HC Deb 07 June 1820 vol 1 cc906-85

The order of the day for taking his Majesty's Message into consideration, and also the message itself, having been read,

Lord Castlereagh

expressed his persuasion, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the message which had just been read, and to propose that course of proceeding which it appeared proper to pursue, the House would readily perceive the great pain of the duty which devolved on him in introducing to their notice one of the most delicate, anxious, and momentous public questions that ever was agitated in parliament. And he could assure them, that if he and his colleagues were not confident that every consistent and practicable effort had been made on the part of government to avert the pain- ful duty which circumstances now imperatively imposed upon them; he should rise with a still heavier heart than pressed on him on the present occasion. If the question had not taken the course which it had taken—still more, if the attention of the House had not been called to the subject by the communication which the hon. and learned gentleman had just made from the illustrious person concerned (and of which he by no means complained) there might have been less occasion for a sacrifice of personal feeling, as he should not have thought it necessary to draw the attention of the House, at present, to any particulars but the general object of his majesty's message. It was the constant practice of that House, whenever any communication was made from the throne, to take the earliest opportunity of replying to that communication; and, after that had been done, to consider what steps were to be taken in consequence. So far, therefore, as the former practice of the House could guide their conduct on the present occasion, the course to be pursued was simple and well defined; but he was sure that enough of temper had been disclosed within those walls—and he might appeal to the declaration of the hon. and learned gentleman himself whether there had not been enough of exaggeration and partial representation without doors—to call on him so far to travel beyond the strict necessity of the case, as to offer such explanations as might make the circumstances of which the House were to judge generally understood. In this explanation, however, he meant not to make any statement or remark that was calculated to prejudge the question, or to preclude the House from entering into the investigation with an unbiassed mind. The only object indeed, of what he had to offer, was to keep parliament and the public in such a temper as was necessary to enable both to examine the matter coolly, to decide upon it candidly, and to hear the truth—and that was the temper which every friend to public justice must naturally desire to establish and to preserve upon this very important question.

After these preliminary observations, he should address himself to that part of the subject which arose out of a question put to him yesterday, and which led naturally to the object now under consideration. He had been requested to state what was the nature of the proceedings which his majesty's ministers should think it their duty to propose or recommend to the House on this important and delicate question. But he should protest, in limine, against any attempt which had been, or might be made, to represent ministers or the Crown as coming down to the House with a tone of persecution or prosecution. He appealed to the House whether any part of their conduct led to any such conclusion? He trusted, that when the House adverted to the terms of his majesty's message, it would be of opinion that the communication could not have been made in more gracious terms—or terms more calculated to lead to a temperate discussion. The king threw himself, as he was entitled by the constitution to do, on the great council of the nation, in a question in which the interests of the country were as deeply involved as the honour of the Crown, and called upon them to give him that advice which, under the circumstances in which his majesty stood, they might think most proper. It was, indeed, the duty of the House, according to parliamentary usage, in such a case, to tender its counsels to the king as to what proceedings should be taken, or whether it was necessary or proper to take any proceeding at all.

He apprehended, therefore, that, with respect to the House proceeding to take the matter contained in this communication into their consideration, no difference of opinion could exist; and as to the mode of doing that, he conceived that the former practice of the House was so well defined, that there could be no difficulty in determining what course should be adopted on the present occasion. He apprehended that it was necessary that all the information which government possessed upon this subject should be duly examined, and that the House should be aware of the nature of that information, before it Was called upon to consider and determine what proceeding it was becoming to pursue or to recommend. For his own part, he could assure the House, that no vote which he himself might give, or which he might ask others, to give, in this stage of the business, was intended to fetter parliament as to the mode of any ulterior proceedings, or as to the substance of such proceedings, or as to the question whether, on the face of the documents communicated to the House, there were any grounds for a judicial proceeding at all. But at the same time he should mislead the House—and on that point he deprecated the idea of the hon. and learned gentleman deceiving himself—if he disguised that in those communications there was matter that gravely and deeply implicated the illustrious personage to whose conduct the documents referred. The message from the queen was, he concluded, authorized by her majesty's official counsel. According to that message, it would seem that that illustrious individual looked upon the present proposition as a secret proceeding of parliament, involving charges that rested on written documents, and that were to be decided by parliament as a secret tribunal, to the prejudice of her honour and interests. He wished he could as easily relieve the mind of the hon. and learned gentleman on the other parts of the case as he could on this misapprehension respecting the character of the proceedings. God forbid that he, standing in his present situation should say, that to be accused was the same thing as to be guilty! But at the same time, he thought it proper to observe to the hon. and learned gentleman, that although there was a great difference between accusation and guilt, the present charge rested on grave and serious grounds. It would not be expected that he should transgress his duty by disclosing to parliament the substance of these documents, but this he would state—that the charges were grave and serious; and, as far as he was at liberty to describe the information on which these charges were founded, he would say that so far from depending for its establishment upon written documents, it came from individuals who were ready to corroborate, by their personal testimony in the most solemn manner, and before any tribunal which might be appointed for that purpose, all the statements which they had made. Having said thus much, he would now apply himself to the course of proceeding which he should recommend.

And here he must say, that he was somewhat astonished that the able adviser whom the illustrious individual had on the present occasion, should have impressed her with the belief, that it could ever have occurred to the mind of any minister accustomed to the purest administration of justice in the world, that any guilt could attach to her majesty, or even to the lowest individual in the land, without a public hearing of the whole merits of the case, —without a full examination of evidence, such as was in all cases admitted in a court of justice, and without a full power of cross-examining that evidence, of rebutting it, and of impeaching the character of the witnesses, so as to afford every opportunity of proving or disproving the charge imputed. To this right, which the lowest subject in the realm might justly claim, the illustrious individual in question was surely entitled, and of this just right she would not be deprived. It was, quite astonishing to think that ministers could be suspected of any design or wish to deprive an accused person, in this or any other case, of all those safeguards, which in this country, where the laws were more purely administered than in any other nation upon earth, the legislature had provided for the interest of public justice and personal protection. Why then should it be imagined that it was meant to divest the queen of all share of those privileges, in which he would not say that she had any title to precedency, but which, at least, she enjoyed in common with all the subjects of this realm? But the fact was, that no such intention was ever for a moment, or ever could be, harboured by his majesty's government; the object of the message before the House being merely to obtain that advice which it professed to require; and if any proceeding were instituted, the illustrious personage alluded to would have ample opportunity of availing herself of the assistance of the eminent counsel which were constitutionally assigned to her. But there was a most serious and important question to be agitated in limine, and one that could not be better discussed and decided any where than in the legislative assembly of the kingdom,—namely, what was the best course of proceeding for asserting the honour and innocence of that illustrious person, if they could be asserted, and at the same time satisfying all the ends of justice? He would recommend the course which had been adopted by parliament on so many former occasions, as far indeed as the present case was not an exception to all former cases. There was not, indeed, any precedent strictly analogous for a long series of years; as the present case, he was, sorry to say, formed a lamentable exception to our general experience. His object was to move for the appointment of a committee to examine all the information received by government upon this subject; and after the report of that com- mittee should be received it would be for the House to decide what mode of proceeding should be adopted, that is, whether the case should be referred to the high court of parliament, or to the ordinary tribunals of the country, or whether a proceeding should be taken by bill. But the first object of the proposed committee, after investigating the evidence, would be to consider whether any proceeding should be instituted at all upon this subject. Until the House should be called upon to consider this case it was necessary, in his apprehension, that the nature of the evidence should not be made public. On the ground, indeed, of decorum and common justice, he felt that the investigation of that evidence should be referred to a Secret Committee, not in order to try the case, as seemed to be so erroneously supposed, but to inquire whether there was ground for trial—not in order to fetter or to bias the judgment of; the House, but to do the duty of a grand jury [Hear, hear!]. To do no more, he repeated, than a grand jury, in ascertaining whether, upon the matter laid before them, there was sufficient cause to decide that the party accused ought to be brought to trial. The committee, then, was not to determine upon the question of guilt or innocence, but merely to report its opinion upon the evidence, with a statement of the course of proceeding pursued upon other or analogous cases, according to such precedents as the industry of the committee might be able to discover.

With respect to the mode of appointing the proposed committee, although there were precedents of appointing committees by ballot, as in the case of bishop Atterbury, where it might be said that a criminatory proceeding was foreseen, he was not disposed to follow any such precedent. But if the motion with which he meant to conclude should be agreed to, he thought it proper to give notice of his intention to move, according to the precedent in sir Thomas Rumbold's case, that the committee should be publicly nominated in the House in order to give greater facility for discussing its composition. In prosecution of this course, he would propose the nomination of members most accustomed to consider the practice of parliament, and most competent to judge of the laws of evidence, bearing in mind that this committee was not to decide upon the merits-of the ques- tion, Or to pronounce any decision affecting those merits. He did not mean to say that the committee would be incompetent to decide that there was no ground for any proceeding; and he could assure the hon. and learned gentleman that there were no individuals in the country more interested in the question than his majesty's ministers, or to whom it would be a greater relief to find that there was no ground for any further proceeding. They had certainly shown no anxiety, either individually or in their character of ministers, to rush into an inquiry such as this; but their duty now compelled them to sacrifice to the ends of justice those feelings of reluctance which they as individuals must entertain. From the number of cheers which proceeded from the gentlemen opposite, he doubted not that there was one in reserve for the declaration of his opinion, that he did not consider this committee to have any other effect or power than that of determining the mode in which the illustrious individual might best vindicate her character consistently with the ends of justice. If he imagined that any other interest was to be referred to that committee, there were no two individuals whom he should feel more imperatively called upon to nominate amongst its members than the two hon. and learned gentlemen opposite, the legal advisers of her majesty. But as he conceived the case to stand, he should think it inexpedient to introduce them into the committee; for should the committee report that there was nothing to impeach the conduct of the illustrious party whom they assisted with their advice, and that there was no occasion to proceed farther, this happy decision would receive no additional recommendation, either in the estimation of her majesty or in that of the public, from having been come to in conjunction with the two hon. and learned gentlemen who held the important and honourable office of her majesty's legal advisers. On the other hand, if the report stated that there was enough of grave matter in the documents laid before the committee to advise some ulterior proceeding, those hon. and learned gentlemen would be placed in the most embarrassing dilemma between their private and their public duty. If they concurred in the opinion that there was sufficient ground for ulterior proceedings, how much more painful would such a decision prove to the House, when sanctioned by two hon. and learned gen- tlemen who stood in such a situation? If they thought it their duty to protest against the decision of the committee, under what disadvantage would they not labour from being among the number of those through whom that decision had been formed? He therefore submitted to the House, whether, for every purpose of public justice and of duty to their illustrious client, these two hon. and learned gentlemen were not much more free to act by being omitted, than if they were to form any part of the committee. This, however, would not preclude the hon. and learned gentlemen and the House from exercising that jealousy which they might wish to throw round the question, from taking every precaution which a sense of duty might dictate, from sifting the matter to the bottom, and well weighing the subject before they gave their sanction to any farther proceeding. If the committee should recommend that this question; should be referred to any legal adjudication, either in the other House of Parliament, or in the ordinary courts, or that a proceeding should be taken by bill, as in the instance of sir Thomas Rumbold, (and he wished to guard himself against being supposed to have any particular preference for that mode of proceeding) the hon. and learned gentlemen would have ample means, as well as ample opportunity of defending their client. In sir Thomas Rumbold's case, the report of the committee to whom the affair was in the first instance referred, was afterwards discussed in a committee of the whole House upon certain resolutions, and should such be the mode of proceeding determined upon in this transaction, the hon. and learned gentlemen, as members of that House, might most fully canvass the merits of the whole question, none of which merits could be in any degree compromised by the appointment of the proposed committee.

Thus far he had felt it his duty to show his view of the course that ought to be taken; and he thought he had satisfactorily answered the question which had been put last night, relative to the course which government intended to pursue. He had attempted to describe what would eventually be under the view of the House at large, when, assisted by the light de rived from the committee and their own investigation, they might decide whether the case was one for the legislating of parliament, for an appeal to the high court of parliament, or for a reference to the ordinary tribunals of the country. He now came to the observations which dropped last night from the other side, and without noticing which he could not consistently terminate his address to the House. Doing this, he was unwilling to detain the House unnecessarily, by going into details, but he was anxious to protect them against error and delusion.—He appealed to them now not to decide on any part of this question, but simply to preserve that temper which was necessary to its dispassionate discussion, when the subject should come before them on a future occasion.—He could assure the right hon. gentleman opposite, and the learned and hon. gentleman near him, that it was impossible for them to feel the deep responsibility attached to every step which ministers might take in these most painful proceedings, more sensibly than it was felt by himself and colleagues. For them and for himself he had no favour to ask of the House, but that they would closely watch the conduct of the whole of his majesty's ministers, and determine if there was aught in their conduct which was dictated by any feeling other than that of regard for the honour and dignity of the Crown. At present, however, he thought it was a little premature to criticise their conduct as it had been criticised, while the facts of the case were so imperfectly known to the House. He apprehended the House could not be in a situation to judge of the advice given by ministers, till they were in possession of further information as to the circumstances in which the illustrious parties concerned in this question stood at the time that that advice had been offered. Till these were known, till the facts on which they had proceeded, and which ought not to be connected with any of the stories now afloat in the country, were brought before them, till these were known (though God forbid that he should for a moment assume that there was any presumption of guilt which might not be rebutted by evidence), the conduct of ministers could not be understood. Till the circumstances to which he had alluded could be explained, he hoped that, even in the eyes of the hon. and learned gentleman himself, it would not appear that there was any thing so flagrant in the conduct of ministers as to merit condemnation in the present state of the proceedings.

The hon. and learned gentleman had last night not merely insinuated, but he had broadly stated that it lay on the government not merely to make out a strong case of blame against the queen in the first instance, but also to prove that at the moment when the decision was taken to advise the king to send that message down to parliament which was now before them, no other course could be taken. This the hon. and learned gentleman had said would be necessary to justify the advice so given. Now, it frequently happened that those who agreed on most public questions were, in particular cases, as much at issue with each other as with those to whose views they were generally opposed. In proof of this, he would refer to the opinions given some time back by two individuals to whom he must listen with great respect on this or any other subject—the right hon. gentleman, and the hon. and learned gentleman opposite. The right hon. gentleman, when mention was made of the queen before the arrangement of the civil list, whether he spoke from information which he had individually received, or from the impression then made on the public mind, he knew not, but the right hon. gentleman had then called the attention of the House to the rumours which were afloat, and given it as his opinion, that conduct like that imputed to her majesty, went to degrade her high situation, and he therefore thought the rumours in question ought to be disproved before any grant was made in favour of her majesty; and he thought he was right when he added, that that right hon. gentleman had further remarked, that not to bring the subject fairly before the House, was to betray the king by exposing him to indignation, of which he ought not to be the object, or to oppress, insult, and vilify another illustrious personage, by withholding from her that justice which she had a right to expect would be rendered to her in the face of the country. The hon. and learned gentleman had thought, on the contrary, that it was the duty of government not to bring forward, in. the shape of a charge, information which they might have received from various quarters, but which must of necessity be the nature of ex-parte evidence—Such a course did not appear to the hon. and learned gentleman to be due to the king or to the parliament; but, on the contrary, he thought that it was the duty of ministers to avoid all painful disclosures, which, whether true or false, could not fail to produce a painful sensation in the country, to agitate the public mind and disturb the general tranquillity. Such a course of proceeding the hon. and learned gentleman considered it would be desirable to avoid, unless it should be forced upon them by the strong hand of necessity. From that hon. and learned gentleman he had heard no relaxation on these points; and even in the conversation of yesterday, speaking as the advocate of her majesty, he had been disposed to charge it upon ministers, that they had not carried their forbearance far enough; and to contend that even after the arrival of the queen in this country, they ought not immediately to have come down with a message from the king, but might still have kept open what he had been pleased to call "the door of negotiation," in the hope that something might arise to relieve the House from the painful and arduous duty which they were now forced to take upon themselves. Now he would own that if he had had any doubt of the propriety of the course pursued by ministers (which he had not), it would have arisen from an idea that forbearance had been extended somewhat too far. The transactions of the last eight and forty hours furnished a pretty sufficient comment on what might have been expected from a negotiation, as it was called, since it was seen, that the illustrious personage who was the subject of this discussion, was so little under the counsel of the hon. and learned gentleman, her legal adviser, that by his own confession those documents connected with the arrangement lately proposed, which had been published, had been so published without his consent. The hon. and learned gentleman had felt it due to himself to declare, that he had not advised that publication, and to admit that it was garbled, imperfect, and untrue. Under whatever lamentable, and he might add criminal advice, that publication had taken place, it was evident that the object of it was to appeal to the lowest orders of the people; and the purposes which it was intended to answer could be concealed from no one who did not wilfully shut his eyes. He regretted that, on such an occasion her majesty had not resorted to the advice1 of those who were her professional advisers, and that she should have suffered by a base and pernicious interference. That her majesty should act with a consciousness of innocence every man of feeling would rejoice; but it would have been matter of satisfaction to have found her guided by those gentlemen.

