Star. — London, England, 1821-01-27 00:00:00

. %. a '~ - Owners of the River Thames, the Inhabitants of Hammersmith, and the Parishioners of St. Matthew, Bethnal-greei n—they were all ordered to be printed. Sir ROBERT WILSON.—.. I hold in my hand a similar Petition, signed by 2097 persons, of a very respectable class of artisans, denominated The Spa nish Morocco Leather-dr essers'—(A laugh).—They may excite the contempt, possibly, of some Gentle men—they are poor, but they are loyal—(Hear, hear). —They pay taxes, and they are as much en titled to be heard in this house as Gentlemen who represent Aldermen, or any class of men whatever' —(Hear, hear).—Their Petition deserves peculiar attention on account of the temper and the tone of intelligence which it manifests. - They concur in the uniform sentiment which is kindled throughout the country with reference to the Queen; they agree in the detestation which is everywhere expressed of the proceedings against her Majesty ; they think that ' 1 the omission of her name from the Liturgy was an outrage to justice—(Hear, hear)—calculated to brand her with infamy, in order either to constrain her to live in exile, or, if she returned to this country, to facilitate her condemnation—(/kar, hear). They express their regret that private malignity has been introduced into the Temple where Religion, with her kindred Charities, should alone have presided— ( Hear, hear).—Since the Parliament met, an argu ment had been made use of with respect to the prayer of the Petitioners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, on a former evening, that the question of the restoration of her Majesty's name to the Liturgy is one which ought to be argued not as a party question, but as a legal and constitus tional question. But the Noble Lord clear him, to use a common phrase, let the cat out of the bag: For the Noble Lord has said, if the House should agree to carry up an Address to the Throne upon this subject, Ministers would not be a patty to such a proceeding ; thus making it a party question, and in direct terms calling on his dependent officers and squires —(A laugh on the Ministerial Benches)—to support him and themselves in their respective situa tions. The Petitioners prayed that her Majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy, and they did so not merely because she had a right to have her name so restored, nor because in law she was justifi• able in claiming that right, but also because theresto ration of her name to the Liturgy would be a measure calculated to tranquillize the country. They wished to see the sword of dissension returned to the scab bard, and the torch of discord entirely extinguished (Hear, hear). They state their belief that tranquillity will not be restored to this country until her Ma jesty's name is inserted in the Liturgy. I say more, that tranquillity ought not to be restored unless act of justice shall be done!—(Cheersfrom the Minis terial Benches). I repeat the words, although I may •be accused in this House. But in this House I can not be accused without a formal charge—(Laughter) —but, although I be accused elsewhere, I say again that tranquillity ought not to be restored until her Majesty's name is inserted in the Liturgy. And I say so because, if, without that tranquillity were re stored, we would be acquiescing in an act of flagrant injustice—(Cheers from the Opposition). We might have peace, but it would be the peace not of freemen but of slaves ! (No, no !,from the Ministerial Benches). I say it would be so. I know of no free Govern ment unless the voice of the People have an influence over it. It this were a Government where no such influence was recognized, I would as soon live under the Sophi of Persia or the Dey of Algiers, as tinder the King of England! I detest and despise that odious and servile doctrine— ' Iniqui quam pacem vellem atque bello justisslino anteferro.' (Hear, hear).— Peace, with liberty, is alone desirable; public discord, without it, is to me pi eferable to such a species of tranquillity. Discord is the disease of a free Stare; despotism is death to it!"—(bear, hear). The hollow able and gallant General concluded with moving that the Petition be brought up. It was bri.nght up, read, and ordered to be printed; as was also a similar Petition from Bolton, in Lanca shire. 11 ith reference to the latter, the honourable and gallant General said that it was signed by a large number of the inhabitants; that it was sent about for signatures, but not agreed to at a Public Meeting— because the inhabitants living, as he said, so near to a town (Manchester) where 600 persons had been wounded in exercising their right of assembling, on a former occasion, they did not wish to expose them selsks to the danger of a similar outrage.