HC Deb 01 February 1821 vol 4 cc308-24

The report of the committee on the Provision for the Queen was brought up. On the motion, that the resolution be agreed to,

Mr. Holme Sumner

said, that in pursuance of what had fallen from him last night, he should now propose, that the sum of 30,000l. be inserted in the resolution instead of 50,000l. He should not go into any line of argument upon the subject; but, in the first instance, with regard to the admonition he had received last night, from an hon. member, he could only say, that he always rose to speak under the impression of feelings not easily controlled, and he sometimes was hastily led by them into the use of expressions not altogether consistent with his more deliberate sentiments. Upon another point, regarding which his conduct had been also arraigned, he was not at all disposed to make similar concession. The hon. and learned gentleman had appeared to think, that he was either wholly ignorant of the principles of British justice, or knowingly acted in direct opposition to them; and he had maintained, that a man who had not witnessed the grimaces of every witness upon the late inquiry was incompetent to form any judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the Queen. He (Mr. Sumner), on the contrary, was prepared to say, that an individual who had been present during that portion of the trial where lieut Hownam gave his evidence, coupling it with an acquaintance by reading with what had gone before and came after it, was as competent to form a judgment, as far as related to that individual's evidence as if he had been personally present during the whole trial. However his mind might have been impressed with the remainder of the testimony, he was ready to put all else out of the question, and to rely upon the statement of lieut. Hownam only. After that, nothing on earth could alter his conviction as to the guilt of her majesty, and which conviction he had pronounced last night. In arriving at this plain conclusion, he could not conceive, that he was acting in opposition to the principles of British justice. He had said last night, and he now repeated it, that after the disposition her majesty had shown—after the agitation and dissension that had arisen from her conduct—he did not think it safe to put so large a sum as 50,000l. a year at her disposal. If he could have reduced it lower than the mount mentioned in his amendment, it would have been the more gratifying to his feelings; but in proposing the alteration, he thought he was only discharging his duty, and even if he were not supported by ten members in the House, he would persevere in it. He concluded by moving the omission of 50,000l. and the insertion of 30,000l. instead thereof.

Mr. Brougham

said, that the House would immediately perceive, that he did not rise to oppose the amendment. Whether the sum were 50,000l. 30,000l. 20,000l. 10,000l. or nothing, was to him, acting as one of the counsel for her majesty, not of the slightest consequence. The Queen utterly refused all sums: she would take no money as she was at present circumstanced, and he had therefore nothing to do with the present grant. Whatever vote the House might come to in its bountiful liberality, regarding a provision for the Queen, was to her majesty and her legal advisers absolutely nugatory. With respect to the preliminary observations of the hon. gentleman, he could only reply, that no man was bound to allow a greater latitude of indulgence than himself: the state of the hon. member's feelings last night had led him into the use of expressions for which he had now shown his regret, and the impression they had produced on him (Mr. B.) should last not one moment longer. If, however, his appeal to the hon. member as to the rest of his speech should fail, he put it to the House, whether it was fit or just that the hon. member should go on, night after night, stating his conviction of guilt on detached parts of the evidence in the Queen's case, when the whole of that evidence had failed of producing any effect but an acquittal in another place? He was therefore induced to say, that if any further allusions of the same kind were made—if he heard members, one after another, get tip on the other side of the House and singling out particular parts of the testimony, declare their opinion as to the whole, it would be impossible, that the matter should rest there. Either the Queen was guilty or not guilty—either she had been acquitted, or she had not been acquitted. If she had been acquitted no man had a right to renew these bold but unfounded assertions of crime: if she had not been acquitted, in God's name, let bar new accusers come forward at once. Let them manfully stand forth and produce their re-digested case. The Queen asked for justice—she had a right to demand it—and she required no more. If the country had not already seen enough of these disgraceful proceedings, let them come forward with fresh charges against her.

