of the powers who combated the revolution, and convinced them of the necessity of putting a check to the new calamities with which Europe is threatened. The principles which united the great powers of the continent to deliver the world from the military despotism of an individual issuing from the revolution, ought to act against the revolutionary power which has just developed itself. "The sovereigns assembled at Troppau, with this intention, venture to hope that they shall attain this object. They will take for their guides in this great enterprise, the treaties which restored peace to Europe, and have united its nations together. Without doubt the powers have the right to take, in common, general measures of precaution against those states whose reforms, engendered by rebellion, are openly opposed to legitimate governments, as examples have already demonstrated, especially when this spirit of rebellion is propagated in the neighbouring states by secret agents. "In consequence, the monarchs assembled at Troppau, have concerted together the measures required by circumstances, and have communicated to the courts of London and Paris their intention of attaining the end desired, either by mediation or by force. With this view, they have invited the king of the Two Sicilies to repair to Laybach, to appear there as conciliator between his misguided people and the states whose tranquillity is endangered. By this state of things, and as they have resolved not to recognize any authority established by the seditious, it is only with the king they can confer. "As the system to be followed has no other foundation than treaties already existing, they have no doubt of the assent of the courts of Paris and London. The only object of this system is, to consolidate the alliance between the sovereigns: it has no view to conquests, or to violations of the independence of other powers. Voluntary ameliorations in the government will not be intruded. They desire only to maintain tranquillity, and protect Europe from the scourge of new revolutions, and to prevent them as far as possible." He would not stay to inquire how far the conclusion of this circular was in unison with the sentiments stated at its commenceinent: all he wished to know, was, whether the determination here expressed by the allied powers was founded upon treaties. In this circular it was inferred, that the allied powers would have the consent of the courts of London and Paris to their proceedings. He wished to know whether this paper had been communicated to the government of this country, and whether the inference of support from England had been authorized by the government? The Earl of Liverpool said, he had not the least difficulty in answering the question of the noble earl. The paper to which he referred was, he believed, an incorrect copy of a real paper which did exist. However, he had no difficulty in stating, in the first place, that there were no treaties of the nature alluded to in that paper. In the next place, he was able to assure the noble earl, that the court of London was no party to any proceedings now in progress with reference to Naples. In consequence of a paper, similar to that referred to by the noble earl, a paper had been addressed by this government to the different powers of Europe, which he should have no objection to lay before the House. That paper would explain the whole policy pursued by this government with reference to the affairs of Naples. He repeated, that he had not the slightest objection to the production of that document, though he could wish, as a matter of convenience, that the noble earl would not move for it that evening. Earl Grey expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the answer of the noble earl. He certainly should not move for the production of the paper to-night, after what had fallen from the noble earl; but he hoped that it would be speedily laid before the House, and he confidently expected, from the answer of the noble earl, that that paper would contradict the inferences drawn by the courts of Petersburgh, Berlin, and Vienna; and show, that they had no right whatever to count upon the co-operation or assistance of this government. The Earl of Liverpool had no difficulty in assuring the noble earl, that the paper he had referred to would give a complete contradiction to any inferences, calculating upon the assistance of this government. There were some arrangements which prevented its immediate production; but he should be ready to lay it before the House in the course of the next week. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, January 26. THE KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.]-Mr. Speaker reported the king's answer to the address as follows: "Gentlemen, "I receive with the highest satisfaction this dutiful and loyal address. The assurances which you give me of your affectionate attachment to my person and government, and of your cordial support in the discharge of those sacred duties which are imposed upon me for the protection and happiness of my people, afford me the surest pledge that I shall be enabled, under the favour of Divine Providence, effectually to preserve to my subjects those inestimable blessings which they have hitherto enjoyed under our invaluable constitution." PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.] -Mr. Wyvill presented a petition signed by 1,700 inhabitants of the city of York, complaining of the conduct of ministers towards her majesty, and praying for the restoration of all her rights, and especially for the restoration of her name to the Liturgy. He took that opportunity of stating, that it was with considerable pain he learnt that the noble lord opposite, did not, of himself, intend to advise