Abbè Richard reasons on this after a manner which may amuse comparative anatomists, physiologists, and surgeons. He says, "On opening the head of Richelieu, twelve small circular holes were discovered, through which the vapors of his brain exhaled, and for this cause he never had a pain in his head; on the other hand, the skull of Ximenes was without seam or opening, which accounts for the headaches with which he was almost incessantly afflicted."


We may safely conclude that Richelieu was the most accomplished and agreeable of the two great cardinal-ministers; Ximenes the safest and most honest. Both were to be feared, but one only could be trusted. In the former, we are called on to admire transcendent ability; in the latter, we bow with more respect before the same exalted genius, because we find it linked with far superior integrity of purpose, and a much higher degree of constitutional virtue.

From the Biographical Magazine.


THE legal profession, in its largest scope and meaning, has two great divisions, or its followers are divided into two great classes, who are again divided and subdivided into many sections. The barrister, moreover, acknowledges the attorney as a lawyer; and the latter, on his part, seldom aspired to the distinction, until recently. The study of law, in either walk, is a dry and parched road to fame and wealth; long, tedious, and weary. These characteristics are greatly increased in the higher branch. The young barrister has no ready means of distinguishing himself. Comparatively few barristers live by their profession. To many it is a refuge from idleness, which they never expect to fertilize. To many others it is a snare, wherein their life is caught.


The technicalities of legal studies do not expand the mind. Philosophers, politicians, or literary men are generally unsuccessful lawyers. Bacon and Brougham stand out as exceptions to the rule. The late Judge Talfourd was another exception. Scott and Wilson were indifferent lawyers. Even Jeffrey, although an admirable judge, was only, in other respects, conspicuous as a critic. The host of lawyers connected with literature are not often associated with the courts. The late Lord Denman, who has occupied high position in legal circles for nearly all the years of the current century, can scarcely be considered one of the exceptions to the common rule, that a great lawyer is rarely conversant with other sciences. He was born in 1779; and when he died, on the 22d September last, was in his seventy-sixth year. THOMAS DENMAN was the only son of Dr. Thomas Denman, who attained a large medical practise in the west-end of London, and was one of the Court physicians in the reign of George III. Dr. Denman was also distinguished as a medical author; and having acquired a considerable fortune, he enabled his son to pursue his legal studies without any of those embarrassments that frequently beset the road to eminence. Dr. Denman had two daughters, who both married medical gentlemen. One of whom, Dr. Baillie, was celebrated as an anatomist; and the

| other, Sir Richard Crofts, was accoucheur to the Princess Charlotte, in 1817. The death of the Princess was charged by the public on her attendants. Many estimable qualities had endeared her character to those who had looked to her, as their future Queen, for redress from such evils as a Sovereign can reform. They blamed the medical gentlemen without, probably, any adequate cause; for they had every inducement to care and vigilance. It is certain that Sir Richard Crofts soon afterwards committed suicide.

Dr. Denman's father held a farm at Stoney-Middleton, in the vicinity of Bakewell. His son retained the farm, and improved the farm-house. Thomas Denman had a similar attachment to the paternal acres. He still further enlarged and improved the premises into a residence of great beauty. This farm has enjoyed extraordinary distinction, being the favorite retreat of the farmer's son-the Court physician of his time; and of his grandson-the Lord Chief Justice of England.

Thomas Denman studied at Eton, and subsequently at St. John's College, Cambridg. His younger years were not more distinguished by any other occurrence than his early marriage, in 1804, in his twenty-fifth year, to Miss Vevers, a lady who, as the daughter of a clergyman, probably possessed a small fortune and many virtues. Lady Denman died in 1852, when eleven of their children were still alive, and four were dead.

Mr. Denman was called to the bar by the Society of Lincoln's Inn, in 1806: and became, at an early period of his career, connected with the Whig party; but he generally anticipated their political views by several stages. His professional assistance was frequently sought upon political trials, and in defending actions for libel. He was engaged for many years in all cases of importance affecting the freedom of the press, which he endeavored to shield. This description of practice was not, in itself, lucrative; while, in the state of political feeling then too prevalent, it was calculated to injure his professional prospects.