Sir T. Lethbridge

said, that he did not often trouble the House, but upon this occasion, which was no common one, when a large sum of money was to be voted for the use of the Queen, representing, as he did, a large and respectable portion of the community, he could not refrain from offering his sentiment. Although the question of guilt had not been tried in that House, it had been decided elsewhere; and he had a right to express his opinion regarding the testimony received in another place. He knew, that it was not regular to refer more minutely to what had already passed, but he could put his hand upon his heart and say, as a representative of the British people, that from the evidence taken elsewhere, and from the whole complexion of the case, he was satisfied that the Queen was guilty of the charges brought against her. Neither the taunts of power within, nor the clamour of the people without doors, should deter him from so asserting. He would apologize if he felt he was proceeding one step beyond the line of mode ration. On a question of this kind, where the feelings of the country were agitated from one end of the kingdom to the other, he could not help participating in those feelings. As a representative of the people, when a large sum was proposed to be voted to the Queen, he had a right to oppose it and to support a reduction of the grant. He was in favour of a smaller sum; because he did not like the mode in which the public money already placed in the hands of the Queen had been disposed of, and he knew not what the consequences might be of putting so large a grant in the power of such an individual. He had been told, that an individual (and he did not know why he should be afraid to name him), that the courier Bergami had been living in the capital of Frame in a manner better suiting the dignity of one of our first British noblemen than a character of his ignoble description. He wished to know whence Bergami's revenues came to support this style of magnificence, and whence they were to come in future? Were they to come from the House of Commons of Great Britain? Would gentlemen consent to vote money to be conveyed to such Hands as those? As long as he had the honour of a seat—as long as those who sent him to that House continued to bestow upon him the same honour, he would speak and vote according to the honest dictates of his conscience; and if the hon. mover of the amendment, on a division, went out of the House alone, he would accompany him. On a question of this sort he would make no compromise and he would vote no money for the continuance of what he considered a national disgrace.

Mr. Curwen

reprobated the manner in which the hon. baronet had introduced topics, founded upon rumours which he had heard out of doors, and in which there probably was not one tittle of truth. Her majesty had been all her life subjected to these base and malignant calumnies—these scandalous attempts to destroy her consequence and respectability in this country. As to the amount of provision for her majesty, anxious as he was on all occasions to save the public money, he thought it should be settled upon the same liberal scale as allowances to other branches of the royal family. Justice demanded that the Queen should be provided for with the same liberality as the rest of the royal family. No part of the country was suffering more severely than the part which he represented; but he should be ill-received among his constituents on his return, if he consented to this miserable retrenchment, intended as a punishment upon a Queen who had been acquitted. Was she to be concluded guilty when those who ought to have brought her before another tribunal did not dare to proceed? With respect to the message of her majesty to that House, he inclined to attribute it rather to her advisers than to her majesty herself. The resolution which it expressed was one in which he should be sorry that she should persevere. There was in it a magnanimity that met the ear, but of which he did not approve. But he thought, that whatever objection might be felt to that message, it was too much to ground thereon such a construction as had been put upon it. The great object now ought to be to set at rest a question that had produced the strongest agitation, and that, compared with other national matters pressing upon the House, was in point of importance almost as a drop of water to the ocean. He was always a friend to economy; but when economy was mixed up with gross and palpable injustice, he believed he spoke the sentiments of the nation, when he asserted, that in this instance it ought to be disregarded: people might say, that the public money had indeed been spared, but that it had been spared at the expense of a foul and cruel imputation.

Mr. Western

contended, that if, after what had passed, any man were allowed in that House to say, that the Queen was guilty, it was a place where every principle of law and justice, was disregarded! on every principle of law and justice the Queen stood precisely in the situation as if no charge had ever been exhibited against her; and if members were still to assert, that she was guilty, it would have been far better that the inquiry should have proceeded. Ministers had abandoned their bill because they could not prove its accusation; but, if every man was still at liberty to charge her majesty with the full commission of the crime, that abandonment might be looked upon but as an artifice to inflict a never-dying stigma, without a particle of evidence to support it.

