The celebrated Test Act, being an abjuration, by members of Parliament, of transubstantiation and the invocation of saints, was the next step of the Commons; and whatever may be said abstractly of such an act, such was considered its necessity as a protection from the court, that the Dissenters, who were excluded by it, and the Earl of Bristol, "a Catholic of the Church of Rome, but not a Catholic of the Court of Rome," as he termed himself, supported it,—and it certainly had the effect of crushing the Cabal. Its progress, in the Commons, was interrupted by a dissolution: it was revived in 1675, when it was rejected by the Lords,-who, in this instance, as in more liberal and peaceful times, when they were called on to repeal it, certainly acted up to the barrier system of which they boast. Did religious freedom prompt their vote? When they allowed it to pass in 1678, they modestly attempted to except the members of their own House, but managed only to favour the Duke of York. (b) Meanwhile the Court, perceiving that the Commons could not be safely foiled in their intention to be rid of the government of James, brought in a measure, which, on the succession of a Roman Catholic Prince, put the ecclesiastical benefices (the only things considered in darger from such an event) into the hands of the Bishops. (c) This was dropped in the Commons, where the Bill of Exclusion was soon after passed, on the natural principle that the nation was entitled to choose the tenant of its crown, and objected to the succession of James, not because he was a Roman Catholic, but because he was the servant of Roman Catholics. The King called it a villainous bill, which he would not allow to pass. It passed twice through the Commons,-and being, of course, rejected by the Lords, when taken up a third time, was interrupted by a sudden dissolution. (d)

The Houses showed their respective designs in such measures as were of a purely constitutional nature. The Lords, in 1675, passed a non-resisting Test, declaring it unlawful, on any ground whatever, to take up arms against a King, or "at any time to endeavour the alteration of the Government, either in church or state;" which the Commons, busied with measures to prevent bribery and undue influence among their members, being by no means in a humour to sanction, were prevented from discussing, by a prorogation. (e)

In February, 1674, the Commons passed the Habeas Corpus Act. In latter times, had an attempt been made to improve that statute, the Lords would have termed it "the great palladium of our liberty, not to be sacrilegiously handled;" but when first brought forward, being an innovation, it was of course thrown out. The Commons perseveringly recurred to it; but it did not become law till the year 1679. (ƒ)

Of the reign of James the Second we have little to record. Much credit has been taken by the Peers for their spirited answer to James's declaration that he was resolved to break the laws, by employing a Roman Catholic army, but the Lords had at first returned an approving answer to the King's declaration, from which they did not think of departing until the Commons warned their King not to infringe the laws. (g)

In the affair of the Revolution, the Peers were enabled to perform their duty of interruption. They made (a) Parl. Hist. IV. 558.

(b) Hal. II. 580. Parl. Hist. IV. 1639. (c) Hal. II. 589.
(d) Hal. 11. 580. Parl. Hist. IV. 1339. Dal. Mem. I. 58.
(f) Parl. Hist. IV. 660-1148,
(g) Sir James Macintosh's Hist. Rev. 46.

(e) Parl. Hist. IV. 715.

"abdicated," proposing to substitute "deserted,”—and objected to the throne being called " vacant," "because, by the constitution of the Government, the monarchy is hereditary and not elective." But, after having come to an agreement, the Peers were so anxious to show their new zeal, that they voted the throne to the Prince and Princess of Orange, without specifying their respective shares in the Govermnent, or hinting at those celebrated limitations with which the Commons found it necessary to limit the gift. (a) On these qualications being merged into the Bill of Rights, the Lords did their best to nullify its effect, by modifying the abolition of the power of dispensing with laws, by the addition, as it has been exercised of late ;" (b) and it has been owing, not to the security of the law, but to the watchfulness of the people, that this celebrated enactment was not found to contain its own remedy.