In 1817 he defended the Derbyshire "reb

els ;" a body of enthusiastic working-men, | British statesmen were unstained by the drawn into overt acts of treason, by the per- blood shed in these times; but undoubtedly suasion of others, who betrayed them. The both in England and Scotland their subordicomplicity of Lord Sidmouth and the Gov- nates were guilty. And it may be recorded, ernment in these dark transactions was very as a curious fact, that men confessedly comgenerally believed, not only in 1817, but at plicated as spies in 1817 and 1818, have à much more recent period. Oliver, who since held responsible positions in the metrowas charged with the concoction of the riots, politan press, until within a recent period. was undoubtedly in correspondence with The courage, determination, and eloquence Lord Sidmouth. The publication of that of the young barrister could not avert the statesman's life and correspondence by Dr. doom of the Derbyshire rioters. Three were Pellew, Dean of Norwich, in 1847, fixed the executed, eleven transported for life, four for one fact that Oliver was sent down to the fourteen years, and five were imprisoned for midland counties, during the political excite different periods. ment of 1817, to collect information respect- The country was alarmed with assertions ing the designs of the Radicals. This corres- respecting conspiracies. The Government pondence also shows that Lord Sidmouth employed detectives" or "preventives” in instructed Oliver, if possible, to prevent con- their political business, who, transgressing spiracies and secret meetings. The policy their instructions, incited men to crimes which did not suit the temperament and views of they were employed to crush. This is the the detective, who desired the acquisition of mildest statement of the case for the Governimportance with his influential employers. ment, and it is aggravated by their resistance Mr. Bamford's “Life of a Radical” rather of all efforts to execute justice on their serestablishes the opinion that Lord Sidmouth vants. The Cato-street conspiracy in 1820 was cheated by his emissary, and his instruc- was the most atrocious of these plots. It tions overdone. Bamford published his book followed rapidly after the excitement consewhen he had nothing to fear from relating quent upon the “ Manchester massacre" on the truth; and his statements acquire more the 9th August, 1819 ; but the events had weight on that account than any publication not the slightest connection. Thistlewood of the period. Mr. Denman's defence of the was the chief organizer of the Cato-street rioters was remarkable for eloquence, al- conspiracy, but he was actively assisted by though they were found guilty. Against Edwards. They arranged the assassination some of them the evidence was fatally dis- of thirteen or fourteen Cabinet Ministers, who tinct. Brandıeth, their captain, in the ad- were to dine at Lord Harrowby's on Saturvance of one hundred upon Nottingham, was day, 19th February, 1820. Edwards who apparently insane. He certainly shot one had helped to plan this horrible crime, warnfarm-servant, because arms were refused to ed Lord Harrowby. His guests were told to him, at a farm-house inhabited by a widow meet at Lord Liverpool's

. The police atand her family. Brandreth was a stocking tacked the loft in Cato-street, where the conframe-worker. He had been often “ pinched spirators had assembled; one of the policeby poverty,” and members of his family had men was killed, and Thistlewood escaped, received parochial relief. He was an enthu- but he was apprehended in Moorfields next siast, maddened by want, and the secret morning; and executed with four others, counsels of a cool, intellectual man, like Oli implicated in the proceeding, on the 1st of rer, must have wrought up the mind of a May. Five persons concerned in the busisufferer in the position of Brandreth to tem- ness were banished for life. The Ministry porary insanity. Mr. Denman contrasted resisted a motion, in the House of Commons, him with Byron's “Corsair,” declaring that on the 9th May, by Alderman Wood, for the he had attained complete mastery over his production of papers, in the case of Edwards; followers by the influence of great courage, and his punishment. This man lived in affluof uncommon decision, of unrelenting firm- ence, although he was ultimately obliged to ness; the influence of an eye like no eye he leave London. The protection afforded to ever beheld before; of a countenance and him by the Ministerial party actually invested figure formed for activity, enterprise, and Thistlewood and his companions, in public command. “Nevertheless," Mr. Denman estimation with the characteristics of marinsisted that “he was most clearly an instru- tyred men ; which they did not deserve. ment wielded by other hands.” No doubt Thistlewood was the son of a Lincolnshire can now be entertained of that historical fact. farmer. He was an educated man; and the We would gladly believe that the hands of l lines addressed to his wife, from his prison,

feeling and genius. He had squandered a considerable fortune before he became a conspirator. Remote journals published their letters, poetry and speeches of the plotters. The policy pursued by the Ministry was execrable. No man protested against it more courageously and firmly than Thomas Denman, although he thus became deeply marked; and he was sensible of all the scores against him in the opinion of the Cabinet.

