stages. Mr. Bankes reminded the committee, that by the rejection of the former bill in the house of lords, they were precluded from bringing forward exactly the same measure this session. On this account he had brought in a bill with a limitation in point of time. If this should be carried it would at least secure one object, namely, the prevention of any new grant during the limited period, which might affect the proceedings of the committee of finance. As to the limitation of time, it was his intention that the blank should be filled up with a provision that the bill should be in force for one year from the passing of the act, and from the close of that period to the end of six weeks, from the commencement of the subsequent session of parliament. A long conversation ensued, in which there was a very general concurrence in opinion, that the measure was good, as far as it went, though it was much too limited. This bill was finally passed in the house of lords on the 12th of May.

House of Commons, May 18.Sir Samuel Romilly rose, to make his promised motion on the criminal law of the country. He, in common with others, had always lamented, that by the criminal law of the country, capital punishments were appointed to be inflicted for so many crimes. He said, “ appointed," because, in fact, they were not so frequently executed, although no principle was better established than that the certainty, aot the severity of punishment,rendered it efficacious. This principle had long been proved, and published to the world by the marquis of Beccaria. But the admiration which his work produced in Great Britain,

had not produced any change in our system, which was directly the reverse of that noble writer's: for with us punishments were most severe and most uncertain. Having illustrated the truth of this proposition, he said, that, for the present, he would confine his observations and his motion to one class of those crimes, which, as he had before stated, seldom received the punishment the law had appointed for them; a class on which the law inflicted extraordinary severity of punishment, without any well founded motive to that severity. He meant those charges where the capital part of the charge depended on the amount. By a statute of William and Mary, privately to steal from a person to the value of five shillings, was rendered capital. In queen Anne's reign, to steal to the value of forty shillings in a dwelling house, was rendered capital; and by a statute of queen Elizabeth, a theft of so small a sum as twelve pence, under certain circumstances, made a capital offence. -As the necessaries, the conveniencies, and the luxuries of life had become dearer, the severity of the laws occasioned the frequent non-execution of them. There was another circumstance to which he was desirous of calling the attention of the house; it was, the case of persons, who, being accused of crimes, suffered imprisonment, took their trial, and then proved their innocence: there was no compensation for such persons, unless it could be shown that the prosecution was malicious. He allowed that under the best system of criminal law, suspicion must sometimes light on the innocent man, and that the good of the

public might require his confine ment until his innocence should be ascertained. But he contended, that when it was ascertained, the sufferer should be compensated as far as it was practicable to compensate him. The merits of the person acquitted, and his right to indemnity might be determined by the judge before whom he was tried. Such a regulation would proceed on similar principles to those of 1802, relative to the prosecutions by which the judge was empowered, taking all the circumstances of the case under consideration, to order the treasurer of the county to make such compensation as justice demanded. He would therefore introduce a similar proposition into the bill which he intended to propose on the subject. In the first place, however, he would move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act of queen Elizabeth, as related to taking away the benefit of clergy from persons stealing privately from the persons of others. Leave was given to bring in the bill, and Sir Samuel Romilly met with great applause for turning his enlightened mind to the consideration of such subjects as those on which he had that evening addressed the house.

Sir Samuel also moved for leave to bring in a bill to provide in certain cases compensation to persons tried and acquitted in a criminal court for the damages sustained by them, in consequence of having been detained in custody and brought to trial. Objections of no inconsiderable weight were made to this proposal; but leave was given to bring in the bill.

In a committee of the whole

house, June 24, the solicitor general proposed a clause, declaring that stealing without a person's knowledge, whether privily from the person or not, as contradistinguished from robbery, should be punished by banishment for life, to be reduced at the discretion of the judge to any period not less than seven years; leaving it, however, optional with the judge, if the case should seem to merit it, to commute the punishment into imprisonment for any period not exceeding three years. The bill was passed with this Amendment.

