several editions. It has been stated that two hundred thousand copies were sold in the United States. This extraordinary sale emboldened an English publisher, regardless of the claims of copyright, to bring out an edition. At first the work was coldly received. It was even condemned as repulsive in its horrible details, as belonging to the convulsionary school of Eugene Sue and others. But ere long the singular dramatic power displayed in the creation of Topsy the odd negro maid, the pathetic description of Uncle Tom's patient suffering, and even the coarse handling of Legree's brutal character, procured for the book a degree of popularity almost unexampled in literary history. One of the numerous editions published in 1852 was edited by Lord Carlisle; and in the following year Mrs. Stowe, on a visit to England, received at the house of his lordship's sister, the duchess of Sutherland, an address from the ladies of England expressive of their admiration of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and of its effective advocacy of the liberation of the negro slave. To those who disputed the truth of her positions in the story Mrs. Stowe replied, by the publication in 1852 of a "Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin"—a statement of authenticated facts upon which she had founded her fictitious narrative. The sojourn she made in England, Scotland, and various parts of the continent of Europe, proved so agreeable, that she entitled the account of her travels, published in 1854, "Sunny Memories of Foreign Lands." While her fame was still in its freshness, Mrs. Stowe in 1856 published a more ambitious and elaborate story illustrating slave life, under the title of "Dred." Notwithstanding its unquestionable merit, this work failed to excite the interest of its predecessor. "Agnes of Sorrento," a tale of Italian life, contributed by this writer to the Cornhill Magazine, is beautifully written, but wants the vivid interest which intense enthusiasm in a cause gave to "Uncle Tom's Cabin."—R. H.
STOWELL, William Scott, Baron, better known as judge of the high court of admiralty and brother of Lord Eldon, than as the son of Mr. William Scott, coal-fitter, of Newcastle, was born at Heworth, a village on the Tyne, on the 17th of October, 1745 (o.s.). That these two brothers, sprung from so obscure an origin, should have won their coronets and permanent position in their country's history, is due chiefly to sterling talent, but in no small degree to the accident of birth and the freedom of our institutions. There was at Newcastle a very excellent royal grammar-school at that time, conducted by the Rev. H. Moises. William Scott and his two younger brothers, Henry and John, received their early education at that school. Upon the urgent recommendation, and partly through the good offices of the head master, William and John were sent to college. In February, 1761, William entered Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and obtained successively a scholarship and fellowship in that university, to which natives of the county of Durham alone were eligible. After obtaining his fellowship, he was appointed successor to Sir W. Jones as college tutor. In 1767 he took his master's degree, and five years later that of B.C.L. Having decided upon following the profession of the law, he had entered himself of the Middle temple the year after the fellowship was conferred upon him. He took this step with some hesitation; but when his father died, leaving personalty to the value of about £20,000, all misgivings were dismissed. His high character as a college tutor turned the contest for the Camden readership of ancient history in his favour. It is stated in Dr. Surtees' Sketch of the Lives of Lords Stowell and Eldon, that the Camden lectures delivered by Scott are extant in MS., though they have not been published. They attracted great attention at the time in Oxford. He was called to the bar on the 11th of February, 1780, having taken the degree of D.C.L. three months before. He never was a great speaker. Taking all his parliamentary speeches together, they do not exceed half a dozen. During the first six years he had a seat in the house of commons he only spoke once. This drawback, coupled with his profound knowledge of the civil law, might have been his principal inducement to resort to Doctors' commons. By the fiat of the archbishop of Canterbury, he was admitted in 1780 to the ecclesiastical courts, upon the usual conditions of being silent for one year, and upon the expiration of that period to be entitled to practise in the high court of admiralty. So great was his diffidence that for some months after commencing practice he continued—much to the scandal of the ecclesiastical court—to read his speeches to the court. His reputation for scholarship and