66 to the world. That opinion did not originate in, but had been confirmed by, the proceedings themselves; and in the strength with which he had ever entertained it, he repeated, that had he, on a late occasion, been taken from the bar and made a judge, he should have joined in a conscientious verdict of " Not guilty." He begged to solicit the attention of the House for a few moments with respect to the noble lord's statements as to the ,"origin of the proceedings of the Milan commission. They had their origin soon after the death of the late princess Charlotte; for what reason the noble lord had given them a different date might hereafter appear. This was what had been openly asserted, and the noble lord's explanation was a denial of the fact. The noble lord said they did not begin till March; but that they began immediately after the return of her majesty from what was called the long voyage, was admitted by the noble lord himself. He had, therefore, identified the period of the Milan commission, and that of the long voyage. Now, it was in September, 1816, that her majesty returned from the long voyage; and the remainder of 1816, the whole of 1817, and part of 1818, elapsed before the appointment of the Milan commission. Here, then, there was at once an end to that connexion so assidiously endeavoured by the noble lord to be established between the Milan commission and her majesty's return; but there came between the period of that return-and the institution of the commission in 1818, a remarkable and striking event, the death of the princess Charlotte. This event was placed nearer to the date of the commission than the return of the Queen, by a period of very nearly fourteen months; and so much for this point; from which the House would infer what was the true origin of the Milan commission, whatever notion the noble lord had thought proper to adopt of it. her majesty had acted by any other advice than that of her legal advisers. No man who possessed common sense, even in the conduct of his own affairs, could have thought of venturing to advise her in a matter of such importance. It could only be known to her majesty herself, whether those charges were just or otherwise. Her own conscience told her, that she was innocent of those acts which had been falsely imputed to her, in charges which had been, as they were now told, finally abandoned. "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 malevolently 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." [It would be difficult to describe the earnest emphasis with which this asseveration was delivered, the deep interest with which it was listened to, and the enthusiastic and general cheering by which it was greeted.] It was no ordinary occasion that compelled an advocate to travel so far out of his usual tract; but he felt that, upon the present occasion, he had been treated not as the advocate of her majesty; but he had been made a witness against her majesty. That opinion of her majesty's innocence he was known to have uniformly entertained, from the commencement to the termination of the proceedings-an opinion which was not better known to his, private friends than it was published He did not wish to go at length into the details at this hour, and in fact the important, the most material, question which was now before the House was, whether any measure should at all have been introduced against her majesty? But to proceed with his argument. This conduct of her majesty was alleged to have been carried on, not in private, but in public. The place was in Naples, not of the parties was, to inform themselves of the truth of the information which they had got. The same objection applied to their conduct in the secret committee. They had called so many witnesses, and they said that they might have called others; but he asked, why had they not called Dr. Holland, lady Charlotte Lindsay, Mrs. Falconet, and several other most respectable individuals, whose situation had given them such opportunities as must have rendered their testimony of great. importance? Why had they not produced any of these persons to corroborate some of the servants, as they might have done, if the story told by those servants were true? But it might perhaps he said to the friends of the Queen, "Why did you not call those witnesses, seeing that they were open to you?" He would answer, in ordinary places; and when it was considered that it was alleged to have been committed in various public places, it was astonishing that it should not have been observed by any witnesses above the character of those whom the noble lord had described. If any indecency were committed by her majesty at a public masquerade-if she were guilty of any indecorum at a theatre-if she committed any impropriety at a ball, it could not be said to be done in a corner; it was not done before a set of low servants, such as the noble lord had mentioned, and who were produced on the trial; it was done, he had almost said, in the face of day; but though he could not strictly say so, because those balls were held at night, yet he would say that her conduct must have been open to the observation of persons of the highest rank— before the royal court of Naples. Now," We did call them; and it was because he would ask-he would not dwell upon the improbability of any impropriety