necessarily foreseen, and it became the duty of ministers to explain to that House what had prevented the introduction of this bill in time for it to undergo its regular investigation. It seemed necessary to create a new patent office to apprise ministers of the approaching death of their own acts. He was an enemy to this unexplained mode of depriving the subject of his most invaluable privilege."

The Additional Defence Act was treated with great ridicule by Lord Carlisle in the debate on 3d March, 1805, on Lord King's motion for a committee on the defence of the country. He observed, "that the praise demanded by ministers for increasing our military strength seemed to be in an inverse proportion to their success. It reminded him of the line in one of Dryden's tragedies, where a lover exclaimed,

'My wound is great, because it is so small;'"

on which a wit who was present, cried out,

Then 'twould be greater, were it none at all.'

When the conduct of Mr. Justice Fox was brought under the consideration of the House of Lords in 1805, Lord Carlisle took an active part in the defence of that learned judge.

On the 20th of June, 1805, Lord Mulgrave having moved an address to the King, thanking His Majesty for his most gracious message relative to our continental connexions, the Earl of Carysfort moved an amendment, in which His Majesty was requested not to prorogue Parliament until he should be able to communicate more fully the state of his negociations with foreign powers. This amendment was supported by Lord Carlisle, who adverted, in strong terms, to the apparent negligence both of the naval and of the military departments of government. "There was another reason," the noble earl observed, "for agreeing to the amendment of his noble friend, and that was the dissensions which were known to exist in His Majesty's cabinet. Instead of being employed in considering how the country was to be extricated from its difficulties, almost the whole time of ministers was known to be

taken up in endeavouring to reconcile disputes, which were constantly occurring. These things were notorious; every person in the street talked of them; he could not meet any body whom he knew, without being asked who was in, and who was out. He could answer only, 'I don't know; but the Rochfort squadron have been out, have done great mischief to our West India possessions, and have returned home unmolested; the Toulon squadron is out, and gone God knows where, and what mischief it may do."

When his old friend Mr. Fox came into power, he was warmly supported by Lord Carlisle. The first opportunity which the noble earl took of expressing his approbation of the new government was on 3d March, 1806, on the Earl of Bristol's motion respecting Lord Ellenborough's having a seat in the cabinet council. Lord Carlisle observed, that "the unfounded alarm which existed on the subject of the motion appeared to have been excited in order to lower the new administration in the eyes of the people, to disturb that public confidence which was placed in men of such great talents and integrity as those respectable characters who composed the present administration, and to banish the joy with which all ranks of men witnessed the paternal care of His Majesty, in calling forth persons of the most exalted talents to direct the affairs of the country. He could not avoid condemning the choice of the moment at which the motion was made, for it was necessary that the new administration, to execute the arduous duty which at that period of danger they had undertaken to perform, should have the public voice and opinion in their favour."

On the 10th March, 1808, when the Offices in Reversion Bill was under discussion, Lord Carlisle "objected to the bill, on the ground that no necessity for it had been proved; there was nothing but the mere statement in the preamble, that it was expedient; but why it was expedient was not shown; and that, in his opinion, was not a sufficient ground for calling on the King to give up a long-used preroga tive."

When the illness of his late Majesty, in the latter end of the year 1810, and his consequent inability to sign à commission for a further prorogation, occasioned the assembling of parliament, after various adjournments and delays, Lord Carlisle, on the 27th of December, called the attention of their lordships to the subject, remarked on the discrepancy between the bulletins of the physicians and the evidence given' by those gentlemen before their lordships' committee, and urged the necessity of no longer postponing the measures which the grave nature of the case required. On the resolutions respecting the Regency being moved by the Earl of Liverpool, on the 4th of January, 1811, Lord Carlisle strongly opposed that resolution in particular which restricted the regent for a certain time from creating peers, as from it "the country could draw only the conclusion, that there was a suspicion that the Prince of Wales would make an improper use of his power."

