have been deluded touching the father, it is in no danger of being deluded touching the offspring.

The grant for the education of the Duchess of Kent's daughter was carried by acclamation, that for the education of the Duke of Cumberland's son, was resisted by the Whigs to the utmost. Mr Brougham declared, at the outset, that he would oppose the latter in every stage, and he kept his word. Happy it is for the Duchess of Kent that she has chosen her friends among the Whigs-unhappy it is for the Duke of Cumberland that he has belonged to the Tories! The chief ground of opposition was, that although the money was asked for the education of the son, it was meant for the use of the father. To have saved this from utter contempt, it ought to have been proved, either that the Duke had no son, or that this son had no need of education. It was asserted, that the House of Commons could not grant the money without acting inconsistently with its former conduct. Now, as the House was never thought to be infallible, it might, without any loss of character, have been guilty of inconsistency, in redressing wrongs inflicted by itself. If this House will only compare its present principles and conduct with those which it displayed a very few years ago, we think it will maintain a discreet silence touching its consistency. Not the shadow of argument or reason could be adduced in opposition to the grant, and yet it was not carried until it was coupled with every limitation that could insult, blacken, and torture the Royal Duke. The son was to be torn from the father-the Prince was to be brought to this country for education, and an intimation was at the same time given, that the nation did not wish the parent to come with him. The money was to be bound up from the touch of the Duke, in every possible way. Had his Royal Highness been the worst of parents a swindler-a man unfit to be trusted in any of the relations of life, the limitations would have been justifiable, and nothing else could have justified them. Why the Ministers truckled, and bent, and consented to the Opposition as they did, we know not; but we know that they gained anything by it rather than honour.

We here ask every reflecting man to figure to himself the effect which

such treatment must have on the feelings of the writer of the letter which we publish-we ask every father to say how he would feel under it ?—we ask every honourable man to say what effect it would have upon him?-we ask all such men to say, whether anything has been proved against the Duke to warrant it? and whether anything can be found to show that the British nation thought it necessary? How the Duke may think proper to act we know not, but we know what we would do in his circumstances. We would resist the tyranny-we would be trampled on no farther-we would assert our rights as parents and Englishmen-we would spurn from us the money, and keep our son. We would appeal from faction to our country. The money, whether it were the beggarly six thousand, or six millions, ayear, should be granted without robbing us of our rights, peace, and honour, or we would never suffer it to leave the Exchequer. The business reaches beyond the Duke of Cumberland; it blots the character of the country.

While the Whigs could advance nothing to justify their opposition to the grant, it was distinctly asserted in Parliament, that their hostility to the Duke arose from his having been instrumental in removing them from office, through his dislike to what is called Catholic Emancipation. If this be true-and it was very feebly denied-does it not display such a spirit of malice and revenge as no one would expect to find out of the regions below? Is it possible that a party of Englishmen can be found capable of hunting down an individual for a long series of years, and endeavouring to strip him of everything that man can value, merely because he injured them, not as individuals, but as a party, by doing what his conscience commanded, and the laws and constitution sanctioned? For the honour of our countrymen, we hope it is not possible. Are we to believe that men exist who are capable of perverting the House of Commons into an instrument for gratifying party and personal malignity, and vengeance? If we must, then we must say that our system is miserably defective we must say that the laws ought to lay such men in fetters of iron, for the sake of the rights and liberties of the rest of the community.

Mr Brougham closed his opposition to the grant with an abject appeal to the Duke of Cumberland for forgive ness. It was worthy of him. He, however, ought not to have uttered his pitiful supplication, until he had assured himself that he was capable of inspiring the Duke with anger. Men may sometimes acquire such a character, that, do what they will, no one can entertain towards them a feeling so exalted as that of resentment.

We know well enough what imputations we are exposing ourselves to,we know what that writer must expect in these days, who takes upon himself the defence of Royalty. We know this, and still we flinch not from our duty. Thank God! we are strangers to that grovelling, cowardly spirit, which dare not obey the best of motives, from the fear of having the worst imputed to it. Bold in the consciousness of our honesty and independence, it is not the unpopularity of an individual, or the unfashionable ness of a doctrine, that shall deter us from defending the one or maintaining the other. We are aware that we are fighting the battles of the brother of the King; but we are aware like wise, that we are fighting the battles of the victim against those who have crushed him-of the weak against the powerful of the persecuted against the persecutors-of the traduced and oppressed against the traducers and oppressors. We regard the Duke of Cumberland as a man who has been most foully slandered and most cruelly wronged,-we assume that he has the feelings of other men, and that he has a right to that which is the right of the meanest subject, and his rank and extraction shall not prevent us from endeavouring to procure him justice. We detest, not only one kind, but every kind, of tyranny. We detest the tyranny, not only of a King, but of a House of Commons-not only of a party in office, but of a faction out of it. We know sufficient of the constitution and of British liberty to be convinced, that we cannot more faithfully and efficiently serve both, than by resisting all invasions of individual rights and freedom, even though these invasions affect only a Royal Duke, or the Sovereign himself.

