that the question should stand until the advice of the twelve judges were taken but he auticipated, that the result of that night's deliberation would render any step on his part unnecessary. Mr. Harbord observed, that he was not 'one of those who approved of a secession, under any circumstances, of the members of the English church from their places of worship; but it was a melancholy fact, that such a secession had taken place to a considerable extent. He did not complain so much that her majesty was not prayed for, as he did that she was prayed against. He deprecated the too frequent practice of introducing political matter into sermons. He was sure there was no person in that House but would concur in the propriety of condemning such a prostitution of the pulpit. It was from no political motive whatever that he introduced this subject, but the fact was that he was lately at a parish church with two hon. members, and on that occasion the clergyman introduced politics into his sermon in the most offensive manner. He hoped that through the means of such an humble individual as himself, the practice might be reprobated and discontinued. Dr. Lushington presented a similar petion from King's Lynn. He would take that opportunity of stating as a fact, that a clergyman, who stood remarkable for the active part he had taken against the Queen, had lately confessed that one-third of his parishioners had left the church. The petitioners stated, that the distress and discontent which prevailed throughout the country was to be mainly attributed to the ignorance, obstinacy, and inanity of ministers. He did, from the bottom of his heart, agree in that sentiment. To the conduct of the ministers, and to the defective state of the representation, did he attribute the national misfortunes. Mr. R. Martin said, that if the learned gentleman should continue to deal in such broad assertions against ministers, his veracity would be liable to be questioned [cries of order, order!]. He contended, that he was not out of order; that was not veracity which was not true. The Speaker thought the hon. member was in the first instance somewhat out of order; but he had no doubt but that his explanation was highly disorderly. Mr. Martin said, he received the decision of the Speaker in the most humble and penitential manner. Mr. Alderman Wood presented a similar petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of London. He trusted, that neither the uoble lord opposite, nor the hon. members for Surrey and Somerset, would charge the body that presented this petition with having been paid for their signatures. Mr. Wilson said, that the petition imputed to ministers conduct, so infamous, that if it were true, he would feel himself degraded by remaining in his present neighbourhood. He believed it was untrue, and that the noble lord and his colleagues acted from conscientious motives. He had heard much very ably urged on the question of the Liturgy, but whether it was from want of comprehension or not, be certainly went away unconvinced. He thought her majesty was entitled to all the benefit of the proceedings in another place having been dropt; but when he looked to her answers to certain addresses when he read her Letter to the King, and the communication which she had sent down to that House, he could not help saying, that though she had peace on her tongue, there was war in her heart. Mr. Bernal was not surprised that her majesty had refused the provision which that House had offered; convinced as she was of her innocence, she demanded her rights; to have accepted of that provision would have been a compromise of her honour. Sir G. Robinson presented a similar petition from Northampton. He did not believe, that any man of sense and sincerity, could lay his hand on his heart and say, that the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy was not intended by ministers as a mark of disgrace, or that such a disgrace was not a punishment. He rejoiced that she had had the magnanimity to refuse any pecuniary arrangement until that right had been recognised. Her majesty, with that magnanimity which characterized the family from which she sprung, had twice refused to barter her honour for a bribe; and he trusted the people had too much generosity to allow their Queen to be starved at last into a compliance with the will of ministers. Mr. C. Dundas presented a similar petition from Kintbury, in Berkshire. He hoped the House would grant the prayers of the people, and thereby restore peace to the country, and congregations to the deserted churches. Mr. Hobhouse said he had three peti tions to present, which had much the same object as the others which had been presented that evening. The first of the petitions was from the inhabitant householders of the united parishes of St. Andrew, Holborn, and St. George the Martyr, and owed its origin to a loyal address which had been got up at a select meeting, and circulated for signatures as the address of the inhabitant householders of the united parishes. It turned out, however, that out of seven or eight thousand houses, only 123 signatures could be obtained to this loyal address. The honourable gentleman produced considerable laughter by reading a list of some of the signatures, containing the names of forty persons holding office. Gentlemen opposite might laugh; but he had no doubt, that it was thought no very laughable matter by the parishioners to see this called, in the public papers, a meeting of the inhabitants of the parish. It was, in fact, no such thing; for none but those in the