secure in such an age as that in which we now live. This is the true policy of the Church of England, which cannot be rejected without danger, and which is binding upon it as a national institution.

ART. III.-A LEGAL TRIPTYCH.- PLUNKET, ELDON, AND ROMILLY.

IN many of the grand old Flemish churches, a triptych, or

The

triply divided picture, occupies the place of honour. threefold picture which we are about to consider contains no saintly portraiture, and embodies no traditional story. Yet the contrasted lives of three great lawyers and statesmen of the past generation may have a significance at a time when it is happily not unusual for men to recall to mind their obligations to a worthy and noble profession. If our triptych shadows forth modern lawyers, instead of ancient saints, it will at least avoid the domain of myth and legend, and be strictly limited to sober historical fact.

The first figure is that of Lord Plunket, Chancellor of Ireland. In his younger days an ornament of that Irish Parliament which was extinguished by the legislative union. Afterwards the worthy compeer in debate of Canning and of Brougham. In his old age head of the law in Ireland, and a peer of the realm.

The central compartment of our triptych is allotted to John Earl of Eldon, for a quarter of a century the most trusted friend and minister of two Kings of England. A man who, owing to a singular combination of circumstances, occupied the highest seat of justice for a longer space of time, and enjoyed a larger share of political influence, than had before fallen, or is likely again to fall, to the lot of any lawyer.

Thirdly, there is Sir Samuel Romilly, a cotemporary of the others, but who, unlike them, was not ennobled by the Crown. Had he swerved from that independent course which he

"

deliberately chose, had he preferred the "applause of senates to the approval of conscience, he, too, might have founded a peerage. But his name is well remembered; and is especially familiar to all who have studied those social and legal problems which demanded solution during the earlier years of this century. Our three portraits are of men who flourished then; who dignified the law by their conspicuous talents and unsullied fame; who rose from the crowd to high reputation. But the parallel ends here. They differed widely in some points, which will the more clearly appear as we place the figures in juxta-position.

I.

The north of Ireland, which yet maintains its old renown by sending Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr. Whiteside to the Legislature, claims the honour of Plunket's birth, in 1764. In the quiet town of Enniskillen, his father was for a time the presbyterian minister. Except during assize week, one may walk down the single long street without meeting any but the rural inhabitants of what, in comparison with many county towns, appears to be but a large village. The dimensions and aspect of Enniskillen scarcely accord with its place in history. It is, in truth, a notable place, capital of a rich and flourishing county, and gives its name to two regiments of the Queen's army. After inspecting the castellated enclosure, now used as a barrack, of which little is ancient except the water-gate, the visitor proceeds towards a lofty-steepled church, in whose chancel hang as trophies, several old banners of regiments. Near this is pointed out the modest comfortable house where was born to the Rev. Mr. Plunket a son who was destined to become famous. Whether the ceremonials of assize first induced the young Plunket to make choice of the law as a profession, we cannot say; but somewhere prior to the year 1790, he went up to Dublin, without fortune and probably without friends. From the same place, and nearly at the same time, went forth another youth, equally studious and

equally self-reliant, afterwards known as Archbishop Magee. These townsmen and early companions struggled upwards with good effect; and in due time occupied contiguous mansions, one as head of the Law, and the other as head of the Church, in Ireland.

Seventy years ago the profession of the law was a very promising one, for the number of those who adopted it was small; and while there was employment for all, any remarkable degree of ability was immediately recognised, and led its possessor to fortune by rapid steps. Plunket, moreover, lived at a time when there were many small boroughs returning members to Parliament, the proprietors of which made efforts to discover and promote rising men of talent. This practice partly redeemed from odium the system of nomination-boroughs, and atoned, in some degree, for the shameless trafficking in seats which prevailed with the less scrupulous and patriotic of the borough-owners. Plunket had scarcely taken the seat in Parliament which he owed to the favour of the Earl of Charlemont, when a momentous and all absorbing topic arose― the proposed Union. In these days of political quietude it is difficult to realise the state of the public mind at that time. A national crisis had arisen; and the Government on the one hand, and the Irish nationalists on the other, spared no efforts to procure votes in the legislature, and to press into the battlefield men likely to influence the result. Plunket at once joined the ranks which stood opposed to the Government. The popular dislike to the proposed Union extended to the ministers by whom that measure was recommended. Strong denunciations and bitter taunts were unsparingly hurled against Lord Castlereagh. In this strife Plunket uttered many things which his maturer judgment disapproved; and indulged in personalities which even the heat of that fierce conflict could not excuse. The fierce invectives and biting sarcasms of the orator were quickly re-echoed throughout the country, and were applauded by thousands of excited nationalists. These unsparing invectives contributed not a little to