William, who, whatever may have been his fault, was a far greater man than any of the petty oligarchy who had found it necessary to apply to him, wished to keep the agreement which the Church of England had entered into with the Dissenters, to reward them for their assistance in the Revolution. Accordingly, a bill was prepared, rendering the receiving of the Sacrament, according to the Church of England, unnecessary for the tenure of any office of trust. This clause was rejected by the Lords; and a similar fate befell the bill of comprehension, for enlarging the limits of the Church of England, by the abolition of tests obnoxious to those Dissenters whose creed most nearly approached it. (c) At the same period, the Lords showed their zeal by passing a bill, making it treason to correspond with the exiled Monarch; which was rejected by the Commons. (d)

To the act for restoring the corporations seized by Charles II. and James, the Lords insisted on a verbal amendment of importance-the withdrawal of the term "illegal," as applicable to the seizures. (e) Such a term was not to be applied to the act of one who sat on a throne.

It is the vice of the much lauded reign of William, that being the first in which bribery was very serviceable to do the work of prerogative, Parliament was corrupted by places and money. In 1692, a bill " for free and impartial proceedings in Parliament" passed the Commons, but was of course rejected by the Lords. On being again brought forward, it passed both Houses, but was refused the royal assent, a piece of hauteur, on the part of William, which was spiritedly resented by the Commons. (ƒ).

Amidst many investigations, and complaints of undue influence, the Commons devised, in 1701, a bill for appointing a committee to investigate public accounts; producing, as their reasons, the fact that several millions of the public money had not been accounted for, but the Lords baffled their aim, by introducing amendments limiting the inquiry. (g)

At the accession of Anne, the poison which was in a few years almost to reduce the constitution to its previous lifelessness, was fairly infused into the Parliament; but it was not always powerful, and in the repeated attempts of the Commons to disgorge it, appeared some gleams of the better spirit which would have actuated an uncorrupt elected body. In 1702 the Court interest secured the passage through the Commons of a bill to repeal the Act of Occasional Conformity, passed during the previous reign, abolishing the heavy penalties incurred by holders of public offices who frequented dissenting meetings. The Lords moderated the penalties, but the bill so altered was rejected in the lower House. In the two ensuing sessions it suffered the same fate. The Bishops astonished the world with their moderation: but they were of William's choosing, with Burnet at their head. (h)

In 1706 the laws of nature appeared to be restored. The Lords took steps towards a bill for preventing evasions of the law which devolved the property of Roman (a) Macintosh's Revol. 621. (b) Hal. II. 143. (c) Parl. Hist. V. 196. Kennet III. 518, Smollett. (d) Parl. Hist. V. 246. (e) Ib. 536. (f) lb. 745-93, 828. (g) Ib. 1321. Kennet I11. 820 (h) Parl. Hist, VI. 62, 94, 152, 170, 359. Somerville, 76,

Catholics on their next Protestant heirs; but having no hope that it would pass the Commons, who had just rejected such a measure by 119 to 48, they sent an address to the Queen, complaining of "the intolerable boldness and presumption of the Papists," and praying for protection to the suffering Protestants. (a)

The battalion of inferior placemen, who occasionally were enabled to form majorities for the Court, long excited the disgust of the Commons. In the Act of Security of 1706 they introduced a clause, limiting the number of placemen who should be allowed to sit. This the Lords rejected. (b) In 1710, 1711, 1712, 1741, and 1742, the Place Bill met a similar fate: nor was it passed till the fall of the Walpole administration. (c) An act to prevent pensioners from sitting in the Commons was a similar object of desire similarly met; for noble Lords had boroughs to dispose of, and pensioners were sure to vote in the proper manner. George I. called it a villainous bill; and " during his whole administration" says Coxe, "Sir Robert Walpole never made any strong opposition to it, but left it to be rejected by the Upper House."

