(William), afterwards Earl of Mansfield and Lord Chief Justice of England, was the fourth son of David Viscount Stormont. He was born on the 21st day of March 1753 at Perth, in the kingdom of Scotland, of which kingdom his father was a peer. His residence in Scotland, however, was of short duration; for he was carried up to London at the early age of three years. Hence his total exemption from the peculiarities of the dialect of his native country.

At the age of fourteen he was admitted as a king's scholar of Westminster school; and during his residence in that seminary, says his contemporary Bishop Newton, he gave early proofs of his uncommon abilities, not so much in his poetry, as in his other exercises; and particularly in his declamations, which were sure tokens and prognostics of that eloquence which grew up to such maturity, and perfection at the bar, and in both houses of parliament. At the election in May 1723, he stood first on the list of those gentlemen who were sent to Oxford, and was entered of Christ Church, June the 18th, in that year. In the year 1727 he had taken the degree of B. A., and on the death of King George the Fifth, was amongst those of the university who composed verses on that event.

In April 1724 he was admitted a student of Lincoln's Inn, though he still continued to reside much in the university; where, on the 26th of June 1730, he took the degree of M. A., and soon afterwards left Oxford, determined to make the tour of Europe before he should devote himself seriously to business. About this period he wrote two letters to a young nobleman on the study of ancient and modern history, which are published by his biographer Mr Holliday, and show how amply his own mind was then stored with general literature.

On his return to England he commenced his legal studies; but proceeded not in the way then usually adopted, of labouring in the chambers of a special pleader, or copying (to use the words of Blackstone) the trash of an attorney's office. Being blessed with the powers of oratory in their highest perfection, and having soon an opportunity of displaying them, he very early acquired the notice of the chancellor and the judges, as well as the confidence of the inferior practitioners. How much he was regarded in the house of lords, Pope's well-known couplet will prove:

Grac'd as thou art with all the power of words, So known, so honour'd at the house of lords.

The graces of his elocution, however, produced their usual effect with a certain class of people, who would not believe that such bright talents could associate with the more solid attainments of the law, or that a man of genius and vivacity could be a profound lawyer. As Pope observed at that time,

The Temple late two brother serjeants saw, Who deem'd each other oracles of law; With equal talents these congenial souls, One lull'd the exchequer, and one stunn'd the rolls; Each had a gravity would make you split, And shook his head at Murray as a wit.

It is remarkable that this ridiculous prejudice accompanied Lord Mansfield to the end of his judicial life, in spite of daily proofs exhibited in the court of King's Bench and in the House of Lords, of very profound knowledge of the abstrusest points of jurisprudence. Lord Chesterfield has given his sanction to this unfounded opinion. In a letter to his son, dated Feb. 12, 1754, he says, "The present Solicitor General Murray has less law than many lawyers, but he has more practice than any, merely upon account of his eloquence, of which he has a never-failing stream."

In the outset of Lord Mansfield's life, it will be the less surprising, that a notion should have been entertained of his addicting himself to the pursuits of Belles Lettres too much, when the regard thrown to him by Mr Pope, who despotically ruled the regions of literature at that period, is considered. That great Poet seemed to entertain a particular affection for our young lawyer, and was eager to show him marks of his regard. He addressed to him his imitation of the 6th Epistle of the First Book of Horace; and even condescended to become his master in the art of elocution. "Mr Murray (says his biographer) was one day surprised by a gentleman of Lincoln's Inn, who could take the liberty of entering his rooms without the ceremonious introduction of a servant, in the singular act of practising the graces of a speaker at a glass, while Pope sat by in the character of a friendly preceptor. Mr Murray, on this occasion, paid that poet the handsome compliment of, Tu es mihi Mecenas (A)."

