the Catholic was insulted and calumniated for his religious belief, and when he asked for political advantages, he was not allowed even the means of explaining on what ground he asked them. But let him once be treated as he ought to be treated; let the insulting calumny against his doctrines cease to exasperate his mind, and then see if he cannot as well as the Protestant discharge all the duties of "true allegiance" which a subject owes to his lawful sovereign. A right reverend prelate had objected to the motion as isolated, and had asked, why was not the House called upon for a general inquiry? About a month ago, when a general inquiry was moved for, the objection was, Why do you not bring forward some specific measure? "We have (said his lordship) accepted the challenge; we have brought forward a specific measure, and now you say, we have no objection to this measure; but come with us into a committee, and then we will show you another measure to which we have a strong objection, and for the sake of that, we will reject both." The Lord Chancellor began by paying some high compliments to lords Grey and Grenville, for their ability and eloquence, and then proceeded to exculpate himself from any share in the resolutions alluded to by the former. He disavowed any knowledge of them till he had seen them that morning. Addressing himself to the question before the House, he contended, that the law of the land, as expounded by its ablest writers, had defined "true allegiance" to be allegiance to the constitution in church and state, and he maintained, that the oath required by the statutes of Henry 8th and Elizabeth was merely declaratory of the common law. It was somewhat miraculous that the Whigs of the present day should denounce the Declaration act, as if it had proceeded from that most wicked king, Charles 2nd. What! had they forgotten that it was re-enacted after deliberate discussion in the first parliament of William, the founder of our civil and religious liberties? Some persons with a profusion of something which seemed meant to be law and logic, but which in his mind was neither, had held up the act of Indemnity as if it protected the Catholics as well as Protestants. Now, the act of Indemnity was no more than this; it saw that the establishments of the country were sufficiently guarded by proper enactments, and it then said, that it would not rigidly punish every non-observance, but would be content with keeping in its hands the power of exacting obedience when it thought proper; and to make all sure, this indulgence was only annual. What, then, was meant by the extravagant proposition, that a judge might act on the bench without taking the proper oaths, and then claim the indemnity. The real fact was, that every judge took the oath upon entering office; but, supposing it to be otherwise, was it not monstrous to think that a judge would disgrace himself by breaking the laws which he was called to maintain? The noble lord then argued at great length, that, from the time of Charles 2nd to the time of William, who had sanctioned the act of Charles 2nd, it had been thought necessary, for the preservation of our civil and religious liberties, that Papists should not be allowed to sit in parliament; and the consequence was, that some test was absolutely necessary by which it might be ascertained whether a man was a Catholic or a Protestant. Now, it was obvious, that this could only be done by some oath declaratory of religious opinions. It was, as Dr. Paley had observed, perfectly just to have a religious test of a political opinion; nor was there any more breach of charity or violation of justice in excluding a Catholic, by requiring from him the fulfilment of certain conditions, than there was in disqualifying a Protestant who had not 300l. a-year. He therefore called upon the House, as it had any regard to the constitution in church and state, as settled by the glorious Revolution, and mainly preserved by this very oath, not to commit the unpardonable crime against posterity of transmitting to them their civil and religious liberties impaired or endangered. The Earl of Harrowby said, he would support the motion, though he doubted the expediency of reviving the subject so soon. What he had heard from his noble and learned friend who had just sat down was not calculated to remove his regret at this renewed discussion; for his noble and learned friend had advanced doctrines, in opposition to the motion, which he had trusted were for ever abandoned. His noble friend, indeed, professed his unwillingness to exclude men on account of their religious belief, but the inference from his speech was directly contrary to its declaration; for if his ap himself to be; he thought it very possible to be a good Protestant without calumniating the doctrines of the Catholic; and he was desirous, for one, to be relieved from the necessity of using expressions abhorrent to Christian charity, and shocking without object the feelings of our fellow men. Earl Bathurst said, that the question was, whether the oath of supremacy was sufficient to exclude Catholics from parliament? He thought not; and this he gathered from the preamble of the 30th of Charles 2nd; for if the oath of supremacy had been reckoned sufficient, all that would have been necessary in framing the act of Charles would have been to require their lordships to take the same oath heretofore taken by the Commons. Both Houses were therefore included in the new act, and the declaration was added, on the conviction that some further security was necessary to keep Catholics out of parliament. The noble earl proceeded next to show that the reference in the preamble of the bill before them to the 31st of the king indicated this to be only the first step to take away the oath of supremacy, and declared that upon this ground he must oppose it. probation of the Test act arose from its demanding of