and Robarts, formerly of Barge Yard, Bucklersbury, and subsequently of Lawrence Pountney Lane. Mr. Robarts, afterwards of the banking-house of Robarts, Curtis, and Co. and now some years deceased, married the sister of the late Mr. George Tierney, about the year 1774, who, we believe, is still living; and a daughter of this marriage became the wife of Mr. Thellusson, with whom Mr. Tierney (as will by and by be seen) contested the representation for Southwark. He had another uncle of the name of George, who was for many years an eminent merchant and banker at Naples, where he died above thirty years since; and it is on record that an action was tried before Lord Kenyon, which was brought by the executor of that Mr. Tierney against the notorious John, commonly called Jew King, for money lent by Mr. Tierney to King and Lady Lanesbrough, when they were in Italy, in the utmost distress, which they refused to pay. If we mistake not, another member of this enterprising and clever family settled in Spain; with which country the house of Tierney, Lilly, and Co. had a great commercial intercourse.

The subject of this memoir was educated at Eton, and at Peterhouse, Cambridge, where he took the degree of LL.B. in 1784. He had intended to pursue the study of the law, and was actually called to the bar; but the death of three brothers afforded him the means (perhaps unfortunately for himself) of relinquishing a profession to which his talents were eminently fitted, and in which he must ultimately have ohtained the highest honours.

Mr. Tierney was an author, however, before he became a statesman. His first publication, entitled "The Real Situation of the East India Company considered, with Reference to their Rights and Privileges," appeared in 1787; and it is by no means improbable that it would be found to possess considerable interest at the present moment.

Having determined to exchange the arena of the law courts for that of the senate, the death of Sir Edmund Affleck, the member for Colchester, at the close of the year 1788, formed

an opening in the House of Commons, which appeared to Mr. Tierney to be suited to his views. The step was a bold one; for Colchester was a borough famous for the length and vigour of its contests; and the expenses they engendered were presumed to have contributed to the ruin of no less than three gentlemen who had been candidates during the preceding thirteen years - Alexander Fordyce, Esq. the celebrated banker, Mr. Robert Mayne, of the same profession, and Mr. Christopher Potter; all of whom appeared as bankrupts soon after the conclusion of their contests. Not intimidated, however, Mr. Tierney stood on what was termed the popular interest, in opposition to George Jackson, Esq. who was afterwards Judge Advocate of the Fleet, and who was created a Baronet in 1791. Both candidates had an equal number of votes, and in consequence there was a double return; but on the 1st of April 1789, the Committee appointed to try the election reported that George Tierney, Esq. was duly elected. In the following year, however, the tables were reversed; Mr. Jackson was returned; and, on Mr. Tierney's petition, the Committee reported, April 4, 1791, that it was frivolous and vexatious." The Duke of Portland, then at the head of the opposition, was said to have undertaken to defray the expenses incurred; but Mr. Albany Wallis, who acted as Mr. Tierney's agent, having endeavoured, after that nobleman had changed his politics, and obtained a high and lucrative situation, to refresh his memory by a bill in Chancery, the matter was stopped by the Lord Chancellor, who deemed it highly indecorous to make disclosures likely to bring the representation of the country into disrepute. Mr. Tierney, therefore, was saddled with the expenses; which, it is said, amounted to twelve thousand pounds.

66

In the year 1791 Mr. Tierney published "Two Letters, addressed to the Right Hon. Henry Dundas, and the Hon. Henry Hobart, on the Conduct adopted respecting the Colchester Petition."

Having continued his researches on India affairs, in the

same year he also published, "A Letter to the Right Hon. Henry Dundas, on the Situation of the East India Company." This pamphlet, which was anonymous, produced an able reply, written by Mr. George Anderson, who, from an humble line of life, had raised himself by his talents to the situation of Accomptant in the Commissioners' Office for the Affairs of India. Mr. Tierney then published with his name, "A Letter to the Right Hon. Henry Dundas, on the Statement of the Affairs of the East India Company, lately published by George Anderson, Esq."

