which they belonged? His Lordship then went into a considera tion of the manner in which Prince Christian had proclaimed the independence of Norway, still calling himself its regent, and presump. tive heir of Denmark; in which, if the court of Denmark was privy to his plans, it was gross duplicity and falsehood on its part; if otherwise, it was an act of usurp ation on that of Prince Christiau. He intimated that there were a number of Danes in Norway who had stimulated the people to resistance, and that they had been studiously kept in the dark, and allured by an assurance of the support of England. He said, that it had been taken for granted by the noble lords that the general sense of the people of Norway was adverse to an union with Sweden; but in fact there were considerable parts of that country perfectly willing to agree to it. He made some remarks in defence of the conduct of Sweden with respect to her services in the common cause; and as to the impolicy of adding to her strength, he observed that the loss of Finland bad placed her in different political circumstances.

The remaining speeches being chiefly a recapitulation of former arguments, it is unnecessary here

to notice them. The House at length divided on the motion, contents 27, proxies 7, total 34. Non-contents 86, proxies 29, total 115. Majority against the motion 81, A dissentient protest was afterwards entered on the journals signed by eleven peers.

On May 12th, the same subject was brought before the House of Commons by Mr. C. W. Wynne, who, after an introductory speech, made a motion verbatim the same with that in the House of Lords. In the debate which ensued, the train of argument pursued was so perfectly similar to that of which we have given a summary above, that to enter into particulars would be needless repetition. It may however be remarked, that some of the opposers of the motion avowed more openly than in the other house, their disapprobation of the measures adopted against the Norwegians, and resisted an interference with them solely on the ground of the obligations we had incurred by the treaty with Sweden, which they regarded as incapable of being done away by any explanation consistently with public faith and national honour. On the division there appeared, for the motion 71, against it 229; majority 158.

CHAP

A

ed became the occasion of frequent discussion in the present session of parliament. An act had passed about ten years before, brought in by Sir William Scott, for the purpose of remedying the evils arising from the prevalent non-residence of the clergy on their cures, to the provisions of which heavy peInalties for default were annexed. These penalties attached not only to non-residents without excuse, but to those who should neglect to make returns to the bishop of the diocese of the claims to exemp. tion as allowed by the act. It had happened that a Mr. Wright had been successively registrar of the bishoprics of Norwich, Ely, and London, and being dismissed from bis office in the last, he had availed himself of the knowledge he bad acquired in his station, to institute prosecutions against a number of the clergy for violations of the act, of which the penalties to which he was entitled as informer, would amount, if levied, to 80,000l. As a great majority of these actions was founded on mere omission of the returns, an alarm was excited among all who were conscious of any neglect of form in this particular, and who saw themselves exposed perhaps to

ship, Mr. Bathurst, in the last autumn session, moved for leave to bring in a bill to suspend for a limited time the proceedings in actions under the act above-mentioned, which passed both houses.

The period of the operation of this bill being near expiring, Mr. Bathurst, on March 24th, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill

to discontinue the proceedings on certain actions already commenced, and to prevent vexatious actions, under the 43d of the king." He introduced his motion with the observations he had formerly made on the great hardships to which the persons against whom the actions had been brought were exposed; and in proof that their offences in general consisted only in the neglect of duly applying for licences, he said, that in a list of ninety-two persons in the diocese of London, against whom Mr. Wright had instituted prosecutions, only two were destitute of a ra tional excuse.

Mr. Whitbread said, that those who remembered the proceedings on the bill in question would be struck with what they now heard. At that time it was contended that every thing should be done to induce informers to come forward,

for

for which purpose it was thought right that the whole penalties should go to them; but no sooner does one appear, than the House is called upon, first to suspend the law; secondly, to continue the suspension; thirdly, to quash the prosecutions; and lastly, they would be asked to alter the law, He, however, would rather entertain the bill moved for, than suffer the unfortunate persons under prosecution to be entirely ruined.

After some observations by other members, leave was granted, and the bill was read the first time. Mr. Bathurst also brought in a bill to continue the suspension-act of the last year.

The bill for discontinuing the prosecutions, &c. having been committed, its second reading was moved on March 31st, when Lord Folkestone rose, and declared his objection to the principle of the bill. This he chiefly founded on the injury it would do to an individual. The prosecutor had a vested interest in the penalties attached to violations of the law in question, which the bill went to destroy. It would be an ex post facto act to deprive an individual of his right, and to indemnify others who had been guilty of a breach of the law. His lordship then noticed the calumnies which had been raised against Mr. Wright, and the means that had been used to interest feeling in favour of the persons prosecuted; and ended with declaring that he must protest against the second reading.

Mr. Wetherall said, that every bill of indemnity was an ex post facto law equally with the present; and he denied that the persons to be indemnified by the bill had committed any real offence..

Mr. Western acknowledged that he felt the force of the objections urged by his noble friend, which be thought had been inadequately answered. The house, in fact, had only a choice of difficulties; but as it was clear that the clergy ought not to be left without relief, in a case to which no moral culpability attached, he should give his assent to the second reading.

Mr. Bathurst, in defending the bill, said, that it was not intended to save the clergy at the expense of Mr. Wright. He would be allowed his costs; and where the law had been broken so as to involve a moral offence, he would be enabled to proceed for his penalties.

The bill was read a second time.

