all who wished to court the favour of ministers. He did in his conscience be lieve that the noble lord and his colleagues were too honourable and too wise to advocate the abominable and foolish measures, the responsibility of which they were now compelled to bear. He believed, as it was generally understood, that in an unfortunate moment they had given a pledge, that if the Queen set foot in England, they would proceed against her, thinking, no doubt, that there was no chance of her ever doing so. By this means they had now become responsible for conduct which they were ashamed to contemplate. He did not know what the noble lord might say upon the subject, but he thought that he (the noble lord) had not advised the prosecution, and that he was now obliged to bear the responsibility of measures entered into against his advice. Of such conduct he could not speak in terms of sufficient reprobation, for it was too much that they were not only to be deprived of the talents (and those not too great) which the ministry possessed, but that the latter were to come forward, and justify measures against which they had themselves advised. Lord A. then concluded with moving that" the Order in Council, &c. appears to have been ill advised and inexpedient."

Mr Ellis here rose for the mere purpose of justifying his friend Mr Canning. That gentleman, in the first discussion of the proceedings, had declared his intention of taking no part in them. During the whole of the proceedings in the other House, he had remained absent, and had only returned upon their termination. The new state in which he had since found affairs, had made it appear to him, that the course which he had hitherto adopted would no longer be compatible either with his duty or his feelings. There appeared no other alter

native than that of surrendering his office. Having done that, and having thus purchased theright of acting conformably to the resolution which he had originally expressed, he had now determined to remain absent until the final termination of the question relative to her Majesty. He could assure the House, however, that upon all questions of internal and external policy, his honourable friend and his late colleagues were entirely agreed.

Mr Robinson began with declaring, that ministers were ready to take the full responsibility of the proceedings, and most decidely repelled the idea of having acted otherwise than on their own conviction. Neither now, nor at any time, had they any doubt of their proceedings being strictly legal; and numberless instances could be given, in which a similar course had been followed. If then it became a question of discretion merely, he would beg the House to recur to the period when it first became necessary for mis nisters to direct their attention to the subject of the Queen. They would. recollect her Majesty had for some time been living in a state of separation authorized by his late Majesty, and in some measure recognized by Parliament itself. Upon the death of his Majesty, arrangements had been entered into, the effect of which was to induce her Majesty to remain abroad, and to renounce the style and title of Queen of England. When those arrangements had been first proposed, abundant reason existed to believe that they would have been acceded to. To have inserted the name of her Majesty in the Liturgy under those circumstances, would therefore have been inconsistent with the situation in which they stood, if those regulations had been completed. The intention of ministers in that respect being defeated, they were compelled to embrace the other alternative, and

bring the question before the House. Ministers could not have advised his Majesty to place the Queen in the Liturgy, without advising him also to bestow on her every honour that belonged to a queen. If they were guilty of the dreadful charges brought against them by the noble lord, how could he think of compounding for them by such a milk and water motion as the present? He could have no object but to catch a few votes. Yes, to enable the noble lord to gain possession of the loaves and fishes, the King might be insulted with impunity, the Queen might be betrayed without fear of observation-the laws might be violated-the country might become the victim of rebellion or of anarchy-all those horrors might arrive, provided the noble lord and his friends but gained the object of their wishes. If the noble lord wished to do justice to the Queen, why had he not endeavoured to do so, instead of cringing to the gain of a few votes? Why else had the noble lord been satisfied with such a weak, such a futile conclusion as was contained in his motion? Perhaps it was but a feint, to put to the test the feelings of the House; but why did the noble lord anticipate the resolution proposed by him, or rather, why did he not more manfully bring it forward? Mr R. finally moved the adjournment of the House.

