On the 31st of January, lord Castlereagh having moved the order of the day, for going into a committee of the whole House, on so much of the king's speech as regards a provision for the Queen, Mr. Brougham rose, and said, that he had received her majesty's commands to present to the House the following message: "Caroline, R. "The Queen having learned; that the House of Commons has appointed this day for taking into consideration the part of the king's most gracious speech, which relates to her, deems it necessary to declare, that she is duly sensible of his majesty's condescension in recommending an arrangement respecting her to the attention of parliament. She is aware, that this recommendation must be understood as referring to a provision for the support of her estate and dignity; and, from what has lately passed, she is apprehensive that such a provision may be unaccompanied by the possession of her rights and privileges in the ample measure wherein former queens con sert, her royal predecessors, have been wont, in times past, to enjoy them : "It is far from the Queen's inclination needlessly to throw obstacles in the way of a settlement, which she desires, in common with the whole country; and which, she feels persuaded, the best interests of all parties equally require; and being most anxious to avoid every thing that might create irritation, she cautiously abstains from any observation upon the unexampled predicament in which she is placed; but she feels it due to the House, and to herself, respectfully to declare, that she perseveres in the resolution of declining any arrangement while her name continues to be excluded from the Liturgy.Brandenburgh House, Jan. 31st, 1821." As soon as this message was read, Mr. Western opposed the motion for going into a committee, and moved an adjournment. The ground, which he and those who supported him took, was, that the innocence of the Queen ought to be acknowledged, before the public money was granted to her. A very keen debate followed, in which lord Castlereagh and Mr.Tierney took the principal share. If the House of Commons were disposed (said lord Castlereagh) to recognize the sovereign power assumed by her majesty, they would soon see in what manner she would exercise this novel control. She had said formerly, she would not accept any grant unless it came from parliament; now, when she saw it was about to be given by parliament, she said she would not take it, unless her name were restored to the Liturgy; and if that point were conceded, she would afterwards insist, as the terms of her acceptance of the grant, that she should have a palace, and participate in the coronation. short, she would never acquiesce in the tranquillity of the country, nor would she be satisfied, till the power and dignity of the crown were prostrate at her feet. In Mr. Western's motion for an adjournment was negatived without a division; and the House having gone into a committee of supply, lord Castlereagh moved that there should be granted to her majesty a sum not exceeding 50,000l. a-year for her life. Mr. Stuart Wortley was convinced, from the language used by her majesty, in some of her answers to addresses, and in her letter to the king, that it would not be safe to entrust her with the management of so large a sum: but, for the sake of promoting quiet, he consented not to press an amendment for giving her an annuity of less amount. Mr. H. Sumner then took up the course which Mr. Wortley had abandoned, and moved, that only 30,000l. per annum should be granted to her majesty but the original motion was carried without a division. The same question was again discussed on the following day, when the report of the committee was brought up. On the 5th of February the marquis of Tavistock brought forward a motion, which put completely in issue the justice and expediency of the general system of measures, which had been pursued towards the Queen. The motion was, "That it appears to this House, that his majesty's ministers in advising the measures which have led to the late proceedings against her majesty the Queen, were not justi fied by any political expediency or necessity; and that their conduct throughout the whole of those proceedings has been productive of consequences derogatory from the honour of the crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country." The debate on it lasted two nights. On the first night, Mr. Peel stood forth as the advocate of the mi nistry. He lamented that her majesty's name had been excluded from the Liturgy, that a palace had not been provided for her, that her demand of a ship of war had not been complied with; because circumstances like these, though in themselves trifles, gave rise to an impression on the minds of the multitude, that she was an object of persecution :-but he declared his concurrence in the general course of measures, which had been adopted. It had been impossible to allow the Queen, with such grave charges and suspicions hanging over her, to ascend the throne without a communication to parliament. "Where was the evil," it was asked, "of avoiding all proceedings ?" What! was it no evil to place on the throne