in their peaceful tombs. But his brother survived; his elder in primogeniture, and, as such, one who, from the time of their revered parents' death, had been a brother indeed,- -a friend, a father, to the young and enterprising soldier; he lived but in the happiness and honour of that dear and adventurous charge; and nobly did the indefatigable aspirant repay him with the object of his fraternal cares; for, ere a few years had passed away, Dixon Denham became renowned as a successful as well as faithful servant of his country; also, as an unwearied benefactor to the poor inhabitants of the wildest regions, whithersoever he was sent; and in this true celebrity his not less beneficent and disinterested kinsman found a just recompense, himself a retired man, but frankly enjoying, with an honest pride, the light which shone round his brother's name; for it was the light of integrity, talent, and an intrepid soul."

Sir Edward West.

BORN A. D. 1783.-DIED A. D. 1828.

THIS eminent Indian judge was educated at Harrow and Oxford. Having been called to the bar, he made himself known and esteemed in his profession by his Treatise on Extents,' or executions at the suit of the king against the king's debtors. In 1815 he published an able Essay on the application of Capital to Land;' and in 1826 a tract 'On the Price of Corn, and the Wages of Labour.'

In 1823 he was appointed recorder of Bombay; and in the establishment of the supreme court, was constituted chief-justice. In July, 1826, when it was proposed to adopt the Calcutta regulations for controlling the press, Sir Edward rejected the measure, in the following most constitutional opinion :

"The purport of the present regulation, which is the same as that passed at Calcutta, is to prohibit the publication of any newspaper, or other periodical work, by any person not licensed by the governor and council, and to make such license révocable at the pleasure of the governor and council. It is quite clear, on the mere enunciation, that this regulation imposes a restriction upon the liberty of the subject, which nothing but circumstances and the state of society can justify. The British legislature has gone to a great extent at different times, both in England and in Ireland, in prohibiting what is lawful in itself, lest it should be used for unlawful purposes, but never without its appearing to the satisfaction of the legislature that it was rendered necessary by the state of the country. It is on this ground of expediency and necessity, on account of the abuses (as stated) of the press at Calcutta, from the state of affairs there, and from the exigency of the case, that the Calcutta regulation is maintained by its very preamble; by three of the four reasons of the Court of Directors, upon the appeal; and by the whole of the argument of counsel, upon the hearing of it. (The learned judge here read the preamble to the Calcutta regulation, and extracts from the reasons of the Court of Directors upon the appeal; and also adverted to the arguments which had been urged by counsel upon the hearing of that appeal; for the purpose of showing that the Calcutta

matters

regulation was avowedly founded upon the allegation that tending to bring the government of Bengal, as by law established, into hatred and contempt, had of late been frequently printed and circulated in newspapers, and other papers published in Calcutta.') But what is the preamble to the regulation which is now proposed to be registered in the Supreme Court at Bombay? Is there any recital of 'matters tending to bring the government of this country, as by law established, into hatred and contempt, having been printed and circulated in newspapers and other papers published in Bombay?' Nothing of the kind; -the preamble merely recites, that a certain regulation had been passed in Calcutta for the prevention of the publication of such matters. Is it the fact, that such matters have been published in the Bombay papers? Can a single passage, or a single word, 'tending to bring the government of Bombay into hatred and contempt;' can a single stricture, or comment, or word, respecting any of the measures of government, be pointed out in any Bombay paper? How, then, without such necessity as is stated in the preamble to the Calcutta regulation, can it be expected, that even were the Supreme Court to consent to register it, and an appeal were preferred, it would be confirmed by his majesty in council? where would be the reasons of the Court of Directors in favour of it?—where would be the arguments of counsel in support of it? Suppose an act of parliament passed to suspend the habeas corpus act in Ireland, on account of treasonable practices in that country; in such case, evidence of such practices would be laid before committees of the two houses of parliament before the act was passed, and the act would also recite them, as the Calcutta regulation recites the evils which it was intended to remedy. But would the fact of such act having been passed for Ireland justify a motion to extend it also to England, without any evidence of any such treasonable practices, nay, when it was well-known that there were no such, or any circumstances to call for it, and with a mere recital of the habeas corpus act having been suspended in Ireland, as the present proposed regulation merely recites that the same regulation had been passed at Calcutta ? I am of opinion that this proposed regulation should not be registered."

