to be considered de facto Queen Consort? Was it not the duty of the king's ministers to pay her the respect to which, from her situation, she was entitled; and to take care that she should suffer no improper indignity? But what did they do? When her majesty was about to return to this country, she applied to lord Liverpool to provide a suitable residence for her; she also applied to lord Melville for a proper vessel to convey her across the Channel. The former returned no answer, and the latter transmitted a refusal—that is, a refusal to pay the Queen of England that respect in the mode of conveyance which was allotted to every petty German prince who visited this country. Was that justifiable treatment? Was it becoming, or decent, or proper? England had been disgraced in the eyes of Europe by such a transaction. He repeated, that by it, England had been disgraced, through the misconduct of his majesty's ministers. [Hear, hear.] The whole proceeding adopted towards her majesty carried with it ignominy, and unfortunately the country must share a portion of it with its government. Was it not enough, that her inajesty should have been refused a house? Was it not enough, that she should have been refused a ship to carrry her to the British shore? Was not all this neglect monstrous enough, without the omission of her name from the Liturgy? Ministers ought to have felt the shame of compelling the queen to accept the assistance of an honest and humble individual of the city of London. What was the Queen to do upon finding herself in this destitute and insulted situation, and with such charges preparing against her? She knew that the green bags were planned against her. She saw that she was about to be brought before a tribunal upon the construction of which he would call upon the hon. alderman to avow his opinion. Was it, he would ask him, a tribunal which met the sanction of the country? Was it not, under all the circumstances of the case, contrary to the best principles of law? Under such circumstances, was it not natural for her majesty to feel indignant? Was she then to be blamed by the hon. alderman for writing a letter to her lord and protector, whom she thought she had reason to apprehend, at the time, was countenancing the machinations of her enemies? But, what did she say in that letter of the 7th of August? She protested against her persecutors being among her jurors. Was that an unfair protest? When, therefore, the complaint was just and the indignation_natural, it was unmanly for the hon. alderman to complain of her majesty's protest against a court so composed, and which he admitted to have been improper. The hon. alderman admitted this, and yet blamed and deprecated the letter, without pointing out a single passage which was not called for upon the occasion. The Queen wrote that letter when she made the last effort to induce her sovereign to protect her. If that protection to which she was entitled had been then afforded, that letter would have never met the public eye. See the situation in which the Queen would have been placed, had she not made a last effort to spare the country the pain of these calamitous proceedings! She had already used every means in her power to prevent the sort of trial which she saw approaching, and the consequent mischiefs which that trial must entail upon the country. So far from incurring any blame for having made the attempt, he thought the act was creditable to her majesty; and that opinion he entertained with the great bulk of the community; for there was not one in a hundred who was not of the same opinion. He held the Queen's letter in his hand; and he again called upon the hon. alderinan to point out any passage it contained which justified his observation. Was it where the Queen said, "I have always demanded a fair trial," that he thought her incorrect? Was she not entitled to a fair trial? Was she not entitled to have that claim for justice granted by her sovereign and husband? He saw not one word in that letter which was not called for by the occasion; and he challenged the hon. alderman to refute his assertion, by pointing out an objectionable passage. Mr. Alderman Heygate claimed the indulgence of the House while he vindicated himself from the attack of the hon. gentleman. He was perfectly surprised at the manner in which his observations had been met. Any body who had heard them and had not heard his own observations, would naturally have thought that he had defended the bill of Pains and Penalties, and justified the original rejection of the Queen's name from the Liturgy. Equally surprised was he to hear a charge of having made an unmanly attack upon an unfortunate and illus actual force, to any sentence, except one brow what will prevent your watering trious woman. Whatever else he might have done, the term "unmanly" could have no reference to him. He had not slunk into any hole or corner to deliver his sentiments-he had not shrunk from the public eye to utter them; but had openly, before the country, and in his place in parliament, endeavoured to state his own opinions and justify them to that House and to his constituents. The hon. gentleman had asked, whe-sors, you cannot earn by the sweat of your ther he approved of the mode of trial appointed for the Queen. To this he answered-No; and if the bill of Pains and Penalties had unfortunately come down to that House, there was no human being in or out of it who would have shown a more decided opposition to it through all its stages. But, objecting to it, as he