Whatever propensities this sprightly lawyer might have towards polite literature, he did not permit them to divert his attention from his profession. He soon distinguished himself in an extraordinary manner, as may be seen by those who are conversant with, or choose to refer to the Books of Reports. In the year 1736, the murder of Captain Porteous by a mob in Edinburgh, after he had been reprieved, occasioned a censure to fall on that city, and a bill of pains and penalties was brought into Parliament against the Lord Provost and the corporation; which, after various modifications, and a firm and unabated opposition in every stage of its progress, passed into a law. In both Houses Mr Murray was employed as an advocate, and so much to the satisfaction of his clients, that afterwards, in September 1743, he was presented with the freedom of Edinburgh in a gold box, professedly, as it was declared,

---

(a) It is thus that eminence is attained even by genius, and Mr Murray was properly employed; though we do not clearly perceive the use of the glass, when his master was watching all his gestures. red, for his signal services by his speeches to both Houses of Parliament in the conduct of that business.

On the 24th of November 1738, he had married Lady Elizabeth Finch, daughter of the Earl of Winchilsea, and in the month of November 1742, was appointed Solicitor General in the place of Sir John Strange, who resigned (n). He likewise was chosen to represent the town of Boroughbridge in Parliament, for which place he was also returned in 1747 and 1754.

In the month of March 1746-7 he was appointed one of the managers for the impeachment of Lord Lovat by the House of Commons, and it fell to his lot to observe on the evidence previous to the Lords giving their judgment. This task he executed with so much candour, moderation, and gentlemanly propriety, that Lord Talbot, at the conclusion of his speech, paid him the following compliment: "The abilities of the learned manager who just now spoke, never appeared with greater splendour than at this very hour, when his candour and humanity has been joined to those great abilities which have already made him so conspicuous, that I hope one day to see him add lustre to the dignity of the first civil employment in this nation." Lord Lovat himself also bore testimony to the abilities of his adversary: "I thought myself (says his lordship) very much loaded by one Murray (c), who your Lordships know was the bitterest evidence there was against me. I have since suffered by another Mr Murray, who, I must say with pleasure, is an honour to his country, and whose eloquence and learning is much beyond what is to be expected by an ignorant man like me. I heard him with pleasure, though it was against me. I have the honour to be his relation, though perhaps he neither knows it nor values it. I wish that his being born in the North may not hinder him from the preferment that his merit and learning deserve."

During the time that Mr Murray continued in office, he supported, with great ability, the administration with which he was connected; and, of course, rendered himself obnoxious to those who were in opposition. Nothing, however, could be urged either against his public conduct or his private life; but he was involved in some trouble by an ill-devised tale, concuring with the known principles of the family of Stormont, to make him suspected of Jacobitism. Of this affair, a full and particular account is given by the late Lord Melcombe in the following words:

"Messrs Murray, Fawcett, and Stone, were much acquainted, if not school-fellows, in earlier life. Their fortune led them different ways; Fawcett's was to be a country lawyer and recorder of Newcastle. Johnson, now Bishop of Gloucester, was one of their associates.

(n) On this occasion a doggrel poem was published by one Morgan, a person then at the bar, entitled, "The Caufidicade," in which all the principal lawyers were supposed to urge their respective claims to the post. At the conclusion it is said,

Then Murray, prepar'd with a fine panegyric In praise of himself, would have spoke it like Garrick; But the President stopping him said, "As in truth Your worth and your praise is in every one's mouth, 'Tis needless to urge what's notoriously known, The office, by merit, is yours all must own; The voice of the public approves of the thing, Concurring with that of the Court and the King."

(c) One of the evidences against him. cett upon this subject, in which the latter always persisted that Stone and Murray were present at the drinkings; and did drink those healths. It may be observed here, that when he was examined upon oath, he swore to the year 1731 or 1732, at least. Fawcett comes up as usual about his law business, and is examined by Messrs Pelham and Vane, who never had heard of Murray or Stone being named: he is asked, and answers only with relation to Johnson, never mentioning either of the others; but the love of his country, his king, and politeness, burned so strongly in Raventworth's bosom, that he could have no rest till he had discovered this enormity. Accordingly, when he came to town, he acquainted the ministry and almost all his great friends with it, and insisted upon the removal of Stone. The ministry would have slighted it as it deserved; but as he persisted, and had told so many of it, they could not help laying it before the king, who, though he himself slighted it, was advised to examine it; which examination produced this most injudicious proceeding in parliament.*

This is Lord Melcombe's account; and the same author informs us, that Mr Murray, when he heard of the committee being appointed to examine this idle affair, sent a message to the king, humbly to acquaint him, that if he should be called before such a tribunal on so scandalous and injurious an account, he would resign his office, and would refuse to answer. It came, however, before the House of Lords, 2nd January 1753, on the motion of the Duke of Bedford.

