of innovation, would lend his aid in carrying the requisite improvements into effect. Sir S. then dwelt upon the particular circumstances of hardship and cruelty in the case of the petitioner, whose only crime had been the application of a coarse expression to another woman in the same low class of life.

Sir John Nicholl defended the conduct of the ecclesiastical court in which the case in question arose, and also the ecclesiastical jurisdictions in general, at the same time acknowledging that the mode of excommunication was objectionable, and that a remedy for its inconveniences was desirable.

Mr. W. Smith spoke in favour of the motion, and referred to a case of a seven years imprisonment of two females at Nottingham for a contempt in an ecclesiastical court. As to the objection that the proposed inquiry would cast a slur on

the courts in question, he said, was there not a standing order of the House that a grand committee of inquiry into courts of justice should sit every Saturday? He concluded with expressing his opinion that all other modes of rectifying these abuses would fail, and therefore he would vote for the motion.

The Attorney General said, that a challenge had been given to his right honourable friend to bring in a bill on this subject, which he did not doubt would be accepted.

Lord Folkstone begged to be informed by Sir W. Scott if such was his intention. Sir William replied, amidst cheers from all sides, that if it was the sense of the House that such a measure was expedient, he should certainly comply.

Lord F. said, that with this understanding he should with pleasure withdraw his motion, which, after leave obtained from the House, was accordingly done.

CHAPTER

THE

HE state of Ireland, in which country the proceedings of the catholics in furtherance of their plan of petitioning by delegation on one hand, and the opposition of the government to their measures on the other, had occasioned a considerable ferment at the close of the past year, early engaged the attention of parliament; and debates arose in both Houses on that topic, the great length of which will permit us only to give a slight sketch of the arguments employed by the principal speakers-a circumstance, indeed, the less to be regretted, as the subject of the catholic claims has already been rendered familiar to the public.

On January 31, Earl Fitzwilliam rose in the House of Lords, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of their lordships to the situation of a very important part of the British empire. He little thought, when he gave notice of his motion, that he should have to lament the existence of circumstances which must add to the discontents already subsisting in that country. Yet, from the account which had reached London by the last mail, he found that the jury impanneled to try one of the catholic delegates had been tampered with, and that the crown

solicitor had been marking and altering the list in a manner that proved the exercise of the undue influence of government. After some observations on this point, he said, that independently of this circumstance, there were sufficient grounds for his motion in the discontents arising from the denial to the catholic body of the enjoyment of the rights possessed by their fellow citizens; the injustice and impolicy of which denial he proceeded to shew; and he concluded with moving, That the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the present situation of affairs in Ireland."

The motion was seconded by the Duke of Devonshire; after which the Earl of Rosse rose, and first remarked on the uncertain grounds upon which the noble earl had made his attack on the Irish government. He then made a number of observations on the tone of hostility assumed by the catholics in their conventional measures, which necessarily required the vigour of government to resist it.

The Earl of Aberdeen argued on the same side. After all the concessions made to the catholics, of what (said he) did they now complain? Their complaint was re

duced

duced to this, that they were still precluded from holding certain offices in the state. Would their advocates contend that as a matter of right they could claim an admissibility to them? If that doctrine was set up, he, for one, would not hesitate to declare that it was not tenable. His lordship then went into a vindication of the measures of the Irish government, and the late judicial proceedings; and he concluded with regarding the question as one of expediency, on which ground, he should vote against the

motion.

The Marquis of Downshire spoke chiefly to the act of union, and the failure of the assurance given to the Irish catholics at the time of passing it, and which, if persisted in, would cause a permanent separation of heart and mind, notwithstanding a nominal union.

The Earl of Hardwicke alluded to his own administration in Ireland, and could see no reason why any penal laws against the catholics should remain in force, when the cause of their enactment no longer subsisted.

Of Lord Sidmouth's speech, the most observable part was the view he took of the subject, in the following terms:-He asked, was not this a religious question? Was not the house called upon to protect the true religion established by law in this country? And must they not greatly detract from that estimation in which it was essential it should be held, by allowing it to be supposed that they so far countenanced mass, as to put it on a level with the established religion-allowing it to be regarded as a matter of in difference whether persons went

to church, to mass, or to the gogue?

