to put the sovereign in possession consideration, in determining upon of the real state of the opinions of his people. He contended, that nothing could be more im proper than the mode adopted of late years in framing speeches from the throne; for now, instead of making them comprehend an explanation of the state of the country, the art was, to express in them as little as it was possible for language to convey, for the purpose of avoiding the disagreeable consequences of a debate. Before the speech was taken into consideration, lord Archibald Hamilton gave notice of a motion which he intended to make on the following Friday, relative to the omission of the Queen's name from the Liturgy. Mr. Wetherell immediately moved, "that there be laid on the table of the House, copies of all collects and litanies used in the public Liturgy of the church of England in each reign, from the reign of James I., inclusive, to the present time, in which the name of the queen consort has been inserted from time to time: also, that there be laid on the table of the House copies of all the collects and litanies contained in the 13th of Charles II. chap. iv., commonly called the Statute of Uniformity relative to the king and queen, together with their titles, noticing the manner in which the blanks were to be filled up; and likewise that there be laid upon the table a copy of the order of council, dated Feb. 12, 1820, by which the name of her majesty was ordered to be omitted in the Liturgy." His object was to place the House in possession of the facts and documents, which it would be necessary to take into the legality or illegality of the omission of her majesty's name from the ritual of the church. Lord Castlereagh moved the previous question, which was carried by 260 against 169. Upon this, Mr. Wetherell gave notice of a similar motion for the following day. On that day it was granted without opposition; lord Castlereagh stating, that he had resisted it before, on account of the inconvenient time and informal mode which had been chosen for bringing it forward on the first occasion. In the interval between the late prorogation of parliament and the opening of the present session, all her majesty's friends and all who were, for any reason, hostile to the ministry, had been active in procuring, first, congratulatory addresses to the Queen, and afterwards petitions in her favour to the Lords and to the Commons. These petitions were very numerous, and their language was often extremely violent. The meetings, at which they were agreed to, were attended by multitudes, among whom it was in vain to attempt any opposition; for the lowest populace, ever ready to revile the actual possessors of power, enabled those who espoused her majesty's cause to command a majority. The temperate part of the nation did not choose to compromise their quiet and tranquillity by engaging in political brawls, which could not lead to any important results. In many parts, however, private meetings were held, composed of persons in respectable situations in life, and loyal addresses were drawn up and signed. These per sons were stigmatised by the name of "hole and corner men;" and because a riotous crowd could any where be collected ready to raise their voices for her majesty, it was inferred that the nation In was zealous in her cause. truth, however, she had ceased to excite much interest; and the petitions in her favour emanated not from attachment to her, but from opposition to the ministers. A number of these petitions was presented to the House of Commons on the second day of the session. They complained in general of the late proceedings against her, and prayed that an inquiry might be instituted into the conspiracy from which these proceedings had sprung up, that she might be re-instated in all her rights and privileges, and that her name might be restored to the Liturgy. They gave rise to some short discussion; in the course of which lord Castlereagh stated, that from the moment of withdrawing the bill, the government had renounced all idea of any further hostile proceedings against the Queen. Mr. Brougham immediately inquired, whether he was to understand, that nothing in the nature of punishment would be continued. Lord Castlereagh replied, that punishment was not to be presumed, because the king was not advised to alter arrangements, which had been made before any proceedings were instituted. Many similar petitions were presented to the Lords on the following day (January 25); and some of the peers complained of the obstacles which sheriffs of counties had thrown in the way of public meetings. Lord Carnarvon, in presenting a petition the from Hampshire, alleged, that attempts of a very extraordinary kind had been made to prevent that county from assembling: for members of that House, holding high official situations under government, had put forth a counterrequisition, stating, that they had already sent an address to the king, which rendered unnecessary any further expression of the sentiments of the county. The duke alluded of Wellington, supposing himself persons to be among to by lord Carnarvon, denied that he had signed the counter-requi.sition, though he concurred entirely with those who circulated as to the impropriety of it, a county-meeting. As an address from Hampshire had been already presented to his majesty, signed by nine thousand names, the public opinion of that district had been sufficiently expressed, and it was useless to go through the farce of a county-meeting. At the meeting which did take place, only one side was heard, and one of the members for the county, who differed in opinion from the requisitionists, and attended to state his sentiments, could not procure a hearing. The Whig Peers, and the Opposition Press, laid hold eagerly of the phrase "farce of a countymeeting" which his grace had used; and, not choosing to see, that he had given the name of farce to meetings which would hear only one side, they declaimed against the dangerous doctrine (which nobody had maintained), that county-meetings were mere farces. On the same occasion, lord Grosvenor charged the sheriff of Chester with a gross transgression of duty at the late meeting of that county. There a loyal address had been proposed, to which an amendment was moved by lord Grosvenor, and seconded by lord Crewe. The sheriff, it was asserted, had refused to put the amendment to the vote, and taking the question on the original address, declared, on the first show of hands, that the majority was in its favour. Lord Grosvenor's party asserted that the majority was with them, and demanded a division. This the sheriff refused, and withdrawing from the chair, broke up the meeting. On the 20th of February Mr. Creevy brought this matter regularly before the House of Commons, by a motion for referring to a select committee a petition which complained of the sheriff's conduct. The defence made for that officer was, that the original address was put to the vote before the amendment, from his ignorance of the forms of popular meetings; that the address was actually carried by a large majority; that from the size of the room a division was physically impossible, and that the usual mode of taking the sense of such meetings was by a show of hands. Upon a division, Mr. Creevy's motion was rejected; the Ayes being 65, and the Noes, 122. The conduct of the high sheriff of the county