defence of his hero amounts to precisely this-that notwithstanding a disgraceful career, as a man and a judge, “bloody Jeffreys" was not so brutalized as to lose all the distinctive marks of human nature. But we will let our author speak for himself.

"The author happened, in the presence of a friend, to hint his intention of writing this Life, when the latter instantly took the alarm, and exclaimed, why, you surely are not going to whitewash Judge Jeffreys?' The author said, he certainly could not think of justifying that lawyer upon every occasion, whose character was, upon the whole, none of the best; but that he saw no reason why even such a man as Jeffreys might not have had some good qualities, as well as others. Now, most will agree, that this is a fair principle, not at all inapplicable to human nature; and, upon investigating the subject, some very redeeming traits soon showed themselves, brightening up with admirable lustre, the conduct of a man who has been denounced by Protestant writers, people of his own creed, as the most wicked of mortals. Were all the histories unimpeachable, which profess to speak of him, and the anathemas against him, as prompt in their fulfilment, as in their descent from the pens of ripe and ready writers, surely he might beg from the Catholics, a place in their purgatory, and count it, indeed, a felicitous atonement for his misdeeds. But really, it would be as absurd to predicate of any person that he is entirely vicious, as that we should desire to see Jeffreys at the head of the King's Bench now, instead of the excellent and patient Judge, who presides there.”—-Introd. iv.

Now, we take it for granted, that some pleasing traits or good actions are to be found in the lives of the greatest monsters that have ever disgraced human nature. But without due discrimination, nothing furnishes inductions more false. The wolf, we presume, has little inclination to slaughter, when his appetite is perfectly sated, and, in particular moods, may be as gentle as a very lamb. It would be, however, a strange conclusion, that he is, therefore, a very forbearing, or a very kindly tempered beast. We think that virtues, unless they be the result of principle, are not worth naming, and that it is in reference to principle alone, our good qualities rise above those of the mere brutes. A person of the roughest texture, and most violent temperament, that, from reasoning, can forgive an enemy, or forego his own personal gratification, is far better, as a man and a citizen, than one of the blandest organization, who is alone regulated by natural impulses. As to the former, we have a pretty certain rule by which we can calculate prospectively, while as to the latter, our best founded expectations may be deceived. Too often are men pronounced good or bad, from a few insulated facts, without our considering whether those facts have been indications of the casual feeling of the mo

ment, or of a well formed moral code-radii, as it were, from

one centre.

"But had the author (continues Mr. Woolrych) even indulged in panegyric, the character of Jeffreys would not have been the first, no, nor yet the worst which a solitary writer might have dared to ennoble in the face of others who have agreed in an united theme of execration." Introd. p. v.

We well remember to have heard a Frenchman, in France too, an excellent man, exclaim, with tears in his eyes, "Pauvre Robespierre! c'était le meilleur enfant du monde,"-(Poor Robespierre! he was the best creature in the world.) All, too, will recall the lines of Byron ;

"When Nero perished by the justest doom

Which ever the destroyer yet destroyed

Amidst the roar of liberated Rome,

Of nations freed, and of a world o'erjoyed,

Some hands, unseen, strewed flowers upon his tomb."

But what does this prove? Surely not that the world at large are wrong, when they have formed their opinions, according to the truest principles of morals; but that in the cases alluded to, by incorrect reasoning, or a narrow view of the subject, a few have erred in judgment.

The "Memoirs of Jeffreys" are very like Plutarch and Tacitus, but only in one respect-no authorities are quoted; nor have we found auy thing of importance in them, that has not been given to the world long since, in the "Life of Lord Keeper Guilford," "Lives of the Chancellors," the Biographical Dictionaries, &c. Indeed, it is a specimen of that utter want of research and thoroughness that marks most of the English literature of the present day. We can hardly pardon it in the "Family Library," which is intended as a popular compilation, but still less, where the size and typographical execution announce more ambitious pretensions. At all events, we like to know from what sources a historian has drawn, both to weigh the value of the testimony, and to guide us in our researches, should we wish to examine further.

Whenever no authorities are cited, we take from our author, who evinces any thing but prejudice against his hero.

Sir George Jeffreys was born of a respectable though not rich family, of Wales, in 1648. He showed early that prompt address and activity which were the causes of his rising, and was always striving for mastery over his young companions. VOL, VII.-No. 14.

59

First he was put to a Free-school, where, discovering talents and a disposition to study, it was determined to give him a superior education. Accordingly, he was successively sent to St. Paul's Free-school, and to Westminster, then under the famous Dr. Busby, reputed to be the expertest flogger in all Great-Britain. Jeffreys never had the advantage of going to either of the Universities, nor perhaps would he ever have received a tolerable education, had it not been for some slight assistance from his grandmother. We much doubt whether his attainments were ever very great, and think his learning was rather ambitiously displayed on more than one occasion.

"I think, (said he, in Rosewell's trial,) it must be taken to be an entire speech, and you lay it in the indictment to be so, and then the relative must go to the last antecedent, or else Dr. Busby (that so long ruled in Westminster school) taught me quite wrong; and who had tried most of the grammars extant, and used to lay down that as a positive rule, that the relative must refer to the next antecedent.-Memoirs, p. 6.

We will add two extracts from the trial of Titus Oates.

"Smith" I remember it particularly, by this circumstance, that he (Oates) proposed a question to the physician about himself, in Latin, and spoke a solecism, which was this, he said, 'Si placet, Dominatio vestra.'

"Oates-Who did say so?'