on the day previous to his execution, evinced | union between the husband and wife. George IV. charged his queen with infidelity during her residence in Italy. The King endeavored to bargain with his Ministry for a divorce bill. They at first refused the terms; but they consented to omit the Queen's name from the Liturgy, and enjoined that it should be excluded from public prayers. The clergy very generally, both in England and Scotland, obeyed their instructions; but exceptions were found in many places. An old Scotch minister was blamed by his brethren for including the Queen's name in his public prayers. He replied, that if she were guilty, his prayers were much needed, and if she were innocent, she could be made no worse for them. Mr. Denman, in one of his numerous speeches on this subject, said, that if the Queen had a place in the Prayer-book at all, it was in the prayer for "all that are desolate and afflicted." When this omission was promulgated, the Queen hastened from Italy to England, having first written to Lord Liverpool, with the request that her name should be inserted and her title recognized. She landed at Dover on the 6th June, 1820. Upon the same day the King, by a message to the House of Peers, recommended their lordships to inquire into the conduct of his wife. Her journey to London was a triumphal progress; and in London her public reception resembled that which might have been accorded to a great national benefactor. Two commissioners, Messrs. Brougham and Denman for the Queen--and the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh for the King, endeavored to arrange their differences. They failed, and on the 9th June the failure was announced. The three subsequent months were periods of great popular excitement. The people adopted the Queen's cause; and her overwrought advocates shared her popularity. The legal skill, the cool bearing, the eloquence, and the astute powers brought by Mr. Denman to the crossexamination of the witnesses arrayed against her, established his professional character upon a very wide basis; while it barred the way to any advancement that his opponents could withhold. Both Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman acted with courage and disinterestedness. They incurred the personal enmity of the reigning sovereign and his probable successors; for this was a family quarrel, in which the Dukes of York and Clarence joined. The arguments, examinations, pleadings, and replies did not close until the 2d of November. Upon the 6th, the second reading of the bill of pains and

Mr. Denman was returned to Parliament, for the borough of Wareham, in the year 1818, through the influence of Mr. Calcraft, a well known Whig or Radical. His Parliamentary career was alike distinguished and judicious. He seldom addressed the Commons, except on legal questions, and he vigilantly watched all the measures calculated to abridge the liberty of the subject, introduced under Lord Liverpool's Government by Lords Castlereagh and Sidmouth. He invariably opposed the coercion of opinion, and vindicated zealously the rights of conscience. Through all the debates and discussions that preceded the reforming era from 1829 to 1834, Mr. Denman bore a conspicuous part in advocating the extension of freedom, or resisting infringement on rights already secured; yet, generally, confining his arguments to the legal bearings of the point reviewed. A brilliant exception runs like a golden thread through silver work, in all his long life. He was the ceaseless opponent of slavery; the earnest advocate of negro freedom, not on legal grounds, for the question was out of their range; but on the broad principles of moral right. Like Lord Brougham he opposed the recent policy of the Whigs in equalizing the duties on slave and freegrown produce of the tropics. He supported the blockading system of Africa against all the opponents of that plan; and he had the proud satisfaction in finding a practical and successful exponent of his views, in his son, Captain Denman, who was long engaged in suppressing the slave-trade on the African


The unhappy history of Queen Caroline is connected with the life of Mr. Denman; for when, in 1820, she claimed to be considered Queen of Great Britain, and the Ministry introduced a bill of divorce, Mr. Brougham accepted the position of Attorney-General to the Queen, and Mr. Denman became her Solictor-General. The Queen had been long separated from her husband and her daughter. The death of the latter, the Princess Charlotte, had dissolved the last bond of


penalties was carried by a majority of 28 in a house of 218 Peers. Upon the 10th, the third reading was carried by a majority of only 9. Lord Liverpool immediately stated that the Government could not proceed with the bill, "considering the state of public feeling, and the division of sentiment just evinced by their lordships."