of Dublin on a similar occasion was also subjected to much public animadversion. The charge against him was of the following nature. On the 27th of December, 1820, he published a requisition from some of the nobility, clergy, gentry, and freeholders of the county, requesting him to call a county meeting, for the purpose of voting a loyal address to his majesty; to the re quisition was annexed a notice from himself, appointing the meeting to be held on a subsequent day, at one o'clock, in the countycourt, at Kilmainham. Accordingly the nobility, clergy, gentry, and freeholders, assembled between 12 and 1 o'clock on the day appointed, outside of the court-house. At one o'clock several of the freeholders went to the door, and requesting admission, were told by the policeofficers who surrounded it, that they had express orders from the sheriff not to admit any but those who were pointed out to them. At a quarter past one, the doors were opened, and the freeholders, on entering, found the room nearly filled with persons who had been admitted previously; among whom they recognised most of those who had signed the requisition, and a large body of police-officers. A motion for a loyal address having been made and seconded, the sheriff, without putting the question on it, proceeded himself to name a committee, who were to prepare it. A respectable freeholder remonstrated in the most temperate manner against this mode of acting, and suggested to the sheriff that he ought to take the sense of the meeting in the first instance, whether an address should be voted, and then on each of the names proposed to be on the committee; but the sheriff refused to listen to the suggestion, and proceeded to name the committee, who retired to prepare the address. In their absence, the freeholder who had before suggested a different course, repeated his remonstrances; upon which the high sheriff told him, that if he uttered another word; he would turn him out of the room. In a few minutes the committee returned with the address, and Mr. Byrne, a king's counsel, rose to move an amendment. That gentleman, after a strong declaration of loyal attachment to the throne, went on to lay a ground for the amendment which he meant to propose, by condemning the conduct of ministers. The sheriff interrupted him immediately, saying, that these topics were irrelevant: Mr. Byrne asserted, that he was strictly in order; and the sheriff declared, that if he did not desist, he would call in the military. The sheriff then proceeded to put the question on the original address; but even this question he put in the affirmative only, and hearing a few voices exclaim "ay," he gave it as his opinion, that the address was carried unanimously. The sheriff having then left the chair, a large majority of the freeholders present, thinking that the address was not legally carried, voted lord Cloncurry, a magistrate of the county, into the chair, in order to effect the object for which they had been convoked. That noble lord having taken the chair, the sheriff declared the assembly to be illegal, and quitting the room, commanded all who were loyal men to follow him; and while the meeting was proceeding to vote a loyal address to the king, a body of troops, with an officer at their head, armed with loaded muskets, and some of them with drawn bayonets, entered by all the avenues leading to the court-room, and by threats and personal force applied to lord Cloncurry, compelled him to retire from the chair, and dispersed the assembly. A petition stating these circum stances, on the 22nd of February, On the part of the sheriff it was Lord Folkestone, in the debate on the speech from the throne, had expressed his disapprobation of the language of some of the ministerial addresses which had been opposed to those in favour of the Queen, and had alluded more especially to one from some of the clergy of the church of Scotland. The address was one to the king from the presbytery of Langholme, in the county of Dumfries, and was published in the London Gazette of the 2nd of January last; it had been voted on the 19th of December in the preceding year, and was signed W. B. Shaw, Moderator:"" "We have witnessed, with much concern, and we strongly deprecate, the spirit of disaffection lately become so prevalent, from what we would term the violent and unconstitutional speeches of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament, and the infamous scurrility and misrepresentation of a licentious press. "As teachers of religion, we deplore the infidel sentiments that are sedulously disseminated, and that have contributed, more than any other cause, to excite the feelings which have of late been but too openly manifested; for it must be evident, that when men renounce their allegiance to God, they will also betray their king and country: and would not those to whom we allude rejoice to overturn the altar, the throne, and the constitution, when they scoff at religion, insult their king, and bring such railing accusations against the men, who under an all-wise and over-ruling Providence, and supported by your majesty, have saved their country, and in whom, we will venture to say, the good sense of the nation still confides? "With every good citizen and loyal subject, we reprobate the address and petition of the common council of the city of London, than which a greater insult could not be offered to majesty, and which, it behoves all who wish well to their king and country publicly to condemn; nor can we refrain from reprehending severely, the insolence of certain members of the Opposition upon the late prorogation of parliament; for if such conduct in the representatives of the people pass unnoticed, what may be expected from the people themselves?" On the 1st of February, sir John Newport moved, that this address contained passages in manifest breach of the privileges of parliament, which were the more deserving of notice, because it was said in the Gazette to have been graciously received by his majesty. Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Bragge Bathurst stated, that it had been published by mere inadvertence; that they regretted its publication; and that, had their attention been called to it, it should never have found its way into print. They admitted that it was an infringement of the privilege of the Commons, but suggested, that under the circumstances of the case, the House would do well to abstain from exerting its undoubted authority. Accordingly sir J. Newport, after the motion, which declared the address to be a breach of privilege, had been agreed to without opposition, moved, "That a communication having been officially made to this House, that the insertion in the London Gazette of the aforementioned address from the presbytery of Langholme proceeded from inadvertence to the reprehensible and offensive expressions justly complained of, this House does not feel itself called upon to take further notice of the same." This resolution was also agreed to. It must be observed, that this address had said nothing of parliament as a body. It merely alleged, that the speeches of the Opposition were violent and unconstitutional, and that some of the members had acted with insolence on a particular occasion. It attacked neither the House of Commons as a whole, nor any members in particular. Amid these attempts to extol or deprecate the addresses to the |