observed, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given, he had now to bring under the consideration of the House what appeared to him a manifest and flagrant breach of those privileges which had been established, not for the benefit and protection of the House alone, but for those whom they represented. Instead of complaining at once, as he should have been justified in doing in such a case, he had given notice of His intention, in order to enable the parties to offer the best explanation in their power. The attack came from a quarter where it could hardly have been anticipated—it was made by persons in a respectable station of life, and, what was more singular, had received the marked approbation of his majesty's ministers. He was induced to call the attention of the House to it, because its tendency was, to embarrass and impair that freedom of speech by which they were entitled to discuss every public question without comment or censure, unless within those walls, and which had always been deemed one of their most valuable privileges. The members of that House had a right to deliver their sentiments without any reference to the approbation or censure of other persons. He could not so well express this principle as in the emphatic words of a declaration framed in that House by very eminent men, on the 3rd of May, 1810. [Here the right hon. baronet read the declaration alluded to.] The libel in question purported to to have been laid before the Crown, and was promulgated in the London Gazette on the 2nd of January last. It was headed by these words:—"The following address was presented to his majesty, who was pleased to receive it very graciously." Now, when the House should hear of what the address consisted, it would be of opinion, he conceived, that it was impossible the address could have been so communicated and received. He was sure, that the sovereign had been too carefully instructed in the principles of the constitution, to approve of any attack upon those who had made such remarks in the discussion of a public question as were suggested to them by the exercise of their parliamentary duty. If an impropriety was committed by any hon. member, it was for the House itself, through the Chair, to animadvert upon it, and he felt confident, that this duty would never be neglected; but it did not belong to any body of men, and the present addressers were an ecclesiastical body, who would be much better employed in their professional vocations than in denouncing the conduct of persons in parliament—it did not belong to them to stigmatize and condemn the speeches made in that House, as violent, unconstitutional, and productive of disaffection. He was sure, no one would contend, that language of this kind could be addressed to them from the throne; and the question was, whether it ought to receive the royal sanction when applied in this indirect manner. It was unnecessary to trouble the House at any length upon a case which appeared to leave no room for doubt or difference of opinion; it was sufficient to say, that perfect freedom of speech was their ancient undoubted right—one which they had enjoyed uninterruptedly, and which was essential to their existence as a distinct branch of the legislature. With regard to the publication of this address, in the London Gazette, it had been stated, a few nights since, that a power of selection was exercised, and it was justified, on the ground, that his majesty's ministers could not be expected to publish, as having been graciously received, addresses which reflected upon themselves, and that no addresses ever did appear in the Gazette but such as were graciously received. But, according to this principle, they might publish reflections on all other persons, and give the sanction of the royal authority to any censure directed against their opponents. He doubted not, that the House, when the composition to which he referred should be read, would agree in the justness of the observations which he had taken the liberty to submit. The right hon. baronet then proceeded to read the address, and point out the libellous matter. 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 [hear, hear], 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? [Hear, and laughter.] "With every good citizen and loyal subject, we reprobate the address and petition of the Common Council of the city of London [laughter], 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 [Hear, and laughter]; for if such conduct in the representatives of the people pass unnoticed, what may be expected from the' people themselves?" The right hon. baronet then handed the Gazette to the clerk, who read the above passages, which having been done, the right hon. baronet moved—"That the dutiful and loyal address of the Presbyteries of Langholme, in the county of Dumfries, which was published in the London Gazette of 2nd January last, contains passages in manifest breach of the essential privileges of this House of Parliament."