secret were admitted into the room; and, to prevent any others from intruding, tickets were given to those who were to be admitted. In consequence of the address got up at this secret meeting, a public meeting of the parish was called, at which the present petition was agreed to. Its prayer was, that the House would procure the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, put her in possession of all her just rights, and bring to condign punishment those infamous and disloyal persons who had sought by nefarious arts to degrade and destroy their lawful Queen. | The petitioners also prayed for such a reform in that House as should secure to the people a full, fair, free, and equal representation. The noble lord had said, on a very late occasion, that he could recollect when he could have waded up to the knees in the petitions of the "veteran major," as he termed him. All he could observe on this was, so much the more shame for the noble lord, that petitions should have been allowed to accumulate without effect. But, he would endeavour to recall to the noble lord's mind-if, indeed, it were possible that he could have forgotten the circumstance that there was a time when the cause of parliamentary reform numbered his lordship among its most eager supporters. The House would excuse him if he referred to a document which he had found lately, in turning over some old reform papers. It was in the shape of a protest or declara tion, and was to the following effect: "We declare that we will regularly attend to our duties in parliament, and be guided in our conduct there by the wishes of our constituents; and we pledge ourselves to support a bill to promote reform in parliament; and also a bill to prevent persons receiving pensions from holding seats in the parliament. (Signed) "Edward Ward and Robt. Stewart." It was dated in the year 1792. In what he now said, he had no intention of hurting the feelings of the noble lord; but he did it to show, that before the experience of age had corrected the fervour and rashness of youth, the noble lord was an advocate of those principles which he now so vehemently decried. He did trust, that the House had at length become satisfied that they ought to attend to the wishes of the people; but the noble lord did not know what the wishes of the people were. Now he (Mr. H.) from mingling more with those classes of them which, perhaps, were most unknown to his lordship, could take upon himself to say that there was a general cry throughout the country, which was once the cry of a very great man, the illustrious lord Falkland; that cry was "peace;" and until the great object of that large part of the population whom the noble lord and other honourable members called by names that were meant to convey some kind of imputation, sometimes" radicals," and at others "reformers only," was accomplished, peace was not likely to prevail throughout the kingdom. He was of opinion, that a reform must at length take place; and it was better that they should grant that to the reiterated prayers of the people, which at some future day must of necessity be effected somehow. It was in vain for the noble lord to manifest his determination to make no such concession; for as Pyni once said to the earl of Strafford, after his elevation to the peerage, "Though you, my lord, have left us, we will not leave you, until we have that head off those shoulders.' God forbid, that the House should ever hold such a language to the noble lord! but it was surely well to regard those petitions, which, from all parts of England, prayed for a measure, the necessity of which was not less obvious than its justice. As to the constitution of the House of Commons, he hoped nobody would be of the same opinion as that hon. member for Bodmin, who so hap pily illustrated it on the preceding night, by saying that the Commons represented the king, the lords, and the people. At that rate, the House of Lords was an entirely useless branch of the legislature,seeing that both they and the king were already represented within those walls. With respect to the king, indeed, the 72 members, who sat there either as ministers of the Crown, or as government officers, represented his majesty very adequately and effectually he would confess; but he believed that there were certain place and pension bills which were supposed to have some effect on the exercise of their privilege of voting. He believed that he might say, that they did not recognise the king's existence in that House; they did not, in form and appearance, recognise him there, excepting through his cabinet ministers; and he doubted whether they had a right to be there, any more than Charles I. had to appear in Mr. Speaker's chair. He again affirmed, that reform must come; that sort of reform, he meant, which the noble lord supported in 1792. They must concede it. If not, they would have lord Chatham's reform; a reform, with a vengeance, from without. But that it would take place, there could be no doubt; though not, perhaps, so soon as it was imagined by some, or so late as it was anticipated by others. When that time should come, the noble lord could not complain that he had not had ample warning. In the conviction that they must ultimately adopt a radical reform, in fact, he should conclude by moving, "that the petition be brought up." would show how far he was from the hon. gentleman's theory of individual suffrage and annual parliaments. Sir J. Newport said, it was very true that the noble lord continued to advocate a reform until 1793, when he became connected with