necessary. Perhaps the number of the deputies ought to be doubled, or at least considerably augmented. The Chamber of Peers seems to me to be a very unnatural and a very useless part of their government. It was, probably, introduced with a view to imitate the English Constitution; but the French Chamber of Peers is wholly unlike the English House of Lords. The French Chamber, in the course of its ordinary proceedings, exercises, I believe, no judicial functions (I am aware that the trial of Louvel has been assigned to it); while the judicial power exercised by the English House of Lords is the last resort in all cases both of law and equity, and on all questions both civil and criminal. This jurisdiction has existed in England from the most distant times; and, perhaps, no tribunal in any country was ever less suspected of abusing its power. Its decisions are not only acquiesced in with respect, but with a confidence that they are wise as well as just.

I have said, that the Parliament of Paris, though honest in the decision of causes between man and man, was dishonest where

the interest of the privileged order of Noblesse was in question. The English House of Lords has never been even suspected of this; and however remarkable it may seem, yet it is true, that in almost every case in which the House of Lords has differed in opinion from the Courts in Westminster Hall, after-ages have generally said that the House of Lords was right, and that the Courts at Westminster were wrong.

There is another circumstance in which the French Chamber of Peers will with difficulty be made to resemble the English House of Lords. In the English House of Lords, the hereditary Peers are men of the largest landed estates: in the French Chamber, if peerage is to be hereditary, and the existing law of succession is to be persevered in, the Peers will for the most part be poor. I do not quite know the nature of the majorats which have been instituted. If it is meant that certain portions of land should be inalienably annexed to each peerage, and the portions are considerable, inconvenience will arise from the inalienability of the land and if the portion annexed to each peerage

is inconsiderable, the institution will be of no effect.

The French Chamber of Peers is a bad imitation of the English House of Lords. If they thought it advisable that every question should be discussed in two assemblies, they would, perhaps, have done better to have followed the model of the United States of America. A senate and a house of representatives would, perhaps, have answered all the ends they could have had in view. If ever the Bourbons should entertain sentiments in unison with those of the nation, the power which is now given to the executive government of France, of paying the ministers of religion, will create an influence which, perhaps, has never yet been fully estimated; and it will be an influence extremely beneficial to the nation. By withholding payment, the Government will at all times be able to control every ecclesiastic. We hesitate to grant emancipation to the Irish Catholics; and the strongest argument urged against this emancipation is, the danger arising from the influence of their priests: but this danger would be nothing if every Ca

tholic priest were paid by the executive government. The English government has been in the practice of annually distributing a very moderate sum among the Presbyterian ministers; I believe it never exceeded 20,000l. in any one year: yet the influence of this sum has been found highly beneficial to the Government. Since the return of the Bourbons to France, their executive government has not derived much benefit from this power the reason is manifest; the Bourbons have not wished to avail themselves of it. They have not been in unison with the wishes of the nation on this subject. On the contrary, their object has been to reestablish the wealth and the power of the Church. The Catholic church, wherever it is established conformably to its policy, is in truth imperium in imperio. The celibacy of the clergy was established with this view. It was introduced into England by Archbishop Lanfranc about the year 1100; I believe it had not been insisted on much before, even among the continental clergy. The Saxon clergy made great resistance to it; but it was of much importance to the establishment of ecclesiastical power, and

Celibacy

Lanfranc, by birth an Italian, compelled the English clergy to submit to it. deprived the clergy of domestic affections, and reduced them to have but one object of solicitude, the extension of the power of the Church. In all Catholic countries the celibacy of the clergy is insisted on with great strictness; Ibelieve it is more difficult to obtain from Rome a dispensation for a clergyman to marry, than it is to obtain a dispensation for an uncle to marry his niece, though the latter is prohibited by the Levitical law. But the influence which the executive government of France will possess by thus holding the purse from which the ministers of religion are to be paid, has not yet been felt; indeed, it has scarcely been noticed.

When the Bourbons returned in 1814, they were accompanied by emigrants who had too much influence over them. Had Louis XVIII. acted wisely, he would have claimed the crown under the title created by the acceptance of Louis XVI. in 1789. Claiming as his heir under that title, he would have removed all suspicion of his hav