said, that what the right hon. baronet had stated to the House went to the form and not to the substance of the case. He did not object to the paper generally, but to certain passages that were contained in it; because there were many parts of that address against which no complaint could possibly be made. His motion, therefore, went rather to the condemnation of particular passages, than to the disapproval of the publication entirely. He hoped, that the right hon. baronet would believe him, when he said, that he would be the last person to show any indifference to the privileges of the House—that he would be the last person to counsel the House not to maintain its privileges, whenever any act was done, with reference to them, which could not be justified, and which was brought under their consideration in the shape of libel. It was extremely difficult for any person who considered the importance of their privileges—not only to the members of that House, but to the general interests of the people—to slate any excuse for an infringement of those privileges, when the subject was regularly brought forward. But it was a fit matter for consideration, whether, under all the circumstances of any particular case, it was desirable for the House to exert its undoubted authority. Let gentlemen for a moment reflect on the various libels that were at present abroad in the country. If the House took up every thing that fairly fell under the description of a libel on parliament generally, as well as on particular members of the legislature, the whole of their time would be passed in reviewing those publications, instead of doing their duty to the public. He did not urge this argument invidiously towards the right hon. baronet; because he was quite sure, that no individual would suggest or adopt a more liberal view of what was best to be done for the House and the country, on such an occasion, than the right hon. baronet. What, therefore, he meant to do was, to put it to the feelings of the right hon. baronet, whether he had not fully performed his duty to the House and the country, by calling the attention of the House to this publication, without adopting any farther proceeding. He was the more disposed to urge this on the consideration of the right hon. baronet, because, without taking away from the fair weight of his observations, it appeared to him, that the right hon. baronet had not given sufficient importance to those circumstances which might be alleged in extenuation of the offence complained of. He supposed, from what had fallen from the right hon. baronet, that he was not in the House when this subject was mentioned by a noble lord (Folkestone) on the first night of the session, at which time, a full explanation was given of the circumstances by his right hon. friend (Mr. Bathurst); who had, in the course of his speech, avowed, as a member of the government, that the secretary of state was in the habit of selecting addresses for publication in the Gazette, to the exclusion of others, which did not come within the principle by which he was guided in making the selection. If the right hon. baronet, really was present on that occasion, he must have heard his right hon. friend state, in addition to this, that the publication of the address in question occurred entirely through inadvertence. The House would, perhaps, allow him to call to their recollection, that the system of selection had been the uniform practice, not only of the present, but of all administrations. It was a practice founded on good sense and reason; because the king's Gazette ought not to-be made the channel to convey insult to the throne, and abuse to the constituted authorities of the country. He would bring the present case exactly within that practice; and he would say, that no unjustifiable doctrines should have found their way into the Gazette. But, if that address were unfit to appear in the Gazette, surely it was, à fortiori, more unfit, that that publication should be made the vehicle for disseminating insults of a more flagrant nature, contained in addresses, petitions, and other documents, which were very liberally circulated at the present moment. When his right hon. friend, on a former evening, stated what was the practice at the Secretary of state's office, he, at the same time, expressed the regret of the secretary of the home department that the document complained of should have found its way into the king's Gazette. So far was the occurrence from being justified or sanctioned by the ministers of the Crown, that they extremely regretted its publication; and if they had exercised the power of selection, so far from causing it to be inserted, they would have considered it as coming under one of those descriptions of address which ought not to be published. The right hon. baronet, when he quoted the observation of his right hon. friend with respect to the selection of addresses, forgot to add, that his right hon. friend also stated, that though this address came from very respectable persons, it was not sanctioned by government, who, on the contrary, protested against some of the sentiments contained in it. Though it was in fact published when sent up by this respectable presbytery to the noble lord, and laid at the foot of the throne, still the circum- stance of its publication could only be considered as a matter of inadvertence. Had it not been so published, it would never have attracted any notice, or called forth any particular expression of feeling. In short, it never would have been mentioned. And this being the true state of the case—it appearing, that the publication was the effect of inadvertence—the right hon. baronet would perhaps feel, that having called the attention of the House to the subject, enough had been done. It would have been a different thing if it were found not to have been an inadvertent act; but since all intention to sanction the objectionable parts of the address was disavowed, the right hon. baronet might perhaps be inclined to think, that, considering the different circumstances, it was not a case in which the privileges of the House called for any farther proceeding. He would submit to the right hon. baronet, whether he did not now seem to be taking up rather a narrower line, with respect to freedom of discussion in the country, than ought to be adopted. Though it was the last species of warfare in which he should wish to be engaged, yet it would, he thought, be most unjust if one side of the House was to be excluded from the attacks of calumny, while individuals on the other 6ide—however patient in their nature—were to he quietly on their backs, and bear every species of contumely without complaining. But though, perhaps, it would be convenient to gentlemen on his side of the House, and to himself individually—who no longer ago than the night before last was mentioned by name in a petition laid on their table—if matters of this kind were attended to (and he knew if he pursued such a course he should pursue it under a very high sanction, since it was approved of by the right hon. baronet), still he did not think, that it would do either side of the House any good in the eyes of their constituents, if they took up this question, and said, that the speeches and. the public conduct of members of parliament should not be animadverted on out of doors, if the observations made use of exceeded the bounds of fair and temperate discussion. The mere circumstance of their conniving at the publication of their debates—a practice which was contrary to their standing orders, but which, if not a part of the constitution, was almost essential to it—rendered it impossible to prevent free animadversion. When their debates were sent out all over the country, could it be expected, that observations would not be made as to what the character of parliament collectively was, as well as with reference to the conduct of any particular members of that body? They could not expect, that their proceedings won Id always be spoken of in terms of approbation, and never in those of disapprobation. It would be a little too much if the gentlemen of the opposition were to propose, that they should be recognised as that sacred body in the constitution who could not by possibility be assailed with reproach—who were not open to any possible suspicion or imputation of not acting on all occasions for the general benefit of the country. The right hon. baronet undoubtedly found in this address very strong observations on the conduct of the opposition; but he could not avoid saying, that the right hon. baronet did not read the address in a fair manner, He treated it as if all the evils of the present day were ascribed to the conduct of the opposition. But the fact was, the inflamed state of the public mind was attributed to three causes—whether well or ill founded he would not stop to inquire. They were, first, the speeches of opposition; secondly, blasphemous and seditious publications; and lastly, the petition that emanated from the Common Council of the city of London. If they were to call the learned body who sanctioned the address to the bar, he did not conceive, that it would produce any good practical result. And here he must observe, that it was too much for the right hon. baronet to say, because those individuals were pastors, that therefore they should lay down all public functions, and abstain from offering any opinion on what was passing, with respect to the peace and tranquility of the country; and more especially on the prevalence of infidelity. If the right hon. baronet laid it down as a principle of the House, that all publications of this nature ought to be brought under their consideration, he (Lord C.) would not have far to go, in order to produce, to-morrow, to the right hon. baronet, two or three specimens of addresses, in which he himself, the minister of the Crown, and those members of parliament who supported them, were charged with motives the most base, corruption the most notorious, the greatest abandonment of their public duty, and the most flagrant crimes against the interests of the country. He should only offer what he conceived to be a very fair contre-projet to the motion of the right hon. baronet, when he brought forward, in answer to his charge, a series of libels against tile whole body of the administration. If there were to be in the House—one protected set of men, it was not unreasonable, he hoped, for him and his friends to aspire to an equal degree of protection. He thought, however, the best way would be to drop the business. The intention of sanctioning some of the expressions contained to the address having been publicly and promptly disavowed—so much unfeigned regret having been expressed at its having appeared in the Gazette—and as, in the course of many years, this was the first instance in which any thing objectionable had appeared in that publication—these circumstances would, perhaps, induce the right hon. baronet not to press his motion. His right hon. friend did not come tardily forward, but gave the necessary disavowal on the very first day of the session. The right hon. baronet had brought the subject very properly before the House; but, having done so, he would perhaps feel, that he would best perform his duty by letting the question rest, as no attempt had been made to justify the publication.

said, he would not have troubled the House with any observations on this occasion, if it had not been for what had fallen from the noble lord. He had very ingenuously put forward as the offender in this case, the unhappy Moderator who signed the address. That individual might be a very respectable person; and if it had been with him, that the selection of the address for publication had rested, the subject would, perhaps, have been unworthy of being brought before the House; but what gave a sting to this address was, that it found its way into the Gazette, a publication, under the immediate sanction of administration, and was stated to have been most graciously received by the Crown, One of the most important parts of the constitution of the House of Commons was, that the influence of his majesty's name, or the knowledge of his opinion, should have no effect in guiding their decisions; and for any man to state to his majesty any part of the debates of that House, and much more to characterize them, was highly unconstitutional. If there could be a greater breach of privilege than this, it was, that a minister of the Crown publicly stated the address so characterizing the debates to have been most graciously received. The noble lord (Sidmouth) had desired an apology to be made for the occurrence; he had caused it to be stated, that he was sorry it had taken place. If this sort of apology were to justify the House in passing overa breach of privilege of this nature, he knew not why they should not pass over any other breach of privilege, provided an apology was tendered. He admitted the good sense of some of the noble lord's observations. He agreed with him when he said, that they ought not to watch over their privileges with so much severity as to prevent the people from animadverting on the proceedings of the House; because, between the members of that House and those whom they represented, there should be a free communication of sentiment, and the press was the best medium for keeping up that communication. In this instance, the act complained of was not committed by any portion of their constituents, but by a minister of the Crown, and therefore it was the more important that it should not be passed over in silence. They all knew, that many instances had occurred of late years where the House visited, perhaps with too much severity, animadversions on their proceedings which assumed a popular character; and he conceived it was not acting equitably to refrain from exercising the authority which was vested in them against the Crown, and on all occasions to enforce it against the people. If it were an attack on an individual member, it would be well for him to exercise a sound discretion, before he determined to submit a complaint to the House; but it was no such thing. It was a general attack on those who were designated as an "Opposition." Did his majesty know of an opposition in that House? Did ministers state to his majesty, that there were a body of men in parliament who made "violent and unconstitutional speeches?" If that were known—if the fact could be brought forward, and satisfactorily proved, it would be matter of impeachment rather than breach of privilege. He did not think the matter could be thus passed over. The apology would be soon forgotten, but the address would still remain on the pages of the Gazette. If the noble lord would point out some means by which the apology could be placed on the Journals of the House, he would be satisfied: but he could not suffer the business to drop, as the noble lord had suggested. They were placed in this situation—an attack had been made in the Gazette on the speeches of members of that House, and all the satisfaction they received was, a declaration, that ministers were sorry for it. But they might do the same thing to-morrow, if some efficient step were not resorted to, and again make the same declaration of regret. Were they to abandon the matter altogether, because a minister offered an apology, and acknowledged, that the proceeding was wrong? He hoped, it would not be thought, that he meant to press the business invidiously against any individual. If the motion would have the effect of bringing this gentleman up to town from Scotland, he should be sorry for it; because he appeared to him to be a very ignorant man. Certainly he knew very little of what passed in that House. The sting was not in the paper which the reverend gentleman had signed, but in the use that had been made of it, and the sanction it appeared to have received from his majesty's government. Under these circumstances, he submitted, that the right hon. baronet could not withdraw his proposition, unless some means were devised to express the sense of the House on the subject.

