HC Deb 31 January 1821 vol 4 cc236-80

—Lord Castlereagh having moved the order of the day, for going into a committee of the whole House, on so much of the king's Speech, as regards a Provision for the Queen,

Mr. Brougham

rose, and said, that he had received her majesty's commands to present to the House the following message:—

"Caroline, R.—The Queen, having learned, that the House of Commons has appointed this day for taking into consideration the part of the king's most gracious speech, which relates to her, deems it necessary to declare, that she is duly sensible of his majesty's condescension in recommending an arrangement respecting her to the attention of parliament. She is aware, that this recommendation must be understood as referring to a provision for the support of her estate and dignity; and, from what has lately passed, she is apprehensive that such a provision may be unaccompanied by the possession of her rights and privileges in the ample measure wherein former Queens Consort, her royal predecessors, have been wont, in times past to enjoy them:

"It is far from the Queen's inclination needlessly to throw obstacles in the way of a settlement, which she desires, in common with the whole country, and which, she feels persuaded, the best interests of all parties equally require; and being most anxious to avoid every thing that might create irritation, she cautiously abstains from any observation upon the unexampled predicament in which she is placed; but she feels it due to the House, and to herself, respectfully to declare, that she perseveres in the resolution of declining any arrangement while her name continues to be excluded from the Liturgy.—Brandenburgh House, Jan. 31, 1821."

On the motion, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,

Mr. Western

said, that even if no communication had been made from the Queen, he should still have felt bound to resist the motion of the noble lord. He, for one, on this day, would not consent to take a single step towards granting any supply: nothing but a change of measures, and a full explanation on the part of ministers, could induce him to comply with the proposition, that the Speaker should leave the chair. In the first place, he would say, that he thought it was the duty of the House not to grant a farthing of the public money, in the present state of the country, until a complete and comprehensive inquiry had been instituted into the expenditure, with a view to extensive reductions, in some degree commensurate with the extensive and universal distresses of the times. He submitted, with confidence, that when all classes were suffering to an extent without precedent, the House ought to set on foot some measure of general and effectual economy. He was acting consistently with a regard for the constitution, and conformably to his duty as a member of the House, in endeavouring to guard the purse of the public. He would not now press this subject farther, but he was convinced, that it was the feeling of the country at large, that the parliament ought to direct its attention, in the first instance, to the adoption of some measures, that would lead to a reduction of the general public expenditure. He, for one, would not advance one step till some plan of that nature were proposed. He would now address himself to the question of the vote which the House was about to give; and he entreated the attention of honourable members to the situation in which they stood. One of his majesty's ministers had avowed his intention of moving that night for a grant to her majesty; but the House would recollect, that the noble lord, when he gave that notice, had most unjustly taken occasion to say, that her majesty was, in his opinion, guilty of the charges that had been brought against her. The noble lord had said, that though her majesty had obtained a technical acquittal, she had been virtually convicted, on the verdict of 123 peers, and also of some other noble lords, who had voted against the bill for reasons of policy and expediency, but who had, at the same time, declared, that in their opinion, she was guilty. Thus the noble lord, in the same breath, had dared to pronounce the Queen guilty of adultery, and to announce his intention of proposing a grant to her out of the public money. What were the people of England to think of a minister who acted in so inconsistent a manner? The indictment having been withdrawn, and that act being on every principle of justice equivalent to a verdict of acquittal, was it to be allowed, that any individual, either in that House or out of doors, should charge her with the crime of adultery? Would such a charge, or would it not, be a libel if uttered out of that House? And, did any man pretend to say, that the late proceedings against her majesty would authorize the noble lord to utter, without the walls of parliament, that she was guilty of adultery? If he would not be authorized to say so out of doors, in common sense, and in common justice, the noble lord had no right louse such language in that House. If such a right to traduce her majesty really existed in consequence of the late proceedings, then he would say, that the bill of Pains and Penalties was a thousand times worse than he had ever imagined it to be; for although it had been withdrawn, it would appear, that the punishment which it enacted was still to be enforced. The question to be determined was, whether the Queen was guilty or innocent, and the bill was the mode which the ministers took of determining that fact. That bill had been withdrawn. The withdrawal of the bill was, he contended, equivalent to an acquittal; and he would not vote a single shilling, unless the House came to some understanding, and the distresses of the country were taken into view. He would not in one moment say, that the Queen was guilty, and vote her a sum of money as if she were innocent. The proposal should have his determined opposition, and he would move, "that the House do now adjourn."

Lord Castlereagh

said, he should first address himself to the preliminary obser- vation which had been made by the hon. gentleman. The hon. member had said, that he would not vote for any grant of the public money until the House had entered into an inquiry into the general distresses of the country. He must observe, however, that the motion at present in the hand of the Speaker did not interfere with the general supplies for the year; and certainly, the plan which the hon. gentleman proposed, namely, to suspend all the usual grants for the public service, was rather a novel mode of relieving the public distress. The hon. gentleman had said, he would not agree to any vote of the public money, until all the questions relating to the agriculture, the commerce, and the general state of the nation, had been inquired into; [cries of "no, no," from Mr. Western and several other members;] and surely it was not necessary for him to argue against such an opinion. He should therefore proceed to make some remarks on the communication made to the House by the Queen, in which she stated, that until her name should be restored to the Liturgy, she would not accept any pecuniary grant from parliament. Undoubtedly, her majesty would be at full liberty to exercise the right of abstaining from receiving any benefit from the grant [Hear, hear! and a laugh.] He was sure he did not mean to speak in an offensive sense; for it was evident, that, from the beginning of the proceedings nothing was farther from the wish of his majesty's ministers than that this unfortunate and illustrious individual should be visited with any measure of seventy, as to pecuniary matters. Her majesty had, on a former occasion, declared, that she would not take any money except from parliament. Her law advisers might have informed her, that it was from the Crown only, not from parliament, that she could receive any pecuniary supplies. Parliament enabled the Crown to make the provision, but the Queen could only receive it from the Crown. She was misinformed; she was travelling into those unconstitutional errors which she had before been led into. She was erecting herself into a great power in the state. They had heard before, from an hon. member, that she divided their allegiance with the king. Her majesty talked too of her subjects and her people—

Mr. Wetherell

rose to order. He said, that when, on the other night, after an argument of a legal nature which he had delivered, Mr. Attorney-General had imputed to him—[cries of "Order! Chair!"]

The Speaker

said, the learned member should state the point on which he rose to order.

Mr. Wetherell

said the point was this:—When the Attorney-General had on a former night attributed to him—

The Speaker

said, the learned gentleman would feel that it was not necessary to the statement of a point of order to recapitulate a former debate.

Mr. Wetherell

said, the noble lord had attributed to him the expression, that the subjects of the King owed allegiance to the Queen also. He appealed to the recollection of the House, whether, when that expression had been attributed to-him on a former occasion, he had not risen to deny it.

The Speaker

said, that it was disorderly to refer to a former debate, he did not conceive, that the noble lord had referred to any particular member. But, if allusion was made to a former debate, which too frequently happened, and if misrepresentations arose, it was more regular and convenient to make it a matter of explanation than of order.

Mr. Wetherell

said, he grounded his appeal to the House on the noble lord's-having attributed to him expressions in a former debate which he had never uttered ["no, no!"].

Mr. Hume

to order, said, they had a right to know whether the noble lord meant what he said, or knew what he did mean ["Order! Chair!"].

The Speaker

said, he was sure the House would think he was wanting in his duty if he did not interpose. Allowance was, of course, to be made for any slip in debate; but nothing could be more disorderly than to put it hypothetically, whether an honourable member meant what he said.

Mr. Hume

said, he conceived the noble lord to have been disorderly, in imputing to her majesty, that she had been travelling into unconstitutional errors, and that she claimed the allegiance of the people as her subjects.

The Speaker

said, the hon. member would, he thought, perceive that this was rather a matter for correction than a question of order.

