or Russia; and in his opinion the cause of the war was solely in the orders of council; and he appealed to Mr. Foster, the late ambassador to that country, and now sitting in the house, whether an earlier repeal of these orders would not have prevented the war. Now, however, the subject of impressment was the only obstacle to peace, and a most important one it was. He was sensible how much the safety of the country would be endangered by a surrender of the right without a sufficient substitute, and was aware of the great difficulty of finding such a substitute. He thought, however, that Mr. Russell's proposal ought to have been rejected in a more conciliatory manner, and the door not to have been shut against future negociation, with a phrase about maritime rights. The noble lord had stated that there were about 1,600 American seamen in our service, but had not noticed that there were at least ten times as many of British seamen in the service of America; which he mentioned to show that it was even more for our interest than for that of America, to court negociation on this point. He observed, that though there might be only 1,600 American seamen detained for life in our navy, it was no captious ground of complaint: it was a matter not to be settled by a balance of numbers, nor ought it to be regarded in that light. He then adverted to the conduct of the war, and held that with our naval establishment we ought to have blockaded the whole American coast.

Mr. Foster then rose, and in reply to the appeal of the last speak

er, said that he could not affirm that the revocation of the orders in council previously to the commencement of hostilities, would have had the effect of averting them. Their repeal might have weighed something with the government, but he did not think that the government was sufficiently master of the congress to be able to do what it thought most beneficial for the country. He could not agree with the opinion of the hon. gentleman, that there was no party in America friendly to France: the revolution had made a strong impression there; and although the subsequent turn of affairs might have detached the better part from them, they were yet a powerful party. There was also an anti-anglican party, who took every opportunity to foment animosity against Great Britain. There were no fewer than six united Irishmen in the Congress, distinguished by their inveterate enmity to this country. Mr. F. made many observations on the state of parties in America, and on its effect in producing the measures which had led to hostilities. The war, he said, was carried in Congress by that rancorous faction against the English, who persuaded others to join them through fear that a difference might break up the democratic party; and in the senate the war measure was carried by the opponents of govèrnment, who were desirous of making it unpopular.

Mr. Whitbread was glad to have heard from the hon. gentleman that neither Mr. Monroe or Mr. Madison seemed to him to be actuated solely by a spirit of rostility towards this country. The

latter

latter person had been much reviled by the noble lord and others for his attachment to the politics of France, but it now appeared that the war had been produced by causes beyond his controul. He could not consider America as being wholly to blaine in the production of the war; and he was justified by a review of the history and progress of the preceding negociations to ascribe to the conduct of our own government the existing rupture between the two countries. On this point Mr. W. entered into various particulars; and with respect to the American practice of naturalizing British-born subjects, and denationalizing them, he observed that there were two acts upon our statute books by which every foreigner who served two years in any vessel, military or merchant, was entitled to every protection of a natural-born subject of this realm: and he apprehended that if an American had served two years in our navy, and the vessel in which he sailed was boarded by an American armed ship which should claim him, he would be entitled to the protection of this country, and our government would have a right to refuse to give him up. Mr. W. then strongly reprehended the attempts to attribute the conduct of America on this occasion to French influence, and denied that she had ever declared in favour of France. If truth must be spoken, she had always been in the right in her disputes with us until, by the declaration of war, she had changed her situation, and he hoped that this advantage which she had given us would be used on our parts with wisdom and discretion,

Mr. Canning, in a long and eloquent speech, in which he was frequently greeted with cheers, undertook the defence of the British government in its proceedings previous to the late negociations, and in the negociations themselves. With respect to the English acts relative to foreign sailors, referred to by Mr. W. he said that he had understood them only as granting municipal privileges to such persons, and by no means as impairing their native allegiance to their own sovereigns; and therefore that there was no similitude between these enactments, and the pretensions of America in their naturalizations. With regard to the right of search, he repeated the arguments used in the Regent's declaration against first abandoning a right of which we are in lawful possession, and then trusting to negociation for its restoration, or the substitution of an equivalent. But the topic on which he principally employed his eloquence was an invective against the American government for having taken the time when Great Britain was deeply engaged in the glorious struggle for the emancipation of Europe from tyranny, to impede her exertions, and league itself with the oppressor. Having thus declared his sentiments concerning the general grounds of the dispute between the two countries, he assumed his part of a censurer of the present administration, by remarking on their want of vigour and decision in the measures which had followed the declaration of war.

After Mr. Croker had made some observations in defence of the conduct of the admiralty, and

bad

had stated some facts in proof of the misrepresentations and unfair proceedings of the Americans relative to the impressing of seamen ; and a few words had been added by other members; the question was put, and carried without opposition.

A similar address being moved in the House of Lords by Earl Bathurst, on Feb. 18th, the day for taking into consideration the pipers relative to the war with America, a debate ensued, in which the arguments employed were so perfectly similar to those above reported, that it is unnecessary to particularize them. The address was carried without a division.

The great inconveniencies arising from the accumulation of business in the court of chancery, which rendered it impossible for the same person to preside in that court, and also to perform all his functions in the House of Lords, and as a high political character, had for a considerable time past engaged the attention of both Houses of Parliament, and a bill for the appointment of a new law officer, under the title of vice-chancellor, had in the last session been laid before the House of Lords, in which no alteration had been proposed, but it had miscarried in the Commons. Almost immediately after the assembling of the new parliament, on Dec. 1, 1812, Lord Redesdale presented to the House of Lords a bill for the better administation of justice, which he stated to be the same with that introduced in the preceding session, and after he had made a short observation on the necessity of some assistance to the lord-chancellor in the discharge of his mul

tifarious duties, the bill was read the first time, and ordered to be printed.