If any feeling but regret could have place in his breast at this moment, he should rejoice that, from the circumstances of the case, no doubt could exist as to the propriety of the course which ministers had taken on this melancholy occasion. The illustrious personage herself had been fully apprized of their resolution; the conduct of ministers, free from all disguise, had made her distinctly understand the consequences to which the step that she had resolved upon must inevitably and immediately lead.—He did not wish to insinuate any thing to the prejudice of her majesty, much less to throw blame on the step which she had taken, if she felt assured that she could establish her innocence. The best feelings of human nature in such a case would naturally rise up in her behalf. It was, however, of importance that it should be known, that the course intended to be pursued by ministers had never been concealed from the parties best entitled to be made acquainted with their decision. In this statement the hon. and learned gentleman would hear him out. The intentions of ministers had been communicated at the earliest period at which they could be communicated; and he believed he might say, that they had been known to the hon. and learned gentleman for above a month. This was the last subject on earth with which he could wish to connect any discussion about words, but he thought, if at ail disposed to do so, he had a right to quarrel with the use made of the word "negotiation" by the hon. and learned gentleman when speaking on this subject. He, for his part, in opposition to that hon. and learned gentleman, conceived no negotiation at all to have taken place, unless an unreserved exposition of what were the views of ministers deserved that name. He, however, could not admit that they had entered into any negotiation, or that they had offered any thing like a bribe to the illustrious individual whose case was now to be brought under the consideration of parliament. All that had been done by ministers came to this—they had explained their views to her majesty, and informed her, that the consequence of her return to this country would be, that the whole of her conduct must immediately, become the subject of a parliamentary inquiry. He had not thought that it was the duty of government to bring forward this question at all while her majesty remained abroad. On the contrary, it was his opinion that the necessity of such an appeal might be avoided, and that that practical separation which had been so far justified or explained, that it had been recognised by parliament, and a bill had passed to regulate the relative situations of the illustrious parties, might have been continued without inconvenience to the parties, and without calling for any new interference on the part of the legislature. If, then, her majesty had chosen to remain in a foreign country, he should have thought it his duty by every means in his power, to avert those calamitous discussions which were now unavoidable. He had no hesitation in saying that such was the part that he would have acted, and he was astonished at the observations which had fallen from an hon. gentleman opposite (he must impute them to the warmth of the moment), who had conceived ministers to have been guilty of a most flagrant breach of duty in offering her majesty what he had been pleased to call a bribe. He denied that any bribe had been offered, and he denied that the servants of the Crown had at all forgotten what they owed to the constitution of their country, by entering into what had been described to be a negotiation without the authority of parliament. It was the constitutional practice for the; Crown to adopt such measures in pecuniary matters as it should think fit in the existing circumstances of the country, and afterwards apply to parliament to make the same good. Honourable gentlemen would allow him to recall to their recollection, that so little, were; the House disposed to take umbrage at this course of proceeding, that it had been the constant—the unavoidable practice. If a subsidy were given to-morrow (supposing the country to be engaged in a war) to a foreign country, the first step he would take would be to advise the Crown to contract for the subsidy, without making any reference to parliament in the treaty. It was so well understood that the Crown in making, such a treaty only engaged to use its best exertions to gain the sanction of parliament to the proposed grant, that any stipulation on the subject in the body of the treaty was wholly unnecessary. In the present case, the same course would have been pursued, and looking at the circumstances, could it be for a moment supposed on the part of the Crown, that in the measure resorted to there was any—the slightest intention of encroaching on the constitutional functions of parliament. Having always supposed that it was the intention of her majesty to remain abroad, he had thought that, it would be right to return to that specific quantum of allowance which had formerly been granted to her, a part of which she had thought it her duty to decline receiving. Looking at the calamitous separation which had taken place—looking at all the circumstances of the case—he had considered it right to bring up her majesty's income to the amount which it had formerly been proposed that she should enjoy. The House were aware that under her marriage settlement, in the lamentable event of the death of his majesty, she would be entitled to an income of 50.000l. as widow of the king. He had therefore thought it desirable that an annuity to that amount should be granted now, that the subject might never again come before parliament. This, then, had been proposed to the queen, and he had no hesitation in saying, that when proposed, the only condition coupled with it was the stipulation that she should remain abroad.

Now, with respect to the supposed proposition that the queen should give up her title and all the rights attached to her situation, no such proposition had been made, and no such proposition could be made. Nothing had been proposed to her but an arrangement by which it was hoped that all debates of a hostile nature might be avoided. It was obvious that no consent of the queen to surrender her rights as queen could be valid without the interference of the legislature, and without an act of parliament. Ministers had been anxious that such measures be adopted that should prevent all future conflicts, both at home and abroad, between the illustrious parties. It was obvious, that if her majesty resided in England, both the king and herself would frequently be exposed to much painful embarrassment, and it was but too evident that there was in this country no lack of disposition to turn such circumstances to answer the most mischievous purposes.—If, therefore, the queen thought proper to remain abroad, receiving 50,000l. per annum, her majesty was not required to abdicate any of her rights as queen of England, but merely to do that which was the common, he might almost say, the uniform practice of persons of her exalted rank—to bear in travelling, such a title as would not raise that perpetual question between her majesty (from her wish to be received in her public character) and the king, which had been productive of much pain to the queen herself, and of much inconvenience to other parties. She was not required to surrender any of her legal rights or claims whatever, and in this he was sure he should be borne out by the hon. and learned gentleman himself, who was in possession of a document which placed the intentions of ministers in this respect beyond the possibility of doubt.

In what he now stated he had no wish to screen his own conduct, or that of any of his majesty's ministers from reproach, if it should appear that they had acted with harshness or exercised ungenerously any influence which they might possess. If they had subjected her majesty to any unnecessary, unmerited, or unbecoming restraint or contumely, he did not wish to relieve himself or others from any charge that might be brought forward on this point, and he wished it to be understood that no member of the House by his silence this night, would be precluded from bringing forward such a charge if he saw reason for it on any future occasion. But it would be wrong in him not to put the House in possession of what he should be prepared to contend when this subject came forward at a future time. He would then maintain that the conduct of his majesty's government had been marked by no harshness unbecoming them as ministers, or unbecoming them as men. They had no wish whatever to deprive her majesty of those rights and privileges which she ought to enjoy. But here he must be allowed to take a distinction between those privileges given by the law and constitution of the country to the queen of these realms, and those which usually appertained to her rank, but which it was in the discretion of the sovereign to bestow. These the queen of England did not enjoy of right; and because she was denied these privileges, which it rested with the sovereign to confer, it was not to be assumed that she was treated with injustice or oppression. The distinction which he took was between the queen of right and the queen of grace and favour. Under the privilege of the king it was, that she might be received at court. The king of this country was the master of his own court and family, and that House was the last place in which a doubt on that subject could be entertained, as it had there been admitted that the king was the master of his court as the queen was of her drawing-room, and his majesty had a right without appeal to any human being to admit or exclude from court any one he was so disposed to act by, or to treat any member of his family with either favour or discouragement. It was especially desirable that the king should possess the power of entailing the loss of these privileges on those who were wanting in respect to the Crown. This power ought to belong to the sovereign; and privileges which were conceded as favour, could not be claimed as a right. Without pursuing this branch of the subject further, he thought the House would feel, and that the hon. and learned gentleman would forgive him for saying, that because the Crown chose to withhold certain favours which it was in its power to grant, and that at a moment when a judicial inquiry was pending, it did not follow that the Crown was a party to any act of injustice, or course of proceeding that might prejudice the individual whose conduct was about to be called in question. He apprehended that the coronation was also a privilege which must be considered as derived from the grace and favour of the Crown, but he would admit that in this the Crown should not act irrationally, but upon intelligible principles. In the same manner must be viewed the reception by authorities at home or abroad; they all proceeded from the grace and favour of the sovereign. Was it meant to be said, that the Crown, for exercising its undoubted prerogative in withholding these distinctions, was to be accused or injustice towards that individual whom its determination affected? However averse hon. gentlemen on the other side might now be to the exercise of the king's undoubted prerogatives, he recollected an instance in which an accusation had been prepared against a minister of the Crown, who had retired from the councils of his sovereign, and whose situation of privy councillor was to be considered, therefore, as a dormant honour. In that case, even before any judicial inquiry had taken place, his removal from the privy council had been proposed, and pressed on the other side of the House. He should be prepared at another time, to contend, that it was entirely in the discretion of the Crown whether the members of the royal family should be prayed for in the liturgy, by name, or generally as the royal family; but, above all, he should contend that it was for the Crown to grant or withhold such a favour. It might be asked, why should they now do any thing, as in the case of her majesty, which they had not thought fit to do, as in the case of the princess of Wales? Why was there to be this distinction observed towards her in her new character? If, in short, they had permitted her to be prayed for as princess of Wales, why should they now interfere to prevent her being prayed for as the queen? To this the answer was, that so long as her majesty did nothing to force on the Crown the consideration of the question now before them, no charge had been sought for, and nothing but the most cogent and most paramount necessity could have induced ministers to take a step which must expose the Crown and the country to the calamitous embarrassment by which they were now menaced. But the House would allow him to say, that for the government to decide as to what should be done about disturbing an existing state of things, or as to what it should do under a new state of circumstances, with reference to certain measures proposed to be taken, was a very different question. As long as her present majesty, then princess of Wales, continued abroad, there was nothing in the situation of that illustrious personage which it was for government to bring under the notice of the House. Her income was settled; it was paid in her absence regularly, and without interruption; and nothing occurred which was necessary to be submitted to their attention; and therefore the clear and determined purpose of his majesty's government, and upon which they had all along acted, was this,—not to disturb, excepting under some paramount and imperative state of affairs, by the agitation of any question which concerned her, the peace of the public; nor incur the hazard of forcing upon the country all those calamities which such a proceeding might eventually produce. But it was a very different question with them, when that state of things did happen, and make it necessary that the allowances and m- come of that illustrious personage should come before parliament. So far as concerned her income, the necessity was unavoidable; for it lapsed with the demise of the Crown. Her majesty's former character might make the course of conduct to be observed by government matter of prudence, discretion, and duty; whatever they might have considered that conduct ought to be, they would have felt, by possibility, that they were to act according to the best of their discretion. They might, on the other hand, have decided (as they did decide) not to act at all. But that case was widely different from one in which they were called upon to decide upon those honours, not such as he had alluded to which belonged to the queen by the constitution of the state, and which ministers never did refuse or hesitate to allow her. Then, again, it became a matter of discretion, whether to withhold or allow those other honours which it was only in the power and discretion of of the Crown to bestow; and whether or not they would advise the Crown, from a sense of public duty, to exercise its prerogative, in regard to them. He should not now attempt to justify the decision which might have been come to upon every individual point of this latter subject; but this he would say, that with respect to this prerogative the exercise of which so rested in the discretion of the Crown, government were not only justified in not advising the Crown, under the circumstances of the case, to order that the name of her majesty should be inserted in the liturgy, but it would have been worse than mockery to have done so.

Now as to what had been alleged upon the subject of the behaviour of foreign ministers and authorities to the illustrious personage herself, he would observe, that our public ministers abroad had been instructed as to the conduct they were to pursue as long ago as the year 1817. So far as he had since had any occasion to address them relative to the respect which was to be paid to her majesty, the queen, he had always referred them to the term of the instructions given to them at that period. He should have no objection to state what was the purport of those instructions. As the instructions themselves would, perhaps, more regularly come before the House on a future occasion, he would content himself with stating their purport. Previously, he would only say, that they did not arise out of any spirit of persecu- tion, or any wish to do that which should be painful to the feelings of her majesty; nor had any thing occurred which was likely to produce such an effect, excepting, possibly, the advice which had been suggested to her majesty to remain abroad. Those instructions then arose out of an application to government from one of our ministers at a foreign court, whom he named without any hesitation. It was the minister at Stutgard. He asked, what was to be the mode in which he was to conduct himself towards the illustrious personage in question? The instructions were founded upon those grounds on which the present discussion, in some degree, must proceed; but the peculiar circumstances of the case were those which he did not think they had at present any right to enter upon; and into which it was not their province to inquire. But, abroad, her majesty was known to be excluded from the royal family, and from the court of this country; and upon this same principle it was quite impossible for ambassadors in foreign countries to give to her majesty that public reception in foreign courts which she was not entitled to at home. This was a principle which he presumed was not: to be disputed; he apprehended it would follow as an inevitable consequence from the first part of the proposition, that the ministers of this country would labour under an insuperable difficulty with respect to the reception of her majesty in foreign courts. These instructions distinctly stated, therefore, that they were not in their official character to give to her majesty any public or official reception; that they were not themselves to be the instruments of introducing her majesty at foreign courts; and that if any foreign court should think fit to give a public reception to her, they were not to assist on the occasion as the ministers of this country. But it would be found that it was laid down in those instructions, quite as broadly, that they were equally enjoined to obtain for, and give to her majesty every possible facility and comfort in the prosecution of her travels through the kingdoms where they might be stationed; and that she was not to receive any interruption. He was prepared to show many instances of general and special protection which had been afforded to her by our ministers at foreign courts; and that his majesty's ministers were most, anxious that no obstruction should be thrown in the way of her coming to this country, if she thought fit to adopt that course. He felt it incumbent on him to plead in bar to the indictment of studied oppression, and if he did not enter more fully into the subject at the present moment he begged the House at least to suspend its judgment. He hoped, however, that the House were satisfied with the explanations he had given; and he had no hesitation in adding, that the miseries winch had attended her majesty's travels arose from the situation of her majesty herself. He had already explained, that her majesty, since the accession of his majesty, had travelled under no other character than that of queen of England; and the fact was, that her majesty was in the habit Of pressing the question of her public situation upon the public authorities of countries; and, first, upon our own ministers, because they were the channels of the highest respectability for introduction to foreign courts. As to guards of honour, which were matters of favour, and by no means matters of right, they were not usually granted to those travelling under an incognito; and from this, and other circumstances, it was to be inferred, that her majesty's own acts were the only reason why every facility, of every kind, was not experienced by her. The only question was, whether there had been any unbecoming severity or harshness manifested towards her majesty, with respect to her coming to this country. With regard to what was foreseen might be the immediate determination of her majesty upon that head, she was placed in a situation in which she was enabled to know clearly what would be the inevitable consequence of such a step. His majesty's ministers were resolved, that as long as her majesty remained abroad, and persevered in her determination of residing abroad, so long they would refrain from taking any steps in the case; and he did not know upon what other grounds they were to consider themselves called upon not to disturb the existing state of things. But from the moment that her majesty determined to come over to this country; when she claimed to be received as queen, to be lodged as queen in the palaces of the country, and to receive all the honours due to that exalted station, from that moment his majesty's government had no option, nor could they suffer parliament to remain in ignorance of the charges which existed against her.

It had been said that it would have been more suitable to the hospitality of the country, if her majesty had been provided with a royal residence, instead of being obliged to reside in a private dwelling, but he would state why he thought this was not a correct feeling. The contrary decision did not grow out of any disposition on the part of his majesty's ministers, and still less of his majesty, to cramp her majesty in any circumstances which might contribute to her convenience. The House would recollect the readiness with which the Crown, at a former period, gave every facility to parliament to afford an income to the queen, more ample than her own sense of duty permitted her to accept. On the very first day of the sessions, measures were taken to relieve her majesty from any pecuniary embarrassment which the lapse of her income might occasion; and on her arrival in this country, a communication had been made to her banker, that no interruption-would take place in the allowance of her income, until the question before parliament should be decided, and that she had only to send her agent and every necessary advance and accommodation would be afforded. He denied that the members of the royal family had any claim of right to be accommodated with a residence in the palaces of the country, and in point of fact more than one half of the members of that illustrious family were lodged in private residences of their own. He knew of nothing in the circumstances of the case which should render his majesty's ministers so specially in haste to advise any mark of exclusive grace and favour to her majesty. Every disposition, however, was shown to furnish her majesty with the means of procuring a suitable residence for herself.

