It would be impossible, within the narrow limits allowed us in these pages, to notice, even in the most cursory manner, the many very able and admirable speeches which he delivered during his brilliant Parliamentary career. His industry and resources were perfectly marvellous. In every important debate he took a prominent part, and in every instance he appeared to be thoroughly master of his subject, and never failed to command the marked attention of the House. Out of such a multitude it is very difficult to make a selection; we venture, however, to give a few further specimens of his great debating powers. In the debate on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, Mr Roche, one of the members for Cork, asserted of the Protestant Establishment, that "that gross and intolerable monopoly stood at the head and front of Ireland's grievances." Mr Napier, though he had not intended to have spoken on the matter before the House, thus replied, "But, after the challenge made that night with regard to the Irish Established Church by the hon. member for Cork, he felt called upon, as one of the representatives of that Church, to rise and meet the challenge with as much boldness and firmness as it had been given. He never wished to be ostentatious of his religion, but he trusted he should never be the man to be ashamed of it. He was ready to meet the challenge against the Church upon every ground-upon the ground of its antiquity; the truth of its doctrine, as being conformable with Scripture; the correctness of its discipline; the unbroken succession of its spiritual leaders from the earlier ages down to the present times; all its long catalogue of bishops, many eminent for their piety and their learning, could trace their descent from the days of St Patrick. Mr Napier upheld the creed of that Church, on which his humble but immortal hope depended. He admitted that others differed from him; but let them show him one point of toleration upon which their liberty was pressed, and he would help to remove their ground of complaint. Nine-tenths of the property of Ireland belonged to Protestants, and support of the Church was a tax on property; no personal tax was exacted in Ireland from any man to pay for a religion of which he did not approve, save and except, indeed, so far as funds were regularly taken from the national exchequer to keep up Maynooth, and for other similar matters. There was a charge on the property, and those who took that property surely ought not to refuse to pay their creditor what they had engaged to pay him, merely because he differed in religion. But he would go from the south to the north of Ireland, and trace in all its territorial extension the benefits and advantages of Protestantism, which contained the germs of everything that could make a people prosper for time and for eternity."

The important question of the rate-in-aid came before the House in March 1849. It involved a principle of great importance to many parts of Ireland-namely, the justice of making the solvent unions bear the defalcations of those that were insolvent. Against this proposition Mr Napier contended in a speech of great research and remarkable ability. He insisted that neither the law of Elizabeth nor that of 1838 recognised the principle of responsibility beyond the limits of the particular union,—much less could the Poor-Law Extension Act be considered to do so. He urged two main objections to the applicability of

66

the measure, first, that it was unjust; and, secondly, that it was unwise. "Was it wise," he asked, or generous for this great country, whose resources and power enabled it to throw down the gauntlet to the rest of the world in defiance, to fasten upon a few parties in Ireland the burden of this rate, who had already been almost exclusively taxed under the Poor-Law for the support of the destitute in their island, which was an integral part of the British Empire? The calamity under which Ireland was suffering was providential, and the charge consequent upon relieving her from it ought to be borne by the kingdom generally. Upon a matter of this description and magnitude, they ought to take a large and comprehensive, as well as wise and generous view of the policy to be pursued. There were three things Ireland wanted in order to promote her welfare. The first was repose, a cessation of political differences and angry feelings and disputes; secondly, capital; thirdly, the exertion of private individuals for the purpose of agricultural improvement. Any policy that would insure even one of those three things ought, in his opinion, to meet with favour on the part of the House; and any course of action which was likely to have a contrary effect ought to be discouraged. Now, let him for a moment test these three subjects by the feeling of the people of Ireland, and a large proportion of them were perfectly capable of forming a judgment upon them. The House must be already aware that the majority of the Irish people had expressed opinions unfavourable to the measure, and that in some instances threats had been held out with respect to obedience to the law. His own hope was, that if the bill should pass, its provisions would be quietly obeyed; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that obedience might be purchased at a very dear price. From the opinion which was known to prevail upon the subject of the measure, he thought that it would tend to weaken the affections of the loyal portion of the people of Ireland towards England, and that it would engender feelings of animosity towards British legislation. . . . With regard to the question of capital, if it was considered advisable to make advances of the public money, could they not be made under ordinary circumstances, and not by diminishing the shattered remnant of the capital which remained in the country? The constant system of taxing property in Ireland it was that deterred men who had capital from employing it, and thus private enterprise was paralysed. With regard to the financial argument in respect of Ireland, if it were the real sound feeling of England-not that unhealthy feeling which induced a desire to shift a burden from their own to other shouldersif the sound feeling of this country were that Ireland ought to bear any additional taxation, he would not put forward a mere financial argument against such a feeling, because he was very anxious that there should be good feeling on both sides; ill-feeling on either or both sides could only be injurious to both countries; therefore, he thought it both unwise and ungenerous to press such a measure. There ought, in common justice, either to be local rating and local taxation, or, that failing, then the appeal for aid ought to be made to the imperial treasury."