having taken place under such circumstances, for that had been already argued several times-but he would ask, would it not strike the mind of any man who was not disposed to be only of one opinion on the subject, that if the story told by those servants of this impropriety were true, it might have been borne out by the testimony of some one of those respectable individuals who must also have witnessed some part of the alleged misconduct? If they had been called, and had given evidence corroborative of that of the servants, then indeed there might be some ground for the believing it; but if all of those who were applied to had flatly discredited every such account, could it be said, that there was a shadow of ground for believing the whole? Or if there had been no application on the part of the prosecutors for the testimony of any such respectable individuals, must not the inference be this, and this only, that no pains whatever had been taken by them to inform themselves whether there was a sufficient ground for them to have gone upon? This, then, was what he charged upon ministers, that in all and every stage of this most unfortunate proceeding, from the sending out of the Milan commission down to the latest act in it, they had not taken any of those ordinary pains, or made any of those ordinary exertions, which would have been necessary on the most common occasion, where the object we did call them, that we have a right to assume that if you had called them before, they would have completely defeated the story which your servants, and others of that description, had got up." This omission of calling all the witnesses, whose evidence would have put the country in possession of the truth, was a stigma on the case, which no majority, however numerous, would destroy. It was a stigma on these proceedings, which, if, to use the words of the master of the Mint they (the Opposition) were to be beaten to pieces, would never be forgotten by the country. They had, as was said, been beaten on one side the other evening, and they were now to get the knock on the other side to-night, which was to put an end to them; but out of their ruin would arise what would prove the disgrace of those who had been instrumental in bringing on and sanctioning this violation of justice. He said, out of their ruins, and after the pæans which were rung in anticipation of triumph. had subsided, and were heard no more, would arise what would remain a lasting disgrace to the parliament which had supported such measures-measures which, he maintained, were scandalous to parliament. It would never be forgotten, that ministers, having it in their power to produce the means of ascertaining the truth, had neglected those means-had chosen to bring in this bill, when, by sending for one or two witnesses, who were, he might say, living in their neighbourhood, they might have prevented all the injustice and infamy which had fol-, lowed. The hon. and learned gentleman followed up his reasoning on this part of the question in a most impressive and eloquent manner. Adverting to the Milan commission, which the noble lord had described as having been employed in a rigorous investigation to vindicate the character of the Queen, he observed, that the House would not know what was the description of the witnesses out of the eighty whom they had rejected. The House might, however, judge of their anxiety to avoid sending any thing very low or mean when they sent out Restelli; of their wish to avoid every thing that was filthy when they sent the pimp Cuchi; of their determination to avoid sending any one who was infamous and degraded when they sent Majoochi, Sacchi, and that pattern for all modest chambermaids, Mademoiselle De Mont. In conclusion, he said, that every act of his, in the course of this proceeding, had been governed solely by his duty to his Queen, and his attention to the interests of his country. [Loud and repeated cheers.] The question being put, the House divided Ayes, 178; Noes, 324: Majority against the motion, 146.-Adjourned at half-after six in the morning. : List of the Majority-and also of the Minority. MAJORITY. Acland, sir Thomas Broadhead, T. H. Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C. Bruce, Robert Cockerell, sir C. Dowdeswell, J. E. Duncombe, C. Dundas, rt. hon. W. Egerton, W. Estcourt, T. G. A'Court, E. H. Browne, rt. hon. D. Drake, W. T. Alexander, J. Browne, J. Dunalley, Lord Alexander, J. D. Browne, P. Dugdale, D. Ancram, lord Brownlow, C. Apsley, lord Brudenell, lord Ashurst, W. Burgh, sir Ulysses Dunlop, J. Astley, J. D. Burrell, Sir C. Balfour, John Burrell, Walter Elliot, hon. W. Bankes, Henry Buxton, J. J. Ellis, C. Rose Bankes George Legge, hon. H. Calthorpe, hon. F. Ellis, Thomas Barne, M. Calvert, John Ellison, C. Bastard, captain Cartwright, R. Bathurst, rt. hon. B. Castlereagh, lord Bathurst, hon. S. Cawthorne, J. F. Fairlie, sir W. C. Fane, John Fane, Vere Fane, Thomas Forbes, C. Wilson, sir H. W. Luttrell, J. Scott, C. Lygon, hon. H. B Seymour, Hugh TELLERS. Binning, lord Macdonald, R. G. Seymour, Horace Mackenzie, Thomas Shaw, Robert Lushington, S. R. PAIRED OFF. Macnaghten, A. Bouverie, hon. B. Hope, sir W. Needham, hon. F. Sheldon, R. Blackburne, John Smith, Ashton Manners, lord C. Shiffner, sir G. Manners, lord R. Sibthorpe, D. W. MINORITY. Mansfield, John