him, "Through!" which word, with the oak and saw through it, he took for his crest, in commemoration of his deliverance. This is the account which has been transmitted through tradition; but Sir Bernard Burke thinks it more probable that the ancestor of the family of Hamilton was one of the youngest sons of Robert, second Earl of Leicester, who was the son of Robert de Bellomont, first Earl of Leices ter in England, and Count of Mellent in Normandy, by the daughter of Hugh, Count of Vermandrois, son of Henry I., King of France.*

Sir Gilbert de Hamilton, the immediate ancestor of this great family, lived in the reign of Alexander II. of Scotland, and he married Isabella Randolph, sister of Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray. His son, Sir Walter Fitz-Gilbert Hamilton, swore fealty to King Edward I. in 1292-1294. Attaching himself to King Robert Bruce, he had divers grants of lands; among others the Barony of Kenel (Kinniel) and that of Cadzow (Hamilton), which became the chief lordship and seat of the Hamilton family.

Sir David Hamilton, second Lord of Cadzow, was made prisoner at the battle of Durham in 1346. In 1361 he was a benefactor to the see of Glasgow. He was one of the Magnates Scotia who consented to the settlement of the Crown in 1371. Sir James Hamilton, fifth Earl of Cadzow, being one of the principal nobles of Scotland, was a hostage for the ransom of King James I. from England in 1424. Sir James Hamilton, the sixth Earl of Cadzow, was created a Lord of Parliament, by Royal Charter, 28th June 1445, as Lord Hamilton. He married in 1474 the Princess Mary, eldest daughter of James II., and relict of Thomas Boyd, Earl of Arran. His son, James II., Lord Hamilton, obtained a charter of the lands and earldom of Arran, dated 10th August 1503. This nobleman, who took a prominent part in the affairs of Scotland, was constituted lieut.-general of the kingdom, warden of the marches, and one of the lords of the regency in 1517. His son James, second Earl of Arran, on the death of James V., in 1542, was unanimously chosen Regent of Scotland by the nobles assembled for that purpose, the public voice applauding their choice; the next year he was declared by Parliament heir presumptive to the crown, appointed guardian to Queen Mary, and governor of the realm during her Majesty's minority. In 1548 his Lordship was invested with the French Order of St. Michael, and made in 1549, by Henry II. of France, Duke of Châtellerault, in Poictou.† This dukedom, with a considerable pension, was, according to Sir Walter Scott, conferred upon him by the French king, in order to induce him to consent to the projected match between Mary, the infant queen of Scotland, and the Dauphin of France. James III., Earl of Arran, upon the arrival of Queen Mary in 1561, openly aspired to her hand, "but opposing the Queen's free exercise of her religion, and entering a protestation against it, his lordship entirely forfeited her favour." His love, however, inflamed by disappointment, and his impatience exasperated by neglect, gradually preyed on his reason, and after many extravagancies, broke out at last in ungovernable frenzy. He was inconsequence

Burke's Peerage and Baronetage (1873). + Burke's Peerage and Baronetage (1873).

declared to be in a state of insanity by the cognition of an inquest passed on a brief directed out of the Court of Chancery, and the estates of his deceased father devolved on his brother, Lord John Hamilton, who with his younger brother, Claud, was banished from Scotland in 1579, but returned in 1585, the Act of forfeiture which had been passed being annulled. He was elevated to the peerage, in 1599, as Marquess of Hamilton. This nobleman remained fast in his allegiance to the unhappy Queen Mary; and so conscious was the unfortunate princess of his fidelity, that one of her latest acts was to transmit to him a ring (which is still treasured in the family) through the medium of an attendant. His son, James, the third Marquess, was created in 1643 Duke of Hamilton. His Grace, actively espousing the cause of Charles I., was defeated and taken prisoner at the battle of Preston, and was beheaded in Old Palace Yard, 9th March 1649. He was succeeded by his brother William, who received a mortal wound in the service of Charles II. at the battle of Worcester. By Cromwell's Act of Grace, passed in 1654, he was excluded from all benefit thereof, and his estates were declared forfeited, save as to a sum of £400 a year for his duchess for life, and after her death, £100 a year to each of his four daughters and their heirs for ever. At the death of William, second Duke of Hamilton, the male representation of the great house of Hamilton devolved on his grace's kinsman and next male heir, James Hamilton, second Earl of Abercorn. This nobleman had been previously advanced to the Peerage of Ireland, 8th May 1617, by the title of Lord Hamilton, Baron of Strabane. Claud Lord Strabane, fourth Earl of Abercorn, attended King James II. after the Revolution from France, and was sworn of the Privy Council upon his arrival in Dublin. His Lordship, after the battle of the Boyne, having embarked for France, perished on the voyage. In

