sented to be, or the imaginary paradise which they ought not to be, the question remains still the same; and he would therefore ask them, whether they had any right to continue on their statute books those laws which were never executed at all? The right honourable gentleman had forcibly urged, that the repeal of these laws would destroy the apprehension of death: he however differ ed widely from him in opinion, as the House was not called to repeal the terror of death, which was too firm ly fixed in the human mind, but the dead letter of the law, which was no punishment at all. He had seen examples, in the course of his practice, in which the prosecutor, the witnesses, the judge, and the jury, had all joined in an amiable conspiracy to screen the delinquent; and therefore, if it was the opinion of the House, that excess of severity did not prevent the commission of crime, he would ask, whether it was consonant with the dignity of the House to let the question remain in doubt till another committee should have finished its sittings? The honourable gentleman then proceeded to argue, that as the grand object of punishment was example, the penal laws ought to form a grand moral code, and that every conviction ought to be a lesson of instruction to those who witnessed it; whereas, in 99 cases out of 100, the sentence which the judge passed upon the criminal was a mockery of law, was a mockery of religion, was a mockery of all the best feelings of human nature. He would beg the House to figure to themselves what he and many other individuals in it must have frequently seen-a long line of 30 or 40 criminals brought up at the end of an assize to receive sentence of condemnation: the judge might

pass sentence of death upon each individually, or upon the whole in the mass; and yet, he would ask, was there any one of the spectators, nay was there any one of the criminals, who expected that sweeping condemnation would ever be executed? If then the sentence of condemnation had become a mere mockery, he should advise them to make the theory and practice of the law of England to coincide; for if there was any country where the law was mildly administered towards criminals, it was England; and if there was any which was more disgraced by sanguinary enactments than another, it was likewise England. For his own part he must declare, that if he had come into the House a perfect stranger to the question, and had heard the member for Weymouth's assertion, that the investigation into the state of the gaols would form sufficient employment for one committee, his mind would have been immediately made up to vote for his learned friend's motion. The object of that motion was to make the House re-acknowledge the principle, that excess of severity did not prevent the commission of crime; he therefore hoped, that when the House considered the importance of the subject, it would not vote for the previous question.

Sir James Mackintosh replied at some length, in the course of which he stated, that, if he were but to read the names of his committee, it would be admitted that it was as fair a selection of all parties and denominations as could be made. The following are the names of the members proposed: Mr Bathurst, Mr Scarlett, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr Wilberforce, Lord Nugent, Mr Abercromby, Hon. G. J. Vernon, Mr Alderman

Wood, Mr Finlay, Mr Buxton, Mr Brougham, Mr Bennet, Mr Courtenay, Mr Wynn, Mr Macdonald, Dr Phillimore, Mr Lyttelton, Lord Althorp, and Mr Howorth.

The House then divided: For the motion 147 against it 128: majority against Ministers, 19. The result was received with successive cheers.

On the 6th of July, Sir James Mackintosh presented the Report of the Committee on the Criminal Laws, and moved that it be laid on the table. The honourable and learned gentleman, after expressing the wish of the committee, that in the ensuing session they might have leave to sit again, remarked, that if the House considered what was the nature of their proceedings, they would see they were such as rendered it impossible for them to make their report till this late period of the session. In the course of the two or three months during which the committee had pursued their labours, it had been their object to collect evidence from those classes of persons whence it was most likely to be collected;

from sources to which perhaps no former committee had applied. This was the first attempt ever made, to ascertain, by direct evidence, whether those general reasonings, which had been entertained with respect to the Criminal Laws, were to be held as resting on such evidence, or on an appeal merely to those feelings which human nature has implanted in our breasts. The examinations of evidence had occupied so much of the committee's time, that the report was certainly not so complete as they wished to have made it. It was full upon some, but not so upon other parts of the subject; but upon those latter ones they had reason to expect more full and detailed evidence. The honourable gentleman then proceeded to state more particularly the nature of the report, in which we are saved the trouble of following him, by referring to that interesting and important document in the Appendix to this volume. After the learned gentleman had concluded, the report was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

THE Catholics seem this session to have calculated on making a strong impression on Parliament and the country in their favour, by the numerous petitions which they had the dexterity to get up, in various quarters, praying for their relief from certain civil disabilities under which they still laboured. The first of these, in the order of time, was a petition from the English Catholics, signed, among others, by eleven Peers and thirteen Baronets; at the head of the former of whom was the Duke of Norfolk, hereditary Earl Marshall of the kingdom: it was presented to the House of Commons on the 14th of March, by Lord Nugent, who availed himself of the opportunity to harangue, at considerable length, in favour of what has been absurdly called Catholic Emancipation. On the 22d, two other petitions, of a similar nature, and the more remarkable, as the one emanated from a few Protestants of the city of Dublin, and the other from certain Protestant nobility, gentry, freeholders, &c. resident in Ireland, were presented to

the House of Lords by the Marquis of Downshire, who, however, from the immense number of anti-Catholic petitions which flowed in from all quarters, was compelled to admit, that these were not to be held as ex. pressing the sentiments of the great body of Irish Protestants, who were well known to be hostile to the cause of emancipation. We should have thought it strange, indeed, had the case been otherwise. As frequent allusion will be made, in the course of this chapter, to the state of public feeling on this great question, it is not necessary to be more particular at present.