Smith, Christopher Abercromby, hon. J. Folkestone, viscount Marjoribanks, S. S. Sneyd, N. Maxwell, J. W. Somerset, lord G. Allen, J. H. Farrand, Robert Glenorchy, viscount Marryat, J. Somerset, lord E. Anson, sir G. Gordon, Robert Martin, Richard Somerville, sir M. Martin, sir T. B. Southeron, F. Anson, hon. G. Graham, Sandford Graham, J. R. G. Mills, C. Staunton, sir G. Barham, J. F. jun. Grant, J. P. Mitchell, John Stewart, hon. J. H. K. Baring, sir Thomas Griffith, J. W. Money, W. T. Stewart, A. Baring, Alexander Monteith, H, Stewart, W. Baring, Henry Montgomery, J. Strathaven, lord Barnard, viscount Miles, P. I. Strutt, colonel Barrett, S. M. Morgan, sir C. St. Paul, sir H. Sumner, G. Holme Thynne, lord John Townshend, hon. H. Tremayne, J. H. Trench, F. W. Suttie, sir J. Swann, Henry Taylor, sir H. Nightingale, sir M. Temple, earl Nicholl, sir Jolm Nolan, M. Ommaney, sir F. O'Neil, hon. J. Onslow, A. Tulk, C. A. Owen, sir John Twiss, H. Paget, sir C. Pakenham, hon. H. Paget, hon. B. Palk, sir L. Peel, right hon. R. Upton, Hon. A. Uxbridge, earl of Vansittart, rt. hon. N. Benett, John Calcraft, John Belgrave, viscount Calcraft, J. H. jun. Vivian, sir H. Lamb, hon. W. Walker, J. Wallace, rt. hon. T. Walpole, lord Cavendish, lord G. Ward, R. Chaloner, Robert Warrender, sir G. Clifford, captain Warren, C. Clifton, viscount Wells, John Pitt, J. Pitt, W. M. Pollington, Pole, sir P. lord Pole, rt. hon. W. W. Pollen, sir John Powell, sir J. K. Powell, E. Prendergast, M. Penruddock, Pringle, sir W. Ray, sir W. Rayne, Jonathan Rice, hon. G. Rickett, C. M. Robertson, A. Robinson, rt. hon. F. Rocksavage, lord Rogers, E. Wemyss, L. Westenra, hon. H. Wigram, sir R. Whitmore, Thomas Wigram, W. Wilberforce, W. Wilbraham, E. B. Coke, T. W. jun. Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M. Wortley, S. Wrottesley, H. Wyndham, W. Fitzroy, lord C. Ryder, rt. hon. Rd, Wynn, C. W. Fitzroy, lord J. Russell, J. W. Lennard, T. B. Marjoribanks, sir J, Neville, hon. R. O'Callaghan, J. Ord, W. Ossulston, lord HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, February 8. PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.] Lord Ebrington presented a petition from South Moulton, condemning the proceedings against the Queen, and praying for an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the Milan commission. His lordship stated, that 976 signatures had been affixed to this petition in a space of eight days; and that he could bear testimony to the respectability of many of those signatures. On the other hand, the corporation address of the same town, which address contained many unnecessary protestations of loyalty, had received only 183 signatures in a longer space of time, and five were those of excisemen. The noble lord opposite had observed, that the good sense of the country was to be collected from corporation addresses. Now, it was a fact, that several of those who signed the loyal address of South Moulton had also affixed their names to the petition he had the honour to present. Mr. Monck presented petitions from Hungerford and Newbury, complaining of the distresses under which the petitioners laboured, and praying for the discontinuance of any further proceedings against her majesty, and the restoration of her name to the Liturgy. Adverting ■ to the depression of trade at Newbury, the hon. gentleman observed, that that place had formerly returned members to parliament, but had been relieved from doing so by its own prayer. At that period members of parliament received wages from their constituents. If such were the case at present-if other boroughs, which, like Newbury, had lost their trade, were compelled to pay wages to their representatives, he believed that one and all would petition to be disfranchised. But circumstances were now very different. If many of the boroughs had lost their regular trade, they had found a new, but he feared a contraband one, although it did not appear to be at all offensive to the gentlemen of the Treasury. He trusted that parliament would attend to the public feeling, which had been so strongly expressed with reference to her majesty. He was not one of those who held that the old maxim "Vox populi vox Dei," was to be acknowledged on all occasions. Sometimes he knew that the people were mistaken. For instance, in the cry some years ago, of "No popery;" a cry encouraged by ministers themselves, and to the prevalence of which they were indebted for their power. Such an expression of popular sentiment was far from being identified with consummate wisdom. But, whenever the expression of public feeling was reasonable, even whenever_it was harmless, it ought to be attended to. He was persuaded that the public tranquillity would not be restored until her majesty's name was restored to the Liturgy. Mr. Denison presented a petition from the freeholders of Surrey. It prayed for economical reform, the abolition of useless offices, and the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. No county was more loyal than the county of Surrey; and he believed that the prayer of their petition was that of nine-tenths of the people of this country. Whatever taunts might be thrown out against petitioning by the noble lord opposite, he hoped the people would never be prevented from exercising that valuable and constitutional right. |