said, that the publication of the address arose entirely from inadvertence, and as soon as possible an apology was made for inserting it in the Gazette. The right hon. baronet should, injustice, have quoted the latter part of his (Mr. B's) speech on the first night of the session. He then stated, that the address appeared merely through inadvertence, and without the sanction of his majesty's ministers On the ground of the circumstance having been occasioned by inadvertence, and on that ground alone, he conceived the House ought to pass it over.

assured the right hon. gentleman, that the noise which prevailed on the night he alluded to, was so great as to prevent him from hearing the whole of his explanation. Perhaps an entry to the following effect would meet the wishes of his learned friend:—After stating the paper to contain a breach of privilege, it might be added, "And it having been stated to the House, on the part of the secretary of state for the home department, that the paper was considered by him to be reprehensible, and that it got into the Gazette by mistake, it does not appear, that the House proceeded further, except to place this disavowal on their journals."

suggested, that the debate should be adjourned till to-morrow, in order to give the right hon. baronet an opportunity to adopt a proper form of words.

observed, that it ought to be recollected, that the insertion of the address in the Gazette was not the only mischief. It had thence been copied in to the country papers, so that the people at large were induced to believe, that the sentiments which it contained, had been graciously received by his majesty. He was the last man to think of visiting, with severe punishment, any carsasms such as those in question; but, when the gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to exercise, to their extent, all the privileges of the Crown, it was necessary to provide an adequate counteraction by the firm maintenance of the privileges of that House.

rose, in consequence of the notice he had given, to move for certain papers relative to the Revenue. The subject which he was about to bring under the consideration of the House, was one of primary importance;—it was a subject closely interwoven with the prosperity of the country; and by a due attention to which, they could alone hope to alleviate the distresses of the people. The papers he meant to move for were seven. He should call for the production, not only of the amount of revenues for the current but the past year, and also for an account of the management of the public expenditure and a variety of other papers connected with the financial state of the country. To the amount of the expenses of collecting the revenue he should particularly call the attention of the House. The expenditure was enormous beyond all calculation. In the year 1792, the expenditure was 7,800,000l. including the amount of collecting the revenue. What was the expenditure now? It was, including the amount of collecting the revenue, for the army, navy, ordnance and miscellaneous services, no less than 26,000,000l. making a difference in the expenditure of the government between the year 1792 and the present time of somewhere about 18 millions, and that occurring within twenty years. It was time now, in the sixth or seventh year of peace, to anticipate something like a permanent arrangement of the public expenditure, and, above all, an improved system of finance. This, indeed, had been promised. Instead of which, what had been the course pursued respecting the Sinking Fund? Instead of being preserved and applied for the reduction of the debt it had been used for the resources of the current year; and in this state, instead of bearing in the amount any affinity to its nominal value of 17,000,000l. the real bonâ fide value of the existing Sinking Fund was only 2,000,000l. and that was the sole amount in reality applicable to meet a debt of nearly 900 millions. This amount of debt was frightful, and showed a yearly increase of about twenty millions, since the period to which he had at first adverted—two millions being the only real fund available to the reduction of this enormous debt. It was during a time of peace, that the country should be called upon to look at this state of things; for, under such circumstances, to contemplate a state of war was most appalling. No time ought to be lost in endeavouring to place the finances of the country upon as solid a basis as the nature of the case admitted. There were, of course, great difficulties in reducing to a clear and intelligible system such complicated matters; but investigation was now imperatively necessary. It was his intention, upon a future, day, to bring under the consideration of: the House the state of the Sinking Fund, for the purpose of reducing its system and management to a simpler and clearer detail than that which it admitted at present. He meant to strip it of all its nominal and shadowy character, and to place it at once before the public in the only way in which it ought to stand—namely, in the actual and fair real amount which alone it possessed. A Sinking Fund, when properly understood, could Only consist of the excess of revenue over and above the whole excess of the public expenditure. It was quite a delusion for the right hon. gentleman opposite to pretend to the public that they had a Sinking Fund amounting to the nominal value of 17,000,000l. and then to bolster up this disingenuous device by borrowing 12 millions out of this nominal fund of 17,000,000l. and to keep up, by Exchequer Bills, the operation of this delusion. Nothing could be worse policy than to persevere in such a course, instead of at once laying before the country the real sum upon which it had to depend for the reduction of the national debt. From his majesty's late speech, it did not distinctly appear, what would be the reduction of the general expenditure for the year. The only reduction hinted at was in the military expenditure. But, with respect to that expenditure, he must complain retrospectively of the course which had been taken by the right hon. gentleman opposite. Two years ago, when that right hon. gentleman anticipated the amount which would be required for the army, navy, and ordnance, he estimated it at 17,000,000l. instead of which it ultimately proved to be 19,000,000l.—that was, an excess of 2,000,000l. over and above the right hon. gentleman's promise to the country. This was a bad mode of estimating the public expenditure—it went to destroy public confidence, and to make the people come forward, not for any reduction of the public expenditure, for that they saw was little attended to, but for a direct reduction of taxation. In the latter alone could they, under such circumstances, repose any hope of redress of grievances. To leave out this alternative to the people was the worst policy which the right hon. gentleman could pursue in the present state of the finances of the country. The agriculturist must at once see in what consisted a portion of his present distress: looking at the price of grain in 1790, it was nearly the same as at present; but the large increase of direct and indirect taxation bore directly upon the farmer; and connected with the larger increase since 1790 of the price of labour, the poor-rates, &c. furnished him with a clue to the causes of his present distressed state. For the purpose of bringing the subject of taxation before the House, he meant to move for an account of the duties upon Houses and windows, in order, after ascertaining the amount, to move (if it should appear to him expedient) for a reduction of these taxes. The country could not possibly go on without retrenchment, and the report of the committee of Finance ought to be adopted and acted upon systematically. He thought, that by adhering to the terms of that report, a saving of 2,000,000l. might be effected for the year 1821. There was another subject to which he thought it very material to call the atten- tion of the House; namely, the expense of collecting the revenue. Would it be believed, that this alone amounted to the enormous sum of between four and five millions, and showed a rate of per cent-age upon the collection, of no less than 8l. 1s. 9d. upon the aggregate of the whole? In Ireland it was still worse—it I was monstrous: for on the four millions: of revenue collected in that country, the expense of collection amounted to 21 per cent. The aggregate amount of collection upon the whole revenue was, he repeated, above 8l. out of every 100l. for the pocket of the collector, and out of that of the public. he was firmly persuaded, that by a more economical system, a saving of one million might be effected in the collection of the miscellaneous and other services—to this, add the saving of two millions which he had already noticed, and both together would amount to 3,000,000l. in the ensuing year. Unless this recommendation was attended to, he knew not what the country had to expect from his majesty's government. It was to elicit an explanation from the right lion, gentleman opposite, that he now meant to move for certain papers. He called for them at this early period of the session, and before the supplies were moved, to enable the House to judge of the financial state of the country, at a time when they might, if they pleased, withhold the supplies, unless the explanations, were satisfactory. There was also the further advantage in calling for the papers now, of having them in time for a full understanding upon the subject, before the business part of the session passed away. He concluded, by moving, for "an account of the deficiency of the Consolidated Fund on the 5th January, 1821, together with an account of the manner in which the same was made good."