Lord Castlereagh

proceeded. The hon. and learned gentleman would have found if he had been allowed to proceed, that he was not out of order. With respect to the appeal to order from the honourable gentleman under the gallery (Mr. Hume), respecting her majesty's attempts to exact allegiance, he had yet to learn, that her majesty's sovereignty was so far established in that House, that her name was not to be mentioned without such a notice as a call to order. If he was inaccurate in the reference which he had made to her majesty's language, the bon. member might, at a subsequent stage of the debate have corrected him, with the authoritative tone with which he was accustomed to speak on this subject. He certainly did not travel about with the whole mass of the literary productions of her majesty, in which the hon. member took so tender an interest, that it looked as if he was acquainted with them before they were committed to print [a laugh]. There had been, however, just now put into his hands, by an hon. friend, some passages, in which the Queen, in her answers to addresses, held out the idea which the hon. member had declared could not he attributed to her. In her answer to the people of Dover, she said, "I trust, that some period will arrive when I may be permitted to promote the happiness of my subjects." To the Canterbury address she said, "I shall be happy to do any thing for the good town of Canterbury, and to make my people happy" [Hear! and a laugh]. If they saw how her majesty proposed to make her people happy, from the whole body of her subsequent productions, they would find, that it was by a subversion of the whole of our constitution in church and state, and, by what was essential in the view of the hon. member, a reform of the representation in that House on the largest scale.—Not to dwell longer upon this interlocutory matter, which he hoped would be a lesson, in point of order, to the hon. gentleman, who was more ready to call people to order than any of his acquaintance. He was sure, that the House would not tolerate any person, however illustrious, to make conditions with the House in the discharge of its functions. He was not in communication with her majesty, but, he had received a communication from the Crown; and the question now was, whether the House would take that communication into consideration, and grunt what it might deem a proper provision for the Queen. If the House of Commons were disposed to recognise the sovereign power assumed by her majesty, they would soon see in what manner she would exercise this novel control. She had said formerly, that she would not accept any grant unless it came from parliament; now, when she saw it was about to be given by parliament, she said she would not take it unless her name were restored to the Liturgy; and, if that point were conceded, she might to-morrow, in this spirit, declare, that she would not take the provision, unless she were received into one of the royal palaces and admitted to all the rights and privileges of Queen Consort. The plain English of all this was, that the Queen would not acquiesce in any arrangement calculated to give tranquillity to the country—[Hear!]—would consent to nothing short of having the throne and the constitution of the country prostrate at her feet [Hear, hear!]. He would provide better for the safety of the subjects, not of her majesty, but c: George the Fourth; and while be lived, and had any share in the councils of the king, he would never submit to have the constituted powers of the country dictated to by any individual whatever. What did the hon. member for Essex mean by saying, that he would not vote for any grant at all to the Queen, except on the ground that her innocence had been proved? Did not the hon. gentleman know, that even if the bill had passed both Houses of the legislature, and receiver the royal sanction, it would have been; degradation and disgrace to parliament not to have voted a suitable provision for the illustrious individual. There never was a shadow of doubt, that a provision must have been made, however the prosecution was decided; and the only question was as to its amount? He would tell the hon. gentleman, that if he had permitted him to go into the committee and unfold the proposition he had to make, without departing from the usual order of discussion, he would have discovered, that it was not his intention to have touched at all upon the subject of the Queen's guilt or innocence. He should have thought it unmanly to bring her majesty's conduct judicially before the House; nor was he prepared to put that to a decision upon one short vote, which had occupied the House of Peers so assiduously for many months. But, was he therefore to sit down under all the taunts and revilings of the gentlemen opposite, heaped upon him and his colleagues, for discharging the most ardou- ous duties ever imposed on any ministers? Was he to suffer them to call that oppression and persecution which had been a most painful duty, most conscientiously fulfilled. Was he to have the gentlemen opposite assailing the prerogatives of the Crown, without stating to the House all the prudential considerations on record, staring them in the face, and which they were bound to take into view, in forming a judgment in this matter, consonant to the duties they owed to the sovereign and to the country? Was he to suffer the gentlemen opposite, or their friends, to agitate the country to its foundation, by continual milk-and-water motions, such as those brought from the North of Scotland, and others of a similar kind, without their ever daring to bring the question fairly to issue, or putting it on its broad principles to a vote of the House?—Why did they not meet the justice of the case? Why did they resort to such opposition as those of the noble lord and the hon. member for Essex? The thing was so obvious that every man with half an idea must see, that all they were contending for was power in the state. It was for this they were agitating its peace, and aggravating those distresses which the hon. member for Essex, affected so deeply to lament.

Mr. Tierney

rose to order. The assertion that the gentlemen on his side of the House agitated and inflamed the country, merely for the sake of getting into place, could not, by possibility, be orderly.

The Speaker

said, he was waiting for the conclusion of the noble lord's sentence, to inform him, that it was not in order to speak of any hon. member's affecting to deplore the distresses of the country.

Lord Castlereagh

assured the hon. member for Essex, that he had not used the word to give him pain; than which nothing could be further from his intention, nor less consistent with the respect he entertained for him. He was most reluctantly impelled to pursue the course of argument in which he had indulged; for he never could allow the House and the country to be misled as to the nature of the proceedings against the Queen, in the manner that had been attempted by the gentlemen opposite. The withdrawal of the bill, he was ready to admit, was an end to the question of guilt and innocence, in-as-far as it was determined to originate no new proceedings. But his noble friend, in another place (the earl of Liverpool), in taking that step, was not to be considered as having thereby sacrificed his entire judgment upon facts. He had also a right to refer to the protests signed by peers after the third reading. These protests formed public records which could not be put out of sight on this question. All that he could do, in making the provision for the Queen was, to abstain from agitating the question of guilt, or innocence; and making the offer without asking any admission of the former on her part. Parliament, was not to be disturbed from its course by her interference. She might, if she pleased, reject the grant when it came to her in a proper shape; but the House had nothing to do with her objections now. It was for the House to proceed to the order of the day on his majesty's gracious communication. And he protested against this attempt to disturb the peace of the country, or to dictate to the wisdom of parliament, on a point which must inevitably lead to the agitation of other subjects, and to prolonged irritation and ferment.