The House of Lords was considered the proper place for introducing the Septennial Act of 1716. At the same time it must be mentioned, that it passed a bill for allowing counsel to persons accused of treason, which was rejected by the Commons. (d)

In 1719 Sunderland passed through the Peers, with great ease, his celebrated project for perfecting the oligarchy by limiting its number. Fortunately for the country the bill was rejected by the Commons. (e)

In 1722, in spite of the ferocity of the Bishops, the Lords allowed to pass the Quakers' Affirmation Bill. The Archbishop of York moved the characteristic amendment, "that the affirmation should not go in any suit of law for tithes," and Atterbury was horrified at the indulgence extended to “a set of people who were hardly Christians." The Quakers had scruples about paying tithes, except compelled by the decree of a Court; the expense of liti gations in the Courts of Westminster were often ruinous; so the Commons passed, by a large majority, a bill, mak-' ing the determination of two Justices of Peace final, if the Quaker did not litigate farther. The Lords rejected the measure without committing it.(f)

In 1722 a bill to secure the freedom of elections passed the Commons and was rejected by the Lords. The rejection was repeated in 1726. In 1729 it passed with amendments.(g)

It should have been mentioned that a bill to establish vote by ballot was passed in the Commons in 1710, and thrown out by the Lords. (h) On what early day will this act of the drama be repeated?

There were certain defects in the Scottish act of 1701, called the Habeas Corpus of Scotland. A false accuser could be screened from justice; and the mere statement of a capital crime justified the denial of bail. Through these defects the Magistrates and Burgesses of the town of Haddington had been seized and conveyed to a distant jail, for election purposes. An amendment of the act-a measure still wanted-passed the Commons, but was thrown out by the Lords, at the instigation of the Earl of Islay, who thought the defect convenient, and whose viceroy, Lord Milton, had applied it.(i)

Sir Robert Walpole, at his retreat from administration in 1741, had left a million and a half of the public money unaccounted for. It was well known that he had repeatedly paid hard cash for a vote; that the people's money came back to them in the form of election bribes, and that hired pamphleteers eulogised his Government. A committee of inquiry being appointed, Mr. Paxton, the Solicitor of the Treasury, coolly declined answering questions. A bill of indemnity was passed by the Commons, but rejected by the Lords. Carteret, the enemy of Walpole, abhorred the " disgusting inquiry," and Harvey -"sporus, that thing of silk,"-had his indignation im

(a) Parl. His. VI. 516. (b) Hal. III. 260. (c) Parl. Hist. VI. 588, 1000, 1,109. XII. 1,592. (d) Parl. Hist. VII. 306, 380. (e) Ib. 666. Coxe's Walp. 1. 119. Parl, Hist. VII. 946. IX. 1219 (g) Ib. VII. 966, VIII. 520, 754. (h) Hal, III, 275. (1) Parl. Hist. IX, 956.

mortalised in the rolling periods of Johnson's report. The biographer of Walpole exulted in his triumph over calumny.(a)

In 1756, when the nation was jealous of the use of foreign troops, and saw the utility of a well-disciplined army at home, a bill to regulate and discipline the militia passed the Commons. "But it is reported, my lord," says Horace Walpole, writing to Lord Hardwicke, "that this bill, when passed in our House is to be dropped in your Lordship's ;" and so it was. In the ensuing year, however, it passed; and the Peers thus correctly accomplished their legitimate purpose of delay.(b)

The unfortunate case of Admiral Byng is well known to the readers of the history of this period. It was said that he was the victim of popular fury, and that expediency stopped the mercy of the Court. A member of the courtmartial which condemned him, stating his opinion that reasons for lenity might be found in the circumstances of the trial, moved for a bill to relieve the members of the Court from their oath of secrecy; which was passed without opposition. But the Peers would not expose the proceedings of a Court which had condemned a British subject to death, to the light of day, and rejected the bill. (c) In 1758 a gentleman had been impressed, and confined in the Savoy. His friends applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which was refused. He had been committed for no crime, and so might remain a prisoner for life at the will of the Crown. The defect in the act attracted attention, and a bill to amend it passed the Commons. In the House of Lords, to oppose it, was one of those opportunities which displayed the power of Mansfield to advantage before an hereditary aristocracy. spoke for two hours and a half," says Walpole. voice and manner, composed of harmonious solemnity, were the least graces of his speech. I am not averse to own that I never heard so much argument, so much sense, so much oratory united." (d) The measure was

lost.

