perhaps ever appeared in Westminster Hall, when the object was to get or to prevent a verdict; and that is the only object of the advocate who faithfully represents his client, and sinks himself in that representative character. It is needless to add that no man ever was more renowned as a verdict-getter — to use the phrase of the Nisi Prius courts.

A country attorney perhaps paid him the highest compliment once when he was undervaluing his qualifications, and said:"Really there is nothing in a man getting so many verdicts who always has the luck to be on the right side of the cause." This reminds one of Partridge in "Tom Jones," who thought Garrick was a poor actor, for any one could do all he did "he was nothing of an actor at all.”1 His weight with the court and jury was not unhappily expressed by another person when asked at what he rated Mr. Scarlett's value," A thirteenth juryman"- was the answer. A remarkable instance is remembered in Westminster Hall of his acting in the face of the jury, at the critical moment of their beginning to consider their verdict. He had defended a gentleman of rank and fortune against a charge of an atrocious description. He had performed his part with even more than his accustomed zeal and skill. As soon as the

judge had summed up, he tied up his papers deliberately, and with a face, smiling and easy, but carefully turned towards the jury, he rose and said, loud enough to be generally heard, that he was engaged to dinner, and in so clear a case there was no occasion for him to wait what must be the certain event. He then retired deliberately, bowing to the The prosecuting counsel were astonished at the excess of confidence or of effrontery,- nor was it lost upon the jury, who began their deliberation. But one of the juniors having occasion to leave the court, found that all this confidence and fearlessness had never crossed its thresholdfor behind the door stood Sir James Scarlett trembling with anxiety, his face the colour of his brief, and awaiting the

court.

"Why

1 "He the best player!" said Partridge with a contemptuous sneer. I could act as well as he myself. I am sure if I had seen a ghost I should have looked in the very same manner, and done just as he did."- Tom Jones, book xvi. c. 5.

66

result of the clearest case in the world" in breathless

suspense.

This very eminent person was born in the island of Jamaica, where his highly respectable family had long been settled and were considerable planters. In the colony he passed his earliest years; but he afterwards was brought to the mother country, and in a truly disinterested manner he gave up his share of the family inheritance to the convenience of his relatives. His West Indian connection, however, never biassed his mind on the great question of the African Slave Trade, though from that connection he had been always employed as counsel for the traders and planters. Once only, it was upon the famous case of Smith the missionary in 1824, he showed some leaning in the wrong direction, and having stated that he had always been an abolitionist, it became necessary to mention that he was also a West Indiana disclosure which he could apparently well have spared. At Cambridge, having been a fellow commoner, he took no honour, according to the truly absurd system which excludes from academical competition all persons of the higher rank. He cultivated, however, classical literature with success; and his taste as well as his knowledge on such subjects may be perceived in the valuable Note which he added to Mr. Brougham's Inaugural Discourse on Ancient Eloquence in 1825.

He was very early called to the Bar; and came into a certain share of business almost immediately, though then only twenty-two years of age. He chose the Northern Circuit, and on Mr. Law, afterwards Chief Justice and a Peer, taking the office of Attorney-General, he shared in the practice which his promotion scattered. Serjeant Cockell, Mr. Park, and Mr. Topping were the leaders who chiefly commanded the business, and it was not till the Serjeant retired, in 1810, that Mr. Scarlett was considerably advanced. His rank of King's Counsel being so long delayed was extremely prejudicial to him; this delay enabled inferior men to keep above him; and it arose from a circumstance honourable in the highest degree to him, discreditable in a nearly equal proportion to others. He happened to be a steady and conscientious Whig; his opinions were early

formed, and firmly maintained. He refused all the professional advantages which the intimate personal friendship of Mr. Perceval might have given him. Nor can there be a doubt that but for his party connections he must have risen to the office of Attorney-General twelve or fifteen years earlier than he held it, and been Chief Justice of England when Lord Ellenborough resigned in 1818. Instead of obtaining such promotion, he was prevented from even having the fair prospect of elevation to rank almost a matter of course and all but a thing of strict right- because his political adversaries were determined to keep down a very capable Whig and protect less capable Tories. This was to a certain degree the case with Sir Samuel Romilly; it has since been still more the case with others; and such refusals of rank, though they more directly oppress the individual kept down, yet operate to oppress all who are his seniors at the Bar and are not qualified to act as leaders. Mr. Brougham's being refused his rank when the Queen died in 1821 threw ten or twelve of his seniors out of business, because he could lead, and did lead, in a stuff gown, while they could hold no briefs with him. He only received a patent of precedency in 1827 during the Junction Ministry of Mr. Canning, and then, as is understood, he was with difficulty induced to take the rank, having long since made his footing secure without it. Mr. Scarlett ought to have been made certainly in 1810, when Serjeant Cockell died - possibly earlier. He only was made when Mr. Park went upon the Bench in 1816, and when Lord Eldon had no longer the power of withholding his silk gown. He had for some years been second leader all round the Circuit in a stuff gown.