Sir Robert Peel followed Mr Napier, and spoke in terms of high eulogy of his speech-an eulogy all the more valuable, as the right

"1

honourable baronet was always chary of his commendation. Mr Napier was congratulated on every side; and as he passed through the lobby of the House, shortly afterwards, he met Sir James Graham, who said, "I congratulate you on your most able and eloquent speech-it was worthy of the best days of old Ireland, the days of Plunket eloquence." Mr Napier opposed the measure introduced by Lord John Russell in 1849 for the admission of Jews into the Legislature. He also spoke in the debate on the ministerial measure for legislation of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and gave it his most strenuous opposition. The next important measure which he most ably opposed was the bill introduced by Lord John Russell in May 1850 for the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland. He also vigorously resisted Mr Heywood's motion for a commission to inquire into the state of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin Universities. On the sudden and melancholy death of Sir Robert Peel in 1850, Mr Napier paid an eloquent tribute of respect to the lamented baronet.

At the opening of the year 1851, the Papal aggression ferment was at its height. Lord John Russell, on the 7th of February, moved for leave to bring in a bill (the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill) for counteracting the aggressive encroachments of the Church of Rome. Mr Napier, with other eminent men, supported that measure, and his speech on that debate showed great research and ability.

It

Upon the sudden resignation of Lord John Russell in the month of March 1852, and the accession of Lord Derby, Mr Napier was appointed Attorney-General for Ireland-a post which he held till the defeat of the Derby Ministry in December of the same year. One of the most pressing questions at this time was the settlement of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. Mr Napier at once addressed himself to this most difficult and critical question. He accordingly introduced for this purpose four land bills:-1st, a Land Improvement Bill; 2nd, a Leasing Power Bill; 3rd, a Tenant's Improvement Compensation Bill; and, 4th, a Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Bill. would be useless now to comment on their scope and merits. On so delicate and vexed a question, it was a bold attempt on Mr Napier's part to endeavour to grapple with the difficulty. And whatever opinions may have been expressed in approval or dissent, it is only just to give Mr Napier credit for the manly and honest manner in which he laboured to make a satisfactory adjustment of the relations between the owners and occupiers of land in Ireland. The bills were referred to a committee, and it is now needless to discuss their merits and demerits. The recent Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act has attempted to remove the grievances, real or imaginary, of the Irish occupiers, and although it has been in operation now for some time, the opinions as to its success or failure are so various and conflicting that it is not easy to form a correct estimate on the subjeet.

When Lord Derby resigned the seals of Mr Napier was remitted to non-official life. place in Parliament, taking part in all the the day. Among the principal measures

office at the close of 1852, We find him next in his important discussions of brought forward by the

1 Dublin University Magazine for 1853, p. 312.

Government were the "Canadian Reserves Bill," and the "Conventual Establishment Bill." The former measure he opposed vigorously, but ineffectually; of the latter he disapproved only on the grounds of the inadequacy of its provisions. In the Fermoy Peerage Case (1856) he was selected by the Committee of Privileges in the House of Lords as their Counsel, the Attorney-General having declined to appear, in his character of ex-officio adviser to the Committee of Privileges, as officially he had approved of the Patent of Peerage. At the general election of 1857, Mr Napier was again returned for Dublin University, with his old colleague, Mr George Alexander Hamilton-Mr Lawson, afterwards a Justice of the Common Pleas, having unsuccessfully opposed him.