"He

"His

The question of General Warrants, în 1766, was the next important point of dispute between the Houses. The Commons passed a bill, declaring it illegal to grant a warrant in general terms to seize the printers, &c. of a seditious libel, with their papers, &c. It was rejected by the Lords, and the Commons were obliged to be content to declare it illegal, and a breach of privilege, to apply such a warrant to a Member of that House.(e)

A steady calm of some years subsisted between the two Houses, while a storm was raging without. To the Ministry which was driving the American colonists to war, "the Bulwark of the Constitution, to protect it from rash measures," &c. was never wanting in giving to the votes of the Commons the "usual majorities." The Quebec Coercion Bill made its appearance in the House of Lords. The Assembly of Mausachusets Bay was there goaded by insulting resolutions; and when the Ministry, too late, introduced the repeal of the American Stamp Act, they for the first time saw a measure regarding America stagger as it passed the Upper House. The bill for restraining the trade and fisheries of New England, was im proved in the Lords, by its extension to New Jersey, Pensylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. These amendments were rejected by the Commons; but the hint was not lost, and an act was soon after passed for restraining the trade of these colonies.

In 1772 a bill passed the Commons, to relieve the Dissenters from those penalties which few were base enough to follow the example of the Legislature, by enforcing. It was rejected by the House of Lords, by a majority of 102 to 29. The same measure modified, was lost in a similar manner in the ensuing year. (ƒ)

In 1780, Mr. Burke's bill for preventing members of Parliament from engaging in Government contracts, having passed the Commons, was thrown out by the Lords. (g) But at the same period we must record, per contra, the rejection by the Lords, of Sir George Saville's Bill, for

(a) Coxe's Walpole I. 714. (b) Parl. Hist. XV, 706-69. (c) lb. 816. Smollet.

(d) Parl. Hist. XV. 871-923. Walp. Mem. II. 301. (e) Parl. Hist, XVI. 209. (f) Parl. Hist, XVÍL. 442, 790, (g) New An. Reg. I. 155,

preventing Roman Catholics from educating the children of Protestants; (a) a measure which passed the House of Commons, because it was supposed calculated to appease the insane bigotry of the period at little cost, and was probably rejected by the all-Protestant House for no bet

ter reason.

In the following year, Mr. Fox introduced to the Commons a bill to make marriages in England civil contracts, binding on the contracting parties, and no longer complicated routines of barbarous ceremony, an omission or infraction of the most minute of which invalidated the contract, and when discovered years afterwards, might plunge families in disgrace-likewise to abolish the Scottish monopoly in marriages. When it passed the Commons, the Lords rejected it. (b)

In 1783, Mr Pitt, after a Parliamentary inquiry, which showed instances of great abuse and misconduct, passed through the Commons a bill for regulating the Admiralty, Navy, Victualling, and Treasury Offices. This was the reforming period of his Protean life; and the measure would have made effectual retrenchments. It was rejected by the Lords, because it infringed on the prerogative of the Crown. (c) During the same year, a similar cautious respect caused the rejection of Mr. Fox's celebrated East India Bills. The merits of the measure it is not our purpose to discuss; and, as it is well known, we shall not give an account of it. It abolished a serviceable branch of the prerogative; and therefore the King told Earl Temple, "That he should deem those who should vote for the Bill, not only not his friends, but his enemies;" and so several Lords who had intrusted Ministers with their proxies, showed their independence by withdrawing them.(d)