1691, he had been outlawed, and forfeited the estates and title of Strabane; but the earldom of Abercorn devolved on his brother Charles, who succeeded likewise to the title and estates of Strabane, the attainder having been reversed. Charles, the fifth Earl, having died without issue, the honours and estates devolved on his kinsman, James Hamilton, who declined assuming the title of baronet, but was known as Captain Hamilton. He was in the military service of James II.; but espousing the cause of William, took a distinguished part at the seige of Londonderry against his royal master. Succeeding to the earldom of Abercorn, he took his seat in virtue thereof as a member of the Scottish Parliament. Ireland, however, was the usual place of his residence, and of that realm he was created Baron Mountcastle and Viscount Strabane. He married, in 1686, Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Reading, Baronet, of Dublin, by whom he had issue nine sons and four daughters. His eldest son, James, was the eighth Earl, who died without issue, and was succeeded by John James as ninth Earl, who was created Marquess of Abercorn, and subsequently installed a Knight of the Garter. His son James was the father of James, the present Duke of Abercorn.

During his short tenure of office as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the duke of Abercorn won the respect and confidence of all classes. As a resident nobleman, he was intimately acquainted with the country he was

called on to rule as viceroy, and on all public occasions he expressed himself not as the mere mouth-piece of the party to which he belonged, but as one who had the true interests of the country alone at heart. In dispensing the patronage of his office, he was obliged, of course, to consult the wishes of the Conservative section of the community; but he endeavoured even in this, as in all other respects, to act on his own independent judgment, his sole object appearing to be to benefit his countrymen, and not to win popularity for his political chief. We have no doubt that it was the success of his administration which suggested the idea recently advanced by a very eminent man of making the viceroyalty independent of the changes of party. Whatever may be thought of this theory, one thing is certain, that the termination of the Duke of Abercorn's Irish administration, in 1868, was universally regretted throughout the length and breadth of the country. Dublin, of course, had especial reasons beyond the general good for regretting his departure from the Castle, where he dispensed his hospitalities with princely magnificence.

Amongst the many honours and marks of respect which were shown to his Excellency, there was one which deserves especially to be recorded. It may seem to some comparatively insignificant; but it was regarded at the time as a rare tribute to the merits of the Irish Viceroy, and a convincing proof, if proof were required, of the high appreciation in which he was universally held. We allude to the grand entertainment given to him by the Benchers of the King's Inns on the occasion of his being created a member of their honourable Society. The great Dining Hall of the Inns was filled to overflowing by the members of the legal profession of both branches, and amid that vast assemblage of men, representing every shade of political feeling, there seemed to be but one opinion as to the distinguished guest of the evening. As a landowner, it has never been necessary to remind his Grace that " property has its duties as well as its rights." It would, indeed, be well for Ireland if all her landed proprietors possessed a like fixity of tenure" in the hearts and affections of the occupiers of the

66

soil.

On the return of the Conservative party to office in February 1874, His Grace again became the Viceroy of Ireland.

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JONATHAN CHRISTIAN, P.C., LORD-JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY IN IRELAND.

BORN A.D. 1811.

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JONATHAN CHRISTIAN, son of the late George Christian, Esq., Solicitor, of Dublin, by Margaret, daughter of Cormick, Esq., was born at Carrick-on-Suir, Tipperary, in 1811. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he graduated B.A. 1832. He was called to the Irish bar in 1834; made a Queen's Counsel in 1846; Queen's Serjeant in 1851. He was Solicitor-General for Ireland 1856-7, and a Justice of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland 1858-67. He was appointed Lord-Justice of the Court of Appeal

in Chancery in Ireland in 1867, on which occasion he was added to the Privy Council in Ireland. He married, in 1859, Mary, daughter of T. E. Thomas, Esq., late of Newton Park, county Dublin.

Immediately on his call to the bar, Mr. Christian selected the Equity Courts as the most congenial and promising field for his operations. Like his distinguished compeer, Mr Fitzgerald, he remained for many years almost, if not altogether, unemployed. But this "weary time of waiting," so unfruitful in one sense, was in reality a period of inestimable gain. He became thoroughly acquainted with the practice of the Courts, and added largely to his stores of legal learning, thus sowing the seeds of that rich harvest which eventually rewarded his industry and perseverance. Conscious of his powers and attainments, Mr Christian studiously kept aloof from politics, and devoted himself intently to the requirements of his profession, confident of success, once he got the opportunity of exhibiting his great and brilliant abilities. In this he was not deceived. When the opportunity did arrive it found him thoroughly prepared. It is said that in the first case of importance in which he was engaged, he displayed such masterly skill and ability that he was complimented in the highest terms by the Chancellor, Sir Edward Sugden. A flattering notice from such a quarter produced the effect that might be expected. Business thenceforth set in so rapidly, that within a few years he was called to the inner bar, where he took his place at once amongst the foremost men.

