great man, Mr. Vernon,' to whom tradition points as the oracle of the Chancery Bar in those days,) is a testimony in favour of the soundness of his judicial determinations, the more unquestionable, because, owing to the comparatively short period for which he held the seals on both occasions, an appeal from his judgment to the House of Lords did not necessarily, as in some later cases, involve a re-hearing of the cause before the same judge.

His personal demeanour on the bench was marked at once by dignity and courtesy. In illustration of this graceful bearing, we find related a story of his considerate kindness towards Richard Cromwell, the former Protector, who in the year 1705 was compelled to apply to the Court of Chancery against a daughter, litigating with him the title to a manor which he inherited from his mother, and on whom the counsel opposed had been casting some unworthy personal reflections. It is doubtful, perhaps, whether the story does not in truth belong to a later period, and to a descendant of the Cromwells, instead of the Protector Richard. Miss Hawkins, however, tells it of Cowper in the following circumstantial manner, on the alleged authority (derived through Charles Yorke) of Lord Hardwicke, who is stated to have been in court at the time-that, indeed, could scarcely be the case in 1705, for he was not then fifteen. "The counsel made very free and unhandsome use of his (Cromwell's) name, which offending the good feeling of the Chancellor, who knew Cromwell must be in court, and at that time a very old man, he looked round, and said, Is Mr. Cromwell in court?' On his being pointed

t Seward's Anecdotes,

Hawkins's Memoirs.

out to him in the crowd, he very benignly said, 'Mr. Cromwell, I fear you are very inconveniently placed, where you are: pray come and take a seat on the bench by me.' Of course no more hard speeches were uttered against him. Bulstrode Whitelock, then at the Bar, said to Mr. Yorke, 'This day so many years, I saw my father carry the great seal before that man at Westminster Hall.""

In the year 1720, the splendid bubble of the South Sea scheme deluded all ranks of the community into gambling. Lord Cowper was among the few who escaped the contagion, and distinguished himself by an uncompromising opposition to the project, which he described as 'like the Trojan horse, ushered in and received with great pomp and acclamations of joy, but contrived for treachery and destruction." He truly predicted, that a contract which put such enormous profits into the pockets of a few interested individuals, could not prove otherwise than prejudicial to the community. In a few months the bubble burst, and almost universal ruin and bankruptcy ensued.

The ex-chancellor's conduct and principles did not entirely exempt him from the imputation levelled against so many eminent persons of that time, of being secretly favourable to the interests of the Pretender. On the discovery of the Jacobite conspiracy in 1722, Christopher Layer, the barrister, was first brought to trial, and made strenuous efforts to save himself, by successive disclosures, and by impeaching those of rank whom he considered most obnoxious to the ministry. In one of his examinations before the secret committee of the House of Commons, this pseudo

informer declared, that he had been told by his confederate, Plunket, of the existence of a Jacobite Club, called in Plunket's letters, Burford's Club,' of which Lord Orrery was Chairman, which met monthly at the several members' houses in town, and that among its members were Lord Cowper and several other Lords and Commoners, whom he named-some of them of undoubted Jacobite principles. In another examination, Layer pretended to have received a strange disclosure from Lord Orrery-that Lord Cowper had told him, 200 Tories and 90 Grumbletonians (a cant term by which the Whigs were designated among the Jacobite party) would try their last efforts in the House of Commons." One of Plunket's letters also, preserved in Macpherson's collection of original papers, insinuates, that Cowper, the late Chancellor, if he could get off handsomely from the whigs, would join with the Princess Anne in all her measures.

That this accusation, which rested altogether on the assertions of an Irish Jesuit and spy, was not less unfounded than malicious, it is impossible to doubt. Lord Cowper expressed the strongest indignation at the charge, and declared that, "after having, on so many occasions and in the most difficult times, given undoubted proofs of his hearty zeal and affection for the Protestant succession, and of his attachment to his Majesty's person and government, he had just reason to be offended to see his name bandied about in a list of a chimerical club of disaffected persons, printed in a parliamentary report, on the bare hearsay of an infamous person, notoriously guilty of gross prevarication. He even dropped a hint, that such

State Trials, vol. xiv.

falsehoods in the confessions were enough to give an air of fiction to the whole of the conspiracy, and concluded by a motion for summoning Plunket to the bar of the House, for examination on the subject. The government, however, refused to assent to Plunket's examination at the bar, and Lord Cowper thought it necessary to circulate a solemn declaration of his innocence, (which was published in the Historical Register for 1723,) affirming his entire ignorance of the existence of the supposed club, and even of the persons of many of its alleged members.

He was not deterred by the promulgation of these calumnies from opposing, in the most uncompromising manner, all the arbitrary proceedings of the government, in the prosecution of the conspirators. He had already ineffectually resisted the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, at least for a longer period than six months, and how waged an unremitting, though equally fruitless, war against the bills of pains and penalties, by which the government determined to punish Atterbury and his co-conspirators, on evidence of the most ultra-legal and inconclusive character. His speech, on the third reading of the bill against Atterbury, is by far the most perfect and interesting specimen of his parliamentary eloquence which has been preserved to us-at once masterly in argument, admirable in illustration, rich and copious in diction and ornament."

"I am, my lords, against this bill, not only because I think nothing has been offered sufficient for the support of it, but because I think the honour and dignity of the Crown, the dignity and authority of this

'Parliamentary History, vol. viii.

House, and the credit and reputation of the House of Commons, concerned in the event of it. My lords, the proceedings of that House have been in this case very remarkable and uncommon. They voted the bishop guilty of high treason, the very first thing they did, and it was reasonable to expect that the consequence of that vote would have been an order for an impeachment in Parliament, or a prosecution in the ordinary course of law. But, my lords, we see they have taken another method, and that without weighing what the consequences might be. They have taken a method, whereby they have made themselves both judges and accusers. They could not, as judges, decently proceed against the bishop without hearing him, and therefore they gave him a day for that purpose, and thereby they discovered the dilemma into which they had run themselves. They found themselves obliged to hear him, and yet they could not acquit him, because they had already prejudged him. It is not therefore to be wondered that they have passed this bill... The objections that concern the king appear to me to be unanswerable, not only with regard to this bill, but to all bills of attainder in general. I think they ought never to be allowed, but when the offender flies from justice or is in open rebellion, and, perhaps, the notoriety of the fact may be some excuse for the extraordinariness of the proceeding.

For, my lords, is it come to this at last, that, after so much grimace, so much noise and stir, after committing the bishop for high treason, after voting him a traitor and treating him as such, must it at length come out, that there is no legal evidence against him? To palliate the matter a little, a distinction is