the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. He inferred from this conduct, that neither ministers nor his majesty were aware of the irritation which prevailed throughout the country on this subject. He must also say, that he was greatly surprised that ministers had no intention of instituting an investigation into the Milan commission. The country would assume from this conduct, and confidently assume as a fact, that there had been a conspiracy, and that ministers were parties to that conspiracy. Mr. James presented a petition from Carlisle, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, and entreating that the House would no longer continue to support ministers, who had introduced and supported such unconstitutional measures. The petition was signed by more than 1,000 names, and it reprobated the bill of Pains and Penalties as a violation of the constitution and of the fundamental laws of the realm, and as a measure unknown, except in cases of most urgent state necessity. Mr. Denison rose to present a petition from the parishes of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, and others, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. It lamented that the late measures against her majesty should ever have been instituted. In the sentiments and prayers of the petitioners he concurred, being convinced, that a more impolitic, unwise, and unjust measure, than that of striking her majesty's name out of the Liturgy, could not have been devised; and being also convinced, that nothing could restore tranquillity to the country but the replacing of her majesty's name where it ought to be. On the motion, that the petition be printed, Sir E. Knatchbull expressed a hope that, on the score of economy, hon. gentlemen would not press the printingofevery petition of this sort that might be presented. He therefore hoped the hon. member would not persevere in the motion he had made. Mr. Denison agreed with the hon. gentleman, that economy was desirable, but could not agree that the petition ought not to be printed. Those from whom it came, though in a humble situation, were as much entitled to have their sentiments made known to their fellow subjects as any other body of men could be. Lord Milton was glad to find the hon. member for Kent so alive to the necessity of observing the most rigid economy, and trusted the House and the country would regard it only as an earnest of the zeal with which, for the future, the hon. member would labour for the reduction of every useless expense and unnecessary office. Perhaps he would find, that the office of receiver-general of the land-tax was one which might be dispensed with, under the present circumstances of the country, and the business connected with it, performed through some other channel. Should a motion to this effect be made, he hoped the country would be favoured with the support of the hon. gentleman, who might perhaps be an important witness on this subject. Mr. C. Dundas presented a petition from the county of Berks. It complained that no inquiry had been made into the distresses of the country, but that parlia ment had been occupied for many months solely, with a needless prosecution against the Queen-a prosecution which was distressing to the moral feelings of the country and derogatory from the dignity and honour of the Crown. In presenting this petition, he begged leave to join in the wish that the undivided attention of ministers and of parliament should be devoted to the relief of the unprecedented distresses of the country. The petitioners most justly stated, that for months their attention had been devoted to a prosecution that was at once unnecessary and unjust. The failure of that prosecution placed her majesty in the same situation in which a party accused was placed by the throwing out of a bill by the grand jury, and at this result every friend of the royal family, every well-wisher to our constitution, every lover of his country must have sincerely rejoiced. That most unjust proceeding had alarmed every friend of justice and truth and humanity; it had disgusted every man of sound understanding and good feeling. He had entertained some hope, from the experience of his majesty's mind and disposition, that the irritation and dismay excited throughout the country would have been removed; and that the country would have been relieved from a feeling of dissatisfaction which had perhaps never been equalled. He could answer for the petitioners being as decided in their loyalty to the king, and their attachment to the constitution, as any body of men in England. Mr. Denison presented a petition from the inhabitants of Godalming. It was most respectably signed. Its prayer was, for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy; and for such reform in that House as would give the people a free, fair, and full representation. He fully agreed in this prayer, though he was no advocate for the wild schemes of annual parliaments and universal suffrage. Mr. W. Williams presented a petition from the inhabitants of Lambeth. It was signed by more than 2,000 respectable inhabitants. It was the firm belief of the petitioners, that nothing could allay the irritation of the country but the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy and to all the rights belonging to a Queen consort. He cordially coincided with the petitioners, and he had placed that reliance on the candour and humanity of ministers, that as soon as they had been compelled to give up the prosecution they would have restored her majesty's name to the Liturgy. He still hoped and restore they would retrace their error, her majesty's name to the prayers of a religious and loyal people, as the only means of giving tranquillity to the country. The petitioners prayed also for inquiry into the Milan