ing, to record the opprobrious language applied by the multitude to others; but he omits all mention of what was said of himself. "Down with the old Bone-grubber!”- "Roast him on his gridiron ;"- "D-n him and his Indian corn;" were shouted from all quarters. He was not, however, much discomposed at first, for he was confident of carrying his petition, and retorted with a good deal of force and some good humor on those who were inveighing against him. "You cry out too weakly, my bucks!" said he, snapping his fingers at them. "You cry like women in the family-way. There's a rascal there, that is squeaking at me, like a parson's tithe-pig."

These sallies amused everybody; but still the roar against him continued, and I was astonished to see what little influence he had with even the lower orders by whom he was surrounded. The Catholic party looked upon him as an enemy, who came to divide them, and the Brunswickers treated him with mingled execrations and scorn. At length he perceived that the day was going against him, and his eyes opened to his own want of power over the people. Though he afterward vaunted that the great majority were with him, he appeared not to have above a dozen or two to support his proposition, and when he sat down, evident symptoms of mortification and of rage against all parties appeared in his countenance. Altogether, he acquitted himself as badly as can be well imagined; and it seems to me as clear that he is a most inefficient and powerless speaker, as that he is a great and vigorous writer.

Hunt got up to second him, and was received almost as badly as his predecessor, though his conduct and manner were quite opposite, and he did everything he could, by gentleness and persuasiveness, to allay the fury of the Brunswick party, But, after he had begun, Sir Edward Knatchbull interrupted him in a most improper and offensive manner, which induced Lord Radnor to stand up and reprobate Sir Edward's conduct as a most gross violation of decorum. Mr. Hunt went on; but, whatever may be his sway with public assemblies on other occasions, he certainly showed few evidences of omnipotence upon this. He seemed to be crest-fallen, and to have quailed

BRUNSWICKERS' TRIUMPH.

337

under the force which was brought to bear against him. One story he told well, of Sir Edward Knatchbull having refused to pay him for four gallons of beer, when he was a brewer at Bristol, because he had sold him a less quantity than that prescribed by the law: altogether, his speech, if it might be so called, when he was not allowed to utter a connected sentence, was a complete failure; but I am convinced that no estimate of his ability can be formed from this specimen of him, as his voice was stifled by the faction to which he was opposed. Indeed both parties seemed to repudiate Cobbett and Hunt, as their common enemies.

Before Hunt had finished, there was a tremendous and seemingly a preconcerted cry of "question" from the Brunswickers; Hunt went on speaking, and immense confusion took place. Mr. Calcraft interfered in vain. Mr. Hodges and Lord Radnor then moved an amendment, declaring that the measure should be left to the discretion of the legislature; and amid a tumult, to which I never witnessed anything at all comparable, the Sheriff put the question. It has been stated in the newspapers that the Brunswickers had a great majority; the impression of a vast number of persons was quite the reverse. They were indeed so well disciplined, that their show of hats was simultaneous, while the liberal party hardly knew what what was going forward. The Sheriff omitted to put Cobbett's amendment, which seemed to be forgotten by every one but himself; and having announced that there was a large majority for the petition moved by Mr. Gipps, retired from the chair. The acclamations of the Brunswickers were reiterated; the whole body waved their hats, and lifted up their voices; the parsons shook hands with each other; the Methodists smiled with a look of ghastly satisfaction; and Lord Winchilsea, losing all decency and self-restraint, was thrown into convulsions of joy, and leaped, shouted, and roared, in a state of almost insane exultation. The whole party then joined in singing "God save the King," in one howl of appropriate discord, and the assembly broke up.

Thus terminated the great Kent meeting; to which, however, I conceive that more importance, as it affects the CathVOL. II.-15

olic question, is attached than it deserves. I have not room left for many comments, but a few brief observations on this striking incident are necessary. The triumph of Protestantism is not complete. The whole body of the clergy, who are in Kent exceedingly numerous, were not only present, but used all their influence to procure an attendance, and the utmost exertions were employed to bring the tenantry of the antiCatholic proprietors to the field. No exertion was made upon the other side. Lord Camden boasted that he had not interfered with a single individual; yet it is admitted that at least one third of the assembly were favorable to the Catholics. The spirit of Lord George Gordon may, by the metempsychosis of faction, have migrated into Lord Winchilsea; but, while he is as well qualified in intellect and in passion to conduct a multitude of fanatics, his troops are of a very different character. Will the legislature shrink before him? Or will it not rather exclaim, "Contempsi Catilinæ gladios, non partimescam tuos?" Will the Government permit such precedents of popular excitation to be held up?" and does it never occur to the Tory party that the time may not be far distant when republicanism may choose Protestantism for its model, and, by rallying the people, act upon the same principle of intimidation? If the Catholics are to be put down by these means, may not the aristocracy be one day put down by similar expedients? Will the House of Lords stand by and allow all the opulence and the rank of a large county to be trampled upon by the multitude? for it must occur to everybody, that Lord Winchilsea was the only nobleman on the side of the petitioners, while the rest of the Peerage were marshalled on the other. Do the patricians of England desire to see a renewal of scenes in which the nobles of the land were treated with utter scorn, and the feet of peasants trod upon their heads? Let statesmen reflect upon these very obvious subjects of grave meditation, and determine whether Ireland is to be infuriated by oppression, and England is to be maddened with fanaticism; whether they are not preparing the way for the speedy convulsion of one country, and the ultimate revolution of the other.

