effectual; and that the princesses were thus placed in a situation in which it would have been disreputable to the country if it had allowed them to remain. Some members of opposition pleaded against the grant, the abstract and barren principles of economy; as if a pension of 36,000l. a-year to four princesses were too much for such a country as England to bestow-as if another question could possibly have come before parliament to which this principle of economy might not, with more justice, and with far more delicacy, have been applied.

But the members of opposition who spoke on this subject, did not confine themselves within the usual limits of debate; they endeavoured to mix with the question before the house other topics with which it had no very obvious connection; and selected one upon which they believed that they might with more than ordinary advantage, press both the prince and his ministers. This was the first occasion on which they brought forward the differences subsisting betwixt the Prince and Princess of Wales. Mr Whitbread has uniformly taken a conspicuous part in the discussions connected with this subject; and it may not be improper, therefore, to quote the words with which he introduced it to parliament. "I have heard,' "I have heard," said Mr Whitbread, " that the queen is about to hold a drawing-room, of course no hopes can now exist of his majesty's recovery; because if there were any, such a step, I presume, would not be resorted to; but in case that drawing-room is held, I would wish to know, is there to be any public appearance of the Princess of Wales? This is no private concern; the public have a right to demand why the acknowledged consort of their regent does not appear in public as such. No affectation of delicacy

can be permitted to stand in the way of a nation's anxiety upon a question of such national importance. If any man can satisfy the public upon this topic, it is the right honourable gentleman, (Mr Perceval.) They know him to have been at one time the zealous adviser and devoted adherent to the Princess of Wales. They believe him to have conscientiously undertaken her defence to have written her vindication-to have published it. That vindication is said to have involved in it an attack upon her royal consort. It is known to have been an attack upon his royal highness, and the regent's first minister is known to have been the author of it; and after he had published it, after it had been read by one and by one hundred, it was bought up at an enormous expence; bought up by the private secretary of the right honourable gentleman. I ask him now, Does he retain his former opinions of the unexceptionable conduct of the Princess of Wales? I ask him, If he did not lately, in this house, solemnly record his confirmation of that opinion; and if it is now what it was the other night, I call upon him to explain, if he can, his apparent desertion of her just claims to that respect, notice, provision, and consideration due to her? These are questions, which, as he values his own consistency, -as he values the character and claims of the princess, and as he respects the prince his master, he is bound to answer.'

But the House of Commons did not give way to this mode of proceeding. Men of all parties could perceive that the condition of the Princess of Wales had no immediate connection with the provision to be made for the princesses; for they knew, that less than, two months before, (while the regent had not yet declared himself in favour of his minister,) although the legislature

was then making ample provision for his royal highness, not a single murmur respecting the state of the princess was heard. The bill for the provision to

the princesses, which had been framed by the minister, was carried through its different stages, and received the sanction of the legislature.

In England, where so much freedom of discussion is indulged, both in and out of parliament, and where the people are not influenced by a very superstitious veneration for ancient establishments, it may seem singular that obvious abuses should still exist, many and that the spirit of a wise and temperate reform has not, long ago, removed all the grosser evils at least which are inseparable from the institutions of an early age. The causes, however, which have, in many instances, retarded improvement, may be discovered without difficulty. Those who are invested with the higher of fices of government, are, generally speaking, so much occupied with the discharge of their official duties, and the defence of their conduct against the attacks of their enemies, that it is seldom they have leisure to turn reformers, and project extensive improvements. The task of reform, therefore, is naturally abandoned to the members of opposition, who do not always come to the discharge of a duty so delicate with the views and feelings

which are necessary to ensure success. It is soon discovered, that plans of reform are not always brought forward with a view to any solid advantage which may be derived from them, but from motives less generous and respectable-from a wish to embarrass the administration, and to seize by violence upon the government. Grievances are selected, not with reference to their true magnitude and importance, but with a view to the effect which noisy discussion may have on the party-politics of the day; and even when the subject of complaint is wisely chosen, the manner in which it is urged is commonly but little calculated to raise those who support it in the scale of virtue and patriotism. The ministers, feeling that their conduct is unjustly assailed, and their characters wantonly traduced, are naturally provoked to resist measures by which their enemies may seem to gain an undue advantage over them; and by an obstinacy, which is rather to be pardoned than approved, are apt to car. ry their resistance farther than the

