about whose guilt he had no doubt, who had been confined eighteen years previous to the divorce, and thirteen years after, and whose divorce passed sub silentio, appeared to him to supply but a wretched argument. Such evidence would not be thought sufficient in a common case of trespass or right of way. The Parliament of England at the time had no means of obtaining information on the subject, for it never occurred to them that they could send clandestine commissions even into Hanover, for the purpose of examining witnesses. (Hear from the Opposition.) The weight at tached to this case appeared to him most decisive proof that the gentlemen opposite felt the weakness of their argument. The question for the House now to decide, was one which they only were competent to decide, and which was a question far more important than the presentnamely, whether or not the Queens of England should be degraded from that constitutional independence in which the wisdom of our forefathers had placed them, and which they had enjoyed for centuries, and be reduced to be the slaves of every administration? The next passage in the act was, "that the names of the King, Queen, and royal progeny, shall be changed and altered from time to time." He asked whether the words "altered and changed" could have any view to delinquency or moral turpitude? Was it not more consistent with common sense to say, that these words had in view the alterations which must take place by births, deaths, or marriages? Could it be said, that, coupled with the words" from time to time," it meant delinquency which must occur from time to time? Some weight had been attached to the words" by lawful authority;" but what did those words mean? That it was not fit to leave a discretion in the breast of every incumbent of a parish to decide who were the King, Queen, or royal progeny. If that were allowed, we should about 70 years ago have heard Queen Clementina, King James, and Charles Prince of Wales, prayed for in most parishes in England. The cases of George of Denmark and the Princess Sophia, appeared to him, by their specialties, rather to confirm than weaken the general rule. Was there a permanent omission, except in the case of the Duke of Cumberland, of the name of any one branch of the royal family, who had ever been prayed for? Even this instance could not avail those who were compelled to acknowledge that it was the only permanent violation of the Act of Uniformity; it could not avail them, because the hostility of George III. to the Duke of Cumberland was well known. As a Highlander and a Whig, he could not bring himself to eulogise and do justice to the character of the Duke of Cumberland, who was not a merciful commander in Scotland, though a good Whig Prince in England. He never imagined, till he heard the speech of the AttorneyGeneral, that ministers should not have had some better authorities to go upon. As to the intention of effecting an arrangement with the Queen, it appeared to him a most strange preliminary to begin by an insult; by proclaiming her from ten thousand pulpits an adulteress. There was not a man of any party, who would not lay his hand upon his heart, and say, that this was a most unfor tunate measure. The way in which the people of England received this question was-they thought the Queen degraded before accusationprosecuted without necessity-attempted to be convicted without suf ficient evidence, and now attempted to be punished after acquittal. The Solicitor-General conceiving that the object of the present motion was to prepare for one praying the restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy, begged the House to consider, whether they were prepared to assent to such a motion. He conceived, that both the legality and expediency of the course held by the King, had been most fully established. With respect to the feeling of the country upon this subject, he was not afraid of popular clamour. He relied upon the soberness and prudence of a large portion of the community, who were satisfied that nothing but the best motives actuated the individuals engaged in this affair, and on whom they placed the utmost and most implicit reliance. He was not disposed to re-agitate the question which had been ably touched upon the other night by the member for Sudbury; but he would take this opportunity of observing, that if ever a malignant falsehood appeared, if ever a disgraceful libel was published, it was contained in the notorious letter addressed to the King. His impression was, that no person could agree with the present motion without being alike an enemy to his monarch and the monarchy. (Loud cries of Order !)