LORD-CHANCELLOR BROUGHAM'S LEVEE.

UNFEIGNED respect for, and a slight personal acquaintance with, the noble person who now holds the Seals, led me to attend his last levee.* This could not be done without some inconvenience; and not the least of it was the necessity of being equipped in full court-apparel. I do not object to this dress-indeed, I much approve of it in those who mingle in the gorgeousness of courts; but plainer attire would have more befitted the taste of an humble incognito. I mention this fact, lest it might be supposed that I was guilty of the not improbable gothicism of appearing in a garb fit for the funeral, but not the levee of a Lord-Chancellor. The practice of receiving the respects of the public on one or two stated occasions is sufficiently ancient, but I have understood was discontinued, or not much observed, in the latter days of Lord Eldon. It was revived with somewhat greater splendor by Lord Lyndhurst, but still it attracted little public notice. His Lordship never secured any very considerable share of general favor. As a lawyer, he was not at the head, though among the chief of his profession. For my own part, I do not regard his secondary eminence in the law as detracting much from his eminence as a public character, when it is recollected that Brougham him

* This sketch was published in No. 1 of the Metropolitan Magazine (May, 1831), which was started by Thomas Campbell, the poet, after he had retired from the Editorship of the New Monthly Magazine, which he had held for a period of ten years. Lord Brougham's first levee would probably have been in Hilary Term, 1831, and the second, described by Mr. Sheil, at the commencement of the following Easter Term, or in April, 1831.-- M.

self ranked much below Gurney,* Pollock, Campbell, and several others, whose distinction is derived from law alone—the lowest basis on which the fame of a public man can rest. In politics his career had not been such as to command respect. He was uniformly the supporter of the most profitable opinion.t

* The late Sir John Gurney, long known as one of the best cross-examiners at the bar, was made a puisne judge, and in that capacity, no one could say of him,

"Even his failings leaned to mercy's side,”

for he was most severe in his judgments. Sir Frederick Pollock and Lord Campbell are yet alive-the first, is Chief Baron of the Exchequer; the other, is Lord Chief Justice of England, and obtained a peerage in June, 1841, by the scandalous job (already referred to in my notes on the sketch of Plunket) of being made Irish Chancellor, for a few days, to obtain the retiring pension of four thousand pounds sterling, when the Melbourne Ministry, whose first law-officer he was, had no other means of quartering him on the public.— M.

+ Lord Lyndhurst, who has been Lord Chancellor of England under five Administrations, is American by birth, having been born at Boston, May 21, 1772. His grandfather, Richard Copley, was an Irishman who emigrated to America; John Singleton Copley, this man's son, born in Boston in 1738, showed great natural taste for painting, which he adopted as a profession. He went to England, where his fine historical painting, the death of Lord Chatham, gave him high reputation. He painted several other subject-pictures, which caused him to be elected a Royal Academician. He died in 1815, having lived to see the dawning success of his son. The future Chancellor having eminently distinguished himself at Cambridge University, was called to the English bar in 1804, and, at first was remarkable for his ultra-liberal politics. He soon became leader of his circuit, entered Parliament, adopted Tory views, and was rewarded by the Government, with the Chief Justice of Chester in 1818. He was made Solicitor-General, and knighted, in 1819, became Attorney-General in 1824; was made Master of the Rolls in 1826; and was raised to the rank of Lord Chancellor, with a peerage, as Lord Lyndhurst, when Lord Eldon and five of his colleagues simultaneously resigned, with a view to embarrass Canning, the new Premier, in 1827. Lord Lyndhurst was continued in the office of Chancellor under the brief administration of Lord Goderich, and was retained, from 1827 to November, 1828, by the Duke of Wellington, under whom, in 1829, the pliant lawyer advocated Catholic Emancipation, as strongly as he had assailed it before. In November, 1830, when the Duke's Cabinet broke up, Lyndhurst had to resign, and was succeeded by Brougham. In 1831, Lord Lyndhurst was made Chief Baron of the Exchequer, which he resigned, in December, 1834, again to become Lord Chancellor. But Peel's Ministry, of which he was one, was compelled to resign in April, 1835. From this time, until the autumn of 1841, Lord Lyndhurst held no official station, but received his retiring pension of five thousand pounds sterling. He made a speech, for several