gesture.” Brougham also alluded to the probability that Romilly one day would have been Lord Chancellor; but Barnes, in his Parliamentary Portraits, published in 1815, had already disposed of such an anticipation:— “I should wish, indeed, to see the first best man of his profession occupying, at some time, the first rank in it, and giving dignity to some new title, which might hereafter be quoted as the heraldic name for fine sense and integrity. But this is merely a matter of taste. Sir S. Romilly has already reached the summit; no honours could add weight to his opinions in the general mind; no station could make his virtues more conspicuous.” Professor George Joseph Bell, of Edinburgh, said, with grateful affection, “The name alone of Romilly suggests so much, that I will not presume to apply to him any epithet that might seem to measure the extent of his talents, the perfection of his virtue, or the reach of his benevolence.”[1]
The poet Montgomery saw in him “the clearest intellect, the most unsullied virtues, and a thoroughly disinterested devotion to the public good.” To Crabbe, on 10th September 1818, Romilly suggested that he should devote one of his metrical tales to the object of mitigating the rage of the game-preserver and the passion of the poacher. The poet at once set to work on a twenty-first Tale of the Hall, with the title, “Smugglers and Poachers.” Before it was finished Romilly was dead, and Crabbe indited a long note, concluding thus:—
“Thou hadst the tear of pity, and thy breast
Felt for the sad, the weary, the opprest;
And now (affecting change!) all join with me,
And feel, lamented Romilly, for thee.”
“He devoted himself — with too much ardour, alas — to the cause of his country and her laws. By giving himself too little relaxation from these hallowed but toilsome pursuits, the mortal frame was too soon worn out. But he has left a name, consecrated by his aim to ameliorate the penal code of his country, and to improve the condition of his countrymen, which will never die.
“There is only one short letter from Sir Samuel [to Dr. Parr] after Lady Romilly’s illness was declared alarming. But Mr. Basil Montagu and his accomplished lady warned Dr. Parr of her hopeless state, and entreated him to be with Sir Samuel at the close of the scene. Unfortunately this humane foresight had not its intended effect; for although Parr declared his opinion to me that Sir Samuel would not survive Lady Romilly long, he either thought himself incapable of doing the good desired, or some impediment lay in his way.”[2]
Toone’s Chronological Record says, “1818, November 2, Died by suicide, Sir Samuel Romilly, Knt, a celebrated lawyer, and lately returned member for Westminster; the supposed cause of this melancholy catastrophe was the death of his wife, which had recently happened.” [Lady Romilly had died on October 29.]
Other M.P.’s. — John La Roche (born 1700), M.P. for Bodmyn from 1727 till his death in 1752, was a son of Monsieur Pierre Crothaire of the Province of Bordeaux, who came to England as an attendant upon Prince George of Denmark, and assumed the name of La Roche by that Prince’s desire.
Sir James Laroche was the third son of the above (born 1734). He was elected M.P. for Bodmyn in 1768, and was made a Baronet 24th August 1776. He died in 1805. His sister Catherine, wife of Charles Berners, Esq. of Wolverston Park, Suffolk, died in 1800.
Joshua Mauger was twice elected M.P. for Poole, viz., in 1768 and 1774. He was a Director of the French Hospital in 1769. He often voted in minorities with Colonel Barré, and was sometimes one of the tellers in the divisions.
William Devaynes, an East India Director, and a Director of the French Hospital, was chosen M.P. for Barnstaple in 1774.
Right Hon. William Saurin, born in 1758, was the second son of Rev. James Saurin, Vicar of Belfast, whose youngest son was Bishop Saurin (see chap, xxiii.). He was a pupil of Rev. Saumarez Dubourdieu of Lisburn, and from 1775 to 1778 of Trinity College, Dublin. He was called to the Irish Bar in 1780, and in 1790 his career of successful practice began. In 1794 (15th November) the declaration of the plaintiff was entered at the Court of Exchequer, Dublin, in the case of Curran v. Sandys. The counsel for the defendant were Mr. Waddy and Mr. Saurin, and a plea of “Not Guilty” was entered on 1st December 1794. The case came on before the Chief Baron (Yelverton) and Baron Smith on the Saturday before 16th February 1795. Mr. Saurin, as junior counsel, opened the defendant’s case. Mr. O’Regan, a
