he 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. He could not conceive how the noble lord could assert that the proceedings held against the Queen had been conformable to the sense of the country. Where was that sense collected? Was it in the petitions with which the table groaned? Had not the petty malice, the persecuting hostility, exercised against the Queen, only increased her weight and interest with the nation. Never did he expect to see and hear what with his own eyes he saw, and with his own ears he heard. At one o'clock, in the House of Lords, it was declared necessary to pass a bill, and within half an hour afterwards, the same bill was rejected, and declared unfit for enactThe 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. He honoured her Majesty for her message of this day, because it shewed what persons in office were not accustomed to shew, that she preferred a fair character to every other earthly consideration. The whole of the conduct pursued by ministers towards the Queen, was marked by a little petty and 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. The noble lord seemed to challenge a fresh motion, and a fresh motion he should have another motion he must have -the whole country called for an

ment.

other motion-to restore her Majesty's name to the Liturgy. It might be the duty of the minister to defy clamour, when it was intended to carry some great public measure, but let the noble lord recollect that the whole question with which he was agitating all England, was, shall an acquitted Queen have the benefit of her acquittal? The right honourable gentleman then commented at some length upon the fatal delusion of ministers, who appeared to suppose, that because they had committed one error in the first instance, therefore it was never to be retracted; since the dignity and security of the King's ministers were concerned, to this consideration every other was to yield.

Mr C. B. Bathurst supported the motion of Lord Castlereagh, and condemned, in many respects, the conduct of the Queen.

Lord Folkestone said, he must, in supporting the amendment of his honourable friend, the member for Essex, for adjourning, conjure the House at the last hour to pause before they proceeded further in the course they had taken. From the first step of the proceedings against her Majesty, from the bringing down of the green bags, he had never ceased to deplore the course taken. What he alluded to particularly in the noble lord's speech, was, the manner in which the noble lord had talked of her Majesty, mentioning her by name, and accusing her of attaching allegiance to herself-of exciting a tender interest in the hearts of the people— almost accusing her of high treason. Was this, he asked, fit language for the noble lord, in the present state of things? Petitions were poured in from every part of the kingdom, every one asking the restoration of her Majesty's name to the Liturgy. Was nothing due to the people? Was nothing due to those from whose impo

verished pockets 50,000l. was to be wrung, in order to make provision for the Queen? The people almost unanimously asked for it; and if it was a favour, that favour ought to be granted to the people. The noble lord had talked of the unconstitutional error into which her Majesty had fallen. Unconstitutional! Those ministers complain of an unconstitutional error, who had brought in the bill of Pains and Penalties; who produced it as necessary, and yet who refused, when it was lost, to give the Queen her rights and liberties! Unconstitutional! This charge to come from a noble lord who had talked of a technical acquittal and moral conviction! Was it out of tender compassion for her Majesty that they had abandoned it? Was it from a feeling of mercy to an unfortunate and injured Queen? It was not. It was because there was no evidence, no reasons, no facts, to support the case which they had attempted to make out. The noble lord had said, that even though her Majesty was convicted and degraded, she would have had a provision. It might have been less than the one now proposed-it might have been 10,000l., instead of 50,000l.; but still, when the Queen was denied her other rights, and when she was declared by the noble lord to be morally convicted, the magnitude of the sum was to be taken as no proof of her acquittal. She was put in the situation of one whose guilt had been proved, while she was denied those privileges and advantages that belonged to her rank and station -while her name was excluded from the Liturgy-while she was refused a palace to reside in, and deprived of that state which her predecessors enjoyed.

Mr J. Browne opposed the grant, from his conviction of the Queen's guilt and unworthiness. When others were

so angry, that those opposed to them considered the Queen guilty, he thought he had as good a right to complain of their assuming that she was innocent, after a bill of Pains and Penalties had been brought in against her, and carried to the second reading.

Mr Lamb said, 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 opinion upon it. The presumption was, that they had 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. 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 her coming frankly forward and making the sacrifice. He did not condemn, but he deplored, the message that had been brought down. He thought it would be unwise and impolitic if the House in the least altered its course in consequence of that message.

Mr Brougham had not intended to say a single word; but he could not sit silent under the view taken of the subject by his honourable friend. He must now 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. His honourable friend seemed determined to render every thing said or done by the Queen as wrong, even when she demanded for herself the most common rights. Even 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 honourable friend, to come forward and to confess herself guilty. Admitting her to be the aggrieved party in the omission, he yet threw upon her the whole blame of the agitation which it had occasioned. Lord Castlereagh, again, 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. He was perfectly astonished at the objections which had been made to the message, and at its being considered as disrespectful to the House. 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 to-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 expression-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."

Mr H. Bright and Mr Martin of Galway opposed the adjournment. Its movers did not finally push the question to a vote, but allowed it to be negatived without a divison.

The House having now gone into the Committee, Lord Castlereagh named 50,000l. a-year as the amount of allowance which appeared to him most suitable. It was the dower fixed on her Majesty by the marriage treaty; it was the sum which Parliament had thought fit to settle upon her in 1814, as Princess of Wales; and it was the sum which ministers had proposed to her Majesty at St Omer's. He therefore proposed that 50,000l. a-year should be settled upon her Majesty for life.