office, and from that time it was true that he never advocated any reform. There was a speech of the noble lord's recorded in the debates of the Irish parliament, uttered by him in support of a motion brought forward by his revered friend, and the friend of the independence of his country, now deceased, in which the noble lord declared, that if the Irish House of Commons did not attend to the wishes of the people, they would be reformed from without with a vengeance. That parliament did not attend to the wishes of the people, and the noble lord being put into a situation, in which he could play the reformer, reformed it in a truly radical style, for he altogether extinguished its separate existence. The noble lord had severed the Irish parliament from the Irish people, and the parliament fell. This should be a most impressive lesson to the parliament of England. He who led the parliament of Ireland through its degradation to its destruction, now led the parliament of England through the same course towards the same end. "I speak," continued the right hon. baronet, "from conviction. I have watched him from the commencement: and I conscientiously believe, that he gives and has given the most fatal counsels that any nation can Lord Castlereagh said, he would reply to adopt. It is my conviction that the noble the extensive appeal of the hon. gentle- lord has such impressions on his mind, man on one topic only. It was true that that his counsels, if they have influence, he was, in 1790, an advocate for a Re- must drive the nation onward in the form of the Irish House of Commons, career which was pursued in Ireland; and the hon. gentleman might be sur- and which ended in the debasement of the prised, when he said that, notwithstand-parliament, the extinction of national ining the events of the last 25 years, which dependence, and all the subsequent ruin had been by no means calculated to en- which the loss of independence had courage the general principle of par- brought upon that country." liamentary reform, under the circum- Lord Castlereagh said, that whether the stances in which the Irish House of Com-right hon. baronet thought well of him mons then stood, he should again sup- or no, would not break his heart. As to port parliamentary reform. He supported that measure which he had promoted, the it then on the practical ground that a union, it must be decided on by posdissolution of parliament did not pro- terity, and it might go down for judgduce the same effect in Ireland that it did ment, accompanied with the right hon. in England. But when in 1793 the con- baronet's criticism. A more useful memstituents were enlarged by the admission of ber of parliament than the right hon. the Catholics to the right of voting, he had baronet did not exist, but certainly his stated that thenceforward he should not irritation hurried him into frequent obvote for any parliamentary reform. This livions of fact, and exhibited him in a 619] HOUSE OF COMMONS, Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. manner so little consistent with senatorial dignity. As to the speech which the right hon. baronet had quoted, he did not know where it was to be found; perhaps, in one of those valuable publications in which his conduct was stated, and in which there were comments on what he said or did, to which he was more indifferent than to the remarks of the right hon. baronet. The sort of strain which the right hon. baronet had got into that night, had led him to be very careless as to his statements. The right hon. baronet had said, that he (Lord C.) changed his opinion respecting reform when he went into office, whereas he did not take office in Ireland till five years after be had declared himself against parliamentary reform; for he made his declaration in 1793, and did not take office till late in 1797; so he would leave it to the house to judge of the candour and correctness of the right hon. baronet. Mr. Martin, of Galway, said, he would refer the right hon. baronet to an authority which could not be disputed,-that of the late Mr. Ponsonby. Mr. Ponsonby had declared he would support the cause of parliamentary reform in Ireland, but that on no account would he consent to a reform of the House of Commons in England, which he thought really and truly represented the people. Sir F. Blake presented a similar petition from Berwick-upon-Tweed. He said that in all the statements of the petition he cordially concurred. He would take that opportunity of asking ministers a question; but whether they answered it now, hereafter, or never, was of very little consequence. He trusted he had only to state it to enable the House to see its object. If her najesty's name had stood in the Liturgy at the time the bill of pains and penalties was withdrawn (which by the noble lord had been called, or miscalled, a technical acquittal), would his majesty's ministers, under the circumstances of that acquittal, have advised her majesty's name to be expunged from the Liturgy? If they would have advised that her name should be crased, they would have been counteracting the good effect of withdrawing the bill itself; nay, further, they would have done what nobody scarcely in his senses would have done; but "quem Deus vult perdere, prius deIf they would not have advised such erasure, the inconsistency of their conduct was more obvious than ever. mentat." MOTION FOR RESTORING HER MAJESTY'S NAME TO THE LITURGY.] Mr. John Smith, in rising to submit the motion of which he had given notice, hegged to remind the House that some short time back he had the honour