subsequent winter brought wild work to Sir | movements within the limit of the law officiThomas Denman. Harassed by the legal business of the great Reform measure, he was compelled to recognize a lawless state of society both in the agricultural and the manufacturing districts. Fire-raising and machine breaking were prevalent crimes, and when a homestead or its corn-ricks made the sky lurid in the dark nights of winter, it also added to the load of business in the Crown Office. The Ministry were surrounded by anxieties, and that new destroyer, the cholera, in the autumn of 1830, and the winter of 1831, was creeping to the north and west in slow but solemn and sure progress, to increase the disorder. The Reform Bill was introduced by Lord John Russell to the Commons on the 1st of March, 1831. The debate was the longest remembered in Parliament on any single measure, and the division on the second reading was the largest. The numbers respectively were 302 and 301. The Bill was read a second time by a majority of 1. Mr. Calcraft, who had been Sir Thomas Denman's first Parliamentary friend, managed to get into the lobby only in time to present an even vote. He had been in Parliament for thirty-five years. He remained thus to carry the Reform Bill, and he never voted again; having, like another friend of the Attorney-General, committed suicide. The Easter recess was passed by many persons in the organization and strengthening of the political unions, which trode on the fringes and margin of the constitution. On the 18th of April the Commons met in Committee on the Bill, and the Ministry were defeated by a majority of 8 on General Gascoyne's amendment against the reduction of the number of members which constitute the House; and again by 22 on an amendment upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's motion to go into a Committee of Supply. The real crisis of the Reform Bill had arrived. Its opponents in Parliament were confident and furious; its supporters were desponding and doubtful; not that they were afraid for the ultimate fate of their measure, but for the means by which it should be carried. The King was favorable, but would not contemplate the dissolution of a Parliament which had not completed its first year. The Peers denied the propriety of this exercise of the prerogative. The denial roused the energy of the King, and on the 22d of April he prorogued Parliament. These historical | events are referred to here merely to indicate | the hidden work of the Attorney-General; on whom the responsibility of keeping these ally devolved. He was again returned to his constituency, but was re-elected with very little personal exertion; and Parliament had again assembled, and the Bill was again introduced before two months had expired. Although the Grey Ministry had now a great majority, yet the opposition to the Bill was extremely severe; and the last debate in the Commons terminated on the 21st of September by a vote of 345 to 236, in favor of the measure, which now rested with the Peers; while the Birmingham and other political unions assumed an attitude of the most embarrassing character to the Attorney-General, the representative of a large and popular constituency, foreseeing the probable necessity for prosecutions, which essential as they might become in his official, would almost necessarily injure his Parliamentary position. The Peers threw out the Bill on the 7th October. Upon the 20th the King, firm still in his attachment to the Reform measure and Ministry, prorogued Parliament. The winter of 1831 and 1832 was even more gloomy and riotous than its immediate predecessor. Bands of ill-conditioned men, assuming the titles and the wrongs of Reformers, excited riots to profit by the temporary disruption of society. Incendiarism began at Derby and spread to Nottingham, the AttorneyGeneral's constituency. The Duke of Newcastle's castle at Nottingham was burned down. The county paid 21,000l. for that fire; and the Attorney-General found scope for the exercises of his official functions in his own town. Near to the end of October Sir Charles Wetherell, the Recorder of Bristol, proceeds to open his Court in that city. A great riot ensued, for Sir Charles was a zealous Tory. His presence was a pretext for rogues and vagabonds to institute a carnival of disorder. Half of one square was burned down, and many lives were lost. The Mayor was a singularly quiet man, who shrunk from giving those implicit orders which the commanding officer, Colonel Brereton, required. The latter gentleman from kind-heartedness temporized with the mob, and endeavored to restore peace by persuasion, without bayonets. The magistrates and the officer were brought to trial. The proceedings against the former were extremely painful to the Attorney General, and they were acquitted. The proceedings against Colonel Brereton were painful to all parties. He had endeavored to reconcile conscience and duty, and he was misdirected and misinformed. The fourth day of his trial closed. He had two little daughters, and they had no mother. Always his last act at night had been to look into their bedroom and say good night to the sleeping children. Afterwards the servants observed that on this night he passed their door. He was heard walking in his room until they all slept. In the morning he was dead-shot by his own hand -a brave man and kind, but unwilling to fire even upon the worst of the people. The fierce agitations of these troubled times, the close treading on the edges of constitutional law by all parties; the absolute infringement of its principles by the nominal supporters of his own party; the investigations into riots and the trials of the rioters, weighed heavily on the energies and the heart of the Attorney-General. The history of the Reform Bill