scientious to be on the whole consistent; while Loughborough, heedless of conscience or consistency, was distinguished throughout his public career for learning, sagacity, and ability. The high estimate formed of Thurlow by his contemporaries has not been confirmed by posterity. His manner was solemn, arrogant, and imposing. Of the art of silence he was a great master; and when he spoke, it was with a deep sonorous voice, and thundering declamation, which inspired the auditory with awe. With a mind remarkable for a certain rough strength which triumphed over the refining influences of culture, his satire was more frequently coarse than trenchant; his gaiety passed insensibly into vulgarity; and his anger, of which the deep lines in his countenance, the scowling hairy eyebrows, and the restless flashing eye, bore the impress, was more noisy than passionate. Edward Thurlow was the son of a clergyman who held a benefice in Norfolk, and, according to his own statement, was remotely descended from a humble carrier. He was born in 1732 at Bracon Ash, in the county of Norfolk; and after having spent four years at Scarning, under the tuition of a Mr. Brett, he was removed to the Canterbury grammar-school. On the 5th of October, 1748, he became a student of Caius college, Cambridge, and was elected a scholar on Dr. Perse's foundation in the following October. He never obtained a degree. His conduct as an undergraduate was wayward, defiant, and disorderly. From his jaunty and lounging habits he earned the reputation of being an idler. On one occasion the master of the college having rebuked Thurlow in these terms—"Sir, I never come to the window without seeing you idling in the court;" the unabashed undergraduate is reported to have made this characteristic answer—"Sir, I never come into the court without seeing you idling at the window." Eventually, Thurlow was permitted to withdraw his name from the books, to avoid the ignominy of being formally expelled. The dean of Caius had imposed on Thurlow the task of translating an article from the Spectator into Greek, as a penalty for non-attendance at chapel. The dean was highly aggrieved because the delinquent, instead of returning the exercise to him (the dean's knowledge of Greek being reputed inconsiderable) presented it to a tutor of acknowledged erudition. When arraigned for the offence, he stated in his sardonic way—"Please your worships, no one respects Mr. Dean more than I do; and out of tenderness to him I carried my exercise to one who could inform him whether I had obeyed his orders." As soon as he left the university he took chambers in the Inner temple, of which he had become a student. Selden and Hale, it is said, for years together studied fourteen hours a day; Thurlow, on the contrary, affected to neglect reading, went about the coffee-houses, drank wine, and courted society. His subsequent victories in Westminster hall show, however, that behind all this gaiety and recklessness, much valuable learning was being acquired. On the 22nd November, 1756, he was called to the bar and went the western circuit, of which Henley and Pratt were then leaders. He started in his profession under very adverse circumstances, with no connection among solicitors, with a reputation for idleness and inattention to business, and with a harsh, proud, unbending disposition. His success was, however, as distinguished as it was unexpected. The great Douglas case is supposed to have made his fame and fortune; but long before that memorable trial Thurlow had created for himself a lucrative and promising practice. His spirited conduct in the case of Luke Robinson v. the Earl of Winchelsea, established his character for courage and adroitness; solicitors took notice and admired his advocacy, and strange to say, Thurlow, in less than eight years after his call to the bar, obtained the rank of king's counsel. His retainer as counsel in the celebrated cause, Douglas v. the Duke of Hamilton, was a pure accident. One night he strolled into Nando's coffee-house, then in great esteem on account of its punch, and in the course of conversation fell into a long argument on the Scotch judgments. The law agents, who had come up from Edinburgh to watch the case, were so struck with the acuteness and minute accuracy of Thurlow, that they resolved—though even his name was not known to them—to assign him junior counsel. His speech at the bar of the house of lords was brilliant and effective. The warmth and pungency with which he animadverted upon the conduct of Mr. Andrew Stewart, one of the noble duke's agents, in collecting and preparing the evidence, called forth from that gentleman, after the fashion of the age, a challenge to fight in vindication of his honour. They actually met on a Sunday