set up in this country, shewed, that the people were not more civilized here than in land. The best answer, perhaps, to Mr.Windham, would be this fact, that the very

ence of the Roman catholic religion in a country is a proof of ignorance and barbarism ; because the history of the world proves, that that religion has uniformly existed by means of consummate artifice, acting upon brutal ignorance; and that its dispersion has constantly attended the diffusion of general knowledge. A cry of "No Popery" is not in its nature quite so barbarous as a cry of " Popery for ever" would be, Popular cries are not, of course, the offspring of philosophical minds, like Mr. Windham's; but they are, for the most part, the result of a general and correct feeling upon the subjects to which they allude; and, with all their alleged barbarity, I should not be afraid to put the common sense of an English populace at issue, as to practical utility, with all Mr. Windham's philosophy and metaphysics. The cry of Stop thief," for instance, has its rise in an inherent detestation of robbery, and a wish to bring offenders to justice. The short and summary vengeance of a mob, at a man who strikes a woman, originate in the very best feelings of our nature. "God save the King; Nelson for ever;" and numberless other such cries, are all the result of a right and general feeling. Even the cry of "No Peculation," however questionably it may have been set on foot, is adopted from a wish to see the public treasure wellhusbanded.—And, in like manner, the cry of "No Popery" has its rise in a recollection and dread of the recurrence of those scenes of tyranny and bloodshed which popery has caused in this country; and upon the extirpation of which, our civil and religious liberties, our maritime and commercial greatness, are founded.

But popular cries, it will be said, are powerful weapons in the hands of persons unfit to use them; this may be true-and the more true it is, the more cautious should persons be in giving rise to them; for the more formidable such a cry is, the more ought the apprehension of it to act as a preventive, to deter statesmen from calling it forth; and if the dread of encountering the consequences of a cry of "No Popery" should prevent the late tolerant ministers from urging their dangerous concessions to the catholics, these gentlemen may continue to call it a beastly, barbarous cry; but there are others who may think we owe to it the safety and integrity of our church establishment, and the glorious principles of the revolution.

Buonaparte calls us a nation of shopkeepers; "All the Talents" may call us beasts and barbarians; but we ought to learn to value our commerce, and our civil and religi ous liberties, just in proportion as they are thus abused by the enemies of both.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS FROM THE HOUSE OF LORDS. In my last number, I adverted to the motion of Mr. Dennis Browne, for the exclusion of strangers from the gallery of the House of Commons; and I touched slightly upon the advantages which the interests of the country would derive from the occasional enforcement of the standing order, whenever questions are discussed which lead to a disclosure of the views and plans of our government, or of the means and resources of the nation. On the 20th ult. the earl of Suffolk, before entering into several points relative to the defence of the country, moved to clear the bar of the House of Lords, because he did not consider it proper that the subject should go forth to the public. We have thus been favoured with two examples, in the support of the proposition which I made last year; and it is to be hoped, that a patriotic member will always be found ready to move the standing order of each house, whenever the occasion may call for it.

This subject deserves more attention than it has hitherto met with, and therefore, I cannot refrain from extracting a few paragraphs from the letter which I addressed, on the 18th of January, 1806, to that member of the House of Commons who dares to consult his country's good, at the risk of becoming unpopular."

It is a misfortune inseparable from our system of free government, that every political measure, whether relating to the finances, the navy, or army, is rendered so public, in the course of its discussion, that the enemy obtains as complete and correct a view of our intentions as we do ourselves. There are some objects of great importance which cannot be made too public, while they are under the consideration of the legislature; such are all outlines of laws for the domestic regulations of the em pire, and even all money-bills. But, when either the disposable force, or the internal

defence of the country, become matters of discussion, it is not only unadvisable, but impolitic, that strangers should be allowed to remain in the gallery of the House. We all know that there have been patriots in the House of Commons, wholly indif ferent to the impression which their speeches wrought upon the house itself; their harangues having been adapted for the gallery; their periods measured for the use of the reporters; and their applauses or rebukes for the columns of a newspaper. This is, indeed, a wretched vanity; and if the gratification of it were the only evil resulting from the practice of making public, without discrimination, all the speeches of members of parliament, there would be les cause for us to complain.

