348 
ROM! 
by birth, but he was an Englishman by choice. He was 
born the heir to a considerable landed estate at Montpellier, 
in the south of France. His ancestors had early imbibed 
and adopted the principles and doctrines of the reformed 
religion, and he had been educated himself in that religious 
faith. He had the misfortune to live soon after the time 
when the edict of Nantz, the great toleration act of the Pro¬ 
testants of France, was revoked by Louis XIV., and he 
found himself exposed to all the vexations and persecutions 
of a bigoted and tyrannical government, for worshipping 
God in the manner which he believed was most acceptable 
to him. He determined to free himself from this bondage ; 
he abandoned Ins property, he tore himself from his con¬ 
nections, and sought an asylum in this land of liberty, 
where he had to support himself only by his own exertions. 
He himself embarked in trade; he educated his sons to 
useful trades; and he was contented at his death to leave 
them, instead of his original patrimony, no other inheritance 
than the habits of industry he had given them; the example 
of his own virtuous life ; an hereditary detestation of tyranny 
and injustice; and an ardent zeal in the cause of civil and 
religious freedom. To him I owe it, among other inestim¬ 
able blessings, that I am an Englishman. Gentlemen, this 
is my origin; and I trust that I need not blush to own 
it.” 
The father of Sir Samuel was an eminent jeweller, and 
realized a handsome fortune; his mother, whose maiden 
name was Garnault, was descended from a family of French 
refugees; and he being the youngest of nine children, of 
whom three only attained to maturity, was borh in Frith- 
' street, Soho, in the city of Westminster, on the 1st of 
March, 1757. 
In early life he manifested those powers of the under¬ 
standing, and those affections of the heart, which, under 
proper direction and assiduous culture, augured his future 
advancement to eminence of station and character; and 
having chosen the profession of the law for the exercise of his 
talents, he soon exhibited those powers and that persevering 
application, which, without the advantages of a patrimonial 
estate, and an education at a public school or university, 
ensured his future eminence. Having enrolled his name in 
one of the Inns of Court, and previously acquired some notion 
of business in the “ Six-Clerks’ Office,” connected with 
the court to which he directed his views, he was called to the 
bar in 1783; and from the reputation he gained as an “ equity 
draughtsman,” he soon rose to the higher departments of 
his profession. Upon the removal of Thurlow, Scott, and 
Milford, from the chancery court, Mr. R. became a leader, 
and was retained in almost every cause. In the summer of 
1797, whilst he was upon a visit at the seat of the Marquess 
of Landsdowne, he met with a daughter of Francis Garbett, 
Esq. of Knill-Court, in the country of Hereford; a young 
lady, whose youth and beauty and other amiable qualities 
engaged his affection, and determined his choice; and to 
whom he was married in the following year. This con¬ 
nection opened to his views the prospect of a growing 
family, and of course induced him to apply to the business 
of his profession with additional ardour and assiduity. Ac¬ 
cordingly when Mr. Fox and Lord Grenville assumed the 
reins of government in the year 1806, he was nominated 
solicitor-general, after some suspense about committing to 
his custody the great seal, and received the honour of 
knighthood. 
It is recorded to the honour of Sir Samuel, as well as to 
that of his colleague, Sir Arthur Pigott, the attorney-general, 
that though the press, according to the language of Lord 
Chatham, was become, during their time, a “ chartered 
libertine,” and political contention had arrived at its height, 
yet with a kind of triumph over all provocations which 
assailed the administration of this period, no prosecution 
for iibel occurred. Indeed, the mind of Sir Samuel was 
occupied about a much higher object, which was the reform 
of the English system of jurisprudence. His first attempt 
with this view was an amendment of the bankrupt laws; and 
though he did not succeed to the extent of his wishes, so as 
L L Y. 
to render the freehold estates of persons liable to the bank¬ 
rupt laws, who might die indebted, assets for the payment 
of their simple-contract debts (for which he was allowed to 
bring a bill into the House of Commons in 1807, which bill 
was lost on a division), he nevertheless obtained an act by 
means of which the debts of traders have been more effec¬ 
tually secured, for the benefit of the public. About this 
time he acted as a manager at the trial of the late Viscount 
Melville, for high crimes and misdemeanours in his office as 
treasurer of the navy, which terminated in an acquittal. On 
occasion of the abolition of the slave-trade, which con¬ 
ferred immortal honour on this short-lived administration. 
Sir Samuel delivered a speech which made great impression 
on the house: and it is said that one passage of it*, which 
he uttered with an uncommon degree of animation, was 
honoured by three distinct plaudits. On the dismissal of 
the ministry, of which he formed so distinguishing a part, 
he vindicated and applauded their conduct, during the year 
of their existence; expressing in terms of cordial approba¬ 
tion their decisive measures with regard to the abolition of 
the slave-trade, and the emancipation of Ireland, as well as 
their refusal to give the king a pledge not to renew the 
Roman Catholic question; and deprecating the return of 
Lord Melville to office, notwithstanding his acquittal, as no 
one had moved for rescinding the vote against him. 
The attention of Sir Samuel, both in and out of office, 
was much occupied concerning the state of our criminal 
code, and the adoption of measures for reforming it. He 
lamented, in common with many other enlightened patriots, 
that the loss of life should be annexed to a greater variety 
of actions in England than in any other country in the 
world, and that criminals of very different descriptions 
should be subject, by the administration of our laws, to the 
same kind and degree of punishment. To rectify this 
anomaly in our jurisprudence appeared to Sir Samuel Romilly 
an object of great importance, in its connection both 
with the equity and humanity of legislation, and the pre¬ 
vention of crimes. Accordingly on the 18th of May, 1808, 
he moved for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of certain 
objectionable laws; and in this bill he introduced a clause 
for granting compensation to persons who were unjustly 
accused and tried. He soon after published a pamphlet, 
intitled “ Observations on the Criminal Law of England, as 
it relates to capital Punishments, and to the Mode in which 
it is administered.” In this pamphlet, which passed through 
three editions, he explained his views, and pursued his refuta¬ 
tion of the theory of Dr. Paley. “The certainty of punish¬ 
ment,” says this excellent writer, “ is much more efficacious 
than any severity of example for the prevention of crimes. 
So evident is the truth of this maxim, that if it were pos¬ 
sible that punishment, as the consequence of guilt, could be 
reduced to an absolute certainty, a very slight penalty 
would be sufficient to prevent almost every species of crime, 
except those which arise from sudden gusts of ungovernable 
passion.” 
The subject of this memoir soon afterwards distinguished 
himself by his opposition to the appointment of a new judge 
and tribunal for facilitating public business and alleviat¬ 
ing the labours of the Lord Chancellor. This he considered 
and represented as an innovation, from which neither the 
chancellor, nor the suitors of his court, nor the public in 
general, would eventually derive any advantage. In a 
pamphlet under the title of“ Objections to the Project of 
creating a Vice-chancellor of England,” he announced to 
the public his opinions on this subject, “ the general result 
of which was, that the new division of chancery into two 
courts, and the creation of an intermediate court of appeal 
between it and the House of Lords, would tend greatly 
to enhance the expense of suits 4 already greviously and 
oppressively high,’ to multiply the business of the court, 
and to protract the final decision of causes.” 
No man ever devoted his time and talents to important and 
useful purposes with greater assiduity and zeal than Sir Samuel 
Romilly. His professional practice, which was very extensive, 
demanded a great portion of his time and attention; and 
yet 