Mr Hobhouse strongly supported the motion of Lord A. Hamilton, and conceived that Mr Robinson had evaded entering into any proper justification of his colleagues. In a measure so unprecedented, the onus probandi appeared to him to rest entirely upon ministers. He condemned the discussion relative to Mr Canning, as introducing irrelevant matter into so important a debate.

with drawing the attention of the House to the extreme importance of the discussion, which interested all future queens, and involved the question, whether the Privy Council could alter the statute law, as well as the practice and usage of the kingdom for three centuries. I say, continued Mr W., that the present is one which relates to the past, to the present, and to the future; it is one which requires this House to say, not whether the present Queen is to be thrown at the feet of ministers, to be spurned, to be degraded, to be dethroned, at their pleasure, but whether the established laws of England are, or can be, abrogated by any power other than by the legislature; and whether any future Queen Consort is, or may become, the victim of any Privy Council. I take the liberty of declaring it to be my opinion, after a full and satisfactory deliberation, that the act of the 12th of February last is grossly illegal. If the right honourable gentleman thought that the motion of the noble lord to-night was one of mere milk and water, he will not have to reproach me with using such language; for I thus openly declare, that the erasure of the name of her Majesty from the Liturgy was grossly illegal and unconstitutional. Mr W. then went through the history of the Liturgy, from the time of Henry VIII., to the Act of Uniformity under Charles II. He had consulted the act, but could not find any position of it, or any clause in it, which could sanction the act, which he had already pronounced illegal. The particular clause which had allowed the alteration or changing of names of those persons of the royal family for whom the act required the subjects of the kingdom to pray, was in substance as follows:-"Be it enacted, that the names of the King,

Mr Wetherell now rose, and began

VOL. XIV. PART I.

B

been described to the House as an instance of no value at all-the measures pursued towards the Queen of George I. Did the honourable and learned member really mean to contend that the divorce mentioned by Cox, was a divorce actually annulling the marriage between the parties? Why, the very same page which spoke of the divorce, stated that the Queen was gazetted as Duchess of Zell, and as Duchess Dowager of Hanover. It was said, that the second marriage, the marriage with the Duchess of Kendal, was a good and valid marriage. Why, then, was it not set up as a legal marriage? It was not his intention to provoke discussion as to the question of guilt or innocence; but ministers had believed they were in possession of satisfactory evidence against her Majesty. When a change in the Liturgy became necessary, while such a charge was hanging over her Majesty, if her name of Queen Consort was inserted, with what face could ministers afterwards come down and say, we have a charge against the Queen, which, as we think, forms a ground, not only for degradation, but for divorce? The answer would immediately be, What! you who advised her name to be inserted in the Liturgy, who placed her in the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of Queen Consort of these realms!

Sir James Mackintosh declared, that after the most deliberate consideration of the subject, his mind was brought to this conclusion, that the removal of her Majesty's name from the Liturgy was a violation of the common law; that there was nothing in the statute law to countenance such a proceeding; that it was unwise, inexpedient, and a departure from the principles of justice. The arguments used by Mr Robinson and the Attorney-General, were mere charges of

party feeling, not affecting the merits of the question. It seemed a very singular charge, that the motion was too mild and too respectful to his Majesty. He would now tell his learned friend, the Attorney-General, that his argument drawn from the case of Philip and Mary had no force. To prove it, what did his learned friend do? He quoted the mass book in the time of Philip and Mary. He introduced the popish ritual, as if Philip and Mary were supreme heads of the Church of England, a title they would have looked upon as damnable and heretical. The fact was, that the name of the Queen was never found in the ritual before the Reformation. He would now come to the case of the Princess Sophia. His learned friend, the Attorney-General, seemed to think that she could not have been divorced, as she was called in the Gazette by the name of the Duchess of Zell. Did he forget that she inherited this title from her father; that she was the daughter of the Duke of Zell, from whom she inherited large estates? Her being styled Duchess of Zell at her death, appeared to him pregnant proof of her having been divorced. His learned friend contended, that there was no divorce e vinculo matrimonii. He (Sir J. Mackintosh) thought there was. Every person knew, that, in all protestant churches, except that of England, a divorce e vinculo matrimonii might be obtained in a Consistorial Court; and the noble lord himself (Castlereagh) admitted, in alluding to this subject last session, that the record of this divorce was still extant in some of the Consistorial Courts of Hanover. George I. could as easily have obtained a divorce e vinculo matrimonii, as a divorce a mensa et thoro; and therefore the probability was that he obtained it. This case of a woman,

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 attached 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 present namely, 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 unfortunate 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 with out 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

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