exercise of functions, which-supported by a most numerous and respectable minority of both houses-they conceived necessarily to devolve, in right of his birth, upon the heir apparent to the crown, being, as he then was, of full age. We accordingly find his name, with that of the rest of the royal dukes, in the list of the minority, who, on the 23d of December, 1810, unsuccessfully opposed the second resolution transmitted from the commons, asserting the right of the two houses of parliament to provide for supplying the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority. He afterwards signed a strong protest against this resolution, to which were also affixed the names of all the royal dukes, except York and Cambridge, and of two-and-thirty other peers. To the third resolution, asserting the right of parliament to determine by what means the royal assent should be given to such bill as should be introduced for regulating the exercise of the powers and authorities of the crown, during the continuance of his majesty's indisposition, Lord Holland, in a most argumentative and masterly speech, moved an amendment, consisting of a simple request to the Prince of Wales to take upon himself the exercise of those powers and authorities, in the name and on the behalf of the king, during the continuance of his majesty's illness. In support of this amendment, the Duke of Sussex delivered a speech equally creditable to his head and heart, full of sound constitutional principles and powerful reasoning; but, though seconded by the Duke of York, he vainly attempted to urge its adoption by the house. His name, together with those of the Duke of Kent and of all the royal family, stands at the head of a minority of seventy-four peers who supported this amendment; and, with those of all his royal brothers, was afterwards affixed to a most forcible protest against its rejection, and to a still stronger one against the resolution for which it was proposed to be substituted. To the latter, the names of the seven royal dukes stood alone at the foot of the boldest of the four reasons assigned; and which, amongst other things, asserted, that "if the assent is given to the decision of the two houses of parliament, without any person being empowered to give or withhold at his discretion that assent, it is in substance the assent of the two branches of the legislature to their own act; and it can neither deserve the name, nor obtain the authority of the assent of the king, or of any person representing, in his behalf, the third branch of the legislature." This certainly is strong language;-these undoubtedly are bold sentiments;

but, without wishing to revive a controversy long since buried in oblivion, we cannot avoid expressing, en passant, our opinion, that the view taken of this proceeding by those illustrious individuals, who thus felt and thus spoke, was far more correct and constitutional than that of their triumphant opponents. They, however, had a party purpose to answer in the measures which they instituted and carried, and happily no great practical evil resulted from their adoption. That great evil was apprehended, is evident from the very strong opposition excited in both houses, and which, in the upper one, was for a while successful; an amendment of Lord Lansdown, for striking out that part of the first of the resolutions, on which the regency bill was formed, which gave the administration of the royal authority to the Prince of Wales, "subject to such limitations and restrictions as shall be provided," being carried by 105, against 102 voices. Amongst the majority was the Duke of Kent, and the whole of the male branches of the royal family; but their victory availed them nothing, as the lower house, by a very small majority, agreed to several important restrictions on the powers of the regent. Lord Liverpool, on the same night, succeeded in a motion to restore the words rejected in the first resolution; the opposition declining to divide the house in support of a vote, which would be inconsistent with those which they had just passed.

This was the most active and the most important period of the Duke of Kent's parliamentary life; for though he seldom spoke in the senate, we find him twice addressing the house during the eventful session of 1810-11. The first time was on the 5th of January, 1811, when he opposed the admission of proxies on a question of such vital importance as that of supplying the functions of the highest branch of the legislature; the second on the 28th of the same month, when, protesting against all restrictions upon the regent, he declared his intention of voting for their continuance for six, rather than for twelve months, as the lesser of two most serious evils. In this course he was supported by the other royal dukes, with whom he had previously concurred in signing, on the 7th of January, a protest against the resolution of the house, for issuing money from the exchequer for the service of the army and navy, on the warrant of the two houses of parliament alone; declaring, as they and the fifteen peers who signed after them there did, that this unprecedented and unconstitutional measure might have been avoided, without injury to the public service, by resorting to the mode

of proceeding sanctioned by our ancestors, in 1688, namely, that of an address to his royal highness the Prince of Wales, praying him to take upon himself the civil and military administration of affairs, and the disposal of the public revenue, until the means of supplying the defect in the exercise of the royal authority should be finally adjusted. With the rest of his illustrious family, who throughout this painful business proceeded with a cordiality, a vigour, and an unanimity which does them honour, his royal highness was in the majority of 107 to 98, who carried Lord Lansdown's amendment to the resolution respecting the royal household, which by that amendment was placed less exclusively under the direction of the late queen than the ministers had intended it to be.

