proof of this necessity? None had been stated, and the claim, in so far as it rested on that ground, must be given up as untenable. The assertion of custom was likewise incorrect; for it was not true that, on all former occasions of settling the income of the royal family, regard had been had by parliament to the consideration, whether or not the prince of the blood was in the immediate succession to the throne. Certainly no such distinction had been taken in 1806, when an addition of 6,000l. had been made to the incomes of all the royal princes (except the duke of York's, which had been settled long before), and no distinctive allowance had been demanded for the heir presumptive. Indeed, so far as the duke of York was concerned, the attempt to find in his case, as the chancellor of the Exchequer had done, a precedent for a higher income for an heir presumptive must totally fail; for, at the time when these allowances were fixed, his royal highness was not the heir presumptive, the then prince of Wales, his elder brother, occupying that high station; nor was the duke of York so elevated, until after the death of the princess Charlotte, when no claim of larger income was made in his behalf. The income of the duke of York was, therefore, not measured by his rank as heir presumptive, but was granted in the year 1792, upon his marriage, and with reference to the scale of his then necessarily increased establishment. He received his increased allowance in 1792, not because he stood in a different relation as a member of the royal family from his younger brothers, not because he was heir presumptive, for he

held not that seniority, but solely on account of his marriage settlement. This was capable of demonstration, from a reference to the discussions upon the subject in the year 1792, and also in 1806. It was then quite clear that there was in fact no superior scale of income, established, or even recognized, by precedent, for an heir presumptive, as contradistinguished from the other princes of the royal family. Very different, indeed, was the condition of the heir apparent; in his case there was clearly, legally, and justly, a superior claim, for he was called upon to maintain a higher and more responsible station. The king and queen, the queen consort, the heir apparent and princess royal, were severally distinguished by law from all other members of the royal family. It was fit, then, when the law raised them to marked places of superior privilege and dignity, that parliament should give effect to the constitutional principle of such selection, by enabling them suitably to maintain their higher privileges. But no such distinction prevailed as to the heir presumptive: he was not called on to support more state than any other junior branch of the royal family-he was not called upon to undergo any extraordinary expenditure to support his rank; and the only question, then, ought to be, was he sufficiently provided for already? It was surely for those who called now for the first time for this increase, to make out a case, showing in what the difference consisted in the situation of the heir presumptive from that which he had previously enjoyed as a member of the royal family, and how far it involved an increase of expenditure? Viewing the question, therefore, in this light, it was

with great regret that he found himself compelled to call for further time, to inquire more maturely into the new circumstances in which the heir presumptive was supposed to be placed. It had been said that the difference was trifling, and would make no perceptible addition to the public burthens; that the public did not look very closely into these matters; and that the country would have preferred continuing to pay the larger income which had fallen by the decease of the duke of York, rather than have endured the calamity of his death. It was just and right that such should be the public feeling; but because this saving of income did in the course of nature fall in, was it to be squandered at such a crisis as this, when the national finances disclosed a deficit of so many millions over and above its resources-a crisis when distress pervaded all ranks of the community, and imperatively called upon the representatives of the people to save every shilling they could in the public expenditure?

Mr. Peel was ready to put the question on the ground called for by Mr. Brougham, and to say, that he honestly believed there would be the proposed amount of additional expenditure in the establishment of the duke of Clarence, consequent upon his occupying the rank of heir presumptive. He likewise believed, that, in that situation, his royal highness would be exposed to claims, which, it was desirable upon grounds of public importance, he should be in a condition to allow. It was, no doubt, difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that 9,000l. a year was precisely the sum which ought to be added to the income of the

present heir presumptive, that any thing more would be superfluous, and that any thing less would occasion embarrassment. Indeed, if the case admitted of so precise a calculation, the details must necessarily be of such a nature, that rather than enter minutely into them, he would prefer leaving every gentleman to form the estimate in his own mind, and apply his computation to the amount now called for. The precedent of the duke of York, it had been said, did not apply to this case, because, at the time when that arrangement was adopted, his royal highness did not stand in the situation of heir presumptive. Perhaps, arguing the point as an abstract question of dry law, that might be true; but practically the case was different; and, in point of fact, even supposing that the duke of York's larger income did not accrue to him as heir presumptive, the precedent a fortiori applied the more strongly in favour of the duke of Clarence; for, in the case of the duke of York, it appeared, that though he did not stand in the first degree, an income of a certain amount had been deemed necessary to support his marriage establishment. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite was not accurate in his assertion, that, when the duke of York's income was fixed, and in the subsequent arrangements respecting the establishments of the members of the royal family, the proximity of his late royal highness to the succession to the throne, compared with that of his younger brothers, had not been taken into the consideration. Mr. Pitt had expressly said "Do not think that this grant is an injustice to, or hardship upon, the rest of the royal family." What the learn

