regulation was avowedly founded upon the allegation that matters tending to bring the government of Bengal, as by law established, into hatred and contempt, had of late been frequently printed and circulated in newspapers, and other papers published in Calcutta.') But what is the preamble to the regulation which is now proposed to be registered in the Supreme Court at Bombay? Is there any recital of matters tending to bring the government of this country, as by law established, into hatred and contempt, having been printed and circulated in newspapers and other papers published in Bombay?' Nothing of the kind; -the preamble merely recites, that a certain regulation had been passed in Calcutta for the prevention of the publication of such matters. Is it the fact, that such matters have been published in the Bombay papers? Can a single passage, or a single word, tending to bring the government of Bombay into hatred and contempt;' can a single stricture, or comment, or word, respecting any of the measures of government, be pointed out in any Bombay paper? How, then, without such necessity as is stated in the preamble to the Calcutta regulation, can it be expected, that even were the Supreme Court to consent to register it, and an appeal were preferred, it would be confirmed by his majesty in council?-where would be the reasons of the Court of Directors in favour of it?-where would be the arguments of counsel in support of it? Suppose an act of parliament passed to suspend the habeas corpus act in Ireland, on account of treasonable practices in that country; in such case, evidence of such practices would be laid before committees of the two houses of parliament before the act was passed, and the act would also recite them, as the Calcutta regulation recites the evils which it was intended to remedy. But would the fact of such act having been passed for Ireland justify a motion to extend it also to England, without any evidence of any such treasonable practices, nay, when it was well-known that there were no such, or any circumstances to call for it, and with a mere recital of the habeas corpus act having been suspended in Ireland, as the present proposed regulation merely recites that the same regulation had been passed at Calcutta? I am of opinion that this proposed regulation should not be registered."

Sir Edward directed much of his attention to the improvement of the police, and of prison-discipline. He died at Poonah in the month of August, 1828.

Robert, Earl of Liverpool.

BORN A. D. 1770.-DIED A. D. 1828.

ROBERT BANKS, the only son of Charles Jenkinson, afterwards Earl of Liverpool, was born on the 7th of June, 1770. He was educated at the Charter-house, and at Christ church, Oxford, where he was the companion and friend of Canning.

He entered into political life under the auspices of Pitt, who appears to have employed him for a time at Paris in watching the progress of the revolution. He was returned for the ministerial borough of Rye before he had reached majority; but he passed the intervening period on the continent, and took his seat in the winter session of 1791-2.

He proved himself of course a warm ministerialist, and was one of those orators who recommended a “march upon Paris" as the most effectual means of putting a stop to the disorders engendered by the revolution! On the 28th of May, 1796, when his father was created Earl of Liverpool, Mr Jenkinson took the title of Lord Hawkesbury. When Addington came into office, Lord Hawkesbury was appointed foreign secretary; and when Pitt returned to office, he received the seals of the home department.

On the assassination of Perceval, Lord Liverpool reluctantly consented to assume the premiership, the offer of which he had on more than one occasion declined. The only additions to the ministry on this occasion were Lord Sidmouth and Mr Vansittart. Towards the close of the session of 1811-12, his lordship opposed the Marquess Wellesley's motion that the house should pledge itself to take into consideration the state of the laws respecting the Catholics early in the next session. "He would never," he observed, "meet a great question with little shifts and expedients. It ought to be met upon great and general principles. But if, when taken upon great and general principles, he could not see his way to a safe conclusion, he should not be acting justly and manfully, if he did not avow that sentiment, and act accordingly. Were the religious opinions of the Catholics the only obstacle, it would be another affair. But the oath of supremacy, so far as it included an abjuration of all foreign jurisdiction, spiritual as well as temporal, he considered to be a fundamental part of the settlement of the government at the Revolution. It was at that period laid down as an essential principle, that the Protestant government was to be firmly established in these realms. He conceived this to mean, that the power of the state was to be Protestant, and to be so maintained for the benefit of all descriptions of its subjects. If any one political principle were more firmly established than another, he took it to be this:-that the subject of a state should own no allegiance out of that state. He could see no beneficial results from the motion of his noble friend. It was a maxim of his political life,-a maxim confirmed by all he had ever heard, read, or observed,-that, with respect to a great constitutional question, if a stand were to be made, it should be made in limine. Therefore, as he could not clearly see any prospect of a practical conclusion from the present proposition, he thought the true way in point of principle, and the most manly way, was to resist it in the first instance. He would even go further, and say, that if he were disposed to make concession, he would still oppose the motion, because he would never pledge himself to make any great change in the laws without knowing exactly what that change was to be." His lordship persisted in his opposition to the Catholic claims to the last of his political life.