The further consideration of the report being postponed, a petition was presented to the house, on April 21st, from Mr. Wright, against the bill. It recited the fact of his having commenced actions against divers clergymen for penalties, to which their neglect had rendered them liable, believing himself entitled to the protection of the laws of his country in so doing; complained of the representations made by the clergy derogatory to his character, as having entrapped them, or kept back their licences or notifications, which he solemnly declared to be untrue; and that, on the contrary, he had drawn up an abstract of all the statutes respecting non-residence, with the forms of notification, and petitions for licences, which he had distributed gratis at his own expense, not only to the clergy of the dioceses wherein he acted as secretary, but to those of other dioceses, and had also inserted advertisements in the pro

vincial

vincial papers, and had written circular letters to remind the clergy of the necessity of renewing their licenses; affirmed that the actions he had commenced were against clergymen of twenty different dioceses, and therefore his researches had not been confined to the dioceses in which he had been secretary; mentioned, that since the commencement of his actions, clubs and associations of clergymen had been formed for the purpose of defeating his claims, and several of the clergy had even caused friendly actions to be commenced against them selves with the same intention; and he concluded with placing himselfunder the protection of the house, and praying that he might be heard by himself or counsel, and allowed to produce evidence.

On April 26, the house having resolved itself into a committee on the bill, Mr. Wright's petition was referred to it, and counsel was heard on his part against the bill. After the counsel had finished his speech, which was merely a recapitulation of the allegations in the petition, Mr. Brand rose, and professing himself friendly to the bill in general, said he had objections to some parts of it. In the first place, he thought it did not offer sufficient security to Mr. Wright, who ought to be indemnified for all past and future expenses. He further was of opinion that the bill should define the grounds on which licences for non-residence should be given, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the bishops, who, he thought, had not sufficiently attended to the duty of enforcing residence, or ascertaining who did reside, or

under what circumstances the order to reside had not been complied with. He concluded with moving, as an amendment, "That it should be lawful for any person against whom actions for penalties might have been brought, to adduce proofs as to whether they had been entitled to licences for non-residence or not; and if they were enabled so to do, that such proof should be considered as an adequate excuse for their conduct.

Mr. Bathurst defended the bill, and made various observations on the statement given by Mr. Wright, who, he said, had made it the object of his inquiry where the proofs of his case were the easiest, not what was or was not a case of inadvertency. As to the suggestion of depriving the bishops. of the powers vested in them by the 43d of the king, that power had been given them for good reasons, and a case should be made out before it was changed. He declared that he should give his negative to the proposed amendment.

Mr. Whitbread, though still of opinion that the bill ought to pass, yet confessed that he had been led to entertain a more favourable opinion of Mr. Wright in the part he had taken; and instead of his requiring the indulgence of the house, they themselves ought to ask indulgence from him, who was to be prevented by an act from getting possession of what an existing law assigned him. It had been said that Mr. Wright might have admonished the bishops instead of taking the course he had pursued; but was this the provision of the act? or, in framing it, was it contemplated that the bishops were

to

to be directed by their secretaries in the performance of their duties? Whatever might be the motive of Mr. Wright in informing, he was exactly the man whom the act looked for, and to whom it held out the penalties as an inducement to inform.

After some farther debate the amendment was put and negatived, and the original clause was carried. A clause being read respecting bishops acting upon their responsibility,

Mr. Whitbread observed, that that word might as well be left out, since, in truth, they would be responsible to no tribunal whatever. He said, his hon. friend (Mr. Brand) on leaving the house had left with him a clause which he would propose to the committee: its purpose was, to provide that the licence for non-residence should be rendered void, if not granted upon sufficient grounds. Mr. Bathurst replied, that the object would be equally attained by the clause as it stood. Several new clauses were afterwards brought up; and in fine the bill was reported and ordered for printing.

The bill being sent to the House of Lords, the house resolved itself into a committee upon it on May 13, when, upon the clause authorising the courts, under certain circumstances, to stay the proceedings that had been entered upon, the Duke of Norfolk made some objections relative to the justice of it, similar to those advanced in the other house. Lord Ellenborough observed, in reply, that the principle of the provision was analogous to the usual practice of Parliament A conversation ensued, in which the merits of the bill of the 43d of

the King were discussed; and the Archbishop of Canterbury gave it as his opinion that great relief had been afforded to the clergy by that bill; whence it was much to be deplored that the inadvertence and misconduct of some of them had given occasion to the present bill. It would, however, be found that its provisions separated the cases of vicious non-residence from those of mistake and neglect. The clapse was then carried without a division, and the report on the bill was received.

It afterwards passed into a law, under the title of "An Act to discontinue proceedings in certain actions already commenced, and to prevent vexatious suits against spiritual persons, under an Act passed in the 43d year of his present Majesty; and further to continue, until the 20th day of July, 1814, an Act of the present Session of Parliament, for staying proceedings under the said Act."

The defects of the Act of the 43d of the King being universally acknowledged, Sir William Scott, on May 9th, moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill for its amendment as far as it relates to the non-residence of the clergy, which was granted.

Among the topics of Parliamentary discussion during this session, no one excited so much general interest as the Corn Trade, the proceedings concerning which were the subject of as much agitation, and produced as many petitions, as the East India and Catholic questions of the last year. The speeches in parliament on the occasion were so numerous, and were involved in so much intricacy from opposing calculations and

statements,