Sir T. Lethbridge

said, that the proposition before the House was, to vote a provision for the Queen, under existing circumstances, and he knew not how he was to give his vote without at the same time giving his opinion of the conduct of the Queen.

Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald

rose to express his admiration of the zeal of the hon. gentlemen opposite in the cause of economy, and his hope that they would continue in that spirit, and exercise it impartially. Those honourable members expressed their indignation at the gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House who were willing to grant so large a sum as 50,000l. a-year to her majesty. That indignation was rather misapplied; the warmth should have been directed against his majesty's ministers. The former were willing to vote 50,000l. a-year to the Queen, supposing her to be innocent; while the ministers proposed 50,000l. a-year on the supposition of her guilt. If, then, it was the order of the day, that there should be these alternate assertions of guilt and innocence, which could have no purpose but to increase that irritation which it was the professed object of ministers to compose and settle, those ministers were loudly called on to justify their conduct.

Mr. H. Sumner

said, he had objected to the grant of a large sum on the ground of the seditious tendency of her majesty's answers to the addresses she had received, and not on the ground, that her guilt had been established. He had explicitly said, that there was no ground of charge against her majesty, on account of the proceedings in the other House; but that on account of her answers to the addresses, and her message of yesterday, it would not be safe to place so large a sum of money at her disposal.

Mr. Sykes

said, he would detail the motive for the vote which he had last night given, and which he should again give. He entirely concurred with respect to the allowance to be granted to her majesty, with the view of the noble lord (Castlereagh). The noble lord had stated, very distinctly, why 50,000l. was the sum which should be voted to the Queen. They had in the case certain land-marks, by which they could scarcely fail to be guided aright. This sum was the same which her majesty would have received if she had become a widow. The hon. member for Yorkshire (Mr. Wortley) thought there should be a reduction made in the allowance, on account of her answers to certain addresses. He was not of that opinion. He did not approve of all her majesty's answers, far less did lie think, with an hon. friend of his, that they were complete specimens of sound politics, religion and morality. Surely the answer to the Dover address was not liable to the harsh construction which had been put upon it. She might have been induced to use the words "my subjects" from the same expression being made use of in the address. The point for the present consideration of the House had nothing to do with those answers: it was simply, what was an allowance fitting for the high station and dignity which the constitution imparted to the Queen Consort of the country. As to the measure which had so long agitated the kingdom; namely, the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, it was his opinion, that the act was improper and illegal, and that some day or other her name must be restored. He would not go over the argument which had been so elaborately, but at the same time so perspicuously, urged on a former occasion by a learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Wetherell). The same ground had occurred to himself when he first heard of the exclusion of her majesty's name, and he thought, that no man who applied his mind to the act of the 13th of Charles 2nd. could entertain a doubt of the illegality of that measure. He heard it asserted, on the one side of the House, that the Queen had been acquitted; on the other, that she had been convicted; but his own opinion was that she stood at present on the same ground as if she had never been tried, and that, consequently, she was entitled to all the rights and privileges, all the honours and dignities, which the constitution allowed to the Queen Consort. This, he firmly believed, was also the opinion of the country; and, until her name was restored to the Liturgy, he feared it never would be tranquil.

