* courses one, and that alone, was regarded as legally proper, the other legally improper and "that the two being, as above, naturally incom

patible, that which was regarded as the proper "one-that, and that alone was accordingly "consented to, the other rejected.

"Such being the conception presented, how "stands the fact? Incompatibility, manifestly "there was none. In the preference, carried as it "was into effect, two things were contained: rejection put upon one mode, admission given to "the other. What was the mode rejected? the only one that could be completely effectual to "the professed purpose. What was the mode"the only mode-which the goodness you speak "of, would admit? It was a mode, in the first place, insufficient to its declared purpose; in "the next place, pregnant with collateral incon"veniences.

"First then the mode thus rejected would, I say, have been completely effectual to the pro❝fessed purpose. What was that mode? It was "what you so properly denominate the sweeping "mode; the repeal of all the obnoxious statutes by one sweeping clause.

"This mode (so you say, and truly) was reject"ed. The proof is, that a clause to this effect

may be seen in the amended bill, (the bill of "25th June, 1813) as it came from the Commons, " and that no such clause is to be seen in the act,

"(53d George III. c. 160.)-So much (says this "same clause) So much of the said act of the 9th " and 10th of King William, and of all or any other "act or acts of the English, Scotch, British, Irish,

or United Parliaments, as imposes penalties, &c. "are hereby repealed.'

"This mode was, I say, the only mode which "to that same purpose could be completely effec"tual. For, the repeal of any thing less than the "whole number of the penal provisions, bearing

upon the point in question, how could it be ef"fectual? Repealing them all, one by one, (this "I call the particularizing mode) would, indeed, "supposing it known by every body that they "were all repealed, have been equally effectual. "But to whom could this be known? To nobody. "Not even to the pre-eminently learned persons, "who refused to admit of any other mode.

"How should it be known? On the contrary, is it not known, that in the existing legislative "chaos, we possess a sort of terra incognita, in "which, as within the Arctic and Antarctic circles, "discoveries may from time to time be made? Have "we not a very notorious evidence of this, in the "statute, 13th Charles II. cap. 5, by the disco

very of which the number of signatures to a "petition for reform has so recently-(and I beg "Sir Samuel Romilly's pardon, see Commons' de"bate, Morning Chronicle, 4th March, 1818, for

saying so prudentially)-been reduced to twenty?

"In the particular case in question, one reason "why, even to these pre-eminently learned per"sons themselves, the sufficiency of the only mode "they would admit of, could not be known, is" that it had no existence. For proof, I give you "back the case of Ireland, the case to which your " own letter alludes.

"While the ink is yet wet, comes from the "bookseller my copy of the statutes of last ses

sion, and in it the statute of the 7th July, 1817, "57th George III. cap. 70, which then, for the "first time, extends to that island the relief which, "such as it is, had four years before been vouch"safed to ours.

"Now, as to the collateral inconveniences. "One of these likewise, this letter of yours, Sir,

supplies me with: delay and vexation, are their "names. When the only completely effectual "mode was rejected, you were (you say) some" what embarrassed.' Well might you so be: and "this, notwithstanding the goodness,' with which

they 'assured you (these pre-eminently learned "persons) that they could consent to pass with “all expedition a new bill drawn on the plan they "suggested:' viz. that plan, the insufficiency of "which has just been demonstrated. Insufficient as "it was, by the passing of this bill, this embarrass"ment of yours, if not removed, was, at any rate, "to a certain degree relieved. So far as it regard"ed yourself, and your brethren in this island, it

" continued not more than about a couple of "months: for, the 21st of July is the date of the "act, by which so much as could be removed by "it was removed. But your brethren in Ireland, "what to them has been the effect of all this "learned goodness? In hot water were they kept "by it full four years. In hot water? Yes, Sir, " and, moreover, in jeopardy. For, in the mean "time, who could say what might not happen? As "Providence would have it, your sheet-anchor, "the archbishop, continued serviceable. But all "men are mortal, and the holiest men (ask Saint "Peter else) not unchangeable. What, if in the "course of these four years, his Grace had died? "Sir, your postscript gives the answer. For suc❝cessor he would have had one of those bishops, "who are against the measure. Behold then the "effect, and not improbably the object-or what "else was the object? of the learned goodness, be"fore which you had to bow.

1

"First collateral inconvenience.

" vexation combined.

Delay and

"2. Another collateral inconvenience. It is com"posed of the expence, public and private toge"ther, which cannot but have been attendant, on "the interval of delay, and the two additional

processes, which all this goodness and learning "filled it with: viz. the preparing and bringing in "to the Commons that fresh Bill, which became "the Act; and moreover the whole manufacture

" of the fresh Bill which was made necessary for "Ireland.

"In my account, this expence, Sir, is an incon"venience: how many hundred pounds it may "have amounted to, I cannot pretend to say: a "mere drop in the ocean: in the ocean of industriously begotten and (except in so far as, for "example, the voice of a petitioning people may "be smothered by economy,) anxiously nursed, unnecessary expence. In my account I say it is "an inconvenience. In the account of the pre"eminently learned persons in question, can it "have been placed on that same side ?—Alas, no: "on no other than the opposite side. To all those "who fatten upon fees-official men, judges, pro"fessional lawyers of all sorts-to all these belongs "a common cause-an habitual, and, from habit, "almost an instinctive sympathy. When I see "either of the two pre-eminently learned persons

ready and willing, to see exchanged for salary, "all fees, from which, either in pocket or in patronage, he derives a profit,-then will I acknow"ledge, that the burthen, with which in that shape, they, on this occasion, concurred, according to you, in forcing upon the public, as well as "individuals, formed no part of the inducement to "the conduct by which that burthen was imposed. "Second collateral inconvenience-result of the "delay, expence.

"Sir!! Sir! (I think I hear you cry) Sir, what