On Dec. 7, the order of the day standing for going into a committee on the bill, Lord Holland rose to submit a motion for further information respecting the bill, and particularly for the production of the report of the committee of the House of Commons appointed to enquire into the causes of delay in the decision of suits in the court of chancery. Lord Redesdale made no opposition to this motion, but at the same time assured the House that no information could he derived from that report capable of altering the opinion of their lordships on the proposed measure. The order of the day being then read, Lord Holland again rose to state to the House some objections to the bill, which were replied to by Lord Redesdale, and the bill passed through a committee, and was ordered to be reported.

The further proceedings on this bill, in which many of the ablest members in both Houses, especially those of the legal profession, took different sides, produced a mass of argumentation of which it would be impossible to give an ade quate view in such a summary as we are confined to by our limits, especially as the topics discussed were of so technical a nature. We shall therefore only note the parliamentary circumstances attending the passing of this bill, and insert in its proper place an abridged account of its provisions.

On Feb. 11, the second reading of the vice-chancellor's bill was moved in the House of Commons by Lord Castlereagh, in a speech, in which he stated at large the

causes

causes which rendered the creation of such an office advisable, and the reasons that had induced his Majesty's ministers to propose the bill. A long debate ensued, in which a number of members joined: Mr. Banks having moved as an amendment, that the bill be taken into consideration that day six months, a division ensued, in which the votes on the amendment were, ayes, 122; noes, 201. Majority against it, 79. The question for the second reading was then carried without a division. It is to be observed that the support and opposition to the bill for the most part coincided with the distinction of members as ministerial and antiministerial.

The order of the day for going into a committee on the bill was moved by Lord Castlereagh on February 15th. After an amendment for putting off the committee to that day fortnight had been negatived, the House went into the committee, and various clauses were agreed to. The report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on that day sen'night.

On Feb. 22d, the consideration of the report was accordingly resumed, and after a further debate of no great length, a suggested amendment was negatived, and the report was agreed to without a division. The bill afterwards passed on to a law without farther opposition.

Sir Samuel Romilly, with that perseverance in his endeavours to amend the criminal law of the country which has done him so much honour, introduced to the House of Commons on February 17th, a bill which had twice passed

that House, but had been twice rejected by the House of Lords. This was a bill for the purpose of repealing the act which made it a capital offence to steal property to the amount of five shillings privately in a shop or warehouse. The priuciple, he said, upon which he founded his bill, was precisely the same as that which he had before stated; namely, the inexpediency of suffering pena! laws to exist which were not intended to be executed. A demonstration of this inexpediency was found in the returns of the criminal courts of London and Middlesex during the years 1805, 6, 7, 8, 9, in which the number of persons committed for this offence amounted to 188, of whom 18 only had been convicted, and not one executed. This was a pretty accurate criterion to shew that there was no intention of putting the law into execution; and the consequence was, that where some punishment was deserved, none at all was inflicted, and the offender escaped with impunity. The honourable and learned member then quoted with due encomium the following sentence from Mr. Burke's Observations on the penal laws. "The question is, whether in a well-constituted commonwealth it is wise to retain laws not put in force? A penal law not ordinarily executed must be deficient in justice or wisdom, or both. But we are told that we may trust to the operation of manners to relax the law. On the contrary, the laws ought to be always in unison with the manners, and corroborative of them, otherwise the effect of both will be lessened." Our passions ought not to be right, and our reason, of

which law is the organ, wrong." After some further remarks on the subject, Sir Samuel proceeded to say, that he next proposed to introduce a bill relative to the common law punishment in cases of high-treason. The sentence, as it stood, was most shocking and barbarous. It was, indeed, now never executed; but it was obligatory upon the judges to pronounce it according to the letter; and the mitigation of punishment was left to the care, and its aggravation to the negligence, of the executioner. He meant therefore to move for a bill to alter the punishment of high-treason; and another, to take away the corruption of blood as a consequence of attainder of treason or felony. He concluded his speech by moving, "that leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act of King William as takes away the benefit of clergy from persons privately stealing in any shop, warehouse, coach-house, or stable, any goods, wares, or merchandizes, of the value of five shillings; and for more effectually preventing the crimes of stealing privately in shops, warehouses, &c."

The solicitor-general, Sir Wm. Garrow, then made some general observations on the principles of the proposed bills, and introduced several facts from his own know ledge, of the advantage of the discretionary power vested in the judges. He did not mean, how ever, to oppose the introduction of the bills, which there would be future opportunities of examining.

After some remarks by other members, leave was granted to Sir S. Romilly to bring in his three bills.

On March 26th, Sir S. Romilly having moved the third reading of his bill respecting privately stealing in shops, &c. the attorney-general, Sir Thomas Plumer, rose to express his disapprobation of it. He was well assured that the crime in question had increased; and the opinions of all the judges, and of the recorder and common serjeant of London, that this bill would be found inadequate, weighed very strongly with him. He referred to experience respecting the effect of the act taking away the capital part of the punishment from the offence of stealing from persons privately, which was a great increase of crimes of that description, so that they were now openly committed by gangs of thieves in the face of day. This increase he attributed to the comparative mildness of the punishment of transportation, which to desperate offenders carried little terror in it.

Mr. Abercromby supported the bill chiefly on the ground of the discrepancy between the law and the practice, which was productive of various evils, of which the principal was, the necessity under which judges and juries so frequently laboured, of committing what had been called pious perjuries, because they could not in conscience and humanity enforce the execution of the law in particular cases. With respect to the experience referred to by the last speaker against abolishing a capital punishment, he cited the op-. posite experience in the instance of repealing that punishment in the case of stealing from bleaching grounds.

Mr. Wetherall supported the argument from experience, by the authority