In 1786, Mr. Wilberforce passed through the Commons a Bill for the amelioration of the criminal code. It would probably be difficult now to discover the nature of its provisions, but its author's name is an index to its nature. Lord Loughborough said the judges had not been consulted on the propriety of the measure, and it would be very wrong to pass it. It was rejected without a division. (e)

Some persons who felt the barbarism of the English law of imprisonment for debt, but who saw, and perhaps partook in the "nolumus leges Angliæ mutari," attempted to soften it by procuring on certain jubilee occasions, (such as a birth, or birth-day in the Royal family,) which, are excuses for all kinds of odd acts, an occasional insolvent act, releasing prisoners for debt, under certain conditions. In 1783, 1784, 1785, and 1786, a succession of such bills passed the Commons, and were rejected by the Lords. Another passed the Commons in 1787; but as the excuse for urging it was, not any event in the Royal Household, but the vulgar fact that there were more more than 3000 debtors in the different jails in the kingdom, it was thrown out by the Lords. Lord Thurlow said, "he had frequent opportunities of witnessing the temper of creditors, and had seldom found any cause of complaint." His Lordship was protected by privilege. (ƒ)

It may be mentioned, that to the abolition of the Slave Trade Bill of 1788, the Lords added an amendment, exempting from its prohibitions the persons holding the assiento contract (or contract of providing slaves) with the Spanish Government. This bill was lost for the time, on a point of form. (g)

The dispute as to the rights of Juries to decide both as to the law and as to the fact in cases of libel, or, more properly speaking, as to the whole fact in cases of libel, is well known. About the year 1770, a Bill to enable Juries to judge both of the fact of publishing, and the criminality of the publication, was lost in the Lords, because it was said such really was the law. But the attempts of Mansfield were effectual, and it came to be understood that Juries could not decide on the criminality. Fox introduced his first Bill for extending their rights, in 1791. It passed the Commons; but at the dictum of the Chancellor, the Lords dropped it in silent horror, not ho

(a) Ib. 176. (6) New An. Reg. IL 157. (c) Gent. Mag. LIII 624. New An. Reg. IV. 119. (d) Aikin, L. 333. New An. Reg. V. 12. (e) Ib. VII. 154. (ƒ) Ib. VIII. 109. (g) Ib. IX, 131.;

nouring it with an argument. (a) Mr. Fox had a similar measure of reform of another branch of the law in readiness, but he saw the inutility of bringing it forward.

In 1792, Mr. Wilberforce, with great difficulty, passed through the Commons a resolution that the Slave Trade should be gradually abolished, its termination being to take place in 1796. On the resolution being carried to the House of Lords, means were found to protract the measure indefinitely, by the appointment of a committee for hearing evidence. The same indefatigable advocate of philanthrophy, whose fate it was to see the prospect of doing good continually diminish in the progress of his labours, obtained from the Commons, in 1794, the abolition of that branch of the Commerce, which supplied the islands and territories belonging to foreigners; but the Lords had, we presume, not made sufficient inquiry, to enable them to accede to the boon, and rejected the bill by 45 to 4. (b)

In 1797, the Lords rejected a Bill for allowing Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to serve as officers in the supplementary militia, which had just been provided. The Bishop of Rochester exceeded the usual imaginative powers of a Bishop, in attacking this unnatural provision," and expressed his surprise that a Bill should be introduced during the dog-days, which affected the bulwarks of the Constitution," &c. (c)

In 1803, considerable attention was attracted by the more than ordinary constitutional amount of dishonesty, which had been exhibited in the admiralty department during the war; and a bill, appointing commissioners to inquire into frauds and abuses, passed the Commons. It was the purpose of this act, that the commissioners should institute the best course of examination they could devise,

and, among ther plans, that they should cross-question the persons interested, and act on the information they so acquired. This seemed hard to the Peers; and while they nominally passed the bill, they deprived it of its sting, by protecting the persons concerned from being liable to answer any questions which might criminate themselves. (d)

