the injustice and infamy which had followed. The hon. and learned gentleman followed up his reasoning on this part of the question in a most impressive and eloquent manner. Adverting to the Milan commission, which the noble lord had described as having been employed in a rigorous investigation to vindicate the character of the Queen, he observed, that the House would not know what was the description of the witnesses out of the eighty whom they had rejected. The House might, however, judge of their anxiety to avoid sending any thing very low or mean when they sent out Restelli; of their wish to avoid every thing that was filthy when they sent the pimp Cuchi; of their determination to avoid sending any one who was infamous and degraded when they sent Majoochi, Sacchi, and that pattern for all modest chambermaids, Mademoiselle De Mont. In conclusion, he said, that every act of his, in the course of this proceeding, had been governed solely by his duty to his Queen, and his attention to the interests of his country. [Loud and repeated cheers.] The question being put, the House divided Ayes, 178; Noes, 324: Majority against the motion, 146.-Adjourned at half-after six in the morning. List of the Majority-and also of the Minority. MAJORITY. Acland, sir Thomas Broadhead, T. H. Cockerell, sir C. Dodson, D. Dowdeswell, J. E. Dunalley, Lord Duncombe, C. Duncombe, W. Dundas, rt. hon. W. Egerton, W. A'Court, E. H. Alexander, J. Browne, rt. hon. D. Drake, W. T. Alexander, J. D. Browne, P. Dugdale, D. Ancram, lord Brownlow, C. Apsley, lord Brudenell, lord Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C. Bruce, Robert Dunlop, J. Astley, J. D. Burrell, Sir C. Balfour, John Burrell, Walter Elliot, hon. W. Bankes, Henry Buxton, J. J. Ellis, C. Rose Bankes George Calthorpe, hon. F. Ellis, Thomas Barne, M. Calvert, John Ellison, C. Bastard, captain Bathurst, rt. hon. B. Castlereagh, lord Evelyn, L. Lewis, T. F. Bathurst, hon. S. Cawthorne, J. F. Fairlie, sir W. C. Lewis, W. Beckett, right hon. J. Cecil, lord T. Fane, John Bective, earl of Bentinck, lord F. Cheere, E. M. Fane, Thomas Beresford, lord G. Chetwynd, G. Fellowes, W. H. Beresford, sir John Blair, J. H. Cherry, G. H. Finch, G. Blair, J. Childe, W. L. Fitzgibbon, hon. R. Blake, Robert Cholmeley, Sir M. Fleming, doctor Boswell, A. Clerk, Sir. G. Fleming, John Forbes, lord Forbes, C. Fox, G. Lay Palmer, colonel Palmer, C. F. Parnell, sir Henry Pierce, Henry Pelham, hon. C, A. Prittie, hon. F. A. Pryse, Pryse Ramsden, J. C. Ricardo, David Rice, T. S. Robarts, A. W. Robarts, G. Robinson, sir George Rowley, sir W. Smith, John Smith, hon. Robert Smith, Samuel Smith, Abel Smith, George Smith, William Scarlett, James Scudamore, R. P. Sefton, earl of Stanley, lord Mr. Monck presented petitions from Hungerford and Newbury, complaining of the distresses under which the petitioners laboured, and praying for the discontinuance of any further proceedings against her majesty, and the restoration of her name to the Liturgy. Adverting to the depression of trade at Newbury, the hon. gentleman observed, that that place had formerly returned members to parliament, but had been relieved from doing so by its own prayer. At that period members of parliament received wages from their constituents. If such were the case at present-if other boroughs, which, like Newbury, had lost their trade, were compelled to pay wages to their representatives, he believed that one and all would petition to be disfranchised. But circumstances were now very different. If many of the boroughs had lost their regular trade, they had found a new, but he feared a contraband one, although it did not appear to be at all offensive to the gentlemen of the He trusted that parliament Treasury. would attend to the public feeling, which had been so strongly expressed with reference to her majesty. He was not one of those who held that the old maxim "Vox populi vox Dei," was to be acknowledged on all occasions. Sometimes he knew that the people were mistaken. For instance, in the cry some years ago, of "No popery;" a cry encouraged by ministers themselves, and to the prevalence of which they were indebted for PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.] their power. Such an expression of poLord Ebrington presented a petition from pular sentiment was far from being idenSouth Moulton, condemning the proceed-tified with consummate wisdom. ings against the Queen, and praying for an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the Milan commission. His lordship stated, that 976 signatures had been affixed to this petition in a space of eight days; and that he could bear testimony to the respectability of many of those signatures. On the other hand, the corporation address of the same town, which address contained many unnecessary protestations of loyalty, had received only 183 signatures in a longer space of time, and five were those of excisemen. noble lord opposite had observed, that the good sense of the country was to be collected from corporation addresses. Now, it was a fact, that several of those who signed the loyal address of South Moulton