did most decidedly to that bill, he was obliged to condemn also the language into which the Queen had been betrayed by her advisers. The hon. gentleman had called upon him to produce the objectionable passages. Not having that letter about him, he could not produce it; but he would appeal to the recollection of the House, whether such an expression as this ought to be tolerated in an appeal to the sovereign :"Your court (and this speaking to the king) is a scene of low debauchery." Was that fit language? But he did not complain alone of the language used in that letter. It had been said by one of her majesty's friends, when speaking of the bill:-"This bill darkens the perspective in the future, lowering the prospect into civil war." There were similar expressions, equally censurable, in many of the answers which her majesty had unfortnnately been advised to transmit. He particularly alluded to the answers to the Mr. Lockhart said, he felt extreme reartisans, to Nottingham, to Cripplegate, luctance in coming forward on this occa&c. The following were paragraphs from sion. He cordially agreed in the wish some among them; and it was for the expressed by an hou. member early in the hon. gentleman to say if he thought them evening, that something might be done proper or not:-" These are times when which would bury in oblivion this unforthe well-understood interest of armies can tunate question. The hon. alderman apnever be separated from the interests of peared to concur in this wish; but he was the people."-" The slave of his appe- sorry to find that the expression of his tite only cankers for his fatuity."-The sentiments was rather at variance with the answer to the Cripplegate address called promotion of that salutary conclusion the government of the country "an inso-which was on so many accounts desirable. lent domination."-In her majesty's letter of the 7th of August (although, not having the letter near him at the moment, he could only quote from recollection,) there was a declaration that the Queen would not submit, except compelled by The hon. alderman had read to the House several objectionable passages which her majesty had been so ill advised as to insert in her answers to addresses. It was, he feared, but too true that much objectionable matter would be found on both was sides. This was remarkable throughout | cuniary measures; but, instead of being the whole of the late unfortunate proceed- an anodyne, they rather acted as a stimuing. Evidence had been published, and lus. They had had no tendency to trancomments made upon it, from day to day, quillize the minds either of her majesty or which were calculated to impair the dig- the public. The attempt having failed, a nity of any court of justice, and to violate different effort should be made to set the that respect which was due to the highest matter at rest for ever. The Queen's name tribunal in the land. This objectionable had unfortunately been omitted in the conduct was not, however, confined to Liturgy. She was placed, then, in the one side of the question; it pervaded both, situation of a person deemed guilty, notand was alike censurable. He had seen sen- withstanding the accusation had been timents put into her majesty's mouth, by abandoned. Her majesty's name her irresponsible, not her legal advisers, thus placed in a situation of painful suspiwhich he deplored as much as any man, cion to every religious person in the comand which he attributed to improper ad- munity, on that day when all party feelvice acting upon highly irritated feelings. ing should be laid aside, in the common If the House of Lords witnessed these supplication of the God they all adored. proceedings from day to day, and could So that it was impossible but the omission apply no remedy to them; if the highest of the Queen's name in the Liturgy must court of judicature in the kingdom, with operate as a degradation. Those who the Attorney-General, were doomed to thought her majesty guilty, had, in this witness these libels, without exercising manner, an opportunity of gratifying their any power to restrain their circulation, feelings; although the result of the trial how could that House in future prevent did not justify that sentiment; while those them? If a system of irritation were un- who thought the Queen innocent, and happily continued-if the Queen were to those who thought her not proved guilty, be suffered to continue in her present si- had a right to complain of the degradatuation, where was the force or the energy tion inflicted. This being the consequence to suppress that which hitherto had been arising out of her majesty's present posiopenly promulgated? It was for the pur- tion, in what situation was she placed? pose of stopping the continuance of an Her circumstances were to be enriched, agitation which he deplored, that he ex- but her character was to remain disparapressed an ardent hope that all proceed-ged; and with a disparaged character she ings against the Queen, whether in the na- might hold a court! Ministers were to ture of acts, or in the nature of omission, give her wealth, which to a certain exshould be finally set at rest. The noble tent was power and command, but with a lord opposite seemed disposed to take no depreciated character it was to be used step for restoring the Queen's name to the indifferently. How could her majesty, Liturgy, and the hon. alderman appeared placed in this situation, summon about her to concur in the opinion. The noble lord, those constitutional advisers of rank and