Mr. Alderman Wood

said, that he could not sit still when statements were made which he had it in his power to contradict. He had now to ask the hon. member, who had declared his belief that her majesty's bills to her tradesmen were not paid, whether, in answer to his challenge of yesterday, he was ready to produce any one demand of that kind? He would pause for a moment for a reply.—As the hon. member for Surrey would give no answer, he should proceed. They now saw what the reports of the hon. member were worth. They had heard other insinuations arising out of reports from the hon. member for Somersetshire, who alleged, that money had been sent to an individual at Paris, who was said to have been living in a style of splendor at Paris. Now he challenged that hon. member to produce one proof, that one shilling had been sent to that individual; he challenged him also to shew what, if true, was easily proved, that Bergami was living in the style which had been spoken of. He was in Paris at the call of the gentlemen who were her majesty's law advisers, ready to be produced as an evidence if It was thought necessary. He was at Paris solely for that purpose; and if the House had dared to have goue on with the bill of Pains and Penalties [hear, hear!]—if his majesty's ministers Bad thought it prudent to go on—the member for Somerset would probably have had the pleasure of seeing that gentleman there. He wished now to call one or two facts to the attention of the noble lord (Castlereagh). He presumed by the appearance, that the noble lord had lust night a book similar to that which had been just put into his hand. The noble lord had stated, that her majesty had returned answers to the people of Dover and to the mayor of the corporation of Canterbury, in which she had spoken of "her subjects" and "her people." He now called upon the noble lord to say, whether he could produce that answer to the address from Dover in writing, or in any shape, as the answer of her majesty. He next came to the answer to the address from the mayor and corporation of Canterbury, in which the Queen was made to talk of "her people." He denied that such an answer was given by her majesty in any shape. He denied it; and he would forfeit his life if it was ever given by her majesty. The answers to Dover and to the mayor and corporation of Canterbury were given verbally; he was present, when they were delivered. They were merely apologies, that her majesty was not enabled to return any written answer. As to the answer to the Canterbury address, he remembered the words. They were to this effect, speaking of her disposition to promote the welfare of the city of Canterbury, her majesty added, that she should be glad of every opportunity to make all the people happy. As to the answer at Dover, in which her majesty was stated to have spoken of "her subjects," he utterly denied it. He could appeal to all the persons who were then in the room, and he could bring them all to bear witness to the correctness of his statement. A few words were uttered by her majesty as an apology for her not being prepared with a formal answer, and afterwards a conversation took place between her majesty and the deputation to a much greater length. He challenged the noble lord, out of the four or five hundred answers to addresses, which were regularly authenticated, to produce any of the offensive expressions to which he referred. He had caused search to be made for them, and had not found any. At any rate, he would positively deny the correctness of the alleged answers to Dover and Canterbury.

Lord Lowther

said, he only rose to say a few words in corroboration of what had been stated by the hon. baronet as to the style and manner of Bergami's living at Paris. He happened to be there for a few weeks during the stay of Bergami, who had been pointed out to him in an equipage as splendid as that of any person in that capital. In the quarter of the city in which he lived, he believed there was no person who supported a larger establishment. As to the amount of his funds, and whence he got them, or whether he paid for his establishment, those were matters of which he knew nothing; he could only speak as to his manner of living. It appeared to him, however, that the Queen had a right to spend her money as she pleased, either abroad or in this country: and therefore he should say nothing further on the subject.

Mr. Brougham

said, he could distinctly state, that it was solely by his directions, with the concurrence of his learned colleagues, that Bergami had been brought to Paris. That person being resident on his farm in Italy, was brought to Paris in order to be in readiness, in case the bill should have come down to that House, and her majesty's counsel should have found it necessary to call him as a witness. That he asserted to be the fact. He had himself given the directions. As to that individual's scale of expense while living at Paris, he knew nothing; but this he knew, that if he spent a considerable sum of money in consequence of being called as a witness for the Queen, he was not the only person, either for or against the bill, who had incurred a considerable ex pence.

