it advisable to give way to his feelings, which were, however, in this case, still in opposition to his sounder judgment. He had not ascertained, whether they had yet made up their minds to pass the vote, in favour of the high personage interested, in the character of Queen Consort of England, or in her character of companion of the grand master of the order of St. Caroline. He would however, support the original proposition: though at an earlier stage of the business he would have felt inclined to make use of the words which had been quoted by a learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Denmau) in another place, and have said "Take your thirty thousand pounds," and "go and sin no more."

Mr. Brougham said, that he could not allow such a gross perversion of the words of his learned friend to pass unnoticed, as the House had just heard. But this misinterpretation had appeared heretofore, although it was more gross and perverted than any individual who was candid, could make of the words of any man. The fact was, that his learned friend had no such meaning in the words which he had used, as that which was imputed to him. But he was quite satisfied, that the last speaker had only repeated that, which the colouring of others had suggested to his mind, without any intention to misrepresent.

The question, "that 50,000/. stand part of the said resolution" was then put and agreed to, without a division.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, February 2.

PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.] Sir Robert Wilson presented a petition from the Coopers of London, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. It was signed, he said, by 1,300 persons. They prayed also, that inquiry might be made into the Milan commission, and that ministers might be dismissed. With respect to the Milan commission, he looked upon it as an illegal establishment, a sort of agency-board for carrying on the business of a conspiracy against her majesty. This appeared evident from the the witnesses they procured, who were utterly unworthy of credit, and whose evidence was improbable, or rather impossible. They appeared never to have made any inquiry as to the credibility of the witnesses, or the truth of their statements, but shewed the utmost remissness in this and every other respect. Their only object seemed to have been to collect what evidence they could against her majesty, whether true or false. He had it upon the honour of the Austrian ambassador to the court of Naples, that every thing stated by the witnesses respecting her majesty's conduct at the court of Naples was wholly false. If there was no charge against the commissioners, it would be only fair, on the Sir Francis Blake said, he had been part of ministers, to give them an oppormade to assert the other night that, minis-tunity of defending themselves, by allowters intended to promote a revolution. ing some inquiry to be gone into. He What he had said was, that this was the demned, in severe terms, the manner in age of revolutions, and he should not which her majesty was treated by many wonder if ministers produced one. There hon. gentlemen in that House, who used was a wide difference between an act in such language as left her no alternative tentionally committed, and that which but to demand another trial, for the purwas the effect of blindness. He did not pose of vindicating herself against those think ministers would promote one inten- aspersions. tionally, for the best of all reasons-selfpreservation; it being obvious, that they would be the first sufferers by such an event. With regard to the sums proposed, instead of a smaller he should have been inclined to move a larger sum for her majesty, had not the situation of the country induced him to suspend his intention. The explanation given by a worthy alderman, that her majesty paid her bills every month, was an example well worthy of imitation in other quarters.

Mr. Forbes said, it was generally believed, that the words had been used. They had not been denied. In what sense they were used he could not take upon himself to say.

con

Lord Sefton presented a similar petition from Liverpool. It was signed, he said, by 10,000 inhabitants. He could vouch for the respectability of many of the names. They prayed, that the question concerning the Queen should be agitated no longer, that she might be restored to all her rights and dignities, that inquiry should be made into the outrages at Manchester, the taxes diminished, and the people admitted to a larger share in the legislature than they at present enjoyed,

gether preconcerted, and that the individuals by whom it was so preconcerted, were determined to prevent any discussion. Having contended, that public meetings were productive only of confusion, they created confusion for the purpose of proving their own argument. He begged to be distinctly understood however, as not meaning to apply this observation to the larger part of the more respectable portion of the class of individuals to whom he alluded. He was the more disposed to consider the tumult intentional, because it began the moment her majesty's name was mentioned. Now, though there might be shades of difference of opinion on the subject, there was not a man in the city of London who did not deplore the intro

the petitioners against those proceedings. They felt, that her majesty had been prosecuted without any adequate political necessity; that the charge brought against her had been supported, or attempted to be supported, by evidence of the most horrible, disgusting, and detestable nature that had ever been brought into a court of justice. If the succession of the Crown had been endangered, then the people would have been content to pay the penalty of enduring the evils of such a measure, in order to secure the future peace of the country. The proceedings against her majesty, as had been well observed by an hon. relative of his (Mr. Wilberforce), were calculated to injure the morals of the country. Ministers had many great and arduous duties to per-duction of it as a national calamity, and form; but he knew of no greater duty which devolved on them, than that of preserving the morals of the country. Many complaints had been made by ministers of immorality in a certain quarter, but they themselves were the greater sinners. He was aware, that some loyal and independent gentlemen, men of high character, had, without any public notice, met in a tavern for the purpose of presenting a loyal address to the throne. To that address he had no objection to offer. He would have willingly signed it; but he felt, in common with the petitioners, that the present state of the country required something more to be said. Of the loyalty of the petitioners, no man could doubt; nor did he mean to cast any imputation upon the loyalty of the gentlemen who got up the loyal address. The petitioners felt it their duty, in consequence, to call a meeting of the merchants, bankers, and traders of London, which, by the kindness of the Lord Mayor, took place in a large hall in the MansionAt that meeting, he (Mr. Smith) had the honour to move certain resolutions, on which the petition was founded. Although anxious not to increase irritation or ill-blood on that occasion, he was bound to speak the truth. The meeting was composed of the largest assembly of welldressed persons that perhaps ever were brought together in London. The proceedings commenced quietly enough; but when it came to his lot to move the third resolution, a clamour arose such as he had never before heard; and which, for the time, put an end to all discussion. He was compelled to say, that he had reason to believe, that this clamour was alto