The first remark which occurs upon this load under which Mr. Scarlett as well as those other lawyers laboured—and he more than they because its pressure was more injurious — is, that the injustice of which they were the object and might have been the victims was peculiar to his case, and that the blame of it belonged in an especial manner to Lord Eldon. That Lord Loughborough was culpable in respect to Sir Samuel Romilly is certain, though in a lesser degree. No such injury was inflicted upon his seniors as those of Mr. Scarlett, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Denman suffered, and suffered for

no fault of theirs, but for the political sins of their juniors at the Bar. Serjeant Clayton and Mr. Walton, and many provincial barristers were no Whigs that they should be punished by their own Tory leaders. Mr. Littledale was no Whig that Lord Eldon should deprive him of business. But if they had been all out of the question, the three leaders themselves were most wrongfully treated in being deprived of their professional rights merely because their political opinions differed from those of the ministry. Nay, Mr. Scarlett had the more right to complain, because his opinions could only be known in private society; he never was in Parliament all the while the ministry were oppressing him in his profession for differing with them in his politics. This too was an impediment to his progress at the Bar which Mr. Erskine never had to struggle against. Mr. Pitt and Lord Thurlow disdained to keep him down by refusing him the rank which was his right. He was member for Portsmouth; he voted against Mr. Pitt and Lord Thurlow; he was an intimate friend and indeed coadjutor of the Prince of Wales (being his Attorney General in 1783), whom George III. is known to have cordially hated, as he did all his son's connexions (except his wife). Yet no personal objection was made by that monarch to Mr. Erskine's promotion, any more than by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to whom he was opposed. He obtained his silk gown in 1783 when of five years standing', Mr. Scarlett had to wait for it four-and-twenty! But when that Prince of Wales was king, Lord Eldon and Lord Liverpool hearkened to his personal objections against Messrs. Brougham and Denman, which those ministers well knew resolved themselves into their doing faithfully and firmly by their client, his wife, whom he was persecuting to death, that

1 The name of this illustrious advocate and perfectly finished orator suggests an instance to illustrate our remarks on the ignorance of the vulgar in estimating forensic genius. No less celebrated a work than the Penny Cyclopedia has admitted into its pages a remark, that he was a speaker "not distinguished by felicity of diction, or figure, or imagery"! Did the writer of this wholly incredible sentence ever read the speech on Stockdale? and if he did, will he refer to any modern writing of which the diction, the figure, and the imagery are, we will not say superior, but equal? In truth the matchless beauty of his language was very far above the force and energy of his declamation, which really was not his forte, though this writer seems to think otherwise.

duty which it is to be hoped every barrister (at least in England) would perform as faithfully and as firmly. Had they basely betrayed their illustrious client, and enabled the king to gratify his malicious vengeance upon her head, Lord Eldon and Lord Liverpool well knew there was no favour which their royal master would not have gladly showered down upon them, possibly including, at no distant period, an offer of the very places they themselves then held. Their blame was therefore great in this instance. In the case of Mr. Scarlett, they had not even the excuse a poor one doubtless of the king's caprice. His exclusion from his just rank at the bar was the mere work of common party rancour, or less worthy party contrivance, a work which Lord Thurlow had deemed too dirty for his not very clean hands.

The next remark to which Mr. Scarlett's long and unjust exclusion gives rise, is, that his political conduct, his party honour, his honest and conscientious avowal of his principles, little less unpopular in those days than they were prejudicial to the individuals who held them, reflects on his memory the very highest credit. It is usual for men who know little and think less to make severe comments upon this eminent person, and to describe him as an apostate from the Whig party. It is equally usual for Whig partizans to join in this cry, who never in their lives made any sacrifice to their principles.

We could name men, who never were known for Whigs at all until the party was in possession of power, and who nobly sacrificed to their principles by receiving high and lucrative offices for adhering to the Whig opinions, and further sacrificed by being promoted to still more lucrative office a short time after their first adoption; and yet some of these men have the effrontery to cry out against Lord Abinger for having left their party! When did they and those they act with ever remain one hour out of their just rights and rank because of the Whigs? But Lord Abinger was kept by his Whig principles from being Chief Justice in 1818, and from having the rank of King's Counsel and the ample revenue of leader on the Northern Circuit in 1802, fourteen years earlier than Lord