He had now touched upon most of the topics connected with the question, and he would only add, that his majesty's ministers had been as anxious as possible to soften the distressing features of this case, and to avoid every thing that had a tendency to agitate the country. He could not disguise either to himself or to the Houses the anxiety and embarrassment; which the House might have to encounter in the further prosecution of this inquiry, lout he trusted; that whatever were the; difficulties of the case, whatever might be their feelings upon it, yet, under the influence of bar happy constitution, there would be wisdom enough in both Houses of Parliament to meet them; that there would be found to prevail the most temperate deliberation, and an absence of all that feeling and irritation upon the subject which might prevent parliament from arriving at the only goal, which, he would assure the House, was contemplated by his majesty's government—namely, the execution of impartial justice between the parties, without favour or affection. He did trust that the tone and attitude which were always assumed by parliament upon great occasions, would be preserved upon this; and that though the people could not help sharing in the pain which the unfortunate circumstances of the case were calculated to cause to every bosom in the country, yet they would have the satisfaction of knowing that the interests of justice were properly supported. But if any disposition existed to make this question the means of agitating the public tranquillity, at present but imperfectly restored; if, unfortunately, the illustrious personage had lent her ear to any mischievous or false adviser, who had taught her that either her honour or her innocence—and he trusted that she might be able to vindicate both—would be supported by the agitation of the country, her majesty would, he trusted, awaken to the conviction that she could reap nothing but regret and disappointment from allowing herself, however undesignedly, to be the dupe of such a wicked and dangerous individual. If her majesty had any enemies upon earth, whose advice could make her cause despicable as well as odious in the sight of all honest men, they were those who would advise her to a garbled, untrue, and inaccurate disclosure of facts, or who recommended any appeal but to parliament, which would hear her with that favour with which it was always disposed to listen to the accused. It was only by ignorant, weak, or wicked persons, that any other appeal could be advised which might have the effect of reviving crimes or repeating agitations which had already disturbed and disgraced the country. He trusted that if any such individual had presumed to approach her majesty with this pernicious advice; if she had allowed such suggestions to remain upon her mind—advice and suggestions not more remarkable for their mischief than their incapacity—and tempt her into crooked, and thorny, and dangerous paths, she would speedily be reclaimed to a sense of what was due to her own cause and character; and that she would perceive that the constitutional means of inquiry and explanation which parliament would afford her, were the only means by which she could properly and fully vindicate herself. He would conclude by moving, "That the Papers which were yesterday presented to this House by lord viscount Castlereagh be referred to a Select Committee, to consider the matter thereof, and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House."

Mr. Brougham

assured the House and the noble lord, that the noble lord himself could not have risen with greater pain than he did on the present occasion. That pain, however, was occasioned not by any reluctance to perform that which he felt to be his bounden duty, but from his consciousness of the importance of the interests entrusted to his care. The hour was now come when it was incumbent on him to defend those interests to the best of his ability, although under the consciousness of his inadequacy to so great a task. On such an occasion it was natural that he should feel an anxiety, painful on every consideration; whether he regarded the vital importance of the discussion to the illustrious individual most immediately concerned, to the dignity of that great family with which that illustrious individual was connected by blood and marriage, or to the interests of the community at large. Nor was it less important as it regarded the constitutional course of justice, and the character of parliament. To that parliament the illustrious lady to whom the present question referred, made her appeal. She courted not those mobs of which the noble lord had spoken. Her sagacity, not inferior to that of any person in public or private life, whom he had ever known, and the propriety of her mind, which, in spite of the calumnies which had been so industriously circulated, was not impaired by what was so generally ruinous to the delicacy of a female—absence from her family, where delicacy of character was best cherished—a removal from the country deprecated by her, but to which she felt it necessary to submit—and, above all, the withdrawing of that salutary control which more than any other cause established domestic habits, and was the best preserver of female propriety and delicacy—he repeated, that that sagacity and propriety with which nature had largely endowed her, would have taught her, even had the circumstance of her illustrious birth been wanting, to shun any inferior or degrading association. He prayed and implored of the justice of the House, to set out on the task of the inquiry, which unhappily must now be undertaken, with this principle of common justice—not only to believe the illustrious person accused to be innocent until she was proved to be guilty; but to suspect the reality of outward appearances, which it might not be practicable at once to explain. That which appeared at first sight conclusive, might, on a little scrutiny, admit either of explanation or excuse. He said this, not with any view to the merits of the case itself. The question of guilt or innocence was not now to be grappled with. Before that came to the issue much was to be gone through. No little inquiry was to take place above stairs, and he flattered himself no little discussion in that House. But he said it with a view to some circumstances, which, though of minor importance to that great question, were still of some importance. He alluded to some subjects to which the noble lord had more than once adverted. He entreated the House, however, only to reflect on the situation of an illustrious female, a foreigner, unprotected, almost unattended, deprived of her natural guardian, after a short residence in this country, induced by circumstances, into which he would not then enter, six years ago to quit it, and ever since to live almost involuntarily abroad; and then he would ask any gentleman, he would ask any man with ordinary candour, if he could seriously blame, or impute error to her for listening to certain recommendations which he was persuaded were well meant, although he admitted they were not those of absolute wisdom [a laugh!]. Undoubtedly he considered those recommendations as well intended, and therefore as not justly subject for an instant to reprehension; but he flung himself on the House, as the illustrious female had done for her justification, whether it was very extraordinary that the conduct consequent on those recommendations had borne the appearance of making an appeal of the nature and tendency of which she was, nevertheless, not in the slightest degree aware? To that House she now applied for justice. Nothing which he could say could add to the force of the solemn appeal which she had that night made to it. But he might be permitted to remark, that it was not extraordinary, that an individual placed in the peculiarly difficult situation of her majesty, should open her heart to the overflowing affection of the honest people of this country. Neglected as she had been by some, slighted by others, not fairly or liberally treated by any, left almost exclusively to her professional advisers, was it surprising that she should for a moment yield to the agreeable and soothing feeling which must be produced by finding that her countrymen (of what rank soever) still clung to her with the affection which they had expressed in former times?

He had thought it necessary to make these preliminary remarks, in order to show that her majesty's having given vent to feelings of gratitude, at the reception she experienced, was not only not improper, but that it was incumbent on her. The only way to have avoided the occurrence was not to have come in contact with those by whose conduct it was elicited; and this was an object which was contemplated, but which an unfortunate accident had defeated. He now came to the proposition before the House. He was surprised that the acuteness of the noble lord had allowed him to mistake the character of her majesty's complaint against that proposition. The noble lord argued as if her majesty complained of the reference to a secret committee of the documents on which the charges against her were grounded—documents of the nature of which she could not by possibility know any thing—on the assumption that that committee was a tribunal of ultimate judicature. "Oh! no," said the noble lord, "there is nothing in the appointment of the committee which will prevent the most ample opportunity from being subsequently afforded of open investigation, of examining witnesses face to face, and of controverting one description of evidence by the production of another. Her majesty was perfectly aware of that. That illustrious person was too well apprised of her own situation—too well acquainted with the principles of English law—to entertain any such supposition. The declaration of the noble lord could therefore give her no consolation or relief. She knew, that if the inquiry proceeded beyond the threshold of the committee, it must be an inquiry of open examination. She knew, that there was no power to pass a bill affecting her, without such an examination. She knew that parliament was omnipotent; but that it was omnipotent only to do justice. She knew that it could not pas a bill of attainder against her without a previous hearing. She knew that the noble lord would hardly take for his model the proceedings in lord Strafford's case, and still less would dare to take the monstrous proceedings of the reign of Harry the 8th for his precedents. She knew that not only the noble lord, not only the ricketty and shattered fabric of the ministry of which the noble lord was the organ, but the administration of Mr. Pitt himself, in the plenitude of his power, even had that administration been fortified by the only element of superior talent possessed by the present government, in the person of an illustrious commander, whose achievements had been as serviceable to the country, as glorious to himself,—she knew that even such a ministry would have found it a task infinitely above their strength, to pass a bill on the report of a select committee, without evidence on both sides—without the examination of witnesses—without confronting the accused with the accuser—and without all those other forms which the law prescribed. He would not therefore take the observation of the noble lord as any concession. He would not counsel the illustrious person for whose benefit it was made to receive it as a mark of concession or kindness; or as a proof that she had better throw herself on the parliament than on the people. He would wait to see what parliament would do, before he would quite allow that the noble lord's preference of it was justified; and in the mean while he would not consider the noble lord's argument on the subject, as exhibiting a shade of advantage to an appeal to that tribunal.

The noble lord had compared the proceedings of a select committee to the proceedings of a grand jury. He (Mr. Brougham) confessed himself astonished bow any man could in sober seriousness make such a comparison, or conjure up an analogy between things not at all similar. "Oh!" said the noble lord, "what I propose is just what takes place in ordinary cases. A bill is preferred before a grand jury, and if that bill is found, then, and then only, a trial ensues." Was any man convinced by this remark? Let the House observe the difference. In the first place, a grand jury was sworn. In the next place, it was impartially constituted. It was of no earthly importance to any member of a grand jury, whether A B, a labourer, did actually kill and slay C D, another labourer, by force of arms. The thing was a matter of absolute indifference to a grand jury; and with perfect propriety towards A B, or towards the friends of C D, a grand jury might be intrusted with the power of inquiring whether or not there was a prima facie case for trial. He repeated that a grand jury was most impartially and indifferently selected. The panel had no connexion with the issue sent to them to try. The accused had as much to do as the accuser with the striking of the panel. Certainly the investigation was an ex parte one, and it took place in the absence of the accused. But on what sort of evidence did it proceed? Was it on papers, on letters, on anonymous scraps of information, transmitted from beyond the Alps by a secret commission, sent out God knew when, and for what purpose till now a secret; although it had now come out that it was for the purpose of saving a committee of the House of Commons trouble, and enabling them to come to a decision without being at the pains of examining witnesses on their own part. Without inquiring what the evidence to be submitted to the select committee was composed of, and of course he was in utter ignorance of its contents, for he had seen only the outside of the green bag, and nothing more—it was enough for him to find that that evidence was all within the bag; that there were to be no living witnesses; that all the information on which the committee were to be called upon to proceed was information in writing. It was true that he should be told the information would be authenticated; that the signatures of those who-had furnished it either here or at Milan, would be proved genuine. And here he must confess himself totally at a loss to understand how a man, ranking highly in a most learned profession, one of the king's counsel—a man universally respected for his learning and acquirements—a man, until this ill-fated hour, universally esteemed by a large circle of friends—a man, who was a candidate for a lucrative, and what in fact might be considered a judicial office (he meant the situation of a master in Chancery); he was at a loss to understand how such a man could be induced so to let himself down to the level of agents of a very different description, as to accept a commission to go to a foreign country, there to collect the tittle-tattle of coffee-houses and alehouses; the gossip of bargemen on canals, and ferrymen on rivers, and porters of chateaus, and cast-off servants dismissed with dishonour by their mistresses; and to employ himself, month after month, in taking down the calumnies of a class of human beings so degraded, that their appearance in any court of law, was always stamped with infamy, and in collecting from such polluted sources a mass of evidence to fill a green bag for the noble lord opposite! Such a proceeding appeared to him to be utterly unworthy of the individual, and derogatory from the purity of professional honour; and he could not pass it by, without expressing the indignation which as one professional man he felt at the conduct of another—conduct humiliating and mortifying. If it was necessary that such base and worthless work should be done, it ought to have been performed by hands naturally mean and grovelling; and not by those accustomed to more honourable occupation. Let no man dip a finger in such filth who was not born to degrade the human species.

According to the noble lord, however, it seemed, that all that a committee of that House could do against her majesty was nothing, because it could come to no final judgment; or pass a bill of attainder, or injure her by its decision. He denied this position at once. He maintained that the report of a committee of the House of Commons was no indifferent matter to any person, whether of high rank or of low. He would put it to any man who believed the soundness of the Gospel recommendation, "to do unto others what he would they should do unto him," how he would like to have a committee of 21 persons, in the choice of whom he had no share, named by ministers, who were deeply interested in securing the goodwill of a party, between whom and himself there existed not only no friendship, but, in the words of the noble lord, "an irremediable difference," an alienation, a separation, a breach which could not be healed; he would not say leading to animosity, or sourness, or least of all to hostility, but to a frame of mind not of the most favourable nature? He would put it to that man how he should like to have investigated, by a committee thus selected by the servants, he would not say of his enemy, but of his antagonist, his whole conduct for six years, at a distance of a thousand or twelve hundred miles, how he should like to have that conduct sifted or scrutinized without the examination of witnesses, or without himself being aware of the precise nature of a single charge against him? He would ask any man to lay his hand on his heart, and say how he would like to have a committee thus composed, and thus proceeding in their investigation, make a solemn report to the House of Commons on his conduct? It was true, as the noble lord had said, that if the committee, which 4it was proposed to appoint, should report that there was no ground for inquiry, no harm would then be done; and especially if the professional friends of her majesty were excluded from that committee. But did the noble lord believe that such would be the case? Were he in such a predicament personally, there was nothing of his earthly goods, nothing of his future hopes, which he would not cheerfully surrender, in order to avoid the dreadful alternative which must await him. The noble lord would tell him, that from the report of a committee he might appeal to the House. His answer would be, that he must do so if he could do no better. But he should feel traduced by the report of a committee, although drawn up in the mildest form of words which the oily rhetoric of the noble lord could suggest—if it only replied "aye" to the question whether there appeared to be ground for any farther inquiry—he should feel that he was traduced and blasted up to that moment. Unquestionably, the resource that he should have would be to apply to the only tribunal that would then be open to him. But many things might happen to deprive him of the benefit of that tribunal. His witnesses might die—parliament might be up—he might not survive the natural operation of that excessive anxiety which such a situation and such circumstances must necessarily generate. Even if he did so—his fair fame blighted—the most precious of his earthly possessions taken from him—the application of the only remedy suitable to his case would be uncertain; and even if he were to go to trial, it would be with an immeasurable mass of prejudice against him. In vain, therefore, had the noble lord compared a select committee of that House to a grand jury. They were totally unlike.

It was the opinion of the noble lord and his colleagues, that there was matter for inquiry. Let them themselves act on 4hat opinion. Here the noble lord and himself were at issue. But no. The noble lord and his colleagues preferred the appointment of a committee. They wished to shift the responsibility from their own shoulders. They sought to shelter themselves under the authority of better names than their own. They endeavoured to screen themselves from that which they ought to take with those places which they held so dearly, and held so fast. They wished to be covered from the public eye. They had no objection to impose the responsibility of inquiry on a committee of the House of Commons. But they did not dare to face the question in the manner in which as men and as ministers they ought to face it. The doctrine which he was asserting was the doctrine of the constitution. Let the House consider the advantages of such an inquiry as that he recommended. It would be really a secret inquiry. No one would know of its existence until it terminated; and even then, if it appeared that there were no grounds for farther proceeding, the whole of the circumstances of the case would be buried in silence. On the contrary, if ministers resolved that there were grounds for farther proceeding, their report would be just as good as the report of a select committee of the House of Commons. He, for one, would just as lief have their report as the report of a select committee, and there was this material difference between them, that the verdict of the former, if unfavourable, would leave no stain. This was the broad ground which he took on the present question. The only reason assigned by the noble lord for the appointment of a secret committee was the necessity of some preliminary inquiry. He (Mr. Brougham) put it to any man, whether he would not rather have his character subjected to the tribunal he described, than to the tribunal recommended by the noble lord, and as he answered for himself, he called upon him to answer for the queen. The one was a gross, glaring, and injurious mode of proceeding, the other was constitutional, not subject to a single item of those evils, and with all the advantages that could possibly be expected.

With respect to precedents on the subject, he confessed himself astonished at what had fallen from the noble lord. The appointment of secret committees to consider of the expediency of treasonable and seditious bills, was too familiar to the House. He was certainly not favour- able to them. But there was all the difference imaginable between the question of referring papers relative to a new law against sedition to a select committee, and the question of referring to such a committee papers relative to the life, and that which was much dearer to her, the honour of the first subject of the realm. As to the precedents of bishop Atterbury and sir Thomas Rumbold, they were totally irrelevant to the present subject. The charge against sir Thomas Rumbold certainly arose in a secret committee; but it arose incidentally. It was in a committee on East India affairs and accounts, that the ground of charge against sir Thomas Rumbold was incidentally discovered, and that was followed by examinations at the bar of the House. In that case, however, the secret committee did not proceed on papers. It called witnesses, and gave to the accused the opportunity of confronting them. In the case of bishop Atterbury, a select committee was appointed to examine witnesses as well as papers; nay, he doubted whether any paper was submitted to the examination of the committee, but that letter of which Swift had said so much. In the present instance, it was proposed to enter on an investigation without putting her majesty in possession of the charges against her, without the examination of witnesses, and without the presence of her professional advisers. Certainly he and his honourable friend and colleague tendered their grateful thanks to the noble lord for sparing them the mortification, the greatest that professional men could suffer, of seeing the forms of justice preserved, while the substance of it was wholly abandoned. He had omitted to state, while alluding to the case of bishop Atterbury, that that prelate had an opportunity of defending himself in the other House of Parliament against the bill of pains and penalties which was ultimately passed against him.