The issue was received with general joicing in all parts of the country. Addresses were transmitted to the Queen from very many towns. Mr. Denman, on the 23d of November, began in the Commons to read a message from her Majesty. He was interrupted by the summons from the Peers to the Commons to hear another Royal message for the prorogation of Parliament. The Queen, by her solicitor, mentioned that offers of money had been made to her, upon condition of her selecting a foreign residence, which she rejected, and sought some provision from Parliament. The Commons subsequently voted an annuity of 50,000l.; but it was not long enjoyed, Death passed the bill which Parliament refused. Upon the 7th of August, 1821, the King was a widower, childless and friendless; and his subsequent life, like much of the past, was miserable. The Queen died in her fifty-third year. Two men were killed by shots in the riots that attended her funeral procession. The people decided that the procession should pass through the city. The soldiers were ordered to oppose this arrangement. Thus the shots were fired, but the people attained their object. The body was conveyed from Harwich by sea to Stade, and Queen Caro line was buried in her family's vault at Brunswick.

existed than that attained by Mr. Denman. He was an able pleader and a sound lawyer, but he devoted more time to political consultations than appears from Hansard; he stood higher with the attorneys in political law than in branches of a more profitable character; and he had earned the repute of extreme conscientiousness--not always the most re-eligible recommendation for a lawyer.

In the events of the next eight years Mr. Denman interposed no farther than any independent member of Parliament, or political and public man. The lapse of Lord Liverpool's Government; the brilliant but short Ministry of Canning; his death; the career of Lord Goderich; the battle of Navarino; and the accession of the Wellington Administration, passed over without affecting his position. The repeal of "The Tests and Corporation Act," and "The Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill" received cordial support from him, in his position, although he opposed the general policy of their authors. Roman Catholic emancipation brought no repose to Ireland; and the events of 1830, in France, produced a deep sensation in all political circles. They followed rapidly after the death of George IV., who expired on June 26, 1830, in his sixty-eighth year; a prince unhappy and unloved, in the midst of brilliant triumphs; and who, even while on the throne, might have been truly termed an unfortunate man.

When a new Parliament was chosen and had assembled, under a new King, the Wellington Administration were defeated, partly in consequence of the stubborn opposition of their leader to all reform. Earl Grey formed a Cabinet, in which Mr. Brougham was Lord Chancellor, and Mr. Denman, AttorneyGeneral. The events of 1820 were forgotten, in the interval of ten years, by William, or his resentment survived not the original causes. The new Monarch had also personal grievances against the late Premier, and probably did not regret the overthrow of his Government. As Mr. Brougham obtained a peerage, no reasonable objection could be made to conferring the usual knighthood on the Attorney-General, who was thenceforward Sir Thomas Denman. In his official capacity a large portion of the actual business of the Reform Bill devolved on the Attorney-General. Not only in those discussions patent to the world, but in consultations necessary in devising its clauses, he labored more incessantly than other statesmen whose names have been more frequently and fully associated with the bills. The

The enmity of the Court did not terminate with the existence of the Queen. The path of preferments was apparently closed against her solicitor, who, although gifted with solid talent, neither possessed the aptitude for agitation nor the versatility of his colleague Mr. Brougham. The corporation of London was one of the most popular bodies at that time, and, in 1822, they appointed him CommonSergeant of the City. As political matters gradually matured towards a decisive change, Mr. Denman continued to give an efficient and warm support to the Liberal party; preceding its leaders on nearly all popular questions. At the Bar he enjoyed an extensive, and apparently a lucrative, practise; which, however, never reached those magnificent receipts attained by a few of his predecessors. Even among his contemporaries, "better practises," measured by fees,

« VorigeDoorgaan »