Mr. Tierney had now become so much of a public character, that, at the general election in 1796, he was invited to stand for Southwark; and a subscription was raised to bring him in free of expense. His competitor was the late George Woodford Thellusson, Esq. a Director of the East India Company, and brother to the first Lord Rendlesham; who, as we have already stated, was connected with Mr. Tierney by marriage. Mr. Thellusson had a decisive majority on the poll; but Mr. Tierney, not discouraged by his ill success on a former occasion, prepared a petition, and after an investigation before a Committee, at which he acted as his own counsel, obtained a decision that Mr. Thellusson's election was void, in consequence of his having acted "in violation of the statute of the 7th of William III. cap. 4. [commonly called the Treating Act,] whereby he is incapacitated to serve in Parliament upon such election." On the new election which in consequence took place, Mr. Thellusson again attained a majority on the poll; but, on another petition from Mr. Tierney, it was determined that the former was not eligible, and that the latter was duly elected; and thus Mr. Tierney was at length fairly seated in the House of Commons by the mere operation of the Treating Act and per

severance.

Mr. Tierney now became a constant attendant in the House, and a frequent debater on all the great and important questions brought under consideration.

In the spring of 1797, when all payments in money at the

Bank of England were suspended by order of Council, and Mr. Pitt moved for a bill to enable that corporate body to issue twenty-shilling notes, Mr. Tierney characterised the proposition "as affording an opportunity for the most pernicious species of jobbing and speculation."

When Mr. Pitt proposed to bestow on each holder of what was called "the loyalty loan" five pounds in the hundred, in consequence of the great and unexpected depreciation of stock, Mr. Tierney contended "that the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was nothing less than ripping up an act of parliament, by an attempt to do what he thought justice, when he himself allowed that, from the lapse of time, and circumstances which had intervened, justice was rendered ⚫ impossible."

In the course of the summer of 1797, when the price of butcher's meat experienced an alarming rise, Mr. Tierney was chairman of a committee on a bill to prevent "the forestalling and regrating of cattle," which was opposed by Mr. Dundas, who contended that the measure was founded upon ideas which had been exploded by the writings of Dr. Adam Smith. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Tierney observed, that "he conceived the plain facts of the case to be better than the speculative reasonings of Adam Smith; whose arguments, however substantial they might be, the public could not feed upon;" that, "if the poorer classes of the people were to rise in a mass on account of the high price of meat, he suspected the right honourable gentleman would then prefer the riot act to all the reasonings of Adam Smith;" and "that it was not consistent with humanity to get rid of the bill by telling the poor that the market would find its level, for they might as well be told at once that they were not hungry." The house, however, rejected the bill by a majority of thirty

two.

Soon after the meeting of Parliament in the same year, he moved the House, "not to acknowledge the Right Honourable Henry Dundas, in any parliamentary capacity." This proceeding originated in a supposed legal disability on the

part of Mr. Dundas, in consequence of his acting in the

"If he spoke on that Tierney observed, "it

capacity of third Secretary of State. occasion in a style of asperity," Mr. was not because be felt any personal dislike or private animosity to the right honourable gentleman; but that he thought the whole transaction of which he complained a most corrupt job-a job not avowed, but detected—a job that never would have been brought to light if it could have been kept in concealment, and which was at last disclosed by the labours of a committee." On a division, only eight members supported the motion, while one hundred and thirty-nine were against it. This extraordinary disparity of numbers proceeded from the secession of several of the principal members of opposition, who, deeming the war unjust, and perceiving themselves unable to stem the torrent in its favour, had retired in a body from the house. Mr. Tierney, on that memorable occasion, acted a different part. Thinking it his duty to remain, and to support what he believed to be the cause of his constituents and of the ccuntry, he manfully, although almost singly, opposed such measures as appeared to him to trench either on the policy, or on the rights, of the nation; and it was allowed on all hands, that he acquitted himself with no small share of ability and discretion.

Accordingly, when Mr. Pitt proposed to raise seven millions within the year, the honourable member for Southwark took the opportunity of observing, "that with the administration then in power the country could not have peace; for that they wanted the requisites for bringing it about, being destitute of the confidence and the respect, not only of France, but of Europe." In reply to Mr. Pitt, who appeared to be much hurt by this philippic, he remarked "that if the minister wished to make another attack upon any one whom he was disposed to crush, he should remember that a man might be in that house in the same situation as if he were to live in a mill-he would be a good deal frightened at first, but would soon become accustomed to the noise."

In the month of March, 1798, Mr. Tierney gave his