success of his corn bill. It differed materially, as might be expected, from that of Mr. Canning in the preceding year, which had died of the effect of the duke of Wellington's amendment. The principle of protecting duties, instead of absolute prohibition, and of an ascending and descending (not fixed) scale, according to the fluctuations of price in the home market, was maintained; but the medium or pivot price, which Mr. Canning had taken at 60s., was raised by the duke of Wellington to between 64s. and 65s. The duke of Wellington was consistent: but the friends of Mr. Canning in the ministry were self-degraded. Mr. C. Grant, the president of the board of trade, spoke like one who felt the position in which he stood. He scarcely attempted to vindicate himself; and condemned the bill whilst he proposed it. It was, he said, not the best that could be framed; but the best that, under the circumstances, was likely to pass: it was a compromise between conflicting interests and opinions. He might have added, that it was a compromise between the friends of Mr. Canning and their places under the duke of Wellington. His speech, on the whole, was a laborious effort between the sincerity of his character and the embarrassments of his situation.

The effect of the repeal of the test and corporation laws upon the Catholic claims was urged with a curious diversity of opinion, during the discussion of that question. It was opposed by some as favouring, by others as injuring, the Catholic cause: and it was supported on the same opposite views of it effects. In point of fact and experience, it ap

peared to exercise upon the other question no influence whatever. Sir Francis Burdett, on the 8th of May, moved a committee of the whole house on the Catholic claims. The motion was carried by a

majority of 6, and rejected in the house of lords by a majority of 44, with no other novelty than that of an abortive conference on the subject between managers on the part of each house in the painted chamber.

Lord Londonderry has not the reputation of being singularly sagacious, and yet his judgment at the opening of the session respecting the efficacy with which the duke of Wellington would get rid of "dry rot in his cabinet," by excision or amputation, was prophetically borne out. Every attempt, however moderate, to correct imperfections or remove abuses, however flagrant, in the representation, was either resisted by majorities of the house of commons, or defeated in the house of lords. The borough of East Retford was convicted of gross and inveterate corruption; and it became a question whether the franchise should be extended to the adjoining hundred, or transferred to Birmingham. The ministers patronised, the claims of the hundred, under the suspicion and imputation of what is called " a job" for the benefit of a great borough proprietor. Mr.Huskisson had pledged himself to vote for the transfer to Manchester; he accordingly voted against his colleagues; and, on his arrival at home from the house of commons, at two o'clock in the morning, addressed a letter, marked "private and confidential," and enclosed in a cabinet box, to the duke of Wellington. In this letter he said, that

after his vote on the East Retford question, he thought it his duty," without loss of time, to afford him (the duke) an opportunity of placing his (Mr. Huskisson's) office in other hands." The duke received the letter at ten in the morning, and, without loss of time, like Mr. Huskisson, availed himself of the opportunity thus offered. He immediately laid Mr. Huskisson's letter, as a resignation, before the king. Mr. Huskisson was thunderstruck, and declared he never intended to resign," his letter was," he said, "private." The duke maintained it was to all intents and purposes a resignation, and official. Lord Dudley called on the duke, and told him "it was a mistake." The duke replied,- "It is no mistake, it can be no mistake, it shall be no mistake." Mr. Huskisson had the weakness, after this peremptory repulse, to offer explanation through lord Palmerston. It was of no avail; the duke was immovable. Mr. Huskisson, after this further mortification, had the incredible pertinacity to make a written appeal to the duke of Wellington, which led to a correspondence, and to a humiliating failure which Mr. Huskisson deserved. The duke of Wellington was evidently glad of the occasion to relieve himself from the superiority of an able colleague, but was clearly warranted in the course pursued by him. It is impossible to recall, without sadness, the fine understanding and profound science of Mr. Huskisson thus debased, and his life lost under circumstances so tragical and sudden, before he had the opportunity to retrieve his character by services worthy of him to his country and his species. Lords Dudley and Palmerston and Mr. C. Grant went

out with Mr. Huskisson. Their places were filled by lord Aberdeen, sir George Murray, sir Henry Hardinge, and Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald.

The intelligent portion of the public, and especially men of business, manifested a strong sense of the gross inconsistencies with reason and utility in the ⚫ existing undigested mass of English jurisprudence. The question was brought under the notice of the house of commons by Mr. Brougham, at an early period of the session, in a speech which occupied near six hours in the delivery, and concluded with the proposal of an address to the king, requesting the issue of a commission of enquiry into the state of the law, and constitution of the courts. Petty errors of technicality and detail in this celebrated discourse were detected by the minute science which could not appreciate or comprehend the vast grasp of mind, the number and diversity of matters, and that rare faculty of order, or, if the word be allowable, of co-ordinance, which gave to it an unique character. The design of Mr. Brougham was not carried into effect; but two commissions were issued in the course of the session, for enquiry into the state of the common law, and the law of real property. The mere patches of law reform which have been, or are likely to be, the result of these commissions upon a pile of accumulated and complicated absurdity, scarcely deserve the name. The session was prorogued by commission on the 28th of July.

Two interesting topics of foreign policy were introduced in the speech of the commissioners; — war between Russia and Turkey, and the suspension of friendly relations with Portugal. The treaty of

London, which directly led to the battle of Navarino, being the work of Mr. Canning, the duke of Wellington availed himself of the opportunity to stigmatise it ambiguously in the king's speech. The vague word "untoward" was believed to have been a compromise with the friends of Mr. Canning in the cabinet. It may be reasonably argued, from the character of Mr. Canning's foreign policy, that the victory of Navarino, in his hands, would have the effect of bringing the barbarian councils of Turkey to reason, by the only means which can effectually reach barbarian apprehension the exercise of force; whilst his fearless energy, and the opinion of enlightened Europe in his train, would have controlled the ambition of Russia. The duke of Wellington neutralised victory, and encouraged Turkish obstinacy, by what may be called an apology; and had not, in his foreign policy, the ascendant influence and energy requisite to keep down Russian ambition and pretensions. Accordingly, the emperor of Russia, disengaging himself from the treaty of London, declared war against Turkey on his own account, for objects which he said concerned him alone; and in the month of July had an army of 150,000 men beyond the Pruth, in successful march upon Constantinople.

In Portugal, affairs had taken a still more strange turn. It was supposed that foreign travel and advice. had reclaimed Don Miguel, and he was accordingly named regent of Portugal, in the room of his sister. From Vienna he addressed to his sister assurances of his fidelity to "his lawful sovereign, and the established laws of Portugal;" and took London in