Mr. Thomas Dove, familiarly known among clubmen, attorney’s clerks, and, perhaps, even among judges when very far from their seats of judgment, as Turtle Dove, was a counsel learned in the law. He was a counsel so learned in the law, that there was no question within the limits of an attorney’s capability of putting to him that he could not answer with the aid of his books. And when he had once given an opinion, all Westminster could not move him from it — nor could Chancery Lane and Lincoln’s Inn and the Temple added to Westminster. When Mr. Dove had once been positive, no man on earth was more positive. It behooved him, therefore, to be right when he was positive; and though, whether wrong or right, he was equally stubborn, it must be acknowledged that he was seldom proved to be wrong. Consequently the attorneys believed in him, and he prospered. He was a thin man, over fifty years of age, very full of scorn and wrath, impatient of a fool, and thinking most men to be fools; afraid of nothing on earth — and, so his enemies said, of nothing elsewhere; eaten up by conceit; fond of law, but fonder, perhaps, of dominion; soft as milk to those who acknowledged his power, but a tyrant to all who contested it; conscientious, thoughtful, sarcastic, bright-witted, and laborious. He was a man who never spared himself. If he had a case in hand, though the interest to himself in it was almost nothing, he would rob himself of rest for a week, should a point arise which required such labour. It was the theory of Mr. Dove’s life that he would never be beaten. Perhaps it was some fear in this respect that had kept him from Parliament and confined him to the courts and the company of attorneys. He was, in truth, a married man with a family; but they who knew him as the terror of opponents and as the divulger of legal opinions heard nothing of his wife and children. He kept all such matters quite to himself, and was not given to much social intercourse with those among whom his work lay. Out at Streatham, where he lived, Mrs. Dove probably had her circle of acquaintance; but Mr. Dove’s domestic life and his forensic life were kept quite separate.

At the present moment Mr. Dove is interesting to us solely as being the learned counsel in whom Mr. Camperdown trusted — to whom Mr. Camperdown was willing to trust for an opinion in so grave a matter as that of the Eustace diamonds. A case was made out and submitted to Mr. Dove immediately after that scene on the pavement in Mount Street at which Mr. Camperdown had endeavoured to induce Lizzie to give up the necklace; and the following is the opinion which Mr. Dove gave:

“There is much error about heirlooms. Many think that any chattel may be made an heirloom by any owner of it. This is not the case. The law, however, does recognise heirlooms; as to which the Exors. or Admors. are excluded in favour of the successor; and when there are such heirlooms they go to the heir by special custom. Any devise of an heirloom is necessarily void, for the will takes place after death, and the heirloom is already vested in the heir by custom. We have it from Littleton that law prefers custom to devise.

“Brooke says that the best thing of every sort may be an heirloom — such as the best bed, the best table, the best pot or pan.

“Coke says that heirlooms are so by custom, and not by law.

“Spelman says, in denning an heirloom, that it may be ‘Omne utensil robustius;’ which would exclude a necklace.

“In the ‘Termes de Ley,’ it is denned as, ‘Ascun parcel des utensils.’

“We are told in ‘Coke upon Littleton’ that crown jewels are heirlooms, which decision — as far as it goes — denies the right to other jewels.

“Certain chattels may undoubtedly be held and claimed as being in the nature of heirlooms — as swords, pennons of honour, garter and collar of S.S. See case of the Earl of Northumberland; and that of the Pusey horn — Pusey v. Pusey. The journals of the House of Lords, delivered officially to peers, may be so claimed. See Upton v. Lord Ferrers.

“A devisor may clearly devise or limit the possession of chattels, making them inalienable by devisees in succession. But in such cases they will become the absolute possession of the first person seized in tail, even though an infant, and in case of death without will would go to the Exors. Such arrangement, therefore, can only hold good for lives in existence and for 21 years afterwards. Chattels so secured would not be heirlooms. See Carr v. Lord Errol, 14 Vesey, and Rowland v. Morgan.

“Lord Eldon remarks that such chattels held in families are ‘rather favourites of the court.’ This was in the Ormonde case. Executors, therefore, even when setting aside any claim as for heirlooms, ought not to apply such property in payment of debts unless obliged.

“The law allows of claims for paraphernalia for widows, and, having adjusted such claims, seems to show that the claim may be limited.

“If a man deliver cloth to his wife, and die, she shall have it, though she had not fashioned it into the garment intended.

“Pearls and jewels, even though only worn on state occasions, may go to the widow as paraphernalia, but with a limit. In the case of Lady Douglas, she being the daughter of an Irish Earl and widow of the King’s sergeant (temp. Car. I.), it was held that ￡370 was not too much, and she was allowed a diamond and a pearl chain to that value.

“In 1674 Lord Keeper Finch declared that he would never allow paraphernalia, except to the widow of a nobleman.

“But in 1721 Lord Macclesfield gave Mistress Tipping paraphernalia to the value or ￡200 — whether so persuaded by law and precedent, or otherwise, may be uncertain.

“Lord Talbot allowed a gold watch as paraphernalia.

“Lord Hardwicke went much further, and decided that Mrs. Northey was entitled to wear jewels to the value of ￡3,000, saying that value made no difference; but seems to have limited the nature of her possession in the jewels by declaring her to be entitled to wear them only when full-dressed.

“It is, I think, clear that the Eustace estate cannot claim the jewels as an heirloom. They are last mentioned, and, so far as I know, only mentioned as an heirloom in the will of the great-grandfather of the present baronet, if these be the diamonds then named by him. As such he could not have devised them to the present claimant, as he died in 1820, an............