it for the purpose of keeping up that unmanly conduct which had hitherto been pursued towards her-by referring to unfounded statements, that had been refuted by a gentleman of honour, who had the means of knowing how the fact stood; and by a reference to an alleged manner in which an individual lived at Paris? He deprecated the question now to be decided by the House; but he did, in the strongest manner, protest against any individual being pronounced guilty, the prosecution of whom had been abandoned by persons not disposed to show the smallest favour to the accused; and he begged, that the prejudice resulting from such a course of unjust proceeding might be confined to the breasts of the persons who indulged it. But, he heard with surprise a new question started, and that a new offence had been committed by her majesty in sending down a message to that House. If it were deemed an offence in her to declare openly her intention of rejecting any pecuniary grant, he thought it one for which a just and generous people would honour her, whatever might be the opinion of that House. In declaring this intention, her majesty had at least the merit of consistency; for, before she landed in this country, she had protested against the erasure of her name from the Liturgy, as an illegal violation of her rights. The moment she came over to England she claimed the restoration of her name; and the noble lord would recollect, that in the first interview which took place during the negotiations for an amicable arrangement, that was advanced as a legal claim by his learned friend and himself. The noble lord would also recollect, that in the discussion which took place on the motion of the hon. member for Bramber, the same ground had been taken by his learned friend. The question had indeed since that period been enveloped in such a blaze of light by his hon. and learned friend opposite (Mr. Wetherell), that it was difficult to approach it again without weakening the effect of the arguments then so forcibly advanced. Yet, in spite of this, the House were to be told, that the right of inserting or omitting names in the Liturgy was purely a ministerial question; and, in proof of this, a reference was made to a resolution of the House of Commons, in the reign of queen Anne, thanking her majesty for having evinced her zeal for the protestant religion by inserting in the Liturgy the

name of the electress Sophia. But was there no difference between omitting and inserting a name? Could it be contended, that there was no difference between the case of inserting in the Liturgy of the church the name of a princess who had never been prayed for before that insertion was directed to be made, and the case of omitting the name of a Queen, who had been so loug prayed for by name in that Liturgy, as princess of Wales? Good God! he could not suppose, that any man would venture to assert such an absurdity and therefore it would be a waste of words to combat it. He lamented to say, that in all these discussions, it seemed to have been taken as a guide of conduct and as a standing rule of argument, that the weaker party should be uniformly found to be in the wrong. There was no want of matter upon which that disposition might be manifested; for if one subject failed, another was directly found to serve the turn of gentlemen on the other side. And now, accordingly, they had taken up the case of the addresses; and the language of her majesty's answers was scrutinized and denounced. Why, had they not that night, been made acquainted with the contents of a most calumnious libel, which, if it were examined with the same scrupulous nicety that was applied to the expressions of a poor, forlorn, and defenceless woman, not well acquainted with the language of the country, and placed in a situation of unexampled difficulty and distress, would, he had no doubt, be considered as one of the most unwarrantable and flagrant offences, in the way of libel, that was to be found in the history of the country? He did not mean to go to that extent in inquiring into it; nor, if he did, was he likely to meet with the support of the same hon. gentleman on the other side, because the ministers of the Crown did not wish to press the matter. But he said, it was perfectly impossible, when they saw the enormous number of addresses presented to her majesty, warm from the lips and hearts of so large a portion of the population, that the Queen could be supposed to be exciting or encouraging disaffection. It might be very well to pick a hole in these addresses, aud to say, they were calculated to excite agitation and disaffection; though none could be so well calculated to effect that end as the insertion, by' lord Sidmouth, in the royal Gazette, of an addres in which the conduct of the

vote. He thought it not right to call the withdrawing of the bill of Pains and Penalties an acquittal: as that measure was of a mixed nature and as the reasons for withdrawing it might refer to the legislative and not to the judicial part, it could not be said to have the full effect of an acquittal. Before he sat down he would take leave to express his sorrow, that the hon. member for Surrey who had found time, as he had informed them, to mature his regrets for the asperity with which he had spoken on a former night, had not also found time so to mature his opinions, as to abandon all idea of bringing forward the amendment he had done. The inexpediency of his proposition was evident. In the first place, if he obtained only a small division, that would be no great compliment to his sagacity; in the second, if it went to a large division, that would be an event which would only tend to aggravate those feelings at present pervading the House and the country, and the warmth of which he was willing to trust would soon be allayed.