About Mr Christian's merits as a lawyer there can be but one opinion. It would indeed be presumptuous to attempt here any minute criticism or analysis of his unrivalled powers. Combining legal research with clearness of intellect, sound judgment, and practical ability, he displayed from the very start a union of the rarest forensic qualities. His arguments were models of clearness and logical arrangement, and his elocution was singularly graceful and effective. Every sentence was so perfectly constructed as to create the impression of the most careful and elaborate preparation. But the immense amount of his business did not admit of such preparation, and the marvel only remained how he could have gained such a command of language and a mastery of elocution as to speak as if naturally, in a style so highly polished and exquisitely wrought. The written judgments which he has pronounced since his elevation to the bench are not more remarkable for their elaborate construction than his arguments at the bar. The reader can find many specimens of his peculiar and marvellous style in the "Irish Common Law Reports," from the year 1858 to 1867, and in "The Irish Chancery Reports," from 1867 to the present time. Some idea may thus be formed of Mr Christian's rare accomplishments as an advocate. Whether his speeches at the bar, or his judgment from the bench, are models of the best and most perfect style of composition others must determine. It has, we have heard, been remarked-no doubt since the learned judge has given such umbrage in certain high quarters -that Mr Christian at the bar "spoke on stilts," and his utterances from the bench were overspread with an "extra-judicial froth." But in spite of every detraction, it must be acknowledged that he obtained his elevation by qualities more solid, and accomplishments more valuable, than a stiff and stilted style or frothy declamation; and his decisions

in the Common Pleas and the Exchequer Chamber, and in the Court of Appeal in Chancery, must be held in the highest estimation by all unprejudiced persons as sound and masterly expositions of the law as it prevails in those high tribunals.

As already remarked, Mr Christian took no part in the political controversies of his time; and like his eminent rival, Mr Baron Fitzgerald, he owed his advancement altogether to his superior merits as a lawyer. It seems not quite unnatural that a man who won his high position by steadily pursuing the legitimate duties of his calling, should entertain something like a feeling of contempt for a class (so numerous at the Irish bar) whose political services constitute their chief, if not their only claims to advancement. Whether such a feeling did or did not exist, it would be extremely difficult to say; this, however, was abundantly clear, that Mr Christian, while at the bar, had little time or inclination for close fellowship with his contemporaries, and there was none of that interchange of feeling or sympathy between them which exists between men who are constantly thrown together in the more social engagements of political life. Solely intent on the faithful and efficient performance of his professional duties, the all-absorbing claims of business were well calculated to isolate him from the world which lay outside his briefs and the precincts of the Court of Chancery. To the isolation thus occasioned may be traced that bold and uncompromising spirit which he has always evinced since his elevation to the bench, and which has been applauded by some as a spirit of manly and wholesome independence, and decried by others as an undignified exhibition of intemperance, and of want of proper consideration for the feelings of his judicial brethren. Into the merits of this controversy it is not intended to enter in this brief notice; it is sufficient to say, that in assuming the office of a public censor, the Lord-Justice of Appeal created a strong prejudice against himself, and his interference to correct certain abuses or irregularities which were creeping in under the new practice and constitution of the Court of Chancery, however justifiable, on the score of a conscientious discharge of his duty, produced the inevitable effect of making him unpopular with the judges and officers of the Court, who felt the sting of his polished sarcasm, or came under the lash of his vehement invective. It would, however, be idle to deny that a large majority of the practitioners in the Equity Courts fully endorsed the opinions expressed, on one memorable occasion at least, by the Lord-Justice of Appeal, however much they may have regretted that the disagreeable task undertaken by him involved personal reflections on the Chancellor, whose courtesy and urbanity had rendered him deservedly popular with both branches of the profession. In deprecating the assumption of judicial functions by the chief clerks, his lordship was only enunciating the clear and unmistakable provisions of the Chancery Act of 1867, which expressly enacted that no business of a judicial nature should be transacted by those officers. There was a case before the Court, where one of the clerks had clearly exceeded his ministerial functions, and in the teeth of the statute, had taken upon himself to decide a question of a purely judicial character. So far the Lord-Justice was clearly in the right. The inference which he drew, that what had occurred once was