Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 61.djvu/432

 which he was familiar, and that on inquiry he was informed that it was Perceval. The impression made was so deep that on the next day he consulted his brother William and his partner, Robert Were Fox, on the propriety of communicating with Perceval, but suffered them to dissuade him. Apart from the importance of the event foreshadowed, this dream is interesting as one of the best authenticated instances of prevision or second sight. The first account of the dream appeared in the ‘Times’ on 16 Aug. 1828. The date of the vision was there erroneously assigned to the night of the assassination. The earliest correct account appeared about 1834 in Abercrombie's ‘Inquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers.’ An account by Williams appeared in Walpole's ‘Life of Perceval’ (cf. Notes and Queries, 7th ser. xi. 47, 121, 232, 297, 416, xii. 437, 516; Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. p. 305;, Early Years and Late Reflections, 1836, i. 219; , Life of Perceval, ii. 329).

Williams died at Sandhill on 17 April 1841, and was buried at Calstock, where there is a monument in the church to his memory. He married, on 23 Jan. 1776, Catherine (1757–1826), daughter of Martin Harvey of Kenwyn, Cornwall. By her he had several daughters and three surviving sons—John (1777–1849), a member of the Society of Friends, who was elected fellow of the Linnean Society on 21 Jan. 1806 and fellow of the Royal Society 6 March 1828; Michael (1784–1858), who was M.P. for the western division of Cornwall from 1853 to 1858; and William (1791–1870), who was created a baronet in August 1866. In conjunction with his eldest son, Williams accumulated at Scorrier a remarkably fine collection of Cornish minerals.

 WILLIAMS, JOHN (1777–1846), judge, was baptised on 10 Feb. 1877 at Bunbury, Cheshire, of which parish his father, William Williams (d. 29 Oct. 1813), who is said to have belonged to an ancient Welsh family in Merionethshire, was vicar. His mother, Ester [sic] Richardson of Beeston in the same county, was married to his father on 25 Jan. 1776 ( East Cheshire, ii. 394). John, who was an only son, received his early education at the Manchester grammar school, where he entered 26 June 1787 (School Register, ii. 157). He displayed in youth an aptitude for classical studies which distinguished him through life. In 1794 he proceeded as an exhibitioner to Trinity College, Cambridge, graduating B.A. in 1798, and he was elected fellow of Trinity, proceeding M.A. in 1801.

Meanwhile, on 29 Oct. 1797, he entered himself at the Inner Temple, where he was called to the bar in 1804 (Inner Temple Register). His name appears in the law list of 1805 as ‘of King's Bench Walk, Temple,’ with the additional description in the following year of ‘Northern Circuit, Lancaster and Chester Sessions.’ His choice of the northern circuit as a field of practice, and his attaching himself to the liberal party in politics, were considered ‘bold steps’ at the time, professional competition being keen in the northern courts, and prospect of promotion small among opponents of the government. Williams, however, acquired at once popular favour as an advocate and reputation as a lawyer among his fellows. ‘The late justice Sir John Bayley has been heard to declare,’ says a writer in the ‘Gentleman's Magazine’ (November 1846), ‘that if he had to be tried for his life, he should desire to be defended by Mr. Williams.’

It was for the part he took in the proceedings attending the trial of Queen Caroline in 1820, as junior counsel in the case, that Williams is best remembered. The ability he displayed on that occasion, especially in the cross-examination of the important witness Demont, won the emphatic approbation of his leaders, Lord Denman and Lord Brougham (, Life, i. 164;, Life, ii. 386).

On 23 March 1822, at a by-election, Williams (described in the return as ‘of Lincoln's Inn’) was elected to parliament by the city of Lincoln, and sat for that constituency till the dissolution in 1826. He subsequently represented Winchilsea from 1830 till the disfranchisement of that borough in 1832. In parliament he was a frequent speaker, but his efforts were directed chiefly towards legal reform, and especially towards a correction of delays and abuses in the court of chancery, and he was the author of motions on the subject (4 June 1823 and 24 Feb. 1824), which led to important debates, but to no effective result beyond the appointment of a commission which never reported (, new ser. vols. ix. x. xiii.).

His course of political conduct brought him into conflict with Lord Eldon, and was prejudicial to his professional advancement;