He now came to the negotiation, if he might so call it, which had been made but too public The noble lord seemed hastily to have supposed that it had been charged against government as unjustifiable on their part to have made the original proposition to the queen, when parliament alone could warrant the grant; and had defended that proposition on the ground that government were as much justified in making it as in proposing subsidies to foreign powers in time of war. That was not the ground on which he would then discuss the subject. He was aware that the offer might be considered in the same way as if it had been made to any foreign power, when it was usual for ministers, in the first instance, to enter into the engagement, and afterwards to come to parliament to carry it into effect. Nor would he discuss whether or not the proposition was a bribe. But a most offensive proposition it unquestionably was. What could be more offensive than to offer to her majesty an income of 50,000l. not only on the condition that she should live out of the country (though even that condition was highly exceptionable, as it respected her majesty, and still more so as it regarded the House of Commons, as it would have borne the appearance of an unworthy compromise, if it had been formally reduced to writing, and had been made the ground of a legislative grant), but on another condition infinitely worse? Notwithstanding all the refinements, and (he must call it) the special pleading of the noble lord, between a renunciation of her majesty's rights and a renunciation of her majesty's titles, and with all the attention which the unfeigned respect which he entertained for the candid conduct of the noble lord in this affair inspired, he remained of opinion that the proposition made to the queen was nothing more nor less than to ask her to say, "Give me 50,000l. a year, and I will plead guilty." If not asked to plead guilty, she was at least asked to allow that she was not innocent. The noble lord maintained that her majesty could not have been called upon by government to renounce her legal rights, because it was not in her power to renounce them without the consent of parliament. Strictly and technically speaking that was true. Her majesty must, in point of law and fact have remained queen even after the arrangement compelling her to live abroad. But what was her majesty called upon to renounce? She was called upon to give up the exercise of her rights. She was called upon to abstain from the appointment of officers—of a lord chamberlain, or of a steward of the household. If her majesty had entered into a bargain, binding herself to abstain from the exercise of her rights, would it not have been a distinct admission that there was something awkward about her—something, to say the least of it, that would not bear the light. In the letter which had prematurely appeared, con- taining the proposition to her majesty, she was required to renounce the style and title of the queen of England. The noble lord had endeavoured to soften this down by stating, that it was the usage of any illustrious person travelling on the continent, to travel incognito. The noble lord, who was at the head of that department of the state which regulated matters of etiquette of this description, of course was much better acquainted with these subjects than he (Mr. Brougham) was. His understanding certainly was, that when a prince travelled abroad, although for temporary convenience, he took another title, it was always a royal title, and a title belonging to some of his own family. But it was an express condition proposed to her majesty, not only that she should lay down her own title, but that she should not assume any other title belonging to her family. What was that but to require her to admit that she was unworthy to bear any title belonging to her family? How wide was the difference between the case of one person voluntarily abstaining during a season and for convenience, to use the title belonging to her, and the case of another who, for an allowance of 50,000l., bound herself neither to exercise any of her rights, nor to bear her own name, or that of any of her family! This was the great ground of the objection which her majesty felt to the proposition that had been made to her. On that ground, he (Mr. Brougham), although impressed with a due sense of the high importance of coming to some amicable arrangement, which might preclude the necessity of entering into that fearful investigation, the present commencement of which was so deeply to be lamented, at once advised her majesty not to assent to the proposition.

Something had been said of the inaccuracy of the correspondence and other circumstances which had been published relative to this painful affair. He might, perhaps, be permitted to say, in his own justification, that it was difficult to conceive any thing more incorrect than the account which had been published of the part that he had taken in these proceedings. Of these misrepresentations he would mention only one specimen. It was stated in the public prints, that after her majesty had expressed great indignation at the proposal made to her, he had advised her to reject it. Now the word "after" ought to be erased, and the word "before" inserted in its stead; for, in point of fact, as her majesty had last night condescended to admit, in the presence of his hon. and learned friend and colleague, in answer to a question which he had ventured to put to her on the subject, he (Mr. Brougham) offered his opinion to her majesty before she had an opportunity, however anxious to do so, of expressing her displeasure. This was no unimportant matter, for in another publication of the present day, an argument was built on the unwarrantable liberty that had been taken with a noble lord's (Hutchinson) letter, and on the error in the statement of his (Mr. Brougham's) conduct. That publication (the Morning Post) built upon that foundation the argument that he must have been positive the queen's case was not good, or that he never would have advised her to accept of such a proposition! As be was on the subject, he would just add, that he had never asserted that the noble lord's letter was garbled in the publication. What he had said was, that the correspondence was garbled; for only the letter of the noble lord was published, but his (Mr. Brougham's) answer was, for some extraordinary reason or other (of which he knew nothing), withheld from the public. The conclusion to which the print he had alluded to had come, was certainly injurious to him professionally; but it was much more injurious to her majesty, whose culpability was made the inference from the fabricated statement, that he (Mr. Brougham) had advised her to accept the proposal which had been made to her. That proposal he never did or could advise her to accept. He had instantly counselled the rejection of the proposition, though he had done so with pain, because he saw that in all probability it would put an end to any arrangement.

He wished to make one or two farther observations on this part of the case. He had already stated the unfeigned concern he felt at the breaking off of the treaty; and, he might add (it was indeed but candid that he should do so) that if other propositions had been made to her majesty, which did not wear the appearance of an acknowledgment of guilt—which, as a woman of honour, and of un-impeached character and conduct, she might safely accept—which would not have been discreditable to a government to offer, and to which injustice the queen might have yielded—he would have been the first to have given his humble advice that her majesty should rather go a step too far than not go far enough to lend herself to an honourable but a private and amicable adjustment. His reason was this—that from the beginning to the end of these distressing transactions it had been his most fervent wish, and upon that principle his conduct had been built, that if it were possible for her majesty, consistently with her innocence, her honour, and her safety, to submit to a private compromise rather than provoke a public discussion, she should give her consent. In this question the interest of the royal family was most deeply concerned, and the interests of the constitution were implicated in proportion; the peace, the tranquillity, the very morals of the nation, were involved. They were on the brink of a precipice, or rather they were not yet quite so near the edge as to afford a clear view of all its dangers; and if those who counselled the Crown did not know, they ought to know, that when once the line was passed, retreat was impossible, and discussion inevitable. Those who recollected what took place on a former occasion would bear in mind the nature of the inquiry then entered into, and from that they might judge to what that now proposed would extend. Not merely was the queen's character at stake—not merely must the treatment she had received in this or that instance be investigated—not merely must the inquiry extend to this or that illustrious House with which she was connected—but all the private history of all those exalted individuals to whom she was related might be forced into the conflict. He did not say that they must do this, but that it was probable all these matters might be forced under the public eye. Let them look, as he had already suggested, to what had taken place eleven years ago. On that occasion public business was suspended,—every feeling on any other topic was annihilated,—the political gossip and scandal of the day became stale,—party spirit ceased, and even political rancour no longer existed,—the general conversation of the year being the private life, habits, and failings, of one of the noblest personages in the realm. He must be a more sagacious man than he had hitherto had the fortune to meet, who, in the present stage of the business at no great distance perhaps from the commencement of the inquiry, could pretend to describe the course it would take; but he must be a man indeed of miraculous sagacity (he did not think that even the noble lord was that man, and, if not he, certainly there could be no other) who would take upon himself to say what conflicting interests, without yielding to popular feeling or clamour, not desirous to gratify the greedy appetite of mobs, but holding them bad in themselves, and more dangerous in their embrace than in their enmity (like some rabid animals, whose saliva was more dreadful than their bite), might ultimately produce. Who could assert what course men bound by professional ties to regard nothing but the safety of their client (he referred not to members of this House, and therefore had no allusion to himself or to his learned colleague) might think it necessary to recommend? Others must be trusted—their royal client must rely upon the skill, the knowledge, and the prudence of others; and, who should decide that absolute necessity might not compel those individuals to advise a proceeding, of which some idea might be formed by those who had marked what had passed in this country eleven years ago? He, then, must be a sagacious man who could assert what course necessity might compel; and he must be a bold man who would say, that if he were in the situation of a professional adviser of the queen, he would hesitate for one moment in securing his client, even at such a desperate expense. An advocate, be it remembered, had but one point to look to; he was ruined, disgraced, degraded—he might even render himself fit to belong to a Milan tribunal, if he looked to any other interest than that to which his character was pledged.

He had said, that he must be a bold man who would pretend to point out the issue or probable duration of the proposed inquiry; but he must be a bolder man still who would rashly plunge this country into a state of irritation and confusion, while there remained a possibility of adjusting matters in a private and amicable manner. [Continued cheers from the Opposition benches.] For God's sake—for the sake of the country—for the sake of those whose memories might mislead them, whose confidence might betray, or whose blindness might beguile them—for the sake of the wives and daughters, of all who loved decency, morality, and who recollected when, but a few years since, the opening of a newspaper was regarded with fear and disgust by the father of every modest and well-conducted family—he called upon the House to pause—only to pause, to ascertain if it were yet possible to escape from this threatened calamity. If the means of avoiding it were yet afforded, he put it to honourable members, as they valued every thing that was dear to them—as they valued the character of England as a nation—whether they would not hesitate before they opened a subject disgusting in itself, and most destructive in its consequences. Let it not be forgotten that there were three parties who had a deep interest in this discussion. First, the king, who was most desirous that the inquiry should proceed—who felt that he had nothing to dread from disclosures, and who was unfortunately impressed with the idea that in his high office it was necessary for his vindication that something should be undertaken. Next, the queen, who acted nearly, if not entirely, in the same spirit—who thought it requisite for her own security, for the clearing of her own honour, that the inquiry should be persisted in to the end; who shrunk not from it, but courted it; who was prepared to meet it; who had come from safety into—he would not say jeopardy, because the innocent could know no jeopardy but—trouble, vexation, and anxiety, in order to go through the whole of this painful, and, in his view, odious and frightful investigation. Both of these high parties would instantly reject the advice he was now tendering; but there was a third party, whose wishes he hoped the House would not consult—he alluded to those persons out of doors, who were possessed of a greedy and diseased appetite for detraction; and who only gave up their chase of vulgar private scandal on some such emergency as the present, where the allurement was increased by its affecting the most exalted individuals in the land. Those who laboured under the infliction of such a morbid desire, and those who basely made a profit by pandering for its gratification, had a direct interest in urging forward the inquiry, and most bitterly would they be disappointed if it did not proceed. They formed a powerful body; but he was not their representative; and if he had the honour of being a servant of her majesty, he had also the higher honour of being a member of that House. As her majesty's servant he would not disobey her commands, and where her honour was at stake he would do his utmost to defend it; but in the humble performance of his duty in that House he felt called upon even to thwart her majesty's inclination, and he would tell her, "Madam, if negotiation yet be possible, rather go too far, and throw yourself upon your country and upon parliament for your vindication, than not go far enough; if yet it be possible to avert the ruin which this course, if persisted in, will bring upon the nation, do your utmost to postpone the calamity." If he might advise those who stood in a similar situation with regard to the king, he would say to them, "Act like honest men, and disregard all consequences—tender that counsel to your sovereign which the case demands, and do not fear that parliament will abandon you, or the country desert you; even party will not disgrace itself to the lowest level to which corrupt and unprincipled factionists can descend, by taking advantage of your faithful and fearless discharge of a noble and disinterested duty. Do not apprehend that even political calamity will attend you; for if successors must be appointed to your places, be sure that they will not be found within these walls."

Before he adverted to the latter and not unimportant part of the speech of the noble lord, he wished to say a few words to remove an expectation perhaps entertained by some gentlemen in perfect ignorance of the subject, that now the subject bad been commenced, it would be easier and shorter to go through with it; and that a few days might put an end to it. Such persons seemed to forget the mass of garbled evidence on the table—the assertions of persons who would state any thing for any side (and he (Mr. Brougham) was ready to stake his head that he could convict any man of any offence, if such testimony were believed)—they seemed to forget, that after the conclusion of the labours of the committee on the green bag of the king, one must be; offered to the same members on the part of the queen. The late Mr. Whitbread and himself were the only persons who had seen the whole of the documents which the green bag formerly contained, and of late they had been much increased. Time must be then given to the advisers of her majesty; and if the committee finally reported that some further proceeding was necessary; even if, like the former committee, it determined that nothing more was required, but to cast some stain upon her majesty's character, whether by implication or otherwise, the queen must insist upon a further and complete investigation. Where, then, was the prophetic individual to be found who could decide when the inquiry would be concluded? At present the queen, being unacquainted with the charges against her, was unprovided with witnesses, but they must be obtained, and obtained by sending to Italy professional persons. The Milan board sat for ten months to fill the green bag for the accusation, but he did not say that ten months or ten weeks would be required to blow the report, of that board into the air. Not speaking, however, as a professional man, but upon his honour as a member of parliament, he would assert that it would be necessary to examine evidence as to the life, character, and conduct of the accusatory witnesses. One of them, he knew, had committed a felony, and had been therefore discharged by the queen from her service; and the evidence to prove it was a peasant, who having since gone into the interior of the country, must be followed and found. Other cases of connexion between the witnesses could be and must be established. To do this time must be given for selection. It could not be expected that the queen's advisers could import witnesses by coach loads, that they could throw a dragnet over the country, and bring off all persons who were caught. This preliminary operation of itself must occupy some weeks, if not months. He, therefore, who thought that even six or eight months would complete this great subject, was most egregiously deceived; but if it were only four months, his prayer and entreaty to the House was, that it would spare the country from the suffering that such a summer and such an autumn would inflict.