every man whether he was a Catholic or Protestant, what was this but approving the principle of exclusion for religion? And as to the other ground that it was no more than a religious test of a political opinion, what need of this additional one when one existed already? The only purpose which the Declaration act answered was, to exasperate the feelings of the Catholics, and disgust those of all reasonable Protestants. For himself, he did indeed believe, that many of the practices of the lower orders of the laity and priesthood in Catholic countries were idolatrous; but he saw no idolatry in the recommendation of the council of Trent, the great authority of the Catholic church. It was remarkable, too, that the venerable men who had deliberately framed the articles of the church of England had not called transubstantiation and the adoration of saints by such hard and violent and abusive names as were used by the framers of the declaration-oath, in the midst of the senseless panic arising out of a pretended plot. The articles called these doctrines merely by the term of "a fond thing." Why, therefore, should their lordships be compelled to adopt abusive and insulting language, which the Earl Grey replied with great animachurch itself had not thought it necessary tion. After repelling the imputation of to use? His learned and noble friend attempting to effect ulterior objects by had laid great stress on the circumstance any insidious means, he contended that that the Declaration act, though originally the act of Charles 2nd had been occasionpassed by Charles 2nd had been sanc-ed by the blind fury which agitated the tioned and confirmed by William, and had called it a free and deliberate act of his first parliament. Surely it was not necessary to tell their lordships, that there never was a period when calm deliberation was less likely to be exercised in any matter relating to the Catholics than in the first parliament of William. The whole nation was exasperated against the Catholics, the Catholic king just banished was in arms to regain the throne and reestablish Popery, if he could. Surely this was not a time for any alleviation of the laws against Popery. The time of the Popish plot itself was hardly less suitable for a favourable consideration of the subject. No such reasons existed now for galling and insulting the feelings of our Catholic brethren; and the more pure our own religion was, the less fitting was it that we should make it an instrument of abusing the religion of others. He was not so proud of the character of a "good hater," as a celebrated man had professed minds of men of all ranks, and not by the presence of any Catholics in parliament. He now stated, after accurate inquiry, that Catholics did not then sit in parliament. The application by certain Protestants to the learned lord on the woolsack, he could not, when he considered the character of that noble lord, and his uniform disposition on this subject, ascribe to very pure and perfect zeal. It was not the intention, and it would not be the effect of this bill, to introduce Catholics into parliament: its object was conciliation. If they would apply this test, let them do it at least in decent terms. Upon what pretence could the learned lord apply the charge of superstition and idolatry to the Catholics? The invocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass, as understood by intelligent Catholics were neither superstition nor idolatry. While no two sects agreed as to speculative opinions, and scarcely any two individuals of one sect agreed, what ground had we to pronounce this anathe- | an alleviation of the suffering of long imma against the Catholics? While the prisonment, and the removal of that diswhole Christian world, up to the time of Henry 8th, and four-fifths of the believers of the blessed Gospel at this day, received those doctrines as sacred, with what modesty or sense could we pronounce them superstition and idolatry? The House then divided: Contents, 49, Proxies, 33; 82. Not Contents, 72, Proxies, 69; 141. Majority against the bill, 59. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 10. grace to the jurisprudence of the country, which, he contended, was brought upon it by inflicting such a punishment upon men before they were tried, as now was frequently the case.-Mr. Western here went into a variety of observations, th show that a more frequent delivery of the gaols would be more congenial to the spirit of the constitution; and he thought he should be able likewise to show, that it would be more conformable to the law of the land, to the ancient law certainly, and even to the unrepealed existing statute law the institutions of former times,those enactments, upon which the basis of the administration of justice was founded in this country, strongly marked an anxious desire to protect the subject, not only from unjust imprisonment by incompetent authority, but from long imprisonment before trial also; which, in truth, was always considered as unjust imprisonment. The provisons of Magna Charta evidently had this object in view. Those words, which the statute was made to speak, as it were, from the mouth of the sovereign,-" Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum vel justitiam,"-comprehended an assurance that justice should not be delayed any more than sold or denied. "Nulli differemus," though directed to other cases than that of mere delay, yet was pointed to that also. Lord Coke, when commenting upon this statute, said, " And hereby it appears that Justitia debet esse libera, plena, celeris, celeris, quia dilatio justitiæ est quædam negatio. Could it be said that six or eight months imprisonment was not dilatio justitiæ ?" Lord Coke again observes, upon the writ de Odio et Otia, which was granted for certain offences not bailable. "Yet the law did so highly hate the long imprisonment of any man before trial, though accused