The debate was long and heavy, says Lord Melcombe; the Duke of Bedford's performance moderate enough; he divided the House, but it was not told, for there went below the bar with him the Earl Harcourt, Lord Townshend, the Bishop of Worcester, and Lord Talbot only. The Bishop of Norwich and Lord Harcourt both spoke, not to much purpose; but neither of them in the least supported the Duke's question.

Upon the whole, Lord Melcombe concludes, "It was the worst judged, the worst executed, and the worst supported point that I ever saw of so much expectation."

The King, his late Majesty, viewed it in its true light; and is reported to have said, "Whatever they were when Westminster boys, they are now my very good friends." He was likewise, as we have been informed by a gentleman connected with the family of Stormont, so delighted with Mr Murray's speech in his own vindication, that he desired to have a copy of it, as a model of dignified and candid eloquence. Fawcett, the original author of the story, seems indeed to have been a very sneaking knave, totally unworthy of credit. Bishop Johnson, who was overlooked in the turmoil, excited by the supposed guilt of Murray and Stone (see Stone, in this Supplement), went to Fawcett's chambers in the Temple, and desired an interview. Being told by the servant that his master was not at home, he renewed his visit very early next morning, and declared his resolution to wait till Mr Fawcett should rise; the landreft having inadvertently confessed that he was still in bed. Fawcett, upon this, left his thorny pillow with reluctance; for something sharper than thorns (says Mr Holliday) awaited him, which he could not now possibly avoid. The result of the interview produced expressions of deep contrition, together with a letter, addressed to the Lord Bishop of Gloucester, acknowledging, in the most explicit terms, that his Lordship was innocent of the charge which he had been the instrument of bringing against him.

On the advancement of Sir Dudley Ryder to the chief justiceship of the King's Bench in 1754, Mr Murray succeeded him as attorney general; and on his death, November 1756, again became his successor as chief justice, when he was created Baron of Mansfield, in the county of Nottingham, with remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten.

As soon as Lord Mansfield was established in the King's Bench, he began to make improvements in the practice of that court. On the 12th of November, four days after he had taken his seat, he made a very necessary regulation, observing, "Where we have no doubt, we ought not to put the parties to the delay and expense of a farther argument; nor leave other persons, who may be interested in the determination of a point so general, unnecessarily under the anxiety of suspense."

The anxiety of suspense, from this period, was no longer to be complained of in the court of King's Bench. The regularity, punctuality, and dispatch of the new chief justice, afforded such general satisfaction, that they, in process of time, drew into that court most of the causes which could be brought there for determination.

Sir James Burrows says, "I am informed, that at the fittings for London and Middlesex only, there are not so few as 800 causes set down in a year, and all disposed of. And though many of them, especially in London, are of considerable value, there are not more, upon an average, than between 20 and 30 ever heard of afterwards in the shape of special verdicts, special cases, motions for new trials, or in arrest of judgment. Of bills of exceptions there has been no instance (I do not include judgments upon criminal prosecutions; they are necessary consequences of the convictions). My reports give but a very faint idea of the extent of the whole business which comes before the court: I only report what I think may be of use as a determination or illustration of some matter of law. I take no notice of the numerous questions of fact which are heard upon affidavits (the most tedious and irksome part of the whole business). I take no notice of a variety of contentions, which, after having been fully discussed, are decided without difficulty or doubt. I take no notice of many cases which turn upon a construction so peculiar and particular, as not to be likely to form a precedent for any other case. And yet, notwithstanding this immensity of business, it is notorious, that, in consequence of method, and a few rules which have been laid down to prevent delay (even where the parties themselves would willingly consent to it), nothing now hangs in court. Upon the last day of the very last term, if we exclude such motions of the term as by desire of the parties went over of course as peremptories, there was not a single matter of any kind that remained undetermined, excepting one case relating to the proprietary Lordship of Maryland, which was professedly postponed on account of the present situation of America. One might speak to the same effect concerning the last day of any former term for some years backward."