ed and honourable gentleman had said about the law recognizing only the heir apparent to the throne, and passing over heirs presumptive, was perfectly true. But why did the law not recognize heirs presumptive, and why had the House invariably considered them? Could there be any other reason, except that the claims arising from their proximity to the throne were equally well founded with those of heirs apparent? In this case, were not the claims of the heir presumptive, in all human probability, as well founded as those of any heir apparent could possibly be? The princess Charlotte, it must be recollected, was neither heir apparent nor heir presumptive; and yet her situation had induced the House to furnish greater resources for the maintenance of her rank and station. In discussing this subject, he could not dismiss from his mind that when 37,000l. was granted to the duke and duchess of York, the duke was in possession of other property arising, from other sources. The income of the duke of York was nearly 50,000l. a year; it was, as nearly as possible, 49,000l. Now the income of the duke and duchess of Clarence, who stood in precisely the same situation with the duke and duchess of York, would not, in the event of this grant being carried, exceed 38,000l. He must, therefore, say that he did not think this grant of 9,000l. at all too much. If Mr. Hume had thought proper to exaggerate all the circumstances connected with this matter, and say that these 9,000l. would furnish bread for many needy and distressed persons, he (Mr. Peel) would answer "So would every other grant;" and would there not, in all probability, be found distressed objects, upon

whom such sums could be bestowed? Was not the honour and dignity of the crown to be considered, as well as the distresses of individuals? And yet every grant to the crown and royal family might be met by the honourable gentleman with precisely the same argument.

The original motion was carried by a majority of 167 to 65; and, a bill founded upon it having been brought in, another division of the House took place on the second reading, which was likewise carried by a large majority. On the motion that the House should go into a committee on the bill (16th March), Mr. Hume again brought on a debate, by opposing the Speaker's leaving the chair, and again inveighed against the inhumanity of not only giving the people a stone, in the shape of a denial of relief, when they asked for bread, but adding to that denial an additional grant to a member of the royal family, of 9,000l., which would have maintained twelve hundred persons for a complete year. Mr. Alderman Wood declared that he would oppose the grant, " because he was convinced that there was not a man who drank a glass of gin, or paid for a pint of porter, who would not have to contribute his mite to the payment of it." Mr. Tennyson supported the grant, but thought, that the whole system, on which we proceeded, in providing for the members of the royal family, was impolitic in itself, and invidious towards them. It was unfair, that, on occasions of this kind, when additional grants to them were proposed, they should be held up, as it were, for examination throughout the country. The grant was said to be founded on the altered situation of the illustrious indivi

dual to whom it was to be given; but the necessary provision ought to have been made by a bill which would contemplate such cases, and the provision ought to be made for the situation, without reference to the individual who might happen to fill it. Considering that the sum proposed was not larger than had been given to the duke of York many years ago, when he did not stand in the same degree of proximity to the throne as that in which the duke of Clarence was now placed, he thought it was not too much. It was not taking a fair view of the question, to spread the sum over the distresses of the country, and to inquire how much of that distress might be covered by it. It would not be any additional burthen on the people; it would come out of a considerable saving made by the death of the duke of York.

The motion for going into a com mittee was carried by 99 against 15, and the bill passed without any farther serious opposition; Mr. Hume having contented himself, on the bringing up of the report, with denouncing the grant as "most profligate and unnecessary," but not again dividing the House upon it.