opposition was described to have been violent, unconstitutional, and insolent (hear, hear); and which was headed by the declaration, that the king had been graciously pleased to express his approbation of it. It was impossible, that the king could ever have approved of it: he did not believe, that he could do so, for a moment. But as to the charge of disaffection, he defied any man to prove it. He defied any man who had the slightest pretensions to character, to say, that he believed the Queen to be engaged in exciting disaffection. It might be said so in truth, if she was deprived of her reason; and that was a calamity which would be held to excuse her offence, on all principles of law and reason; but, short of that it was utterly impossible that she could at any time so far forget her own station, dignity, and interests; and he took the liberty of saying, that the advice by which she was likely to act all her life, would effectually prevent any thing like one sentiment of disaffection from being entertained by her. He apologized to the House for having thus long detained them; but he felt called on to offer some observations, after what had been said by various gentlemen, and particularly by the member for Surrey. He could assure the House, that whatever might be the result of the last proposition submitted to it, himself and his hon. and learned friend would not even pair off with the two county members who had brought it forward and supported it. He had certainly no pretension to occupy so large a portion of the House's attention as he had done; but he could not sit down without putting in his claim on the part of the most persecuted woman whom he had ever read of in the history of the world.

Mr. Wilmot said, he did not think it proper on the present occasion to discuss the guilt or innocence of the Queen, as proved by the proceedings in the Lords, but at the same time, he claimed the right of qualifying his vote by his conviction, or of forming his conviction from what had entered his mind, without referring to the particular sources of it. He thought, however, that since the proceedings of the Lords were at an end the ministers had acted quite correctly in giving the Queen the whole of her legal rights, according to their ideas of them. He considered the insertion of her name in the Liturgy as a matter of grace and favour; and as such he had refused it his VOL. IV.

Sir T. D. Acland said, that beyond the grounds upon which many gentlemen intended to support the original proposition, there was one additional reason for his concurring with it. That one reason was, that it was so worded, as that it neither imputed guilt nor asserted innocence. As the vote now stood, any new arrangements which might be hereafter made for her majesty would leave it in statu quo. Had it not been for her majesty's self-denial and generosity in 1814, she would have been present to the consideration of hon. gentlemen, at this moment, as a person already indulged with that measure of liberality which they were now met to consider the propriety of bestowing. In 1814, the estimate of the sum to be allowed her, yearly, was 50,000l. ; but in her own estimate of her own expenditure, she was enabled to reduce that proffered allowance, to one of a considerably less amount. Now, it would be most ungracious in them to make such a return for this act of her's as to vote the decreased income proposed by the hon. member for Surrey: for surely they could not take advantage of an act of generosity to the detriment and wrong of the individual concerned.

Mr. Forbes said, that many reasons had hitherto induced him to support the smaller, rather than the larger sum; but on further consideration, he had thought

Y

it advisable to give way to his feelings, which were, however, in this case, still in opposition to his sounder judgment. He had not ascertained, whether they had yet made up their minds to pass the vote, in favour of the high personage interested, in the character of Queen Consort of England, or in her character of companion of the grand master of the order of St. Caroline. He would however, support the original proposition: though at an earlier stage of the business he would have felt inclined to make use of the words which had been quoted by a learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Denman) in another place, and have said "Take your thirty thousand pounds," and "go and sin no more."

Mr. Brougham said, that he could not allow such a gross perversion of the words of his learned friend to pass unnoticed, as the House had just heard. But this misinterpretation had appeared heretofore, although it was more gross and perverted than any individual who was candid, could make of the words of any man. The fact was, that his learned friend had no such meaning in the words which he had used, as that which was imputed to him. But he was quite satisfied, that the last speaker had only repeated that, which the colouring of others had suggested to his mind, without any intention to misrepresent.

Mr. Forbes said, it was generally believed, that the words had been used. They had not been denied. In what sense they were used he could not take upon himself to say.

Sir Francis Blake said, he had been made to assert the other night that, ministers intended to promote a revolution. What he had said was, that this was the age of revolutions, and he should not wonder if ministers produced one. There was a wide difference between an act intentionally committed, and that which was the effect of blindness. He did not think ministers would promote one intentionally, for the best of all reasons-selfpreservation; it being obvious, that they would be the first sufferers by such an event. With regard to the sums proposed, instead of a smaller he should have been inclined to move a larger sum for her majesty, had not the situation of the country induced him to suspend his intention. The explanation given by a worthy alderman, that her majesty paid her bills every month, was an example well worthy of imitation in other quarters.

The question, " that 50,0007. stand part of the said resolution" was then put and agreed to, without a division.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, February 2.

PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.] Sir Robert Wilson presented a petition from the Coopers of London, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. It was signed, he said, by 1,300 persons. They prayed also, that inquiry might be made into the Milan commission, and that ministers might be dismissed. With respect to the Milan commission, he looked upon it as an illegal establishment, a sort of agency-board for carrying on the business of a conspiracy against her majesty. This appeared evident from the the witnesses they procured, who were utterly unworthy of credit, and whose evidence was improbable, or rather impossible. They appeared never to have made any inquiry as to the credibility of the witnesses, or the truth of their statements, but shewed the utmost remissness in this and every other respect. Their only object seemed to have been to collect what evidence they could against her majesty, whether true or false. He had it upon the honour of the Austrian ambassador to the court of Naples, that every thing stated by the witnesses respecting her majesty's conduct at the court of Naples was wholly false. If there was no charge against the commissioners, it would be only fair, on the part of ministers, to give them an opportunity of defending themselves, by allowiug some inquiry to be gone into. He condemned, in severe terms, the manner in which her majesty was treated by many hon. gentlemen in that House, who used such language as left her no alternative but to demand another trial, for the purpose of vindicating herself against those aspersions.

Lord Sefton presented a similar petition from Liverpool. It was signed, he said, by 10,000 inhabitants. He could vouch for the respectability of many of the names. They prayed, that the question concerning the Queen should be agitated no longer, that she might be restored to all her rights and dignities, that inquiry should be made into the outrages. at Manchester, the taxes diminished, and the people admitted to a larger share in the legislature than they at present enjoyed.

Mr. Creevey said, that he was ready to give his support to every part of the petition. The first thing the petitioners prayed for was, that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy. Upon a former occasion, before the inquiry had been gone into, he supported, upon grounds of justice and policy, the propriety of restoring her majesty's name. If it was important then, it was much more important now, when the exclus on amounted in fact to punishment, for a crime of which she had been acquitted. Every man was interested in opposing the species of law laid down by the noble lord opposite, who maintained, that as the bill of Pains and Penalties had undergone a third reading, and had then been only withdrawn, her majesty was in fact morally convicted, and only technically acquitted. This was a strange kind of law, which it was the interest and duty of every man in the country to oppose. If a third reading was sufficient to prove guilt, why should not a second, or even a first reading, have the same effect?It would be much better not to carry it to a third reading; for then all the filth, the trouble, and expense of the evidence would have been spared. This new law of the noble lord's was the old story of "Acquitted Felons," a phrase of which he believed his late friend Mr. Windham was the author. The conduct pursued to wards the Queen was worse. 66 Acquitted felons" supposed a trial; but her majesty's name was erased from the Liturgy without trial or inquiry; and though acquitted, they still heard, night after night, the most gross aspersions thrown upon her in that House. This would be unfair and unjust, even towards a female of the lowest class in society, who had been once acquitted. This country knew of no such law as that of the noble lord. The law here was, guilty or not guiltyby the finding of a jury. Her majesty was attacked for refusing to accept any provision till her name was restored to the Liturgy. How was it possible, that she could agree to accept it under such circumstances? She acted in this as became a person determined to support her honour and character. He trusted, that in this generous nation there would be found spirit enough to protect the unfortunate and illustrious lady, if she should persist in her refusal, from suffering the pain and degradation of indigence. If ministers should continue in their resolu

tion of not restoring her name to the Liturgy, he felt confident, that the country, which had hitherto supported her majesty, would protect her against the distresses of pecuniary embarrassment. -Some inquiry into the outrages at Manchester was the second object of the petitioners. Though it was long since that disgraceful event took place, it was quite natural, on the part of his townsmen of Liverpool to wish, that it should be inquired into. That man must have a mind singularly constructed indeed, who, when a defenceless erowd of men, women, and children had been broken-in upon, trampled down and butchered by the military, when those magistrates by whose direction it was done had received the grateful thanks of the Crown, upon their own exparte statement of the facts; his mind must be singularly constructed, who thought, that such an outrage could be forgotten. Even now, though late, every inquiry should be made into that memorable and shocking event.-The third prayer of the petitioners was, that the taxes might be reduced. It gave him much pleasure, that the people of Liverpool were the first to petition on this subject. He hoped soon to see similar petitions poured in from all parts of the country. It was quite a mockery to hold out expectation of relief, until such time as many of the existing taxes were taken off. This might be done, if the House performed its duty zealously, by inquiry into all the sources of expenditure, and introducing economy into every branch of it. By taking a view of circumstances in the year 1792, when corn was at the same price as now, by comparing the amount of taxes then with that of the present day, it would appear utterly impossible that they could be borne.— The last prayer of the petition was, that some reform might be introduced in the present system of representation in that House. He felt certain, notwithstanding what the most stubborn anti-reformer might think, that the present system never received such a shock as it did by the vote of Friday last, which, he contended, was completely in opposition to the sense of the people, and even to the opinions of many who voted against the motion. There was a peculiar circumstance in the case of the petitioners, that justified them in their application for some reform. There were 100,000 inhabitants in Liverpool and only 2,800 or