said, that he saw no objection to the production of the accounts moved for by the hon. gentleman or to the inquiries which he seemed disposed to connect with these documents. As there would be other opportunities of considering this subject, it was unnecessary for him now to anticipate discussion, by entering into any explanation in detail; he should therefore reserve his observations until the accounts were regularly before the House. He might however, take the present opportunity of announcing, that the whole ex- penditure for the supplies of the present year would be met by the revenue without any new loan. The country, he thought, had arrived at a period, when it might bid adieu either to loans or new taxes for many years. In the way in which he contemplated the financial state of the country, he could by no means concur in the discouraging prospect held out by the hon. gentleman. On the contrary, he had the strongest reasons to expect the country would annually have the benefit of a surplus of revenue going to a diminution of the national debt. This was among the improving views which he took of the state of the country. With respect to the Sinking Fund, he could not consider it. as placed in the dilapidated state which had been described by the hon. gentleman; for he fully believed, that the result of the present year would show the Sinking Fund bearing away as large a proportion of the debt as it did in 1792. He wished to take that opportunity of explaining one circumstance upon which a mistake appeared in some quarters to prevail: it related to the state of the trade of the country. It appeared, from the accounts laid before parliament, that trade became depressed towards the close of the former year, and that consequently the revenue became diminished. But it might be consolatory to the House to know, that the present actual state of trade developed a considerable improvement. The account of the exports had only at present been made up for the three great ports, viz—London, Liverpool, and Hull. The exports of British and Irish produce from these ports, for the half-year ending on the 5th Jan. 1821, exceeded the corresponding half-year of the preceding year by 3 millions and a-half. The exports for the one year amounted, within that time, to about 13 millions and three quarters, and in the other to about 16 millions and a-half—making, on the whole, the increase 3 millions and a-half which he had mentioned.

said, he was in hopes, that the right hon. gentleman would have noticed some prospect of improving the net produce of the revenue, by a considerable diminution in the enormous expense of collecting it, upon which, most properly, great stress had been laid. He lamented the price of collection in Ireland, in particular, where the enormous increase of taxation, instead of being attended by a comparative reduction in the rate of collection, was accompanied by more than a twofold augmentation of that rate, contrary to every principle of reason and justice. In 1807, the expense of collection was about 11 per cent in Ireland—it was now 25 per cent. he was extremely gratified, that the House were likely to have the financial accounts on the table early enough in the session to take such steps as should be deemed necessary, upon the fullest information of which the subject was susceptible. When on former occasions information was asked upon the subject of the details of the revenue, it was said, that the particulars 'would be found in the annual returns; but then, these were printed so late, that no steps could be founded upon them during the session. Now, fortunately for the public, a different course was about to prevail. On the subject of the Sinking Fund, he entirely agreed with the hon. gentleman, that it should be reduced to a clear, simple, and compendious form—that it should be stripped of all its mystery, so as that the people could at one view comprehend what sum was actually available for the reduction of the debt. The only real sinking fund must, as had been said, consist in the excess of the revenue over the expenditure. This ought at once to be made apparent, instead of propping up a delusive system of nominal amount, with the farce of borrowing and lending conducted by the same hands. It was high time, that the financial state of the country should be rendered intelligible, and that the public should see, that instead of advancing, they were moving in a retrograde order. As to the boasted increase of trade being conclusively deduced from the exports, he must say he differed from the right hon. gentleman. Indeed, he always received the accounts of these exports with distrust; for over and over again he had seen these exports attended with ruin to the parties who made them, instead of being eventually beneficial to the public. Exports had been often made to every quarter of the world, and the goods then sold at half their original cost.

considered the House and the country much indebted to his hon. friend, for moving for the production of these papers at so early a period of the session. He was happy to hear the right lion, gentleman say, that he should not require any more loans. The right hon. gentleman did not say, whether or not it was likely he would fund any Exchequer Bills this year. Both his hon. friends had alluded to a subject to which he had repeatedly called the attention of the House, namely, the abolition of that part of the machinery of the Sinking Fund which was altogether delusive; and which contributed to make financial questions, though plain enough in themselves, obscure and unintelligible. He assumed, that the nominal Sinking Fund was 17,000,000l. He also conceded to the right hon. gentleman (although it was much beyond the reality), that the real Sinking Fund—namely, the excess of the revenue over the expenditure—was 5,000,000l. Now why not get rid of the 12,000,000l. of nominal Sinking Fund altogether? Instead of that, what did the right hon. gentleman do? If this year he should follow the precedent of the last, there would be the parade of an act of parliament to authorise the commissioners to borrow of themselves 12,000,000l. The commissioners were the only parties in the trans-action. They were to borrow, and they were to invest in the funds. It would be extremely satisfactory if the right hon. gentleman would signify his intention, either in this or in some ensuing year, to get rid of this delusive part of the Sinking Fund. Another important consideration was, the deficiency of the Consolidated Fund, amounting to no less than 8,800,000l. He knew very well, that the right hon. gentleman, was able to borrow this money at 3 per cent from the Bank. He entertained no kind of animosity whatever towards the Bank; but was it fitting, that the government of this country should be placed in such a situation as to be unable to pay the interest due to the public creditor without having recourse to the Bank for aid? The right hon. gentleman might easily relieve himself by a small loan, or a funding of Exchequer Bills. The right hon. gentleman had formerly predicted, that in a short period the deficiency in the Consolidated Fund would correct itself. How had that expectation been realised? The present deficiency was greater than that of the preceding quarter, and than that of the corresponding quarter of last year. At the corresponding quarter of the last year the amount was 8,500,000l.; now it was 8,800,000l. He wished especially to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he meant to get rid of the nominal Sinking Fund, and of his state of dependance on the Bank of England?

expressed his desire rather to wait for regular opportunities to discuss these important subjects, than to enter upon a premature and imperfect exposition of them in the shape of answering questions. He would, however, reply shortly to one or two points. With respect to the increase of expense in the collection of the Irish revenue, it was apparent and not real. It arose simply from the practice of bringing the whole forward as a charge on the public, instead of, as heretofore, laying it on the fees of merchants. Now, to the principal question put to him by the hon. gentleman, he had distinctly to state, that the public debt would not be increased by any means or in any way whatever this year. No stock whatever would be created, and what was outstanding at present, was, he affirmed, no more than was consistent with the public conveniency and service. The subject of the Sinking Fund had been often discussed; and he continued to be of the same opinion he had ever been upon it. He held, that it was far wiser to persevere in the present system which was well and practically understood, than to unsettle, under the name of simplification, the whole method with which public accountants were conversant. When the time came, that the Sinking Fund rose above what might be considered a sufficient sum for the gradual reduction of the national debt, then it might be desirable to adopt, with the surplus, the simplification now contended for; but, till that period arrived, he preferred going on in a known way; for so long as our revenue was fluctuating, which from its nature it must always be, there must, under whatever form it appeared, be an annual excess or diminution, liable to all the objections urged against the present system, at whatever sum the Sinking Fund was fixed. As to the deficiency in the Consolidated Fund, he still entertained the hope he had expressed, that it might be got over by the progress of the revenue. At all events, he could not be persuaded by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grenfell), that it would be wiser to leave the public money in the hands of the Bank for its advantage, than to borrow from that body at a low rate of interest, while government received a larger interest for its own fund. The saving to the country in this respect was very considerable, and the public good was eminently consulted by the system.

