of this island. Let me at last release you from this volume of a letter.

Yours ever affectionately,

FRA. HORNER,

In the year 1831, Mr. Spring Rice had the kindness to send me two letters, which he had received from my brother, in June, 1815, when his attention had been first directed to this subject, by reading the pamphlet of Mr. Rice, referred to at the beginning of the above letter to Mr. Murray, a copy of which he had received from the author. As the letter to Mr. Murray contains the substance of Mr. Horner's letters to Mr. Spring Rice, it is unnecessary to insert them here; but Mr. Rice, when he sent them to me, added the following interesting statement, which renders the history of the measure more complete.

"Mr. Spring Rice expressed to Mr. Horner his anxiety that the bill should be declaratory rather than enacting, as, if the latter course were taken, it might raise doubts whether the law of evidence was the same in both parts of the empire, and inferences might even from thence be raised with respect to the whole common law of Ireland. Mr. Peel's apprehensions with respect to the feelings of the Irish judges were fully realised by the event. It is generally understood that those functionaries met, and, with one or two exceptions, protested against Mr. Horner's measure, not only as an innovation wholly uncalled for, but as one which stigmatised the judicial procedure of Ireland as unconstitutional and illegal. It was said that this existing system had never been complained of, that it had existed from time immemorial, that it had not only been sanctioned by the authority of

the most eminent practical characters in modern times, Chief Baron Hussey Burgh, Lord Kilwarden, Lord Avonmore, and others, but that Chief Baron Gilbert, recognised as a text writer on the law of evidence, had approved of a practice which the rashness of modern reform and the theories of a Scotchman, unacquainted with Ireland, its wants, or interests, sought to overthrow. Mr. Horner's intended bill was made the matter of acrimonious animadversion by Lord Norbury, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. This learned person endeavoured to raise a cry against the change, as involving an attack upon Ireland, and all its institutions. These efforts entirely failed, and Mr. Horner's bill was carried without any parliamentary opposition.

"The importance of this reform can hardly be sufficiently appreciated. It should be recollected that in 1815, and indeed it may be added in later times, the state of the Irish magistracy was, to use the words of the late Mr. Ponsonby any thing but what it ought to be? Divided into parties, where one justice of the peace committed, his neighbour interfered to bail. No meetings at petty sessions were known; and local politics and religious differences were but too frequently the causes of partiality and of undue bias. Where an information was sworn, the usual course taken on the part of the person charged was to apply to a magistrate, and swear a cross information against the complainant. Both parties were either bailed or committed, and the aggrieved, as well as the criminal party, was sent in, to stand trial. A person who might be an inconvenient witness was included in the information, and all became confusion, as well as injustice. The magistrates were careless, even when they were not open to more serious suspicions. But when the name of the committing 29

VOL. II.

magistrates came before the grand jury, and that the committal and charge were compared with the evidence for the prosecution, in the presence of twenty-three of the principal gentry of the county, much more discretion was necessarily used, and not only were the people protected against unjust accusations, but a reform was necessarily produced in the conduct of the magistracy. The course of justice became more certain, the number of convictions increased in proportion to the commitments. The system of indictment and cross indictment was checked; and though it was expected that the business of grand juries would become more heavy, it was, in fact, lightened, and performed in a manner infinitely more satisfactory.

"If the life of Mr. Horner had been spared, he would have had the satisfaction of finding that all parties, even including the judges, concurred in approving of his Bill within a very few years of their mistaken and jealous opposition. The magnitude, as well as the effective nature of this reform, is now admitted on all hands; and it is certainly not among the least important of Mr. Horner's services in Parliament, to have succeeded in this great reform, opposed as he was by those whose legal authority presented an obstacle difficult to be overcome. The conduct of the Irish judges is one among many proofs, that those who administer the laws can seldom bring themselves to take large or useful views of legal reform. Their faggots of ideas are bound up, they cannot bring themselves to unloose them, and the very complexities and obscurities which are sources of loss and inconvenience to others present to them difficulties to be overcome, opportunities of gratifying their self-love, by displays of learning, and proofs of ingenuity and research."

TREATIES OF PEACE

On the second day of the session, Lord Castlereagh presented to the House, by command of the Prince Regent, the "General Treaty, signed in Congress at Vienna, June 9, 1815, with the acts thereunto annexed,” and on a subsequent day, the Definitive Treaty concluded at Paris, on the 20th of November, 1815, with the King of France. On the 19th of February, in moving an Address of Thanks to the Prince Regent for these communications, he entered into a full exposition and defence of the policy of the allied powers in the arrangements which took place at the Congress of Vienna, in the whole course of the measures which led to the commencement, the prosecution, and conclusion of the war, occasioned by the return of Bonaparte from Elba, as well as the subsequent negotiations of Paris; and he characterised the proceedings of the Congress of Vienna as being only a definitive arrangement of the treaty of peace concluded at Paris, in May, 1814. He ended by moving a series of resolutions, expressing the satisfaction of the House with the terms of these treaties, and more particularly," that it had been found practicable to combine the measures which Europe owed to its own safety with a just and liberal policy towards his most Christian Majesty."

Lord Milton moved, as an amendment, a series of counter resolutions, condemnatory of the policy which had been pursued, and of the terms of the treaties which had been concluded. This amendment was supported by Sir James Mackintosh in a long and able speech; and after he sat down the debate was adjourned. It was resumed the following day, when Sir Samuel Romilly fol

lowed on the same side, reprobating especially the establishment of Louis XVIII. on the throne of France, by a military force, against the will of the nation.

After several other members had spoken, Mr. Horner rose, late in the evening, and delivered a speech which appears to have made a great impression. It is described by Sir Samuel Romilly in his Diary* as having been "admirable ;" and I am informed that the Speaker, the late Lord Colchester, said of it, that it was "most powerful, argumentative, and profound, and altogether one of the most able speeches he had ever heard in that House." The report of it, as given in Hansard's Debates, will be found in the Appendix.

LETTER CCLVIII. TO HIS MOTHER.

My dear Mother,

21st Feb. 1816.

I have not time to write more than a few lines to-day; for after being up nearly all night, I have been very busy all morning in the House of Lords. You will find I was busy too in the other House; whether the newspaper gives any correct account of me, I do not know yet, for, except looking at the praises bestowed upon me, which of course I found time to read, I have not read the report. My friends tell me I did well; and I have great satisfaction in having had my breath out about the Bourbons and Castlereagh.

My kind love to all at home.

Most affectionately yours,

FRA. HORNER.

"The topics on which I principally dwelt had not been touched upon by any speaker who had preceded me; but most of them were afterwards very