of England imputed adultery and guilt? To raise a Queen accused of gross licentiousness to the head of a female society, distinguished for the decencies which form the charm of life? Not only was the inquiry necessary-it was inevitable; and every attempt to evade it would have been ultimately inef fectual. Had every privilege been conceded to her, they who now fought her battles, would have been in arms against her; and the House would at that moment have been engaged in discussing the question, whether the govern ment ought not to be impeached, for withholding the charges under which they knew her to labour. It was doubtless a misfortune, that the proceedings against her afforded a vile and degraded faction an opportunity of throwing much abuse and reproach upon illustrious and royal station. But this calamity was the neces sary result of a spirit of mischief availing itself of circumstances over which ministers had no control; and, whatever course might have been adopted by the government, would have come from the same quarter, though per haps in a form somewhat different. They, who, when the Queen was recommended to them by being the object of a prosecution, had seized her arm to shake the throne, would have turned their venomous tongues against her, if she had been tranquilly admitted into the full enjoyment of regal splendor. They would have propagated and circulated every degrading insinuation, and would have asked, what respect was due to a throne, which could be so filled. Nothing less than the triumph of complete and unequivocal innocence would satisfy her majesty; and how could ministers allow her that triumph, convinced as they were that she was a guilty woman? Having shown by these reasonings, the necessity of taking some proceedings against her majesty, Mr. Peel then endeavoured to prove, by the same arguments as were employed in the House of Lords when the matter was before them, and which will be found in our former volume, that a bill of Pains and Penalties was the least objectionable course which could have been adopted. The debate on the second night was much more animated. Sir Robert Wilson, besides dilating on all the common-places of the question, produced a number of certificates from persons of rank and consideration in Italy, who declared, that they had seen no indecorum in the Queen's conduct; and Mr. H. G. Bennett said again what he had said twenty times before. Sir Francis Burdett took his ground with much skill. He stood up, not so much to eulogize the Queen, as to deprecate the mode in which she had been attacked, and, without endeavouring to prove her innocent, thought it enough if he could show, that no guilt had been established against her. He contended, that the policy which ministers had pursued with respect to her, was, from the beginning to the end, equally to be deplored. If they wished her to have staid abroad, they ought undoubtedly to have made it possible for her to do so; they ought not to have followed her with indignities and insults, which compelled her to return. The difficulties, which arose after her return, were all of their own creation; for had they but abstained from injuring and insulting her, she would have been an object of comparatively little notice. Her palace could have been filled only by disinterested courtiers, by the few who were to be found in castra ubi nulla potentia, and in a short time she would probably have been happy to have again gone abroad. Even if a prosecution was to be instituted against her, still as her alleged offence did not amount to high treason, as there was no intention of aiming at her life, and as the sole object was to show that she was unfit for her high station, this purpose might have been fully answered by a proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts. A single fact would then have been sufficient, and all that exposition of evidence which, if it had not produced immorality, had excited universal disgust, might have been avoided. The charges were of such a nature, that they ought never to have been uttered, unless there was a 1 to betray an eagerness to convict, but rather, under the dictation of gentleman-like feelings to show a spirit of indulgence, and to extenuate instead of exaggerating a supposed offence. There was no need for going into a long nauseous detail: had one single material fact been proved, the rest might have been spared, and ought to have been spared, in a prosecution avowedly instituted pro bono publico. But how was this impropriety aggravated, when, to the details of statement, were added the details of testimony. All this diversified calumny was thrown into circulation, and never, perhaps, had there been so many steps taken to prepos- · sess the public mind, and induce it to prejudge a question. certainty of supporting them by real or pretended state necessity: the most unexceptionable testi-that, under such circumstances, mony. But many accusations it did not become a public officer were made, and received from the Attorney-general's opening speech the greatest publicity, which it was not afterwards attempted to establish by any evidence. That speech had, he must