Lord Castlereagh

, in referring to the questions of the worthy alderman, said, that when the worthy alderman challenged him to produce the written copies of her majesty's answers the worthy alderman should have recollected, that he was not in the service or confidence of her majesty, and that therefore the worthy alderman was holding out a challenge which it was impossible that he should accept. He was, however, quite willing to allow, that the part of the publication to which he referred was more laughable than serious, and that the rhodomontade of talking of her subjects was merely despicable when compared with the more dangerous parts. The worthy alderman now denied the authenticity of those addresses; but he would have been better occupied in correcting the press, than in calling on him to produce copies of them. They were published in form in the paper, which, from its correctness in giving these articles, had been called her majesty's Gazette. If, however, they were not correct, he could read other instances. He did so as a favour to the worthy alderman, because he might correct the press also in these instances, in the republication, which he understood was to take place of these specimens of political, moral, and religious doctrine. In the answer to an address from Wandsworth, delivered by a deputation on the 13th October, her majesty said "No Queen was ever more easy of access to her people than I have been; but this facility has not caused any diminution of their love and respect. That age of ignorance," continued the answer, "is past, which made divinities of kings; but my experience proves, that sovereigns who are known to be attached to the public weal, may dispense with much of that exterior ceremonial which kept them aloof from their people, without losing their veneration or forfeiting their regard." The House would see how plainly in that answer the Queen had amalgamated herself with the sovereign. He thought, it would be impossible to select a code of doctrine, political and moral, that could be more prejudical to the constitution of the country than was contained in her majesty's answers to the addresses presented to her.

Mr. Gipps

said, it was a pity, if Bergami could have been produced in the Commons, that he was not produced in the Lords. Her majesty's answers on her arrival, such as those from Dover and Canterbury, were fair tests of her majesty's sentiments; but more unfavourable inferences were to be drawn from those which she had afterwards delivered, and with which she had completely identified herself. As to the question of the Liturgy, he referred to the address of the House to queen Anne, in 1702, thanking her for her zeal for the protestant succession displayed in her inserting the name of the electress Sophia of Hanover in the Liturgy. After this could it be maintained, that the Crown was not authorised to omit as well as to introduce the name of that princess? And yet the House had returned thanks for that introduction. He conceived that that act of the House completely justified the present proceeding.

Mr. Denman

said, it was impossible, standing in the relation which he did towards the illustrious person who was the object of it, for him to give an opinion on the proposed grant; though he was conscious that in so doing he abandoned, in part, his duty to his constituents, who were anxious, in common with the whole country, that the more liberal vote should be supported. He felt it impossible, however, to hear the language which had been uttered on the other side, without drawing attention to it. He deemed it requisite to apologise to the House for approaching this subject with a degree of feeling which was excited by previous reflection on the conduct pursued towards her majesty from the beginning of the proceedings, in doors and out of doors, by the king's government and by their friends, which formed a series of persecution which he believed to be perfectly unparalleled in the history of the civilized world. That a majority of the peers came to a certain vote was true; that her majesty was convicted by any such vote he denied. The withdrawing of the bill was conclusive in favour of the Queen; because it was evident, that it was not withdrawn from any favourable feeling towards her, on the part of her accusers. It could only have been withdrawn because its patrons were satisfied, that they could not carry it, and that though they might triumph in the Lords, they could not succeed in the Commons. If prudential motives entered into the determination of the accusers, they deserved praise, but the accused should have the benefit of their determination. Pie had a right to consider the peers who came to a vote on that question, in their individual, not in their legislative capacity, and subject to have their opinions canvassed as mere individuals, for no law had been founded on their vote. Supposing then, that the bill had passed the House of Lords, and had come down to the Commons—and had been proceeded on in the temper which some gentlemen now evinced, could they have given an unbiassed judgment then—if now, when the bill had been thrown out, such illiberal opinions were founded on a rejected proceeding? He contended, that no member of that House had a right to found an opinion of the Queen's guilt on the result of that trial. Did they come now to argue the case over again, as on a motion for a new trial? He vowed to God, that he never expected to be called on to argue it again. Did they wish to argue 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 lion, 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 long 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, and 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 address in which the conduct of the 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 J 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 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 us 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 fat 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 bean 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.

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 18J4, 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 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—self-preservation; 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 50,000l. stand part of the said resolution" was then put and agreed to, without a division.