From the commencement of the session, public expectation had been fixed upon the question of the Catholic claims more eagerly than on any other subject which promised to occupy the attention of parliament, with the exception of the Corn-laws. The triumph of the Catholics in the House of Com mons in 1826, although not the first triumph of the same kind in that branch of the legislature which had subsequently proved futile, had quickened their hopes, and in

vigorated their exertions. At the general election which had intervened in the mean time, they flattered themselves that they had been gainers; and, in fact, in so far as Ireland was concerned, the spiritual influence of the priesthood, applying the promises of religion and the dark denunciations of superstition to purposes of secular policy, had secured an unprecedented success to the party which favoured emancipation. The Catholic association, too, had continued to act; the law which had been made for its suppression was not put into execution.* Its orators

The marquis of Chandos put the two following questions to ministers in the House of Commons (6th of April): down the Catholic association been carFirst, Why has not the law for putting ried into effect? Secondly, Whether any, and what, measures were in contemplation for the purpose of altering the law, so as to meet the present state of things, and effectually put the association down? Mr. Peel answered, "that the institution of a criminal prosecution against a body like the Catholic Association, involved not only ques tions of law, but also questions of discretion: the former were decided by the law officers of the crown, but the latter were decided by the administration generally. If, therefore, a responsibility enforcement of the law against the Cawere to attach to any one for the nontholic Association, it attached quite as much to himself as Home Secretary as to the Attorney-general for Ireland. Between that officer and himself there

had hitherto been a constant concurrence of opinion on all measures relative to the internal administration of Ireland. They had both of them thought it right not to enforce the law against the Caprosecutions which the Attorney-general tholic Association. With regard to other had been called upon to institute, he would merely say this, that he had never known his friend, the Attorneygeneral, shrink from his duty on account of party motives, where the law had been violated, or urge the prosecution ofit where it had not." This might be

had continued to affront all good taste by their furious and bombastic rhetoric; to injure all good feeling by unmeasured and personal abuse of their political opponents, and, most imprudently, to excite additional jealousy of their designs by senseless vituperation of the established church. The general tone of sentiment which characterized the language of these men at the elections, as well as their harangues in the ordinary business of the Association, was distinctly that of menace-menace not only of civil commotion in times of peace, but of fatal commotion, and inevitable separation, if England should be involved in war. Thus a priest, in a letter printed and circulated during the Roscommon election, asked, "Why should not Ireland assert her rights? Blood has been shed in Spain and in France:" and the leader of the Association, as if indulging a patriot hope that the state of Portugal would involve us in war, and that we should be found unequal to the contest, had boasted, that timid England was afraid to draw the sword, having by her side discontented Ireland. Mr. Shiel, another brother of the same band, sailed so near the wind in lauding the prospect of a foreign invasion to redeem Ireland from the tyranny of England, that the Attorney-ge neral presented a bill of indictment against him for sedition-a prosecution, however, which was not carried through.* England is not a country

all very true; but still it was only an acknowledgement of the notorious fact, that the law had not been enforced; it was no answer to the question why it had not been enforced?

These men expatiated with open satisfaction on the ease, with which, according to them, a foreign enemy could invade Ireland, and lead the Irish Ca

the public opinion of which can be silenced, or the public spirit crushed by menaces: men, who opposed the claims of the Catholics as being inconsistent with the essence and the security of the constitution, and pregnant with danger to liberty both in church and state, were not likely to be conciliated in their favour by a threat that they would be carried through at the point of the sword; others, more indifferent to the question itself, but forced to consider it, regarded it with dislike, when it besought their attention by holding out, as a prospective triumph, the degrada tion of England before menaces of foreign interference; and all were convinced, that, when the Catholic priesthood laboured so boldly, and called into requisition so strenuously all the flatteries and terrors of their faith to give political

tholics in array against the power and constitution of Britain. They boasted that the words, which they uttered in Dublin, would, within eight days, be known in Paris-as if they addressed themselves, not to British sense of right rights, but to French ambition; and they revelled in the patriotic idea, that theirs might soon be the glorious task of combatting by the side of foreign despotism for the destruction of English liberty. They called themselves the representatives of seven millions of Catholics, and proclaimed, that, by means of their emissaries and their priests, they could move the mass as they pleased; and that, if only a few foreign regiments were to land in Ireland, these seven millions would rise in rebellion. Hav. ing thus exhibited all the vices of treason-encouraging insurrection at home, and tempting invasion from abroadthey failed to display its only and redeeming virtue-courage; and they evaded the vengeance of the law by devices of words, affecting to deplore, in a few formal phrases, the results which they laboured to bring about, and which formed their prospects of future liberty and national prosperity.