Sir Samuel Romilly signified, that he did not mean to press the "acquitted person's compensation bill" any farther, but that he should bring it forward early in the next session.

The necessity of some alteration in the constitution of the court of session in Scotland, had given birth to lord Grenville's bill relative to that subject, which fell to the ground through the change of ministry, and the prorogation and dissolution of parliament. A bill for the better administration of justice in Scotland, was introduced in the present session by the lord chancellor Eldon, who, on the question for the second reading of the bill, April 8, explained its object.

It was proposed to divide the court of session into two chambers of seven and eight judges, to give those courts certain powers of making regulations with respect to proceedings, and with respect to interim executions whilst appeals were pending; and also to issue a commission to ascertain in what cases it might be proper to establish a trial by jury. He joined in

all

all those eulogiums which had been passed upon the trial by jury, and to which, in England, we felt that we owed our liberty and our happiness. But it did not follow that it was equally applicable to Scotland. Nor was it a politic or proper mode of proceeding to force that mode of trial upon a country where, in civil cases, its benefits were not understood or appreciated.

Lord Grenville still thought it would be better to divide the court of session into three chambers than two. And, with respect to trial by jury, he thought there ought to be a stronger recommendation of it in the bill than there was at present, a stronger indication of the opinion of the legislature in its favour.

Lord Melville referred to an opinion of lord Mansfield, respecting a proposition of lord Swinton, to introduce gradually the trial by jury in civil cases into Scotland; and said, that after the doubts expressed on this subject by that eminent lawyer, he (lord Melville) might well hesitate with respect to its policy. On the 25th June, the bill was read a third time and passed.

A law was also passed for enabling his majesty to grant annuities to the judges of the courts of session, justiciary, and exchequer of Scotland, who might retire after having served in either of these situations for fifteen years, or be disqualified from the discharge of their duty by any permanent infirmity. The annuities to be equal to three fourths of their salary.

Ever since the breaking out of the French revolution, an unusual degree of attention was paid by the higher orders, and all men of great property in Great Britain and Ire

land, to the exterior of religion, and the ministers of religion. A bill, proposed by the joint labours of the bishop of London (Porteus), and the chancellor of the exchequer, was brought into parliament for the relief and support of the poorer clergy of the established church; the nature and object of which bill was explained by the bishop when he moved the second reading of the bill (which had passed in the house of commons) on the 27th of June in the house of lords. If he were disposed, he said, to take up their lordships' time, he might pourtray such scenes of distress amongst poor curates, as would make upon their minds a deep and melancholy impression. The present measure had for its object to provide a proper person to reside in those parishes which were deserted by their incumbents, where the living amounted to 400l. and upwards, and to allow out of that income one. fifth for the support of that person so appointed to do the duty. There were many benefices of, 1,000/ 2,000l. and some 3,000l. a year.

But this provision of one-fifth was adopted only till it amounted to 250l. a year. He considered that the living of every incumbent was conditional. The canons of the church, and various conventions, clearly showed that bishops had a right to interfere with the whole living, by taking it from the incumbent who neglected to perform his duty, and granting it to another under their own appoint

derdale, lord Hawkesbury, the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Rochester, the bishops of Hereford and Carlisle, and the lord chancellor. The chief grounds on which it was opposed were, that it was a violation of private, and of the security of ecclesiastical property, while it tended to an indefinite enlargement of the power of the bishops, and that it was inadequate to the accomplishment of its object.

Lord Moira observed, that if this bill was to be defended on the ground, that a part of the rector's income had been apportioned to the curate on a former occasion, why, then, at a future time (since according to what their lordships' had just heard from a reverend prelate, bishops claimed in the point in question, an unlimited power) another bill might not be introduced, founded upon the present, to appropriate the whole of the incumbent's living. Even the act of 1796 in his mind, had been the cause of considerable hardships. There were livings as low as 100l. and yet 751. out of that must be paid to the officiating curate.

