with any one, until Lord Lyndhurst, inquiring who was the tall gentleman in black, and being informed, begged the honor of an introduction; and with admirable adroitness at once inquired how they regulated descents in the United States. Here, of course, the Chief Justice was at home, and entered upon an explanation of the subject, which no doubt interested his lordship, and certainly relieved his colloquist from much embarrassment.

The habits of industry acquired by Mr. Ingersoll abroad, remained to him during the course of his entire life. How often have we seen him, in advanced age, drawing nearer and nearer to his office window, as the sun declined, engaged in the close perusal of his books, as if unwilling to lose a moment that could be profitably employed. His whole mind seemed to be devoted to his profession, but his heart was not the less generous and humane. Just, in all his dealings with his fellow men, he nevertheless was forgiving of their frailties, and gentle towards their faults. His intercourse with the bar displayed remarkable amenity and urbanity, and he not unfrequently, converted those to whom he was opposed, into friends and clients. In all the discussions in which we have ever known him to be engaged, and they were many, he was never known to indulge in any harshness or asperity that could give undue pain to others, or prove a matter of regret to himself. In the famous case of

VOL. I.-31

John Evans, in which some of the most eminent members of the bar were concerned-Condy, Levy, and Ingersoll, for the plaintiff; Lewis, Rawle, and Hallowell, for defendant-although the parties were much excited and very sensitive, it was generally acknowledged by both sides, that the speech of Mr. Ingersoll was the ablest, most appropriate, and most discreet. Indeed, his manner and matter were always unexceptionable. He never lost sight of the interest of his clients. He was equally regardful of the rights of others, and his own selfesteem. His position at the Philadelphia bar resembled that of Romilly at the British bar-he was both feared and beloved. His style was for the greater part colloquial; and in an argument to a jury, he almost made himself one of them, and drew them imperceptibly to his opinions and conclusions. Others may have seen him in a state of excitement, but we never did. Excitement would have been unfavorable to the tone of such a mind. As obstruction, in a smooth and transparent stream reflecting all the beautiful scenery by which it is surrounded, and smiling in the rays of the sun, would render the crystal waters turbid, and disturb their imagery; so would excitement, in thoughts like his, have disturbed their serene and tranquil course.

We have said the failing of Mr. Lewis was to rest too often on the weak points of his case. The peculiarity of Mr. Ingersoll was, that where he discovered

a weak point in his adversary, instead of overlooking or treating it with indifference, he assailed it with all his force, and never left it until it was utterly demolished, and his adversaries' cause with it. He could seize upon a weak position, and avoid the effects of a strong one, better than any man at the bar. He was, of course, remarkable for his success; and during a long session of the Circuit Court of the United States, he gained every cause, but one, in which he was engaged.

This faculty was always manifested by him in an extraordinary degree, but so far as we remember, it was most remarkable upon the trial of John Evans v. Jane Pierce and Others, in 1810; and in the case of the Commonwealth v. Richard Smith, in 1816. In the first of these, the ground of action was not only unpopular, but feeble in itself, and the verdict obtained by the plaintiff merely nominal; but it is not going too far to say, that no other member of the bar than Mr. Ingersoll, could have prevented a verdict for the defendant. His whole speech consisted of the exposure of the fallacy of the remarks of the opposite counsel. It is unnecessary that passages of the speech should be specially referred to. It is published, and although far inferior to the speech delivered, abundantly supports the opinion thus expressed.

The speech that probably gives the best notion of the tone and quality of Mr. Ingersoll's forensic efforts, is that delivered by him in the Senate of the United

States, upon the impeachment of William Blount, a senator of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

This impeachment was founded upon a message from the President, in 1797, to the Senate and House of Representatives, alleging that the situation of the country was critical, and furnishing documents in support of that allegation. One of these documents was a letter, dated April 21st, 1797, from Mr. Blount, obviously designed to produce a disruption between the United States and the Indian tribes.

Upon investigation of these documents, Mr. Sitgreave, of the House of Representatives, reported the following resolution:

"Resolved, That William Blount, a senator of the United States, from Tennessee, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors."

Mr. Sitgreave was then appointed to go to the Senate and impeach Blount; and also demand that he be sequestered from his seat in the Senate, which was accordingly done. Blount was then taken into custody, and held to a recognizance of twenty thousand dollars himself, with two sureties, each in fifteen thousand dollars. In addition to this, Blount was expelled from the Senate-his bail surrendered him, but he was afterwards admitted to reduced bail.

On the seventeenth of December, 1798, the Senate formed itself into a Court of Impeachment.

On the twenty-fourth of December, Mr. A. J. Dallas and Mr. Jared Ingersoll appeared for defendant, and by permission entered their pleas.

1. Denying the charge.

2. Denying that if charge were true, the Senate has jurisdiction; and alleging that the jurisdiction belongs to the courts of common law.

It was in support of these grounds of defence that Mr. Ingersoll, in answer to Mr. Bayard, made a most able argument, a few extracts from which, as affording some faint notion of his style, we now take leave to present. It was delivered on the 4th of January, 1799.

"Sir, when I turn, as directed, to the books of the law, to know the nature of the proceeding by impeachment, what do I find of it there? Little good, and much ill. And while the energy of the English language, copious as it is, is exhausted in eulogiums on trials by juries in criminal cases, I read of none on proceedings by impeachment. The best English writers content themselves with stating, coldly, that the most proper and the most usual instances of proceeding by impeachment, are against the ministers and other great officers of state, who, surrounded by the imposing splendor of royal favor, are too great for the grasp of law administered by courts and juries; and from the special nature of the alleged crimes sometimes a knowledge is requisite, not always possessed by juries. Sir, I find in those books, that the trial by jury, in criminal cases, is the palladium which has preserved the liberties of the British nation, during the shocks of conquests from abroad, the convulsions of civil war within, and the more dangerous period of modern luxury.