On the sudden breaking-up of Lord Palmerston's Ministry in March 1858, Lord Derby returned to power, and Mr Napier was raised to the highest office in his profession, being appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It appears that the arrangement first completed by the Government was to the effect that Mr Blackburne should be Lord Chancellor, and Mr Napier should take his place as Lord Justice of Appeal. Mr Blackburne, however, declined to do on that occasion what he consented to do in Lord Derby's third administration, and Mr Napier, it is said, much against his wishes, accepted the seals, which he held until the resignation of the Derby Ministry in 1859. On the first day of Easter Term (15th April 1858) Mr Napier took his seat as Lord Chancellor of Ireland. On the manner in which he discharged the duties of his high office we do not intend to make any comment, further than to say that, though short his tenure of it, he acquitted himself in every respect in a manner worthy of his antecedent career. To attempt any minute criticism of the numerous decisions which he pronounced in that period would be impertinent, if not absurd. They are all to be found collected in a volume entitled "Drury's Cases in Chancery" temp. Napier. Legal critics must judge for themselves; we believe they exhibit evidence of extraordinary industry, research, and learning. There were only two appeals from his decisions-of these one was affirmed and one reversed.

He

In the year 1858, Mr Napier (then Lord Chancellor) was elected President of the department of Jurisprudence of the Social Science Association, and was to have delivered the opening address in that section at the meeting held at Liverpool in the October of that year. was, however, unable to attend-the Royal Warrant to sanction his absence from Ireland not having arrived in sufficient time, and his address was read by Lord John Russell, who expressed his regret for the Chancellor's absence, and the loss which "they would all feel during the week of so able a man."

In 1861, Mr Napier was again selected to preside over the same department at the Social Science meeting held in that year in Dublin. His addresses on both of these occasions evince great learning and reresearch, and fully sustain Mr Napier's reputation as an able and zealous law reformer.1

1 These addresses will be found in the volumes of the proceedings of the Association for those years. The addresses delivered at the Liverpool meeting are published in a cheap pamphlet form by Partridge & Co., Paternoster Row, London.

IV.

H

Ir.

We can only refer by name to a few of the other numerous literary performances of Mr Napier. Lectures :-" the increase of Knowledge" (1854): "Richard Baxter and his Times" (1855); "Edmund Burke" (1862); "W. Bedell " (1863); "Opening Address at the beginning of the 2nd session of the afternoon lectures on Literature and Art" (1863); "Old Letters" (afternoon lectures 1863); introduction to "Seven Answers to the Seven Essays and Reviews," by the Rev. John Nash Griffin; the "Facts and Fallacies of the Sabbath Question" (1856); "Things Old and New" (a lecture before the Church of England Young Men's Society, 1856); a pamphlet entitled "The Education Question" (1860); "Addresses on the Church in relation to the State in Ireland" (1866); "Answer to the Speech of the Dean of St Paul's against subscription to the Articles of Religion" (1865); “England or Rome, which shall govern Ireland, a reply to the letter of Lord Monteagle" (1851); "Labour and Knowledge," "Labour and Rest" (two lectures, 1859); "Lectures on Butler's Analogy, before the Young Men's Christian Association, Dublin" (1864); "Butler's Argument on Miracles explained and defended, with observations on Hume, Powell, and Mill" (1863), and many others.

Sir Joseph Napier also rendered invaluable services in the work of reconstruction of the Irish Church. In 1873 he wrote a pamphlet on the proposed changes in the Ordinal, his arguments against them being able and conclusive.

The following are among the numerous distinctions that have been conferred upon him :-The honorary degree of LL.D. of Dublin University, and D.C.L. of Oxford. He was chosen President of the College Historical Society in 1856. In 1866 he was offered the high office of Lord Justiceship of Appeal, but declined it. He was created a baronet by Lord Derby, 9th April 1867, and was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dublin in the October of the same year. In 1868 he was made a Privy Councillor of Great Britain, and was subsequently in the same year constituted a member of the Judicial Committee of the Council.

Sir Joseph married, 20th August 1831, Charity, second daughter of John Grace, Esq. of Dublin—a member of the ancient family of Grace. At the centenary dinner of the Oxford and Cambridge Unions he was invited to represent the Historical Society of the University of Dublin at the banquet, and was the guest of the Vice-Chancellor of the Univer sity of Oxford.

THE RIGHT HON. RICHARD KEATINGE.

BORN A.D. 1793.

THE Right Hon. Richard Keatinge, second son of the late Maurice Keatinge, a member of the Irish Bar, was born in Dublin in 1793. He married in 1814 the third daughter of the late Samuel Joseph, Esq., of Bedford Square, London. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he graduated A.B., 1810, LL.B. and LL.D., 1818. He was called to the Irish Bar in 1813; appointed King's Counsel,