He now arrived at the latter part of the speech of the noble lord, in which he adverted to the mode in which her majesty had been treated at home and abroad. The noble lord had termed her the queen, not of right, but of grace and favour; but he asked, whether refusing the attendance and accommodation befitting her rank was not, in fact, casting a stigma upon her? The noble lord, ad- verting to the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, argued that her majesty had no abstract right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy, that it was a matter of option with the king. He admitted that, according to the act of Uniformity, the strict right was against her majesty; and this formed one of the chief grounds of complaint. The queen might have no legal right to be prayed for; but after the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy for 17 years, as princess of Wales, to omit it as queen was something at least equivocal—was something to give a warrant to the tongue of slander to assail her [Here several members leaving the House occasioned some disturbance]. He was very ready to wait until those impartial gentlemen, who having listened to the noble lord's speech of accusation, were satisfied without hearing the defence, had quitted the floor. The next objection he had to urge regarded the conduct of foreign ministers towards her majesty. It was said that as she had lived separate from the king at home, she could not be publicly recognized abroad; but he intreated the House to mark the gross inconsistency of ministers in this respect. When unhappily the disturbances which separated their present majesties occurred, the language of ministers was, "Madam, it is far better for you to live abroad, because while at home you cannot receive the honours due to your station; you cannot live in the king's household, nor can you go to the drawing-rooms, on account of the unfortunate prevailing differences. Abroad, the same difficulties do not stand in your way; abroad you will find no obstacle to your reception, and to the enjoyment of your full dignity and honours; and you will not be excluded from court and from all the rights of royalty." When, however, her majesty repaired to foreign countries, as advised, the tone was entirely changed. "Oh," cried they, "her majesty cannot he received at foreign courts, or by foreign ministers, because if at home she would not be received at court." He put it to all who heard him, whether a greater logical absurdity was ever attempted to be palmed upon reasonable men. Was it a light matter for the queen of England to be slighted and looked down upon in every court of Europe? The noble lord had stated, that our ministers abroad were instructed not to receive her majesty as queen, or intro duce her to court, but to lavish upon her all other civilities. And what were they? She might have passports, forsooth, when she left any of their towns; that was the civility they were by far the most ready to grant. She was also allowed letters of safe conduct, clearances, and bills of health; post-horses might even be ordered for her, with the high additional accommodation of a ministerial courier, though if such were the instructions of the noble lord, it did not appear that they had been obeyed. Yet, after all, to what did these boasted civilities amount—civilities to the queen of England—queen whether they would or not—nay, queen whether she herself would or not? Civilities, which every merchant, trader, dealer, and chapman, or even gentleman's servant could obtain, were to be lavished upon her, while every tittle of respect due to her elevated station was to be rigorously withheld! And could they wonder that any person, but more especially a woman, and still more especially this woman, born a princess, niece to Frederick of Prussia, niece to George 3rd, daughter to the heroic duke of Brunswick, and consort to his present majesty, the first sovereign in Europe; could they wonder that this exalted female should feel acutely when the ministers of her own country ventured to treat her with such indignity? He would say, not only the ministers of her own country, but foreign ministers also. Her majesty complained that those courts which were most under the influence of the English government, treated her with the greatest disrespect. Without hunting through the conduct adopted by different courts, he would go at once to the proceedings of the Hanoverian minister, the minister of a court most likely to be swayed by the government of England. He would mention only two instances, by which the House would be enabled to judge of the treatment her majesty had received abroad. The Hanoverian minister, baron Ompteda, who had been most graciously and hospitably received by the queen, when she was princess of Wales—who had insinuated himself into her confidence, who had partaken largely of her liberality, who had passed several months at a time under her roof—this man (not indeed the envoy of Hanover to this country, but to the holy see) was discovered, not merely spying into her actions, bribing strangers to watch her, and even bribing her own servants, but it was found out that he employed a smith to pick the locks of her writing desk, in order to examine any papers that might be in her possession. Unluckily for him, that which he found proved that he had been on a false scent, and demonstrated the innocence, instead of the guilt, of the illustrious personage. A young naval officer, to whom the transaction became known, felt incensed and indignant at such a base attempt. He (Mr. Brougham) did not wonder that this young gentleman's passions should be excited, that he should feel warmly and forcibly, when such a proceeding was pursued towards his mistress and benefactress. Actuated by such feelings, he demanded personal satisfaction, the baron being at the time without the bounds of his mission, The baron immediately made a movement—a backward movement—to the city of Milan, where he was vainly sought for in his fastnesses. Finding himself thus menaced, the baron retreated to the mountains, where a sort of mountain warfare was carried on against him by the gallant lieutenant, but without success; and, at length, the baron was expelled from the Austrian territories, not, be it observed, for having acted as a spy upon the queen, not for the crime of having forced her majesty's private papers; but for having refused to fight a duel when openly called upon. Pie was obliged to decamp, and another minister succeeded him in his official capacity. This he adduced as a proof of the consequences that were occasioned by the ministers of this country treating her majesty in a slighting and disrespectful manner. It evidently produced a feeling in the minds of the ministers of other states to treat her in the same way. Men might be found, truckling to the higher powers, who, in the hope of establishing their fortune, would descend to such vile contrivances; but baron Ompteda must necessarily have been influenced by a base spirit, when be engaged in so abominable a transaction; because he would distinctly state, in order to avoid misrepresentation, as those things were sometimes talked of out of doors, that he entirely acquitted those who had sent baron Ompteda on his mission to the holy see—he entirely acquitted the ministers of the Hanoverian government of having given him any instructions to conduct himself in this disgraceful affair as he had done. He felt convinced that the then Hanoverian minister, who was now in England, would be the last man in the world to descend to such acts of meanness, or indeed to do any thing which was not purely and strictly honourable; the fault lay with the per son employed, who thought he could not render better service to his employers than by thus degrading himself. He was much mistaken, for be (Mr. Brougham) was persuaded that no man could feel greater disgust at such conduct than the minister to whom he had last alluded. Baron Reding was now the Hanoverian minister at Rome, and his conduct towards her majesty was also worthy of remark. And here he could not help noticing the close connection between the archbishop of Canterbury and the Holy See. The moment it was notified to the chief of the consistory at Rome, that her majesty's name was not inserted in the Liturgy, the body-guard which had previously been allowed to her was immediately withdrawn; but that was not all—the heads of the government affected not to know the queen of England. They pretended that she came concealed as the countess of Oldi, as she had before done; and because she was not acknowledged by her own government, because slight and disrespect were offered to her by the ministers of her own country, the Roman court thought themselves justified in doing the same. But baron Reding, the Hanoverian minister went a great deal farther. He would not call her by the title of "Queen," he would not call her by the title of "Princess of Wales,". but he sometimes called her "Caroline of Brunswick," in so many words, without the epithet of "Princess," which she certainly was entitled to before her marriage; and at other times he called her by a different name—a name of which the House had never heard, "Caroline of England"—a designation that had never at any period of her life belonged to her. This he mentioned incidentally, to show how far insolence and absurdity might be carried. Every Englishman who entered his excellency's society must, have heard him talk in this manner of the consort of his own sovereign, who, he was persuaded had too much the feelings of a gentleman, of a prince, and of a man of honour, to allow any individual to insinuate himself into his favour by treating a female, and that female his wife, rudely and; disrespectfully.

He had thus stated the whole sum and substance of this important question. Her majesty had commanded him to call for a full, fair, open investigation. The speedier the beginning of it was, the more completely would she be gratified—the more ample it was, the more decided would be her satisfaction. But, that it would be a short investigation, he, who knew the course of such proceedings, felt it to be impossible. Therefore, no time was to be lost: for, if the investigation went on, parliament might expect to sit to no ordinary period of the year. But in calling for inquiry, her majesty protested strenuously and decidedly against a secret inquiry; whether the body by whom her case was to be considered was designated a grand jury, a secret committee, a select committee, a private tribunal, or an inquisition. Her majesty required, that the body called on to pronounce an opinion on her conduct, whether intermediate or ultimate, should enable her to hear the evidence, to see the witnesses adduced against her, and to confront them by every means within her reach and power. He, as a member of parliament, in the discharge of his duty to this House and to the country, implored gentlemen, once more, to take into their serious consideration all the circumstances he now finally laid before them. His last prayer to the House on this occasion—the last wish he would breathe on the subject was, that the negotiation, which, unfortunately, had not been brought to a favourable issue, might not be broken off all at once and for ever! but, if it were possible, that die country should be spared those calamities to which such an inquiry must give rise. He implored the House to consider how far more virtuous an act they would do, by avoiding such an investigation, rather than by showing their constancy and perseverance in steering, however successfully, through these accumulated difficulties [Hear!].

Let the House recollect that prevention was better than cure. He besought them to consider how much better it would be to spare the country the calamity which this inquiry would produce; how much more virtuous it would be to steer clear of the threatened evil by a private and conciliatory arrangement, than at once to plunge into investigation, and to even show their constancy and perseverance by steering successfully through accumulated difficulties, the result of which, when once the line was passed, no man could contemplate without well-grounded apprehension of danger.

Mr. Canning

declared, that as he had never risen to deliver his sentiments on a subject of so much delicacy and interest as that before the House, so had he never before been called upon to discharge a duty to himself so painful and embarrassing. The occasion out of which the necessity for performing this duty arose, and the circumstances connected with it, were of a nature as novel as they were delicate. He had listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down. In every syllable uttered by the hon. and learned gentleman respecting the mischief likely to result from the inquiry into which they were now unhappily forced, he entirely concurred. It was utterly impossible that such an inquiry should turn to the advantage of the country, or of the parties whom it immediately concerned. The dearest interests of the country, and the character of the most illustrious personages whom it contained were undoubtedly involved in the proceeding. But having said this, he must follow it by saying that from all that part of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech which went to impute to his majesty's ministers the responsibility of forcing on this inquiry, he utterly and wholly dissented. In taking up the challenge which the hon. and learned gentleman had thrown down on this subject last night, he was fully prepared to show not only that his majesty's ministers did not voluntarily come down to parliament to originate this inquiry as matter of choice, not only that they had not sought the occasion for it—not only that they had deprecated it with all their hearts—but, that they had interposed every possible expedient to prevent the occurrence of a calamity which they were anxious with all their power and all their means to avert.

The hon. and learned gentleman would allow him to oppose, not hostilely, but m contrast with those professional feelings which the hon. and learned gentleman had so much to his honour assumed to himself, feelings on his own part, of as deep and forcible a nature, with reference to those illustrious persons who were most immediately interested in the proposed inquiry. He must declare, individually for himself, that in all the discussions which had preceded the unfortunate crisis to which matters had at length unhappily arrived, he had looked at the whole ease with as much solicitude, and as much pain, as if it had arisen from a difference between his dearest friends, and between parties with both of whom he was himself equally connected. On the one hand, to the sovereign whom he served he owed the duty of a subject and of a councillor; on the other hand, to the illustrious personage who was the remaining party to the discussion, he owed, and he paid, not only that public respect which was due to her station, but from private feelings, and the remembrance of kindnesses experienced in former times, gratitude and (if he might presume to use such a word in speaking of so high a personage,) affection. The wish nearest his heart had been that this extremity could have been avoided;—his next wish was that which roust be the wish alike of all the country, that her majesty might come out of the inquiry with honour to herself, and satisfaction to her friends.

He would now proceed to make good the declaration with which he had set out—namely, that his majesty's ministers had not sought this crisis, but on the contrary that they had done every thing in their power to avert it. Before his majesty's ministers were charged with pressing this question, let the House do them the justice to remember how often, at an early period of the session, they had borne the taunts of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney), who, not once only, but on every occasion that he could find, pressed the name of the queen, her situation, her allowances, and the reports which prevailed respecting her on the attention of the House, and called upon ministers for an explanation of their intentions respecting her majesty. He did not mean to say that those taunts had been thrown out, or those calls made upon ministers unfairly. The right hon. gentleman might say, if he pleased, that he was only discharging his duty as a member of parliament when he declared that no parliamentary provision should, with his consent, be made for the queen, until her character was cleared, not from accusation, (for there was none), but from common report; but he was sure the House would recollect how often, how steadily, how perseveringly his majesty's ministers had borne the right hon. gentleman's provocations to come to a definitive declaration with regard to the queen; how often they had turned a deaf ear to the right hon. gentleman's ingenious dilemma—(that figure which, however captivating and effective in rhetoric, was so frequently found to be, with reference to human affairs, most fallacious) "Either the queen is innocent, and then she ought to enjoy all her rights and privileges, or she is guilty, and in that case I, for one, will not consent to vote her one shilling of the public money." How often had this argument beep forced by the right hon. gentleman on the unwilling attention of his majesty's ministers; how often had they been told by the same right hon. gentleman that any attempt at compromise would be an insult to the king, or an injury to the queen (another awful and inevitable dilemma!); and yet how obstinately had they, in spite of this dilemma, refused to eater into the so much invited discussion! And whence arose this obstinacy? whence but from an earnest desire, a strong and sincere hope, that the existing differences might be accommodated so as to avoid the necessity of discussion? After this, it was surely a little too much to be told, by those who safe at the elbow of the, right hon. gentleman, that they, (the ministers) were the, provokers of inquiry and that but for them all might have passed smoothly and. silently, without public notice, or parliamentary observation!, He begged the hon. and learned gentleman not to mistake him. He did not mean to say that he (the hon. and learned gentleman) had been any party to those taunts and challenges of his right hon. friend. The hon. and learned gentleman, on the contrary, had always been a most anxious friend to compromise, and had laboured for the prevention of that public inquiry which the right hon. gentleman deemed so indispensable. When the right hon. gentleman had so repeatedly told the House that inquiry could not be avoided; for that rumours were abroad so injurious to the honour of the queen, that without prior investigation, no money could be voted without a, sacrifice of the interests of the people, and the dignity of parliament. The hon. and learned gentleman had undoubtedly taken part against the right hon. gentleman, and with the hon. and learned gentleman, therefore, on that point, he (Mr. C.) had no fault to find; but he had a right to find fault with him for he injustice of which he had been guilty that flight in heaping upon the mi- nisters of the Crown those charges of prurient curiosity, and inconsiderate disclosure, the guilt of which, so far as provocation and intention went, belonged (as he well knew) not to him, but to the right hon. gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman thought, and ministers most cordially coincided with him in thinking, that if it had not been forced upon them by a paramount necessity, it would have been most desirable to avoid all discussion of the subject now unhappily under the consideration of the House. The hon. and learned gentleman well knew—no man had better reasons for knowing than he—that it was the policy of the government, even if it had not been their feeling,—but that it was their feeling as well as their policy to—consult the public good, by shunning, not only all public inquiry, but all public discussion on this subject. He knew (no roan better) that it was their absolute determination to avoid it. He knew (not a member of the government knew so well as he) that they had eagerly caught at every expedient, at every chance, of averting the calamity which was now fallen upon them and the country. He knew that the acceptance of his services, that the opening of the negotiation which he was commissioned to conduct, had that sole object in view, and that for the accomplishment of that object, which they relied on his exertions to accomplish, they felt as strong an anxiety as himself. But then the hon. and learned gentleman accused his majesty's ministers of having contributed to the defeat of that negotiation by having made an offer so revolting to her majesty's mind, and including in it propositions so incompatible with her feelings that he could not for a moment think of advising her majesty to accept it; and the hon. and learned gentleman had also told the House, or rather had insinuated (he wished the hon. and learned gentleman had spoken more distinctly) that he could have proposed certain modifications which he thought might have made the offer acceptable. Why, in the name of God, did not the hon. and learned gentleman suggest them? Why, instead of the premature and garbled statement which had found its way to the public, were not these modifications brought forward? He wished the hon. and learned gentleman was now present [Mr. Brougham had left the House a few minute before] for it was desirable, in stating facts to state them in the presence of the party interested in them; but, as the hon. and learned gentleman was not in his place, he (Mr. Canning) would for the present address himself to another part of the subject until the hon. and learned gentleman's return.

He understood from what had been related to him of the proceedings in the House last night (when he happened not to be in his place) that other hon. gentlemen had advanced an accusation against his majesty's ministers, which, to do the hon. and learned gentleman justice, he had just now contributed in a considerable degree to answer. It had been urged that the pecuniary offer which had been made to her majesty contained in it something very censurable. On this point, too, recourse had been had to the favourite but fallacious form of a dilemma. "Either," it was said, "her majesty is innocent, and has a right to all the state, and privileges, and establishments of a queen consort, or she is guilty, and then 50,000l. a year of the public money would have been thrown away upon her." And this prodigality, it was further added, was to be carried into-effect without the previous consent, and consequently in defiance of the authority of parliament. This, however, was quite a false view of the question. He contended, in the first place, that the offer did not trench upon the rights of parliament; for the executive government only made this, as they must make every proposition for a grant of public money, as that which they were willing to recommend to the House of Commons, but subject to the approval, and of course invalid without the sanction of parliament. Every treaty of subsidy, every contract for a loan was made upon precisely the same principles.

But further, he undertook to show that if any thing at all was to be granted to the queen, whether at home or abroad, the sum of 50,000l. a year was the precise sum which there was every reason to believe parliament could not but approve. For a queen in full possession of her state they might do more; but for a queen in a state of separation they could not do less. In this respect ministers had no insufficient indications of the sense of parliament to guide them. For, first, by the treaty concluded on the marriage of his majesty, when prince of Wales, with the queen, a jointure of 50,000l. a year, was settled on her majesty as princess of Wales, in the event of her surviving her royal husband. It was true that the precise case contemplated in that provision had not occurred; but in equity it must be allowed that his majesty's ministers in proposing a provision for the queen in a state of permanent separation could not go below that sum which four and twenty years ago bad been considered a proper provision for her majesty in the event of her becoming the widow of the prince of Wales. Secondly, in the year 1814, when, after long discussion in that House the princess of Wales's income was settled, preparatory to her leaving the country, what was the amount proposed at that period? The House, recognizing the former settlement, and thinking the amount of jointure that had been stipulated for, the proper sum for a state in some degree analogous to that of widowhood, agreed to vote her Royal Highness the sum of.50,000l. a year. It was true that her Royal Highness, acting under the advice of those who at that time conducted her affairs, declined receiving so large an income and voluntarily diminished it by 15,000l.; but surely it could not be imagined that his majesty's ministers, infixing a provision for her majesty's life, would have acted right if they had taken advantage of her voluntary generosity on that occasion, and limited their proposal to the diminished sum. His majesty's ministers, therefore, had offered to the queen that which parliament had in two preceding instances recognized as a sum not too large for her allowance—they had offered a sum, from which, on a former occasion, near one-third part had been abated by her majesty's own act, and which therefore would not be supposed inadequate to her majesty's wants and wishes. It was that, therefore, which they had every reason to believe that the queen would accept, and every reason to believe that parliament would sanction with their approbation.