belongs rather to the life of other statesmen than to that of Sir Thomas Denman. It became law; and other grand struggles opened on the Parliamentary and political fields. None was grander than the destruction of slavery, or nearly equal to it in moral sublimity. This discussion, and all its consequent labors, was a sunny spot in his overwhelming toil; and among many friends of the negroes, no man labored more assiduously to uproot this insulting crime to humanity, or rejoiced more sincerely at the advent of that august day when the British flag, wherever it was planted, shadowed only freemen. He expressed a lively interest in all those social reforms that were either partially or wholly effected in the years immediately subsequent to the passing of the Reform Bill. The Bank and East India Charters had to be remodelled, and the opinion of the Law officers of the Crown had to be obtained. These few words were often lightly spoken, but the opinion of the chief officer was never lightly formed. The retirement of Earl Grey from the Premiership virtually broke up the Reform Ministry; and a peerage was conferred on Sir Thomas Demnan in that year, 1834, when he was named Chief Justice of England. Thenceforward his years flowed more equally. The Chief Justice was remarkable for his calm and dignified bearing on the Bench; his cheerful devotion to its important duties; the attention and cares which he bestowed on cases, and the diligence with which he pursued his duties, and cleared away the arrearage of his Court. No man since the days of Sir Mathew Hale discharg ed the functions of Chief Justice of England with more dignity than Lord Denman. Like his great predecessor he was an earnest stu dent. His decisions proceeded upon an arduous application to the arguments and evidence. The incorruptibility of our judges is now unquestioned, but their application to business is a different subject, and deficiency in that respect is one form of corruption, and judgments are given in some courts with a rapidity altogether inconsistent with justice. The counsel on both sides, in perhaps the greatest cases of the last thirty years, solicited the Bench for an early decision, which was promised to them in three days. These three days, lawyers relate, were passed by the presiding representative of justice in busy pic-nicing, at a rural retreat, from which he returned fresh for judgment. Lord Denman might have arrived at the same findings, but he would not have reached them through the medium of a cigar-case. As Chief Justice he adequately represented the feeling of the English people in his time. He united firmness with a mild demeanor towards all men, and patiently examined the statements adduced before him in his official capacity. The greater portion of his labors originated in cases with which, after the decision is given and the costs are paid, the principals alone are interested; but during his presidency two important political questions were discussed and settled in a manner not calculated to raise the character of the courts with the people. The case Stockdale v. Hansard was the first. The House of Commons had ordered the publication of certain reports on prisons, in which a book published by Stockdale was described as obscene and disgusting in the extreme. He raised an action of libel against the publishers who pleaded the privileges of Parliament, in bar, for whom Messrs. Hansard acted. In November, 1836, Lord Denman declared that the authority of the House could not justify the publication of the libel. In May, 1837, the Committee of the House arrived at an opposite conclusion. Lord Denman argued that Parliament could not be permitted to libel individuals through the reports of their committees without a remedy. The Commons maintained that the publication of evidence supplied to their committees was essential to good legislation, and should be privileged. They, however, directed their publishers to plead, who were subjected to damages, and having defended the action they were bound to meet its consequences. The trial occupied some time, and, at its conclusion, Stockdale brought another action, for the Hansards continued to sell the reports. The damages were laid at 50,000%. Acting upon the instructions of the House, Messrs. Hansard declined to plead. A jury assessed the damages at 6007.; and the Court directed the sheriffs of London to recover the sum, from the property of the printers. They endeavored to obtain delay, but Stockdale had nothing to do either with their convenience or the constitutional question, and wanted his money. The sheriffs made a levy, and on the 16th December, 1839, to avoid the embarrassment of a public sale, the amount was paid. The sheriffs, Evans and Wheelton, were more annoyed regarding the allocation of these funds than other persons usually are even to obtain money. They were willing to pay them over to Stockdale, but the House of Commons threatened to commit them; or they were willing to retain them, but Lord Denman threatened them with imprisonment for contempt. They were deliberating on this choice of evils when the Commons seized them on the 20th January, 1840, for levying on their publishers goods. Lord Denman issued a writ of habeas corpus, by which he had the pleasure of an interview with the sheriffs, but they returned to confinement. Stockdale was next imprisoned by the House, and his attorney followed; but he progressed with his actions, and on the 17th February the fifth of the series was pending. Public opinion favored the judge more than the representatives; but on the 5th March Lord John Russell introduced a Bill, to confer on Parliamentary papers exemption from the libel law, and by retrospective clauses to release Messrs. Hansard from the cases current. Lord Denman and other peers endea vored