We have other reasons for espousing the cause of the Duke of Cumberland. If the principal cause of his

suffering as he has done, have been his fidelity to the Church of England, it would indeed ill become us to stand aloof from him. It is not for us in these times to stand tamely by and see the friends of this Church sacrificed for their fidelity to it. A system appears to have been formed by a party in this country, to single out and hunt down the leading friends of the Church; and it has been proceeded in sufficiently far to render it the duty of ourselves, and of all who think with us, to make a stand against it. In the hands of a party like this, the House of Commons may be made a terrible engine of immolation. It has been said, that there may be a Literary Inquisition as well as a Religious one; and it may be added, that there may even be a House of Commons Inquisition. The members of this House may not be able to stretch their victims on the rack, to tear their flesh from them with the red-hot pincers

to draw rapture from their torments, and exult over the last agonies of departing life;-but they may be able to subject them to injuries and tortures, in comparison of which death itself would be a blessing.

We have already spoken of the Duke of Cumberland, and we will now pass to the Duke of York. His Royal Highness, as our readers are aware, made a speech in the last session, touching the Catholic Question. This speech was moderate in the highest degree, and every man in the nation knew that every syllable proceeded from the conscience. What was the consequence? A member of the House of Commons, without any human thing to sanction it, made the most scandalous exposure of the Duke's private affairs -an exposure evidently calculated to wound to the utmost the Duke's feelings, and to do him the greatest injury in the eyes of the nation. It was an exposure having nothing whatever to do with the refutation of the speech in question, having nothing to do with Catholic matters, and capable only of distressing and injuring the individual against whom it was spoken.

We proceed to the Lord Chancellor, one of the greatest and best men in the nation, a man second to none in ability and virtue,-a man who has the most powerful claims upon national gratitude and affection,-a man who will be known as the great Eldon when

the names of such people as Mr Brougham shall have utterly perished. The same member of the House of Commons attacked Lord Eldon in the same way during the Session; he ascribed his continuance in office, and certain parts of his parliamentary conduct, to the vilest motives; he held him up to the country as a man who perverted his public trust into the means of gratifying the worst feelings of human nature. Where is the individual who would not sacrifice anything to escape such a moral crucifixion? Out of Parliament, as foul a conspiracy exists against this spotless and venerable nobleman, as ever disgraced this or any other nation. The conduct of the press towards him is infamous. Every syllable that he speaks which can be tortured into matter of charge against him, is eagerly seized upon for the purpose; words are put into his mouth that he never utters, and those that he uses are scandalously misrepresented in order to slander him. Now, to what is all this owing? Lord Eldon is a determined friend of the Church, he is the head of that party which will not remove the Catholic disabilities. Were he one of the Liberal party, and a friend of the Catholics, he would be cried up as one of the first of men. The very silk gowns would be forgotten.

One of the West India bishops, it seems, has made a communication to this country, in which he manifests a laudable anxiety for the instruction of the slaves in the doctrines of the church. For this, the same member of the House of Commons, during the Session, made a most outrageous attack upon the bishop, in which he impeached alike the character and capacity of the latter. No question was before the House that implicated the bishop in any shape, and his communication deserved anything rather than parliamentary reproof.

Our readers cannot have forgotten the atrocious abuse which the same member of the House of Commons heaped upon Lord Gifford during the session. Nothing whatever was before the House that could sanction any allusion to Lord Gifford, and yet he was stigmatized as a man devoid of learning and ability-a man unfit for his office a man who had been raised by the sacrifice of principle on the one hand, and by unjustifiable partiality

on the other. Now for the causeLord Gifford is the friend of Lord Eldon-he follows his principles-he is expected to succeed him as Lord Chancellor. If this form a sufficient cause, the attack was unwarrantable; if not, it was as base a one as ever was made. These individuals were all necessarily ABSENT when they were thus treated in the House of Commons. The Speaker and the ministerial members remained silent during this mangling and murdering of their peace and character. The blackening descriptions of them went forth to the newspapers, and then to every hovel in the kingdom, without a word of contradiction; as things solemnly fashioned by the wisdom of Parliament, and perfectly free from falsehood and error.

We here ask every honourable man every man anxious to retain an unsullied reputation-to place himself in the situation of these individuals, and then to say what their feelings must be under all this. If the holding of office is to yield such consequences, what well-principled, high-minded man will subject himself to the disgrace and misery of holding office?— If the conscientious discharge of public duty is to be thus visited, what honest, conscientious man will take upon himself the discharge of public duty? Let the system only continue, and the qualifications for office will speedily be

brazen-faced impudence-reckless contempt for public opinion; the management of public affairs will be engrossed by unprincipled profligates.

We humbly presume that a man acquires no right to act in this manner by being made a member of the House of Commons. We humbly presume that his election gives him no right to blast in his public character the peace and honour of any one whom his personal animosity or malignant disposition may select for the purpose. We venture to think, that while the constitution means official men to be strictly accountable for their official conduct, it does not mean them to be stripped of their rights as individuals," and to be subject to that which must positively disable them for discharging their duties. Great as the powers of the House of Commons may be, we cannot believe that its members have any constitutional right to trample upon individuals in a way that would disgrace any tyranny in the universe.