Mr. Tierney

said, that after the observations which had been made in the course of his speech, by the noble lord who had just sat down, he felt it incumbent to offer a few words. Indeed, he would acknowledge, that on no former occasion had he ever felt so desirous to address the House. He had taken the liberty of calling the noble lord to order when he said, that all the objection which had originated on the opposition side of the House was intended or calculated to disturb the quiet of the country; and he should the rather address himself to the noble lord now, because the noble lord seemed on these occasions to have some personal quarrel with him and to attack him, as a person at all times willing to disturb and embarrass the operations of ministers, in his eagerness to obtain place himself, and to expel the noble lord and his colleagues from it. Now, he would not stoop to the meanness and little deception of saying, that he was not ambitious. He had always held those persons cheap who affected to despise proper and honourable rewards, which the possession of office conferred on him whose talents were dedicated to the performance of its duties; and not less so, those who thought, that the acceptance of office necessarily implied a violation of political integrity and connexions. For himself, he knew of no bond by which power could be gained, no connexion by which success could be ensured, but the union of the views and principles of those who were united to attain it. In this sense, perhaps, the opinion of the noble lord might apply to him, and the other gentlemen on that side of the House. But, if that noble lord meant to insinuate that power, and power only, was the object of himself and his honourable friends around him, and that they would consent to accept power on the same terms as those on which the noble lord held it, he threw back the imputation in the teeth of the noble lord, and could tell him, that he would rather die on a dunghill than sanction such acts as they had seen performed there [Hear, hear!]. He was bound to apologize to the House while he resisted the attacks of the noble lord, and to make good allowances for his lordship's warmth. "I (continued Mr. Tierney) may be warm, as the noble lord insists that I am, for the purpose of getting into office; but of this I am sure, that he is very warm on the slightest prospect of going out." There was, however, nothing extraordinary in the conduct of the noble lord. He who had no substantive merit of his own, could only rise by degrading or attempting to degrade his adversary, and he who could not stand by himself might think, that he was likely to preserve office, just as much as he could do by actively defending it, if he deprecated and decried all competition; and this, in truth, was the real object of the noble lord. Meanwhile, however, the demand for the restoration of her majesty's rights was loud and general throughout the kingdom, from the North of Scotland to the Land'-send. But the noble lord had judged, and very wisely, that the re-establishment of the Queen's character, and the restoration of her rights, would necessarily be fatal to his continuance in office. He knew very well, that if her character were re-established by restoring to her those privileges of which she had been deprived, that parliament would be only acting in accordance to the wishes of the country. "But," said the noble, lord, "do you suppose to-day, that I am so unmanly as to throw out any insinuations against the Queen?" What the noble lord might be at the present moment, he did not know; but he should say, that the noble lord did not act as if he were incapable of throwing out unmanly insinuations. If, indeed, he were required to state what was the most unmanly attack ever aimed against a defenceless woman, he should say, that the latter part of the noble lord's speech on Friday night was of all others the most unmanly. He did not hear the first part of that speech, because he had been prevented by indisposition; but the conclusion was of a character which could little warrant the disclaiming assertions of the noble lord.—The noble lord had thought proper to attack the Queen's message. On the propriety of that message he was not called upon to pronounce any opinion at present; but this he would say, that were he placed under the same circumstances, he would have done the self-same thing [Hear]. The noble lord complained, however, that the message was levelled against their dignity and privileges;—that it attacked the prerogative of parliament. Why, on the contrary, it was expressly framed to obviate any such objections. If the Queen, indeed, had sent it before she knew, that there was any intention of making such a provision for her, there might be some reason for the objection. But what did she, in fact, say? The purport of the message was this:—" I have heard, that you are about to take my case into consideration; but I beg, that you will not trouble yourselves at present upon the subject of any pecuniary allowance, because I owe it to my character, after all that has passed, to tell you, that I cannot take your money unless you absolve that character." This was what she said; and he liked her spirit for it. But the noble lord went on to say, and to speak of it as if it were matter of forbearance, that no new proceedings were intended against the Queen. What, then! This persecuting system was not to be put in action again. And why not? He would tell the House. Because the noble lord dared not. Well then! New proceedings were to be abstained from. "But," argued the noble lord, "I have a right to rip up every thing which has passed—I have a right to reflect upon her character by referring to every mean, and base, and cowardly artifice which has been at any time used to impeach it." The noble lord told them, that they were bound (to use his own phraseology) to consider the whole surface of this case, as it appeared on the proceedings of the House of Lords. He (Mr. Tierney) felt, that he, of any man in that House, was perhaps the most entitled to complain of the charges which the noble lord had alleged against him and his friends, that they wished to ex- cite disturbance and agitation in the country by the part which they had taken out of doors. Now, he had been so unfortunate as to subject himself to some reproach from his own friends for being too lukewarm in the business; and he bad incurred (if that expression were the proper one) the compliments of the noble lord for his moderation. The fact was, that he had not assisted at any of the public meetings which had recently been held, although he had been solicited to do so, because he had felt anxious to keep his mind clear of every prejudice and bias, and to give no opinion upon the matter before it came under the notice of the House. It was hard, therefore, that he should be subjected to the imputations of the noble lord. He had now solemnly to declare, while he was on this subject, that he did view with perfect horror, the doctrine which he had heard advanced within the last week or two. He viewed it, perhaps, with the greater abhorrence, as having himself been brought tip as a lawyer. It was a doctrine totally abhorrent from the principles of any gentleman of education, and one which, so help him God, he could never have thought the desperation of the most discomfited administration could drive them to. He alluded to those new, unheard-of, and dangerous propositions which had been advanced in other places to excuse the proceedings of ministers, and more: particularly their omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy. But the noble lord said, that 123 peers had concurred in a conscientious vote against her majesty—for this was, lie supposed, what the noble lord meant, though his meaning was wrapped up in a most remarkable phraseology, so well described by his hon. and learned friend, as filling the ear and eluding the mind. The same observation was recorded in the noble lord's own paper [here Mr. Tierney took a newspaper from his pocket, and was preparing to read from it, when he was interrupted by cries of "Order," which induced him to put it back again]. Well, then, he had heard it stated, that a majority of the House of Lords had expressed an opinion, that the Queen was guilty. If he might refer to that quarter where be saw the observation, he could show it to the noble lord out of his own paper; but it seemed it would be highly irregular in him to refer, though the noble lord well knew where to look for it. Be this as it might, he denied the truth of the observation altogether. He would say, that the 123 peers had done nothing of the kind. He would say, that 123 peers voted for the second reading of the bill, but he denied, that they ever meant to declare a verdict of guilty against the Queen. If the inference which the noble lord drew from the circumstance of the second reading of the bill were correct, of what use was it, that in that House there should be more than one stage through which it was necessary every bill should pass? Perhaps the noble lord who seemed so conversant with the intention and meaning of so many members of the other House, could state why 14 out of those 123 peers had abstained from voting for the third reading. It was notorious, that many noble lords did vote for the second, who did not vote for the third reading; and how often did the same thing occur in the House of Commons, where those who had supported a bill as far as its committal, afterwards opposed it! He himself had often voted for the second reading, in the hope and expectation, that by the discussion of its subsequent stages its defects might become more apparent, and its ultimate failure be thereby insured. Yet now they were to be told, by implication, that a second reading excluded all power of giving any opinion in the future progress of the bill, and that those who had voted on the second reading were shut out from recording a different opinion in the last stage, whatever reasons they might have for forming such different opinion. If that indeed were the case, he would say, that the most degraded wretch who lived in Turkey enjoyed the same portion and the same purity of liberty as those who lived under the British constitution. If then, that extract which he must not quote were correct, the bill rested with the noble earl in the other House up to the second reading only. For what was the argument of the noble lord opposite? "Let us have the second reading only, I and then it is the bill of the House, and his majesty's ministers are relieved from all responsibility." But why did not the noble lord take the third as well as the second reading; for the third must have been at least as much to the purpose as the second. Why was this? Because he must have acknowledged that on the third reading, the "moral conviction" was confined to a majority com- posed of the prosecutors themselves; that the only persons who felt this "moral conviction" unanimously were the ministers, who depended for their places on proving the criminality of the Queen. The assertion, that the Queen had been declared guilty was monstrous. If such a decision was to weigh against a person accused, what were they to think of the blessing of the trial by jury? In a jury trial there were unanimity and secrecy. One of the ablest men who ever sat in that House, sir W. Grant, in a debate on a bill introduced by the late sir S. Romilly, who had proposed to allow a prisoner his costs in certain cases, when the judge might feel convinced of his innocence, said (and wisely), that they would thus destroy the sanctity of a verdict of acquittal, by setting a judge on it to measure its value—that it might be said, when a man was acquitted but was refused his costs, "You were acquitted, but your character is not clear, for the judge did not think your innocence proved." No judicial man in the country would, he was persuaded, object to the principle of this opinion; and yet, ministers manifested a disposition to act upon a different principle with respect to the Queen, after getting rid of the bill of Pains and Penalties, when it had been read a third time. The noble lord had no doubt said, that it was not intended by ministers to take any farther measures against her majesty; but yet they allowed no opportunity to pass without casting a stigma upon her honour and character. To promote that purpose indeed, the noble lord had upon this occasion quoted the official records of the other House of Parliament, so far as they appeared to suit his view; but, not contented with that, the noble lord had undertaken to assign motives for those noble members of that House, who had not thought proper to support the bill of Pains and Penalties. The noble lord, however, had, in his references, seemed to forget the declaration of his noble friend, lord Liverpool, at the outset of the proceedings, namely, that if her majesty were not proved guilty, she was entitled to the enjoyment of all her rights and privileges—for, notwithstanding this declaration, the noble lord had argued as if the proposed pecuniary grant to her majesty had no reference whatever to the question of her guilt or innocence. The noble lord had said, the other night, that there was a moral conviction operating on the minds of the peers and of parliament generally against entertaining any respect for the Queen. Yet now the noble lord found fault with the hon. member for Essex, for being reluctant to vote away the public money. The noble lord, who seemed, by-the-by, to think nothing of the public money himself, said almost in terms, "What a strange fellow you are! You say, that we have acted unjustifiably towards the Queen, and yet you oppose us when we are going to make a provision for her. I am merely asking to vote away a sum of public money." He agreed with his hon. friend; he should object to vote away the public money under the circumstances. When he heard the noble lord declare, that though the Queen was "technically acquitted, she was morally guilty," he did marvel at the steadiness of the noble lord's countenance, especially when he proceeded to argue, that any man who doubted the propriety of voting 50,000l. a year to a person so circumstanced, could have no object except to raise a clamour and make a disturbance in the country. The noble lord exclaimed—"You are leagued against the public tranquillity." Now he (Mr. T.) did not think, that he was a likely man to be accused of having a design against the tranquillity of the country. Ministers complained, that on the present occasion, they had not been opposed by a direct motion of censure, but by a mere milk-and-water mode of proceeding. Now, a milk-and-water mode was surely not one calculated to disturb the peace of the country. The noble lord was always affecting to hold out to the House, that he had no objection to be tried on this question but then he wished to be tried on his own statement; he was most desirous to draw up the indictment. The Queen, in his humble judgment, stood just in the most painful situation that a woman could do. She had gone through the severest trials which could possibly fall upon any woman. As for bills of Pains and Penalties, so many objections to them would occur to every mind, that he would not detain the House by animadverting upon them. Such, however, had been the unconstitutional measure to which ministers had resorted on this occasion; and, after all the injury which they had inflicted upon her majesty, the only panacea for her wrongs was, that she was now to learn from the noble lord for- sooth, that the bill had been brought before one House of the legislature only. This kind of palliation was most inconsistently attempted by the noble lord, in the same breath in which he insinuated, that a verdict of guilty had been recorded against her majesty; and yet he admitted, that the publication of that verdict was "only" delayed till it should have received the royal assent. And up to that moment supposing it had ever arrived, he (Mr. Tierney) denied, that there was any verdict whatever, but the noble lord maintained, that these proceedings were had conformably to the feelings of the country. Did he mean to say, that what he was doing now, was conformable to those feelings? For his own part, he could only say, that the lords themselves, who did not represent the people, who were appointed, by the wisdom of the constitution to sit in the other House, and for life, appeared to have had a much stronger sense of those popular feelings than the noble lord, who ought to have had the best opportunities of ascertaining what they were. Where in the other House did the noble lord find the sense of the people? Did lie collect it from a few votes? Where did they, in the House of Commons, find the sense of the people? In the innumerable petitions heaped upon their table, and forwarded every day, even from the most remote corners of the kingdom. Where did they ascertain, that the petty malice, the persecuting hostility, the mean and little attempts unceasingly made and exercised to defame her majesty's character, only increased its weight and interest with the nation? In the same documents, which manifested so clearly what the people really thought and felt upon this subject, was there a man who would dare to come forward and say, that the persecution of the Queen, cowardly and unmanly as it had been, accorded with the public sentiment? The right hon. gentleman proceeded to compliment the manliness and sincerity of those eight or ten peers, who, having voted for the first, second, and third readings of the bill, had entered protests against its being withdrawn. They were manly enough not to stand cap in hand to the noble earl who had brought in the bill, but, while they voted with him, to assign their reasons for that support. True it was, that, having so voted for the second and third reading, they considered that the bill should pass. And why? first, because they believed the Queen's guilt, as they said; but he would give them credit for a higher motive also—namely, that they wished to get the Queen out of the fangs of the noble lord, and of the cruel consequences which must have followed on it. But what was the object in giving the bill up? He would tell them. It was given up, because if it had come down to the House of Commons it would have died a natural death, and because it was necessary to ministers to carry the measure on so far, in order to throw something like an imputation, or a shade of guilt, upon the Queen. The noble lord told them, in order to justify his aspersions on the Queen—

Lord Castlereugh

. —I threw out no aspersions against the Queen.