Bill,

Lord Carlisle opposed the committal of the Frame Work on the 2d of March, 1812, saying, "that the proposition to enact a law, subjecting a fellow creature to the punishment of death, was one from which humanity shrunk, and on which reason ought to pause;" and maintaining that the necessity for the measure had not been shown. The noble earl repeated his objections to the bill, on the motion next day for its third reading.

There are few instances in the records of parliament of a more manly and honourable declaration than that of Lord Carlisle, on the 19th of April, 1814, in opposing a suggestion by Earl Grey, with respect to the expediency of producing papers explanatory of the recent discussions at Chatillon. He observed, that "although he allowed himself to be comparatively ignorant upon questions of that nature, yet he could easily foresee that many disadvantages might be the consequence of producing those documents. It ought not to be forgotten, that England was only one out of five great parties at present engaged; and that the unnecessary publication of those papers might create distrust, and even dif

ferences, at a time when events had occurred which even the other day could scarcely have been hoped. A short time since, when thanks (in which he so heartily concurred) were voted to Lord Wellington, he did expect to have heard from the opposition side of the house some acknowledgment, at least, that in the share which they had borne in recent events His Majesty's ministers had deserved well of their country. That opportunity not having been taken, his lordship felt it incumbent upon him (and the more so, because, for so many years he had felt it necessary to vote in resistance to the measures of government) to give them that applause which they had so well merited, in securing the peace, liberty, and welfare, not only of this country, but of all Europe. This tribute of admiration might have been paid by an individual who could speak better, but who could not feel more than he did."

Lord Carlisle took a decided part in the discussions on the Corn Bill, in 1815. When the Earl of Liverpool moved the second reading of the bill, on the 15th of March of that year, Lord Carlisle contended, "that the greater part of the argument, by which the noble earl had supported the measure was fallacious. There could be no doubt, that to the lowest rank of the labouring classes of the community - to the individuals who work by task-a high price of corn would be productive of infinite misery, as it would not be attended by any circumstance of alleviation; and he was far from thinking that legislative interference was demanded by the great mass of the agricultural interest of the country." On the motion for the third reading of the bill, five days after, Lord Carlisle "objected to the bill, as being calculated to excite great discontent, without its having been shown that any advantage could be derived from it."-This, we believe, was the last important public question on which the noble earl expressed his opinion in the House of Lords. We will now speak of Lord Carlisle as a votary of the It has been already observed, that he cultivated a

muses.

taste for poetry at a very early period of life, Many of his juvenile compositions stole into two publications of the day destined for the reception of fugitive pieces; the one called "The Foundling Hospital for Wit," the other "The Asylum.” Four poems by his lordship were published in 1773, in a quarto edition; they consisted of an ode on the death of Mr. Gray; two copies of verses destined for the monument of a favourite spaniel; and a translation of a passage in Dante. The ode was written in 1771, at a period when the noble author had scarcely attained his twenty-third year, and exhibits an endeavour at once to commemorate the merits of the poet, and also, in some measure, to imitate his numbers. The passage translated from Dante is the twenty-eighth canto, containing the story of Count Ugolino- a story which the pencils of Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Mr. Fuseli, have so powerfully embodied on canvas.

of

In 1801 appeared a splendid edition, from the press Bulmer, of "The Tragedies and Poems of Frederic, Earl of Carlisle, Knight of the Garter, &c." Of the poems, one of the most interesting is that addressed to Sir Joshua Reynolds, on his resignation of the president's chair, at the Royal Academy. This is certainly his lordship's best poetical production, and while it conveys a most delicate compliment to the distinguished individual to whom it was addressed, at a critical and interesting moment of his life, at the same time exhibits great taste in the fine arts.

In the collection is one song, which we believe was originally addressed to Lady Margaret Caroline Gower, daughter of the first Marquis of Stafford, to whom his lordship was married, the 12th of March, 1770, by whom he had ten children, six daughters and four sons, and who died on the 25th of January, 1824.

"The Father's Revenge," and "The Step-mother," are the names of the two tragedies in the same volume. In Boswell's "Life of Johnson," there is a letter from Dr. Johnson to Mrs. Chapone, who had prevailed upon the