-and Lord Milton and Mr Scarlett rose. The latter gave way. Lord Milton, amidst much confusion, expressed himself in terms of high disapprobation at the concluding sentence of the Solicitor-General; and several persons on the Opposition benches cried out, " Take down the words." The Solicitor-General was satisfied no person present would accuse him of imputing improper motives to any one. He merely meant to say, that an address to the King of this nature would be highly insulting to his Majesty. Mr Scarlett strongly supported the motion. The question of right was evidently at least doubtful; and while it was so, ministers were highly culpable in acting upon it. The whole shewing of the arguments on the other side, evidently proved that something was intended to affect the dearest interests of the Queen; and sure he was, that before an audience representing the feelings of the British people, judgment before accusation would not be admitted. Was it to be contended that his Majesty could of his own caprice strike the names of all he pleased out of the Liturgy? He Lord Castlereagh now rose. conceived that the practice of the opposite side exhibited the most complete specimen of inconsistency, and of disregard to parliamentary practice. It was not at all essential to the justification of ministers, that the charges should be proved, provided it appeared that they had not been brought forward on light or insufficient grounds. Ministers had acted in the most conscientious manner. They had not endeavoured, by any influence which they possessed, to bias the minds of those who were to consider the question; on the contrary, at the commencement of the business, they called on those who had any political connexion with them, to act in total oblivion of that connexion; and he thought gentlemen opposite would encounter very little difficulty in finding instances where persons who were even connected with the Sovereign, had acted with the most perfect freedom. He wished he could the learned genpay tleman who had just sat down, and his friends, the same compliment; he wished their conduct had been equally free from party motives; but he believed every unprejudiced man would allow, that administration had acted a more pure and disinterested part on this occasion than their opponents had done. The members opposite, instead of coming forward in a bold way, had selected one single point, with the view of picking the votes of a few individuals whose opinions were doubtful. They had had recourse to a system of management, which could only be met by management; and when a proposition was made that could lead to no practical good, it was fair to meet it by moving other orders of the day, or by calling for an adjournment. It was extraordinary that twelve months had been suffered to elapse, during which ministers were allowed to perpetrate a great injustice against the Queen, and at the expiration of that time no thing but an abstract proposition was brought forward. As to the law of the question, he thought that there was nothing so decisive in the clause so much relied on by the noble lord, as to render it imperative to insert the Queen's name in the Liturgy. The Act of Uniformity was not passed out of any jealousy of the Crown, but to prevent encroachments and alterations from being made in the prayers of the church, and to put down heresies and schisms injurious to the establishment. That clause, therefore, was inserted in the statute to shew, that though no alteration could be made in the general prayers of the church, those collects and li tanies which affected the royal family were open to alteration. The opposite party had done the very thing of which they accused ministers, when they struck the name of Lord Melville, before trial, out of the list of privy councillors; also, with regard to the Queen herself, when they placed her conduct under the investigation of four commissioners, without informing her of the existence of such a tribunal. If the King, in the exercise of his royal prerogative, should be forced to insert the name of her Majesty in the Liturgy, that would be found to be only the first step to greater encroachments; for he should wish to know on what principle, after such an advantage were gained for the Queen, she could be excluded from the coronation, and all those privileges of grace and favour which, in happier times, it would have been the pride of the King to have afforded her. He allowed, that now that the bill was withdrawn, the Queen was in the situation of a person technically innocent, and she was in as full possession of her rights as Queen Consort, as if no stain had ever been cast upon her character. It was one thing, however, for her to enjoy the rights to which she was legally entitled, and another to enjoy those honours which had been granted to her predecessors as matters of grace, favour, and consideration. She had no strict right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy; and when the matter had come to such a pass as it had done in the Lords, where 123 peers had declared her guilty upon their honours, he could not, as a minister of the Crown, allow it to be granted to her as a boon. The conduct of her friends in parliament was very extraordinary; whilst her trial was proceeding, they were ma king motion after motion for a prorogation, in order to put a stop to it, but now that it was over, they wished again to meet the question, and to drag the House again through all the mass of evidence which they had declared to be so disgusting. If they succeeded in their efforts, on their heads rested the responsibility. His lordship then proceeded to state, that he felt compassion for the state to which the Queen had reduced her self; but there were so many circumstances that rendered her dangerous, that it became necessary to tear away the veil from her guilt. She had lent