sociable manners brought him much business, and gave him entrée to the first society in the metropolis. The Literary Club was at that time the resort of wits, poets, and statesmen. Scott found no difficulty in being elected, and soon became a favourite with Dr. Johnson. The year after he was called to the bar he married Anna Maria, eldest daughter and coheiress of John Bagnall, Esq., of Early Court, Berks, a lady who, though not of surpassing beauty, enjoyed the higher commendation of being a good wife. Before this happy consummation of his wishes, Scott had proposed to a Miss Reay, the daughter of a grocer who was then about to retire from trade. The father, it would appear, objected to the proposed alliance on the ground of "blood" and "rent-roll," and Miss Reay dutifully enough dismissed the suit, and became the wife of a Mr. Yorke, who happened to be both rich and a man of family. Scott's promotion was very rapid, considering that the law is a profession of which delay is so marked a characteristic. He received the appointment of registrar of the court of faculties in 1783. Five years afterwards he became judge of the consistory court, and the vicar-general of the archbishop of Canterbury. To complete the catalogue of his honours and emoluments, he was made in the same year advocate-general, a knight, and a privy councillor. He was not so successful in his attempts to get into parliament. The Oxford constituency rejected him in 1780; after having been returned for Downton in 1784, he was upon scrutiny unseated; but having secured the interest of the earl of Radnor, he was again (1790) elected and took his seat for that borough. In 1801 Scott won the great object of his parliamentary ambition, and continued from that time till his elevation to the peerage the representative of the university of Oxford in the house of commons. Lady Scott died in September, 1809. In December, 1812, Sir William Scott presided on the trial of Lord Sligo at the admiralty session, held then at the Old Bailey. The prisoner was found guilty, fined £5000, and imprisoned in Newgate, upon the charge of inveigling seamen from the king's ships to man his own yacht. The marchioness dowager of Sligo, daughter of Earl Howe, was present during the trial of her son, and then commenced an acquaintance between Scott and the marchioness which ended in their marriage on the 10th of April, 1813. This second marriage was altogether an unfortunate one. Her death in 1817 put an end to the wretchedness of their married life. On the 21st of July Sir William Scott was raised to the peerage, under the title of Baron Stowell, retaining, however, for seven years later, the office of judge of the admiralty court. Lord Stowell, though a man of great learning and high judicial fame, has left a personal history upon which posterity will not gaze with unqualified admiration. There was very little of the hero about him. He was incapable of any great or magnanimous action. Though his caution did not degenerate into that timidity which paralyzed the strength of his brother Lord Eldon, it frequently assumed the form of selfishness, if not of craft. He was as slovenly in his manners as in his dress. He ate and drank freely, as was the fashion of his time. Eldon's favourite dish was liver and bacon; Lord Stowell's, beefsteak pie, mixed thickly with layers of oysters. It is said that after having taken his place among the peers of the realm, he once revisited the old grammar-school at Newcastle. The good woman who showed him over the class-rooms, after answering many questions respecting the history of his schoolfellows, was much scandalized by the offer of a sixpence for her trouble. He died in his ninety-first year, on the 28th of January, 1836, leaving personalty to the amount of £200,000. When an old man he lost what generosity he might have possessed in his earlier years, and became decidedly stingy. But as a lawyer, his most enthusiastic admirers cannot lavish upon his memory too high a praise. His judgments both in the consistory and admiralty courts are repertories of learning and wisdom, to which each succeeding race of jurists resorts with as much pleasure as profit. There is a perspicuity and logical completeness about those decisions, which impart to them the character of well-prepared treatises. For example, there is no better or more exhaustive dissertation on the Scotch law of marriage in any institute or commentary, than may be found in the celebrated judgment upon the famous case of Dalrymple v. Dalrymple; while the soundness of his views upon questions of international law is sufficiently attested by the unexceptional respect paid by foreign tribunals to his judgments in the admiralty court. During; that European and transatlantic discussion upon maritime belligerent rights which followed upon the capture