who was not of opinion, that the prosecution was most inexpedient, because he well knew, that whatever might be the case elsewhere, there could not be the most distant hope, that in that House, under all the circumstances of the case, and without the power of administering an oath, a subject so large and complicated could ever be brought to a successful issue. The inhabitants of the city of London therefore thought, that the proceeding which had taken place was calculated merely to throw an unfair imputation on the unfortunate and illustrious lady in question. As that was the universal sentiment of the city of London, he must think, that the clamour which took place, was occasioned only by the wish to prevent discussion. In vain did the chief magistrate of the city exert himself in every possible way to keep order. He (Mr. S.) had heard of a protest in the papers signed by a gentleman whom he did not know, declaring, that it was not understood that the resolutions were put, and that if that had been understood, a great majority would have shown itself against them. As that protest was signed only by an individual, and as the hon. baronet opposite allowed, that there was a majority in favour of the resolutions, he did not think it would be considered as entitled to great weight. The hon. baronet, with his usual good humour, admitted, that the question was carried against him. So much, then, for this part of the subject; but he must solicit the indulgence of the House whilst he offered a few words on the subject of the disturbance. It had given him considerable pain, because it bore the aspect of an approach to that sort of intolerance

which must produce ill effects when intro- | duced into political discussion. In that House, the most marked diversity of opinion created no sentiment of malevolence, but, on the contrary, was often found to be compatible with perfect friendship. When, therefore, he saw people of education, evincing a spirit of this kind, he could not help viewing it as a prelude to something worse. He hoped, however, that two good consequences would result from this occurrence; first, that there would be no more clandestine meetings, and, secondly, that if there should be large and public meetings, they would be conducted with order and propriety.

Sir W. Curtis expressed his full concurrence with the hon. gentleman in many of his observations, and agreed also in the correctness of some parts of the statement which he had made, relative to what took place at the meeting from which this petition proceeded. The meeting had been very properly called on a requisition most honourably sigued, containing the names of men of the highest character, as well as of the greatest property. He was, however, compelled to differ from his hon. friend in one respect. His honourable friend had said, that the declaration agreed to at the London Tavern could only be regarded as that of the individuals by whom it was subscribed, and that it did not record the sentiments of the merchants and bankers of London. Now, although he was disposed to allow the respectability and opulence of those who called the public meeting, he would assert, that the declaration was signed by persons of as much property and honour, to the fullest extent. He did not know why, because one party thought fit to hold a public meeting, it should quarrelwith another, that adopted a different mode of declaring its opinions. The declaration of the latter was certainly mild and moderate enough; no loyal man could dissent from it; it was indeed but a-milk and-water kind of production. No other mode, however, was presented of testifying his attachment to the throne, and he thought, it was a time, when that attachment, and a determination to support the throne, ought to be declared. He denied, that he ever did any thing in a hole or corner: whatever he did, he wished the world to know. The declaration originated in a peaceable and quiet meeting, and he for one, thought it might serve to cheer up his majesty, if at such a time they passed a resolution

one

approving of the conduct of his ministers. He did not think his hon. friend was quite correct in his account of what happened at the Mansion-house. His hon. friend was extremely well heard for a considerable time, although symptoms of disapprobation at last broke out. This was not surprising, where the subject was with regard to which as much difference of opinion prevailed out of the house as within it, and as to which he believed a still greater majority of thinking people out of the House than in it were of an opinion different from that of his hon. friend. He certainly lamented the late inquiry; he wished it could have been wisely avoided; and he wished now, that the subject could be forgotten. To come back, however, to the meeting-his hon. friend had obtained as good a hearing as he could have expected, and the first resolution was put and carried. As several others remained, he (Sir W. Curtis) offered himself to the attention of the assembly, which was certainly composed of an immense number of well-dressed and goodlooking people. A large party immediately opposed him, and would not hear a single word that he had to offer. But what did all this prove. That it was impossible in a populous city, where the minds of men were much agitated and at variance on any subject, to draw any conclusion from the proceedings of such a meeting. It required great strength to be able to maintain a place in such a meeting. He knew several hale young men who had been present, and who declared, that they would never go to such a meeting again. He was surprised to find the name of an hon. member on the opposite side, who had himself been a party not two years ago to a private meeting such as that from which the late declaration emanated, to the requisition for the meeting at the Mansion-house. This appeared to him to be somewhat inconsistent. As to the way in which the question had been put, as he had retired from his place at the time, he could not speak to it; but he believed it was generally understood, that the motion on which the show of hands took place was, that the question should not be put.

Mr. Astell begged to defend himself from the charge of inconsistency. When a-year and a-half ago he had assisted at a private meeting of the merchants and bankers of London, the country was then in a different state. If new lights