Mence of the public. But, the accumulation of business, and hardship that followed from the delay of jus tice, were not confined to the house of lords. It was found, that whether from the defective constitution or faulty administration of the court of session, a similar accumulation of business had taken place before that court itself, so that from every part of Scotland, complaints were heard of the extraordinary delay attending its decisions. Delay was not, how ever, the only defect complained of in the supreme judicature of Scotland. The variableness of its rules of decision; the uncertainty of what were the principles, on which, in many cases,its judgments were founded; its inattention to precedents and disregard of forms, together with the unnecessary and enormous expence of extracting its decreets without which no effect could be given to its judgment, were grounds of complaint no less just and well founded, nor less imperiously calling for some remedy.

Soon after lord Grenville came into office, he applied his mind seriously to consider of a proper remedy for these evils, and after much deliberation with the persons best qualified to assist him with their advice, he submitted to the house of lords the outlines of a plan, which he had devised for the reform of the court of session. This plan he laid before the house in the form of resolations, which were printed, and ordered to lic over till next session of parliament, that they might in the mean time be maturely considered by those who were best enabled, by

their professional and local knowledge, to form an opinion of their merits, and judge of the degree in which they were calculated to remedy the defects of the existing system. As this plan, however, did not come into discussion till the ensuing session of parliament, we shall avoid entering into the details of it at present, and merely state some of its most general outlines. It proposed then to divide the present court of session into three chambers, with concurrent jurisdiction, and an option given to suitors of carrying their causes before whichever chamber they liked best. It proposed also to introduce trial by jury in civil causes, on the model of that of England; and to establish an interme diate court of review, to which appeals from the chambers should be carried in the first instance, before they could be brought to the house of lords. The monstrous abuse of extracting the decreets of the court, in the manner now practised, was also proposed to be abolished, and provision made, to enable old and infirm judges to retire from office, when no longer capable of discharg ing its duties. We shall only add, that though considerable differences of opinion arose in Scotland, with respect to the subordinate parts of the plan, its general outline, (with the exception of that part relating to the court of review,) was very ge nerally, we had almost said universally, approved of in that kingdom.

A bill brought into the house of commons by Mr. Tierney to explain and render more effectual the treat. ing act, after undergoing several al

2

terations

terations in the committee, was fi nally rejected by the house. This bill was introduced upon the ground that the expositions of the treating act by the courts of law and committees of the house of commons were at variance, and that a declaratory act was therefore necessary, to remove the uncertainty to which such different constructions of the law had given rise. It was proposed by this bill to include in treating the conveyance of electors to and from the place of election at the expence of the candidates; the intention of which was, to enable men of moderate fortunes to embark in contests for parliament, without the ruinous expences usually attending contested elections; and as resident voters are commonly decided by mo. tives of local influence in giving their suffrages, while non-resident electors are ready to engage their votes to any one who will convey them to the place of election, this measure was also expected to increase the weight of the natural aristocracy of the country, and to diminish the influence of mere monied men in borough elections. Some of the arguments for the bill were not destitute of plausibility, but the objection fatal to it was, that it disfranchised nine-tenths of the freeholders in the large counties, and all the non-resident electors of cities and boroughs, by taking from them the means of conveyance to the place of election, which candidates at present afford them, and without which they can. not possibly exercise the elective franchise. According to a just re. mark of Mr. Fox, in his speech upon the bill," it was a bill in favour of candidates against the electors."

Another bill, which shared the

same fate with the preceding, was the stipendiary curate's bill, than which one more unjust in its principle, or more absurd in its provi sions, was never obtruded upon parliament. This bill proceeded on the false and dangerous principle, that the legislature has a right to take the stipends of church incumbents, and expend them according to its notions of expediency. That church incumbents, as servants of the state, arc compellable to perform any duties connected with their sacred functions, which the legislature may chuse to impose upon them, is a position that will not be controverted; nor will it be denied, that the legislature is lawfully competent, prospectively, and with due regard to the interests of patrons, to take the patrimony of the church, and apply it to other uses than those to which it is applicable at present. But, to proceed with respect to incumbents actually possessed of livings, as if the legislature had a right, not merely to regulate their duties and services, but to interfere with their property, and assign a portion of it to other persons, on the pre tence of public expediency, is to shake the foundations of all property, and to tread in the exact footsteps of the French revolutionists, who took from the church its patrimony, and without regard to the rights of the incumbents, applied it to other purposes, which were alledged to be more conducive to the general welfare. Yet such were the principles on which the stipendiary curate's bill proceeded. Its object was, to fix by law the sum to be paid by clergymen to their curates, and most absurdly it regulated the stipend of the curate, not by the

duty

duty he had to perform, bat by the value of the living in which he served The bill was objectionable ia another point of view, on account of the additional power which it conferred on bishops over the inferior clergy. It was, therefore, most deservedly thrown out by the bouse of Coamons.