In 1817 he supported the suspension of the habeas corpus act. He said that "he regarded it with as much veneration as any one; that he venerated it, not as an act of Charles the Second, but as an anterior and integral part of the constitution. The question was, whether there were sufficient grounds to intrust his majesty's ministers with the power they required for the conservation of the state? Domestic treason was worse than foreign treason. There might, indeed, be circumstances in foreign treason to take away its vital, its deadly stab. Their lordships had proofs of the existence of a system to overthrow the constitution of

66

the country; and when they saw such a system, with malignant spirits ready to set it in full motion, was it too much to ask them to intrust the executive with powers that might be adequate to its suppression? He felt the importance of the crisis; he was prepared to meet it; and he would suffer no odium to frighten him from the stern path of duty." When the Bill of Pains and Penalties against the queen was before the house, Lord Liverpool said in the debate on the second reading: Admitting, my lords, that we are so situated that we are in some measure compelled to make a choice between evils, I say that in this, as in other cases, the straight-forward course is the most expedient to pursue. There may be inconveniences, my lords, in going on with this bill; but, if you believe her majesty guilty, you are bound by every just and moral consideration not to stop here. I say, let the consequences be what they may, if you believe her majesty guilty, you are bound to agree to the second reading of this bill." He thus concluded his speech: "I am content to be judged by your lordships, I am content to be judged by the public at large, as to the whole of my conduct in the course of these proceedings. I appeal to Him who alone knows the secret of all hearts, and who alone can unravel all the mysteries and intricacies of this great case, if the judgment which I have given is not true,—if it is not at least founded on a sense of integrity, and on a most sincere wish to do justice in mercy;-not with any disposition to visit the illustrious individual accused with a harsher measure of punishment than necessity requires; but with an anxious desire,-a desire which I am sure is entertained by all your lordships,-to do justice, in this most important cause, between the crown, the queen, and the country."

Lord Liverpool appeared for the last time, in the house of lords, on the 16th of February, 1827, when he supported an address for conferring a provision suitable to their rank on the duke and duchess of Clarence. The next morning, after having breakfasted alone in his library, he was found, by his servant, stretched on the floor in a paralytic fit. He was shortly afterwards removed to his seat at Combewood, where he lingered in a state of mental imbecility until his death, which took place on the 4th of December, 1828. He was twice married first, to Theodosia, a daughter of Lord Bristol, the bishop of Derry; and, secondly, to Miss Chester, the daughter of a clergyman; but had no issue.

Lord Liverpool was a man of moderate talents, but firm, prudent, and well-meaning. His system of policy was an unsound one, but his integrity was unimpeached and unimpeachable.

Charles, Lord Colchester.

BORN A. D. 1757.-DIED A. D. 1829.

CHARLES ABBOT, LORD COLCHESTER, was born at Abingdon, Berks, on the 14th of October, 1757. He was the younger son of the Rev. John Abbot, D. D., rector of All Saints, Colchester. His earlier education was conducted at Westminster-school, where he stood at the head of the election of Oxford scholars in 1775. In 1782 he took a law-degree, and was soon after called to the bar.

He proved himself of course a warm ministerialist, and was one of those orators who recommended a "march upon Paris" as the most effectual means of putting a stop to the disorders engendered by the revolution! On the 28th of May, 1796, when his father was created Earl of Liverpool, Mr Jenkinson took the title of Lord Hawkesbury. When Addington came into office, Lord Hawkesbury was appointed foreign secretary; and when Pitt returned to office, he received the seals of the home department.