Mr. Tierney

. —What! did the noble lord mean to say, that the omission of her name was no aspersion on her character? Was the manner in which he had treated the proceedings and their result no aspersion? Or did the noble lord think, to advert to another part of his speech, that the course he was adopting was of a nature to tranquillize the public mind? The noble lord seemed to think that 50,000l. a-year was a salvo for every thing; but he was mistaken in his estimate, both of her character and of public opinion. "I honour her majesty," continued the right hon. gentleman, "for her message of this day, because it shows—what persons in office are not accustomed to show—that she prefers a fair character to every other earthly consideration." After such a message, he knew of no right which the noble lord had to say, that she was attacking the prerogative of parliament or the Crown. On the contrary, he maintained, that if she had allowed the House to vote her the money, and then refused to accept it, such a charge might have been well founded. The whole of the conduct pursued by ministers towards the Queen was marked by a little, petty, rancorous malevolence; and he would like to see any sign of a spirit of accommodation and kindness pointed out in one line, even of the-speech from the throne. "I have from time to time caused those advances to be made, which by law I am entitled to do." Was this the language that ought to be used to parliament in speaking of such a personage? When they were called on to vote a grant of this nature, it should have been said to them—"You are to make such provision for the Queen as may be fitting her rank and station; it is for you to determine what it shall be." What, then, did the noble lord mean by talking of "an allowance under present circumstances?" What was meant by the word "arrangements," which he had so often repeated? He begged to call the attention of the House to this sort of indefinite phraseology. Something was meant by it, he was afraid, which they did not at present see. "But," said the noble lord, will you not vote something for her maintenance?" Most undoubtedly he would. And even, if she had been guilty, considering who she was, what she had been, and from what race she sprang, he would vote for an allowance to support her for the remainder of her days. But, when the noble lord came to propose 50,000l. a year, he felt, that he should not be justified in voting that sum, unless they could make out, that her rank and character were so unimpaired as to merit such a grant—in short, unless ministers themselves made out that she had not forfeited the rights of her high station. He agreed, therefore, with his hon. friend the member for Essex, that they could not vote for such a grant until they knew, that they voted it as to the Queen, pure and un-impeached. What was meant by keeping the Queen in so anomalous a situation? What was was meant by proposing to a Queen entitled to all her rights and privileges, 50,000l. a year in so strange and extraordinary a manner, when the only question ought to be, whether that was or was not a sufficient sum for her dignity? If the noble lord opposite and his colleagues would not consent to have the Queen treated as an acquitted person by having her name restored to the Liturgy, he must not complain of the public inquietude, or of the frequency of motions in that House upon the subject. The noble lord must indeed prepare his mind for other motions, in addition to that of which his noble friend (lord A. Hamilton) had given notice, and which notice appeared to give so much uneasiness to the noble lord. To the noble lord's own conduct, however, the multiplication of such motions was alone to be traced. The noble lord had only to yield to the opinion of the public, and to the voice of justice, and the motions which he deprecated would at once cease. But the noble lord appeared to rely altogether upon the majorities in that House, for the defence of his conduct, and, for the vindication of his government. This, however, the noble lord might be assured was not a safe ground of reliance. The noble lord should remember, that there was a very material difference between the state of the public mind at present and forty or fifty years ago; for what were called the lower orders (he did not recollect whether the noble lord had so characterised them) were now become so generally informed, that they knew well what was passing about them, and the fear was, that their judgment might be warped by their distress. The feeling of the people was not, indeed, to be treated with disrespect. No prudent government could possibly disregard that feeling, especially upon a question in which it was universally and warmly interested. This question was that which the House was then called upon to consider, namely, whether, as her majesty had been acquitted, she was not entitled to all the benefit of an acquittal? The noble lord might calculate upon his majorities, but he must know, that no individual could now conscientiously vote the negative of the proposition, that the original omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy was an inexpedient proceeding, although a learned friend of his had once observed, that this omission involved no disgrace or insult. But the universal impression, of the country was such as to call for the restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy—that restoration was indeed essential to the preservation of the public peace, as well as to the establishment of the proper dignity of the Queen. But, notwithstanding the lofty tone of the noble lord, that restoration must take place. So confident, indeed, was he upon this subject, that if he had only-ten members of that House voting with him, while he saw the other.648 voting for the noble lord, he would still calculate upon that final result which the country demanded, namely, that as her majesty had been acquitted, she should have all the benefit of an acquittal, especially in the insertion of her name in the Liturgy.

Mr. Bathurst

said, that the right hon. gentleman had excluded from his consideration the most material part of the speech from the throne which affected the Queen, and which stated the provision formerly made for her, to have expired—and of course made it necessary, that another should be made. The Queen being at present without any provision whatever, the House would see what was meant by the words "present circumstances." He contended, that there was no difficulty as to form in the way of their proceeding to take the subject into consideration. The kind of provision which it might be necessary to make, he dismissed altogether for the present, as that could only be properly discussed in the committee. The right hon. gentleman complained of the mode in which his noble friend had referred to the proceedings in the other House of Parliament. These proceedings were now the property of the country, and might be referred to by any one, and were therefore liable to be commented upon. The right hon. gentleman had complained, that the bill of Pains and Penalties was spoken of, having only passed a second reading, as if it had passed through all its stages. On this point he wished to meet the right hon. gentleman. He must complain, that this bill had been assimilated unfairly to ordinary bills in that House. On the second reading of the bill of Pains and Penalties the merits of the bill were under consideration. On the third reading it was regular to revert again to the principle. When he voted for the second reading of a bill, he was bound in fairness to vote for its third reading, if it had gone unchanged through a committee. But in a bill of Pains and Penalties and in a bill of divorce, evidence was received to prove the preamble, and afterwards the question came to be, Was there or was there not grounds for the bill on the evidence? Had not the right hon. gentleman heard it said, in the other House, that if the second reading should be carried, an indelible stigma would be fixed on the Queen? This was an admission from those who opposed the bill, that the second reading expressed a judgment upon the merits of the bill. What passed afterwards was of another description. The passing of the bill had been a question mixed up of policy and of the different provisions of the bill. Had there not been a motion for striking out the divorce clause? But they had a right to form their own judgment, and notwithstanding what the right hon. gentleman had said of the people of England, the people of England did form a judgment upon the evidence, independently of what was done in this or in the other House. What had been imputed to he noble friend was correct, so far as he had said, the Queen was entitled to all her legal rights as much as if there had been no prosecution; and all the conduct of ministers had proceeded on that ground. The gentlemen on the other side understood it differently; for all the petitions not only prayed for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, but for preventing any further prosecution. He did not know whence the petitioners had collected, that any further prosecution should be instituted. The right hon. gentlemen had said, that the bill would have been thrown out in this House on the first reading. That would make no alteration on his mind. But they could hardly expect, that what had been admitted and confessed in the other House could be denied here. The Queen, he admitted, was entitled to her legal rights, as if no prosecution had taken place; but the insertion of her name in the Liturgy was not one of them. If the sense of popular meetings were to regulate their decisions, he might be allowed to state, that at many meetings which had taken place, petitions had been agreed to, expressing as much horror at holding up the Queen as an object of favour, as other petitioners could feel at the idea of an opposite course being pursued. It was not necessarily a stigma on the Queen that her name was not inserted in the Liturgy. It was admitted, by the right hon. gentleman himself, that whatever had been the result of the late proceedings, parliament must have been called upon to make some provision for her majesty. This being admitted, what fair objection could be urged to the course now taken? When it was said, on the part of her majesty, "I will have no provision unless you, the House of Commons, will undo your resolution, unless some member of the House of Commons will move, that my name shall be restored to the Liturgy," it was then for them to consider, whether they should suffer themselves to be influenced by such language. The question was not now, what kind of provision should be made for her majesty. That would be the subject of discussion in the committee, but the question was, whether any provision at all should be made; unless the House chose to be dictated to by her majesty herself, who in effect said, "If you do not retrace your steps, and say, that all that has been done ought to be undone, and declare, that my character is not at all affected by the evidence which has taken place, I will not respect any thing that you may think proper to decide upon."