But then it was charged that this offer was coupled with conditions which rendered it unlikely to be accepted. These conditions, it had been stated, were—first, that her majesty should not reside in England; secondly, that she should relinquish the title of queen. Both those conditions had undoubtedly been stated to her majesty—but the latter not exactly in the way in which it had been represented to the House. The remaining abroad was clearly taken for granted; and it was so in pursuance of the policy that originally led her majesty to take the decisive step of quitting the country, in the year 18li. He remembered well the part which the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney) had taken in the discussion of that time. The bill brought in in 1814 originally went to settle an annuity of 50,000l. on the princess of Wales, in a state of recognized and permanent separation from her husband. That provision was proposed to be extended to the term of her Royal Highness's natural life. The proposition was represented by those who brought it forward, and accepted on the part of those who were the champions of the princess's of Wales's interests as the conclusion and winding up of the affairs of the princess of Wales, which were not to be heard of in parliament again. But after the bill had been brought into the House, it underwent two most important alterations. In the first place, as he had already remarked, her Royal Highness had expressed a wish that the provision proposed by his majesty's government should be reduced from 50,000l. to 35,000l.; in the second place, the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney) suggested an alteration in the duration settlement, which was originally for the life of her Royal Highness, by which it was limited to the life of the late king. Unfortunate amendments as it turned out, particularly the latter, to which, and to which almost entirely was owing the necessity of now discussing the pecuniary affairs of her majesty, and therewith the whole of her situation! Had it not been for that alteration the pecuniary affairs of her majesty would have been settled, not merely during her continuing Princess of-Wales, but during her life! There would then have been no unavoidable necessity for bringing her majesty's name before the House of Commons. And had it been matter of choice on the part of his majesty's ministers, then indeed would they have rendered themselves liable to some part of the imputations so lavishly thrown against them. But it was the right hon. gentleman's (Mr. Tierney's) unfortunate amendment of 1814, which (not designedly he was willing to believe) had laid the ground of that urgent and unavoidable necessity, to which, and to which alone (he would repeat) they were indebted for the present discussion. When her majesty ceased to be Princess of Wales, she ceased, by the right hon. gentleman's amendment, to have any provision whatever. It became necessary that a provision should be made for her; and the same right hon. gentleman had never lost an opportunity of telling them, that in making that provision, her whole situation must be revised. No consideration would have induced his majesty's ministers to moot that question so long as it was not absolutely unavoidable; but they knew that they were no longer masters of their own conduct when it became necessary to enter into a discussion of the pecuniary subject. It would then have been in the power of any member of the House to force on the whole subject; and they had ample warning from the right hon. gentleman, that it was his determination to do so. So far were they (the ministers) from precipitating such a discussion, that their whole endeavour was, to avoid it. In the event of an amicable termination of the negotiations which had been opened with her majesty, they would have done their best to resist the right hon. gentleman's endeavours to force the subject into discussion, and he trusted they should have resisted with success. But alas! their endeavours had been frustrated; they had been forced by circumstances which they could not control, to bring the whole case into open discussion themselves; and he did not hesitate to say that this result was a disappointment as unexpected and as severe, as ever dashed the cup of hope from the lips of sanguine expectation.

As the hon. and learned gentleman had returned to his place [Mr. Brougham had re-entered the House], he would now resume the argument which, as it personally affected that hon. and learned gentleman, he had broken off when he noticed his absence. The hon. and learned gentleman I had declared it to be his opinion, that the terms which had been offered to the queen by his majesty's government, were such as her majesty could not possibly accept. He would do the hon. and learned gentleman the justice to express his belief that he went to the management of the negotiation in question, with as sincere a desire to bring it to an amicable conclusion, as influenced those by whom it was originated. He wished to set out with this acknowledgment, the rather because that which he had further to say on the subject was of a different complexion. What he complained of in the conduct of the hon. and learned gentleman was this—that if the hon. and learned gentleman saw in the terms proposed by his majesty's government, any thing so objectionable as to make it clear at the first blush that they could not be accepted, it was a pity that he did not point it out before he left England; and the more so, as it appeared from the hon. and learned gentleman's own avowal, that he did not wait for the expression of the queen's indignation, but at once anticipated it by the expression of his own. It was unfortunante, that of this indignant flame which broke out at St. Omer's, no spark had been previously visible in London. For his part, he had confidently believed, that the hon. and learned gentleman went to the continent not only (as he had already said) with a sincere desire to forward the negotiation, but with a reasonable hope of bringing it to a happy conclusion; and he never in his life was so much—not disappointed only but—surprised, as when, on coming to town on Monday, he had learnt that the negotiation had failed. The hon. and learned gentleman had acquitted his majesty's government of any blame in the pecuniary part of the offer. He had admitted that no disrespect had been shown to parliament; and that 50,000l. was the very sum that ought to have been proposed. But it seemed that the renunciation of the title of queen was that which could not be asked without offence; and the hon. and learned gentleman rejected the explanation of his noble friend with respect to the light in which that sacrifice was called for. In the memorandum which had been put into the hon. and learned gentleman's hand, as the basis of his communication to the queen (and there was no other basis' or communication whatever intrusted to him or to any other person)—in that memorandum there was an explanation of the sense in which that condition was intended, which ought to have satisfied his mind, at least, of the absence of any disposition to rob her majesty of any of her substantive rights. There was not the slightest design to take any of them away. In the letter which had recently been published, the phrase that her majesty should renounce all claim to the title and dignity of the queen of England was undoubtedly to be found. In this there was a misconception; the real proposal was, that her majesty should use some other? name than that of queen of England. Gentlemen seemed disposed to confound the expressions; but they were widely different and distinct. Was it not a common practice pith seve- reigns, when absent from their own dominions, to assume an incognito and drop the style of monarchs? It had never been understood that the emperor of Russia, when travelling through Germany under the title of count—he recollected not what count—had renounced the title much less the rights of emperor. Nor would her majesty have been less essentially entitled to whatever maybe her rights as queen consort, than she could have been to those of princess of Wales, if travelling under an assumed name. Indeed, as it had been stated by his noble friend, there were some rights which her majesty, as queen of England, could not renounce, without the consent of parliament. There were undoubtedly others from the exercise of which, under the plain and notorious circumstances of her situation—her absence from this country, and her separation from the king; it might be not only uninvidious, but highly proper to ask her majesty to forbear. Residing abroad, it could not, for instance, be expected, nor surely could it be desirable for her majesty that she should appoint chamberlains, officers, maids of honour, &c. at home. But, on the other hand, it never was in contemplation to strip her of any rights or privileges essential to her interest much more to her defence. The appointment of law officers was, for instance, studiously reserved to her: a proof of the jealous attention with which it was intended to avoid trenching on any of her majesty's material patronage. The whole purport in short of the proposed arrangement was that her majesty should retain the power of making every appointment necessary for a queen remaining abroad, and merely to induce her to abstain from the exercise of such part of her royal privileges as would be requisite only in the event of the sovereign's residence in this country. The hon. and learned gentleman had said that her majesty had been required not only to renounce her title of queen of England, but to abstain from using any name belonging to the royal family. Of such a stipulation, or of any thing that could in any way be construed into a hint of such a wish, he (Mr. C.) averred that he knew nothing. It might have been an inference drawn by the noble lord who accompanied the hon. and learned gentleman to the continent, from something that might have passed in conversation between them; but he could most confidently as- sure the House that no such restriction was ever in the contemplation of his majesty's government, and he was sure the hon. and learned gentleman would not find it in the memorandum to which he had before alluded, and which he repeated was the only authentic document of which the government had any knowledge. It and it only contained the propositions which they authorized to be submitted to her majesty.

In truth, his majesty's government were placed throughout this discussion in a situation of peculiar difficulty and delicacy, a situation out of which he did not know how they could fairly extricate themselves. They had been asked how it could enter into their minds to make such propositions as they had made to her majesty, and how they could suppose that those propositions would not be indignantly rejected?—He confessed that they had been guilty of one false step; which had led to the embarrassments that he had described. Early in these proceedings they had been induced to receive a communication under the seal of secrecy, the nature of which obligation prevented him from mentioning to the House, either the quarter whence it came, and the precise nature of its contents. But, when goaded by charges of wanton and unnecessary insult towards her majesty, he felt it necessary,—no breach of an obligation, in its very essence conditional—to declare that they had been led to make these propositions by a confident expectation that they would be well received. What would the House say, when they were told that so long ago as July 1819, a statement had been given to his majesty's government, in which every one of the propositions which had been made to her majesty had been suggested? What would they say when he fearlessly asserted that there was not one proposition made to her majesty, no, not one, that had not its prototype in that suggestion? What would they say upon hearing that this suggestion thus offered to his majesty's government, for the guidance of their conduct, proceeded from a quarter which, though he by no means intended to intimate that it in any degree committed the illustrious person in question, yet he must plainly say was one from which could not be expected to emanate any thing in the smallest degree disparaging to her majesty. If any one who had heard him, knew any thing of this paper, he appealed to that individual's own conscience for the perfect fairness with which his majesty's government had acted upon it. And from whatever quarter the communication to which he alluded had come, he affirmed upon his honour that his majesty's government had conscientiously understood that when they made the pro positions which it suggested they would be fairly met, and not improbably would be accepted. He again guarded himself against being supposed to insinuate, that the illustrious personage to whom those propositions referred was in the remotest degree implicated in that communication, but the opinion of those who made it could not be mistaken; and upon their opinion the government thought, and had reason to think they might rely. When the negotiation failed, although he might very well understand the lively though (to say the truth) unexpected indignation of her majesty, he was utterly at a loss to understand the precedent indignation in any other quarter. The hon. and learned gentleman, for instance, went to I the queen (he had already more than once admitted that he did so) anxious to bring the negotiation with her majesty to a satisfactory conclusion. He (Mr. Canning) was indeed, astonished when he heard that the negotiation had failed; but what he considered still more extraordinary were the surprise and indignation which had been expressed by the hon. and learned gentleman.

But, leaving all external considerations, and examining the question on its own merits, he would beg leave to ask what reason there had been to anticipate a failure? Why should it be concluded that a proposition requiring the queen to reside abroad must of necessity be rejected by her majesty? In 1814, when he was unconnected with the government, and when he had the honour to have frequent intercourse with the illustrious lady in question, she did him the honour to ask his advice, upon a project which she had then formed of going to reside on the continent. He had avowed then what be avowed now, that, considering all the circumstances of her then situation, the settlement that had been made upon her, the separation, founded on the state of incurable alienation, hopeless of reconcilement in which she and her royal hushand were placed, towards each other; a separation which had been sanctioned and confirmed by the king-as the father of his family; and subsequently recognized by parliament in the arrangement of her separate income, she would act most beneficially towards herself by going abroad and living with her own family at Brunswick (as her majesty originally intended), or in any other society in Europe of which she might be the grace, life, and ornament. If he thought this the best advice which he could give the Princess of Wales then—he thought it the best advice he could give her majesty now. That opinion he should have entertained in 1814, and it would remain unchanged now, were the party to whom it was given so circumstanced as he had described, one to whom he was bound by the dearest ties. If the reasons of that opinion were changed at all, it was only by having acquired new force since 1814. In 1814 he had given her majesty that advice, because in addition to the considerations arising from the hopeless separation which existed between her and her royal husband, he saw that faction had "marked her for its own." He saw that there would be neither com fort nor tranquillity for her majesty in this country. Of fascinating manners, of easy access, of an open, generous, and unsuspecting disposition, she would in sensibly have become the rallying point of disaffection, and of political intrigue [Shouts of Hear, hear! from the Opposition]. If her majesty were now to re main in the country, she would now, as in 1814, become the rallying point of disaffection and of political intrigue. He repeated the words, advisedly. What he thought in 1814 he thought now; and he would ask were there no symptoms already apparent, that now at least his apprehensions were not ill founded [Shouts of Hear, hear! from all sides]? He gave in 1814 the advice which he considered no less beneficial with reference to the princess of Wales's own. happiness than to the tranquillity of the country; and he again asked the House if there was any reason to suppose from recent occurrences that at the present moment her majesty would be less likely to risk the sacrifice of her. own peace by being such an instrument in the hands of those whose designs were directed against the peace of the country?

But, whatever might be the motive or the value of his opinion on that occasion, as her majesty had decided in 1814 to live abroad, what reason was there for supposing that a proposition to continue to live abroad would now be unpalatable to her majesty? Did not the same state of separation exist between her majesty and her royal husband? Could any one doubt that a residence abroad would now, as then, be most conducive to her majesty's happiness? But the hon. and learned gentleman had urged against his majesty's government, that her majesty was required to take an incognito title. So far, however, was such a proposition from being justly liable to be considered an affront, that it was distinctly suggested in the communication to which he had already alluded as having been made to his majesty's government in July last;—nay, that communication went further, for it specified the particular name that her majesty might assume. How then, could his majesty ministers possibly expect that this proposition, of all others, should excite in any quarter either surprise or indignation?—The negotiation had, how ever, unfortunately failed. For this result no blame attached either to the hon. and learned gentleman or to the noble lord who accompanied him to the continent. He had no doubt that the failure was attributable to a fixed determination taken before their arrival, on advice, which, if it bad not proceeded from bad intention, was certainly not characterized, to use the hon. and learned; gentleman's expression, by "absolute wisdom.'' That advice, and the consequent failure of the negotiation had forced his majesty's government to appeal to parliament. If, indeed, the result of the negotiation had been communicated to his majesty's government alone, and if it had been accompanied with a statement of the modifications of which the hon. and learned gentleman had that evening spoken, as in his contemplation to propose, undoubtedly the present proceeding would not have been precipitated. But before the receipt of any authentic communication from St. Omer's on which it was possible for the government to act (if there had been still room for further negotiation), disclosures had been made in newspapers which tended to excite the greatest irritation throughout the country; and the whole affair was completely decided; by the absolute arrival of the queen in England. The reference of this distressing question to parliament then became unavoidable. Nothing but the being thus forced to proceed would have induced his majesty's government to depart from the system they had so long and so earnestly pursued. He came now to the most painful part of the subject. It was asked why did the queen's actual arrival in England precipitate matters so as to occasion an appeal to parliament?—Was it a crime to come to England? No such thing. The coming to England was a claim to be re-instated in all the rights and privileges of the station of queen. And there was no longer any option, except between the immediate acknowledgment of all those rights and privileges, or a statement of the grounds on which any of them were withholden. It was impossible that the making that option one way or other should be deferred a single day. This was the issue which he had always deprecated, which he now deplored, and which, in common with his colleagues, he had exhausted every effort to avoid.

So long as the late king was upon the throne, and her majesty remained princess of Wales, there was no occasion for any new proceedings, nor could the coming of the princess of Wales to England necessarily have stirred any question, as it would have implied no claim, there could not have been any pecuniary grant to propose to parliament; nor any new rights and privileges to recognize or qualify, on the part of the king. But the accession of his present majesty made it impossible to stand still; something was necessary to be done; and while his majesty's ministers were endeavouring to obviate the difficulties of the case in the best possible manner, the present perplexing calamity had fallen upon them and upon the country. With respect to the alteration that had been made in the liturgy, he admitted that it would have been a wanton insult and act of injustice to have gone out of the way to make such an alteration when no alteration was requisite. But on the commence-men of the new reign it became necessary to make some alteration, and when it was considered that the new arrangement was adopted under the understanding that a final separation and a residence in different countries were settled points, he would ask in what the alteration could be deemed offensive? Alterations had been made in the liturgy in former times, which, though directly personal to branches of the royal family had not been deemed matter of personal offence. The duke of Cumberland had been prayed for in the reign of George 2nd, but the practice of praying for him by name had been discontinued on the accession of George 3rd, in consequence, no doubt, of his altered relation to the throne. The omission of her majesty's name in the liturgy was not an isolated measure (in which case it might have been objectionable); it formed a part of the general contemplated arrangement. The decision upon it was made on the same day as the decision on the general propositions to be submitted to her majesty; the substance and effect of which, as a whole, undoubtedly was, and was acknowledged to be, confirmed and permanent separation and residence abroad. Taken in conjunction with those conditions the omission from the liturgy was (as it had been justly characterized by others, no way inimical to the queen) a neutral measure. For, while it was believed that those propositions tendered to her majesty would be accepted, the insertion of the queen's name and title in the liturgy would have been incongruous with the position in which such acceptance would have placed her.

In offering those propositions, his majesty's ministers—for the reasons which he had already stated—had conscientiously believed they would be agreed to; and sure he was, that if they had, the best interests of the Crown, and of the country, and the tranquillity of the illustrious person more immediately concerned would have been most truly consulted.

