Mr. N. Calvert seconded the motion, observing, that if the right of representation were transferred to Leeds, the members returned would not be independent, as they must expect to be turned out whenever they should vote against the opinion or interests of the majority of the clothiers by whom they were returned. Such members must, indeed, support all the commercial speculations of their constituents.

Mr. Stuart Wortley observed, that the objection urged by the last speaker against the proposed transfer of the right of returning representatives to Leeds, would operate equally against the present system of representation for all populous towns

for instance. Putting aside all general opinions as to the necessity of parlia mentary reform, here was a blot hit; and if a remedy was to be applied, let it be applied in the way best calculated to benefit the public. Now, in giving two additional members to the county of York, nothing was done for the improvement of the representation. Every freeholder

the right of representation from Gram-Parliament, of whom two to be sent pound to Leeds, on the ground that such from the West Riding, and two from transfer would involve a departure from the North and East Ridings of the said the principle laid down by the House in county." -1771, and that therefore it proposed an innovation that ought to be resisted. But, if the right hon. gentleman had been a member of the House in 1771, he would most probably have resisted the principle then established, as an innovation also; for it was much more an innovation than that which he had on this occasion sub'mitted to the House, the only difference being, that instead of extending the right of voting to the freeholders resident in the vicinity of a corrupt borough (which measure would still include the inhabitants of that corrupt borough), he proposed to transfer that right to another and more populous district. In acting upon this principle, too, he was acting in conformity with the ancient usages of the con--for Westminster, Bristol, or Liverpool stitution. With respect to the argument that it was unfair to propose disfranchisement of all the electors of Grampound, in consequence of the corruption of some, the only answer it required was a statement of the fact that this borough had been, for a series of years, notoriously corrupt. One of the witnesses indeed had deposed that, according to his belief, there were three or four electors in Gram-in that county had some one present in the pound who were not bribed. But this was all that appeared in evidence to save that borough from the charge of corruption, and could such an expression of belief be urged in favour of such flagrant criminality as had been proved against Grampound? The president of the Board of Control had said, that there were persons who would be pleased with the rejection of the bill, as it might afford them an opportunity of saying that the House discouraged every step towards reform. If there were such persons he could assure the gentlemen opposite, that he had no disposition, whatever, to countenance or support. He would, however, invoke the House to adopt that course of reform which was called for by all the rational, constitutional, and sober friends of liberty, justice, and the country, as the best means of guarding against the views of those who looked for reform through violence and mischief.

The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Beaumont then moved, "That
it be an instruction to the Committee,
that they have power to enable the county
of York to send four Members to serve in

House of Commons to protect his interests';
but in Leeds, as in other great towns,
there was an immense body of persons
in the habit of thinking much upon
political subjects, who had no organ what-
ever in that House whereby to express
themselves. It was a considerable ad-
vantage to the House to have within it
the immediate representative of a large
body of men, and particularly of a large
body of manufacturers. With respect to
the county of York itself, did the hon.
member think that (as regarded the
transfer which he proposed) mere in-
structions to the committee would be suf-
ficient for his purpose? Much machinery
must be put in action before Yorkshire
could be divided into two counties. At
present Yorkshire had but one sheriff and
but one county court; in the event of
division, there must be two sheriffs and
two county courts. The proposal of the
hon. member brought with it many
other disadvantages. Yorkshire was ac-
customed to meet as a whole county, and
it was the boast of its inhabitants that it
carried with it more weight, from its
great extent, than any county in England.

True, there were separate ridings, and
each riding had its separate lord-lieu-
tenant, and its separate clerk of the peace;
but there were no meetings of ridings.
The gentlemen met at the assizes, and
upon grand juries; and every where it was
a meeting of the county of York, not
of a separate riding. It was a mistake to
suppose that York, as a county, had a
very great number of voters. Upon that
point, Yorkshire was far exceeded by
Lancashire-Lancashire having 60,000
voters, and York, at the last election, only
26,000. If, however, the House did me-
ditate any thing like reform, a transfer
to Yorkshire was not the mode of carrying
such an intention into effect. If the
House inade up its mind to say, "We will
not give members to these great towns,
but we will give them to the counties,"
the
consequence must be, that the whole
representation would fall into the hands
of the aristocracy ;-there would be no-
thing, but county members and members
for nomination boroughs. The plain and
obvious course in taking away the right of
representation from a town which had fallen
into decay was, to give it to some other
town which had risen in point of popula-
tion and of importance. To Leeds, there-
fore, he should be inclined to transfer the
franchise from Grampound. He thought
that a representative from that town, as
the center of a great clothing country,
would be efficient in the House, and he
thought that the right of representation
would, to the town of Leeds itself, be
matter of very considerable advantage.
- Mr. Alderman Heygate supported the
extension of the right to the town of
Leeds. He thought its adoption would
give satisfaction to the country.

on the half of the county, that the expenses of an election for Yorkshire were so enormous, that there were not above five or six individuals in the country who were, in point of finance, capable of entering the lists as candidates. By dividing the representation, the expense of contested elections to the candidates would be considerably diminished, and. the representation itself would be rendered more easily attainable, and the number of canditates would, of course,. increase.

