though he was ever on the unpopular side in politics, made him always
popular with the people."

The legal talents and acquirements of Lord Thurlow have been the
subject of frequent panegyric; but it may, perhaps, be questioned,
whether in all cases those eulogiums were just. It has been said--but
with what truth it is difficult to form an opinion--that his lordship
was much indebted to Mr. Hargrave, for the learning by which his
judgments were sometimes distinguished, and that Mr. Hargrave received
a handsome remuneration for these services. "As lord chancellor," says
a writer who was personally acquainted with his lordship, "from a
well-placed confidence in Mr. Hargrave, who was indefatigable in his
service, he had occasion to give himself less trouble than any other
man in that high station. An old free-speaking companion of his, well
known at Lincoln's Inn, would sometimes say to me, 'I met the great
law lion this morning going to Westminster; but he was so busily
reading in the coach what his provider had supplied him with, that he
took no notice of me.'"

The ardent zeal with which Lord Thurlow contested the great question
of the regency, led him, if we may credit the narrative of one who was
a party to the debate, to be guilty of an act of great disingenuousness.
Dr. Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, in the course of a speech, in
which he supported the claims of the Prince of Wales, incidentally
cited a passage from Grotius, with regard to the definition of the
word _right_. "The chancellor, in his reply," says the bishop in his
memoirs, "boldly asserted that he perfectly well remembered the
passage I had quoted from Grotius, and that it solely respected
natural, but was inapplicable to civil, rights. Lord Loughborough, the
first time I saw him after the debate, assured me that before he went