He hoped he had now cleared his majesty's ministers from the charge against which it had been said they must prepare to defend themselves; and now the only painful task that remained for him was to explain the grounds of his vote on the dreadfully important question of that night. He agreed with the honourable and learned gentleman, that in the history of the country there was no case precisely analogous to the present. That acknowledgment and that fact ought to bespeak the candid indulgence of the House for the unprecedented difficulty of the situation in which his majesty's ministers found themselves. Where there was no precedent however, the supply of that deficiency must be sought in the spirit and general practice of the constitution, and what was that spirit and that practice? Whenever the Crown found itself in a crisis of extraordinary difficulty, the spirit of the constitution directed a resort to parliament; and when did parliament on such occasions refuse their advice, counsel, and assistance? Such was the spirit and practice of the constitution, and such was the nature and the principle of the proceeding to which his majesty's government now had recourse.

The hon. and learned gentleman had found fault with that part of his noble friend (lord Castlereagh's) speech in which his noble friend had compared a committee of that House to a grand my, and had observed, that grand jurors were always sworn. In that respect, certainly the members of that House could not be made to resemble the members of a grand jury; and therefore, if it were fitting that the matter in question should beat all submitted to the House of Commons, the ceremony of an oath must be dispensed with. But the hon. and learned gentleman was of opinion, that government ought rather to have at once come forward with a bill of pains and penalties; and on their own responsibility, and without consultation with either House of Parliament to have become her majesty's accusers. He (Mr. Canning) for one, so help him God, would never place himself in the situation of the public accuser of that individual But what, according to the hon. and learned gentleman's own showing, would have been gained by that mode of proceeding? The hon. and learned gentleman had professed that he should consider the report of the committee as of no authority, because the committee would be in effect nominated by his majesty's ministers. What authority then would the hon. and learned gentleman have been disposed to allow to an accusation, emanating directly from his majesty's ministers themselves? Even under the circumstances which had overwhelmed all the efforts of ministers to avoid this discussion, he was at a loss to see the obligation upon them to become public accusers. Their efforts in the spirit of peace and conciliation had failed; but before a bill of pains and penalties, or any other decisive measure, assuming guilt as its foundation, was introduced, the ministers thought it right to communicate to parliament the whole of the materials of which they were themselves most unwillingly in possession, and to take whatever chance there might be that parliament might reverse their opinion and decide that there was no ground now for inquiry. Would that decision be open to parliament, if his majesty's ministers.

had prejudged the question so far as to I bring forward an accusation? Would parliament even have entertained such an accusation in the shape of a bill of pains and penalties, without insisting upon ascertaining, by a committee of their own, Whether there was any ground for such a measure? And would not therefore the very proceeding which the hon. and learned gentleman now recommended have been such, to an absolute certainty, with the very motion for a committee which he now so strenuously reprobated? His majesty's ministers could do no otherwise than appeal on this terrible question to parliament. If they had attempted to take a shorter course, parliament would have tried then to abandon it. How the House of Commons would deal with the appeal now made to it—whether by secret, or by open investigation, was now the question to be determined. If the former, there might be yet one chance—whatever the value of that chance might be—that the further proceeding might be averted. In the latter case publicity would be given at once, to all the grounds of charge against her majesty; and then a complete investigation would become a matter of justice to her majesty. For this reason, he much preferred the proceeding in the first instance by a secret committee. If the secret committee reported that there was ground for crimination, then undoubtedly to the public the whole question must come, and opportunity must be given to the illustrious individual to confront her accusers, and to detect the infamy, if infamy were justly imputed, of the evidence on which the charges against her rested. His first wish had certainly been that this investigation might be averted; his next wish was, that her majesty might pass through the approaching ordeal triumphantly. Never in public life, nor in a private capacity had he felt such difficulty as in the present question. He hoped the House would pardon him for speaking of his personal feelings. Had it been in his power to avoid the call of duty, he would rather have been any where than where he was, when the subject first came to be agitated elsewhere, and during the present debate. Towards the illustrious person who was the object of the investigation, he felt an unaltered regard and affection,—if he might use without impropriety so ardent a term. Gladly would he have rendered her any service; and there were no efforts he would have spared, no sacrifices he would not have made, to have prevented the necessity of such a proceeding as the present against her. If there had been any injustice meditated towards her majesty, no consideration on earth should have induced him to be a party to it, or to stand where he at that moment stood. Yet, on the fullest consideration, he had not thought that he should act honestly if he suffered his private feelings to prevent the discharge of his duty to his country, and to his sovereign. From all he had observed, the proceeding hitherto had been just and honourable; and he could not have withdrawn from his official situation without giving rise to the most injurious suppositions of a contrary character. By saying, that the proceeding was just, he by no means intended to pronounce any opinion as to the validity of the charges. That was a matter for subsequent examination—and not to be prejudiced by individual opinion. What he intended to express was his entire conviction, that the proceeding was instituted only because it could not be avoided; and that there was no other motive for it than public duty, no other object in it than a sincere desire to elicit the truth. It was but justice to those with whom he had the honour to act, to say, that they had undertaken the painful task only from a sense of what was due to the sovereign, to the country, and, under the circumstances of the case, to the illustrious individual immediately in question. How happy would they have been, if, by a favourable result of their efforts at accommodation, they had been enabled to spare all these interests, and, what was of no less importance, as the hon. and learned gentleman had justly remarked, to spare the national morals I the shock, and the taint of such an inquiry! It was not their fault that these; earnest efforts had failed. All that had been done by the government with reference to her majesty had been done in the spirit of honour, candour, justice, and feeling. If he had observed the existence of any other disposition, no consideration on earth, he solemnly repeated, should J have tempted him to become a party, or to remain a witness to it. His majesty's I ministers had all alike been animated by the same zeal to avert the necessity of such a discussion as the present. But I (such were the mean agencies that some- times controlled human affairs) all their I efforts had been rendered fruitless—he would not say by the evil intentions—but by the weak judgment of certain indiscreet individuals who had displaced her majesty's more sober advisers.—If any sacrifice on his part could have averted this calamity, if any sacrifice on his part could now avert this calamity, he would willingly retire into the most insignificant station. He saw there was something that seemed to delight the hon. gentlemen opposite in this declaration. Certainly he knew that it had been one of the commonplace topics of the hon. gentlemen's speeches, that his majesty's ministers were clinging fast to their places, and that out of their adherence to those places the present communication to parliament had arisen. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, was well aware, that such a charge was not well founded; the hon. and learned gentleman knew that his majesty's ministers possessed the means of refuting it. He repeated, then, that if the present had been a case in which any preponderating influence had been exerted in order to have the charge brought forward, and if the bringing of it forward I could have been at all checked by the retirement from public life of so insignificant an individual as himself, God knew with what cheerfulness he would have resorted to that expedient! But this was by no means the case. With a judgment therefore perfectly conscientious, though at war against his private feelings; with a reluctant sense of duty, and with a heavy heart, he came to the discussion, which could only have been averted by a favourable termination of the negotiation with her majesty; regretting deeply the fatal success of those counsels which frustrated all the endeavours of ministers, blasted their fondest expectations, and had left one course only for them to adopt,—the course which they had this day adopted.—Such were the observations which he had thought it necessary to offer to the House,—some of them forced from him by his own personal situation, others dictated by the duty which he owed to his sovereign and his country. Having now discharged that duty to the best of his ability, he hoped he might, without any dereliction of it, indulge his private feelings, by abstaining, as much as possible, from taking any part in the future stages of these proceedings.

Mr. Brougham,

in rising to explain, ex- pressed his conviction that the House would feel that he was placed in circumstances so peculiar and delicate, that it would allow him to trespass beyond the ordinary bounds of explanation. In the first place, as to the transaction which the right hon. gentleman had referred to as having taken place in the month of July last, which he had affected to surround with such mystery, yet had revealed in every part to all the House, and every tittle of which reference was evidently understood to apply to him (Mr. Brougham) he would say, that if by throwing him overboard without injuring his principal, the right hon. gentleman could add strength to his own argument, or that of the noble lord he was perfectly at liberty to do so. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the profound secresy with which certain propositions had at that period been tendered to the Crown. What the right hon. gentleman meant by profound secresy he could not exactly tell; but it did not appear to him that propositions which were communicated to 15 cabinet ministers were likely to meet with much chance of profound secresy. The House was certainly not bound by the rules of courts of justice, but it was reckoned one of the most disgraceful professional expedients; it was always most decidedly discountenanced by every judge, when an attempt was made by counsel, agent, or party, to utter one syllable of an imperfect and incomplete negotiation or compromise. The attorney or solicitor-general, or the chief justice of Chester, would say whether such disclosures were not discountenanced by every court, as the means of preventing all amicable arrangements. Though the right hon. gentleman had not felt himself bound to secresy, he (Mr. B.) felt himself still in some degree under that obligation, although it was necessary to state in justice to the royal individual concerned, who was now chiefly in question, and he asserted it solemnly, and on his honour, that her majesty was not in the slightest degree implicated in the proceeding adverted to. The right hon. gentleman might treat as he pleased the person who made those propositions, but her majesty had no more knowledge, no more influence over those propositions than the child unborn. He at present felt himself under a difficulty of entering into his own defence, which was foreign to the present question; but he pledged himself when the inquiry was at an end, to bring forward that defence, and if he did not justify himself in being a party to the proposal in last July, and if he did not show that there was nothing inconsistent in his taking part in that negotiation, and in his taking the course which he had done in the present discussion, he hoped the House would not give any credit to an assertion of his hereafter. If he had been disposed at that moment to enter on his defence, yet the right hon. gentleman, alluding unexpectedly to a negotiation which he professed to keep I secret, had taken him unprepared with a single scrap of paper to which to refer.—There was one circumstance in the date of the transaction which presented in part an obvious defence. The illustrious person was not then queen, and it was a very different proposal that she should forbear to assume a title which might fall to her at some distant and contingent time, and that she should lay down what she had in course of law assumed. Widely different too was that proposal from the proposition of lord Hutchinson; the one calling on the princess of Wales not to assume a particular title, which might afterwards descend to her, the other to renounce any title taken from the royal family of England. In the next place, as to what had passed between him and lord Liverpool. The right hon. gentleman had most strongly misrepresented, or perhaps he should rather say misunderstood, what passed between him and the earl of Liverpool; for the earl of Liverpool was the only one of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues with whom he had had any communication. How could the earl of Liverpool, how could the right hon. gentleman himself, suppose for a moment that he had gone abroad as their agent? Not one of his majesty's ministers had ever presumed to make such a proposition to him, and he believed he was the last man in the world whom they would have thought of employing in any of their missions; that he should undertake to negociate in their behalf with his own principal was an idea quite preposterous. He had waited on lord Liverpool, not at the desire of that noble lord; he had not applied to lord Liverpool, he had made an application to an higher quarter, and it was in consequence of a command from that quarter that he had applied to lord Liverpool. He received from lord Liverpool a proposal, which, as the servant of the queen, he was bound to deliver to his mistress. That proposal, too, was materially different from the proposition communicated by lord Hutchinson, and did not contain that extraordinary proviso, that her majesty should renounce every title connected with the royal family of England. In fairness to that noble lord, himself, and the House, that ought to be made known. He did not know whether the right hon. gentleman intended to sacrifice that noble lord in order to save himself and his colleagues, by saying that they had never authorized such a proposition as he had made; but he felt convinced from his knowledge of that noble lord's character, that he would have offered no proposition which was not fully warranted by his instructions. He was still of opinion, that if her majesty, after a complete and ample acquittal, should, either for her own comfort or for the peace of the royal family, choose to reside abroad, there was no mischief in her being gratified. If by giving up the title of queen were meant, as it had been explained, the preservation of an incognito, under which, in fact, the queen had often travelled, the proposal was widely different from that by which she was to preclude herself from taking any title connected with the royal family, and to give up all her rights—a proposition which he had at once counselled her majesty to reject. If in the hurry of the debate he had said that he had received it with indignation, he allowed that the word was improper. He had advised her majesty to reject it before she had time to manifest her indignation. That indignation it was for her majesty to show, as she had shown in the consciousness of innocence—not for him her professional adviser. He was sorry to say, that instead of finding the propositions first made, afterwards tendered to her majesty with modifications, he found them tendered with aggravations—modifications he could never call them—which rendered it impossible for her to accept them. As the right hon. gentleman had unlocked his lips on a subject upon which he had intended that they should remain sealed, he would beg leave to refer him to a letter which he had written to lord Liverpool the day before he departed to the continent, in the apprehension of a mistake similar to that into which the right hon, gentleman had fallen. In that letter he had stated, that he could give no opinion on the proposals transmitted through him till he had seen her majesty, and that he could not pledge himself that, after seeing her case, he would not advise her immediately to come home. Knowing that the right hon. gentleman must in all probability have seen the letter in question, he was surprised indeed at hearing him say that he (Mr. Brougham) had acted as an agent for his majesty. The proposition which had been made he had advised her majesty to reject, and he was confident that that proposition had not been made by the noble lord without authority and instruction, whether they came from his majesty's ministers or not.