The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 126: Majority against the Instruction, 60. The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

QUEEN'S ANNUITY BILL.] The House. having resolved itself into a committee on this bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the blank be filled up. with the sum of 50,000%.

Mr. Alderman C. Smith rose to state the reasons which induced him to object to the proposed grant. Notwithstanding the disgusting nature of the details exhibited by the evidence on the late trial of her majesty, he had felt it his duty to give his most serious attention to so very important a subject, and the result. was, that he could not conscientiously agree, even if he could overlook the past, that so large a sum should be entrusted to such hands. He was persuaded the Queen had got those persons about her who would persuade her, notwithstanding her expressed determination to the contrary, to accept the proferred. bounty of parliament, and he much feared, from the well-known character of those persons, that the greater part of this Mr. H. Sumner supported the amend- immense sum would be applied to inment. An hon. gentleman had spoken creasethat ferment, and perpetuate those very properly and impressively of the disturbances which had so long injured benefits resulting from an adequate re- the public interests. In another point of presentation of the trading interests. He view, he was disposed to consider the was aware how powerful that interest sum too large. He thought ministers was, and that it would secure its own would not be justified in recommending, adequate representation. The House re- at this period of distress, so large u procollected the consequences which follow-vision for the Queen. He could not pass ed in Yorkshire, when a noble lord, now over this subject, without referring to called to the upper House (lord Lascel- another burthensome charge on the publes), had ventured to oppose the cloth-lic; he meant, the immense annuity now ing interest. It so drew on him the enjoyed by the prince of Saxe Coburg. displeasure of that interest, that he was He professed the sincerest respect for turned out of his seat on the next elec- the memory of the Princess Charlotte; tion. He considered it no small addi-but he would say, that the object which tional objection to conferring the repre- the country had in giving that enormous sentation on a large town rather than income to the husband of the nation's

607] HOUSE.OF COMMONS,

hope was now at an end. The peculiar situation in which he stood to this country was now so completely altered, that he could have no possible necessity for so large an allowance.

Mr. Baring observed, with reference to one of the clauses, that it declared the present provision to be in bar of all other claims as well as of dower. If the Queen were a consenting party to this bill, such an arrangement might be unobjectionable; but it did not appear just to deprive her of any right, where she declined receiving what was tendered in lieu of it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the words were unnecessary. The Queen Consort had no title to dower, inasmuch as the Crown lands were not subject to it. It was considered better to make the arrangement co-extensive with her majesty's life, because she was entitled to a similar annuity by her marriage settlement.

Mr. Baring would not have adverted to the point, had it not been for the novel circunstance of their now proceeding to grant an annuity to a person who refused to accept it. In the event of her surviving his majesty, she might no longer have the same reason for that refusal.

Mr. Huskisson remarked, that the last act of parliament made no distinction with regard to the Queen's surviving. By her marriage settlement she was entitled to the same annuity if she had survived as the Princess of Wales; but the letters patent for executing that settlement were never passed, and there was now no such person as the princess of Wales. The act of settlement had therefore become a nullity, and it was necessary that the provision made by it should be again secured in the event of her surviving his present majesty.

Mr. Baring was of opinion that this ought to be done by a special act as it appeared that the Queen's rights had been affected by some omission or neglect. It might be a great hardship to render that a provision for life which she now refused, as implying a sacrifice of character, but might hereafter, under different circumstances, be disposed to receive, if granted in any other form. He could see no objection to grant the present annuity for his majesty's life, and, in the event of the Queen's surviving him, to place the provision on a different footing.

pre

Mr. Huskisson observed, that the
sent bill provided for the Queen Consort,
in the same manner as she had been pro-
vided for in her marriage settlement as
princess of Wales.

Mr. Tierney conceived that the views
of all parties would be best answered
by the introduction of the bills, as the
Queen might otherwise be reduced to the
necessity of rejecting a provision for her
whole life.

Mr. Huskisson said, that it was neither an omission nor a mistake in the act. There was an act enabling the Crown to make her royal highness a certain grantin case the prince of Wales died before her in the life-time of his late majesty; but no such contingency had ever happened. There was nothing in the mar riage contract to provide for her majesty as Queen-Consort.