But an evil, of a more serious nature, has of late years crept into parliamentary debates. Ever since an eloquent and celebrated speech, of nearly six hours duration, in the House of Commons, it seems to have become the fashion amongst our representatives, to vie with each other in the length of their orations, until they have almost persuaded the world, and themselves, that the extent of a man's political knowledge is to be measured by the length of his speeches. Not so our forefathers! Their manly and neryous eloquence compressed, within a short space of time, an abundance of profound, solid, and luminous political information. With them not a breath was lost; not a word was unnecessarily added to give strength to their thoughts. The grandeur of their eloquence consisted in its simplicity; in a torrent of ideas, and not a torrent of words. But their refined posterity, governed more by the love of popularity than by the love of country, have lengthened the instructive monosyllables of their fathers, and dilated a few common-place ideas, and historical analogies, into speeches of inordinate length. The meretricious eloquence of Demetris Phalerius triumphed, in a corrupt age, over the brief, but soul-inspiring periods of Pericles and Demosthenes. "If our orators, instead of modelling their discourses ad captandum vulgum, would study, with attention, the orations of their own ancestors, the business of the nation would be conducted with infinitely more expedition than at present; and ministers would have less to fear from wit, humour, and buffoonery, than from close, solid, and irresistible arguments. The House of Commons would then be a place of business, where not a moment would be thrown away upon trifles foreign from the public concerns; and instead of going there to be entertained, as at a theatre, the public would feel the deepest interest in all its transactions. When we reflect upon the situation of a British minister, it is extremely difficult for us to account for the mode in which he manages the affairs of the state. At four in the afternoon, he must attend the house; for until he is seated on the treasury bench, no business of importance is transacted. There he may be detained the whole night; and what time is left for framing plans, after the residue of the twenty-four hours have been divided between rest, attendance on the sovereign, the perusal of papers, issuing orders, and assisting in consultations, the public may easily ascertain. If this be properly considered, there will be more reason to feel surprise at any thing at all being done for the state, than at any mistakes arising out of haste and precipitation.

"Having thus explained in what manner much precious time is wasted in protracted debates, and long speeches, I now revert to the main object of this letter. The discussions upon the volunteer establishment, and national defence bills, occasioned so much merriment, and so many pleasant jokes and repartees, in the House of Commons, that it is not to be wondered the enemy should treat them with contempt. If this were the only evil arising out of the conceit of some men, we might pass it by without animadversion; but it has a direct tendency to disarm patriotism itself, by inculcating among those upon whom our safety must eventually depend, an opinion that they are unfit and unable to defend their country. When we hear, from the members of opposition, nothing but ridicule of our military institutions, it is natural that all that portion of the community, who profess to be their followers, should speak of those institutions in similar terms of derision; and, if they are thus considered at home, what right have we to expect that they will meet with a better reception abroad? By the publicity given to our parliamentary debates, the enemy is not only made acquainted with every particle of our means of national defence, but he is likewise enabled thereby to assail us in our most vulnerable parts. Now, if the gallery be cleared whenever any subject is about to be discussed, the principles and details of which ought to be concealed from the enemy, no reports of the debates would be

published in the newspapers; consequently, no intelligence of our plans would reach the French government directly, nor any disheartening figures of speech damp the patriotic ardour of our countrymen. The public, who are news-mad, might feel some disappointment on being deprived of their tea-table lounge, and many who would rather see a minister badgered, than the welfare of his country promoted, might grow rampant with vexation. But that great body of the people, whose stedfast loyalty has not been impaired, and whose zealous attachment to their native land has not been corrupted by the perfidious intrigues of faction, would rejoice in the adoption of a measure, which is calculated, at once, to keep the enemy ignorant of our designs and means, and to defeat the malignant spirit of party. Long speeches would be no longer heard, when they could be no longer read; the insidious art of appealing to the galleries, instead of appealing to the good sense of the national representatives, would subside, and public affairs would be agitated with manliness, brevity, and animation; the sessions of parliament would be materially abridged, and the members would be able to return to their respective counties, to encourage, by their presence and example, the prompt execution of the laws.

"It is not my meaning, that the people of the British empire should be kept in the dark concerning their national interests, or the conduct of their representatives. The result of the discussions from which strangers are excluded, may be communicated to the public, as was the custom seventy years ago, through a different channel than a newspaper report, which is in itself a tolerated breach of the privileges of parliament; and the votes of the members may be obtained in the same manner as they always have been. The exclusion should be restricted only to the cases I have enumerated, and in matters of the last importanse, wherein difficulties may oppose themselves to the speedy execution of a measure, or wherein a certain portion of time may be necessary to give it efficacy, a severe penalty ought to be inflicted upon those who, in defiance of the resolution of the House, publish any transactions alluded to above; and thereby render the press an instrument by which intelligence may be communicated to the public enemy."