His royal highness took a part in the celebrated debate of the 1st of July, 1812, on the motion of Marquess Wellesley, pledging the house of peers, in the next session of parlia ment, to take into its most serious consideration the state of the laws affecting the Roman Catholics of Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as might be conducive to the peace and strength of the united kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his majesty's subjects. In support of that motion, his royal highness shortly, but powerfully expressed his anxious and warmest wishes, that when this subject came into discussion, it would be treated not so much as a Catholic, as a conciliatory question; declared his firm conviction of the right of the petitioners to the removal of the civil disabilities by which they were aggrieved, and avowed his persuasion that such removal was the first general measure by which the amelioration of Ireland could be effected. "I think," he added, in the true spirit of a liberal and enlightened patriot, whose wishes to do good are not confined to the isle that gave him birth, " that the situation of the lower classes of the community, in that part of the united kingdom, have long and loudly called for legislative relief; and I hope that the present question will be followed by the proposal of other measures for remedying the grievances under which the poor of Ireland now labour. With this view, as well as that of conciliation, I now," said his royal highness, in concluding his speech," for the first time express the sentiments which I have long entertained on the subject, and feel happy in supporting the motion of the noble marquess.' As far as the success of the motion was concerned, that support was given, however, in vain; a majority

of a single voice the numbers being 126 against 125determining against the pledge.

Here, however, we must pause; the quantity of materials in our hands rendering it impossible that we should finish the memoir in the present Number, without excluding a whole department of our Work. We shall conclude it in our next, trusting that the importance of the subject will excuse a deviation from our usual plan.

J. B.

An Essay on the Agriculture of the Israelites.

PART II.

Manures-Tillage-Weeds-Harvests-Drawbacks on Cultivation-Mode of preparing Corn.

THE application of manures to the soil, the returning to the ground that which was taken from it, "dust to dust," (Gen. iii. 19.) is probably coeval with agriculture, or the curse upon the ground. That manure was used by the Israelites, it is not perhaps necessary to bring any texts to prove. Not, however, to advance any thing but upon some foundation, the parable of the barren fig-tree may be mentioned, in which the dresser of the vineyard says to his lord, "Let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it;" (Luke, xiii. 8.) and, also, (Prov. xiv. 4.) "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean; but much increase is by the strength of the ox" that is, where there are no oxen in the stall, at the crib, all is clean; but there is much increase of produce from the strength which is contained in the dung of the ox. And Moab is threatened, (Isa. xxv. 10.) that he "shall be trodden down, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill.". Of the particular kinds of manure, and the modes of applying it, but little can be collected from Scripture. The Israelites had comparatively few horses and few swine, two sources of excellent strong manure. The chief of their animals were oxen, or of the ox kind, asses, camels, dromedaries, sheep, and goats, of which more will be said when we come to treat of their live stock. The dung of the cow and of the camel was sometimes used as firing, and the dung of the sacrifices,

which must have been considerable, was ordered to be burnt. (Exod. xxix. 14.) We hear, however, frequently of the dunghill, (1 Sam. ii. 8. Ezra, vi. 11. Lam. iv. 5. Dan. ii. 5. iii. 29.) and the draught house; (2 Kings, x. 27.) and there was a particular gate at Jerusalem, called the dung gate, at which the dung was carried out. (Neh. ii. 13. iii. 13, 14. xii. 31.) It does not appear that sheep were used for folding upon the arable land, as we use them in England; but the folds were principally houses, or enclosures walled round, to guard them from beasts of prey by night, or from the scorching heats of noon : "He that entereth not by the door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." (John, x. 1-5.) This is a very curious passage on the economy of sheep. The fold was sometimes on a high mountain, and in the pasture: "I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their folds be there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel." (Ezek. xxxiv. 14.) "Tell me where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon; for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions? If thou know not,-go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherd's tents." (Cant. i. 7, 8.) And yet the fold seems to have been sometimes as easily set and taken up as a tent, as Isaiah, (xiii. 20.) speaking of the destruction of Babylon, says, "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there." The permanent folds were probably emptied out as manure from time to time.

There was a custom enjoined to the Israelites, while encamped in the wilderness, which, whether it was continued when they dwelt in the land of Canaan, or not, was certainly very conducive both to general cleanliness of appearance and wholesomeness, and likewise must have contributed to the fertility of the soil. (Deut. xxiii. 13.) If the dove's dung, mentioned 2 Kings, vi. 25. were really such, then it was