of an heinous offence, that it gave him this writ." and Mr. Justice Hawkins says,"The greater the offence charged, the more horrible the sufferings of the person accused, in the interval between his com mitment, and that of his being brought before a jury of his country." And again, in commenting upon the statute of Glouces GAOL DELIVERIES.] Mr. Western rose, pursuant to his notice, to bring forward a motion, the object of which, he said was, to obtain a more frequent Delivery of the Gaols of those unfortunate persons who now often lay six, seven, and even eight months in prison, before they are brought to trial. It was possible some gentleman might think that a proposition of that sort, which tended to a material alteration in our present system of administering the laws, would have been better in the hands of some honourable gentleman who was a member of the learned profession; but the House would see that his proposal did not involve any intricate question of law;-it did not involve any consideration of doubtful justice, or even, he thought, of doubtful policy. It was founded upon a plain and obvious principle, which, at all events, in the abstract, would meet universal acquiescence and approbation; namely, that no man should be punished before he is brought to trial. And he then contended, that the interval between the summer and the Lent assizes occasioned a duration of imprisonment before trial, which was in effect a most severe punishment, and which could not be justified upon any plea whatever. He said, he was aware that any alteration of the criminal law of the country, or even of the established mode of administering the criminal law, should be received in the first instance with jealousy, and adopted with great caution; but his proposition went in effect to no alteration, other than as affecting those who have the labour of carrying the law into exeter, lord Coke says,-"Lex Angliæ est cution. There was no alteration even of any part of the process of the law,-the sole object was, a more frequent delivery of the gaols, and by that means to effect Lex Misericordiæ for three causes; first, because innocent men shall not be worn and wasted by long imprisonment; but as hereby, and by the provisions of Magna of this statute, and showing that be considered, at the time he wrote, that the law of the land required that the gaols should be delivered at least three times in the year. Here then, in regard to the law upon the subject, we have a statute special and direct in its enactments, drawn from the best times of our history, Charta, speedily come to trial."-As to the existing law, it was certain that there was an unrepealed statute, which provided, "that the gaols of the kingdom should be delivered three times a year, and more often, if need be," and that lord Coke considered that statute to be the law of the land at the time he wrote. The present justices or judges of assize and Nisi Prius came into use in the room of the ancient justices in Eyre, justiciarii in itinere, and are more immediately derived from the stat. of the 13th of Edward 1st c. 30, which says, "From henceforth two justices sworn shall be assigned, before whom assizes shall be taken, and they shall associate one or two discreetest knights, who shall take the assizes three times in the year." And then points out those stated particular times. By the stat. 27th of Edward 1st c. 3, these justices of assize were made also justices of gaol delivery, in these words :-"We for the utility of our realm, &c. have ordained, that justices assigned to take as sizes in every county, immediately after the assizes taken, shall remain, and by our writ shall deliver the gaols of all manner of prisoners, after the form of the gaol deliveries before-time used." Here then we see the justices of assizes and Nisi Prius, who were appointed to take assizes at three stated times in the year, are directed, after they shall have taken their assize to deliver the gaols; and, it must be presumed, that after each and every such taking of assizes they did so deliver the gaols. An act was afterwards passed in the fourth year of the reign of Edward 3rd, c. 2; the title of which describes it to be an act by which the authority of Justices of Assize and Gaol Delivery, and Justices of the Peace, was pointed out; and by which it was ordained, that "good and discreet persons, other than of the places, should "be assigned in all the shires of England "to take Assizes, Juries, and Certifica"tions, and deliver the gaols at least three "times in the year, and more often "if need be." Lord Coke, commenting upon the commission of Gaol Delivery, and referring to this statute, says," By "the LAW OF THE LAND, ne homines diù "detineantur in prisonâ; but that they "might receive plenam et celerem justiciam, "this commission was instituted, and by "this commission gaols ought to be deli"vered thrice in the year, and oftener if "need be:"-thus using the very words H 66 quoted and commented upon by the first authority,-considered by lord Coke himself not only to be the law, but the glory of the law, that men should not be long detained in prison, but should have full and speedy justice. Could it be said that a man imprisoned in July, not brought to trial till late the following March, (and that many such had been, he would show by the papers he had called for),-had received full and speedy justice-So far from it, had he not in effect been worn and wasted by long imprisonment,-had he not seen the summer in great part pass over his head,-if a labourer in agriculture, his harvest lost,— the autumn past, then a long dreary winter in gaol, and even the spring far advanced, before he is brought before a Jury for his trial, and then perhaps acquitted, as it should be remarked more than one-third of the prisoners tried constantly were.