Such were my opinions at the commencement of the last year, and I have seen no reason since to warrant the least alteration in them; on the contrary, they are strengthened by additional considerations, which have arisen out of the present circumstances of our country. Among others, I shall mention one fact, which places the ordinary reports of the parliamentary debates, in so contemptible a light as to make it doubtful, whether those reports ought to be published at all, upon their present plan. It is well known to members of parliament, and to persons who are in the habit of attending to the debates, that the reports given in the daily papers, are neither more nor less than a species of ex-parte evidence, agreeably to the side whose interests each paper may happen to espouse. The reporters, who have their partialities like other men, devote their attention principally to record the opinions of such members whom they think the most eloquent and the most able; hence, the public are doomed to form their judgment relative to the agitation of national affairs, not by the real sentiments of their representatives, but according to the edition which the newspaper reporters are pleased to give of the speeches of their favourite members. Thus it happens, that there is a cant phraseology current amongst these gentry, and their admirers; and nothing is more common than to hear it said, that such a reporter gives such a person's speech admirably. In fact, the abuse hath arisen to such an height, that particular members have their particular reporters, and particular repor ters their particular members, in as close a connection as exists between the dramatic prompter and actor. The sound, sterling matter of fact, often pronounced in the houses of parliament, is almost continually passed over, while the nation is regaled, in preference, with frothy declamation, personal invectives, and, not unfrequently, with downright nonsense. To report well, it is necessary that a man should possess one of these two qualities, namely, either a very retentive memory, with a perfect abstraction from the subject under discussion, or an habit of strict attention, combined with a thorough comprehension of the matter which is agitated. Now, though every newspaper reporter consider himself to be fully qualified to fill the situ ation of a minister of state, it does not follow that we should entertain the same opi nion of his merits; and, therefore, it must be our object to learn, not what the repor

ter may judge to be expedient, not what he may put into the mouth of his favourite member, or detract from the sentiments of his favourite opponent, but what has actually been delivered by the representatives of the people, in order that their constituents, as well as the public at large, may form a sound judgment both of men

and measures.

said a few

Another, and the greatest evil resulting from the partiality and the solernolency of reporters is, their scandalous omission of the most valuable and interesting part of a debate, which consists in the replies of ministers to the arguments of the opposition, in which replies are always to be found, the justificatory motives for the adoption of public measures. Now, as the only advantage which the people can derive from the publication of the debates, is the opportunity of obtaining a perfect understanding of the grounds upon which public measures are proposed to be conducted, it follows, if the reasons of the ministers be not known, and the arguments only of their opponents be recorded, that we can never form a just estimate of measures, or, what is worse, that our judgments must be liable to err from the misrepresentations, or fallacious arguments, of the persons in opposition, whose sentiments are principally recorded. This circumstance necessarily gives rise to pamphlets, and other publica tions, termed ministerial, or hireling of course, wherein the measures of ministers are justified, and which, by the bye, are never read by the mass of the community. Often have I heard, in the course of five minutes, the most important facts stated by members whom heaven, in mercy to this nation, hath not gifted with the faculty of much talking; but though they be slow of speech, and a slow tongue, their understandings are sound and comprehensive. Their speeches, the reporters do not condescend to notice, or if they should, it is generally thus, "Mr. words in support of the bill;" or, "Mr. spoke a few words, but in so low a tone of voice that we could not hear him." It is neither the voluble sophistry of lawyers, nor the personalities of rival statesmen, which should best the public: the plain, good sense of the members is what we feel anxious to be acquainted with. If any proofs were necessary to confirm the truth of facts which are familiar to every one who frequents the houses of parliament, the gross omissions of several valuable speeches, which were afterwards inserted in the former numbers of this Review, would be sufficient. The speech of the master of the rolls, upon the important subject of the American intercourse bill, did not occupy more than twenty lines in any of the news→ papers; although that speech is the soundest piece of logical arrangement, and political reasoning, which ever was delivered in parliament. It was, however, not lost to the public; for, in the thirty-fourth number of the first volume of this Review, it is recorded in eight quarto pages closely printed, equal to sixteen or seventeen pages of an ordinary newspaper. Again, the speeches of sir Arthur Wellesley, and Mr. Wellesley Pole, upon a subject in which the honour of the nation is deeply concerned, mean the foul insinuations respecting the death of the deposed nabob of Arcot, were not even noticed in any newspaper. I was obliged to supply this omission also, in the second volume of this work; and lastly, the clear and luminous speech of Mr. Ryder against lord Howick's amendment to the address at the opening of the session; a speech which placed the great question relative to the dissolution of parliament in the most perspicuous light, was not reported at all; nor was the name of Mr. Ryder so much as mentioned in the columns of the newspapers. This chasm I have also filled up in the second number of the present volume, to which I particularly request the attentive perusal of my readers. Thus it appears, from facts within our personal experience, that the most valuable parts of the parliamentary discussions are rarely noticed by the reporters; while puns, compliments, and sarcasms, are recorded with diligence and fidelity.