however, deprecated the assumption, that character who would dignify the establishthe omission of the Queen's name in the ment of a Queen? Was not this course Liturgy should be considered as a punish- calculated to consign her majesty into the ment. On the contrary, he denied it was hands of evil advisers, who would care lita punishment, but that it had been done tle for her rank and character, and only in the ordinary course of an arrangement care about producing all that mischief in council. Now the error, he thought, which ministers themselves seemed to rewas in the assumption, that the omission probate. If the Queen were put into a was not a punishment. It could be con- situation of innocence-and she was ensidered in no other light than as a punish-titled to be called innocent since no charge ment, inflicted for a crime which was not had been proved against her-she would proved, and for a prosecution which was then be entitled to hold her proper station abandoned. It was either that or a gra-in society; to summon about her person tuitous personal degradation;-one or the other it must be. Was it thought that ministers could satisfy the public mind by such a course? Pecuniary arrangements the Queen was to have; but were they calculated to promote a tranquil end? Ministers had already tried pe those who, having high station and character themselves, would only advise her for her good, and assist in rendering her the ornament of her rank. That was the fair and just course which ministers ought to pursue, instead of throwing the Queen into the hands of irresponsible advisers, who would rake together, as was done in the answers to the addresses, all the nonsense of the French Revolution, calculated to inflame rather than heal popular discontent. He earnestly hoped ministers would not take this course, but that by placing her majesty in the possession of an untouched character, they would give her the advantage of the counsels of her legal advisers, and prevent those irritable consequences which a different policy must necessarily engender. The country would never be satisfied until this healing policy was adopted. It would not endure, that the attention of parliament should be for months drawn away from the consideration of the pressing difficulties of the different classes of the community; they would not endure, that parliament should, week after week, be wholly occupied in debating points of trifling punctilio with ministers, when the mighty interests of the country ought to have their undivided consideration. The agricultural interests of the country were left untouched; although he knew part of the evil might be remedied, for it was produced by the laws. He had hitherto in general supported ministers he had supported them throughout the war, which by their wisdom, fortitude, and perseverance, they had brought to so triumphant a conclusion. For their political conduct, at the period to which he alluded, their names would stand high in history; but he doubted whether they understood the arts of peace as well as those of war. He concluded by earnestly calling upon them to restore her majesty's name to the Liturgy, in fact to recede in toto from the course they had hitherto pursued towards the Queen; and, by so doing, put an end to a controversy so useless in itself, and so fatal to the best interests of the country. Lord Nugent begged to say a word on what had fallen from the honourable alderman, in the elaborate vindication which he had entered into of himself, as to what he had been charged with having said in his original speech. In the hon. alderman's first speech, he had thought fit to charge her majesty with having been guilty of a crime in her letter to the king, for which any other subject would have been amenable to the law. When, however, the hon. alderman was called upon to point out the passages in which that charge was founded, he failed to produce them, and professed, that he had forgotten them, He now again called upon him either to produce them or to remember them. Mr. Alderman Heygate explained, that what he had said was this-that not having the letter by him at the moment, he could not quote the passages he alluded to with accuracy from recollection. Lord Nugent, in continuation, contended that the hon. alderman could not be surprised at being charged with unmanliness, when he came forward with charges against the Queen, founded on a document, which, when he was called upon to produce, he said he had not in his possession, and the contents of which he had forgotten. Instead of producing the passages in the letter on which he had founded his charge, the hon. alderman had quoted certain passages from answers which had been given by her majesty to the addresses presented to her. He would be the last man to say, that many of those answers were not highly improper, or that they did not reflect great disgrace on those by whom her majesty had been advised to present them. At the same time, the unfortunate and anomalous situation of her majesty the persecution she had suffered-the obloquy that had been heaped upon her by a venal press, all these were circumstances which ought to be taken into account, in estimating the course which she had pursued. It was, in his opinion, not very manly, harshly to condemn her majesty under such circumstances. It was too much like the conduct of those Spanish Inquisitors, who, having stretched their victim on the rack, converted the ravings of pain into additional matter of accusation. This mode of conduct he could not think