as
ourself_, which brightens the present with the hopes of the future,
which purifies our corrupt nature, and elevates its grovelling earthward
tendencies by the contemplation of an eternal state of being dependent
upon our conduct in this transient state of trial. Who can tell the
extent to which these and similar considerations are present to the
minds of the dying great ones of the earth, who, suddenly plucked from
amidst the dazzling scenes of successful ambition, are laid prostrate
upon the bed of death--their _pale faces turned to the wall_, with
HEREAFTER alone in view, and under an aspect equally _new_ and awful?
Let us, therefore, be wise, and be wise in time, nor haughtily disregard
the earnest voice of warning, however humble and obscure may be the
quarter whence it comes.

Sir William Follett belonged to a respectable family in Devonshire, and
was born on the 2d December 1798. In 1814 he went to Trinity College,
Cambridge, and took the degree of B.A. in 1818, without any attempt to
obtain _honours_; quitting college in this latter year, and entering the
Inner Temple, he prosecuted the study of the law in the chambers of
eminent practitioners, where he continued for three years--and then
practised for about three years as a special pleader. He was called to
the bar in 1824, and went the western circuit, but for one or two years
was much disheartened by his want of success. He expressed, on one
occasion, his readiness to accept of the place of police magistrate, if
it were offered! His progress was, soon afterwards, signal, and all but
unprecedentedly rapid. He was appointed Solicitor-general in 1834, while
yet behind the bar, and in 1835 was returned for Exeter, for which place
he sate till his death. He quitted office with Sir Robert Peel in 1835,
but returned with him to it in 1841, and became Attorney-general in
1844, on the promotion of Sir Frederick Pollock to the chief seat in the
Court of Exchequer. For several years before Sir William Follett's
decease, his constitution, never of the strongest, was broken by his
incessant and severe labours; and in 1844, having been obliged to give
up practice altogether, he went to Italy at the close of the
session--having attended at the bar of the House of Lords, to lead for
the Crown in the O'Connell case. He was, however, quite unfit for the
task. His spine was then so seriously affected, that he was obliged to
sit upon a raised chair while addressing the House,