Let us here notice an event which happened during the same year, which, though scarcely bearing reference to the avowed subject of this paper, is so singular a natural curiosity, as a specimen of expeditious and attentive legislation, that it cannot be too often noticed. On the 28th of July, the House of Lords, after hearing an address from his Majesty, adjourned till eight in the evening, for the purpose of passing two bills, that night expected from the Commons; the one for trying Irish rebels by martial law, the other for the suspension of the habeas corpus act in Ireland. These bills had incurred some opposition in the Commons; but, as anticipated, they stalked into the Upper House, between nine and ten o'clock on the expected night. The standing orders of the House were dispensed with, and the bills passed through all their stages before the noble Lords adjourned to the opera. The Bill continuing the suspension, passed in a similarly happy manner through all its stages in one day. There was a slight murmur of opposition, on the ground that ministers who knew when the act was to expire, should have come forward with a renewal at an earlier period; but they took it calmly, knowing themselves to be among civil men, who would not question them much, when such a measure was wanted. (e)

In 1808, Mr. Banks obtained the consent of the Commons to a Bill for preventing the granting of offices in reversion. It was thrown out by the Lords; but a Bill limiting the measure to one year was passed. In 1810, the Commons passed, by acclamation, a Bill to render the prohibition permanent, which the Lords threw out at the second reading; and the measure, in a modified form, inet a like fate. (f)

During the same year, Sir Samuel Romilly's Bill to abolish the punishment of death for petty thefts in shops, having passed the Commons, met in the Lords the usual fate of a measure of clemency. (g)

In 1814, a Bill brought in by Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir James Mackintosh, for subjecting the freehold estates of persons dying in debt, to simple contract debts, having passed the Commons, was of course lost in the Lords, as a measure not agreeable to men who had estates. (a)

A Bill abolishing the demoralizing punishment of the pillory passed, the Commons in 1815, but was thrown out by the Lords, who were not likely to be benefited by it. (b)

In 1818, the Lords rejected the Act for abolishing the punishment of death in thefts, amounting to above five shillings, in shops and warehouses, after it had passed the Commons. (c) They were pleased, two years afterwards, to give their consent to some of Mackintosh's meliorations of the bloody code, with a few exceptions to the measure as it had passed the Commons; among which they fa voured the Black Act" of 9th Geo. I., which denounced death against those who committed certain offences, with their faces blackened. Meanwhile the Six Acts passed. These were not among the measures, which, like the abo lition of the Slave Trade, required consideration, inquiry, and delay. They were among those things which Lords cannot do too quickly; and we find that, having been announced by Sidmouth on the 30th November, two of them passed the Lords on the 7th December, and the rest speedily followed.

The

In 1820, Lord John Russell attempted a petty reform in the House of Commons, by moving a Bill to prevent the issuing of writs to Grampound, Penrhyn, Camelford, and Barnstaple, at the ensuing general election. measure passed the Commons' House; but the noble Lord might have anticipated the vanity of his exertions. It was lost in the Lords. (d)

We now come to the Parliaments of George IV.; and in treating of events so recent and well remembered, shall be brief. Early in the year 1821, the claims of the Catholics to the rights of fellow-citizens were brought be fore the House of Commons by Mr. Plunkett; and on a series of resolutions, expressive of the hardship of the declarations against the essentials of the Roman Catholic creed, and the inutility of the disavowal of a foreign spiritual authority, two bills were framed, which, consolidated, passed the Commons, by 216 to 197. The motion for the second reading was lost in the Lords, by 159 to 120. (e)

At the same period of the year, Lord John Russell, then abortively attempting, along with Lambton, the adoption of a general measure of Reform, carried through the Commons a Bill to disfranchise Grampound, and give the right of election of two members to Leeds. The Lords agreed that the voters of Grampound should be punished; but the idea of giving members to a place which had none in the days of Elizabeth, was an experiment too dangerous for their nervous feelings, and they amended the Bill, by giving two additional members to Yorkshire. (f)

