of clerk of the State Senate. In 18 19 the people of Portsmouth sent him as a repre sentative to the Legislature. He was re elected to this post for two successive terms, and in 1821 he was Speaker of the House. At later periods, in 1830-32, as well as in 1 85 1 and 1852, he served as a representative from Portsmouth. At the threshold of his legislative career, Mr. Bartlett displayed good judgment, a characteristic which only made his gift of ready and eloquent speech the more valu able to his supporters. He immediately took undisputed rank as a leader. His entry into public life was signalized by a warm espousal of the cause of toleration. He advocated a repeal of the act of 1791 . This act had empowered the inhabitants of a town to vote such sum of money as they should judge necessary for the support of the ministry. Mr. Bartlett believed that religious denominations should rely for maintenance upon voluntary private contri butions, a proposition that to us seems rea sonable enough, but one that in his day demanded for its support an able advocate. Mr. Bartlett's views prevailed, and the act of July 1, 18 19, was passed, that forever dis sociated Church and State. , New Hampshire was then a hotly con tested State at elections, as it indeed has always continued to be. Her lawyers could hardly keep out of politics. At all events, a man so ready, so tactful, and so eloquent as Mr. Bartlett, was not to be permitted to content himself with the triumphs of the Bar. Mr. Bartlett's practice, it seems hardly necessary to add, extended before long into all parts of the State.' Other lawyers were only too ready to retain him to argue their 1 My father, the late V. H. Y. Hackett of Portsmouth, entered Mr. Bartlett's office as a student in 1822. While Mr. Bartlett was arguing to the jury at Gilmanton, my father (then a student at Gilmanton Academy) listened to him, and was so impressed with his wonderful ability, that he determined to study law, and to begin his studies, if possible, with the famous Mr. Bartlett.
causes. Indeed, he enjoyed much the same privilege that Webster had already profited by, namely, the frequent opportunity to measure swords with Mason. Bartlett was alert, adroit and daring. He was thoroughly prepared, and knew just what he purposed to do. His tactics ofttimes were to worry and "nag" Mr. Mason. One of Mr. Ma son's admirers, who (when a student at the Academy) used to see the two pitted against each other at Exeter, has said : "Mr. Ichabod Bartlett was a man of remarkable adroitness in the management of a case, as quick as a flash of lightning in the move ments of his mind whether to inflict or to parry a blow. At first it might seem as if he were the keenest and most brilliant advo cate of them all. But before getting through the case in which he and Mr. Mason were engaged on opposite sides, it was plain enough that he was obliged to put out all his strength to sustain himself against an opponent who was hardly exerting himself at all."' Mr. Bartlett, it is true, was not so pro found a master of the common law as was Mason, but in the shifting phases of a jury trial, he was fully the equal of that great New England leader in the readiness with which he could say the right word, and do the right thing, that should lead up to a successful verdict. The late James W. Emery of Portsmouth, who knew Bartlett thoroughly (they were once partners), used to say that no lawyer ever practiced in New Hampshire, who had more tact than Ichabod Bartlett. As an instance of his quickness at repar tee, I may as well give here a retort of his which, though very familiar to the profession, has been attributed to others, both in this country and in England. I am satisfied that the occurrence actually took place, the Court being held, I believe, by Chief Justice Richardson. As everybody knows, Jeremiah 1 Letter of Rev. J. II. Morrison (November 29, 1872). Life of Jeremiah Mason, p. 424.