Lord Folkestone

said, he could not refrain from taking that opportunity of addressing a few words to the House. He entreated the House, if it had any regard for its own character, and the estimation in which it must stand in the opinion of the people, to pause even at the last hour before they proceeded in this business. No man had deplored and deprecated these proceedings more than himself—from their very commencement—from the time that the message, accompanied by the green bag, first came down to the House. He foresaw the mischievous consequences which would inevitably result from them, and every day's experience had confirmed the opinion which he first entertained—that the longer they were continued the greater calamities were likely to ensue. He would go no further back than to the speech of the noble lord opposite, and he would then ask the House whether, from the tone and temper of that speech, it were possible that the discussion of this subject could go on without infinite calamity to the country? If, at this fourth day of the session, the noble lord could exhibit so much intemperate and angry feeling, what had the House to expect, after a few more discussions, but an exhibition of feelings still more inflamed and exasperated? If the noble lord, with all that command of temper which he usually possessed, could still charge his right honourable friend with the design of disturbing the tranquillity of the country, what, lie would repeat, had the House to expect from protracted discussion? It was an extraordinary spectacle to see a minister of the Crown coming down to the House to move for an allowance to the Queen, and taking that opportunity of throwing out sarcasms against her majesty, charging her with an attempt to establish a separate authority in the state, and to exact allegiance from the people; accusing her, in fact, of an offence very little short of high treason. Was this a fit exhibition on the part of a minister of the Crown? The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had talked of the admission of her majesty's name to the Liturgy as a matter of favour to her majesty. Now, he knew of no favour asked for her majesty on his side of the House; they asked only for those rights to which she was entitled, and those dignities which became her station. But if favour were to be granted to, any quarter, it might be surely granted to the prayers of the people. Was not the table of the House loaded with petitions from all parts of the kingdom, every one of which prayed for the restitution of her majesty's just rights and privileges? Surely it was due to the country, that the House should not turn a deaf ear on their petitions, when they were about to vote a sum of 50,000l. as a provision for her majesty, to be wrong from an impoverished people. They were bound to listen to the unanimous wishes of the people, and restore her majesty to the full possession of her rights. But the noble lord said "no; we will not restore her majesty to her rights, for her conduct has been unconstitutional." This House, truly, was to hear a grave charge of unconstitutional conduct against her majesty—and from whom? Why, from the noble lord opposite! A charge of unconstitutional conduct from the noble lord opposite! That noble lord, who had instituted a bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty—that noble lord, who had violated the first principles of the constitution from a pretended regard for the morals of the country, presumed to charge her majesty with unconstitutional conduct! Even now, when the noble lord and his colleagues had been compelled to abandon the proceedings against her majesty, he talked of her technical acquittal, and her moral conviction. The argument of the noble lord on this subject was very different from that of the right hon. gentleman. The noble lord inferred from the fact of 123 peers having voted for the second reading of the bill, that a majority of the House of Lords had declared her to be guilty of adultery. Now this was a most unjust inference; for, even supposing that 123 peers had declared her to be guilty, there were nearly 400 members of the House of Lords, and therefore 123 did not constitute a majority of the House of Lords. But it was any thing but a fair argument to say that 123 peers had voted, her to be guilty of adultery. The bill of Pains and Penalties contained a great many allegations, besides the charge of adulterous intercourse. One of the charges was, taking Bergami into her service—another, promoting his family—another, conferring honours upon him,—and, in fact, there were no less than eight different allegations in the preamble of the bill. The majority for the second read- ing of the bill amounted to 123 peers, and the minority to 95. Now it was perfectly possible that the House might have divided in that proportion upon the whole of the bill, and yet, if the sense of the House had been taken separately upon each of the allegations, there might have been a majority of six to one in her majesty's favour. One peer, for instance, might have voted for the degradation of her majesty, in consequence of her having taken Bergami into her service; another, because she had promoted his family; and yet, if a division had taken place upon these separate allegations, there might have been a majority of six to one in her favour. The same argument would apply to every other allegation, and if the subject was considered in this point of view, the unfairness of the proceedings against her was demonstrated. Had her majesty been impeached, all these allegations must have formed separate articles of impeachment, but they were all lumped together in the bill of Pains and Penalties. Her majesty had been deprived of the benefit of bringing her case before a second tribunal, and of establishing her innocence by the production of witnesses before this House. The noble lord and his colleagues had so contrived the prosecution of her majesty, that she had been exposed to every possible disadvantage, and deprived of the benefit which she would have derived from a second trial. Their case had gradually broken down; the majority of twenty-eight for the second dwindled to a majority of nine for the third reading—and then, the noble lord and his colleagues abandoned the Bill. But, did the House or the country suppose, that they abandoned it out of tender compassion, out of complaisance, or favour to her majesty? The spirit in which they had conducted the whole proceedings sufficiently explained the motives by which they were actuated. They abandoned the bill that they might still have some pretence for declaring, that her majesty had been technically acquitted, and morally convicted. They did not dare to bring the bill down to that House—they were afraid of giving her majesty an opportunity of establishing her innocence before a second tribunal. Having failed in their odious bill of pains and Penalties, they still wished to reserve to themselves the power of inflicting the pain and penalty of an imputed moral conviction. The noble lord had said, that he was not so unmanly as to discuss the quantum of provision upon the ground of the guilt or innocence of her majesty, but was not the noble lord guilty of that unmanly conduct which he affected to disclaim, when he talked of a technical acquittal and a moral conviction? Even if her majesty had been convicted, the noble lord must have proposed some provision for her majesty, probably 10 or 15,000l. instead of 50,000l. a-year; and was not the noble lord placing her majesty precisely in the same situation, except as to the quantum of provision, as if she had been actually convicted? Her name was still excluded from the Liturgy—she had no palace to reside in—none of the dignities or honours which belonged to her station; and yet the noble lord disclaimed all unmanly conduct. He confessed, that it appeared to him extremely difficult to reconcile the conduct with the words of the noble lord. He thought he had proved to demonstration, that nothing could be more unfair than the inference of the noble lord, that the Queen had been morally convicted, because 123 peers had voted for the second reading of the bill. It was a violation of all the principles of British jurisprudence, when a party had been tried and acquitted, whether from a flaw in the indictment, from the stupidity of the prosecutors, or from whatever cause, that the benefit of a complete acquittal should be denied. In any other case it would be a libel to I say, that such a party had been only technically acquitted. He had taken that: opportunity, of addressing a few observations to the House on this subject; and should conclude by supporting the; motion, that the House do now adjourn. They would then have an opportunity of pausing before they proceeded to discussions which were more and more calculated to produce mischief and calamity to the country. The royal family had been dragged through the dirt, and the House of Lords, be was sorry to say, had done itself but little credit in the eyes of the people, through the whole course of these fatal discussions. He saw no reason why her majesty might not be provided for out of the civil list, which had been settled upon a very ample scale. This course was unobjectionable in point of principle; and, in the present distressed state of the country, would be highly expedient. He considered this to be a question which involved the dignity of the throne and of parliament, and the security of all the constituted authorities of the realm.

Mr. J. Browne

said, the noble lord who spoke last and the right hon. gentleman had charged his noble friend with expressing an opinion as to the guilt of her majesty. Now, he had certainly not understood his noble friend to express any opinion on the subject. His noble friend had endeavoured to keep the question of guilt or innocence as much as possible out of the view of the House, lint even if his noble friend had expressed such an opinion, he saw no reason why the noble lord opposite should be offended, or why he (Mr. Browne) should not be equally offended, when the noble lord, talked of the innocence of one, against whom u bill of divorce and degradation had been read a second time, after an elaborate defence, which some thought a most triumphant, and others a most weak and inconclusive defence? And had he not a right to feel equally indignant at hearing the noble lord talk of the innocence of one who, as far as the inquiry went, had been declared guilty of nearly the highest offence known to the laws of the land? Such was the person to whom the House was now called upon to pay the same marks of respect, in point of allowance, as had been paid to our late virtuous queen Charlotte. He confessed, that a host of feelings were roused in Ins breast, when this contrast was unavoidably brought to his mind between one of the best and most virtuous queens consort that ever lived, and one who, to say no more, was suspected of not being quite so good. The noble lord opposite had dwelt much upon what was due to economy, and certainly this was the time for practising it. He should therefore be glad to vote for a smaller sum; for, in his opinion, as the Queen was not to have a palace, and the other appurtenances belonging to a Queen Consort, he thought the provision was greater than was necessary for her expences; and there was reason to apprehend, that the overflowings of their bounty might be diverted into very different channels from those to which it was intended to be applied.

Mr. W. Lamb

wished the question had not been brought forward. It would be exceedingly difficult, he thought, for his majesty's ministers to justify the course of proceeding which' they had pursued. They had agitated the country with the most unfortunate and the most useless question, that had ever been proposed. Entertaining these views, and entertaining likewise, peculiar ideas on the conduct of the Queen in the message which had been read, he must be indulged in offering a few words. Before the proceedings began, his most anxious wishes and utmost exertions were directed to prevent their commencement. During their progress he had been equally active and zealous to put a stop to them and quash them. He considered, that a great part of the agitation of the country had arisen from the conduct of ministers, in first forcing the consideration of the question by omitting her majesty's name in the Liturgy; and he believed the evil might have been repaired and the agitation tranquillized by a reparation of the original error. With that view and with that object he had agreed to the resolution of his noble friend (lord A. Hamilton), censuring this unadvised act and tending to rectify the error. He would still vote for any question, that had this for it object. He considered the Queen as acquitted of the charges preferred against her, and for this reason—that the proceedings were not brought to a conclusion. The public mind still continued agitated on the subject; but he did not see how the refusal to go into a committee of supply would tend to tranquillize it. He could not agree to the motion of adjournment, though the arrangement proposed for her majesty might not now be satisfactory. He was unwilling to utter one word that could reflect upon the character or conduct of her majesty; but he thought it right to state, that he was bound to respect those noble peers who heard all the evidence, and who had delivered their opinions upon it. The presumption was, that they judged rightly; and he regretted, that they had been called upon to pass any judgment at all. He regretted, that when a retreat had been offered her—a retreat into which she might have gone without any imputation on her character—a retreat on which she might have entered with the approbation and gratitude of all whose approbation and gratitude were worth having; and, in his opinion, with as much honour as she had found by pursuing a different course; he regretted, that at that time she did not retire, and give up the question of the Liturgy. At that period he thought she would have shown u wise and patriotic spirit in complying with the wishes of parliament. He thought, that even on the termination of the proceedings, a regard to the peace and welfare of the country might have dictated the same surrender; and to-night it would have Given him great satisfaction to have found or coming frankly forward and making the sacrifice. He begged leave to say, that though he did not presume to condemn, lie deeply lamented and deplored the message which her majesty had sent down. He thought, that message in the highest degree injudicious, and that this House ought not, in consequence of it, to alter its course. A provision must be made, sooner or later, for her majesty; and he saw no reason for deferring it. Upon these grounds, and because this course appeared to him, under all the circumstances, to afford the best chance of calming the agitated minds of the country, he should vote for going into the committee.

