country, to recommend, and even to solicit, again and again, the renewal of negotiations, which might have prevented the necessity of the late inquiry. It had, however, been gone into; and, though her majesty had withstood its terrors-though she had come through it with that which nothing but the grossest injustice could refuse to her-an absolute acquittal; yet it had been entirely owing to her majesty's own consciousness of innocence, that she had refused to listen to any terms whatever. "I have stated thus much," continued the hon. and learned gentleman, "as to the conduct of the Queen. It is fit I should now discharge what I call a debt of justice to her. I know it has been invidiously and male volently asserted, and most industriously circulated, for purposes which must be obvious to every man, that my expressed opinions of her majesty's conduct are not the same in fact with my own conscientious conviction. It is necessary, Sir, for me, with that seriousness and sincerity, which it may be permitted to a man upon the most solemn occasions to express, to assert which I do now assert in the face of this House-that if, instead of an advocate, I had been sitting as a judge, at another tribunal, I should have been found among the number of those, who, laying their hands upon their hearts, conscientiously pronounced her majesty Not guilty. For the truth of this assertion, I desire to tender every pledge, that may be most valued and most sacred. I wish to make it in every form which may be deemed most solemn and most binding; and if I believe it not, as I now advance

it, I here imprecate on myself every curse which is most horrid and most penal."

The question being put, there appeared for lord Tavistock's motion, 178, and against it, 324; leaving a majority with ministers, of 146. The House did not adjourn till half-past six in the morning.

With respect to Mr. Brougham's speech on this occasion, we cannot but observe, that his explanation of the cause of the refusal of the terms which he had suggested

his apology for his own delayand his protestation in favour of the Queen's innocence, are all somewhat unsatisfactory. The terms which he had suggested in 1819, expressly provided for the demise of the crown; and yet Mr. Brougham could assert, that they did not contemplate such an event. He had the boldness to ask, why had not ministers proceeded in the negotiation between June 1819, and February, 1820: forgetting that he had received an answer to his proposal, and that it then lay with him to communicate with his client, and procure authority to act in her behalf.

After he had received written proposals from lord Liverpool, he could not forthsooth impart them to her majesty, because he could not possibly travel as far as Geneva; what duties then, had he to perform, either in parliament, or at the bar, so urgent as to make it his duty to neglect the most important commission with which any individual could be charged? As to his solemn protestation, it may be doubted, whether it did not strengthen, rather than weaken the rumours in circulation, with respect to

his own doubts of his client's conduct. A juryman must often say, "not guilty," when his moral conviction is quite the other way and Mr. Brougham, purposely, as it would seem, using a most circuitous mode of expression, while he formally announced what his judicial determination would have been, left his sincere belief, as an individual, still a matter of doubt.

The Opposition, having now made a trial of their strength, both on the expediency of originally omitting her majesty's name from the Liturgy, and on the general conduct of ministers towards her, made a last effort in her cause, by bringing forward a resolution for restoring her name to the public prayers of the church. This was done by Mr. John Smith, on the 13th of February; his motion was drawn up in these words: "That this House having taken into its consideration the circumstance of her majesty's name not being inserted in the collects, prayers, and litanies of the church; and also the numerous petitions from the people, addressed to this House, complaining thereof, is of opinion, that under all existing circumstances, it is highly expedient, that her majesty's name should be inserted in the said collects, prayers, and litanies, and that such a measure would greatly tend to remove the discontents that exist on that subject, in the public mind." Among those who supported it, was Mr. Wilberforce. This he did, chiefly from a consideration of the effect which the course recommended by Mr. Smith would produce on the popular mind. The omission, he said, was brought under public

notice every Sunday, and the wound, which might otherwise be healed, was kept in a state of continued irritation. Such an effect could not but be prejudicial to our church establishment, at a time when there were too many causes at work for its overthrow

at a time when so many mischievous men were industriously employing every means for the destruction, both of our religious and civil constitution. He had been informed, that the Queen, whilst excluded from the prayers of the established church, was prayed for in most of the Methodist chapels. Nothing seemed so well calculated as the present state of things, for bringing into disrespect and contempt, an ecclesiastical system, sealed with the blood of martyrs, and from which the Dissenters themselves had derived all the advantages which they enjoyed. He would, therefore, guard and cherish, with redoubled earnestness, what was so sacred in itself, and was now threatened by so many dangers. Those dangers were rendered formidable, both by the pressure of the times, and the unceasing efforts made by the malicious to estrange the present generation from the religion of their forefathers. True justice, true dignity, and true magnanimity, did not in his opinion, consist in resolutely adhering to a measure, because it had been once adopted. If its abandonment was likely to confer a substantial benefit on the country, it became a magnanimous, as well as an honest, man to sacrifice his own opinion to the general interest. Let not the House conceive, that to yield to the present motion was to declare a be

lief of the innocence of the Queen. With him (Mr. Wilberforce) the innocence or guilt of her majesty weighed not a feather. Indepen-. dently of any feeling upon that point, he would vote for the motion, because he thought that its success would go to tranquillize the country. Upon a division, the Ayes were 178, the Noes 298, leaving a majority of 120 against Mr. Smith's motion.