said, he was perfectly aware, that during the last quarter of the year 1819, 500,000l. of the new taxes had come in; but still he contended, that there was a falling off of a million in the whole accounts of the year; so that the revenue of the present year showed a deficiency of one million in comparison with the preceding year. Respecting the Sinking Fund, he felt confident, that the right hon. gentleman, so far from having an augmented real Sinking Fund in the current year, would find a deficiency as compared with the amount in the past, and also an arrear of interest upon the loan of 1820. One year he was charging his arrear upon the Consolidated Fund, and in another upon the Sinking Fund, without coining at once to the adoption of a steady, permanent system. Unless the revenue greatly improved in the current year, instead of a real fund of 2,000,000l. next year he feared there would be only a fund of 1,000,000l. In the present distressed state of all classes, he could not harbour the same confident expectations as the right hon. gentleman did. Instead of looking for an increase, he should be very glad if the year passed away without a deficiency. As to the mode of transacting business with the Bank; he was ready to admit, that some of the arrangements were beneficial, but, he could not think it creditable to break in upon the quarters in the manner in I which they were at present, by the mode of keeping the accounts and providing for the extraordinaries. In the year 1818, there was. on the 5th January, a defieiency of 2,386,000l. in the Consolidated Fund for that year. The next year showed an increase in that fund of 220,000l. but then the year that followed disclosed a deficiency of 2,300,000l. and at the present settlement of the year's accounts there was a deficiency of 429,000l. The plain fact was, that there only existed a Sinking Fund of 2,000,000l. to liquidate a funded debt of 800,000,000l. and an unfunded debt of an additional 100,000,000l. This was not a state of things to be looked at without alarm; the whole available Sinking Fund would not, if a war unfortunately met the country in the present state of its finances, supply the expenditure of six months.

could not imagine any good ground for persevering in the present system of the Sinking Fund. In substance it had been abandoned for years, and yet the right hon. gentleman persisted in adhering to all the forms. These, in his opinion, served only to vender the accounts unintelligible, and they ought therefore to be given up, and the real state of the country in regard to its revenue and finance be allowed to appear. On the subject of the arrangements with the Bank, however, he coincided with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was the most economical course that could be pursued; and produced a large saving to the public. The present state of our public accounts was so complicated, that even those gentlemen who were most conversant with the subject, declared themselves incapable of understanding them. As to the state of the revenue, he had felt an agreeable disappointment, if he might be allowed such an expression, at hearing the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he trusted, the right hon. gentleman would not on any future occasion feel himself obliged to retract them.

wished to state the grounds upon which he had expressed a confident expectation of improvement in the revenue. During the latter half of the last year the revenue had improved above any half-year which he ever remembered; and consequently, as the last half-year was so productive, there was every reason to believe, that the revenue would continue to improve. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, on the propriety of a simplification of the public accounts, that might certainly be in some degree to be wished; but the House ought also to be aware of the great evils that must ensue from an alteration in all the old forms. Such a measure would render them perplexed and unintelligible, and the whole for a century past must be new-modelled, to enable them to draw a comparison between any past year and that in which they were. He preferred going on in the way which use and experience had rendered clear and applicable to the general service.

inquired, whether the national business was to be impeded, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got a complicated system of accounts? For his own part, he knew many persons who were fully competent to understand any system of accounts, and yet those persons had been obliged to confess, that the accounts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were beyond their comprehension. He saw no reason why the accounts of the nation should not be kept in as simple a manner as the accounts of a private merchant. It was as easy to arrange the accounts of millions "as of simple pounds.

said, that in pursuance of what had fallen from him last night, he should now propose, that the sum of 30,000l. be inserted in the resolution instead of 50,000l. He should not go into any line of argument upon the subject; but, in the first instance, with regard to the admonition he had received last night, from an hon. member, he could only say, that he always rose to speak under the impression of feelings not easily controlled, and he sometimes was hastily led by them into the use of expressions not altogether consistent with his more deliberate sentiments. Upon another point, regarding which his conduct had been also arraigned, he was not at all disposed to make similar concession. The hon. and learned gentleman had appeared to think, that he was either wholly ignorant of the principles of British justice, or knowingly acted in direct opposition to them; and he had maintained, that a man who had not witnessed the grimaces of every witness upon the late inquiry was incompetent to form any judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the Queen. He (Mr. Sumner), on the contrary, was prepared to say, that an individual who had been present during that portion of the trial where lieut Hownam gave his evidence, coupling it with an acquaintance by reading with what had gone before and came after it, was as competent to form a judgment, as far as related to that individual's evidence as if he had been personally present during the whole trial. However his mind might have been impressed with the remainder of the testimony, he was ready to put all else out of the question, and to rely upon the statement of lieut. Hownam only. After that, nothing on earth could alter his conviction as to the guilt of her majesty, and which conviction he had pronounced last night. In arriving at this plain conclusion, he could not conceive, that he was acting in opposition to the principles of British justice. He had said last night, and he now repeated it, that after the disposition her majesty had shown—after the agitation and dissension that had arisen from her conduct—he did not think it safe to put so large a sum as 50,000l. a year at her disposal. If he could have reduced it lower than the mount mentioned in his amendment, it would have been the more gratifying to his feelings; but in proposing the alteration, he thought he was only discharging his duty, and even if he were not supported by ten members in the House, he would persevere in it. He concluded by moving the omission of 50,000l. and the insertion of 30,000l. instead thereof.

said, that the House would immediately perceive, that he did not rise to oppose the amendment. Whether the sum were 50,000l. 30,000l. 20,000l. 10,000l. or nothing, was to him, acting as one of the counsel for her majesty, not of the slightest consequence. The Queen utterly refused all sums: she would take no money as she was at present circumstanced, and he had therefore nothing to do with the present grant. Whatever vote the House might come to in its bountiful liberality, regarding a provision for the Queen, was to her majesty and her legal advisers absolutely nugatory. With respect to the preliminary observations of the hon. gentleman, he could only reply, that no man was bound to allow a greater latitude of indulgence than himself: the state of the hon. member's feelings last night had led him into the use of expressions for which he had now shown his regret, and the impression they had produced on him (Mr. B.) should last not one moment longer. If, however, his appeal to the hon. member as to the rest of his speech should fail, he put it to the House, whether it was fit or just that the hon. member should go on, night after night, stating his conviction of guilt on detached parts of the evidence in the Queen's case, when the whole of that evidence had failed of producing any effect but an acquittal in another place? He was therefore induced to say, that if any further allusions of the same kind were made—if he heard members, one after another, get tip on the other side of the House and singling out particular parts of the testimony, declare their opinion as to the whole, it would be impossible, that the matter should rest there. Either the Queen was guilty or not guilty—either she had been acquitted, or she had not been acquitted. If she had been acquitted no man had a right to renew these bold but unfounded assertions of crime: if she had not been acquitted, in God's name, let bar new accusers come forward at once. Let them manfully stand forth and produce their re-digested case. The Queen asked for justice—she had a right to demand it—and she required no more. If the country had not already seen enough of these disgraceful proceedings, let them come forward with fresh charges against her.