herself to a party who, he believed, entertained views dangerous to the established institutions of both church and state; and he therefore could honour her as little in a political as he could in a moral point of view. He would caution honourable gentlemen not to be deceived by her advocates, nor to be entrapped into the support of the present milk and water resolution, by any rash declaration that might have been made in the country. The country was now, thank God, coming to its senses, (Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches,) and the efforts of that party which had hitherto distracted the country, would soon expire if Parliament maintained its present firm tone of determination. It ought to support the existing government in undiminished honour and character, or at once to extinguish the present cabinet as ministers. Mr Brougham would have taken no part in the debate, but for the insinuations by which the noble lord had revived all the late agitating and painful discussions. Little weight could be attached to the majority in the House of Lords, when its nature was examined. If the House would allow him, he could shew in what way the majority for the Queen had been composed; he could shew how many of that majority owed their places, their patronage, their honours, and their revenues, to the patrons of the bill; he could prove, that while the minority could not in the slightest degree be influenced by the party who was to be the victim, the Illustrious Personage who was the una vowed prosecutor, was represented by his household, and state officers, and dependents of all ranks, and his power extended as well over those who waited for the highest rewards a monarch could bestow, as those who accepted even the lowest boons they could confer upon their adherents. Nothing was talked of on the other side, but the Queen's increasing and inconvenient popularity. Why was she popular? And why were the hearts of all classes interested in her behalf? Because she was oppressed and persecuted; and if ministers wished to sink her into comparative oblivion, they had nothing to do but to abstain from that persecution. The people had witnessed a woman and a Queen maltreated, insulted, trampled upon; they had seen injuries inflicted where injuries were possible; and insults where injuries were powerless. They felt for her, because they loved the monarchy and the persons of their rulers, with what an historian had called, with somewhat of a sneer, "a childish admiration of royalty." For this the people of England had covered their Queen with the shield of their protection, and had covered themselves—he would boldly say it— with immortal renown, as lovers of justice and detesters of tyranny. After an explanation from Alderman Heygate, and a reply from Lord A. Hamilton, the House divided, when there appeared for the original motion, 209; for Mr Robinson's amendment, 310. The motion was therefore negatived by a majority of 101. On the 31st January, Lord Castlereagh brought forward his announced proposition of going into a committee to consider of a provision for the Queen. Mr Brougham hereupon immediately rose and made the following communication : "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." Mr Western bitterly reproached ministers with at once declaring their belief of the Queen's guilt, and proposing such a provision for her. They should first turn their attention to the state of the country, and inquire into the expenditure, with a view to its reduction. What would the people of the country say, when they learnt that a minister had dared to call the Queen of England an adulteress, and at the same moment had proposed to make a provision for her? After withdrawing the indictment, and abandoning the bill of Pains and Penalties, was it time to consider, whether the Queen was guilty or innocent? Under these impressions, he moved the previous question. Lord Castlereagh conceived, there was not much notice due to the argument of the honourable gentleman, that the House should pay attention to nothing except the state of the country, and should make it preliminary to any provision for the Queen. He passed, therefore, to consider the intimation now given by her Majesty. He apprehended that her Majesty would have an opportunity of exercising her right to abstain from bene. fiting by the resolution of the House. No act of oppression was intended to be exercised by the Crown; her Majesty would be free to act, and would exercise her own discretion as to the acceptance of a grant, if the House should be disposed to vote one. Her Majesty had been travelling in unconstitutional paths, and the whole system of her conduct had been to erect a great power to dispute with the Crown the allegiance of its subjects. They had lately heard of her Majesty's subjects, and of the allegiance owing to herself. Here violent cries of order were raised, and a discussion of some length ensued, in the course of which Mr Hume cried out, " It is necessary that the noble lord should state, whether he thinks what he says, or knows what he means." Lord Castlereagh maintained, that he had been strictly in order, and undertook to prove it, by several quotations from the Queen's speeches and answers, particularly where she says, |