not remedy the evil. The hardships complained of in a great measure arose from the jealousy of the courts of common law in regard to the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts, which compelled them to a circuitous mode of giving effect to their decisions, thereby enhancing the costs. The appointment of a committee could not give relief in any one of the points to which his noble friend had alluded: he thought, however, there was one subject to which he had referred, which was of great importance, namely, the appointment of persons to exercise ecclesiastical authority in the inferior courts, who did not possess the requisite qualifications. Sir William Scott said, that he could hardly believe that the noble mover was himself aware of the nature and effect of his motion, and he trusted the house would pause before they agreed to the proposed inquiry. Let them consider the number of persons who must be brought up to be examined from different parts of the country at an expense they were ill able to discharge. Let them also reflect that every court, however inferior in its jurisdiction, was entitled to be held in a decent state of respect till it was proved to have done something to forfeit its character. The points which ecclesiastical courts were called upon to decide were not so limited as the noble lord supposed. They included matrimonial and testamentary law, tythes, and many cases affecting the civil rights of mankind. He should not say that such jurisdiction ought to be conferred on the consistorial courts, but such they had enjoyed for centuries. Our ecclesiastical law had been improved, and under the guidance of the courts of common law, had approximated to the changes in the situation of the country. The noble lord had been able to select only seven cases of what he called abuse and oppression, and he had erred in terming those causes, which were in fact merely suits, the ordinary process of all who claimed legal redress for an illegal wrong. Sir W. then proceeded to comment upon some of these cases, and particularly on that which was the subject of the petition before the house. After various observations in defence of the ecclesiastical courts, he said, that he did not pretend to assert that their constitution might not be improved, and in his opinion, a diminution of their number would be beneficial. As to the particular punishment by excommunication, he wished some other were substituted in its place. It appeared to him an abuse of a religious ceremony, and that it would not be difficult to find a substitute for it which would be more efficacious, less expensive, oppressive, and unseemly. Sir S. Romilly spoke in favour of the proposed inquiry, as not of the extensive nature which had been represented, but only in the first instance requiring an investigation of the cases particularly before them, and of the state of the courts out of which they had issued, He thought much good might arise from it, especially if the right honourable gentleman, who had distinctly expressed himself in favour of an alteration in the existing law, and whose known admiration of established institutions would preclude the danger of a cry of 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 juris'dictions 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 year's 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 CHAPTER IV. Motion on the State of Ireland-New Bill to prohibit the granting of Offices in Reversion-Bills for the Punishment of Frame-breaking, and for the Preservation of Peace in the County of Nottingham. HE state of Ireland, in which solicitor had been marking and T country altering list in a 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 endered 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 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 gogue? duced to this, that they were still to church, to mass, or to the syna- 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 indifference whether persons went 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 bad been given to the catholics of the late intention 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 intermediaté 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 dan ger 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 apprehended 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 al: persons 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 ho nest 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 dangerous to the establishment, was indispensably necessary for its seeurity, 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 num |