confess, filled him with astonishment. On no occasion, and least of all on this, could he have expected, that a public officer would act the disgraceful part of collecting the rhetoric of the lowest brothels, and afterwards pour it forth with unbounded license in the ears of a disgusted audience. Unrestrained by any consideration of the Queen's exalted rank, or by any recollection of her misfortunes, he had endeavoured by a statement of seeming facts, and specious and highly-coloured descriptions, to excite prejudice and odium against her, and then, proh pudor, called no evidence to support the most infamous parts of his accusation. The hon. and learned gentleman had spoken, as if the Spirit of Evil dwelt in his bosom, and possessed his tongue; for who but the author of all malice, who, with the feelings of a gentleman, or a man in his heart. -Sir Francis, being here interrupted by cries of order, explained his meaning to be, that, if charges of a heinous nature were preferred by a public officer against an exalted person, and that person a lady a lady too so unfortunate, that her offences, if she had committed any, ought to find compassion, if not excuse -where the case was such, that no one appeared as a complaining party, and where the sole ground of the prosecution was a VOL. LXIII. In reply, the Attorney-general affirmed, that, in his opening speech in the House of Lords, he had stated nothing, which, from the depositions put into his hands, he did not expect to substantiate. Did the hon. baronet think, that he had himself examined the witnesses to know what they could depose to? had never, from the commencement of the proceedings to their close, communicated with a single witness, and was bound to take their depositions from those who had examined them. It was well known, that there was nothing which a counsel avoided more, especially in criminal cases, than previous communication with the witnesses whom he was to examine in open court. He had so' acted in this case. He had read the evidence-he believed that it was faithfully taken from the [C] mouths of the witnesses-he believed it, and thought that it proved his case. Mr. Tierney entered into the question at large. In the early part of the former session, he had declared, in his place in parliament, that either the Queen was insulted, or the king betrayed, and that he would not vote a shilling for the support of her majesty, till her character was cleared up. The ministers had frequently pressed the Opposition with this declaration of their chief, as a proof that investigation was absolutely necessary; and Mr. Tierney therefore found it expedient to try to explain away the obvious meaning of his words. At the time, he observed, when he expressed that opinion, her majesty's name had been expunged from the Liturgy; and that exclusion in itself constituted a charge which demanded investigation. Besides, reports had been spread abroad, and industriously imported into this country, the origin of which it was necessary to inquire into. He said so then, and he was of the same opinion still. He then believed, that there existed irresistible evidence of her majesty's guilt; because he could not conceive it possible, that, without such irresistible evidence, the ministers of the crown could have proceeded to strike her majesty's name out of the Liturgy, With this impression, he believed that charges were to be openly brought forward; and he thought it due to the House, to the interests of the country, and to the honour of the king, that the inquiry should take place before the grant of money was made. If he had fallen into any error, it was that of having placed too much confidence in the ministers. He had supposed, that they would not have ventured to expunge the Queen's name from the Liturgy, if they had not had credible evidence of her guilt. They had however no such evidence. Without having had one single point, upon which they could firmly rely-without having sifted the evidence of one single witness— upon the mere depositions of a parcel of discarded servants, chambermaids, and vagabonds of every description-without having investigated the character of any one individual, the case was committed into the hands of the Attorney-general; and all that the House heard him now say was, "If all that I had stated in opening had been proved in evidence, no doubt could have remained of the Queen's being guilty." The Attorney-General, in the discharge of his duty, could do no less than he had done; but he (Mr. Tierney) charged it against the king's ministers, as a high offence, which required not merely censure, but impeachment, that they should have brought forward such accusations against her majesty on the evidence of such characters as he had described, without examining one respectable person to throw any light upon them. He had attended on the trial every day during the time that the evidence for the prosecution was under examination, and a more disgusting and disgraceful scene he had never witnessed. He could perceive, from the painful situation of the learned gentlemen who conducted it, that they evidently distrusted their own witnesses; that they |