The same author also informs us, that, excepting two cases, cases, there had not been, from the 6th of November 1756 to the time of his then present publication, 26th May 1776, a final difference of opinion in the court in any case, or upon any point whatsoever. "It is remarkable, too (he adds), that, excepting these two cases, no judgment given during the same period has been reversed, either in the exchequer chamber or in parliament: and even these reversals were with great diversity of opinion among the judges." Of the two cases here mentioned, one was the famous question concerning literary property, which the majority of the judges of the court of King's Bench held to be permanent; and in support of which opinion, such arguments were urged by the chief justice, as have not yet perhaps been completely answered.

The ill success of the war, which had lately been begun, occasioned a change in the administration; and the conflicts of contending parties rendered it impracticable for the crown, at that juncture, to settle a new ministry. In order, therefore, to give pause to the violence of both sides, Lord Mansfield was induced to accept the post of chancellor of the exchequer on the 9th of April 1757; which he held until the 2d of July in the same year. During this interval, he employed himself, with great success, to bring about a coalition; which being effected, produced a series of events, which raised the glory of Great Britain to the highest point at which it has ever been seen. In the same year he was offered, but refused, the office of Lord High Chancellor; and in November 1758, he was elected a governor of the charter house, in the room of the Duke of Marlborough, then lately deceased.

For several years after this period, the tenor of Lord Mansfield's life was marked only with a most sedulous discharge of the duties of his office. In 1760 Geo. II died, and the new reign commenced with alterations in the administration; which gave rise to a violent spirit of opposition, conducted with a degree of violence and asperity never known at any former time. As a friend to the then administration, Lord Mansfield was marked out for a more than ordinary share of malicious invective. It is in allusion to this, that Warburton, after tracing the rise and progress of the irreligion and licentiousness which then prevailed, and observing that, amid such general corruption, the pure administration of public justice still afforded a cheerful consolation to thinking men, proceeds thus:

"But the evil genius of England would not suffer us to enjoy it long; for, as if envious of this last support of government, he hath now instigated his blackest agents to every extent of their malignity; who, after the most villainous insults on all other orders and ranks in society, have at length proceeded to calumniate even the king's supreme court of justice, under its ablest and most unblemished administration. After this, who will not be tempted to despair of his country, and say with the good old man in the scene,

---

(d) See the dedication of the 1st edition of the Divine Legation of Moses, which deserves to be read at present with peculiar attention, as the work of a man of gigantic talents, deeply read in law as well as in theology.

(x) The speeches in the debate were never printed; but the substance of them all was consolidated in a pamphlet published at the time, intitled, "A Speech against the suspending and dispensing prerogative," 8vo. Since reprinted in Debrett's Debates, Vol. IV. p. 384. God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences, how formidable they may be; we are bound to say, *Fiat Justitia, ruat Coelum*. The constitution trusts the king with reasons of state and policy: He may pardon offences; it is his to judge whether the law or the criminal should yield. We have no election. None of us encouraged or approved the commission of either of the crimes of which the defender is convicted: none of us had any hand in his being prosecuted. As to myself, I took no part (in another place) in the addresses for that prosecution. We did not advise or assist the defender to fly from justice; it was his own act, and he must take the consequences. None of us have been consulted, or had anything to do with the present prosecution. It is not in our power to stop it; it was not in our power to bring it on. We cannot pardon. We are to say what we take the law to be. If we do not speak our real opinions, we prevaricate with God and our own consciences.

