making a man truly moral through the ministry of constables, and
sincerely religious under the influence of penalties, is worthy of
the mind which could form such a mass of monstrous absurdity as
this bill is composed of.

The House of Commons threw the measure out certainly, and by so
doing retrieved the disgrace--so far as it could be retrieved--of
placing among the printed papers of Parliament, such an egregious
specimen of legislative folly; but there was a degree of delicacy
and forbearance about the debate that took place, which I cannot
help thinking as unnecessary and uncalled for, as it is unusual in
Parliamentary discussions. If it had been the first time of Sir
Andrew Agnew's attempting to palm such a measure upon the country,
we might well understand, and duly appreciate, the delicate and
compassionate feeling due to the supposed weakness and imbecility
of the man, which prevented his proposition being exposed in its
true colours, and induced this Hon. Member to bear testimony to his
excellent motives, and that Noble Lord to regret that he could not-
-although he had tried to do so--adopt any portion of the bill.
But when these attempts have been repeated, again and again; when
Sir Andrew Agnew has renewed them session after session, and when
it has become palpably evident to the whole House that


His impudence of proof in every trial,
Kens no polite, and heeds no plain denial -


it really becomes high time to speak of him and his legislation, as
they appear to deserve, without that gloss of politeness, which is