He was not much known in private life, but I believe he was kindhearted, generous and humane.'

In an action of slander brought by Whittle Harvey against an attorney who had charged him with the fraudulent abstraction of a deed, the defendant pleaded a justification, and Garrow, who led for the defence, pulled out his watch, laid it on the table, and began: There, gentlemen of the jury, within ten minutes by that watch, I will prove to you that my client has spoken nothing but the plain, simple, and undeniable truth.' They found for the defence.

When Garrow was made a Baron of the Exchequer, that Court was described as consisting of a judge (Graham), who was a gentleman and no lawyer: one (Hullock) who was a lawyer and no gentleman: one (Richardson, Chief Baron) who was both; and one (Garrow) who was neither.

On the formation of the Conservative Government in November 1834, Lord Lyndhurst became Lord Chancellor, and was succeeded as Chief Baron by Sir James Scarlett, who was at the same time raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Abinger. 'He had before this event resigned his seat at Cockermouth, and contested successfully the borough of Norwich, for which he sat in Parliament.' This is all we hear from Mr. Scarlett touching the change of seats. We are left to guess why his father gave up the quiet borough to encounter the trouble and expense of a contest at a place like Norwich, resulting in an election petition, on the trial of which he was so hard run that he only retained the seat by the casting-vote of the Chairman of the Committee (Lord Eversley). His counsel were Harrison, Thesiger (Lord Chelmsford), and Follett. When all was considered safe, Thesiger left for the Home Circuit, from which he was suddenly summoned, and had to post through the night from Lewes to find the case on the verge of shipwreck from Harrison's mismanagement. * Such a state of things may excuse some impatience and irritability on the part of Sir James; but the current story was that, on this occasion, he supplied in his own person the most striking confirmation of the maxim that a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client. By the kindness of Lord Chelmsford we are enabled to give the correct version of the story, which cannot be better told than by him :

'I was Follett's senior, and conducted most of the case; but whether he or I suggested that we could not conduct it if

*Harrison, who was then at the head of the parliamentary bar, could have given only a divided attention to the case; and Follett was also in overflowing practice at the time.

Scarlett

Scarlett remained in the room, I am unable to say: only I know we both agreed that he must be requested to absent himself, on the ground of his presence embarrassing our free action. A curious instance occurred, whilst he was watching us, of the difficulty which the ablest and acutest counsel has to conduct his own case with his accustomed skill. I had been crossexamining one of the witnesses, and when he left the box, Scarlett said to me, "You omitted the most important question." "What was that?" I said, rather nervously, at having exposed myself to the censure. 66 Why," said Scarlett, "to ask him whether I did not publicly state there must be no bribery." Now, if I had been his junior and had put such a question without his authority, I should most likely have received a severe rap on the knuckles. "Don't you think, Sir James," I said, "that it was better to leave the idea of bribery out of mind? Might it not be thought the trick of an old electioneerer?" He acquiesced.'

Scarlett says of Lord Ellenborough, as Chief Justice, that it was the turn of his mind to set himself in opposition to the advocate who addressed him, and to endeavour to refute him as he went along.' This is equally true of himself. He seldom resisted an opportunity of displaying his own skill in advocacy, which was occasionally best shown by refuting the advocate who seemed most worthy of his steel. Once in delivering judgment in a case which had been argued at considerable length, he thus addressed the counsel for the winning side: The Coort (his habitual pronunciation) can see nothing in your argument to influence its decision in your favour; but the Coort has itself discovered the grounds on which its judgment is based.' Strange to say, instead of gaining the confidence of juries, he was distrusted by them when, resuming his old manner, he aimed at bringing them round to the desired conclusion from the bench. The professional opinion of his legal knowledge may be inferred from the pun that Scarlett was not deep-red (read). But if less at home in text-books or case-law than some of his distinguished colleagues (Parke and Alderson, for example), he was well grounded in principles, and did good service in checking the tendency of some of them to decide with exclusive reference to precedents and technicalities. To him might be addressed as a commendation the words which Junius addressed to Lord Mansfield as a reproach: Instead of those certain positive rules by which the judgment of a Court of Law should invariably be determined, you have fondly introduced your own unsettled notions of equity and substantial justice.'

It is told of Lord Brougham that, on hearing of his old antagonist's

antagonist's elevation to the peerage, he extended his long bony fingers, with a menacing gesture, and exclaimed, 'Let him only give me a chance, and see if I don't stick my claws into his fat sides.' The chance was never given. Lord Abinger cautiously refrained from aiming at distinction as a speaker in the Lords.

'No man,' remarked a wealthy but dull barrister in Curran's hearing, 'should be admitted to the Bar who has not an independent landed property.' 'May I ask, Sir,' said Curran, 'how many acres make a wise-acre?' It is currently reported that Scarlett, in his capacity of bencher, did actually propose a money qualification; and we feel sure that he would gladly have revived the ordinance, countersigned by Bacon as Lord Chancellor, which closed the Inns of Court against all who were not entitled to bear coat-armour. But his high estimate of the importance and dignity of the profession, coupled with the strictest enforcement of the etiquette by which its honour and independence are fenced round, certainly did good upon the whole.