"Lord Chief Justice- You did, he says, speak that false Latin to the Doctor.'

"Oates-That's false Latin, indeed!'

“ Lord Chief Justice-- We know that; but it seems it was your Latin.' "Oates then read from the indictment thus. 'Ubi revera et in facto prædictus Titus Oates non præsens fuit ad aliquam consultationem Jesuitarum apud le White Horse Tavern prædict' in le Strand in Com' Midd' prædict' super vicesimum quartum diem April', Anno Dom' Millicesimo.'

"Lord Chief Justice-'How Millicesimo!'

"Oates My Lord, it is Law Latin: I suppose it may serve in a Court?'

"Lord Chief Justice-' No, it is true Latin there.'"*

In 1663, Jeffreys entered the Middle-temple much against the will of his father who often said "ah! George, George, I 'fear thou wilt die with thy shoes and stockings on." Though ambitious the young templar does not appear to have been very studious. From the narrowness of his funds, he was obliged to take humble apartments and to live in very moderate style. As his biographer says "he was in a condition to

"Cobbett's State Trials, vol. x 1117, 1135. Lon. 1810.

'consider every free dinner as a boon of the first order, and was 'very willing in return to enliven the entertainment with his 'jests and sallies." Which means that he was invited as a sort of jack-pudding! It was probably a very good kind of education to give a knowledge of the world, the most useful of all knowledge to a man without a conscience.

It is said that he commenced pleading at Kingston at the age of eighteen, but at all events he entered upon his career in London very young.

"He was of a bold aspect, and cared not for the countenance of any man, his tongue was voluble; his words audible and clearly understood; and he never spared any which were at all likely to assist his client. These advantages soon forced him into notice; so that fees, the forerunners of legal preferment, soon crowded upon him; and we are even told, that persons would put a brief into his hand in the middle of a cause which they perceived likely to turn against them. He was not above adopting any artifice which might raise him in the estimation of those with whom he was associated: so that when he was sitting in a coffee-house, his servant would come to him under his previous direction, and say that company attended him in his chambers, which was the signal for him to huff and desire them to be told to stay a little and that he would come presently. This ingenious trick helped forward his reputation for business; and it is not by any means an exaggeration to say, that he found himself in considerable practice sooner than almost any one of his contemporaries.

"Nevertheless he sometimes received a check, in common with many others of his brethren, when they venture upon the occasional recreation of bantering witnesses, and in return meet now and then a smart stroke of humour, which coming from the intended butt of the auditory, seldom fails to disconcert the astonished assailant. A country fellow was giving his evidence clad in a leather doublet, and Mr. Jeffreys, who was counsel for the opposite party, found that his testimony was 'pressing home.' When he came to cross-examine, he bawled forth; You fellow in the leather doublet, pray what have you for swearing?" The man looked steadily at him, and truly, Sir,' said he, 'if you have no more for lying than I have for swearing, you might wear a leather doublet as well as I.' Of course every body laughed, and the neighbourhood rang with the bluntness of the reply."-Memoirs. p. 20.

Probably in spite of his impudence and readiness, Jeffreys would not have got on so rapidly had it not been for the exertions of political friends. Parties then ran high. Notwithstanding the joy with which the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed, there still existed a large body of republican and angry malcontents. They perceived that a man like Jeffreys would be a most efficient partisan, and he, that the patronage

of even an obnoxious faction would be very comfortable to one in his needy circumstances.

"Thus he soon became a caressed and cherished pensioner upon his new friends; his allowance was no longer a source of apprehension: if he felt any anxiety, it was to display all possible zeal and energy in the cause of those who were so bountifully feeding him. Thus, he would talk, write, or fight for them if required; and it is further related of him, that, in the hour of revelling he would drink on his knees the most approved toasts among the malcontents, which, as may be conjectured, were not a little treasonable.-Memoirs, p. 15.

As money was not flowing in fast enough, Jeffreys thought the best plan of bettering his finances would be a prudent marriage. "An opportunity was not long wanting: for he thought 'the daughter of a merchant who had thirty thousand pounds, a prize far too valuable to be left unattempted. He accord'ingly prepared for the trial and gained over a kinswoman and 'companion of the lady, through whom he silently addressed her." Every thing was in good train; but the father getting wind of it, secured his daughter and shut the door against the lover. Jeffreys for once acted with disinterestedness; he married the kinswoman, though poor.

He exerted himself to make an interest in the city and got quite in favour with a number of influential merchants, by the carelessness of his disposition and his love for social hours. Among the rest, he won the affections of an alderman of his own name, who determined to push his favourite with all the strength of his purse and connexion. Accordingly, in 1670–71, when he was hardly twenty-three, Jeffreys was made Commonsergeant. The following anecdote both gives a specimen of his rudeness in office and the corruption of the Courts at that time.

"A country gentleman married a city orphan, and demanded her fortune, about £1100, but could not procure it. At length all friends failing, he betook himself to Mr. Recorder with ten guineas in his hand, which the learned officer received, and informed his visitor that the Court of Aldermen would sit on a certain day, naming it. The gentleman attended it. Sirrah! what's your business?' quoth Jeffreys. The application was made in form. Had he asked the Court of Aldermen? To which the suitor replied in the negative. Jeffreys complimented him forthwith with the terms rogue and rascal, told him he should have leave of the Court for such a marriage. The gentleman asked pardon, and pleaded ignorance of the city customs, but this did not save him from fresh abuse. Nevertheless, there soon appeared a note from the great man authorizing the receipt of the money; and all