commission. Sir Ronald Fergusson presented three petitions-one from the magistrates and town council of Culross, the second from Burntisland, and the third from Kinghorn. One of the petitions stated, that all the evils of the country-our agricultural and commercial distresses, were owing to his majesty's ministers; and, therefore, prayed the House to withdraw its confidence and support from them. He heartily hoped, that the House might comply with this petition. All the petitions declared their abhorrence of the prosecutions against the Queen, and prayed for the restoration of her name to the Liturgy, and to all her rights as Queen consort. Mr. Sykes said, he had a petition to present on a subject somewhat different from the preceding petitions. It was from Cottingham; and complained of the great distress which afflicted all classes. The speech from the throne had been made to represent a state of things which existed not. Never yet had he seen one person outside of those doors who believed one word of it. Whatever ministers might believe themselves, or attempt to make others believe, sure he was, that so far as his experience extended, nine-tenths of the people joined in the belief, that without a change of ministers and measures, no satisfaction could be obtained for the people. Without an entire change of the system acted upon, the unhappy agitation which prevailed, and from which, the royal name, the royal family, and the best interests of the country had suffered, could not be allayed. For this reason, too, the petitioners prayed for the dismissal of ministers. On the first day of the session he had heard much of the folly and mischief of certain persons; but he would ask, whether there could be folly and mischief equal to the folly and mischief of those who had instituted the proceedings against the Queen? He should have thought that wisdom would have dictated very different conduct in point of prudence; he should have thought that wisdom would have dictated very different conduct on the ground of justice. The measures against the Queen had been conceived in mischief, nursed up in folly, and supported by perjury. Mr. Hobhouse said, he held in his hand would not have dared to attempt measures some additional commentaries on the as- so hostile to the interests and to the feelsertion of the noble lord opposite, that ings of the country. The proceedings he was in possession of the confidence of against the Queen had taken away the the country. The first was a petition from film from the eyes of all who had, in dethe parish of St. George, Hanover-square. fiance of reason, supposed that that House The mock loyalists had endeavoured to represented the people. But the illusion get up a mock-loyal petition in the same had been removed by the first lord of the parish, and in ten days they had got 415 Treasury, who had disregarded the House names. The petition which he held in his of Commons when it declared the prosehand had not been ready for signature more cution derogatory and injurious, but who, than ten hours, and it had got as many when he afterwards gave it up, said, it was names. If the subject did not require because the people of England had felt that it should be presented that night, it so strongly against it. What could be a would have been signed by nearly as many more clear declaration than that of his thousands. It prayed for attention to the considering that House as not representdistresses of the country, for the restora- ing the people of England? The House tion of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, would act wisely, therefore, by acceding and also for a reform in the representation. to such a reform as would convince minis The second petition was from the book-ters that they did represent the people. It binders of London and Westminster. It would be better to do it with a good grace prayed for the same objects. The third than to be forced to do it. As to the was from Langport, praying for the dis- dismissal of his majesty's ministers, it missal of ministers, and for the restora- was impossible to say how that very desirtion of her majesty's name to the Litur-able object could be effected. Ministers gy, it was signed by 1,000 names. The fourth was from Sidmouth, and signed by 450 individuals. No one could object to the loyalty of the people of Sidmouth, who, from unaccountable attachment to ministers, had refused to petition against them in the case of the Manchester business. A mock loyal address from this place had not so many names, although applications had been made for ten miles round. He had been entreated by the petitioners to urge the necessity of taking the prayers of the petitions into serious consideration. It would be a failure of courtesy to the noble lord, whose motion was fixed for that night, if he were to offer any observations now, upon the subject of the Liturgy. He must say, however, that the member for Guilford had taken a very erroneous view of the question, when he had said that he viewed it only as a legal question. If the exclusion of her majesty's name could be established as legally right, still the question would recur as a question of state necessity. Would it be endured that her majesty's name should be struck out of the Liturgy, upon evidence which had not made good the charge against her majesty, to the minds of those who had been trying the question? There was no inconsistency in connecting the two subjects, of the restoration of her majesty's rights and the reform of that House. If there had been an actual responsibility of ministers, they would not yield to the people, or to the parliament. In former times, if ministers could not carry a great measure attempted by them, they resigned their places; but the present ministers could endure every