A motion of lord Henry Petty, towards the close of the session, on nccine inoculation, was received with approbation by all sides of the house. The motion was in the following words; "that an humble address be presented to his majesty, to request that his majesty will be graciously pleased to direct his royal colege of physicians to inquire into the state of vaccine inoculation in the united kingdom and to report their opinion and observations on that practice, the evidence which has been adduced in its support, and the causes which have hitherto retarded its general adoption; and that his majesty will be graciously pleased to direct, that the said report, when made, may be laid before this house." The object of this motion was, in the first place, to quiet the public apprehensions on the subject of vaccination, and to remove the uneasiness and alarm which rash, ignorant, and designing en had excited in the minds of many persons, by false or exaggerated statements of the failure of vaccination, and of the bad conse. quences following that practice; and, in the second place, it was intended, if the report of the college of physicians should be favourable to vaccination, to vote an additional reward to Dr. Jenner for his valug ble discovery and disinterested condact, in freely imparting it to the public.

VOL. XLVIIL

Towards the close of the former session of parliament, charges of a most serious nature, urged in terms of singular acrimony and virulence, had been brought against eail St. Vincent by Mr. Jeffery (member for Poole), at the instigation, as it was commonly believed, of the navy board; and voluminous papers, some of them moved for by Mr. Jeffery, and others by admiral Markham in defence of carl St. Vincent, had been ordered to be laid before the house. These papers were presented by Mr Dickenson, on the second day of the present session, and ordered to be printed ; but, a few days afterwards, a motion was made by Mr. Jeffery to discharge the order for printing them. The pretence for this motion was, that printing so large a collection of papers would occasion much unnecessary delay, and Mr. Jeffery scrupled not to say, that to gain time was the sole objest of the friends of the noble lord, in all their motions, according to the system of procrastination, which, be asserted, they had studiously pursued from the beginning. It was unnecessary, he contended, to print the whole of the papers laid be fore the house, because many of them were irrelevant to the charges; and useless to incur so great an expence, for no one would take the trouble to read them. He proposed, therefore, it his present motion should be adopted, to follow it up by another for referring the papers before the house to a select committee, who should examine them, determine what ought to be printed, and reject the rest But whatever might be the determination of the house upon this point, he pledged himself to persist in his accusation of the noble lord, to which he proII

tested

tested he had been led by no motive of private animosity, but by a sense of public duty alone.

Mr Jeffery was answered by admiral Markham, Mr. Tierney, and several other persons. His charge of procrastination against the friends of lord St. Vincent, was pronounced to be an unfounded and scandalous calumny. Many severe and pointed remarks were made on his conduct throughout this affair; and he was asked, how he came to be acquainted with the contents of the papers before the house, which he could not possibly have read since they were presented. The indecency of thus attempting to mutilate and garble papers, which the friends of the noble earl thought necessary for his justification, and the absurdity of an accuser presuming to judge and decide for the person accused what papers were necessary for his defence, were so strongly put by the friends of the noble carl, and so generally felt by the house, that Mr. Jeffery, receiving no encouragement to persist in his motion, was glad, with permission of the house, to withdraw it. All the papers moved for on both sides being at length printed, and laid before the house, Mr. Jeffery brought forward his charges on the 14th of May, by reading first a long written speech against lord St. Vincent, and then, twenty-four resolutions, being a summary and recapitulation of his speech, which he moved to refer to a committee of the whole house. Twenty-two of the resolutious contained the statements and allegations, from which the charges in the two last were deduced; and these were, that " during the time lord St. Vincent preaided at the admiralty, the royal

navy was not maintained in a com. plete and efficient state ;" and that, he was guilty of great negligence, misconduct, and dereliction of duty, in the office of first lord of the admiralty."

Our limits will not permit us to enter into the details either of the accusation or of the defence; nor have our readers any reason to regret that the particulars are not laid before them of a charge, so frivolous and vexatious as this was. It is sufficient to state, that lord St. Vincent was most ably and satisfactorily vindicated by admiral Markham and lord Howick. The statements and comparisons of Mr. Jeffery were shewn either to be incorrect and unfair, or to relate to departments of the navy service under the immediate control of the navy board. The only error that could be imputed to lord St. Vincent was, that he misunderstood the nature of his control over the members of that board, and did not remove them, when he found them unfit for their situation. It was possible that lord St. Vincent might be mistaken in his opinion, that the king's dock-yards were capable, under proper regulations, of serving for all the purposes of the navy, without any recourse to the merchants' yards, either for building or repairing ships; but that opinion, though it might be erroneous, was not criminal, nor was it yet proved that it was erroneous. The enormous frauds practised on government in the merchant's yards, the collusive dealings between the dockyard clerks and the timber merchants, and the frauds and abuses of every kifid in the king's dock-yards, the detection and suppression of