When at the age of fourteen he left the Grammar School of his native town, he was apprenticed to one of his uncles, a brass-founder in Birmingham. It had been at one time his strong wish to be articled to an attorney; but “his good mother was incredulous as to the possibility of a lawyer and an honest man being united in the same person.” His eldest son, the late Mr. Matthew Davenport Hill, said that his father had many of the qualities which make an able lawyer:— “He had what is known in the profession as a good head for law. He was quick at discovering distinctions, possessed logical powers, both strong and subtle, and a memory exceedingly retentive: while his language was at once lucid and accurate. In conversation he was a fluent speaker, and with early practice doubtless would have learnt to make fluent speeches; but I do not think he could ever have brought himself to utter an unnecessary word.” He used to read with eagerness all law books that came in his way, and was, says his son, better informed on all matters pertaining to the law than almost any layman he ever met with. I greatly doubt, however, whether as a lawyer he could have made his way. When he was in his seventieth year, his son was counsel in a political trial, where the judge so far forgot his position on the bench, as in summing-up to speak of the learned gentleman who was opposed to him. “Thanks to God,” wrote the old man on hearing of the case, “that it is not my profession to plead before such judgment-seats. I should ruin the best of causes by unbridled indignation.” With his eager and impatient mind, with his love for “the divine principle of utility,” he would never have borne “the tyranny of lawyers,” which was, to use Gibbon’s words, “more oppressive and ridiculous than even the old yoke of the clergy.”