syna

Marquis Wellesley began a speech of great force and comprehension, by a view of all that had been done by the Irish government in this matter, the whole of which he vigorously defended. He asserted that no obstruction had been given to the legal exercise of the right of petitioning by the catholics; that the convention act was a measure of prevention proved salutary by experience; that due warning had been given to the catholics of the lateintention of putting it in force; that the legal proceedings had been just and dignified; and that on these points there was no. ground for the proposed inquiry. He then proceeded to a general consideration of the cause of the Irish catholics, respecting which, he said, he did not agree with any of the declared champions in this conflict. His noble friend, the earl of Aberdeen, had most justly styled it a question of mere state expediency, in which opinion he entirely concurred. Toleration (said the marquis) is the intermediate point between persecution and encouragement; the boundaries of these, however, can no otherwise be ascertained, than by reference to the relative situation of the parties, and the circumstances of the state and times. It is a clear and undeniable maxim, that every state possesses a right to restrain whatever is dangerous to its security, and no sect or individual can assert a right against the state. On the other hand, every restraint excluding any description of subjects from the advantages possessed by the community, is a

positive

positive evil, which can be endured only so long as the probable danger to be incurred by its removal exceeds the mischief of its continuance. How does this reasoning apply to the catholics of Ireland? what justification remains for continuing the restraint of which they complain? The marquis then declared that, in his judgment, the mischief of continuing the system of restraint greatly overbalanced any danger to be ap prehended from reverting to the more mild and liberal policy which had adorned the earlier periods of his majesty's reign. The political power possessed by the catholics of Ireland afforded matter of deep reflection. It must be the policy of every wise state to connect all per sons possessing such power with the general frame of the community, to blend their individual pursuits with the common interests of the state, and to attach them by the ties of honourable ambition and honest gain to the established order of the government. It was not so much a question whether additional political power should be given to the Irish catholics, as whether they should now be refused those appendages to their political power which would identify its exercise with the interests of the state, and constitute the bonds and pledges of attachment to government. After pursuing this vein of reflection for some time, lord Wellesley touched upon the delicate point of the danger to the protestant establishment in Ireland; and contended, that the removal of the catholic restraints, so far from being dan gerous to the establishment, was indispensably necessary for its se curity, since it could never be safe

while such a force of discontent was arrayed against it, a force which would be disarmed most effectually by abolishing the causes of dissatisfaction. He then shewed, that their desires were not unreasonable, or the offspring of a criminal ambition, but implied a just sense of the constitutional use of the advantages they had already gained. Having expressed his opinion on these points, he proceeded to say, that he trusted he should not be accused of a spirit of procrastination or delusion if he now objected to enter into a committee for the purpose of instantaneously removing the restrictions under which the catholics laboured. His reasons for this conduct were drawn from the menacing attitude which they assumed, their outrages on the law of the land, the passing trials of the offenders, and the propriety of giving time for the return of tranquillity before the voice of petition could be heard in a tone adapted to the solemnity of the occasion.

The Marquis of Lansdowne wished to inquire how the last noble speaker, after urging his arguments for the removal of all partial restrictions, could come to his final conclusions.

In his mind there could be no period more appropriate for a full discussion of this subject than the present, when parliament was about establishing a new government. He then took a view of that part of the marquis's speech which went to vindicate the conduct of the Irish government, and attempted to shew that it had been wavering and inconsistent, and that the judicial proceedings had been deficient in candour and justice.

A number

pronouncing the proposition of the right honourable secretary the silliest that could possibly have been made. After supporting this assertion by ridiculing the notion of a grave inquiry into the state of the nightly watch, he digressed to the conduct of the Shadwell magistrates on the late atrocities in that quarter, to the suspicions thro n on foreigners aud Irishmen, and the harsh treatment of the latter, to the neglect in suffering Williams to commit suicide, and the unseemly parade of his funeral. He concluded with recommending to the right honourable secretary, that as he had shown to-night that he had not as yet thought at all on the subject of the police, he would begin to think of it with all possible dispatch.

Other members joined in the debate, of which it is unnecessary to relate any further particulars. The question was then put and carried, and the committee was named, in which were the members for London, Westminster, Middlesex, and Surrey.

With respect to further proceedings on this subject, we only find that on March 24th the committee' appointed for the purpose, presented to the House an elaborate report, in which they suggested a variety of regulations and improvements; that a bill was framed upon these suggestions; and that on July 4th, upon the presenting of a petition against it from one of the London parishes, several members expressed their disapprobation of its provisions, on account of the expense, and the new aud extraord nary powers which it would create, and recommended its postponement.

No further mention of it occurs during this session.

On January 21, Mr. Brougham, pursuant to notice, called the attention of the House of Commons to a question which he stated to be simply this, whether the crown had the power to use certain sums of money without any grant from parliament, or even without its privity? That, to which he meant particularly to direct his observations, was the enormous fund called the droits of admiralty, connected with which, however, were the crown revenues arising from the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, the 4 per cent. duties raised in Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands, and the surplus of the Scotch revenue. After some

statement relative to these last funds, he went to that which was his peculiar topic, viz. the droits of the king as lord high admiral of England, supposed to be vested in the crown, because for the last century the office above mentioned was not conferred away from it. To this belonged all sums arising from wrecks and goods of pirates; but the great bulk of it arose from prizes. All ships detained previously to a declaration of war; all coming into port from ignorance of hostilities between this and other countries; all taken before the issuing of proclamation, and those taken by non-commissioned captors, were sold, and the profits arising from their sequestration composed the droits of admiralty. By the last returns laid before the House on May 30, 1810, it appeared that the sum of 7,344,6777. had been paid in on this account since 1793, and it