I

These arguments are here adduced to shew in how slovenly a manner the debates are reported, and consequently to diminish their value in the public estimation. The nation wants the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; whereas, according to the present mode of reporting, we are presented, in general, with nothing but the shadow of truth, occasionally with lies, and almost always with the froth, instead of the substance, of the parliamentary debates.

If, therefore, this imperfect method of reporting the debates be acknowledged and universally felt; if no kind of justice be done to the speeches of members, in reply

to objections, and which, from their nature, are the most argumentative and interest. ng portions of a discussion; and, above all, if the motives which influence the con duct of his majesty's ministers be never reported, it is self-evident, that the people can form no correct judgment of the transactions in parliamen, that they are liable to be misled by misrepresentations and false colourings, and that they must be, in fact, nformed, in a very defective manner, of circumstances in which their interests are deeply involved. This being the case, it is evident that parliamentary reports are not of that importance which many persons imagine; and if the objections to the present method of detailing them be so great, how much more seriously do they apply to cases wherein the defence of the country, or our naval and military preparations, come under the deliberation of parliament? The enemy derives more knowledge of our views and transactions from these newspaper reports than from any other quarter; nay, he considers them as semi-official, since no animadversions are ever made upon then by the ruling powers, though they be notorious breaches of privilege. All the measures of Buonaparte are framed in secret, and executed with promptitude; and we who enjoy the advantages of monarchy, display, on no occasion, (the present expedition excepted) the smallest disposition to manage our military ope rations with secrecy. This subject deserves to occupy the reflections of our legisla tors; it is a matter of greater consequence to our independence and liberties, than appears at first sight; and, therefore, I cannot avoid expressing a strong hope, that the standing order of the house will be moved upon every occasion when expeditions, armaments, or the defensive force of the country, become the themes of parliamentary investigation. A correspondent has handled this subject very ably in another part of this week's review, and the reader is referred to his observations for additional reasonings in support of my proposition.

QUESTION RELATIVE TO THe Polygars. —From the manner in which sir T. Turton has endeavoured to blend the situation of the Polygars with the transactions in the Carnatic, which were fully discussed in our last number, it is probable, that he has somewhere heard of their dependence upon the tabobs of Arcot, and therefore, he concludes that they were subjects of those princes whom we had no right to punish without the consent of their sovereign. If this be his opinion, I refer him to the sentiments of the court of directors, delivered as far back as the 10th of June, 1795, in which they expressly deny the nabob's right to any other than a mere nominal sovereignty," "Divested," they say, "of the sword, and relinquishing the power of collecting a revenue, it is not easy to define what rights of sovereignty contended for, by the nabob, with so much zeal and jealousy, remained behind." The learned baronet will no doubt exclaim against me, "You have, hitherto, always despised the authority of the court of directors, and now, when it suits your convenience, you endeavour to shelter yourself under the cover of their opinion." To this I answer, that I do not consider the opinion of the court of directors as a complete justification of the abstract merit of any question. I never could entertain such a sentiment respecting persons who have attempted to deny the authority of a body whom they themselves have appointed, and who, in the year 1805, censured lord Wellesley for acts which they highly approved in 1800. But what I contend for is this; that by law, the opinion of the court of directors regularly delivered through any of the channels, appointed by parliament, for the communication of such opinion, whether the channels be the secret committee, or the directors at large, is a full and sufficient justification for the conduct of the governments in India. This fact leads me to the consideration of the main point of the Polygar question, which is one that affects, exclusively, the court of directors, and has no other relation to the governments in India than as far as they were the instruments employed, by a competent and legal authority, to execute the orders of their lawful superiours. And here I must enter my protest against mixing the name of lord Wellesley with every discussion that may arise on the affairs of India; the motive and object of such attempts are sufficiently obvious. I am not defending the proceedings against the Polygars, although, from every thing that I have heard upon the subject, I consider those proceedings to have been highly expedient and justifiable, to have produced the most beneficial effects, to have been conducted by the local authorities with a characteristic degree of zeal, success, and ability, and to have produced order, tranquillity, and happiness, in districts which had