Sir Edward directed much of his attention to the improvement of the police, and of prison-discipline. He died at Poonah in the month of August, 1828.

Robert, Earl of Liverpool.

BORN A. D. 1770.-DIED A. D. 1828.

ROBERT BANKS, the only son of Charles Jenkinson, afterwards Earl of Liverpool, was born on the 7th of June, 1770. He was educated at the Charter-house, and at Christ church, Oxford, where he was the companion and friend of Canning.

He entered into political life under the auspices of Pitt, who appears to have employed him for a time at Paris in watching the progress of the revolution. He was returned for the ministerial borough of Rye before he had reached majority; but he passed the intervening period on the continent, and took his seat in the winter session of 1791-2.

He proved himself of course a warm ministerialist, and was one of those orators who recommended a "march upon Paris" as the most effectual means of putting a stop to the disorders engendered by the revolution! On the 28th of May, 1796, when his father was created Earl of Liverpool, Mr Jenkinson took the title of Lord Hawkesbury. When Addington came into office, Lord Hawkesbury was appointed foreign secretary; and when Pitt returned to office, he received the seals of the home department.

On the assassination of Perceval, Lord Liverpool reluctantly consented to assume the premiership, the offer of which he had on more than one occasion declined. The only additions to the ministry on this occasion were Lord Sidmouth and Mr Vansittart. Towards the close of the session of 1811-12, his lordship opposed the Marquess Wellesley's motion that the house should pledge itself to take into consideration the state of the laws respecting the Catholics early in the next session. "He would never," he observed, "meet a great question with little shifts and expedients. It ought to be met upon great and general principles. But if, when taken upon great and general principles, he could not see his way to a safe conclusion, he should not be acting justly and manfully, if he did not avow that sentiment, and act accordingly. Were the religious opinions of the Catholics the only obstacle, it would be another affair. But the oath of supremacy, so far as it included an abjuration of all foreign jurisdiction, spiritual as well as temporal, he considered to be a fundamental part of the settlement of the government at the Revolution. It was at that period laid down as an essential principle, that the Protestant government was to be firmly established in these realms. He conceived this to mean, that the power of the state was to be Protestant, and to be so maintained for the benefit of all descriptions of its subjects. If any one political principle were more firmly established than another, he took it to be this :-that the subject of a state should own no allegiance out of that state. He could see no beneficial results from the motion of his noble friend. It was a maxim of his political life, —a maxim confirmed by all he had ever heard, read, or observed,-that, with respect to a great constitutional question, if a stand were to be made, it should be made in limine. Therefore, as he could not clearly see any prospect of a practical conclusion from the present proposition, he thought the true way in point of principle, and the most manly way, was to resist it in the first instance. He would even go further, and say, that if he were disposed to make concession, he would still oppose the motion, because he would never pledge himself to make any great change in the laws without knowing exactly what that change was to be." His lordship persisted in his opposition to the Catholic claims to the last of his political life.

In 1817 he supported the suspension of the habeas corpus act. He said that "he regarded it with as much veneration as any one; that he venerated it, not as an act of Charles the Second, but as an anterior and integral part of the constitution. The question was, whether there were sufficient grounds to intrust his majesty's ministers with the power they required for the conservation of the state? Domestic treason was worse than foreign treason. There might, indeed, be circumstances in foreign treason to take away its vital, its deadly stab. Their lordships had proofs of the existence of a system to overthrow the constitution of

66

the country; and when they saw such a system, with malignant spirits ready to set it in full motion, was it too much to ask them to intrust the executive with powers that might be adequate to its suppression? He felt the importance of the crisis; he was prepared to meet it; and he would suffer no odium to frighten him from the stern path of duty." When the Bill of Pains and Penalties against the queen was before the house, Lord Liverpool said in the debate on the second reading: Admitting, my lords, that we are so situated that we are in some measure compelled to make a choice between evils, I say that in this, as in other cases, the straight-forward course is the most expedient to pursue. There may be inconveniences, my lords, in going on with this bill; but, if you believe her majesty guilty, you are bound by every just and moral consideration not to stop here. I say, let the consequences be what they may, if you believe her majesty guilty, you are bound to agree to the second reading of this bill." He thus concluded his speech: "I am content to be judged by your lordships, I am content to be judged by the public at large, as to the whole of my conduct in the course of these proceedings. I appeal to Him who alone knows the secret of all hearts, and who alone can unravel all the mysteries and intricacies of this great case, if the judgment which I have given is not true,—if it is not at least founded on a sense of integrity, and on a most sincere wish to do justice in mercy;-not with any disposition to visit the illustrious individual accused with a harsher measure of punishment than necessity requires; but with an anxious desire,-a desire which I am sure is entertained by all your lordships,—to do justice, in this most important cause, between the crown, the queen, and the country."