His first wife (née Campbell) died in 1829, and in September 1843, being then in his seventy-fourth year, he married the widow of the Rev. H. J. Ridley, an accomplished lady of less than half his age. On hearing of the marriage, Lord Alvanley exclaimed, 'Ridley-Mrs. Ridley-why if she's old enough for Scarlett, she must be the widow of the clergyman who was burned.'

In the course of the following year, April 26th, 1844, he was suddenly taken ill on the Norfolk Circuit, at Bury St. Edmund's, and died the day following.

In support of his literary claims, or as specimens of his powers of composition, two carefully-corrected Charges to Grand Juries' are reprinted, besides a letter on the character of Mackintosh, on which obviously great pains had been bestowed. The Memoir, also, comprises a chapter on the 'Moral and Religious Character of his Mind.' On this we do not think it necessary to dwell. His forensic career is his real title to distinction, and, so long as the English Bar endures, he will be remembered as the advocate who carried advocacy, mere advocacy, to the highest point of perfection to which it can well be carried as an art.

ART.

ART. II.-1. Rome and the Campagna, an Historical and Topographical description of the Site, Buildings, and Neighbourhood of Ancient Rome. By Robert Burn, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge. Cambridge and London. 1871. 2. The Roman Forum. A Topographical Study. By Francis Morgan Nichols, M.A., F.S.Á. London, 1877.

3. The Archaeology of Rome. By John Henry Parker, C.B. Oxford and London, 1874-76.

4. Historic and Monumental Rome. A Handbook for the Students of Classical and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Capital. By Charles Isidore Hemans. London, 1874.

5. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Municipale. Roma, 1873-76.

6. Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana. Del Commendatore Giovanni Battista de Rossi. 2° serie. Roma, 1870-6.

7. Discorso letto dal Segretario della Commissione Archeologica, il giorno 25 Feb. 1876, in occasione dell' Apertura delle Nuove Sale dei Musei Capitolini. Roma, 1876.

HE changes brought about by the progress of the nineteenth century are perhaps nowhere more conspicuously visible han at Rome; no doubt due in a great measure to the circumstance that innovation has lain there so long dormant that now the barriers are broken down the strides of advancement are all the more rapid and overwhelming. Perhaps it is too much to expect the progressive spirit of modern times to wait wholly on the life and records of those that are past, however great or important they may have been; but it is to be hoped that, in exchanging an ancient history for a modern one, a proper respect may be observed towards the monuments and relics of those ages upon which the civil and social institutions of to-day are in a great measure founded. Perhaps, on the whole, there is no reasonable ground of complaint to be made against the Italian Government. Much has been done of late to conserve these visible records of the past. The importance of recent discoveries cannot be overrated. They are SO numerous, so various, so instructive, that not only are many doubtful points, archæological and otherwise, clearly elucidated, but a large addition has been made to our knowledge of the social and domestic modes and habits of the ancient Romans. Modified by such knowledge, many pages of our treatises on these subjects will have to be rewritten in a much more extended and enlarged manner.

In reviewing the more recent discoveries in art and archæology

in Rome we shall confine ourselves for the most part within the limits of a period of ten or twelve years, dwelling more particularly on the latest, which, indeed, are by far the more numerous and important.

Beginning with the principal centres of old Rome, the Coliseum and the Forum, we may be permitted for a moment to glance at their past aspects rather from a picturesque than an archæological point of view. The frequenter of Rome under a former rule must look with some dismay upon the changes which have taken place. He will remember the Coliseum a venerable ruin, of which Nature had taken half possession; its time-stained masonry nourishing vast tribes of plants and well-grown shrubs, which conferred a touching impressiveness and solemnity on its tiers of galleries and broken arches.* He will have lingered sometimes on Friday evenings within its walls as a monk emerged from a neighbouring church with a little band of worshippers, bending their steps along the Appian Way to the old amphitheatre; the monk then mounting a covered rostrum, and with downcast eyes pronouncing an earnest discourse, listened to attentively by the uncovered audience. The discourse terminated and a procession formed, headed by a crucifix, the worshippers entered upon a series of devotions performed at twelve shrines or stations, with pictures commemorating the Passion of our Lord placed at intervals around the amphitheatre, singing hymns as they passed from one to another. Now it is all changed. The black cross raised in the centre of the ruin in memory of the martyrs sacrificed within its area is taken down; the shrines have vanished. The ruins have been robbed of every trace of verdure, for the reason, as was stated, that the vegetable growth was destroying the masonry. The jackdaws and other birds which haunt its walls seek a shadeless shelter in its gaping niches. The forlorn building rises in blank monotony, and the evening sun that used to linger on its topmost fringe in spots of gold now hastens away suddenly, as if glad to escape its denuded ridges and dreary expanses of barren stone. Its silence has been broken by the noise of the pick and the steam-engine. The area where one might have sat on some broken column undisturbed through a whole morning is now excavated deeply down; its air of antique repose is gone; other interests and significances have almost entirely usurped the old ones.

Nevertheless, with whatever eyes we may regard some of

* Dr. R. Deakin, in his Flora of the Colosseum of Rome,' published in 1855, named and described 420 species of plants growing at that time upon its walls. these