said, that he did not often trouble the House, but upon this occasion, which was no common one, when a large sum of money was to be voted for the use of the Queen, representing, as he did, a large and respectable portion of the community, he could not refrain from offering his sentiment. Although the question of guilt had not been tried in that House, it had been decided elsewhere; and he had a right to express his opinion regarding the testimony received in another place. He knew, that it was not regular to refer more minutely to what had already passed, but he could put his hand upon his heart and say, as a representative of the British people, that from the evidence taken elsewhere, and from the whole complexion of the case, he was satisfied that the Queen was guilty of the charges brought against her. Neither the taunts of power within, nor the clamour of the people without doors, should deter him from so asserting. He would apologize if he felt he was proceeding one step beyond the line of mode ration. On a question of this kind, where the feelings of the country were agitated from one end of the kingdom to the other, he could not help participating in those feelings. As a representative of the people, when a large sum was proposed to be voted to the Queen, he had a right to oppose it and to support a reduction of the grant. He was in favour of a smaller sum; because he did not like the mode in which the public money already placed in the hands of the Queen had been disposed of, and he knew not what the consequences might be of putting so large a grant in the power of such an individual. He had been told, that an individual (and he did not know why he should be afraid to name him), that the courier Bergami had been living in the capital of Frame in a manner better suiting the dignity of one of our first British noblemen than a character of his ignoble description. He wished to know whence Bergami's revenues came to support this style of magnificence, and whence they were to come in future? Were they to come from the House of Commons of Great Britain? Would gentlemen consent to vote money to be conveyed to such Hands as those? As long as he had the honour of a seat—as long as those who sent him to that House continued to bestow upon him the same honour, he would speak and vote according to the honest dictates of his conscience; and if the hon. mover of the amendment, on a division, went out of the House alone, he would accompany him. On a question of this sort he would make no compromise and he would vote no money for the continuance of what he considered a national disgrace.

reprobated the manner in which the hon. baronet had introduced topics, founded upon rumours which he had heard out of doors, and in which there probably was not one tittle of truth. Her majesty had been all her life subjected to these base and malignant calumnies—these scandalous attempts to destroy her consequence and respectability in this country. As to the amount of provision for her majesty, anxious as he was on all occasions to save the public money, he thought it should be settled upon the same liberal scale as allowances to other branches of the royal family. Justice demanded that the Queen should be provided for with the same liberality as the rest of the royal family. No part of the country was suffering more severely than the part which he represented; but he should be ill-received among his constituents on his return, if he consented to this miserable retrenchment, intended as a punishment upon a Queen who had been acquitted. Was she to be concluded guilty when those who ought to have brought her before another tribunal did not dare to proceed? With respect to the message of her majesty to that House, he inclined to attribute it rather to her advisers than to her majesty herself. The resolution which it expressed was one in which he should be sorry that she should persevere. There was in it a magnanimity that met the ear, but of which he did not approve. But he thought, that whatever objection might be felt to that message, it was too much to ground thereon such a construction as had been put upon it. The great object now ought to be to set at rest a question that had produced the strongest agitation, and that, compared with other national matters pressing upon the House, was in point of importance almost as a drop of water to the ocean. He was always a friend to economy; but when economy was mixed up with gross and palpable injustice, he believed he spoke the sentiments of the nation, when he asserted, that in this instance it ought to be disregarded: people might say, that the public money had indeed been spared, but that it had been spared at the expense of a foul and cruel imputation.

contended, that if, after what had passed, any man were allowed in that House to say, that the Queen was guilty, it was a place where every principle of law and justice, was disregarded! on every principle of law and justice the Queen stood precisely in the situation as if no charge had ever been exhibited against her; and if members were still to assert, that she was guilty, it would have been far better that the inquiry should have proceeded. Ministers had abandoned their bill because they could not prove its accusation; but, if every man was still at liberty to charge her majesty with the full commission of the crime, that abandonment might be looked upon but as an artifice to inflict a never-dying stigma, without a particle of evidence to support it.

said, that the proposition before the House was, to vote a provision for the Queen, under existing circumstances, and he knew not how he was to give his vote without at the same time giving his opinion of the conduct of the Queen.

rose to express his admiration of the zeal of the hon. gentlemen opposite in the cause of economy, and his hope that they would continue in that spirit, and exercise it impartially. Those honourable members expressed their indignation at the gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House who were willing to grant so large a sum as 50,000l. a-year to her majesty. That indignation was rather misapplied; the warmth should have been directed against his majesty's ministers. The former were willing to vote 50,000l. a-year to the Queen, supposing her to be innocent; while the ministers proposed 50,000l. a-year on the supposition of her guilt. If, then, it was the order of the day, that there should be these alternate assertions of guilt and innocence, which could have no purpose but to increase that irritation which it was the professed object of ministers to compose and settle, those ministers were loudly called on to justify their conduct.

said, he had objected to the grant of a large sum on the ground of the seditious tendency of her majesty's answers to the addresses she had received, and not on the ground, that her guilt had been established. He had explicitly said, that there was no ground of charge against her majesty, on account of the proceedings in the other House; but that on account of her answers to the addresses, and her message of yesterday, it would not be safe to place so large a sum of money at her disposal.

said, he would detail the motive for the vote which he had last night given, and which he should again give. He entirely concurred with respect to the allowance to be granted to her majesty, with the view of the noble lord (Castlereagh). The noble lord had stated, very distinctly, why 50,000l. was the sum which should be voted to the Queen. They had in the case certain land-marks, by which they could scarcely fail to be guided aright. This sum was the same which her majesty would have received if she had become a widow. The hon. member for Yorkshire (Mr. Wortley) thought there should be a reduction made in the allowance, on account of her answers to certain addresses. He was not of that opinion. He did not approve of all her majesty's answers, far less did lie think, with an hon. friend of his, that they were complete specimens of sound politics, religion and morality. Surely the answer to the Dover address was not liable to the harsh construction which had been put upon it. She might have been induced to use the words "my subjects" from the same expression being made use of in the address. The point for the present consideration of the House had nothing to do with those answers: it was simply, what was an allowance fitting for the high station and dignity which the constitution imparted to the Queen Consort of the country. As to the measure which had so long agitated the kingdom; namely, the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, it was his opinion, that the act was improper and illegal, and that some day or other her name must be restored. He would not go over the argument which had been so elaborately, but at the same time so perspicuously, urged on a former occasion by a learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Wetherell). The same ground had occurred to himself when he first heard of the exclusion of her majesty's name, and he thought, that no man who applied his mind to the act of the 13th of Charles 2nd. could entertain a doubt of the illegality of that measure. He heard it asserted, on the one side of the House, that the Queen had been acquitted; on the other, that she had been convicted; but his own opinion was that she stood at present on the same ground as if she had never been tried, and that, consequently, she was entitled to all the rights and privileges, all the honours and dignities, which the constitution allowed to the Queen Consort. This, he firmly believed, was also the opinion of the country; and, until her name was restored to the Liturgy, he feared it never would be tranquil.