acknowledged hazards of innovation will justify. If a reasonable plan of reform, in any of the departments of state, is proposed by their opponents, they will lend their whole influence to check, for the present, the triumph which would arise to their enemies from the success of their plans; and thus it happens, that many beneficial measures are unwisely postponed ; that some are abandoned altogether, and that the interests of the country are sacrificed amid the struggles of faction. It is impossible to acquit either party of blame; but perhaps those who give the provocation-who are the first to betray narrow views, and to exhibit the unnatural union of generous plans with selfish principles, are even more culpable than their opponents, who yield to feelings of resent ment that even the wisest and best of men cannot always restrains. It is painful, however, to reflect, that from such causes measures of great public utility may often miscarry; and it is not less honourable to the parties more immediately concerned, than it is consoling to all who really love their country, when instances are found, in which truth and sense have triumphed over every obstacle, and men of all parties have united in a salutary improvement on the laws of their country. An example of this kind was afforded during the present session of parliament, in the measure which was adopted for improving the inferior ecclesiastical courts of England. The history of the jurisdiction of these courts is very curious, and serves to explain the anomalies which till lately existed in their practice. Before the Norman conquest, the ecclesiastical and temporal powers were united; but William the First, either from a wish to imitate the institutions of his own country, or to get rid, in certain cases, of the trial by jury,

contrived to accomplish their separation. The clergy, always active and ambitious, continued their encroachments on the civil power, and, even in the vigorous reign of Henry the Second, had acquired such an ascendant, that the pope ventured to deprive that able prince of his right of nominating to vacant benefices. Such advantages indeed did the clergy obtain over Henry, that, before he could make his peace with the church, he was forced to sign certain articles; by one of which it was conceded, that a layman, breaking the peace with an ecclesiastic, should be tried by the bishop; and by another, that no ecclesiastic should be amenable to the temporal powers. Their influence increased in succeeding reigns; and in that of John, rose to such a pitch, that the king himself was forced to surrender his crown into the hands of a priest, and accept it as a grant from the ecclesiastical power. The clergy had not, however, been allow

ed to make these encroachments without complaint or resistance on the part of the legislature and the people. In the reigns of Edwards First and Third, and Richard Second, several statutes were passed, for abridging their power; but they still continued to gain strength, until, in the reign of Henry the Seventh, in consequence of a dispute betwixt parliament and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions, an act was passed to make the clergy responsible to the civil courts. This innovation was violently resisted by some eminent individuals of their order: But Henry VIII. in consequence of transactions which are well known, having taken up a deep grudge against the clergy, united his influence to that of the parliament, and the temporal courts at last prevailed. A commission was appointed about this time to enquire into the abuses

which had crept into the ecclesiastical courts; but it does not appear that its proceedings were attended with any practical advantages. A similar fate attended commissions which were appointed in several succeeding reigns; and nothing was effected towards improving the constitution of these courts until the acts 26th Geo. II. and 27th Geo. III. were passed. Their constitutional canons were still nominally the same as they had been du ring the reign of Henry the Eighth; although it would be absurd to deny that the spirit of their proceedings had been softened by the improvements of modern times, and that they had participated to a large extent in the progress of refinement and civilization. Many of the persons who now preside in them are men of the very highest talents, and the most spotless character; but still there existed some absurdities in the constitution of the ecclesiastical courts, which it was important

to correct or remove.

The punishment of excommunication, the only one which can be awarded by the ecclesiastical courts, and which, by the 5th of Queen Elizabeth, may be followed up by imprisonment, affords the most striking instance of the faults in their constitution. The consequences of a sentence of excommunication, according to the strict principles of the ecclesiastical law, are extremely serious: The offender is cut off from all civil rights; he is looked on as a heathen and publican; he can succeed to no inheritance, and can bring no action; he cannot be a juror or witness in a court of law; and if he die, he is not entitled to Christian burial. This punishment, although generally awarded in cases of defamation, was however incurred only by the contumacy of the offender, who, by submitting to a slight penance, might have avoided such

severity; but the punishment itself was extremely objectionable as an abuse of a religious ceremony; and there could be no difficulty in finding a substitute for it, more efficacious and less oppressive. It was declared, in the House of Commons, by one of the greatest lawyers of this or any other age or country, who himself presides in the highest of the English ecclesiastical courts, to be the general wish of all who were connected with them, to have this barbarous and absurd custom abolished.

The attention of Lord Folkestone was attracted to this subject, by the case of Mary Ann Dix, a poor woman, who had committed some offence falling under the jurisdiction of one of the inferior ecclesiastical courts, for which she had been excommunicated and imprisoned. For this unfortunate woman his lordship presented a petition to the House of Commons, in which the circumstances of her case were very fully stated; but unfortunately, his lordship, in the course of the discussion, did not confine himself to those points in the practice of the courts which were really deserving of censure, but entered on a wide field of groundless accusation. He proposed that a committee should be appointed to institute an enquiry far more extensive and embarrassing than the occasion demanded. He complained not only of the punishment of excommunication, but of the heavy costs which were incurred in the ecclesiastical courts-a complaint which might, with as much justice, have been urged against any other court in the kingdom, and the statement of which could hardly be attended with any beneficial results, thus hastily brought forward, without notice or preparation. He spoke, in general terms, of enormous abuses which existed in the practice of these courts, although he was able, out