morning in Hyde Park, fired at each other without effect, and were proceeding with drawn swords when the seconds interfered. On the resignation of Dunning, Thurlow was appointed solicitor-general, and on the 23rd January, 1771, to the higher rank of attorney-general. The following may be referred to as characteristic examples of Thurlow's forensic and parliamentary eloquence:—The debate on motion for leave to bring in a bill to take away the power of filing ex officio informations (16 Parl. Hist., 1144); his speech for the prosecution when solicitor-general, in Rex v. Miller (20 St. Tr., 870); also in the duchess of Kingston's case, and in the Grenada case, and animadversions on the public conduct of Lord Clive in the East Indies (17 Parl. Hist., 850), and his speeches on American affairs; on the coercion bill, the American prohibitory bill, &c. He was a stout and impassioned advocate of strong measures to put down the American rebellion. As counsel for the defence the client never suffered through the indifference, neglect, or incapacity of his advocate, while his conduct on prosecutions was too frequently vindictive. After obtaining a verdict against the duchess of Kingston, Thurlow argued that the lady was liable to be hanged or branded with a hot iron; and having succeeded in getting Parson Home convicted on an ex officio information for libel, the attorney-general urged, in aggravation of the punishment, that Mr. Home should be sent to the pillory. When Bathurst gave up the seals, Thurlow was sworn in lord high-chancellor, a member of the privy council, with a patent of nobility, under the title of Baron Thurlow of Ashfield in the county of Suffolk. Lord Thurlow was not a great lawyer. His shrewdness and versatility made him a tolerably good judge, notwithstanding his limited knowledge. His judgments were often hasty, though clear of all partiality. Some of his most elaborate decisions are attributed to the authorship of Hargrave, and may be found in the reports of Vesey, Brown, and Dickens. General resignation bonds were declared unlawful by a judgment of the house of lords, in which Thurlow concurred, though in the court below he had pronounced in favour of their legality. In Jones v. Morgan (1 Brown, 206), the chancellor held that wills of trust and legal estates were to be similarly construed, thereby overturning a decision of Lord Hardwicke. Ackroyd v. Smithson (1 Brown, 206) is a celebrated case, not only for the judgment pronounced by the chancellor, but on account of its being the occasion which gave origin to the fame of Eldon, then Mr. Scott, counsel in the cause, with the minimum retainer of one guinea. When the tory government was replaced in 1782 by the whig administration, consisting of Rockingham, Shelburne, and Fox, contrary to the expectation of every one Thurlow retained the great seal. The chancellor differed from the cabinet upon the four great propositions which formed the basis of the administration. After its short continuance of about twelve months Shelburne came into office, Thurlow continuing chancellor. When the duke of Portland was endeavouring to form a ministry. Fox declined sitting with Lord Thurlow, and the great seal was consequently placed in commission, 1783. The ex-chancellor went into opposition, and vigorously assailed the government with a view to its overthrow. Having again obtained the seals of office, he continued to preside as speaker of the house of lords until they were finally taken from him in 1792. On the impeachment of Warren Hastings "of high crimes and misdemeanours," the lord chancellor gallantly and ably defended the accused against the eloquent aspersions of Burke, and the caustic irony of Loughborough. During their later years the hostility of the chancellor against Pitt became most acrimonious. Having been a favoured, a faithful, and almost obsequious royalist, the keeper of the king's conscience thought he could safely treat the prime minister with contemptuous indifference or scornful opposition, as he might choose. But the chancellor was worsted in the tactics of the cabinet, and compelled to retire from office at the bidding of his opponent. Out of office he suddenly became a "flaming patriot," and expressed great attachment to Carlton house. But his overtures were repelled, and the disappointed ex-chancellor retired to the privacy of Brighthelmstone; there he remained until the day of his death, on the 12th of September, 1806, the year in which England lost two greater statesmen and better men—Fox and Pitt.—G. H. P.
THURMANN, Jules, was born at Neuf-Brisack (Haut-Rhin), on 5th November, 1804, and died of cholera on 24th July, 1855. He passed his early period of study at Porrcutrui. He afterwards went to Strasburg, and remained there four years,