"I pass over many anonymous letters I have received; those in print are public; and some of them have been brought judicially before the court. Whoever the writers are, they take the wrong way. I will do my duty unawed. What am I to fear? That mendax insinuat from the press, which daily coins false facts and false motives? The lies of calumny carry no terror to me. I trust, that my temper of mind, and the colour and conduct of my life, have given me a suit of armour against these arrows. If, during this king's reign, I have ever supported his government, and assisted his measures, I have done it without any other reward than the consciousness of doing what I thought right. If I have ever opposed, I have done it upon the points themselves, without any collateral views. I honour the king, and respect the people. But many things acquired by the favour of either are, in my account, objects not worth ambition. I wish popularity; but it is that popularity which follows, not that which is run after.—It is that popularity which, sooner or later, never fails to do justice to the pursuit of noble ends by noble means. I will not do that which my conscience tells me is wrong upon this occasion, to gain the huzzas of thousands, or the daily praise of all the papers which come from the press. I will not avoid doing what I think is right, though it should draw on me the whole artillery of libels, all that falsehood and malice can invent, or the credulity of a deluded populace can swallow. I can say with a great magistrate, upon an occasion, and under circumstances not unlike, *Ego hoc animo fero, ut invidiam virtute partam, gloriam, non invidiam patarem.*

"The threats go further than abuse: Personal violence is denounced. I do not believe it; it is not the genius of the worst men of this country in the worst of times. But I have set my mind at rest. The last end that can happen to any man never comes too soon, if he falls in support of the law and liberty of his country (for liberty is synonymous to law and government). Such a shock, too, must be productive of public good: It might awake the better part of the kingdom out of that lethargy which seems to have benumbed them; and bring the mad part back to their senses, as men intoxicated are sometimes flung into sobriety.

"Once for all, let it be understood, that no endeavours of this kind will influence any man who at present sits here. If they had any effect, it would be contrary to their intent: Leaning against their impression might give a bias the other way. But I hope, and I know, that I have fortitude enough to resist even that weakness. No libels, no threats, nothing that has happened, nothing that can happen, will weigh a feather against allowing the defendant, upon this and every other question, not only the whole advantage he is intitled to from substantial law and justice, but every benefit from the most critical nicety of form, which any other defender could claim under the like objection. The only effect I feel is an anxiety to be able to explain the grounds upon which we proceed; so as to satisfy all mankind, that a flaw of form given way to in this case, could not have been got over in any other."

In January 1770, Lord Mansfield again was offered the Great Seal, which was given to Mr Charles York; and in Hilary Term 1771, he a third time declined the same offer, and the Seal was entrusted to Lord Bathurst.

The year 1770 was also memorable for various attacks made on his Lordship's judicial character, in both the Houses of Lords and Commons. In one of these, the propriety of a direction given to the jury in the case of the king and Woodfall was called in question; which occasioned his Lordship to produce to the House a copy of the unanimous opinion of the court of King's Bench in that cause; which, after being much canvassed and opposed, was suffered to stand its ground without being over-ruled.

On the 19th of October 1776, his Lordship was advanced to the dignity of an Earl of Great Britain, by the title of the Earl of Mansfield, and to his male issue; and for want of such issue, to Louisa Viscountess Stormont, and to her heirs male by David Viscount Stormont her husband. The same title, in 1792, was limited to Lord Stormont himself; who afterwards succeeded to it.

We come now to a period of his Lordship's life, which furnishes an event disgraceful to the age and country in which the fact was committed. An union of folly, enthusiasm, and knavery, had excited alarms in the minds of some weak people, that encouragements were given to the favourers and professors of the Roman Catholic faith inconsistent with religion and true policy. The act of Parliament, which excited the clamour, had passed with little opposition, and had not received any extraordinary support from Lord Mansfield. The minds of the public were inflamed by artful misrepresentations; the rage of a popular mob was soon directed towards the most eminent persons. Accordingly, in the night between Tuesday the 6th and Wednesday the 7th of June 1780, his Lordship's house in Bloomsbury Square was attacked by a party of rioters, who, on the Friday and Tuesday preceding, had, to the amount of many thousands, surrounded the avenues of both Houses of Parliament, under pretence of attending Lord George Gordon when he presented the petition from the Protestant Association. On Tuesday evening the prison of Newgate had been thrown open, all the combustible part reduced to ashes, and the felons let loose upon the public. It was after this attempt to destroy the means of securing the victims of criminal justice that the rioters assaulted the residence of the chief magistrate of the first criminal court in the kingdom; nor were they dispersed till they had burnt all the furniture, pictures, books, manuscripts, deeds, and, in short, every thing which fire could consume in his Lordship's ship's house; so that nothing remained but the walls, which were seen next morning almost red-hot from the violence of the flames, presenting a melancholy and awful ruin to the eyes of the passengers. For a fuller account of those dreadful riots, see Britain, No. 644. Encyclopaedia.