On the assassination of Perceval, Lord Liverpool reluctantly consented to assume the premiership, the offer of which he had on more than one occasion declined. The only additions to the ministry on this occasion were Lord Sidmouth and Mr Vansittart. Towards the close of the session of 1811-12, his lordship opposed the Marquess Wellesley's motion that the house should pledge itself to take into consideration the state of the laws respecting the Catholics early in the next session. "He would never," he observed, "meet a great question with little shifts and expedients. It ought to be met upon great and general principles. But if, when taken upon great and general principles, he could not see his way to a safe conclusion, he should not be acting justly and manfully, if he did not avow that sentiment, and act accordingly. Were the religious opinions of the Catholics the only obstacle, it would be another affair. But the oath of supremacy, so far as it included an abjuration of all foreign jurisdiction, spiritual as well as temporal, he considered to be a fundamental part of the settlement of the government at the Revolution. It was at that period laid down as an essential principle, that the Protestant government was to be firmly established in these realms. He conceived this to mean, that the power of the state was to be Protestant, and to be so maintained for the benefit of all descriptions of its subjects. If any one political principle were more firmly established than another, he took it to be this:-that the subject of a state should own no allegiance out of that state. He could see no beneficial results from the motion of his noble friend. It was a maxim of his political life,-a maxim confirmed by all he had ever heard, read, or observed,―that, with respect to a great constitutional question, if a stand were to be made, it should be made in limine. Therefore, as he could not clearly see any prospect of a practical conclusion from the present proposition, he thought the true way in point of principle, and the most manly way, was to resist it in the first instance. He would even go further, and say, that if he were disposed to make concession, he would still oppose the motion, because he would never pledge himself to make any great change in the laws without knowing exactly what that change was to be." His lordship persisted in his opposition to the Catholic claims to the last of his political life. In 1817 he supported the suspension of the habeas corpus act. He said that "he regarded it with as much veneration as any one; that he venerated it, not as an act of Charles the Second, but as an anterior and integral part of the constitution. The question was, whether there were sufficient grounds to intrust his majesty's ministers with the power they required for the conservation of the state? Domestic treason was worse than foreign treason. There might, indeed, be circumstances in foreign treason to take away its vital, its deadly stab. Their lordships had proofs of the existence of a system to overthrow the constitution of

the country; and when they saw such a system, with malignant spirits ready to set it in full motion, was it too much to ask them to intrust the executive with powers that might be adequate to its suppression ? He felt the importance of the crisis; he was prepared to meet it; and he would suffer no odium to frighten him from the stern path of duty." When the Bill of Pains and Penalties against the queen was before the house, Lord Liverpool said in the debate on the second reading: "Admitting, my lords, that we are so situated that we are in some measure compelled to make a choice between evils, I say that in this, as in other cases, the straight-forward course is the most expedient to pursue. There may be inconveniences, my lords, in going on with this bill; but, if you believe her majesty guilty, you are bound by every just and moral consideration not to stop here. I say, let the consequences be what they may, if you believe her majesty guilty, you are bound to agree to the second reading of this bill." He thus concluded his speech: "I am content to be judged by your lordships, I am content to be judged by the public at large, as to the whole of my conduct in the course of these proceedings. I appeal to Him who alone knows the secret of all hearts, and who alone can unravel all the mysteries and intricacies of this great case, if the judgment which I have given is not true, if it is not at least founded on a sense of integrity, and on a most sincere wish to do justice in mercy;-not with any disposition to visit the illustrious individual accused with a harsher measure of punishment than necessity requires; but with an anxious desire,-a desire which I am sure is entertained by all your lordships,-to do justice, in this most important cause, between the crown, the queen, and the country."

Lord Liverpool appeared for the last time, in the house of lords, on the 16th of February, 1827, when he supported an address for conferring a provision suitable to their rank on the duke and duchess of Clarence. The next morning, after having breakfasted alone in his library, he was found, by his servant, stretched on the floor in a paralytic fit. He was shortly afterwards removed to his seat at Combewood, where he lingered in a state of mental imbecility until his death, which took place on the 4th of December, 1828. He was twice married first, to Theodosia, a daughter of Lord Bristol, the bishop of Derry; and, secondly, to Miss Chester, the daughter of a clergyman; but had no issue.

Lord Liverpool was a man of moderate talents, but firm, prudent, and well-meaning. His system of policy was an unsound one, but his integrity was unimpeached and unimpeachable.

Charles, Lord Colchester.

BORN A. D. 1757.-DIED A. D. 1829.

CHARLES ABBOT, LORD COLCHESTER, was born at Abingdon, Berks, on the 14th of October, 1757. He was the younger son of the Rev. John Abbot, D. D., rector of All Saints, Colchester. His earlier education was conducted at Westminster-school, where he stood at the head of the election of Oxford scholars in 1775. In 1782 he took a law-degree, and was soon after called to the bar.