-If then, said Mr. Western, it was considered to be the law, and to be necessary, at the time lord Coke wrote, to deliver the gaols three times a year at least, how much more necessary was it at the time he was speaking, when so vast an augmentation of the number of delin. quents had unfortunately taken place, and when at that moment the gaols of the kingdom were crowded beyond what they could contain. He was desirous to point distinctly to the House from the papers upon the table, the effects of the present practice of delivering the gaols only twice in the year. He would show it rather in detail in the first instance, by referring to some of the returns separately, and then the whole collectively; the first he had in his hand was that of the county of Kent. It appeared that at Maidstone last Assizes, there were one hundred and seventy-seven prisoners for trial; of these, twenty-nine were in prison before the 1st of October last, eighty-three before the 1st of January, which, together with those that were subsequently imprisoned, made up a total of one hundred and seventy-seven. By-the-bye, it was evident that one more gaol delivery some time in January, would have reduced the numbers before trial, to be provided for and maintained, and for whom buildings must be erected, from one hundred and seventy-seven to ninety-four, and of course the same in other counties. But the point to which he then wished to call the attention of the House, and which was still more important, was, the injustice which these prisoners had suffered, particularly those in prison before the 1st of October, the shortest period of confinement of whom before trial had been six months; nothing could show more strikingly the cruelty of such confinement in prison, than the known fact that a sentence of six months imprisonment was considered sufficient punishment for half the felonies that were committed. But the case became yet stronger when we considered the sufferings of those who were afterwards acquitted; seventeen of the twenty-nine above-mentioned were acquitted; nine of the seventeen were discharged by proclamation, having no bill found against them, or not prosecuted. On the other side of the return, it appears that twentyfive convicted felons were sentenced to imprisonment, the longest period of confinement of whom was six months. It might be said, that some of these were imprisoned some months before trial; but was not this another illustration of the unquestionable injustice of long detention before trial ? It was common for the Court to address the prisoner, and tell him, that, in consideration of the time he had lain in prison, his sentence was, to further imprisonment for one month only; two men thus brought to the bar, who had each been in prison five months,—the one convicted, is told that his sentence is one month imprisonment only, in consequence of five already suffered, the other is put up afterwards, and a jury of his country return a verdict of not guilty, yet has he endured five-sixths of the punishment of the one who was convicted: there were three at Maidstone, who, after being about seven months in prison, were discharged by proclamation, whilst various convicted felons suffered six-sevenths only of the punishment (including their imprisonment before and after trial), which was inflicted upon these three persons against whom no bill of indictment was found. By the returns of the last Lent Assizes at Chelmsford, the cases were not less striking than those of Maidstone; the total number tried was one hundred and sixtysix. Of these, twenty-five were in prison before the 1st of October; of whom, eleven were acquitted, and of these eleven, six were discharged by proclamation; two were in prison eight months, three seven months and fifteen days, three six months and fifteen days: whilst, on the other hand, sixteen convicted of felony were considered to be sufficiently punished by imprisonment under six months. Upon the whole, it appeared by the papers on the table, that four hundred and five of those persons who were tried at the last assizes had been in gaol before the 1st of October, whilst from the annual return it would be seen that eight hundred persons, convicted of felony, suffered under their sentence a lighter punishment than the four hundred and five had experienced before trial. Mr. Western begged the House further to remark that, if there was another gaol delivery some time in January, it would diminish very nearly one-half the total number of prisoners before trial, which it was now neccessary to provide room for in the gaols, and to maintain so many months longer. This was an important consideration under all circumstances, and in the present moment peculiarly so, when our gaols were crowded beyond what they could contain. The House had appointed a committee to inquire into the state of the gaols, the management pursued in them, and the discipline of the prisoners. That committee, he doubted not, would have a wretched tale to unfold. The report upon the table which had been called for by order of the House of Lords, had been communicated to the House, would show a singular state of non-conformity to law, in the condition of most of our gaols, and prove distinctly how much some essential improvements required to be generally enforced. In the first place, it would be seen that eighty-five gaols, which were stated in the return to be capable of containing only 7,263 prisoners, had in them at one time 10,628. By the same return, it would be seen how excessively defective are the means of classification. By the 24th of the king, the number of classes or departments pointed out to be essentially necessary, amount to eleven in number; and even these are not sufficient to keep offenders of different descriptions properly separated from each other, and prevent the fatal mischief of associating the young offender with the hardy and inveterate practitioner. Now, out of three hundred and thirty-eight prisons, of all descrip |