So unexpected was this daring outrage on order and government, that it burst on Lord Mansfield without his being prepared in the slightest manner to resist it. He escaped with his life only, and retired to a place of safety, where he remained until the 14th of June, the last day of term, when he again took his seat in the court of King's Bench. "The reverential silence (says Mr Douglas) which was observed when his Lordship resumed his place on the Bench, was expressive of sentiments of condolence and respect, more affecting than the most eloquent address the occasion could have suggested.

"The amount of that part of Lord Mansfield's loss which might have been estimated, and was capable of a compensation in money, is known to have been very great. This he had a right to recover against the bidders. Many others had taken that course; but his Lordship thought it more consistent with the dignity of his character not to resort to the indemnification provided by the legislature. His sentiments, on the subject of a reparation from the state, were communicated to the Board of Works in a letter, dated 18th July 1789, written in consequence of an application which they had made to him (as one of the principal sufferers), pursuant to directions from the treasury, founded on a vote of the House of Commons, requesting him to state the nature and amount of his loss. In that letter, after some introductory expressions of civility to the surveyor general, to whom it was addressed, his Lordship says,

"Besides what is irreparable, my pecuniary loss is great. I apprehended no danger, and therefore took no precaution. But how great soever that loss may be, I think it does not become me to claim or expect reparation from the state. I have made up my mind to my misfortune, as I ought, with this consolation, that it came from those whose object manifestly was general confusion and destruction at home, in addition to a dangerous and complicated war abroad. If I should lay before you any account or computation of the pecuniary damage I have sustained, it might seem a claim or expectation of being indemnified. Therefore you will have no further trouble upon this from, &c.—Mansfield."

From this time the lustre of Lord Mansfield continued to shine with unclouded brightness until the end of his political life, unless his opposition to the measures of the present administration, at the early period of their appointment, shall be thought to detract, in some small degree, from his merit. It is certain many of his admirers saw, with concern, a connection with the opponents of government at that juncture, scarcely compatible with the dignity of the chief justice of Great Britain. At length intimacies prevailed upon him, and he became unable to attend his duty with the same punctuality and assiduity with which he had been accustomed. It has been supposed, that he held his office after he was disabled from executing the duties of it, from a wish to secure the succession of it to a very particular friend. Be this as it may, the chief justice continued in his office until the month of June 1788, when he sent in his resignation.

From this period the bodily powers of his Lordship continued to decline; his mental faculties, however, remained without decay almost to the last. During this time he was particularly inquisitive and anxious about the proceedings in France, and felt his sensibility, in common with every good man, wounded by the horrible instance of democratic infatuation in the murder of the innocent Louis XVI. He lived just long enough to express his satisfaction at the check given to the French by the Prince of Cobourg in March 1793; on the 20th of which month, after continuing some days in a state of insensibility, he departed this life, at the age of 88 years.

"In his political oratory (says a writer of the present times), he was not without a rival; no one had the honour of surpassing him; and let it be remembered, that his competitor was Pitt.

"The rhetorician that addressed himself to Tully in these memorable words—Demosthenes illi praepositus est primus effecit Orator, tu illi ne falsus—anticipated their applications to Mansfield and Pitt. If the one possessed Demosthenian fire and energy, the other was at least a Cicero. Their oratory differed in species, but was equal in merit. There was, at least, no superiority on the side of Pitt. Mansfield's eloquence was not, indeed, of that daring, bold, declamatory kind, so irresistibly powerful in the momentary battle of popular assemblies; but it was possessed of that pure and Attic spirit, and seductive power of persuasion, that delights, instructs, and eventually triumphs. It has been very beautifully and justly compared to a river, that meanders through verdant meads and flowery gardens, reflecting in its crystal bosom the varied objects that adorn its banks, and refreshing the country through which it flows.