The only opposition which this motion experienced, was from the somewhat free opponents of ministers, upon grounds, however, which could not be supposed very unwelcome to them.

Mr S. Wortley did not view this as a question of mere economy, nor did he speak of it with respect to her Ma

jesty'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.

Lord J. Russell expressed surprise at what had fallen from the honourable member, and conceived that the popular acts of which the Queen had been accused, were no other than those which had been imputed, on the most trivial grounds, to Catherine, Queen of Henry VIII.

Mr Hume insisted, that the passages upon which Mr Wortley and Alderman Heygate founded their charges, had been erroneously quoted, though, he admitted, not intentionally. He would admit that some individual expressions were very strong; but, taking the general sentiments which pervaded the answers to the addresses, he contended that they were constitutional in the highest degree. (Hear, and laughter). He contended that the answers to those addresses contained the most constitutional principles and the most sound morality.-Hear, hear! and laughter.)

Mr Martin was perfectly astonished that any one could use such language as Mr Hume, with regard to the addresses. He had never heard another individual attempt to defend them.

Mr Holme Sumner now rose, and reiterated in stronger terms the charge of Mr Wortley. The noble lord op posite, (Lord John Russell,) said it was unmanly and ungenerous now to talk of the charges brought against her Majesty. Such was the language held by those from whom they heard every hour the cry of conspiracy, subornation, and perjury. While such a cry was raised by the gentlemen op.

posite, they were to shut their eyes to the conviction produced, not by hired evidence, but by her Majesty's own witnesses. Had her Majesty shewn any contrition for her conduct, he should be the last man in the world to say a word on the subject; but she had no claim to such indulgence. To his mind, the charge of adulterous intercourse, and of conduct more degrading than ever was proved in any class of life, had been clearly made out. The message brought down that very night breathed hostility, and shewed a disposition to keep the country in a state of disquietude.With a view even to economy, but much more with a view to safety, he thought the sum proposed too great. Before such a grant was submitted to the House, they had a right to be informed of the amount of advances made to the Queen since her arrival. It became her Majesty also to furnish, through her legal advisers, some account of the manner in which it had been disposed of.

Dr Lushington started up, and, with indignant derision, spoke of the temper, moderation, humanity, and justice, which had so conspicuously adorned the speech of the honourable member for Surrey-that honourable member was the first man in that House who had presumed to utter, who had dared to declare, that the Queen had been found guilty of adultery. Having heard, in all probability, the evidence but imperfectly-having, perhaps, merely read the evidence without seeing the witnessesthe 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 honourable member had pronounced, he did think that the Queen might have met with a fairer trial from a jury of convicted

felons. With respect to the sums received by her Majesty, he could state, that they amounted to 35,000l. a-year. He could further state, that on her first arrival, he had applied in her name for so small a sum as 50001., and that it was refused. She was therefore compelled to live for some time on credit.

Mr Brougham also rose, and stated, that 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 as already issued to meet these expenses, was 50,000l., and he would say that it would fall short to cover them. If the honourable 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.

After a good deal of consideration, the report was brought up, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the following day.

On the 1st of February, at the motion of Lord Castlereagh, the report was read. Mr Holme Sumner rose, and justified the opinion he had yesterday expressed, though without having heard the whole of the evidence. The testimony of the Queen's own witness, Lieutenant Hownam, appeared to him perfectly decisive of her guilt. He moved the reduction of the grant from 50,000l. to 30,000l. Mr Brougham did not oppose the motion. Whether 30,000l., 10,000l., or nothing, were voted by the House for her Majesty, was to himself, and his honourable colleague, who acted as counsel for her Majesty, a matter of perfect indifference. The Queen refused their money altogether; she

would take no money; she had nothing to do with this grant. At the same time he must appeal to the honourable member, whether it was manly, or decent, or consistent with the forms of the House, that he, and other honourable members, should go on, night after night, canvassing detached portions of the evidence in the Queen's case, all which evidence had been produced before the other House of Parliament? He wished it, however, to be now understood, that if he heard any other member single out parts of this evidence, on which he might have formed an opinion, and deliver his judgment in that House with reference to those particular parts, it was impossible that the matter could rest there. Either the Queen was guilty, or she was not guilty; either she was acquitted, or she was not acquitted.

Sir T. Lethbridge supported Mr Sumner's motion, particularly considering the use to which there was reason to believe the money would be applied, as he had been informed that the courier Bergami was now living at Paris in the style of a nobleman. This was denied by Alderman Wood and Mr Brougham, but confirmed by Lord Lowther, who, in a late excursion to Paris, had Bergami pointed out to him in the street; his style and equipage were on a large and expensive scale. Alderman Wood insisted that Lord Castlereagh had misquoted the speeches made by the Queen at Dover and Canterbury. His lordship, however, though he could not pretend to be as well acquainted with the answers as the honourable alderman, who had travelled through the country for the purpose of knowing them, yet quoted several very recent ones, in which the Queen had called the addressers her subjects. After a great deal of desultory skirmishing of this nature,