The notice of these petitions leads us at once in medias res, namely, Mr Grattan's motion for a Committee of the whole House, to consider the state of the laws relating to the Roman Catholics of this kingdom, and also the oaths and declarations required to be taken by them in order to the enjoyment of civil offices, and the exercise of civil functions; and to report how far it may be'expedient to alter, or amend these laws.

This motion, which was made

made on the 3d of May, was introduced by a speech, which, it is but justice to say, displayed great know ledge of the subject, conjoined with a good deal of that earnest and brilliant eloquence for which the honourable mover has long been distinguished. Mr Grattan began by expressing his ardent hope that the prayer of the petitions which had been laid on the table would ultimately be granted, and that, by their success, the House would contribute to strengthen the Protestant establishment, to support the Protestant church as founded upon the Act of Settlement, and to continue the Protestant Succession to the Crown. By the intimate union, the identification of the people, which must be the natural result, two consequences would inevitably follow; the one general tranquillity, the other augmented force to the empire. It was his most anxious desire, that the two religions, bearing to each other the strongest similitude-having the same hope, the same Redeemer, the same gospel, the same God, and, in fact, resembling in nearly all respects but forms and sacraments should be united under the same roof, and that roof the British Empire; that the professsor of each should have liberty to worship their common God according to their consciences, according to their different modes and ceremonies, with all the uncontrolled varieties belonging to them, but with one indis soluble bond of union and concord -attachment to the constitution under which so many blessings were enjoyed. If the incapacities complained of were repealed, it was the grant of no favour, the concession of no boon; it was the restoration of a right, a mere absolute legal right. If the House continued the disqualifications, it imposed a sen

tence rather than passed a law. That it had a right to impose it, he did not deny; but it was bound in justice, as an act of positive duty, to prove the delinquency before it called upon the Catholics to establish their innocence; before it passed the sentence, it was bound to procure a conviction. The peti tioners submitted, with respectful firmness, that they had a commonlaw right of eligibility to Parliament and to office; from this right they were excluded, and the causes of disqualification were of three kinds: 1. The combination of the Catholics. 2. The danger of a Pretender. 3. The power of the Pope. He (Mr Grattan) insisted, that not only all these causes had ceased, but the consequences annexed to them were no more; even the oppositions founded upon them were destroyed and annihilated. The Roman Catholics did not, and could not deny the power of Parliament to disqualify; it had long exercised the right of disqualifications for the preservation of its own purity; certain placemen and pensioners were disqualified, and fitly. But if the House deprived Catholics of other privileges, there was one with which it could not think of interfering-the privilege of religion: that was not only the pri vilege of the human creature, but the prerogative of the people; there was no power on earth that ought here to interpose; the King, who should interpose between the Creator and the creature, erected himself into an authority greater than that of the Almighty: he had, and could have, no credentials from man: he had, and could have, no credentials from God. Here it was that all men were, and ought to be, equally free. Gentlemen were too far advanced in knowledge to doubt it; and on this account, the opponents of the Ca

tholics said, that it was not against the religion, but against certain principles of which they suppose the Roman Catholic religion to be an evidence, that they directed their objections, and which laid the foundation of the disqualifications. It was stated, that Catholics disregard the moral obligation of an oath, and that they owe certain duties to a foreign power; in other words, that they could only feel an imperfect allegiance. He would put that question to rest by imagining a case:-Suppose Sir Thomas Jerningham, or any other Catholic like him, were indicted for treason; the counsel on the part of the Crown would submit the arguments against the Roman Catholics as evidence, and he would then produce the decrees of the different councils and synods, such as those of Lateran and Dort: he would then offer testimony as to the reception of Sir Thomas at Rome, what occurred between him and the Pope, and the kind manner in which he was received by the latter. He would next proceed to notice the revival of the society of the Jesuits, and the re-establishment of the Inquisition. These were arguments, as far as they deserved the name, not against one individual, but against the whole Catholic body. What, then, would be done by the counsel on the part of the defendant? He would offer in evidence the various oaths which, at the instance of Protestants, Catholics were obliged to take; he would produce the answers of no less than six foreign Universities-better authorities than any that could be adduced on the other side. He would next prove the many votes of Parliament, in which it had expressed its gratitude to Catholic regiments, for the courage they had displayed, the battles they had won, and

the blessings they had conquered. Suppose, then, the objection was raised regarding the nomination of Catholic Bishops; the counsel for the defendant might reply, that that was the only part of the case into which the Court had a right to inquire, and he might refer to the letter of Cardinal Gonsalvi; if that were rejected, the Court would refuse every security of the subject, accompanied by the liberty of a freeman. Under such circumstances, a judge who would direct a conviction would deserve impeachment; and a jury who would comply, would merit attainder. The Catholics advanced no fantastical claims, no chimerical pretensions; they said first, that until Parliament took it away, they had a common law right. Next, that Parliament had no right to call upon them to abjure their religion. Thirdly, that Popery, or more properly Catholicity, was not evidence of perfidy, or imperfect allegiance. And, fourthly, that Catholics were called upon to abjure that which did not fall under the cognisance of Parliament. Let it be recollected also, that when Catholics were deprived of the common law right of eligibility, Protestants shook the foundation of their own faith, and disobeyed the prime order of natural and revealed religion. Was it meant to be urged, that Christian principles were only maintained by Protestants? that Roman Catholics were unchristian? If so, it was nothing less than asserting, that the Pope had gained a victory over the Almighty; that he had established a religion which had the ascendancy in all quarters of Europe, excepting in a few corners, where the wrecks of the true and only faith were to be discovered. In religious controversies, it too often happened, that the Great Author of