TOLER, JOHN, first Earl of Norbury (1745–1831), chief justice of the court of common pleas in Ireland, youngest son of Daniel Toler by his wife Letitia, daughter of Thomas Otway of Castle Otway, was born at Beechwood, co. Tipperary, on 3 Dec. 1745. The family, originally from Norfolk, traced its descent in Ireland to an officer in the Cromwellian army, who acquired some property in county Tipperary. Having been educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where Toler graduated B.A. in 1761 and M.A. in 1766, he entered the legal profession, and was called to the Irish bar in Michaelmas term 1770. In 1776 he was elected M.P. for Tralee, and on entering parliament he let it soon be seen that his services were at the disposal of government. His silent vote was rewarded with a silk gown in 1781. At the general election in 1783 he was returned as one of the representatives of the borough of Philipstown, his elder brother, Daniel (d. 1796), being at the same time chosen one of the county members for Tipperary. When Henry Flood [q. v.] in November 1783 moved for leave to bring in a bill to reform parliament, Toler urged its rejection on the ground that ‘it was not the legitimate offspring either of the parliament or the people. It was the spurious abortion of the lying-in-hospital sent into the world before its time.’ In 1789 (patent 12 Aug.) he succeeded Arthur Wolfe (afterwards Viscount Kilwarden) [q. v.] as solicitor-general, and demonstrated the propriety of his advancement by opposing (20 Feb. 1790) a motion of Grattan reprobating the sale of places and peerages during the administration of the Marquis of Buckingham. He was returned for Gorey borough at the general election in May 1790, and established a claim to further promotion by the consistent support he gave the government of the Earl of Westmorland in 1790–3.
Though possessing little claim to respect as a politician, his deficiencies were amply compensated by his readiness to give or exact personal satisfaction; while his broad humour and absolute indifference to propriety often saved the situation by converting a serious matter into a wholly ludicrous one. During the short session of 1792 he made a savage attack on James Napper Tandy [q. v.], alluding to the personal part he had played in the affairs of the catholics, and regretting that they had been unable ‘to set a better face on the matter.’ When called upon by Tandy to explain his words he declined to do so on the ground of his immunity as a member of parliament. No one could question his readiness to give Tandy satisfaction, but, owing to some misunderstanding, a meeting never took place, and, the house having intervened to place Tandy in custody, he scored an easy victory.
Naturally when Earl Fitzwilliam in 1794–5 undertook the government of Ireland on professedly liberal principles, Toler's removal was a matter of first importance; but in consenting to it Pitt expressly stipulated that he was not to be removed unless a place was provided for him such as he might have accepted under Lord Westmorland (Lecky, vii. 87; cf. also Beresford Corresp. ii. 67). Exasperated by the attack that had been made upon him, Toler, after the recall of Fitzwilliam, avenged himself on the opposition by unreservedly supporting the government of Lord Camden. On 4 May 1795 he moved the rejection of the catholic relief bill. ‘He spoke,’ wrote Marcus Beresford to his father, ‘for above two hours, and left the question without an attempt to argue it, but concluded with a vehement assertion that the bill could not be carried without the repeal of the bill of rights, the breach of the coronation oath and of the compact between the two countries. The other side was even with him; for they as positively asserted the contrary’ (ib. ii. 108; Parl. Reg. xiv. 208–17). He was rewarded with a title for his wife, who was created a peeress of Ireland in her own right on 7 Nov. 1797 by the title of Baroness Norwood of Knockalton, co. Tipperary, and on 10 July 1798 he himself was appointed attorney-general in succession to Wolfe, who had been promoted to the chief-justiceship of the king's bench, being sworn of the privy council on 2 Aug. As attorney-general he conducted the prosecution of those who were concerned in the rebellion of '98; but his indifference to human suffering, as in the case of John and Henry Sheares [q. v.], disgusted even those who thought the occasion called for firmness on the part of government. In 1799 he brought in a bill investing the lord-lieutenant with discretionary power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and to establish mar--
