THE RIGHT REV. CONNOP THIRLWALL,

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.

THE name of this distinguished historian and eminent prelate will at once associate itself in the mind of the reader with the highest order of intellectual movement which has taken place during the last thirty or forty years, whether in the world of letters or of religious thought. His first introduction to the literary republic may indeed be placed at a far earlier date, and it is curious to mark, in this instance, a rare example of juvenile precocity sustaining its early promise, without failure, throughout a lifetime. In the year 1809 was published a small volume, entitled, "Primitiæ; or Essays and Poems on various subjects, religious, moral, and entertaining, by Connop Thirlwall, eleven years of age." It was dedicated, by permission, to the Lord Bishop of Dromore. The preface was written by his father, the Rev. Thomas Thirlwall, M.A., who is described as " Minister of Tavistock Chapel, Broad Court, Long Acre; Lecturer of St. Dunstan, Stepney; and Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Dromore." The volume is a collection of productions, wonderful enough, considering the age of the writer, and contains a frontispiece, with a portrait of the youthful author before photography was dreamt of, announcing that he was born on the 11th of February, 1797. His father was then resident at Mile End, and afterwards became Rector of Bower's Gifford, in Essex. From the preface to this little work, we learn that he had learnt Latin at three years of age, and could read Greek at four with ease and fluency; and the result proves that these early signs of great ability were such as to warrant the indulgence of the highest anticipations on the part of his parents and friends.

From home he was sent to the Charterhouse, and thence to Trinity College, Cambridge. At the University he became Bell's Scholar in 1815, and Craven Scholar in the same year. In 1818, he graduated as twenty-second Senior Optime, and First Chancellor's Medallist (the Classical Tripos not having been established till 1824). In the same year he became Fellow of Trinity, and was appointed Classical Examiner in 1828, 1829, 1832, and 1834. In 1824, he was called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn, but withdrew from practice in 1828. From that date commenced Mr. Thirlwall's well-remembered career as Tutor at Trinity College, where he contributed as much as any one to found and promote the modern school of classical study for which that society is distinguished. A succession of scholars, from that time, treading in the footsteps and following the method of Thirlwall, have sustained the renown of the college, but to him mainly is due the honour of having struck out for it the path to eminence.

In 1831, an important work, the production of the joint labours of the late Julius Charles Hare and Connop Thirlwall, was given to the world. This was the translation of Niebuhr's History of Rome,' which produced a great and lasting effect upon English classical literature. This work was violently assailed by the 'Quarterly Review,' in an article to which the translators replied with a power of criticism and force of satire which put an end to all such attempts for ever. Mr. Thirlwall also took part, with his friend Hare, in conducting the Cambridge Philological Museum.'

The publication, in 1835, of the first volume of Mr. Thirlwall's 'History of Greece' made known to the world at large those powers and accomplishments, the observation of which had hitherto scarcely extended beyond the University. The medium by which this celebrated work was given to the public was, as everybody knows, Dr. Lardner's 'Cabinet Cyclopædia,' of which it forms a very important section. It is interesting to observe the terms in which, on the 12th of June, 1835, it was first announced. "The plan of the little work," it is stated, "begun in this volume has been considerably enlarged since it was first undertaken, and the author fears that a critical eye may be able to detect some traces of this variation from the original design in the manner of treating one or two subjects. He would be glad if he might believe that this was its only fault." The writer pro

ceeds to state that there are two classes of readers to whom it is addressed: one, those who desire to have something more than a superficial knowledge of Greek history, but who possess neither the leisure nor the means of studying the original sources; the other, those who have access to the ancient authors, but who need an interpreter.

Mr. Thirlwall had doubtless been preceded, as he was followed, in his remarkable enterprise. He came upon the traces of Mitford, a writer, who, by his inaccuracy and partiality, roused not only the severity of the more accurate scholar, but the indignation of the more high-minded political partisan; and every reader remembers what sharp stings of satire are to be found in the notes of Thirlwall's History, whether he is castigating the want of political honesty, or merely the bad scholarship of his predecessor. A few other writers come in for a share of this discipline; and the general aim which seems to have animated the writer's studies and lent weight to his arm, may perhaps be gathered best from the following note to vol. iii. of the History:"The high authority which Boeckh has so well earned by his learning and candour, entitles even a passing, and perhaps hasty remark of his, to more attention than is due to all the attempts, which for the last forty years have been systematically made in our own literature, the periodical as well as the more permanent, for political and other purposes, to vilify the Athenians." The eight volumes were published at intervals down to the year 1844. It would be in vain here to point to the various remarkable features of a work, which has been so long before the public, and which is so necessary to the pursuits of the scholar.

A pamphlet which was published in the year 1833, in favour of the admission of Dissenters to some University privileges, led to the removal of Mr. Thirlwall from the Lectureship at Trinity College. In 1834 he was presented by Lord Brougham, then Lord Chancellor, to the living of Kirby Underdale, Yorkshire; and on the death of Dr. Jenkinson, in the year 1840, he was elevated to the See of St. David's.

From that period the Bishop of St. David's has taken an active part in the deliberations of the House of Lords. His first vote was given on the 11th June, 1841, in favour of the Jews' Declaration Bill, a measure of relief of which he has always been the

advocate. His speech on that occasion was an admirable specimen of reasoning, in dealing with the various objections to the measure which were most strongly presented, and coming from a Christian bishop, whose motives and principles were alike unimpeachable, its effect was doubtless very great. Still, the consideration that the Bill would alter the Christian character of our institutions was too mighty to be got rid of for the present. In 1843, arose the question of the union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and Lord Powis introduced a Bill for the purpose of preventing that union. The measure obtained the unflinching support of the Bishop of St. David's, although it was opposed by the Duke of Wellington and the Archbishop of Canterbury; but, notwithstanding the pleas that were strongly urged in favour of the interests of the Welsh people, the first Bill was withdrawn, and another in 1844 was decisively rejected. The result was the foundation of the See of Manchester. In the following year came the proposal, by Sir Robert Peel's government, for the endowment of Maynooth. The Bishop of St. David's speech in favour of the endowments is another instance of close and concentrated argument, amongst the whole train of which, perhaps, the most pointed question was the following:-"Will you do no good, because you cannot do pure and unmixed good?" These and similar reasons were ultimately successful in carrying the measure. As may be expected, the Religious Opinions Relief Bill, and the measures for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, found a supporter in the Bishop of St. David's. He spoke in favour of the measure introduced by the Marquis of Lansdowne, in February, 1848, for establishing diplomatic relations with Rome, and the speech is remarkable as containing laudatory expressions on the character of the Pope, whom he described as "actuated by the very genius of good sense, and influenced by a spirit of the most exalted patriotism." How speedily this eulogium became a dead letter, and the grounds for congratulation on the good sense and patriotism of the Pope were dissipated by the political storms of the same year, it is needless to observe.

A more important proposal was that introduced by the late Bishop of London, in 1850, for transferring the jurisdiction in appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts upon matters of doctrine from the Privy Council to a bench of fifteen bishops. In the debate on this vitally interesting measure, the speech of the Bishop of St.