defeat and censure, and still keep their places. They failed in the attempt to carry the Property-tax, and kept their places. They lost the bill of Pains and Penalties; still they kept their places. If there should be a majority that night against them, of which he had no idea, to-morrow we should still see them in their places: and there seemed no reason to doubt, that they would leave their places as inheritances to their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns. therefore, could not see how this prayer could be carried into effect; but he was willing to contribute all in his power towards the accomplishment of this object, as one of the only means of saving the country from impending ruin. He, Mr. Sergeant Onslow said, the hon. member had imputed to him, expressions too absurd for any but an idiot to have used. If the right of excluding her majesty's name was legal, still there was the question of expediency to be considered. If the hon. gentleman chose to cite his words, he ought to have done it correctly. Mr. Hobhouse said, he had never supposed the learned gentleman to be an idiot. He was the last man in the world to say any thing to disparage the learned gentleman, or to speak with personal disrespect of any one. Many, however, had thought, as well as himself, that the learned gentleman considered the question about to come on to be merely a legal question. disgraceful, as dangerous to the public peace and trusted that her majesty's name would be re-inserted in the Liturgy. The petition further prayed, that the House would take steps for bringing to punishment those who had conspired against the Queen, and that it would refuse to grant any supplies until those objects were attained. Mr. Birch presented a petition from the corporation of Nottingham, praying, that no further proceedings should be insti after what had been declared by the noble lord opposite, the hon. member was willing to consider as already complied with. He trusted that the worthy alderman (Heygate) who disapproved of the original exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, and yet professed himself to be against its restoration, would attend in his place that night, and find reason, in the course of the debate, to change his view of the question. Mr. Fyshe Palmer presented two petitions, of a similar nature: the first, from the inhabitants of Reading, signed by 1,300 persons: the second, from the inhabitants of Tilehurst, tithing of Theale, and its vicinity. The hon. member beg-tuted against the Queen—a prayer which, ged leave to say, that the petitioners were devotedly attached to the constitution, and were most anxious to support the honour and dignity of the Crown. They had seen, with regret, the late proceedings against the Queen, carried on against the advice and recommendation of parliament -they had seen the charges against her majesty supported by the foulest and most corrupt perjury, they had seen that the witnesses brought forward against her majesty were discharged servants, who had been bribed to give testimony against her. This was nothing less than corrupting the source of justice. The petitioners most solemnly prayed the House of Commons to withdraw their support from those ministers, who had, for such a length of time, abused the power entrusted to them, that a stop should be put to any attempt to renew the proceedings against the Queen, that the House of Commons would husband with strict economy the resources of the nation; and that every exertion should be made to inquire into, and alleviate, the distresses under which the country at present laboured. They prayed also, that every effort should be made to correct the abuses which existed in the representation of the people in parliament. He begged to remind the House of an observation which had been long since made, that unless a reform took place in parliament, no ministers could possibly manage the affairs of the country with honour to themselves, or advantage to the people, however well inclined they might be to do so. Mr. R. Martin observed, that he approved much more of this petition than of that which had been presented by the Queen's Solicitor General. As counsel for the Queen the learned gentleman might naturally entertain a strong and honest prejudice in her favour; but before others allowed themselves to bring forward charges of conspiracy and perjury, they ought to be able to prove their allegations. He wished, therefore, to give notice, that if he should hear parties accused of having committed bribery and false swearing in order to calumniate and degrade the Queen, he would challenge them to put something in a course of proof, so as to give to the accused a legitimate mode of defending themselves. This might be easily done by moving, that all the papers relative to the late inquiry should be taken into consideration. [Cries of "Move, move."] Move what? what was he to move? It was for those who made the charges to substantiate them. Mr. Denman said, he was obliged to the hon. gentleman for the terms in which Mr. Denman presented a petition from he had thought proper to allude to him, the inhabitants of Nottingham, in which, but he scarcely thought he stood in need they described the late proceedings against of a defence or apology for presenting her majesty as having originated in a foul the petition which had called forth the conspiracy, and expressed a hope, that the hon. member's animadversions. He was feelings so generally entertained amongst not bound to justify, to its full extent, the the people on this subject would be like-language of the petition, of which not one wise found to animate that House. They word was his own; neither was he aware, deprecated any renewal of proceedings so that any charge was preferred against |