self the cognizance of matters which were properly the subjects of judicial inquiry, but as usual without success. One of these was directed against Mr. Justice Best. A person of the name of Davison, on his trial for a blasphemous libel, repeated his blasphemies in his defence. Mr. Justice Best warned him to desist from such a course. He continued, however, to shock the court by uttering the most horrid opinions; and the judge fined him for contempt. The defendant persisted in his outrageous conduct, and was fined again. He then behaved in the most insulting manner to the judge, and holding up his hand in a menacing attitude, said "Here is the key of my dungeon; send me to it if you like; I will proceed in my defence." The fines imposed on him amounted in all to 100l., but were remitted at the end of the trial. Davison had applied to the court of King'sbench for a new trial, on the ground that he had been improperly impeded in his defence; but his application was refused. Having failed there, Mr. Denman on the 23rd of February presented a petition from him, mis-stating and complaining of the treatment which he had received. A discussion arose, in which some of the more violent spirits in the House, particularly Mr. Creevey, used very intemperate language with respect to the learned judge. On a division, the petition was rejected by a majority of 64 to 37. The same subject was brought forward on two subsequent occasions, and with like success.

liberation from prison), moved. for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the events which took place at Manchester, on the 16th of August, 1819. The debate, which lasted two nights, turned chiefly upon facts, which were asserted on the one side, and denied on the other. Lord Milton, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Scarlett held inquiry to be necessary; the Solicitor General, lord Londonderry, and Mr. S. Wortley spoke against it. The ministers had a triumphant majority of 124, only 111 voting for the motion, while 235 voted against it.

Towards the end of the session, a curious matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was brought before. the House of Peers." On the 14th of June, lord King presented a petition from a reverend divine, complaining, that he, being

a rector in the diocese of Peterborough, had found it necessary to present to his diocesan a curate, who was furnished with proper testimonials of character and ability, had already signed the 39 articles, and was ready to be examined upon them and subscribe, them again; that the bishop of Peterborough tendered the curate a list of 87 questions, to which he required answers; that upon his refusal to answer them, the bishop refused his licence; that the petitioner then applied to the archbishop of Canterbury, who after some consideration declined to interfere. After a few observations, his lordship moved, that the petition be read. The bishop of Peterborough said, that this mode of examination was not uncommon. What he had done on

sented; so far from having fixed any new, or private, or arbitrary standard, the questions were full of references to the Liturgy and the 39 articles. The 48th canon required an examination of curates before they were licensed, but prescribed no particular mode of examination; and that which he, in the exercise of the discretion which the law gave him, had adopted, seemed to him to be the best calculated to detect deviations from sound doctrine. The canon, which gave him his discretionary power, was part of the law of the land; and till the law was altered, he could not be de

prived of this right of examination. He then went into a defence of the mode, in which the right had been exercised in the present instance. Lord Calthorpe, lord Grey, and lord Lansdown, without questioning the right of the bishop, expressed their opinion, that the conduct he had pursued was calculated to disturb the peace of the church. Lord Harrowby did not see, how parliament could be appealed to in such a transaction: the proper tribunal was elsewhere. The motion, that the petition be laid upon the table, was then negatived.

THE agricultural distress of

THE

the present year, was not inferior to that of 1820. No new causes of embarrassment had sprung up: but the price of corn still continued low, landlords were still reluctant to reduce their rents within natural limits, and farmers still laboured under all the difficulties arising from that diminution or destruction of their capital, which the change in the price of their commodities had occasioned. Numerous petitions for relief were presented to parliament; but it was easier to demand than to discover a remedy. Some wished the government to alter the standard of the currency; some suggested the propriety of expunging part of the national debt; some placed their hopes in the removal of taxes; and some had a perfect faith in the omnipotence of high protecting duties. All called for inquiry; and the ministers thought, that inquiry ought not to be refused to those who suffered. On the 7th of March, Mr. Gooch moved, that a select committee should be appointed, to take into consi

Both

deration the petitions relative to the distress of the agricultural interest. Sir Edward Knatchbull seconded the motion. of these gentlemen, at the same time that they exhibited in very strong colours the difficulties under which the landlord and farmer laboured, disavowed any wish to tamper with the currency, or the national debt; but they were of opinion, that something might be done in the way of diminishing our expenditure, and that the necessary taxes ought to be so modified, as not to lay an undue share of the burthen on the cultivators of the soil. Sir Edward Knatchbull thought also, that some benefit might be de rived from a better system of taking the averages, from making a small addition to the duty on imported oats, and from the adoption of a graduated scale of protecting duties.

Mr. F. Robinson stated, that, when a proposition similar to the present was introduced in the former year, he had opposed it; because he was convinced, that the existing distress was not at

tributable to any defect of the law, and that, when no specific remedy was proposed, it was unwise to agitate so delicate a subject. He thought, however, that the feelings of the most important part of the community were entitled to sympathy and respect; and, therefore, in agreeing to the present motion, although he was pursuing a course inconsistent with that which he had before adopted, he did not conceive that he was subjecting himself to reproach, or doing that for which he ought to feel any shame. With regard to the objects to which the attention of the committee should be directed, he had the satisfaction to find, from the speeches of the mover and seconder, that it was not in contemplation to disturb the laws relative to our currency, or to look for relief through the medium of any operation on the public debt. On the subject of taxation, he did not object to this being brought within the scope of the intended inquiry. Before the committee decided, however, that the principal or the only relief was to be derived from this source, he hoped they would consider how far this decision might affect public credit; and whether, if savings should be made by means of retrenchment, the amount of those savings ought not rather to be applied to a reduction of the debt than to an immediate diminution of the

plain terms avowed to be so; and great pains had been taken to persuade them, that it was the only system under which the interests of agriculture could be promoted. They seemed to believe, that every species of agricultural produce might be imported duty free. The case was not so. Various kinds of agricultural produce had been subjected to duty since the year 1812, and now yielded a considerable revenue. It was so with foreign sheep and other live stock, cheese, butter, seeds, and a great variety of articles, on which a duty was imposed, that, without prohibiting their importation, rendered it highly advantageous to the revenue. If all these were to be excluded, the revenue would sustain a loss of about 600,000l., raised from what was generally supposed to pay no tax at all. He concluded with congratulating the House on the temperate manner in which the gentlemen who espoused the agricultural cause, had brought the matter forward. Entering upon the inquiry in this spirit, they might be enabled to accomplish much that would be useful; and should their endeayours fail of realizing any great improvement, they would at least be attended with the good effect of showing, that the grand specifics, which were sometimes so loudly vaunted, were either impracticable, or, if practicable, inexpedient. Perhaps if this conviction were spread (and there were no means so effectual for spreading it as that of showing that it resulted from the inquiries of a parliamentary committee), an object of no small value would be attained.