This may be regarded as the last great effort made by the Opposition in behalf of her majesty; and as the result showed, that their whole strength had been mustered on lord Tavistock's motion, the subject, though often alluded to on discussion, was not again made the formal topic of debate, except on one particular point of legal technicality, relating to a supposed infringement of the privileges of the Church of Scotland. On the 15th of February, lord Arch. Hamilton brought this matter forward. He stated, that upon the death of the late king an order in council, precisely similar to that issued in England, had been sent down to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The order referred to two acts of parliament, on which it purported to proceed the 10th of Anne, and the 32nd of George III.-by neither of which could it be authorized: inasmuch as the former merely commanded the clergy of Scotland to pray for queen Anne and the princess Sophia, while the latter related solely to the episcopalians of Scotland. The order, the noble lord contended, was therefore illegal, being an arbitrary assumption of authority in the religious worship of Scotland, over which the crown

had no controul: and accordingly it had been generally and universally disregarded. Two instances were then mentioned by him, in which this order had given rise to proceedings which merited animadversion. The first took place at a meeting of the Kirk session of Kirkcudbright, at which the sheriff of the county, his son, a colonel of yeomanry, and the clergyman were present. At that meeting, the sheriff and his son, agreed, that in compliance with the order in council, they should prevent the Queen from being prayed for. The clergyman, however, dissented from their opinion, and refused to omit the prayer for her majesty's name. The matter was then referred to the presbytery, who approved of the conduct of the clergyman, disapproved of the order in council, ordered the minute of the sheriff's approval to be erased, the parties to appear before them for reprimand, and the whole decision to be read in the church. The second case was that of another sheriffof a Scotch county, who was also a colonel of yeomanry. The colonel (Gordon) asked Mr. Gillespie, the clergyman of his district, whether he was a party to any agreement not to omit the prayer for the Queen in the church service. The clergyman replied, that he would act in obedience to the law of the land; and at the end of a sermon which he preached (remarkable for nothing but the propriety of its language and sentiments), after praying for the king, he said,

and bless likewise the Queen.” For that conclusion the clergyman was on the same Sunday put under arrest; not indeed under ac

tual personal restraint; but he was desired to consider himself as arrested, and the arrest was continued for some time. This latter transaction had led to a correspondence between colonel Gordon and lord Sidmouth. The noble lord concluded by moving for a copy of the order in council, of the 20th of February, 1820, transmitted to the moderator of the General Assembly of Scotland; and also for a copy of the letter written by lord Sidmouth to colonel Gordon of the Kirkcudbright yeomanry, or to the lord lieutenant of the county, during the year 1820, relative to placing the Rev. Wm. Gillespie, officiating chaplain of the said corps, under military arrest.

The Lord Advocate contended, that the privy council had a right to issue the order in question to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, on the ground, that the 10th of Anne, chap. 7, sec. 10, was not confined to queen Anne and the electress Sophia, but extended to every future sovereign and heir apparent; and as a proof that it had been so construed, he produced decisions of the court of session, by which persons had been convicted and punished for not praying for Geo. I. This, it ought to be observed, would prove only that the privy council had the right to command the king to be prayed for; but would not give them any power to restrain the clergy of Scotland from praying for the Queen too; and this the lord advocate candidly admitted. He admitted further, that the 32nd of his late majesty was applicable merely to the episcopalian clergy; but as to

this admission, lord Castlereagh differed from him. With respect to the particular instances mentioned, without defending the rashness which had been displayed in both of them, he maintained that there was no necessity for the interference of the House. The first had been long since terminated by the measures, which the presbytery had pursued. As to the arrest of Mr. Gillespie, the commanding officer had communicated it to the lord lieutenant of the county; and he, without either approving or disapproving what had been done, communicated it to the secretary for the home-department. Government refused to interfere: it was immediately intimated to Mr. Gillespie, that his arrest was at an end; and the parties were left to settle the affair between them. selves. The clergyman had at first threatened to bring an action against colonel Gordon; but, at the suggestion of his friends, he had thought that it would be better to make it the subject of reference, and had finally left it to the award of the lord advocate himself, who, after endeavouring to decline the task, had at last been obliged to undertake it. Under such circumstances, there was no ground for bringing either transaction before parliament.Sir James Macintosh and lord Castlereagh took a share in the debate; but Mr. J. P. Grant suggested the only new topics, that were urged in it. To oppose the cases adduced by the lord advocate, he contended, that subsequent acts of parliament proved that the 10th of Anne was not considered by the legislature as extending to whoever might be

sovereign for the time being; and in proof of this, he appealed to the 5th George I. chapter 29, sect. 3. That act had been passed in 1719. The last case quoted by the lord advocate was in 1718; consequently the act was later authority than any of the cases cited. The 5th of George I. prohibited any number of persons, exceeding nine, to assemble in a meeting-house or episcopal place of worship, who did not pray for the king, the prince and princess of Wales, and their issue, under the pain of imprisonment for six months. Here there was no reference to the act of queen Anne. How then did the case stand? The act of Anne was either effectual, or it was ineffectual. If it was effectual, there was no need of a new act; if it was not effectual, and a new act was required, then had the force of the act of

queen Anne ceased with her life. The House having divided, there appeared,

For the motion...... 35
Against it............110

Majority- -75

The bill for granting her majesty an annuity of 50,000l. went through the regular stages; and, though there were members who objected to the sum as too large, it was passed. Her majesty, notwithstanding her declaration that she would not accept of any provision while her name was excluded from the Liturgy, changed her purpose and received the money. Her conduct and her treatment ceased to be the theme of parliamentary discussion, till the very close of the session; when some weak attempts were made to agitate her claims to share in the honours of the coronation ceremony.