manly or English. Undoubtedly, he thought with the hon. alderman, that many passages in the answers of her majesty to the addresses that had been presented to her were extremely reprehensible, and that they reflected great disgrace on the good sense and education of those who had advised her majesty to make them. But this he would say, that ill as he thought of those who had advised her majesty to make those answers, he thought the blame which those persons had justly incurred, vanished into air, compared with the blame to which those persons were liable who had advised his majesty to give the answers which he had given, to addresses from certain bodies of the people. The hon. alderman must recollect some of these; and especially one to an address which the hon. alderman, among others, was charged to presentan address from the metropolis of his majesty's empire. His majesty's answer to that address was calculated to produce inischief; in comparison to which, all that could be dreaded from auy of her majesty's answers sunk into insignificance. The several petitions were laid on the table and ordered to be printed. ADDRESS ON THE King's SpeecH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.]-Mr. G. Bankes appeared at the bar, with the report of the Address on the king's Speech. On the motion that it be brought up, British government, as well as an anxious wish for the general preservation of tranquillity in Europe; and, if that should prove impossible, for at least securing the continuance of peace as far as this country was concerned. It was to the principle of non-interference on the part of this country, thus distinctly asserted, that he objected. What had been the consequences of a similar principle when the partition of Poland took place? Were they peace and tranquillity? No. The consequence, on that occasion, of that principle of non-interference, on the part of this country, with the designs of foreign potentates, had been the long and inveterate wars in which Europe had since been involved, and which had left this country and the continent in the state of distress in which they now found themselves. Such had been the disastrous result of our declining, on that occasion, to cooperate with France in interfering to prevent the iniquitous project then contemplated from being carried into effect. What he wished particularly to impress on the minds of the noble lord and his colleagues was, that if hostilities were once to commence in any part of Europe, no and to urge them to such an interference with respect to Naples as might prevent any such calamity. By such a wise and timely interference, the peace and tranquillity of this country would stand a much better chance of being effectually The Hon. William Lamb observed, that with respect to most of the topics to which the address referred, there would be various opportunities of discussing them. There was one, however, of so urgent a nature, and on which a step might suddenly be taken, so irremediable as to place it entirely out of the power of that House, that he felt it to be impossible, consistently with his sense of duty, to allow it to pass without a few observations. That topic was the present state of the affairs of Naples, and of the conferences with reference to that state, which were supposed to be going on among the great sove-man could tell how far they might extend; reigns of Europe. He knew, that in touching on this subject, he was touching on a delicate matter, because it was one which might be considered in a course of negociation, and he should therefore treat it accordingly. He certainly was not one of those who were of opinion, that no cir-secured, than by the indulgence of any cumstances could occur in any country affecting its internal condition and the principles on which its government was to be carried on, which would justify the interference of any foreign power. At the same time he must say, that from all he had heard of the transactions in Naples, and of the principles on which those transactions had been founded, there was not a shadow of ground or reason justifying the interference of foreign powers on that occasion. There had been no violent acts committed; there had been no doctrines avowed dangerous to the peace of the neighbouring nations, or subversive of the first principles of civilized society. But, what he particularly rose for was, to make a remark or two on the statement in the Speech from the throne, and in the speech of the noble lord opposite on this interesting subject. As far as he could understand those statements, they professed the observance of a strict neutrality by the fallacious hope, that if hostilities were once commenced in any quarter whatever, we might be able to keep this country from being compelled to enter into the contest. Lord Castlereagh observed, that as it was impossible to dispatch a subject so interesting and important in a few sentences, it would, in his opinion, be more expedient to postpone its consideration until an opportunity should be afforded for discussing it in parliament in the ample manner which it deserved. The general reasoning of the hon. gentleman was undoubtedly fair, but it did not appear to him to be strictly applicable to the line of policy which this country was, in the present instance, called upon to adopt. He begged not to be understood as giving any opinion upon the present subject; but it must be evident to the hon. gentleman, and to the House, that other powers might entertain apprehensions with respect to |