said, that he could not sit still when statements were made which he had it in his power to contradict. He had now to ask the hon. member, who had declared his belief that her majesty's bills to her tradesmen were not paid, whether, in answer to his challenge of yesterday, he was ready to produce any one demand of that kind? He would pause for a moment for a reply.—As the hon. member for Surrey would give no answer, he should proceed. They now saw what the reports of the hon. member were worth. They had heard other insinuations arising out of reports from the hon. member for Somersetshire, who alleged, that money had been sent to an individual at Paris, who was said to have been living in a style of splendor at Paris. Now he challenged that hon. member to produce one proof, that one shilling had been sent to that individual; he challenged him also to shew what, if true, was easily proved, that Bergami was living in the style which had been spoken of. He was in Paris at the call of the gentlemen who were her majesty's law advisers, ready to be produced as an evidence if It was thought necessary. He was at Paris solely for that purpose; and if the House had dared to have goue on with the bill of Pains and Penalties [hear, hear!]—if his majesty's ministers Bad thought it prudent to go on—the member for Somerset would probably have had the pleasure of seeing that gentleman there. He wished now to call one or two facts to the attention of the noble lord (Castlereagh). He presumed by the appearance, that the noble lord had lust night a book similar to that which had been just put into his hand. The noble lord had stated, that her majesty had returned answers to the people of Dover and to the mayor of the corporation of Canterbury, in which she had spoken of "her subjects" and "her people." He now called upon the noble lord to say, whether he could produce that answer to the address from Dover in writing, or in any shape, as the answer of her majesty. He next came to the answer to the address from the mayor and corporation of Canterbury, in which the Queen was made to talk of "her people." He denied that such an answer was given by her majesty in any shape. He denied it; and he would forfeit his life if it was ever given by her majesty. The answers to Dover and to the mayor and corporation of Canterbury were given verbally; he was present, when they were delivered. They were merely apologies, that her majesty was not enabled to return any written answer. As to the answer to the Canterbury address, he remembered the words. They were to this effect, speaking of her disposition to promote the welfare of the city of Canterbury, her majesty added, that she should be glad of every opportunity to make all the people happy. As to the answer at Dover, in which her majesty was stated to have spoken of "her subjects," he utterly denied it. He could appeal to all the persons who were then in the room, and he could bring them all to bear witness to the correctness of his statement. A few words were uttered by her majesty as an apology for her not being prepared with a formal answer, and afterwards a conversation took place between her majesty and the deputation to a much greater length. He challenged the noble lord, out of the four or five hundred answers to addresses, which were regularly authenticated, to produce any of the offensive expressions to which he referred. He had caused search to be made for them, and had not found any. At any rate, he would positively deny the correctness of the alleged answers to Dover and Canterbury.

said, he only rose to say a few words in corroboration of what had been stated by the hon. baronet as to the style and manner of Bergami's living at Paris. He happened to be there for a few weeks during the stay of Bergami, who had been pointed out to him in an equipage as splendid as that of any person in that capital. In the quarter of the city in which he lived, he believed there was no person who supported a larger establishment. As to the amount of his funds, and whence he got them, or whether he paid for his establishment, those were matters of which he knew nothing; he could only speak as to his manner of living. It appeared to him, however, that the Queen had a right to spend her money as she pleased, either abroad or in this country: and therefore he should say nothing further on the subject.

said, he could distinctly state, that it was solely by his directions, with the concurrence of his learned colleagues, that Bergami had been brought to Paris. That person being resident on his farm in Italy, was brought to Paris in order to be in readiness, in case the bill should have come down to that House, and her majesty's counsel should have found it necessary to call him as a witness. That he asserted to be the fact. He had himself given the directions. As to that individual's scale of expense while living at Paris, he knew nothing; but this he knew, that if he spent a considerable sum of money in consequence of being called as a witness for the Queen, he was not the only person, either for or against the bill, who had incurred a considerable ex pence.

, in referring to the questions of the worthy alderman, said, that when the worthy alderman challenged him to produce the written copies of her majesty's answers the worthy alderman should have recollected, that he was not in the service or confidence of her majesty, and that therefore the worthy alderman was holding out a challenge which it was impossible that he should accept. He was, however, quite willing to allow, that the part of the publication to which he referred was more laughable than serious, and that the rhodomontade of talking of her subjects was merely despicable when compared with the more dangerous parts. The worthy alderman now denied the authenticity of those addresses; but he would have been better occupied in correcting the press, than in calling on him to produce copies of them. They were published in form in the paper, which, from its correctness in giving these articles, had been called her majesty's Gazette. If, however, they were not correct, he could read other instances. He did so as a favour to the worthy alderman, because he might correct the press also in these instances, in the republication, which he understood was to take place of these specimens of political, moral, and religious doctrine. In the answer to an address from Wandsworth, delivered by a deputation on the 13th October, her majesty said "No Queen was ever more easy of access to her people than I have been; but this facility has not caused any diminution of their love and respect. That age of ignorance," continued the answer, "is past, which made divinities of kings; but my experience proves, that sovereigns who are known to be attached to the public weal, may dispense with much of that exterior ceremonial which kept them aloof from their people, without losing their veneration or forfeiting their regard." The House would see how plainly in that answer the Queen had amalgamated herself with the sovereign. He thought, it would be impossible to select a code of doctrine, political and moral, that could be more prejudical to the constitution of the country than was contained in her majesty's answers to the addresses presented to her.

said, it was a pity, if Bergami could have been produced in the Commons, that he was not produced in the Lords. Her majesty's answers on her arrival, such as those from Dover and Canterbury, were fair tests of her majesty's sentiments; but more unfavourable inferences were to be drawn from those which she had afterwards delivered, and with which she had completely identified herself. As to the question of the Liturgy, he referred to the address of the House to queen Anne, in 1702, thanking her for her zeal for the protestant succession displayed in her inserting the name of the electress Sophia of Hanover in the Liturgy. After this could it be maintained, that the Crown was not authorised to omit as well as to introduce the name of that princess? And yet the House had returned thanks for that introduction. He conceived that that act of the House completely justified the present proceeding.