Mr. Brougham

said, the subject had been so amply and so ably discussed, and the speech of the noble lord had been so fully answered by his right hon. friend, that he would not have said a single word, but have left the House to pursue its own course, had it not been for one or two observations which had fallen from his hon. friend who had last spoken. He could not sit silent when those observations were made. But he must urge, on the part of her majesty, that she had been not only virtually acquitted, but acquitted in every sense of the word, and that a most perverse judgment on her cause had appeared in more parts of the House than one, and just now had been pronounced from a quarter where he least suspected it. He would remind his hon. friend of the purport of his remarks, and he would ask him, whether he had dealt fairly by the Queen and allowed her common justice? At the commencement and during the whole course of the proceedings against her majesty, every thing was wrong that she did, and every thing was right that was done against her. At the commencement of the trial—at the different stages, whether she claimed the rights of justice, or whether, at its conclusion she required those privileges, which its commencement had furnished grounds for denying—all met with the disapprobation of his hon. friend. When, after her acquittal, mat- ters had assumed a new shape; when her prosecutors had abandoned their own measure; when facts and circumstances had been totally altered—when the king himself, in his speech from the throne, speaking with a voice which every body understood, with a voice that had extended to all parts of the country—had declared the proceedings for ever closed; and when this result could be attributed to one reason only—namely, that truth had been made to appear, and that she had been declared guiltless of the charges brought against her, still she was in the opinion of his hon. friend, as if she had been convicted. He would look to the word of her judges, to her prosecutors who had become her judges, to her prosecutors who held their places on the condition of finding her guilty, and he would find a verdict of her innocence. His hon. friend confessed, that ministers could do nothing in their desperate attempt against her; he agreed, he said, with her majesty and the country, that ministers had done wrong in striking her name out of the Liturgy—and therefore she should give up the point! His hon. friend denounced the proceedings as unjustifiable and tending to the disturbance of the country—and therefore the Queen ought to crouch to them and admit their justice! After her prosecutors had been obliged to abandon the proceedings against her, from their inability to substantiate them, from the total failure of the evidence upon which the charges rested, she ought, in the opinion of his hon. friend, to come forward and to confess herself guilty. His hon. friend agreed with her majesty and the country, that there was no reason of expediency, or sense of justice, in omitting her name in the Liturgy, and that the public agitation arose from that omission;—and therefore, to restore tranquillity, she, the aggrieved party, was to come forward and make an additional sacrifice, and abandon her own defence because her enemies had abandoned their attack! The reasoning of his hon. friend had been anticipated and sanctioned by the noble lord who had brought forward the distinction between a technical acquittal and a virtual conviction; and if he (Mr. B.) had at any time undervalued the question of the Liturgy—if he had thought it at first a matter of' less importance than it really was—if he had even entertained a doubt upon the subject, the noble lord had convinced him of its importance, and relieved him from his doubt. On the discussion of his hon. friend, Mr. Wilberforce's motion, the noble lord had begun by treating the exclusion as a stigma; and he now supported it on a principle of law entirely new—a principle monstrous in its possible application to the characters and fortunes of men, and hideous in its consequences—that there might be a technical acquittal with a virtual conviction. How inconsistent this was with the former professions of the noble lord, he would now remind the House. When the bill of Pains and Penalties was introduced into the other House, it was said, that the members of this House were to keep their minds perfectly unprejudiced. They were told, that none of the evidence heard in the other House ought to leave a taint of suspicion on their minds; that the different readings of the bill there ought to have no effect; that even though it passed, still no damage was done; that when introduced they were to apply their minds to its consideration as if they had known it for the first time, without prejudice or bias, and decide upon it according to the evidence which should be submitted to them. "Only let it be brought," said the noble lord, "into the other House; only let the proceedings there be carried to a conclusion, only let it pass, and then we shall receive it as if nothing had happened, and decide upon it without prejudice or partiality." Now, the bill had not passed, but had been thrown out, because unsupported by evidence, and the House was called upon to assume that it had passed, that its allegations, which had been all disproved, had been proved; and that it was to bind their minds and consciences.—His hon. friend had objected to the message which he had had the honour of presenting that night, and the noble lord had charged upon it a want of respect to the House, and an attempt to dictate in its proceedings. Nothing could have more astonished him than to hear that it advanced such claims or was deficient in due respect. The message appeared to him to be perfectly unobjectionable on this head—her majesty did not interfere with the privileges of the House, or attempt to dictate its decisions. The interpretation of the language of her message was, that she understood from the votes of the House, which she was entitled to read, that provision was to be made for her that night; and she said, that under the circumstances in which she had been placed, she could not barter her honour for money; for if she did, there was an end of her character, and with her character her safety. She warned the House, therefore, in respectful language, against voting the grant; she told them, that the money to her would be useless—as, with the feelings which she entertained for the treatment which she had received, and the situation in which she was placed, the acceptance of it would be impossible. The noble lord, on the contrary, said, "Wait till the money be voted, and then refuse it." But, if she waited till then, on the same authority she would be told that it was too late—that it was disrespectful to the House to refuse their grant, and that she ought to have interfered to prevent its being voted. In the message which he had presented, there was no disrespectful expressions, no appearance of dictation, no claim of right, no assumption of authority. She only said, "You wish to make provision for me; in doing so, you mean my advantage, but allow me respectfully to decline it." She saw, that her safety was involved in the maintenance of her character. If she was to submit to become the object of calumnies out of doors—if those calumnies were to be sanctioned by the acts of ministers, and even embodied in acts of parliament, then there was no protection for her character, and the agitations of the country would continue. He might be biassed in his opinions on this subject, and his judgment, placed as he was with regard to her majesty, might have little weight with the House; but, in his conscience he would say, that he saw no other means of terminating these discussions, or of tranquillizing the country, than by doing that act of justice, which arose as a necessary consequence out of that sacred principle of law, which declared, that she who had been acquitted, ought not to be treated as one who had been pronounced guilty.

Mr. Bright

said, that in his opinion, it was the duty of the House to proceed into the committee, and to grant that sum which should be thought proper, leaving to the Queen to receive it or not. They would thus say to the Queen, "We have made liberal provision for your majesty; we have ordered it to be paid over into the exchequer; and whether you receive it or not, there it remains at your disposal." The hon. gentleman Said, that he would give no opinion upon the proceedings against the Queen; but he thought it the duty of every gentleman who had a sug- gestion to make, to bring it forward in order to tranquillize the country.

Mr. Martin

, of Gal way, reprobated the intemperate conduct of the hon. member for Essex, and others who had spoken in the debate. He wondered how they could keep the natural "Ruby in their cheek, while his was blanched with fear." Do gentlemen mean what they express, when they say, they will not vote the supply until her majesty's name shall be inserted in the Liturgy? These puny politicians propose in desperation, what an opposition, resting on high character and splendid talents, never, when in their highest and most "palmy state," ventured to contemplate. More—what they had the good sense, even in the height of the American war to disclaim. What! disband the army, the navy, break faith with all the public creditors, because seven or eight ministers do not advise his majesty to insert the name of the Queen in the Liturgy! It was monstrous, to suspend all the functions of the state to gratify the Queen in an idle punctilio.—It is said, her majesty is dishonoured, and subscribes to her own infamy, if she shall relinquish this demand of being prayed for. Let us examine this proposition a little in detail. The Queen's name might be inserted in the prayers of the church and yet be guilty, and excluded and yet be innocent. The Queen having no power to compel the king and council to insert her name in the Liturgy, its not being there can never supply an argument to her enemies, out of which to extract a charge of guilt. Her majesty, and her majesty's adherents, have done all in their power to effect that object, but have not been able to induce the king in council to assent to their demand. Suppose both parties committed on this point of the Liturgy—which ouaht to give way? He had proved, he thought, that in this instance her majesty, the Queen, could do so without even an implied supposition of guilt.—But ought the Crown to be advised by the most pusillanimous counsellors, to vary the determination advisedly come to on the subject? To induce this retraction of purpose and of conduct on the part of the Crown, ministers were denounced as guilty conspirators, attainting the honour of the Queen. They were denounced as such, and their impeachment clamorously demanded by the orators on the other side, and, for these courtesies, and in token that the Queen was as "innocent as unsunned snows," a contradictory order was to be made by his majesty, thus subscribing to his own degradation, and to the degradation of the monarchy. The Queen, though excluded from the Liturgy, had the right to protest her innocence, as is already solemnly sounded in the journals of another House—to all this, I object not. But, if ministers do insert the Queen's name in our collects, it must be to give validity and effect to those false, foul, and scandalous degrading charges which were made against them. Would those gentlemen consent to have her majesty's name inserted, with a declaration, that his majesty and his counsel believed her majesty was not absolved from the moral guilt of the misconduct imputed to her? This, no doubt, they would consider as insult; yet without such proviso, it was utterly impossible to rescind the order made in council.—He would vote for going into the committee, in order to vote a suitable provision for the Queen. Gentlemen say, if the Queen is considered guilty, why make any provision for such a woman? He answered, because she was Queen; and if the bill had parsed, lie would make the same provision for her majesty because she had been Queen.

The question of adjournment was then put and negatived. The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,

Lord Castlereagh

stated to the committee, that after the length of the previous discussion, he should feel it his duty to state what he had to propose, hi as short a compass as possible. He considered the question now before the committee, as one perfectly independent of the question of the guilt or innocence of the Queen, and confined solely to the consideration of the quantum of provision suited to her rank and station in the country. He apprehended, that in this view, parliament would feel disposed to treat it as a measure, not of economy, but of liberality, befitting her majesty's rank and family. At the same time, he also apprehended, that the measure must be looked at in reference to her majesty's situation as a Queen Consort—separated for a long time from her husband—a separation so justly admitted by the hon. and learned gentleman, one of her majesty's advisers, to have been recognised by the late sovereign. Her case was therefore different from that of a queen con- sort living at the court with her family; administering the functions of royalty within the court of her husband. Her establishment was therefore to be considered rather of a domestic nature, for which a provision should be made suitable to her rank, birth and station. There were other circumstances which he apprehended would guide the judgment of parliament. Her majesty, by the treaty of marriage, was, in the unfortunate event of the demise of the king, entitled to a dower of 50,000l. per annum. It would be then befitting, that, under present circumstances, she should now receive the same amount of income, and for her life, as she would be entitled to receive by her marriage settlement as dower. In 1814 the Queen, being then princess of Wales, and separate from her husband, and there being no reasonable presumption that the separation would terminate, parliament was resolved to make that provision which she would have received standing in the situation of dowager princess of Wales: 50,000l. were voted, and if that grant was not for life, it was because the princess declared, she would not receive more than 35,000l. Nothing had occurred to alter that arrangement, and it appeared to him, that that sum was a proper allowance. When the proposition was made to her majesty at St. Omer's, it was stated, that the 50,000l. a year, which she was entitled to, would be continued. It was felt, that a liberal, not an extravagant allowance, ought to be made for a person of her majesty's rank and station. On those grounds, 50,000l. were offered at St. Omer's, which was the sum her majesty would be entitled to as queen dowager. The noble lord concluded by moving:—"That his majesty be enabled to grant the annual sum of 50,000l. out of the Consolidated Fund, for the separate use and establishment of her majesty the Queen during her majesty's life."

