and heedless at once of remonstrances and consequences, Caroline, on the 5th of June, 1820, arrived in England. Lord Liverpool, exactly one month afterwards, presented to Parliament a bill "of pains and penalties" against her; and the sequel of the sad story is familiar to our readers. The speech of Mr. Brougham in defence of Queen Caroline was, in all respects, worthy of himself, the occasion, and the auditory. Free from all turgidity, and only faintly fringed with imagery, it fell upon the ear in comparatively calm though searching tones; it addressed the judgment as an emanation from a strong mind, acting under the guidance of good taste; and by its warmth and heartfelt sympathy with his royal client, it touched the heart.

66

My lords," exclaimed he, with impressive energy, in the peroration of his speech, "I call upon you to pause. You stand on the brink of a precipice. If your judgment shall go out against the Queen, it will be the only act that ever went out without effecting its purpose; it will return to you upon your own heads. Save the country; save yourselves. Rescue the country; save the people of whom you are the ornaments, but severed from whom you can no more live than the blossom that is severed from the tree on which it grows. Save the country, therefore, that you may continue to adorn it. Save the Crown, which is threatened with irreparable injury; save the aristocracy, which is surrounded with danger; save the altar, which is no longer safe when its kindred throne is shaken. You see that, when the church and the throne would allow of no church solemnity on behalf of the Queen, the heartfelt prayers of the people rose to heaven for her protection. I pray heaven for her, and I here pour forth my fervent supplication to the Throne of Mercy, that mercies may descend on the people of this country richer than their rulers have deserved, and that your hearts may be turned to justice."1

Down to this period, Mr. Brougham had failed to secure high practice in the regular routine of the Courts of Law. He continued, however, on the alert to catch whatever stray

1 In proof of his unwearied zeal in the cause of Queen Caroline, vide H. P. D. (N.S.) vol. iii. passim; vol. iv. p. 213 (26th January, 1821); ibid. p. 236; and, particularly, p. 263, sqq. Vide also, as to the conduct of ministers relative to the proceedings against the Queen, ibid. pp. 497, sqq. (6th February, 1821). Vide, too, Speeches of Lord Brougham," Introd. pp. 87, sqq.; and for the speech itself, ibid. p. 104, sqq.

66

The accuracy of this statement may be tested by any one who will take the trouble to look into Barnew. and Alders. Reports, vol. iv., in which his practice is carried down to the month of July, 1821.

business might happen to be thrown in his way, and he applied himself with more than ordinary care and assiduity to his profession. The fame which he had acquired as an advocate, if not as a lawyer, attracted the attention of the public, and thenceforth there was a steady though gradual advancement to considerable rank at the Bar. But his parliamentary character and influence were rapidly on the increase; and, after the meeting of Parliament, the monotony of many a dreary debate? was not unfrequently enlivened by the more exciting, because more personal, incidents connected with this or that breach of privilege, or the less reputable loss of temper. It was in the

1 Some of the cases in which he was subsequently engaged sprung, as might have been expected, out of words uttered, or acts done, with reference to the proceedings against Queen Caroline. He submitted, for instance, to the lords of the Privy Council (5th July, 1821) an able argument on the question, whether or not the queen-consort of these realms is entitled, as of right, to be crowned when the king celebrates the solemnity of his coronation (Vide "Speeches," vol. i. pp. 257, sqq.). Again, in the case of the Reverend Richard Blacow, who was tried at Lancaster in September, 1821, Mr. Brougham opened the prosecution, which arose out of a libel uttered against Caroline in the delivery of a sermon before a large congregation. The defendant was very properly convicted: it is scarcely possible to imagine a more scandalous desecration of the sacred office than that of which this clergyman was guilty (Vide "Speeches," vol. i. pp. 902, 903). On another occasion Mr. Brougham had distinguished himself. We allude to his defence (25th February, 1822) of John Ambrose Williams, proprietor of the Durham Chronicle, who was charged with a libel on the Durham clergy, whom he had severely handled in his newspaper, because they refused to order the bells of the several churches of that city to be tolled on occasion of the death of Queen Caroline. Mr. Brougham, it was said at the time, considered that he never delivered a speech, either in Parlament or at the Bar, so completely to his own satisfaction, as that in defence of Williams. But vide "A Letter to Henry Brougham, Esq., upon the Durham Speech," 2nd edit. Lond. 1823.

The progress of Mr. Brougham at the Bar in the regular course of court business, between the years 1823 and 1830, may be traced, by those who think it worth their while to do so, in Barnewall and Cresswell's Reports. His practice, it will be seen, never rose above an average height.

2 For instance, on the financial measures of the government (11th Feb. 1822); but compare "Remarks on the Speech of Henry Brougham, Esq., in Parliament, &c., Lond. 1822," wherein he is charged with "fallacy of statement, unfairness of inference, and still greater unfairness of insinuation;" the Droits of the Crown (H. P. D., N.S., vol. i, pp. 105, sqq.); the resumption of cash payments (12th June, 1822); pensions, naval and military (1st May, 1822; H. P. D., N.S., vol. 6, p. 296); and on the influence of the Crown in general, vide ibid. pp. 1259, sqq.

3 Vide H. P. D. (N.S.) vol. v. p. 646 (10th May, 1821), when the subject of the John Bull newspaper was under discussion; and compare, ibid. vol. vi. p. 282 (13th February, 1822).