Mr. Bernal was at issue with the right hon. gentleman as to its being neither an omission nor a mistake in the act. If she was not considered entitled to any provision either as princess of Wales or Queen-> Consort, her rights as a subject must be taken into consideration; and she would then be entitled to her equity on her marriage contract. She had a right to insist on the grant or execution of the letters patent, or on some other instrument, to carry that grant or those letters patent into effect,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that her majesty could have no claim upon the grounds suggested by the hon. gentleman. Though her majesty might have some difficulty in accepting the grant of 50,000l. under the present circumstances, there would be no difficulty in receiving it under this bill, which would recite all the settlements from the marriage settlement inclusive,

Mr. Tierney was unwilling to produce at that moment any grave discussion, but he trusted his silence would not subsequently be thrown in his teeth, or that he should be considered by that silence as pledged to any admission, either that the grant was too small or too large.

The bill went through the committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, February 13.

PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.] Sir W. De Crespigny presented a petition from Tadley, praying for an inquiry into the Agricultural Distresses. The petitions:

might talk loudly of the necessity of up-, holding the national faith and credit; but that doctrine came with a bad grace from those who refused to listen to any measures of retrenchment. With respect to parliamentary reform, every thing that he had witnessed since he had the honour of a seat in that House, confirmed him in the opinion of its necessity.

Mr. Pelham said, he could assure ministers, that if they calculated upon all the individuals who had signed the loyal declarations as their supporters, they were wofully mistaken. He was convinced that a large majority of the people wished for a change of ministers and of

measures.

one word of violence-not a word disrespectful to that House. The petitioners relate the state of their feelings with respect to the measure of the Liturgy, and conclude by praying that the House would take into its serious consideration the agitated state, in which the worship of the church of England stands; and, that it would restore to the church that peace and concord, so necessary to the welfare of the established religion. The petitioners, by the 55th canon, are compelled to pray for the Queen[hear!]—by that canon, they are solemnly directed to pray for the Queen by name; and yet, by the order of the king in council, they are expressly prohibited from praying for the Queen! That most unfortunate and illegal measure had introduced nothing but confusion in divine service, and excited unbounded disgust throughout the country.

Mr. Lockhart said, that according to the plain words of the act of parliament, the order in council appeared to be illegal. It was not less so, with reference to history and precedent. The forcible arguments which had been urged on that side were combated by the law officers of the Crown by nicety and subtilty of reason

Dr. Lushington presented a petition, signed by ten Clergymen of the established church. The petitioners stated, that they had always been taught to believe that the Act of Uniformity regulated the performance of divine service in all respects; and that the power of the Crown, in ecclesiastical matters, was entirely limited and circumscribed by it. He entirely agreed with the petitioners, that the Act of Uniformity had so limited and circumscribed the power of the Crown, which, in his opinion, was pre-ing, by precedents which did not in any vented from making an iota of alteration in the Book of Common Prayer. If this were not so if the Crown, by means of an Order in Council, could make any alteration in the established form of divine worship, it would be difficult to say where the exercise of that power might stop. He could conceive no doctrine more fatal to the established church, or more pregnant with national evil than such a supposition. And why? Undoubtedly under the reign of our late revered Sovereign, there was no danger of any such consequences. It was also true, that in his present majesty's reign. no such evil was to be apprehended. But who could tell whether as James the 2nd desired to overthrow the established church by the introduction of popery-some future king, in his latter days, having spent his youth in profligacy and debauchery, might not be wheedled and deluded by that class of religious enthusiasts, called Methodists, and, under the influence of their fanaticism, be tempted to endeavor to introduce into the service of the established church that, which, in his opinion, would be attended with much greater evil than any Roman Catholic doctrines? In the petition, there was not

way bear upon the subject. The statute appeared to him to be directory--it appeared to be more than directory-it apeared to be mandatory. But if it left, as was contended, a discretionary power, then ought the law in reference to the Queen to be construed in the most favourable, instead of the severest manner; otherwise the statute should be looked upon as a sta tute, penal in its nature. Of all judgments, that to an honourable and feeling mind was the most abhorrent, which was called an infamous judgment; that judgment which took away the character of the party, which excluded him from the place of virtuous and honourable society. If, instead of being mandatory, the statute was penal, it ought to be construed favourably-construed, as an ordinary man would construe it, on a fair perusal, and not upon nice and subtle grounds. The exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy was most unconstitutional, and formed a dangerous precedent, as garded the succession. He complained that ministers had not taken the advice of the twelve judges: instead of which they depended solely on the law officers of the crown. He had intended to move as an amendment to the motion of Mr. Smith,

re