"that alone was accordingly consented to, the "other rejected. 66 Such being the conception presented, how stands "the fact? Incompatibility, manifestly there was 66 none. In the preference, carried as it was into "effect, two things were contained: rejection put " upon one mode, admission given to the other. What "was the mode rejected? the only one that could "be completely effectual to the professed purpose. "What was the mode-the only mode-which the goodness you speak of, would admit? It was a "mode, in the first place, insufficient to its declared purpose; in the next place, pregnant with colla"teral inconveniences. 66 66 "First then the mode thus rejected would, I say, "have been completely effectual to the professed purpose. What was that mode? It was what 66 you so properly denominate the sweeping mode : "the repeal of all the obnoxious statutes by one "sweeping clause. "This mode (so you say, and truly) was rejected. "The proof is, that a clause to this effect may be 66 seen in the amended bill, (the bill of 25th June, 1813) as it came from the Commons, and that no "such clause is to be seen in the act, (53d George " III, c. 160.)—'So much' (says this same clause) "So much of the said act of the 9th and 10th of King William, and of all or any other act or acts of "the English, Scotch, British, Irish, or United Parliaments, as imposes penalties, &c. are hereby 66 "This mode was, I say, the only mode which to "that same purpose could be completely effectual. For, the repeal of anything less than the whole "number of the penal provisions, bearing upon the point in question, how could it be effectual? Re"pealing them all, one by one, (this I call the particularising mode) would, indeed, supposing it known by everybody that they were all repealed, have "been equally effectual. But to whom could this "be known? To nobody. Not even to the pre"eminently learned persons, who refused to admit "of any other mode. 66 66 "How should it be known? On the contrary, is "it not known, that in the existing legislative chaos, "we possess a sort of terra incognita, in which, as "within the Arctic and Antarctic circles, discoveries 66 may from time to time be made? Have we not "a very notorious evidence of this, in the statute, "13th Charles II, cap. 5, by the discovery of which "the number of signatures to a petition for reform "has so recently-(and I beg Sir Samuel Romilly's 'pardon,-see Commons' debate, Morning Chronicle, "4th March 1818,-for saying so prudentially)-been "reduced to twenty? 66 66 "In the particular case in question, one reason why, even to these pre-eminently learned persons "themselves, the sufficiency of the only mode they "would admit of, could not be known, is-that it "had no existence. For proof, I give you back the "case of Ireland, the case to which your own letter "alludes. "While the ink is yet wet, comes from the book"seller my copy of the statutes of last session, and "in it the statute of the 7th July 1817, 57th George III, cap. 70, which then, for the first time, extends "to that island the relief which, such as it is, had "four years before been vouchsafed to ours. 66 Now, as to the collateral inconveniences. One of these likewise, this letter of yours, Sir, supplies "me with delay and vexation are their names. "When the only completely effectual mode was re'jected, you were (you say) 'somewhat embarrassed.' "Well might you so be: and this, notwithstanding "the goodness,' with which they assured you 66 (these pre-eminently learned persons) that they "could consent to pass with all expedition a new "bill drawn on the plan they suggesteď:' viz. that 'plan, the insufficiency of which has just been de"monstrated. Insufficient as it was,-by the passing "of this bill, this embarrassment of yours, if not ❝removed, was, at any rate, to a certain degree "relieved. So far as it regarded yourself, and your "brethren in this island, it continued not more than "about a couple of months: for, the 21st of July is "the date of the act, by which so much as could be "removed by it was removed. But your brethren in Ireland, what to them has been the effect of all "this learned goodness? In hot water were they 'kept by it full four years. In hot water? Yes, Sir, and, moreover, in jeopardy. For, in the mean time, "who could say what might not happen? As Provi 66 "dence would have it, your sheet anchor, the arch 66 66 bishop, continued serviceable. But all men are mortal, and the holiest men (ask Saint Peter else) "not unchangeable. What, if in the course of these "four years, his Grace had died? Sir, your postscript gives the answer. For successor he would have had one of those bishops, who are against the measure. Behold then the effect, and not impro"bably the object-or what else was the object? of "the learned goodness, before which you had to bow. "First collateral inconvenience. Delay and vex"ation combined. 66 "2. Another collateral inconvenience. It is composed of the expence, public and private together, "which cannot but have been attendant on the "interval of delay, and the two additional processes, "which all this goodness and learning filled it with: "viz. the preparing and bringing in to the Commons that fresh, Bill, which became the Act; and moreover the whole manufacture of the fresh Bill which "was made necessary for Ireland. 66 "In my account, this expence, Sir, is an inconve"nience: how many hundred pounds it may have "amounted to, I cannot pretend to say: a mere drop "in the ocean; in the ocean of industriously begot"ten and (except in so far as, for example, the voice "of a petitioning people may be smothered by economy,) anxiously nursed, unnecessary expence. 66 "In my account I say it is an inconvenience. In the "account of the pre-eminently learned persons in question, can it have been placed on that same "side?-Alas, no: on no other than the opposite 66 "side. To all those who fatten upon fees-official "men, judges, professional lawyers of all sorts-to "all these belongs a common cause-an habitual, "and, from habit, almost an instinctive sympathy. "When I see either of the two pre-eminently learned persons ready and willing, to see exchanged for salary, all fees, from which, either in pocket or in patronage, he derives a profit,-then will I acknowledge, that the burthen, with which in that shape, they, on this occasion, concurred, according to you, in forcing upon the public, as well as individuals, formed no part of the inducement to the "conduct by which that burthen was imposed. 66 66 66 "Second collateral inconvenience-result of the delay, expence. "Sir!! Sir! (I think I hear you cry) Sir, what is "this about?-Bad motives?-are you not imputing "bad motives? "Good Sir, no: not I, indeed; I impute no bad "motives. Love of money, and money's worth-a branch "of self-regarding interest-this, and this alone, is "the motive I impute. Sir, I love money myself: "and not the less for my having so little of it-Sir, "do you think I would impute to myself bad motives? No, Sir; if you want to see a man who has no "love for money, go to my Lord Chancellor, go to my Lord Chief Justice, they perhaps may be able "to direct you to one. 66 "A motive, the general predominance of which "over every other, is necessary to the very existence "of the species, can this, with anything like pro |