to amend the Bill so as to prevent the publication of libels on private individuals, but the amendment would have vitiated the entire Act, and was therefore rejected while the measure was carried. The merits of the dispute were never fully discussed. "Much might be said on both sides." The Chief Justice occupied high grounds. He considered his Court the last refuge of popular liberty. The Commons, with equal firmness, alleged that the representatives of the people could more satisfactorily than any other power grant their freedom. One thing may be admitted, that in reports of Parliamentary evidence, as in the speeches of members, private individuals can be very grossly libelled, without any redress. Lord Denman sought to prevent this wrong without a remedy, but his object was impracticable, unless by infringing Parliamentary privileges, and it was defeated. He presided at the last public trial of a Peer, when Lord Cardigan went through that mockery of justice for wounding Captain Harvey Tuckett in a duel. The presiding judge was grave and solemn, but the business otherwise was a satire on justice. The celebrated review on appeals of O'Connell's trial brought out the only partizan opinion with which Lord Denman was chargeable, in any great political case, on the Bench. Mr. O'Connell and his friends were tried by a jury, consisting of gentlemen who made great exertions to escape the responsibility. After they were impanelled, the traversers and their counsel employed all artifices that ingenuity could suggest, to prolong the proceedings. Upon the twentyfifth day a verdict of guilty was returned. But the indictment had been divided into eleven counts-each of which contained different charges; and the jury, upon oath, anxious to be precise, divided the various matters in each count, discharging the prisoners from some, and finding others proved. Mr. O'Connell and his friends were sentenced to a heavy fine, and a moderate imprisonment. The case was taken, by appeal, before the judges, and finally found its way to the peers, who reversed the judgment. The Law lords alone voted on the appeal, namely, Brougham against, Campbell, Cottenham, and Denman for; but Lord Denman, in delivering his judgment, lowered himself from the Bench to the Bar, and insisted that the proceedings, if maintained, would reduce trial by jury to "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. This end had been very nearly accomplished by proceedings anterior to, and pending, the trial. An honest verdict could only be returned at the risk of personal danger. An individual called on the wife of one juryman on the day before the close of the trial, and offered a widow's cap for sale, saying, it will be wanted if O'Connell be found guilty. The business of the jurymen was greatly neglected during the proceedings. They became for many years proscribed men. They were insulted in the streets, and in danger of their lives, while their finding was an act of moral courage, of which the three peers who dissented from the opinions of the subordinate and younger judges were innocent; for Denman, even in the Queen's case, was supported by popular applause. Trial by jury was, is, has been, and ever will be, "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare” in Ireland, because unanimity is requisite to a verdict there as in England. Political trials Lord Denman's strong statements were based, however, on the decision of the counts by the jurymen. According to his views, if one count includes a charge for murder, with the theft of a silver watch, and the former is clearly demonstrated, while the latter is not proved, the jury should return a verdict of acquittal on the whole rather than separate the major from the minor accusation. This practice would form "a mockery, delusion, and snare.' in periods of strong excitement seldom afford | his Court. Lord Campbell succeeded him; the materials for a verdict of this description. and he was active in proclaiming the weakAll juries should decide, as in Scotland, by a ness of his friend, to all who could spread majority; or, if a casting majority be deem- the story. Campbell commiserated Dened insufficient, by one of two thirds. A list man's failing strength, and, although his of murderers who have escaped in Ireland senior in years, bade highly for the Chief by the operation of the present law would Justiceship. The secret of this affair reastonish the English people. mains to be discovered. Undoubtedly Lord Denman used very strong language on the trial last named. The decision was agreeable to politicians at the time, but they were not bound, therefore, to admire the arguments used for its support. Certainly Lord Denman heard from many influential quarters that he was sick, very sick, weak, and required rest. He struggled against this persecuting sympathy for years, but in 1850 he retired from the Bench, respected and even venerated by the Bar. His latter years were passed in a genial retirement. He did not attend the Peers often, but he was always ready to support his African policy, for which the father contended in the senate, and the son on the sea. His career had neither been dazzling nor eccentric, but steady and useful; presenting a noble precedent to young men, who, in Lord Denman's history, find solid perseverance more than compensating the absence of that genius, which gleams like wildfire in the tale of more than one of his contemporaries. But was his mind deficient in the higher attributes of genius, or bad he brought them into subordination under qualities which he deemed more valuable? The question can only be answered by a careful reading of his speeches, yet we hold by the latter alternative. He was struck with apoplexy, and died at Stoke Albany, Northamptonshire, on the 22d of September last. The