Mr. Tierney

said, it was impossible that any man of good feelings could come to this question without the deepest anxiety. He thanked God, that he had nothing to do with the negotiations which seemed to have brought all the parties concerned in them into a piteous plight. All he knew of them was what he had picked up in the course of the discussion. If only the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had last spoken, had been uttered, he should have felt himself bound to say a few words, because without any negotiation at all, and without even any consciousness on his part, it had been proved by the right hon. gentleman, by an argument like the House that Jack Built, one thing drawing on another, that he who knew nothing about these negotiations, was the cause of every one of them; for that if it had not been for the clause which he had introduced into the bill of 1814, limiting the income of the then princess of Wales to the life of his late majesty, nothing of this kind could possibly have occurred. He begged leave to explain that circumstance. At that time it was proposed to give her majesty for life an income of 50,000l. a year, in consequence of her being declared innocent of the charges brought against her. He was one of those who thought that the regent was bound to provide such an income for his royal consort as would enable her to maintain a court of her own, and enjoy all the honours of her situation as princess of Wales. Though he was anxious to see her thus provided for, he thought that 50,000l. a year was too large a grant, and so he told the late Mr. Whitbread, stating, that if the proposition were persisted in, he should feel it his duty to go down to the House and oppose it. This was the only negotiation in which he had been engaged, and the consequence of it had been, that after his intention had been communicated to her royal highness, she rent down a message to the House declining to take more than 35,000l. But that sum, it was said, was granted with a view, and under an understanding, that her majesty should leave the country. This he positively denied, and he would mention a fact in corroboration of what he asserted. Having heard of her majesty's intention to leave the kingdom only two days before the prorogation of parliament, he sent a message to the noble lord opposite requesting he would come half an hour earlier than usual to the House, as he wished to say a few words before the usher of the Black Rod entered the House. The noble lord came accordingly, and he (Mr. Tierney) then stated that he would not have voted to her royal highness an income of 35,000l. a year if he had known that it was to be spent out of the country. But now it was said that her majesty's residence abroad would be most conducive to her own comfort. He did not know how that was. Long use might have latterly made it so, but at that time she had been 15 or 18 years in England, and he had wished to retain her here as an English woman. When the right hon. gentleman said, that if her majesty had remained in this country she would have been liable to have been made the instrument of political intrigue, he (Mr. T.) agreed in that opinion. She would not, however, have been an object of political intrigue with the faction out of doors, who were a mob, but she would have been an object of political intrigue to some whom he would not farther designate. If the right hon. gentleman wished to know who they were, he might ask some of his own colleagues, who at that time were her friends, though they were now ready enough to become her accusers. He meant no allusion to the right hon. gentleman himself; by no means; but if there ever had been one transaction in which political intrigue had been more apparent than in another, it was a transaction connected with this royal personage, from which a certain legal person had derived great advantage [Cries of "Name, name."] He would not name him; he did not think it right [Cries of "was it Mr. Perceval?"] No, it was not Mr. Perceval; if we had had him, we should have been much better off than at present. If the right hon. gentleman did not know whom he meant, he might ask him to-morrow morning, or he would refer him to a noble and learned lord who would at that time be employed in distributing equity. It had been said that the mass of the ministry had done every thing to avoid the present proceeding—that it was not their fault—that they were forced to come down. For himself he did not think that they had made out such a case of compulsion. He had heard the eloquent speech of the professional adviser of the queen; it was impossible to add one word to strengthen it, and he would not weaken by attempting to add to it, but would content himself with hoping that her majesty would be triumphantly acquitted. But this was a question in which his majesty was concerned as well as her majesty. Who was it then that defended his majesty? It was said of the mass of the ministers, that they came not of their own accords, that they came down driven onwards reluctant. Who was it that drove them? It must have been some paramount influence that impelled them. The right hon. gentleman talked of his affection and gratitude to the queen—of her amiable habits, and his peculiar intimacy.—The noble lord too, though not peculiarly susceptible, might have his private feelings in her favour, as he had seven years ago, but he was quite sure there were other members of the cabinet who had some other motives than regard for not wishing to come forward with the present proposal. Whatever the ultimate proposal was to be, why was it not brought forward by the ministers, instead of by a secret committee? What was not fit for the ministers to do, was not fit for the House. "So help me God," had said the right hon. gentleman, "I will not be a public accuser."—He (Mr. Tierney) had wished some excuse to avoid being put on the committee which was contemplated—but he was now furnished with one. "So help me God," he would repeat, "I will not be a public accuser [The public accuser, said Mr. Canning, across the table].—Well, the public accuser: what else would any one be who became a member of the secret committee? Let the House view the case; it was this. The noble lord brought down to the House, papers, and a message, stating it to be his majesty's pleasure that the House would appoint a committee to inquire into the conduct of the queen during her residence abroad. Was there ever such a proposition? Ministers had been in possession of these papers for a considerable time, upon which they doubted, after serious deliberation, the possibility of founding any inquiry, and then came to the House, asking a committee of 21 members, to extricate them from their situation! The instructions to the committee by the noble lord were, to inquire into and examine these papers, to report their observations and opinions thereon, and to suggest any measures or not as they might think proper. The noble lord had said, that he had a doubt on his mind as to the result of the inquiry by the committee, and whether it would be necessary to pursue any course against her majesty. If there was a doubt in the minds of his majesty's ministers whether any step was to be taken, what became of their boasted delicacy towards the queen? But when they went into a defence of the manner in which they were forced—and really that was as curious as any other part of their conduct—that message, said they, would not have been brought down to parliament unless the queen had arrived in England; that was to say, they were very careful about her character in England, but if she remained abroad, they were very indifferent whether it was good or bad. He would repeat what he was not ashamed of having said before, that before any money was voted to the queen some course ought to be taken which would establish either her innocence or her guilt. On account of his saying so, he expected to be told that he was against all compromise, and to be taunted, as another hon. member had been, with not possessing "absolute wisdom." But this was not the fact. If they could come to any compromise with the queen, paying, however, a due regard to the establishment of her innocence, he should have no objection; but this could not be done under the present administration. They had been daily insulting her majesty for the last seven years: they had sent her abroad in a frigate: they had not allowed her a yacht to convey her home. When foreign ministers applied to know how she was to be received, they were told, that as she was not received in her own court, it could not be required that she should be received at other courts. Then came the question of the Liturgy, in which she was insulted at the very moment when a compromise was treated of. Was this the way to lead to an amicable arrangement? But it was said that there was nothing galling in that; that it had been done in the cases of other members of the royal family; as for instance in the case of the duke of Cumberland, the son of George 2nd, who on the death of that king was no longer prayed for by name. The duke of Cumberland, by the change in his relation to the ruling sovereign, sunk into the mass of the royal family. They might see that, for the same reason the chairs near the throne in the House of Lords, in which the royal dukes were used to sit, had been removed. But by law it was expressly declared that the queen should be prayed for, and a power only was left to the king in council from time to time to alter the names. Could any one doubt that the meaning of this was, that they should change, for instance Charlotte for Caroline? Nothing could be devised more galling than this. From the habits which the people of England fortunately possessed of attending places of worship, no more public mode of branding the queen could be devised, than this alteration in the form of prayer. There was a moral certainty, that for months after the change, the general conversation throughout the country at one o'clock on every Sunday would be,—"Why was the queen left out of the Liturgy?" The way of publishing notices respecting assessed taxes, chosen as the most effectual one that could be thought of was, to fix them on the church doors. Here the same course was pursued, with This difference, that the slander was in the in side of the church instead of the outside. Was it a wonder, then, that her majesty, after such a stigma, had rejected the proposals which had been made to her? The right hon. gentleman had said that the words of lord Hutchinson had not been rightly understood; that they were, "that her majesty should renounce the name of queen of England, and travel incognita;" and then he had read a paper from which it appeared that she was to renounce all her rights as queen, except the power of appointing two law officers to defend her interests. This reminded him of the epigram, said to have been written by Dr. Swift:— Behold a proof of Irish sense, Here Irish wit is seen; When nothing's left that's worth defence, They build a magazine. The queen was to have law officers to defend her rights, when she had no rights left to be defended. These terms were to be made palatable by a bribe of 50,000l.; for what was it but a bribe? And when that was refused, came the bullying threat that at the moment of her arrival in England, a message would be sent down to parliament to inquire into her conduct—a message with which the right hon. gentleman opposite, who regarded it as a visitation, seemed to have nothing to do. Ministers said they had resisted; but supposing his majesty wished to avoid this situation, would they have advised him to it? His majesty must of course have his private feelings, and not wish to bring this subject before the public. He would ask the right hon. gentleman, was it not true that his majesty, whose conduct had been highly honourable, had always a wish to prevent any steps like the present? Was it true, that for months past, ministers refused to take the measures now proposed? Ought not ministers to have come down at once to the House, and have submitted these papers which they appeared to have had so long in their possession? Was it not degrading, that a person should be sent out to Milan, and a commission issued, the object of which was to collect evidence? It was said that this person was not sent out by ministers; by whom was he sent then? The right hon. gentleman then took shelter behind a quibble and said, no commission was issued, perhaps no actual commission had been made out; but he would venture to affirm that what had been done was not done without the concurrence of ministers? He was quite surprised at the manner in which the ministers had attempted to shuffle all responsibility off their own shoulders, no matter where it might fall. When he first entered the House of Commons, there was a party distinct from ministers or Opposition, called the king's friends. Of course there was no such thing now. If there had been, when they came to make their report of what had passed that evening, the right hon. gentleman would surely have had no need to be so squeamish about his resignation. His hon. and learned friend had said, that if the present ministers left their places, he w-as sure no one else would come in. He (Mr. Tierney) was not so sure of that; it was going rather too far. He did not think so meanly of the country as to suppose that if all the other side of the House were swept off the face of the earth, a sufficient administration could not be found. Indeed, it would be most gratifying to him that his majesty's ministers should be removed, and that some persons should be put in their places who could negociate with her majesty. But he saw by their countenances that they had no such rash intentions. The right hon. gentleman had said, "This is an unpleasant discussion, and I shall take no farther share in it." He (Mr. T.) should be sincerely glad to be of that party—to form a coalition with the right hon. gentleman, and to walk out of the House together. But, unfortunately, this did not accord with their duty, and he had to examine the proposition which had been made. It had been said that the secret committee which was to be appointed was like a grand jury. There were many reasons why it was not. A grand jury had a bill presented to them against a person accused, charging him with a specific crime, and their duty was to say whether, from the ex parte evidence offered to them, it appeared that the accused should be put upon his trial; but the novel kind of grand jury now asked for, was to ascertain and report what sort of proceedings ought to be taken against her majesty. What was that but putting the House into the situation of public accusers? The noble lord said that the committee might recommend a divorce, a bill of pains and penalties, or any proceeding which they might think fit, or no proceeding at all; but did the noble lord think that such an inquiry would satisfy the country? Did he think that the public would think it sufficient that these papers only met the eyes of the committee? He might be asked what he would do? He would tell the House. He would not have any objection to a committee of the whole House; but he would never consent to a secret committee. If any of the passages in the papers were not fit to meet the public eye, they might be read with closed doors; and it might afterwards be referred to a select committee to erase the improper passages. In a committee of the whole House every thing would be fair, and her majesty would have all the documents necessary for her defence, and those which would be brought to establish the facts charged; and every opportunity of explanation or refutation. The other course was perplexed with mystery and secresy; he wondered not that her majesty had protested against it. She had been attacked by secret enemies abroad—she had complained of them, and now it was proposed to refer the papers re- specting her conduct to a secret committee. The House had been told that all papers from the Crown had been submitted to secret committees. True; but that was in the case of traitors, where the publication of their contents would give the names of the informers, and warning to the traitors to escape. But how was it in this case? These papers, if the case went on, should be produced at the bar. The only effect of secresy would be to taint the public mind. Could it be doubted that the House was placed in a very unpleasant situation, to be called on to entertain such a motion under such circumstances. This was the consequence of the temporizing policy pursued by ministers, that the queen had been brought back in triumph to our shores, and the king rendered a suitor to his parliament. He had been told, that it was the intention of some hon. member to make a motion, to give the House time to pause. If such a motion were made, he would give his negative to the proposal of the noble lord, and use any influence which he might possess in forwarding the other. He conceived that the basis of the whole arrangement must be to enable the queen to reside in this country with an unsullied character. Why had such haste been shown in bringing on the investigation? It was said the cause had been the publications in the newspapers of the propositions made by the ministers. The publications might be wrong, unguarded, premature and garbled. But this was not the only cause of the proceeding. Lord Hutchinson had said, that on the queen's landing, a message should be sent down to parliament, and a message was sent accordingly. But the most extraordinary thing was, that after all, when the message was sent down, they were not determined what it was to be about. They sent down a message, accompanied by papers, on which they had not been able to decide in the course of 12 months, and they called on the House to say what was to be done with them in 24 hours. He was satisfied, if his late majesty had not died in January, no such proceeding would have been instituted. Again he said, it was to the temporizing conduct of ministers that the difficulty was to be attributed. If a year ago, on the receipt of the information on which they now acted, they had instituted an inquiry into the conduct of the princess of Wales, or have declared that they would be parties to no such pro- ceeding, no difficulty would have now occurred. But they put it off from day to day. At one time they promised to give no opinion, till there was farther information from Italy. When that information came, they had some other pretext for delay;—then, they said, that no proceeding was necessary till a grant of money was proposed—till at last, their temporary pretexts, by some accident, being torn aside, the papers were in the hurry of the moment, sent to the House, and the country thrown into an agitation from which the ministers themselves knew not what would proceed. Their conduct throughout the whole proceeding had been characterised with injustice to the queen, disrespect to parliament, and above all with the most marked indifference to the feelings and dignity of their master.

Mr. Wilberforce

said, there was nothing but the absolute despair of any reconciliation or adjustment in this case, which would compel him to abandon the course which he now felt it his duty to adopt, with a view of preventing the dreadful discussions with which they were threatened. His hon. and learned friend had stated, that the proposition respecting the title of the queen, which had been made in a different sense from that which had been submitted to him, was the chief cause of the unfortunate termination of the negotiation. That alone was a powerful reason with him for thinking that an accommodation was not yet impossible. He could not help entertaining also some hopes, not only from the circumstance, that the present proceedings became in some degree necessary from the conclusion of the negotiation abroad, but also from the circumstance that the proceedings had commenced so soon after the arrival of the queen. He believed there was not a man in the House who did not participate in his feeling of wishing, if possible, to prevent the investigation from proceeding farther if it were possible; because if the step then recommended to them was once taken, retreat would be found impossible after it. If he discovered a spirit in the House likely to accede to such a suggestion, he would propose an adjournment of this question for a day or two, in order to see whether, through the instrumentality of common friends, some compromise might not take place between the two parties. On every account, such a measure would be desirable, and, amongst others, on account of the public morals, which would not then receive any taint from the disgusting details which the papers then on the table of the House in all probability contained. Any one who would revolve the matter in his mind, would confess that it was impossible in the present state of suffering and distress to discuss this subject without inflaming the already excited passions of the country. He was acquainted with no circumstance in history which was followed by evils in his opinion exceeded by those to be apprehended from the present case. Of a proposition like this, there was no true lover of his country, who would not be glad and wish to see by all means the fatal extremity averted. It would be impossible to say that a party would not be found to avail themselves of a subject like this. Of the feeling with which ministers were actuated upon this occasion he could entertain no doubt: the question went far beyond the point of political feeling [Hear, hear!]. Before he made his motion he was happy so clearly to perceive the inclination of the House. With his own motives he was satisfied. His only wish was to spare both parties the misery which must inevitably be their lot if the existing proceedings were carried farther. The hon. member concluded by moving, that the debate should be adjourned until Friday next [Loud cheers].

Mr. Fowell Buxton

rose for the purpose of seconding a motion which, if adopted, would carry with it the blessings of the country. If the motion, on the contrary, were rejected, evils were impending over the country, of which no man, however wise, could foresee the termination, and which no man, however bold, could contemplate without apprehension. His majesty had condescended in this emergency to ask advice from parliament, and it was impossible that parliament could offer to the monarch any advice more salutary than to spare to himself, to the Crown, to that House, and to the morality, the delicacy, and the reputation of the whole country, disclosures at once so perilous and so painful as those with which the public ear was at the present moment threatened.

The original motion and the amendment having been put,

Mr. Wynn

said, that after the manner in which the motion had been seconded, he should only say, that he believed it was a motion consonant with his feelings, and, he believed, with the feelings of every honest man in the country. Some might apprehend more, and some less, danger; but evils pure and unmixed must follow, if* unfortunately they were doomed to enter upon an investigation. In the event of such a calamity, it would be some comfort that the country would feel that that House had done its duty. He would conjure the House to agree to the motion, and see if delay, which certainly could not be prejudicial, would operate in another way. He would not envy the feelings of the man who could go home that night, after giving a vote which would exclude all possibility of conciliation.

Mr. S. Wortley

said, that after what had taken place he had very little hope of any compromise; but as a great many members thought that the delay might produce a compromise, the House would do well to consider whether it ought not to make that small sacrifice.

Mr. R. Martin

said, that whilst he considered it an honour to be what was called a party-man, and had usually voted with ministers, he did not think this a question of party. He should therefore vote against the original question, and support the adjournment. It was his wish to notice a declaration made by a right hen. gentleman respecting the residence of the queen. He dissented from those who thought that such an adjustment was likely to take place as would render this country an agreeable residence for her majesty. He thought this a subject pregnant with mischief; and the best way to promote an amicable adjustment was, in his opinion, for the queen to remove from this country. Her majesty might remain at some near port, where she could have the means of communicating immediately with her legal advisers. But the longer she remained in London, the greater the danger was, and the more injurious it might prove to the country. He wished to know from a worthy alderman opposite (Wood), whether he had advised the queen in her present course of proceeding.

Sir T. Acland

felt that his majesty's ministers would not pursue the line of conduct which had hitherto entitled them to the good opinion of the country, if they persevered in the motion which had been brought before the House. Precipitation might produce consequences the most alarming, and the postponement of the question could at least not be productive of any ill-effects. On what ac- count, and from what cause had the country suffered so much, when the question had been before agitated?—From precipitation. There did not seem, from the speeches of the right hon. gentleman and of the hon. and learned member, to be a great difference between them on the general question; and it was to be hoped, that the mediation of mutual friends to the illustrious personages would tend to remove the difference which existed. Thinking that a delay of two days would not prove injurious, he trusted that that time would be allowed for the better consideration of the question.

Mr. Gooch

said, he felt great delight on hearing the motion for an adjournment offered to the consideration of the House by the hon. member. A few days would not injure the consideration of the question, and he hoped that his majesty's ministers would consent to the delay.

Sir E. Knatchbull

interacted his majesty's ministers to accede to the proposition. In so doing, they would give satisfaction to a large portion of the House, and to the country.

Mr. Davenport

intreated ministers to consent to allow the House and the country time to pause, and to reflect on the important subject, by agreeing to the motion of an adjournment.

Lord Castlereagh

said, he would not oppose the motion for delay. It marked the spirit which pervaded the House; and that spirit was the same in which, he trusted, it would be allowed ministers themselves had acted. He could not be responsible for the effect of the delay; indeed, it was his conviction that little could be expected from it; but he was not therefore the less disposed to bow to the wisdom of those who entertained a different opinion, and had expressed that opinion. It was not his intention to enter into dispute; but, if he had been disposed for controversy, provocation had not been wanting. If ever he had listened to a speech calculated to induce an individual to commit himself, it was the speech which had been delivered by the right hon. gentleman opposite; and there was one sentence in that speech, upon which he would try to draw down the indignation of the House. It had, by the right hon. gentleman, been made a reproach to ministers, that they had not counselled his majesty to take a different course from that which he had thought it proper upon this occasion to pursue. To what the sovereign must have felt as a man (and he must have felt most deeply) he would not advert; but the course which his majesty had adopted was, to take the advice of parliament as to what was fit to be done for the honour and for the dignity of the Crown. He should have been guilty of disobedience to the orders of his majesty if he had attempted to mix any opinion or statement of his own, with the impulse which had governed his majesty in the execution of a duty due to the public; and it was impossible to avoid stating, that, in the discharge of such a duty, his majesty was fully capable of laying aside and of forgetting every thing like personal or private feeling.

The question upon Mr. Wilberforce's motion, "that this debate be adjourned until Friday next," was then put, and carried without a division.