His friends and relations were very desirous of retaining him in England, and made to him, for that purpose, advantageous proposals, which he would gladly have accepted, if the consent of his lady could have been procured. She most obstinately persisted in her resolution to return to NewHampshire.

Soon after his return to the province, it was very apparent that he was losing the confidence of the government. If he had not already taken a decided part with the whigs, he had been too vacillating in the measures, which then began to agitate the public mind, to preserve the favor of the crown. As early as 1766, Justice Clagett, was the magistrate selected by the people of Portsmouth to administer to George Meserve, who had been appointed agent for distributing the stamps, an oath, that he would not directly or indirectly attempt to execute his office. This transaction, while it shows the spirit of liberty that pervaded the province, was attended with those tumultuary proceedings for which the populace of Portsmouth have so often been distinguished, and it cannot be surprising, if after this, the government should have cast an eye of jealousy on Mr. Clagett, a magistrate, and the king's attorney general.

Whether he was superseded in his office of attorney general, or whether it was vacated by his voyage to England, or by his resignation, is not clear; but it is certain, that as early as August in the same year, (1769,) Samuel Livermore was attorney general for the province, which office he held till the dissolution of the provincial government, in April, 1775.

He remained in England till some time in the year 1771, his family having returned to Portsmouth prior to that time. In his absence, he associated with the friends of America, at Bristol, and immediately on his return, he became identi

fied with the cause of the people against the usurpations of the crown, and ever after remained the firm and steady friend of American liberty.

In December, 1771, he purchased a farm on the Merrimack, in Litchfield, acting on the calculation, no doubt, that Litchfield would become an important place in the newly established county of Hillsborough. To this place he removed with his family, in 1772. In a register for New-England for 1774, he is called of Litchfield, and ranked as a Barrister at law of New-Hampshire, in 1773, with Samuel Livermore of Londonderry, Noah Emery and William Parker of Exeter, John Sullivan of Dover, John Pickering of Portsmouth, Joshua Atherton of Amherst, and Simeon Olcott of Charlestown. In his commission of the Peace and the Quorum, signed by John Wentworth, and dated May 2, 1772, he is also called of Litchfield,

Here he found for neighbors, Major Wm. M'Queston, a man of sense and integrity, between whose family and his own the most intimate relations afterwards took place, and Doct. Jonathan Parker, a man of wit and learning, who could repeat as well as relish Shakspeare with him. On the opposite side of the river, in Merrimack, was his compatriot the venerable Matthew Thornton, and Col. Edward Goldstone Lutwyche, a gentleman of fine literary taste, and Joshua Atherton, fresh with all the literary and legal advantages then furnished by our elder sister, the province of Massachusetts. Although most of these gentlemen did not accord with him in his political views, there was a great prevalence of good humor and friendly intercourse between them. The society, taken together, constituted an unusual constellation of wit and learning, for so recent a settlement. Vive la bagatelle, was the order of the day, aided as it was by the jolly clergyman of the

place, the Rev. Samuel Cotton, who, if not a wit himself, was the cause of wit in others. Different from our own days, each seemed to preserve the original peculiarities of his character. This very variety gave relish to their intercourse, and forces upon us the reflection that there is something in modern education and refinement that smooths men down to the same uniform surface of insipidity.

Among the pleasantries of Mr. Clagett, we think the following ought to be preserved. Doct. Jonathan Parker had lodged in his office for collection a small account against John Mc Clench. In the mean time Mc Clench hauled a load of wood to the Doctor, which he was willing to accept in satisfaction; and not having time to write a receipt, he took from his desk a psalm book, having his name in the title page, and told Mc Clench to hand it to Clagett as a token that the amount was settled. On the receipt of which, Mr. Clagett addressed to him the following lines: WYSEMAN CLAGETT, ESQ., TO DOCT. JONATHAN PARKER, OF LITCHFIELD.

A certain Doctor keeps a psalter,
Which pious Watts was pleas'd to alter
With hymns and some addition;
But guess ten times and you'll not hit
Upon the use that's made of it,
By our said good physician.

What use you say why sure, to sing.
Alas! you're out-'tis no such thing.
But here your doubts shall end all;
He ne'er, as I've a soul to save,
Regards or sings a single stave,

With Cotton or with Kendall.t

But when M'Clench hauls wood oaken,
The Doctor sends his book for token,
To have Mac's credit saved.

In title page whereof you can
Discern the name of Jonathan
Fast by his old friend David.

Minister of the parish.

+ Deacon.

As a public prosecutor, his reputation stood high. Soon after the formation of the revolutionary government for this colony, viz. January 22, 1776, he was appointed by the council and assembly, Attorney General, or Solicitor General, as this officer was then called. This office he held till the establishment of the State constitution of 1783. General John Sullivan succeeded him as public prosecutor, having been appointed to that office in December, 1784, after the decease of Mr. Clagett.

He represented the classed towns of Litchfield and Nottingham-West in the assembly for the year 1776, and afterwards he was chosen for Litchfield and Derryfield. On one occasion, having been left out by the town of Litchfield, he received great personal gratification, by being elected a member of the assembly, for the towns of Merrimack and Bedford. He was also chosen by the assembly, a member of the council for 1776, and appointed for the same year, a member of the committee of safety.

The press of criminal business was so great, that he made application to the council and assembly for the appointment of assistants, which I believe was not granted. The prosecutions were generally for petty offences. Violations of the rights of property did not then as at the present day constitute the great mass of criminal complaints. Most of the indictments were for as⚫saults and batteries; and especially for fornication, against females, under the statute of the 14th June, 1701, the 13th of William III.,which subjected both parties to a fine not exceeding fifty shillings, or whipping, not exceeding ten stripes, While the oath of the female was not sufficient to convict her companion in crime, she bore, in her pregnancy, the public confession of her own guilt. The consequence was, that the man escaped de

tection, and the vengeance of the Public Justice was wreaked exclusively on the female. The form of the indictment itself was an acknowledgment of this, for the words usually were "that she suffered some male person, to the jurors unknown, to have carnal knowledge of her body, and thereby beget her with child of a bastard.'

In this way was much of the time and labor of the solicitor general occupied in sustaining the morals of the people and preserving the republic from detriment. But judgment was usually tempered with mercy. The fines were trivial, considering the aggravation of the crime; and we do not believe that in any case whipping was resorted to. Nor are we aware that the relaxed state of the law, as enacted February 16, 1791, which considered fornication as a crime only in the males has contributed in any degree to encourage incontinence. The statute, however, of January 2, 1829, has again made both parties criminal, increased the fine, and substituted imprisonment for whipping. From this we infer, that the legislature, while they continue to feel a just abhorrence of the offence, do not consider it any objection that the law, from the circumstance above mentioned, should, in its operation, be an enactment almost exclusively against the weaker and least sinning party.

It remains for me now to introduce the reader to a more personal acquaintance with the subject of this memoir.

Eccentric and overbearing, he was a strange mixture of severity and indulgence, alternately betraying strong passions and weak feelings. Sanguine and despondent, by sudden changes of his mind, for which no reason could be assigned. Rough and boisterous in his manners, they were rendered still more offensive by a profanity as reckless and extravagant as can well be conceiv