reversal of the sentence disarmed O'Connell, and the judgment of the Peers may have been justifiable on political but not on legal grounds. After that came the famine. The autumn of 1844, when this proceeding occurred, was the last year of health and plenty for Ireland, until its great judgment, still lingering, was partially expended. Mr. O'Connell sunk under a complication of misfortunes. He became an exile seeking health, and died in a struggle to reach Rome. He left in Ireland a memorable, but scarcely a loved, or even a respected name. The career of few men in the last generation inspires the present with more regret. The Napoleon of politics, he effected little or nothing for the people, whom we are bound to believe that he loved. An intrigue commenced in the same year, 1844, for the removal of Lord Denman from CONSUMPTION Of Life during THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS. The consumption of human life during the reign of the Emperor Nicholas has been enormous. He has carried on war with the Circassians uninterruptedly for 28 years, at an annual cost of 20,000 lives on the Russian side alone, making a grand total of nearly 600,000 Russians who have perished in attempting to subdue the independence of Circassia. In the two campaigns against Persia, as in the Hungarian campaign and the two Polish campaigns of 1831-32, there are not sufficient data to enable me to form a correct estimate of the Russian loss, which was, however, in the Persian and Polish wars enormous. In the two campaigns against VOL XXXIV.-NO. I. Turkey of 1828-29, 300,000 fell, of whom, however, 50,000 perished by the plague. The loss of the Russians, in various ways. since the entry of the Danubian Principalities, is understood at 30,000. In these calculations it should be borne in mind that no estimate is attempted to be made of the sacrifice of human life on the side of those who fought for their liberties against the aggressions of Russia. If this calculation were attempted, it is probable that the result would prove that neither Julius Cæsar, nor Alexander, nor even Tamerlane, has been a greater scourge to the human race than the present Emperor Nicholas.-The Emperors Alexander and Nicholas, by Dr. Lee. From the Quarterly Review. SAMUEL FOOTE, THE HUMORIST.* FEW things are in their nature so fleeting as a joker's reputation. Within a generation it lives and dies. The jest may survive, but the jester is forgotten, and it is wit that flies unclaimed of any man; or, more frequently, jest and jester both have passed away, and darkness has swallowed up the fireworks altogether. And this perhaps is better than to outlive liking, even in so trumpery a matter as a broad grin. Horace Walpole has told us how much Lord Leicester suffered who had such a run in George the First's reign, when, having retired for a few years, he returned to town with a new generation, recommenced his old routine, and was taken for a driveller; and one would not choose to have been that wit and perpetual joking, this is a fault which has not much chance of remedy. Of the three books whose title-pages are transcribed at the head of this article, the reader may candidly be told that it is not our intention to say anything. What we are going to write is suggested by what we have not found in them. In the first, an ingenious Frenchman, and noted Anglo-maniac, reveals the discoveries he has made of eccentric Englishmen, from Swift to Charles Lamb. In the second, a contemporary English humorist, himself of no small distinction, eloquently discourses of his illustrious predecessors from Addison to Goldsmith, and passes upon them some hasty and many subtle sentences. In universally popular wit of the reign of the third, a young and deserving writer, Charles the First, who, according to Sir Wil-whose cleverness would be not less relished liam Temple, was found to be an intolerable bore at the court of Charles the Second. But it is not simply that this kind of reputation has small value or duration in itself, but that it lowers any higher claim in its possessor. Laughter runs a losing race against the decencies and decorums; and even Swift, when he would have taken his proper place on the topmost round of the ladder, was tripped up by the "Tale of a Tub." So much the weaker his chances, whose laughter has dealt with what partakes itself of the transi tory; who has turned it against the accidents and follies of life; who has connected it with the obtrusive peculiarities of character, as much as with its substance and realities; and who must therefore look to be himself not always fairly associated with the trivialities he has singled out for scorn. In life, and in books, it is the same. It is wonderful how seldom men of great social repute have been permitted to enjoy any other; and there is written wisdom of old date to this day unappreciated, because of the laughing and light exterior it presents to us. In an age of little Les Excentriques et les Humoristes Anglais au Dixhuitième Siècle. Par M. Philarète Chasles. Paris. 1848. The English Humorists of the Eighteenth Century. By W. M. Thackeray. London. 1853. Satire and Satirists. By James Hannay. London. 1854. if a little less familiar and self-satisfied in we are about to turn aside to offer tribute. It was once both a terrible and a delightful reality. It expressed a bitterness of sarcasm and ridicule unexampled in England; and a vivacity, intelligence, and gaiety, a ready and unfailing humor, to which a parallel could scarcely be found among the choicest wits of France. It was the name of a man so popular and diffused, that it would be difficult to say to what class of his countrymen he gave the greatest amount of amusement; it was the name of a man also more dreaded, than any since his who laid the princes of Europe |