sulted. He concluded by moving the following resolution: "That Joseph Hunt, Esq. late treasurer, had been guilty of a violation of the act of the 40th of his Majesty, for regulating the office of treasurer of the ordnance, and of misapplying certain sums of public money whilst he held that office:" which was agreed to nom.con. He then moved, "That for the said offences Joseph Hunt, Esq. be expelled this house." This resolution was also agreed to nem.con.*

This session was passed what was called the Embezzlement Bill; which was brought into the House of Commons by Sir John Newport. A collector had absconded with 27,000l. of the public money in his hands, and had afterwards been taken with 7000l. of it in his possession. In that case, if the clerk of the collector had been guilty, he would have suffered death. But as the law at present stood, no adequate punishment could be inflicted on the principal, and therefore the law officers had not thought it desirable to proceed against him. It was to remedy this glaring defect in law that Sir John Newport brought forward the embezzlement bill. -Mr. Rose observed, that gentlemen of re. spectability would not be desirous of engaging in the public service in places of great trust, with the penalty of transportation hanging over them, as would be the case it this bill were to pass. Sir John

Newport said, when he considered that the right honourable gentleman must have been a party to the passing of a bill imposing the penalty of death on the clerk or cashier of a banker for embezzlement; and also to the act for rendering it a transportable offence to shoot, ensnare, or kill a deer in a close, park, or paddock, he could not help admiring his tender sensibility on an occasion where the son or brother of a great man might be affected. But it was the duty of the house to mete out equal justice to all; to have but one and the same law for the rich and for the poor. Could they forget the cases of Mr. Villiers † and Mr. Hunt, as well as others which had recently occurred, and reflect on the consequences of such cases remaining unpunished, and yet think the punishment of transportation too severe for the crime of fraudulently embezzling or making use of the public money? It would be for a jury to determine what was the embezzlement.

5.

The Solicitor General observed, that at present the embezzlément of public money was punishable by unlimited fine and imprisonment, and even pillory, while at the same time all his property, his person also, and all the property of his sureties, were subject to the writs of extent for the security of the debt due to the public. By the present measure, however, supposing a public defaulter to flee

to return.

the

house, but ascertained that, with a view to the independence of parliament, persons holding offices without responsibllity should not be suffered to have seats in that house. On these grounds he brought forward his present motion; and he trusted the house would give it all the attention it deserved. Of one thing he was sure, that they must either have a temperate reform, or a military government.-However partial he might be to his own plan, his intention, was, in the first instance, to move for a committee, in which it might undergo a vigilant revision, and he would have an oppor. tunity of adopting any amendments that might be recommended.-He concluded by moving, "That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the representation of the people in prliament, and of the most efficacious means of rendering it more complete, and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the house.

After a long debate, in which the usual arguments were urged pro and con, the motion was lost by a great majority.

Ayes, 115; Noes, 234.

Before the question was put, Mr. Brand, after replying to certain arguments against his plan, declared, that whatever the fate of his motion might be, on the present occasion, he should think it his duty to bring it forward again and again.

Another great standing question was submitted to the House of Commons on the 13th of May; when a motion was made by Mr. Grattan, for a committee to consider the Roman catholic petitions.

He stated his intention to rest his motion on two grounds, the domestic nomination of catholic bishops, and the civil capacities of the Irish catholics.-Mr. Grattan on this, as on former occasions of discussing the same, or other great questions, displayed the utmost precision and subtlety of argument, energy of language, and sublimity of eloquence. He is the most accomplished English orator within the memory of the present age: the great Earl of Chatham not excepted. He is clear, concise, tervent, and rapid. He gives edge to his speeches by metaphysical acumen, and sublimity by the stores of learning; and above all by connecting the affairs of earth with the laws and providence of heaven. His speech, on the present occasion, was well arranged, and animated through. out; the following are a few spe. cimens. The charges against ca tholics, that they hold the doctrine of no faith with heretics; that the Pope is infallible, and has a power to absolve trom moral obligation, &c. &c. &c. he refuted by three arguments, the last of which was, that the truth of the charges was impossible. For," said Mr. Grattan, "they amount to a criminality which would have rendered the catholic incapable of civil government, or foreign relationship. It amounts to a transfer of allegiance, and a dissolution of the elements of human society. The existence of society and of government in catholic nations, is the practical answer. But there is another answer more authoritative and conclusive. The charge is irreconcileable to the truth of the Christian religion. It supposes The

the catholic to be more depraved than the pagan or idolater. But the catholics are by far the majority of the Christians. It would follow that the majority of the worshippers of Christ are worse than the worshippers of Jove or of Mahomet. But this is not all. They are, according to this charge, rendered thus execrable by their religion. It would follow that the design of Christianity had been defeated; that Omniscience had been blind, Omnipotence baffled; and that what we call redemption, was the increase of sin, and decrease of salvation. That is to say that the Christian religion is not

divine."

What, have you taken away the Irish parliament, and then do you tell the Irish catholics that by the fundamental laws of the land they must be excluded from yours? Did Mr. Pitt, when he beld out the well-known expectations to the catholics? Did his cabinet?-Come, let us examine the laws alluded to: the declaration of right, and the limitation of the descent of the crown. I bow to these sacred instruments. The declaration of rights is a modest document of intelligible liberty, founded on two great propositions, first, that civil and religious liberty is the inheritance of the people; second, that the violation of this inheritance is a forfeiture of the crown. I see here no catholic disability. We will send for the other great instrument, the limitation of the crown. It is a limitation of the crown to certain descriptions of persons being protestants, in consequence of a forfeiture by the preceding family incurred for the attempt to

take from the subject his civil and religious liberty. The opponents of the catholics suppose that the words being protestants," import not merely that no catholid should be a king, but that no catholic should be a free subject: that the catholics being rendered incapable of the crown, were rendered incapable of enjoying civil capacities. This interpretation I submit to be inadmissible. It raises a code of inability by implication. It confounds two powers which are essentially distinct: the power of limitting the descent of the crown, and a power of destroying the inheritance of the people. It makes the act of settlement, with regard to the catholic and his posterity, commit the very violation for which it deprives the house of Stuart of the throne, and at once transfers his allegiance, and takes away his birthright.

"With regard to the objection to the catholic claims, founded in the oath of the king, 'to preserve the protestant reformed religion as by law established, the comment of the anti-catholics, is, that by law established is meant law not to be altered, and that any alteration of that law, to favour the catholic, would endanger the protestant church. This interpretation, in every shape and reference, I hold to be destitute of reason and justice. It supposes the king to be sworn in his legislative capacity, which is a false supposition. It supposes the oath of the king to be intended as a check on the advice of his two houses of parliament, another false supposition. It supposes the laws regarding the different religious in these coun