Mr. Stuart Wortley

observed, that in what he should say respecting the conduct of her majesty, he confined himself solely to what had taken place since her majesty's arrival in this country. It was with diffidence he disagreed with the noble lord in the amount of the sum proposed for her majesty's use; but there were some circumstances in the conduct of her majesty which made him think, that so large a sum ought not to be granted. He did not view this as a question of mere economy, nor did he speak of it with reference to her majesty's guilt or innocence; but, be her guilt or innocence what it might, he thought, that the language that her majesty had been advised to use in her answers to some addresses, and particularly in her Letter to the King, had made it unsafe for her majesty to be intrusted with the management of so large a sum. It was the duty of the House to see that the money it voted was properly applied; but he defied any man of common sense to say, that the language her majesty had been advised to hold on the occasions to which he alluded was not calculated to overturn the constitution of the country. That House had before refused to sanction grants to branches of the royal family for reasons infinitely less pressing than the conduct to which he referred. And, if the larger sum should be granted to the Queen, he wished it to be recollected, that on the part of that House, it was an act of grace and favour to the Queen. Anxious as he was I to put an end to the existing agitation I—to see the return of quiet and peace—that there should exist no appearance of persecution against the Queen, he I should for these reasons, and these reasons only, press no amendment, substituting the smaller sum. Another opportunity would present itself for the I further discussion of that part of the I subject; but he should have considered himself as not performing his duty to the public, if he had not pointed out such reprehensible language to the indignation of that House.

Lord John Russell

expressed his surprise, that any person of common feelings of generosity could have brought himself to reproach her majesty, irritated as she was by so many provocations, for any language she might have been compelled to use in the progress of the severe and bitter trial to which she had been exposed. There was, however, a precedent for the conduct pursued by the hon. member for Yorkshire, and also for the language used by a worthy alderman on a recent occasion; and that precedent he found in the time of Henry 8th. In that reign, the sycophants of the court were anxious to add whatever weight belonged to them to the charges already brought against queen Catharine, and, among others she was accused, by cardinal Wolsey, of having conciliated the affections of the people; one accusation, to that effect, was actually drawn up against her by Wolsey: it was, that "Whereas she ought rather to pray to God to bring this matter to a good conclusion, she seemed not at all serious; and that she might corrupt the people's affections to the king, she showed herself much abroad, and by civilities and gracious bowing her head, which had not been her custom formerly, did study to work upon the people." And that complaint made of the conduct of queen Catharine, the cardinal followed up, by saying of the king, "that he thought his life in such danger, that he ought to withdraw himself from her company." Did any man with the lights of history before him, as to the conduct of that queen, believe, at this day, in any one of those slanders? And yet Catharine was at that time protected by the pope, and her near relative, Charles the Fifth; while her majesty was exposed to the bitter provocations she had undergone, after her gallant and illustrious father had terminated a long life, fighting against the enemies of his country, and her gallant brother had fallen gloriously at Waterloo. Had she been the queen of any other country, she must have found a friend in the sovereign of England—in the very quarter from whence her persecutors came. It was a want of generosity to bring accusations against a woman, thus unbefriended, and thus assailed, for having amidst such afflictions, sought the support of the people.

Alderman C Smith

deprecated the language of the answers which the Queen had returned to the addresses.

Mr. Hume

rose to reply to the observation of the hon. member for Yorkshire, amidst cries of question! and considerable coughing. Silence being partially restored, the hon. member said, that some quotations which had been used on a recent occasion, as from the letter and answers of the Queen, were grossly inaccurate. The hon. alderman and others who had alluded to those extracts, had taken them most unfairly [Hear, hear, and continued coughing]. The hon. member said, that notwithstanding this indisposition to hear the truth, he would go on, and if hon. gentlemen were impatient, he should feel it his duty to read the whole of the answers, in order to show, that the quotations were incorrect. He admitted, that the language in some of her majesty's answers was strong, but it was possible to put an improper construction even upon the holy scriptures, by reading them partially. He maintained, that if those answers were read through they would be found to contain doctrines highly constitutional. If he saw any thing unconstitutional in the tenour of those answers, he should be as ready as any man to condemn it; but he thought it highly unfair to judge of her majesty, and to condemn her for one or two strong expressions. If the hon. member for Yorkshire, or the worthy alderman would go through those addresses with him, they would find, that their language and sentiments did not merit the epithet applied to them. More constitutional doctrine, more sound morality, more truly Christian principle, than those answers contained, he had never heard expressed; and he thought, that no man, whose feelings were in unison with the true spirit of the Christian religion, could defend that persecution to which her majesty was subjected.

Mr. Stuart Wortley

said, he should be very sorry to misquote, but the impression on his mind was, that the answers of her majesty to many of the addresses were very nearly if not quite seditious. He should, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, move, when the House resumed, an address to the king, praying, that a copy of her majesty's letter might be laid before them. The House would then be able to form a judgment, whether the charge made was without foundation or not.

Mr. Martin

, of Galway, said, he was concerned to hear the Queen's answers to her numerous addressers vindicated. Some of those answers were written, it was said, under provocation, and when much irritation existed in her majesty's mind. He granted it was to a certain degree, and up to a certain time, an excuse; but it was not after the abandonment of the bill in the Lords. What apology could be offered for the studious canvass made by the Queen for the suffrage of the army and navy, and for the abortive attempts made to cause them to mutiny? All this he charged to the traitorous advisers of her majesty. These were her supposed friends, and yet these were to be consigned to ignominious death if they failed to subvert the throne and monarchy. Was it the worthy alderman that advised the Queen to demand the pardon of an unfortunate woman convicted of selling forged notes? If these mischievous advisers wished to save the unfortunate woman, they would hardly have acted in such a manner as to publish the correspondence. He believed, in his conscience, that the object was not pardon for the culprit, but to excite disgust and clamour against the government and the Bank of England. Why was not her majesty advised to send to the jury who tried the unhappy woman, requesting a recommendation of her case from them—why was she not advised to apply to the prosecutor, verbally—and why not apply to the bench of aldermen and to the citizens of London, with whom her majesty's influence would have great weight.

Lord Milton

rose, to entreat, that his hon. friend would forbear from carrying into effect the notice which he had given. The difference which had taken place between that hon. member and the member for Montrose was too slight to render such a measure necessary; particularly when it must be the inclination, as it certainly was the duty, of the House, to heal rather than to inflame.

Mr. S. Wortley

concurred with his noble friend as to the propriety of adopting healing measures only, and with that view was willing to forego his intention.

Lord Stanley

rose, merely to ask a question of the noble lord opposite. If he had correctly understood the intention of the noble lord, it was, that her majesty should be placed, putting aside every thing that had taken place, in the same situation in which the demise of the Crown would have placed her. In the event, however, of the demise of the Crown, the Queen, he apprehended, would have been entitled to a palace, or would have had some mansion assigned to her; such, at least, had been the case with the late Queen. In the proposition of the noble lord, however, there had been no grant of a palace or mansion, nor any mention of procuring one.

Lord Castlereagh

said, that by the treaty of marriage between her majesty and the present king, then prince of Wales, her majesty became entitled, upon the demise of the Crown, to 50,000l. a-year, but not to any palace. The palace possessed by the late queen was not given to her by her marriage treaty, but by letters patent from the Crown.

Mr. Holme Sumner

thought it impossible to contemplate the provision intended for her majesty previous to her marriage, as that by which the House should be regulated after what had lately passed in another place. As to the offer made to her majesty while abroad, it had been an offer, proportioned, not to the merits of the Queen, but to the desire of the government to prevent those discussions which had since taken place—discussions which must always prove injurious to royalty, and especially so at a time like the present, when there existed a party zealously active to bring not royalty alone, but rank and influence of every description, into hatred and contempt. The hon. gentleman on the other side had said, that it was unmanly, on the present occasion, to advert to the past conduct of the Queen. Strange! The House was to hear from those gentlemen of conspiracies and of bribes and of subornation of witnesses; but the facts elucidated, not by the evidence of those witnesses, but by that of the witnesses of the Queen herself—those facts the House was, in humanity, to pass over! If the Queen had shown any contrition [groans from the Opposition] he would have been the last man to say a word about her past conduct; but he would not suffer himself to be put down by clamour. To his mind, there had never been a clearer case of adulterous intercourse, or of degrading conduct in any class of life, than that which had been proved against the Queen. Gentlemen on the other side said, that her majesty stood acquitted. He thought, that she stood as one convicted, and not brought up for judgment. Still, upon the present occasion, he was willing to lay guilt out of the question; and, although he should move to reduce the grant proposed, he should take that course upon the ground of her majesty's conduct since her arrival in England. The conduct of the Queen had been one continued effort to bring into contempt every institution of the country. She had vilified the House of Lords; she had defied then, and she had said, "You may decide what you please; but I will appeal to the feelings of the people." It had been said, that her answers to the addresses presented were answers written in a moment of irritation. That might have been the case with respect to the first, second, or third; but their language became every day stronger and more seditious. The very message which had been that night received by the House, showed a spirit of determined hostility, and a resolution to keep alive the disturbed feeling of the country; that message evinced a disposition which ought to put every member of the House upon his guard, and induce him to pause before he committed such ample means to the guidance of her majesty. He was surprised, that no one had yet moved for an account of the sums advanced to the Queen since she had been in this country; indeed her majesty ought properly to have given the House some information as to the manner in which those sums had been disposed of. He had heard, not only from public rumour but from authority to which some respect was due, that the Queen had not paid a single private bill since she had been in England. There was not a tradesman paid. The House ought to know how the money had been disposed of. If it had not been paid to those who were entitled to it, perhaps it had been paid to prompt all the fine processions which had disquieted the country; or to the press, which instilled its daily poison into the ears of the whole community. Giving to the Queen all the benefit of an acquittal; he thought, 20,000l. a-year an ample income for a woman who had been twenty years separated from her husband; but he would go further. The hon. member then moved, as an amendment to the original motion, that an income of 30,000l. per year should be granted to her majesty.