the unpopularity of Castlereagh during the remainder of his life. After his death his friends erected in Westminster Abbey a statue to his memory; and on its base may be seen engraven these unfortunately chosen, because very ambiguous, words" Ireland will not soon forget the Statesman of her Union."

But Plunket, within a few years, saw the wealth, the prosperity, and the civilisation of his country rapidly increasing, in spite of-we may even say in consequence of-that Union from which he had predicted only degradation and ruin. He was unsuccessful in his first great struggle, but he quitted it with honour, having become widely known to and admired by his countrymen. He soon became the acknowledged leader in the courts of law, for which he now for some years exchanged the scenes of political strife. The prosperous advocate soon forgot those vows which he had made in his own name and on behalf of his children-vows of eternal enmity against the British Crown; and he became as willing as his compeers to share in the honours and advantages which await a successful practitioner. He was largely employed in prosecuting the nationalists, whose rash attempts at insurrection kept the country in constant disquietude. Plunket has been censured for not remaining passive, while those were brought to trial who had shared his opinions, but had not, like him, loyally acquiesced in the decision of Parliament on the question of the Union. On the other hand, it has been urged that he did right to demonstrate his own loyalty, to disavow sympathy with treasonable enterprises. In truth, Plunket behaved like a clear-sighted, ambitious man of the world, free from any refined or chivalrous notions, mainly intent on self-advancement. There is no proof that he violated any promise, or betrayed any associate. It does not appear that there had ever existed any friendship or even community of feeling between himself and the unfortunate men whom he appeared to prosecute. No parallel can therefore be fairly traced between his conduct on Robert Emmett's trial and that of

Francis Bacon in the case of the Earl of Essex. Thenceforward Plunket's career continued to be marked by uniform and distinguished success. Those who remember seeing him at the Bar (and they are now but few) describe his powers as having been of the highest order, and say that his printed speeches convey but an inadequate idea of his oratorical gifts. His characteristics were animation and satirical pungency, combined with a style distinguished for clearness and logical precision. He possessed a gift rarely found among lawyers, a rich fancy; but it was strictly subordinated to the reasoning faculty. With these gifts it may be believed that none of his contemporaries, although more deeply versed in the science of law, were able to cope with him in the halls of justice.

After a long interval Plunket entered the Imperial Parliament. Great as were the expectations formed of him, they were not disappointed. He at once took a He at once took a place among the masters of Parliamentary oratory; but unlike most of them, he addressed the House but seldom; reserving himself for great occasions. The question with which his name must ever be most closely identified, was that of Catholic Emancipation. His arguments were based less upon abstract right and justice, than on considerations of wisdom and expediency. He urged that it was prudent to remove a cause of lasting hostility and irritation. To the success of this great movement Plunket's oratory largely contributed. In course of time, being weary of the "cold shade of opposition," he accepted the office of Attorney-General for Ireland. That dignified office has two wholly differing aspects. Ordinarily the duties of its occupant are of a peaceful character, connected with projects of law, bills for regulating fisheries, prisons, courts of justice, and so forth. But in the days of the Third and Fourth Georges, the Attorney-General was constantly occupied in prosecuting persons for treasons, seditions, conspiracies, and other grave offences, real or imaginary. Plunket had a full share in these methods of promoting the public tranquillity. It seems to us almost ludicrous that some slight riot or drunken outbreak,