said, it was impossible, standing in the relation which he did towards the illustrious person who was the object of it, for him to give an opinion on the proposed grant; though he was conscious that in so doing he abandoned, in part, his duty to his constituents, who were anxious, in common with the whole country, that the more liberal vote should be supported. He felt it impossible, however, to hear the language which had been uttered on the other side, without drawing attention to it. He deemed it requisite to apologise to the House for approaching this subject with a degree of feeling which was excited by previous reflection on the conduct pursued towards her majesty from the beginning of the proceedings, in doors and out of doors, by the king's government and by their friends, which formed a series of persecution which he believed to be perfectly unparalleled in the history of the civilized world. That a majority of the peers came to a certain vote was true; that her majesty was convicted by any such vote he denied. The withdrawing of the bill was conclusive in favour of the Queen; because it was evident, that it was not withdrawn from any favourable feeling towards her, on the part of her accusers. It could only have been withdrawn because its patrons were satisfied, that they could not carry it, and that though they might triumph in the Lords, they could not succeed in the Commons. If prudential motives entered into the determination of the accusers, they deserved praise, but the accused should have the benefit of their determination. Pie had a right to consider the peers who came to a vote on that question, in their individual, not in their legislative capacity, and subject to have their opinions canvassed as mere individuals, for no law had been founded on their vote. Supposing then, that the bill had passed the House of Lords, and had come down to the Commons—and had been proceeded on in the temper which some gentlemen now evinced, could they have given an unbiassed judgment then—if now, when the bill had been thrown out, such illiberal opinions were founded on a rejected proceeding? He contended, that no member of that House had a right to found an opinion of the Queen's guilt on the result of that trial. Did they come now to argue the case over again, as on a motion for a new trial? He vowed to God, that he never expected to be called on to argue it again. Did they wish to argue it for the purpose of keeping up that unmanly conduct which had hitherto been pursued towards her—by referring to unfounded statements, that had been refuted by a gentleman of honour, who had the means of knowing how the fact stood; and by a reference to an alleged manner in which an individual lived at Paris? He deprecated the question now to be decided by the House; but he did, in the strongest manner, protest against any individual being pronounced guilty, the prosecution of whom had been abandoned by persons not disposed to show the smallest favour to the accused; and he begged, that the prejudice resulting from such a course of unjust proceeding might be confined to the breasts of the persons who indulged it. But, he heard with surprise a new question started, and that a new offence had been committed by her majesty in sending down a message to that House. If it were deemed an offence in her to declare openly her intention of rejecting any pecuniary grant, he thought it one for which a just and generous people would honour her, whatever might be the opinion of that House. In declaring this intention, her majesty had at least the merit of consistency; for, before she landed in this country, she had protested against the erasure of her name from the Liturgy, as an illegal violation of her rights. The moment she came over to England she claimed the restoration of her name; and the noble lord would recollect, that in the first interview which took place during the negotiations for an amicable arrangement, that was advanced as a legal claim by his learned friend and himself. The noble lord would also recollect, that in the discussion which took place on the motion of the lion, member for Bramber, the same ground had been taken by his learned friend. The question had indeed since that period been enveloped in such a blaze of light by his hon. and learned friend opposite (Mr. Wetherell), that it was difficult to approach it again without weakening the effect of the arguments then so forcibly advanced. Yet, in spite of this, the House were to be told, that the right of inserting or omitting names in the Liturgy was purely a ministerial question; and, in proof of this, a reference was made to a resolution of the House of Commons, in the reign of queen Anne, thanking her majesty for having evinced her zeal for the protestant religion by inserting in the Liturgy the name of the electress Sophia. But was there no difference between omitting and inserting a name? Could it be contended, that there was no difference between the case of inserting in the Liturgy of the church the name of a princess who had never been prayed for before that insertion was directed to be made, and the case of omitting the name of a Queen, who had been so long prayed for by name in that Liturgy, as princess of Wales? Good God! he could not suppose, that any man would venture to assert such an absurdity and therefore it would be a waste of words to combat it. He lamented to say, that in all these discussions, it seemed to have been taken as a guide of conduct and as a standing rule of argument, that the weaker party should be uniformly found to be in the wrong. There was no want of matter upon which that disposition might be manifested; for if one subject failed, another was directly found to serve the turn of gentlemen on the other side. And now, accordingly, they had taken up the case of the addresses; and the language of her majesty's answers was scrutinized and denounced. Why, had they not that night, been made acquainted with the contents of a most calumnious libel, which, if it were examined with the same scrupulous nicety that was applied to the expressions of a poor, forlorn, and defenceless woman, not well acquainted with the language of the country, and placed in a situation of unexampled difficulty and distress, would, he had no doubt, be considered as one of the most unwarrantable and flagrant offences, in the way of libel, that was to be found in the history of the country? He did not mean to go to that extent in inquiring into it; nor, if he did, was he likely to meet with the support of the same hon. gentleman on the other side, because the ministers of the Crown did not wish to press the matter. But he said, it was perfectly impossible, when they saw the enormous number of addresses presented to her majesty, warm from the lips and hearts of so large a portion of the population, that the Queen could be supposed to be exciting or encouraging disaffection. It might be very well to pick a hole in these addresses, and to say, they were calculated to excite agitation and disaffection; though none could be so well calculated to effect that end as the insertion, by lord Sidmouth, in the royal Gazette, of an address in which the conduct of the opposition was described to have been violent, unconstitutional, and insolent (hear, hear); and which was headed by the declaration, that the king had been graciously pleased to express his approbation of it. It was impossible, that the king could ever have approved of it: he did not believe, that he could do so, for a moment. But as to the charge of disaffection, he defied any man to prove it. He defied any man who had the slightest pretensions to character, to say, that he believed the Queen to be engaged in exciting disaffection. It might be said so in truth, if she was deprived of her reason; and that was a calamity which would be held to excuse her offence, on all principles of law and reason; but, short of that it was utterly impossible that she could at any time so far forget her own station, dignity, and interests; and he took the liberty of, saying, that the advice by which she was likely to act all her life, would effectually prevent any thing like one sentiment of: disaffection from being entertained by her. He apologized to the House for having thus long detained them; but he felt called on to offer some observations after what had been said by various gentlemen, and particularly by the member for Surrey. He could assure the House, that whatever might be the result of the last proposition submitted to it, himself and his hon. and learned friend would not even pair off; with the two county members who had; brought it forward and supported it. He had certainly no pretension to occupy so large a portion of the House's attention as he had done; but he could not sit down without putting in his claim on the part of the most persecuted woman whom he J had ever read of in the history of the world.

said; he did not think it proper on the present occasion to discuss the guilt or innocence of the Queen, as proved by the proceedings in the Lords, but at the same time, he claimed the right of qualifying his vote by his conviction, or of forming his conviction from what had entered his mind, without referring to the particular sources of it. He thought, however, that since the proceedings of the Lords were at an end the ministers had acted quite correctly in giving the Queen the whole of her legal rights, according to their ideas of them. He considered the insertion of her name in the Liturgy as a matter of grace and favour; and as such he had refused it his vote. He thought it not right to call the withdrawing of the bill of Pains and Penalties an acquittal: as that measure was of a mixed nature and us the reasons for withdrawing it might refer to the legislative and not to the judicial part, it could not be said to have the full effect of an acquittal. Before he fat down he would take leave to express his sorrow, that the hon. member for Surrey who had found time, as he had informed them, to mature his regrets for the asperity with which he had spoken on a former night, had not also found time so to mature his opinions, as to abandon all idea of bringing forward the amendment he had done. The inexpediency of his proposition was evident. In the first place, if he obtained only a small division, that would be no great compliment to his sagacity; in the second, if it went to a large division, that would bean event which would only tend to aggravate those feelings at present pervading the House and the country, and the warmth of which he was willing to trust would soon be allayed.

said, that beyond the grounds upon which many gentlemen intended to support the original proposition, there was one additional reason for his concurring with it. That one reason was, that it was so worded, as that it neither imputed guilt nor asserted innocence. As the vote now stood, any new arrangements which might be hereafter made for her majesty would leave it in statu quo. Had it not been for her majesty's self-denial and generosity in 1814, she would have been present to the consideration of hon. gentlemen, at this moment, as a person already indulged with that measure of liberality which they were now met to consider the propriety of bestowing. In 18J4, the estimate of the sum to be allowed her, yearly, was 50,000l.; but in her own estimate of her own expenditure, she was enabled to reduce that proffered allowance, to one of a considerably less amount. Now, it would be most ungracious in them to make such a return for this act of her's as to vote the decreased income proposed by the hon. member for Surrey: for surely they could not take advantage of an act of generosity to the detriment and wrong of the individual concerned.

said, that many reasons, had hitherto induced him to support the smaller, rather than the larger sum; but on further consideration, he had thought 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. Denman) in another place, and have said "Take your thirty thousand pounds," and "go and sin no more."

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.

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.

said, he had been made to assert the other night that, ministers intended to promote a revolution. What he had said was, that this was the age of revolutions, and he should not wonder if ministers produced one. There was a wide difference between an act intentionally committed, and that which was the effect of blindness. He did not think ministers would promote one intentionally, for the best of all reasons—self-preservation; 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.