to present a petition from the merchants, bankers, and traders, of London, assembled at the Mansion-house. In that petition they had implored the House to adopt such measures as would restore that peace and tranquillity to the country which were so much wanted. He could now assure the House that he should speak the sentiments, and act upon the wishes, of that most respectable body in coming forward on this occasion; for there was no body of men to whom the peace and tranquillity of the country were more important than to them. In taking the present step, he declared most solemnly that the restoration of peace and tranquillity to the country_was his only object. He conceived it his duty to look at past transactions fully and fairly, and he was determined to do so. when He begged first to call the attention of the House to that period of the last year his majesty's ministers had advised the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy. At that time, and on several occasions since, he had endeavoured to collect what were the real motives which had induced them to adopt that measure; for this purpose he had listened with attention to every thing which had passed in the House upon the subject. He had, indeed, heard some kind of explanation, and some motives stated, but, up to the present hour, he had not heard any precise reason given. So much had been already said upon the impolicy of that measure, that he did not now feel it necessary to press that further upon the attention of the There were, he knew, differences House. of opinion upon subsequent parts of the proceedings, but he solemnly protested, that he had never met any one who did, under all the circumstances, approve of He would admit, that it the measure. was the wish of his majesty's ministers, that the Queen should remain abroad. That he did not complain of; for he agreed, that if there was any chance whatever of the public tranquillity being interfered with by her return, it would have been better, and he could have wished, that she had remained abroad. But how aware, that under such circumstances the bill could not be said to have had the sense of the House in its favour, and he therefore abandoned it. Why! of that majority were there not nine individuals who acted in the triple capacity of accusers, jurors, and judges; and surely such a majority could never have been considered sufficient for such a measure. did it happen, that with this desire on the part of ministers, they should have adopted the only measure which could render it impossible for her to continue abroad any longer? He had heard it said, that ministers were induced to take that step in consequence of the rumours and reports of foreigners and others who were travelling abroad. He himself had heard several rumours and scandalous reports. He had heard some of them in this country, and some of them in Paris; but he could assure the House, that not one of those scandalous rumours which he had so heard formed any part of the accusation which had been subsequently brought against her majesty. From this circumstance, he inferred, that the whole of those reports were unfounded and scandalous fabrications. Now it was hardly necessary to remark, that persons high in rank were often the objects of such scandalous attacks. They heard them not. They were not in the way of hearing them; and thus the most unfounded fabrications were passed into the world without refutation. Therefore, he conceived they ought never to have been made the subject of accusa-enced on the most important questions, by tion. It was not his intention, at present, to travel into the evidence which had been produced on the trial. It was too odious and disgusting to be again introduced, where it could possibly be avoided; but he begged the House would bear with him while he shortly adverted to the bill. It was brought to its last stage, and the third reading was carried, when the noble lord at the head of the administration found that it would not be prudent to press it farther with only a majority of nine. What the noble lord (Liverpool) had said upon that occasion, he could hardly recollect; but he understood it to have been, that he considered the preamble of the bill as fully proved, but that he did not think it would be proper, under the circumstance of having only a majority of nine, to carry it further, and therefore he moved that it should be rejected. In that motion he considered that the noble lord had acted wisely; for how would that House endure to be told, if the bill had come down to them, that such a majority had expressed the sense of the House of Lords, when they considered how that House was constituted, and when it was borue in mind that there were so many who voted for the bill who had an interest in passing it? The noble lord was well He would say one or two words upon the opinion of that august tribunal; and he was induced to do so, by having heard doctrines in this House upon the subject, which he conceived in direct contradiction to the plain rules of justice. It was true, that a majority of nine peers had been in favour of the bill; but might he not suppose, that the influence of the Crown had some effect in producing that majority? He begged he might not be understood as meaning to cast any reflection on noble lords in the other House; but he would ask, were there not motives which were calculated to obscure and blind the judgment on many occasions? It was what we observed in every day's experience, that men's judgments were biassed and influ motives which did not bear upon the strict |