Dr. Lushington

thought it matter of regret, that the bill of Pains and Penalties had not passed from the House of Lords to an assembly where it might have been discussed with all that temper, moderation, humanity, and justice, which had so conspicuously adorned the speech of the hon. member for Surrey. That hon. member was the first man in that House who had presumed to utter—who had dared to declare—that the Queen had been proved and found guilty of adultery. The hon. member for Surrey had not followed the wise example of the noble lord opposite, who had prudently abstained from comment on the subject; but, not having been called upon to judge the cause—having heard, in all probability, the evidence but imperfectly—having, perhaps, merely read the evidence without seeing the witnesses—the honourable member came forward, uncalled, unasked, to declare her majesty, in his firm, conviction, guilty. Really when he looked at the whole train of proceeding, and thought of the opinion which the hon. member had pronounced, he did think, that the Queen might have met a fairer trial from a jury of convicted felons, with a judge, not appointed for political purposes, than could be anticipated from persons who condemned her even unheard. And upon what description of proceeding was she so condemned? Upon a bill of Pains and Penalties—upon a proceeding which was not only repugnant to every constitutional principle, but which, even when given up half-way, produced almost all the bad consequences to the party attacked, which could have resulted from its being prosecuted to conclusion. The hon. member for Surrey had taken upon himself to decide rather harshly and rather hastily. Was that hon. member acquainted with all the motives by which legal advisers were likely to be influenced? Was he so clearly aware of the plan and principle upon which her majesty's defence had been conducted? Was it not possible, that the legal advisers of her majesty might have had, during the whole proceeding, an eye, in prospect, to the House of Commons? Who could say, that the fact was not so? And, when it was known, that witness after witness continued to arrive, after the defence was over, common humanity, he (Dr. Lushington) should have thought, would have dictated the more favourable conclusion.—The hon. and learned member then adverted to what had been said by Mr. Sumner as to the expenses of the Queen. Since her majesty had been in this country she had received at the rate of 35,000l. a-year, and not a shilling more. Large advances had been spoken of; but he would tell the House, that he, at the time of her majesty's first arrival in England, had had occasion to apply for an advance to her of 5,000l. and that that advance had been refused. It had been refused, though wanted for matters of absolute necessity; and her majesty had, for a time, been obliged to live on credit. Because, forsooth, some one had told the hon. member that her majesty had not paid a certain bill, all the money which she had received, had been disbursed in bribery and in disseminating seditious and treasonable publications! Another demonstration, that with the hon. gentleman, accusation was tantamount to proof, and impeachment to conviction. He begged that he might not be misunderstood; but he did maintain, that her majesty was treated harshly and cruelly when a casual expression in an answer to an address was brought in array against her, and every ambiguous word was im- pitted to her as a mortal sin. Nobody, during the continuance of the proceedings against her majesty, could know, so well as her legal advisers, the sufferings under which she laboured. They had been compelled to break in upon her rest at all hours of the day and night, because there was no memory except her's to which they could apply for information which was indispensably necessary for them to have before they could proceed to the cross-examination of the witnesses produced against her. Was her mind, too, he would ask, freed from all subjects likely to inflame it? or was it not inflamed by a persecution which had been carried on against her with unrelenting malice for four-and-twenty years, which had already subjected her to trials, and which was to end at last in that most odious and unconstitutional of all measures—a bill of Pains and Penalties? He knew no person whose passions were so much under their command as not to have felt some degree of irritation at such treatment; and he would say, that it was much better, that such irritation should be expressed at the moment, than pent up in the breast and brought forward at a future time for worse purposes. When hon. gentlemen viewed her situation in this light, he trusted, that not one of them would be found who could view it with any other feeling than that of sincere commiseration for her sufferings.

Mr. Alderman Wood

trusted, that there was not a single member who would rashly give credit to the charges which the hon. member for Surrey had so boldly urged against her majesty, and all of which were destitute of foundation. He called upon that hon. member to come forward, and to mention any one bill of her majesty's that was unpaid. The hon. member had stated, that none of her majesty's bills were paid, and had insinuated, that the money which she had received to pay them had been expended in promoting the most wicked purposes. Now, if the House were to call for an account of every farthing expended by her majesty, he would undertake to say, that they would find it expended in such a manner as would give universal satisfaction. The bills of all her tradesmen were paid monthly. It was true, that such had not been the case immediately after her arrival. The expenses of her journey had made her in want of money; and her first quarter's allowance was in great part con- sumed in defraying them. As the hon. member was so much in the secret of her majesty's expenditure, he must know, that she had not received a farthing of her allowance for the last quarter; but, that notwithstanding, she had discharged every claim outstanding against her, by means of the assistance afforded her by a banker. If the hon. member, could state one single bill that was unpaid, it was now his duty to do so. He should not have intruded on the attention of the House, had he not thought it necessary to inform them, that there was not the smallest particle of truth in this new charge preferred against her majesty.

Mr. H. Sumner

said, that he had spoken from general rumour, and that as the hon. alderman was not an accredited agent of her majesty, he must still continue under his former impression.

Mr. Brougham

said, that the language used by the hon. member for Surrey was the occasion of his addressing the House again that evening. The hon. member had objected to the worthy alderman's explanation, because he was not an accredited agent of her majesty. This was the usual trick with gentlemen on the other side of the House. They talked of her majesty as if she were an independent sovereign, not as' if she were only like themselves—a mere subject. They looked upon her legal advisers as responsible for her conduct. Now, he would inform them, as he had had occasion to inform them before, that her majesty was responsible for her own conduct. She had, it was true, her legal advisers; and he and his hon. colleagues, as to matters of law, were, if he might use a figure of speech, her responsible advisers. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more correct than the manner in which the worthy alderman had just come forward. As' for himself, though he had been in situations where he was likely to hear of such rumours as had been adopted as facts by the hon. member for Surrey, he must say, that he had never heard of them from any thing like creditable authority, until the present evening. The worthy alderman asserted, that there was no truth in them, and he, for one, believed his assertion. As to the law expenses, of which it might be expected that he should know something, he would merely say, that they were submitted to as strict an audit as any other species of public accounts. The sums to defray them were issued by the treasury, and the person who received was deemed accountable for them. The sum already issued to meet these expenses, was 50,000l. and he would say, that it would fall short to cover them. If the hon. gentleman should think, that they were too much, he could only say, that her majesty regretted, as much as he could, the absolute necessity there was for incurring them. Lord Liverpool had however, confessed, that the refusal of a specification of the witnesses and the charges to be brought against her majesty, necessarily entailed upon her greater expenses than would fall upon the opposite side.

Mr. H. Sumner

said, that if the learned gentleman could declare, after inquiry to-morrow, that every bill had been paid off, he would readily give up his opinion, and be most happy to hear the statement. As for the worthy alderman's assurance, he could not think it more certain than the rumour which had reached him.

Mr. Alderman Wood

said, that he did not want any credit from the hon. gentleman, but he was sure the House would believe him, when he told them, that the book was regularly shewn to him by her majesty's steward, and that every article was paid for monthly.

Lord Nugent

said, that ever since he had the honour of a seat in the House, it had been considered as part of its courtesy, that when any gentleman stated a circumstance as a fact within his own personal knowledge, he should be free from any positive contradiction, especially on such loose grounds as those assumed by the hon. member for Surrey. He thought, that an apology was due to the worthy alderman.

Mr. H. Stumner

stated, that if the worthy alderman had made a declaration regarding what had fallen within his own knowledge, he should have given implicit credence to him. But it appeared, that the steward had merely shown the books to him, and the books only contained an account of what was paid. The worthy alderman therefore, could not know how much remained unpaid.

Mr. S. Wortley

expressed his regret, that the hon. member for Surrey had brought forward such charges as he had done, on no better authority than mere rumour. He had obtained all that he wished in a manifestation of the feelings of the House, and, if called upon to divide, should certainly divide in favour of the larger sum.

Mr. Western

wished to know, why this provision should not be made out of the Civil List, instead of being made an additional burden on the people.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the treasury had no more power of converting the Civil List from the purposes to which it was appropriated, than they had of converting to other uses any parliamentary grant.

Mr. Lennard

regretted, that the gentlemen who professed themselves so anxious to save the public money, had not reminded the House, that this was the first time, that a separate allowance had been asked for a Queen Consort. Till the present time, the queen had been always considered part of the royal household, and all the expenses incident to the situation of a queen consort had been paid out of the Civil List. He did not wish to curtail the Crown of any thing-essential to its honour or its splendor, but he begged leave to remark, that the splendor of the Crown and the honour of the Crown were not always synonymous terms. The Crown was in possession of the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall, of the 4½ per cent duties, of the droits of Admiralty; and it would have been more consistent with those large professions of economy so often heard from ministers, if they had applied some of these sources of revenue to the support of the Queen; or at least, if they had given up the droits to the use of the public.

The original motion was then agreed to.