had also affixed their names to the petition he had the honour to present. Williams, Owen HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, February 8. The But, whenever the expression of public feeling was reasonable, even whenever it was harmless, it ought to be attended to. He was persuaded that the public tranquillity would not be restored until her majesty's name was restored to the Liturgy. Mr. Denison presented a petition from the freeholders of Surrey. It prayed for economical reform, the abolition of useless offices, and the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. No county was more loyal than the county of Surrey; and he believed that the prayer of their petition was that of nine-tenths of the people of this country. Whatever taunts might be thrown out against petitioning by the noble lord opposite, he hoped the people would never be prevented from exercising that valuable and constitutional right. Lord Althorp bore testimony to the respectability of the meeting. United as the country evidently was, as to the expediency of restoring her majesty's name to the Liturgy, he thought it would be hardly possible for the House to resist so unanimous a declaration. Mr. W. L. Maberly said, that ministers ought to have resigned their places rather than have instituted the proceedings against the Queen. Sir W. De Crespigny deplored, that a period should have arrived when county meetings were treated with contempt. It was the only mode by which the people could state their wrongs and speak their wishes. Mr. Calvert observed, that the noble lord opposite had declared that ministers had no wish to remain longer in office than while they possessed the confidence of the country. If the opinion of a great and opulent county, such as Surrey, would have any weight with the noble lord, he would refer him for that opinion even to the hon, member for Surrey, who had not been intrusted to present the petition of his constituents, and who could inform the noble that a more respectable and orderly meeting had never been assembled. And what was the result? That, when the question was put to the vote, there were about half a dozen hands held up against 3 or 400. The hon. member for Surrey complained that his friends were not present. Why they were not present he knew not, unless they thought that the cause which the hon. gentleman wished them to support was too bad a one to be countenanced. Mr. H. Sumner said, he did not wish to impeach the respectabiltty of the meeting at Epsom. All he maintained was, that those who received the opinion of a meeting of about 400 persons as the opinion of the county of Surrey, laboured under a great delusion. The hon. gentleman had asked, why his (Mr. S.'s) friends had not attended the meeting? The fact was, that the language of the requisition was so moderate, that although, as one of the members for the county, he thought it his duty to be present, in order to give any explanation that might be required of his conduct, he had discouraged many who had applied to him on the subject from attending. The requisition was merely for a meeting to petition for the discontinuance of further VOL. IV. proceedings against her majesty, in order that the time and attention of parliament might be directed to the various important questions of domestic and foreign policy, which required their immediate consideration. What he complained of, however, was, the unfair and indecent course, as respected one of the representatives of the county, which was pursued towards the close of the meeting, when a proposition was made by an hon. gentleman, and persevered in, notwithstanding the suggestion of the high sheriff, that the object expressed in the requisition ought not to be exceeded or departed from. The original resolutions were carried, and a large portion of the meeting had dispersed, when this attack was made upon him by the hon. gentleman. This he did not consider fair or generous treatment. That attack ought to have been made while his friends were yet present. If the hon. gentleman had determined to have a triumph, it ought to have been a direct, and not an indirect one. Mr. Macdonald declared, that he had moved the resolution of which the hon. gentleman complained, because he thought it his duty as a freeholder of the county of Surrey to do so. The conduct of a representative in parliament was always a fair subject for criticism at a county meeting, and he should have thought that the hon. gentleman would have felt that his conduct on the subject respecting which the meeting were convened, must be so fresh in their minds, that it could not escape scrutiny. Nor had he any right to complain of want of generosity, who had recently exhibited so egregious a want of that quality. In the animadversions which he had felt it his duty to make on the hon. gentleman's conduct, he had not adverted to any hearsay information. He had spoken of facts which were as clear as day, of the course which the hon. gentleman had pursued in that House. As to the period of making his motion, it was impossible that he could have made it before the original