"To illustrate his oratory by example, would require voluminous transcripts from the records of Parliament; and it is unnecessary, as we can appeal to living recollection.

"Having added weight and dignity to the offices of attorney and solicitor general, his reputation as a speaker, a lawyer, and a politician, elevated him to the peerage, and the exalted post of chief justice of England. He ascended to the dignities of state by rapid strides; they were not bestowed by the caprice of party favour or affection. They were (as was said of Pliny) liberal dispensations of power upon an object that knew how to add new lustre to that power, by the rational exertion of his own.

"Here we can speak of this great man within our own recollection; and however party prejudices may adopt their different favourites, and each contend in detracting from the merit of the other, it is, we believe, generally understood, that precedence is allowed the Earl of Mansfield, as the first magistrate that ever so pre-eminently graced that important station. The wisdom of his decisions, and unbiassed tenor of his public conduct, will be held in veneration by the fates of the law, as long as the spirit of the constitution, and just notions of equity, continue to have existence. No man has ever, in an equal degree, possessed that wonderful sagacity in discovering chicanery and artifice, and separating fallacy from truth, and sophistry from argument, so as to hit the exact equity of the case. He suffered not justice to be entangled in the nets of form.

"His memory was astonishing—he never took note, or, if he did, seldom or ever consulted them." His references to expressions which fell from him in the course of the debate, or his quotations from books, were so faithful, that they might have been said to have been repeated verbatim. The purposes to which he employed these amazing talents were still more extraordinary: if it was the weak part of his opponent's arguments that he referred to, he was sure to expose its fallacy, weakness, or absurdity, in the most poignant satire, or hold it up in the most ridiculous point of view. If, on the contrary, it were a point on which his adversaries laid their chief stress, he stated the words correctly; collected their obvious meaning, considered the force of the several arguments that had or might have been raised upon them, with a precision that would induce an auditor almost to suppose that he had previously considered the whole, and that his speech was the result of much previous study.

"It may be said of Mansfield as of Virgil, that if he had any faults, they might be considered in the same manner with those of some eminent fixed star, which, if they exist at all, are above the reach of human observation. The luminous aster of his life was not obscured by any shade dark enough to be denominated a defect. On account of his descent, local prejudices and propensities were imputed to him, and his conduct, on that account, examined with a microscopic eye; but the optic through which it was viewed possessed a party tinge, equally odious and deceptive.

"His political principles were ever consistent; and to preserve consistency in such stations and in such times as occupied the life of Mansfield, constitutes an ordeal strongly impressive of virtue. It has been said that he wanted spirit. Is the uniform opposition of popular opinion, and apparently the contempt of it, any proof of the affection? His speech and conduct, in the affair of Wilkes's outlawry, when popular prejudice ran in torrents, illustrate each other. He despised (to borrow an expression of his own) that mushroom popularity that is raised without merit, and lost without a crime. He disdained being the slave of popular impulse, or to acknowledge the shouts of a mob for the trumpet of fame."

He had a mind too great to be ashamed of revering the ordinances of religion; and as, after the most impartial inquiry, he was a firm believer of the truth and importance of Christianity, he frequented the church regularly, and received the holy sacrament on the higher festivals. Mr Holliday has published a sermon, which he says was dictated by Lord Mansfield to his friend bishop Johnson, and preached by that prelate before the House of Lords. It is a very serious and appropriate discourse; but judging upon internal evidence, we should not have supposed it the composition of the eloquent and argumentative chief justice of England. His Lordship's will, which was written with his own hand, upon little more than half a sheet of paper, begins with the following elegant and pious paragraph, with which we shall conclude this sketch of his character:

"When it shall please Almighty God to call me to that state, to which, of all I now enjoy I can carry only the satisfaction of my own conscience, and a full reliance upon his mercy through Jesus Christ, I desire that my body may be interred as privately as may be: and out of respect for the place of my early education, I should wish it to be in Westminster Abbey." It was interred in Westminster Abbey, in the same vault with the Countess (who had died April 10, 1784), between the late Earl of Chatham and Lord Robert Manners.