Lord Liverpool appeared for the last time, in the house of lords, on the 16th of February, 1827, when he supported an address for conferring a provision suitable to their rank on the duke and duchess of Clarence. The next morning, after having breakfasted alone in his library, he was found, by his servant, stretched on the floor in a paralytic fit. He was shortly afterwards removed to his seat at Combewood, where he lingered in a state of mental imbecility until his death, which took place on the 4th of December, 1828. He was twice married first, to Theodosia, a daughter of Lord Bristol, the bishop of Derry; and, secondly, to Miss Chester, the daughter of a clergyman; but had no issue.

Lord Liverpool was a man of moderate talents, but firm, prudent, and well-meaning. His system of policy was an unsound one, but his integrity was unimpeached and unimpeachable.

Charles, Lord Colchester.

BORN A. D. 1757.-dieD A.D. 1829.

CHARLES ABBOT, LORD COLCHESTER, was born at Abingdon, Berks, on the 14th of October, 1757. He was the younger son of the Rev. John Abbot, D. D., rector of All Saints, Colchester. His earlier education was conducted at Westminster-school, where he stood at the head of the election of Oxford scholars in 1775. In 1782 he took a law-degree, and was soon after called to the bar.

He came into parliament in June, 1795, and immediately ranged himself with ministers. Pitt employed him as chairman of the finance committee, in which capacity he brought up to the table of the house no less than thirty-six reports within two sessions. In 1800 he moved the appointment of a committee to investigate into the state of the national records; and he subsequently devoted much of his time to the objects of the Royal record commission.

On the 10th of February, 1802, Mr Abbot was elected speaker of the house of commons. In this capacity he gave his casting vote for the impeachment of Lord Melville in 1805. He filled the office of speaker with general satisfaction to all parties, until the year 1817, when he retired from office, and was created, as a reward for his services, Baron Colchester, with a pension of £4000 per annum, and £3000 to his His lordship died in 1829.

successor.

Sir David Baird.

BORN A. D. 1755.-DIED A. D. 1829.

THIS distinguished officer was the fifth son of William Baird, Esq. of Newbyth in East Lothian. He entered the army as an ensign in the 2d foot, in December, 1772. In 1780 he arrived at Madras with the 73d regiment, under the command of Lord Macleod. Hyder Ali was at this juncture threatening Madras, which was covered by a small force of 5000 men, under Sir Hector Munro. That officer having despatched Colonel Fletcher and Captain Baird to the assistance of Colonel Baillie, Baird shared in the misfortunes of Colonel Baillie's little detachment, and was kept a prisoner at Seringapatam three years and a half. In 1798 he was appointed major-general; and on the 4th of May, 1799, he commanded a brigade of Europeans at the storming of Seringapatam. The following extract from Lieutenant-general Harris's, despatch relates the services performed by General Baird on this occasion:

"Ten flank companies of Europeans, taken from those regiments necessarily left to guard our camp and out-posts, followed by the 12th, 33d, 73d, and 74th regiments, and three corps of grenadier sepoys taken from the troops of the three presidencies, with two hundred of his highness the Nizam's troops, formed the party for the assault, accompanied by one hundred of the artillery and the corps of pioneers, and supported in the trenches by the battalion companies of the regiment de Meuron, and four battalions of Madras sepoys. Colonel Sherbrooke and Lieutenant-colonels Dunlop, Dalrymple, Gardiner, and Miguan, commanded the several flank corps; and Major-general Baird was intrusted with the direction of this important service. At one o'clock the troops moved from the trenches, crossed the rocky bed of the Cavery under an extremely heavy fire, passed the glacis and ditch, and ascended the breaches in the fausse braye and rampart of the fort, surmounting in the most gallant manner every obstacle which the difficulty of the passage and the resistance of the enemy presented to oppose their progress. Major-general Baird had divided his force for the purpose of clearing the ramparts to the right and left. One division was commanded by Colonel Sherbrooke, the other by Lieutenant-colonel Dunlop; the lat