The earl of Buckinghamshire observed, that it was to be recollected that advowsons were now bought and sold in the same manner as any other negotiable property. With what justice, then, could the legislature call upon a beneficed clergyman who had bought his living on a calculation of having the services of a curate at a certain price, to pay a still larger sum.

The earl of Lauderdale said, that perhaps the great origin of the evil proposed to be remedied by the bill, would be found in the frequency of ordination, and in calling

to that profession such numbers of young men, as it was impossible to provide for. It should be attributed to that glut of the commodity which the reverend prelates themselves occasioned. He also opposed the bill as laying a great weight on the possessor of a small living, at the same time that it affected the rector with 2,000l. a year, in a very trifling manner.

The archbishop of Canterbury did not consider the measure proposed as either oppressive in its operation, or a violation of the interests of the church. The power it gave to bishops was only similar to that with which they were invested in the early times of the constitution of the church. He cited the case of a bishop of Worcester, who was rebuked by the pope for not allowing a sufficient compensation to curates or vicars temporal, as they were then designated in his diocese. But though he was perfectly satisfied with the principle of the bill, there were some of the clauses which he thought would be attended with injurious effects, and introduce vexation and mischief. He should therefore vote that the bill be rejected.-The question on the third reading being called for, the bill was thrown out without a division.

Yet the object of the bill was not disapproved, or lost sight of. With a prospectiveviewto some future bill,

The earl of Buckinghamshire moved, June 27th, that there be laid before the house an account of the number of livings beyond the amount of 400l. per annum, distinguishing those where the incumbent resided, and those where a resident curate was employed.

Lord Harrowby proposed an amendment,

amendment, to leave out the words distinguishing, &c." On the question that these words stand part of the bill, the house divided; Contents 28-Not Contents 19. Next day, June 28,

Lord Harrowby, pursuant to a notice he had given the day before, rose to submit a motion to their lordships, which was suggested to him by some observations that had been made during the discussion of this question. It was agreed and

seemed to be wished on all hands, that something should be done to wards improving the condition of the inferior clergy. It had all along been his opinion, that the house was proceeding to legislate on a matter respecting which they had nothing like adequate information before them. This want of due information he was anxious to supply. And the object of his present motion was, to endeavour to ascertain the number of livings which were under 150l. per annum; how great would be the sum necessary to bring these small livings up to 150l. per annum; and how long the period of time under the present circumstances, necessary for the attainment of that object. With a view to get at which, he moved an humble address to his majesty, praying he would be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before the house an account of the number of livings under 150l. per annum.

The archbishop of Canterbury expressed his thanks to the noble baron for the pains he had taken on this subject, and his readiness to co-operate with him in the prosecution of his object.

The earl of Moira also gave his hearty concurrence to the motion, So also did lord Hawkesbury, who assured his noble friend that every thing should be done by him to give effect to his laudable intentions and endeavours.

Nor was the kirk of Scotland forgotten. An Act was passed for defining and regulating the powers of the commission of teinds in augmenting and modifying the stipends of the Scotch clergy.

An act was also passed, for enforcing the residence of spiritual persons in Ireland on their benefices; and another to make more effectual provision for the building and re-building of chapels, churches and glebe houses, and for the purchase of glebe lands, glebe houses, and impropriations in Ireland.

Though the petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland for complete emancipation from all disabilities whatever, civil or military, after the usual discussions, was rejected; a grant of 9,520l. was made for the current year, for the support ofthe RomancatholiccollegeofMaynooth. In the course of the discussions that took place on this subject, Dr. Duigenan read the oath of the catholic priests, in order to shew that they paid an obedience to the pope, which wasinconsistentwith theking's supremacy. The provisions for the education of the established clergy, he observed, fell short of those proposed to be granted to the papists. There were in the university of Dublin 30 poor scholars, who got but a dinner once a day,* and 72 scholars of the house that got a dinner once a day but no lodgings,

The