4 26th June, 1822, on which occasion Mr. Brougham, having mixed him

spring of the year 1823, for instance, that Mr. Brougham and Mr. Canning-the latter being at that time Secretary for Foreign Affairs came into violent collision. In the course of a debate upon the Catholic Claims, Mr. Brougham, after taunting the minister with his having chosen the alternative of being doomed to hard labour in England, rather than that he should be sent into honourable exile in India, charged him with having exhibited "a most incredible specimen of monstrous truckling." Mr. Canning started to his feet. "I rise," exclaimed he, "to say that that is false!" A dead silence ensued. The speaker, after a short pause, expressed, in a low, calm tone, a hope that Mr. Canning would retract the word which had dropped from him. Mr. Canning, while he regretted that he had used any expression which was a violation of the decorum of the House, replied that" nothing, no consideration on earth, should induce him to retract the sentiment." The speaker was firm, though prudent; his duty admitted neither of compromise nor delay. Calling upon the House to support him, he once more appealed to the honour and candour of Mr. Canning, who acknowledged that, so far as the orders of the House were concerned, he was exceedingly sorry that any expression calculated to attract the displeasure of the Commons should have escaped him; but at the same time declared, that he could not, in conscience, admit that his impression as to the nature of the aspersion which had been cast upon his character was erroneous. little fencing between the friends of the parties followed; doubts existed as to whether the language of Mr. Brougham was to be regarded as applicable to the minister in his private or public capacity. Mr. Canning reiterated his announcement that, after mature reflection, and with every possible respect for the orders of the House and the dignity of the chair, he could neither recal nor vary the expression which he had used; he was, however, quite prepared to submit with perfect humility to any censure

A

self up with a hot encounter between two other parties, alluded to language which one of them had "dared" to use. He was called to order: the Speaker decided that the expression was not necessarily unparliamentary; but Mr. Brougham threw more venom into the sting, by studiously and emphatically substituting, for the term complained of, the words venture and

presume.

*

which the House might think proper to pass upon him. Mr. Bankes and Mr. Wynn interfered; the one moving that both the parties concerned should be forthwith committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, while the other conceived it due to the country, to the interests of Parliament, and to the general freedom of debate, that neither Mr. Canning nor Mr. Brougham should be allowed to quit the House, until each had given his word of honour not to pursue the affair further; and having hinted that this condition must be enforced, he ventured to request Mr. Brougham to state what meaning he really intended to convey by his language. "Not one word," was Mr. Brougham's pithy, and, we think, proper reply to this suggestion. Ultimately Mr. Canning remarked, that it was under an impression that the language employed by Mr. Brougham was intended to affect his personal, and not his official character, that he had applied the epithet which had given rise to the discussion. If that imputation were denied, he was ready to avow that he had been mistaken, and that his language could not be justified. Neither the speaker, nor any other member of the House of Commons, appeared to think that Mr. Brougham had meant to give personal offence. In fact, Mr. Brougham took a calm and rational view of his actual position. Not for one moment did he lose his self-command. It had been declared by the highest authority that Mr. Canning had committed a breach of the rules of the House; and the simple question was not merely whether the offender should be given into custody, but whether the same step should be taken against Mr. Brougham, who, at least technically, was innocent throughout the whole affair. He, therefore, plainly told the House, that while he was aware that its power being absolute, it might order him into custody, still it would, in doing so, be guilty of a flagrant violation of the principles of justice. He even took his adversary under his protection, although certainly his succour was offered in equivocal form, and with latent sarcasm; for he reminded the House, that the offensive expression had been flung out by Mr. Canning in a moment of impatience, and before he had heard the conclusion of the sentence which had roused his indignation, Mr. Brougham con

fessed, too, that in the heat of debate, his mind was not capable of instantly drawing very nice distinctions in the selection of phrases, or of using one set of epithets as properly applicable to the political, and another as descriptive of the personal, character of any man. Nor did he deny that, when he talked of the conduct of Mr. Canning as "standing prominent in the history of political tergiversation," he applied, because he had a very strong feeling on the subject, a very strong expression, although one which certainly was not unparliamentary; for he intended that it should be received by the House as applicable to the public and political life of Mr. Canning. He had never known aught of him, as a private individual, but what did him the highest honour; but he reprobated the fluctuating conduct of Mr. Canning with reference to the settlement of the Catholic question, and maintained that he had a right to form an opinion of his motives from observing the outward visible form of his actions. In short, Mr. Brougham persisted in the opinion which he had expressed, viz., that Mr. Canning had, from impure motives, "truckled" to Lord Eldon. Mr. Secretary Peel, however, while he considered the explanation satisfactory, assured the House, that the facts connected with the ministerial arrangements must have been grossly misrepresented to Mr. Brougham, for nothing could be more free from the implied imputation than the terms upon which Mr. Canning had, at that juncture of affairs, accepted office. Mr. Canning assured the House, that he should think no more of the matter; and Mr. Brougham, as might have been expected from the manly generosity of his nature, echoed the sentiment. Personal ill-will has not, we firmly believe, dwelt for a single moment in Mr. Brougham's bosom throughout the whole of his stormy career.1

1 On the 4th of June, 1824, the Speaker brought under the notice of the House an assault which had been committed upon Mr. Brougham in the lobby of the House of Commons. Mr. Brougham, on passing along the lobby, had been accosted by an individual, who asked him if he was Mr. Brougham, to which question he answered in the affirmative, and immediately felt himself struck, the blows being apparently inflicted with a small switch. On turning round he saw a man, "with a very wild expression of countenance," held by the persons standing around. Mr. Brougham recollected to have seen the individual about three years before, and he asked him what was the matter. The individual in question, Mr. Gourlay, replied, "You have betrayed me." Mr. Brougham had,