resolutions on which the petition was founded, were agreed to. He denied, therefore, that his conduct had been either unmanly or ungenerous. He had merely given effect to what were decidedly the wishes of the meeting. Mr. Maberly said, he never witnessed an expression of greater disapprobation of the parliamentary conduct of a repre2 L sentative than that which had beeu manifested at the meeting towards the hon. gentleman. He could assure the House, that ministers had not the support of the county of Surrey in their anomalous proceedings against her majesty. That county participated in the general dissatisfaction which had been expressed throughout the kingdom. It was the attempt to inflict unmerited degradation on her majesty which was so universally offensive. Even before trial, the gentlemen over the way exhibited reluctance to pronounce her majesty's name. It was that kind of conduct with which the people of England were dissatisfied. It was contended, that the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy was a mere exercise of the royal prerogative. But who was it that advised that the royal prerogative should be so exercised? He maintained, that the omission was illegal; and that her majesty had a right to be restored to the Liturgy, and to all the other benefits of a perfect acquittal. her right-although the committee formed of ministers themselves had at the outset declared an opinion upon ex parte evi dence, yet what had occurred since that trial was still more glaring, and more contrary to the principles of justice. What could be more unfair than the circulation throughout the country of the attorneygeneral's opening speech, containing such a series of charges which the hon. and learned gentleman was obliged to abandon the moment he came to prove his case? How came that opening statement to have been sent forth to the world, and circulated throughout the country at the public expense? and more particularly when his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) was, contrary to the practice and principles of courts of justice, refused the opportunity of replying to that speech at the time, and doomed to witness its circulation throughout the country for three weeks without observation. He should ever consider that as the greatest act of injustice which an individual on trial had ever had to encounter-an act the more glaring when it was recollected that the party on trial was a female, and that her character and reputation were at stake. He charged it upon his majesty's ministers as the worst part of their conduct throughout the whole of this bad transaction, that they held out an expectation of having a more enlarged case for the House of Commons than they offered Mr. Denman said, that as so much had been said on the subject of the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, he felt it his duty to take this, the earliest opportunity in his power of declaring his sentiments. From what had lately occurred, and more particularly after the extraordinary speech of the noble lord opposite the night before last, it appeared to him more than ever necessary that the people should press for the resto-to the consideration of the House of Lords. ration of her majesty's name to the liturgy. Was that honourable or just? Was it It was very painful for him to be obliged consistent with honour and justice, after to say, that since the abandonment of the the abandonment of the bill, to circulate bill of Pains and Penalties, there had been through the country, in violation of the more unjust, more iniquitous, and more strict privileges of parliament, pamphlets cruel calumnies heaped up against the purporting to be the speeches delivered Queen than even before the introduction by certain of the ministers in their places of that measure. Was it not time to re-in parliament upon the Queen's case-to quire that justice should be done the Queen, when her prosecutors had the hardihood to boast of the bundles of depositions containing evidence against her majesty, which they had refrained from producing at the trial? Could any thing be more despicable than this declaration of the existence of evidence which they dared not produce where it could have been rebutted? Although the proceedings against the Queen had commenced in her condemnation before proof was offered-although they were carried on with the mean and miserable shuffling of withholding from her majesty, during the process, the rank and title which was circulate them widely and gratuitously with all their exaggerations, and under government franks? Very different, indeed, had been the conduct of the right hon. member for Oxford, who, in delivering his sentiments, came forward in a calm and dignified manner, and with fairness and candour, and a statesmanlike feeling, stated the question as it struck his mind. Such a conduct presented a contrast to that of his majesty's ministers, and, indeed, to that of the majority of that House, who seemed, unfortunately, ready to go any length in support of those ministers. The ministers had exhibited no feeling which entitled them to credit. |