During the same session, Sir James Mackintosh continued his efforts in mitigation of the criminal code. The abolition of the punishment of death in certain cases of forgery had nearly passed the Commons; that for its abolishment in petty thefts in dwelling houses and in navigable rivers, eluded the steady guardians of public morals in the Commons; but the abortion was crushed by the Lords. (g)

In 1822, a bill passed the Commons, at the instance of Mr. Canning, for allowing the Catholic peers to resume their seats in Parliament; but the Right Reverends and

Right Honourables recoiled from the polluted touch, and the measure was lost by 171 to 129.(a)

In 1823, the progress of free trade opinions induced the minister to sanction a bill to remove the restrictions of the Spitalfields act, by which the wages of the silk weavers were fixed by the magistrates, with a reference to the quantity of work performed. The repeal passed the Commons; but was so far altered by the Lords that its friends did not recognize it, and deserted it. The Lords claimed the merit of humanity, and pointed to respectful petitions from the weavers-let it not be denied them.(6)

The same year witnessed the rejection, by 80 to 73, of a modified Catholic Relief Bill, bestowing the right of electing, but not of being elected, which had passed the Commons with slight discussion.(c)

In 1824, Lord Althorp introduced to the Commons a bill for preventing delays and expences in the proceedings of County Courts, and for the more easy and speedy recovery of small debts." The bill was supported on the general principle that it was not, according to the state of the law, worth any tradesman's while to prosecute for a debt under L.10; and it proposed the appointment of assessors to Sheriffs, who, in circuits through the counties, should decide such cases by the intervention of a jury. It passed the Commons. In the Lords, Lord Ellenborough observed, that it would make tradesmen less ready to give credit; a thing to be much deprecated by noble Lords, who seldom prosecuted for debts under L.10. The measure was lost.(d)

In March 1825, the Catholic relief bill was again brought forward, on the principle of expunging from the oath of supremacy, the portions offensive to the religious feelings of persons of that persuation. It was thrown out by the Lords.(e)

In 1828, a bill which had passed the Commons for legalizing the sale of game, and terminating the encouragement given to poachers by their monoply of the market, was thrown out by the Lords.(f) In June 1829, a similar bill which had unanimously passed the Commons, was thrown out. It was said, it would tend to depopulate the country of gentlemen.(g)

In 1829, the Commons passed the anatomy regulation bill, to enable medical men to study their profession without the risk of transportation. The Lords said, the idea of relations disposing of bodies, &c., had created a terrible sensation in the country; so they rejected the bill, being unaffected by vulgar prejudices in favour of science.(h)

To the bill of 1830, for altering the punishment of forgery, the Commons added an amendment, abolishing the punishment of death for forging negociable instruments, transfers of stock, and stock receipts, which would have made the law nearly as it now stands. On the motion of the Chancellor, it was defeated in the Lords. (i)

We are afraid, were we to enter on the rejection of the Reform Bill, the Local Courts Bill, the Jews' Disabilities Bill, the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill, and the Irish Tithes Bill, we might get political in our remarks, a thing we wish much to avoid, professing to be but the calm and matter-of-fact historian; but, in passing, we cannot avoid a slight mark of praise to the ingenious and conclusive argument of Lord Malmesbury, which shewed, that giving Jews the right of British subjects might prevent the sitting of Parliament on Saturday; and we can assure his Lordship, that the course of our investigations has in no case shown a more sound or practical ground for a vote of the House of Peers.

(a) Riv. An. Reg. 142-9. (b) Hal. 192. (c) Ib. 231. (a) lb. 24 117. (e) An, Reg. 67. (f) Debates, 1694. (g) Ib. 1592. (h) Ib. 1740. () Ib. 842.