—(Hear.) Mr. S. C. WHITBREAD presented two similar Petitions from the operative Sawyers of London and Westminster, and from the parish of Edmonton. Ordered to be printed. Mr. R. BOUGH TON presented a similar Petition from Evesham, in Worcestershire. Ile said he ob served among the signatui es those of several respect able Clergymen, Protestants and Dissenters. The Petitioners prayed that Parliament would refrain from all future hostilities against her Majesty; they deeply deplored the measures which had been already insti tuted against her ; and they prayed the restoration of her name to the Liturgy. Having stated the opinion of the Petitioners, he would avail himself of this op portunity to express his own opinion of those mea sures, and he could not but think them in their ori gin most unwise, most unfair, and highly inexpedient —(Hear, hear). It was his decided conviction that the Ministers could not now do better than retrace their steps —(Cheers) —and he was persuaded that the restoration of her Majesty's name to the Liturgy was the only means of allaying the discontent which was raised from one end of the kingdom to the other by those impolitic counsels—(Hear, hear). The Petition was ordered to be printed. The Marquis of TAVISTOCK presented a similar Petition from the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy, and Frees holders of the County of Bedford, which was agreed to at a County Meeting, the first that had been held there for a number of years, and one of the most respectable Meetings he ever saw. It was regularly convened, and the proceedings were carried on in the true old spirit of the British Constitution. The Petition was signed by 2.400 freeholders. It stated several grievances, prayed a Reform in Parliament, but, above all, it reprobated the late proceedings against her Majesty and prayed this House not to countenance them. The petitioners were, like many others of their fellow-subjects, jealous of those new proceedings, which had shaken the tranquillity of the country. It might perhaps meet. the views of his Majesty's Ministers to say that such a Meeting as this was nothing bat a farce—(Loud cheers).--Let them meet, the people at such open assemblies, and' not skulk into holes and corners—(Hear, hear)—from which they might issue libels against the People of England—(Hear). These petitioners were the friends of the Constitution, not its enemies. They were the most loyal people in the world, and the most inca pable of betraying the interests of the Crown and the Nation. If Ministers meant to continue in their present career, he desired them to pause before they would drive such a people to despair—(Hear, hear). Let them be cautious how they stigmatized as disaf fected all those who had the audacity to oppose them (Hear). —Such conduct never could be considered as resulting from sound policy, either in public or in private life—(Hear). —The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed. Mr. BERNAL presented a similar Petition from Rochester. Though no party man he joined in every item of this Petition. He was not disposed to em barrass any Government which was well adminis tered; but when he saw Ministers institute proceed ings which degraded the Nation in the eyes of the world, he thought it was high time for men to speak their sentiments, and not smother them under a veil of affected tenderness (Hear). The meetings of the People might be considered by a Noble Duke as farces, or interludes, perhaps—(Hear)—dot if they were treated with contempt, it might soon appear that they were tragedies!—The Petition was ordered to be printed, as was one from Mary-la-bonne, pre sented by the same Honourable Member. Mr. JERVOISE presented a similar Petition from the County of Southampton, and said he concurred in its prayer. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY supported this Petition, as he found that a County Meeting was in future to be called " a farce !"—(Chcers). He thought it ne cessary to vindicate the respectability of the Peti tioners from the stigma which was cast upon them. Some persons called such County Meetings mobs ! He supposed that now every Meeting was to be called a mob, except battalions of soldiers and squadrons of horse !—(Cheers). Mr. WELLESLEY POLE contended that the No ble Duke (Wellington) whose language had been al luded to, had not intended to disparage County Meetings, though he might not have weighed his words with the accuracy of a practised speaker. Mr. BARING felt that it was necessary for him, in order to vindicate the proceedings of the County Meeting alluded to, to refer the Right Ilon. Gentle man to the County Member behind him (Mr. Fle ming), because that Honourable Member had an op• portunity of trying the patience of that Meeting in a manner that no Public Meeting ever experienced. He (Mr. Fleming) had addressed them, and never in his (Mr. Baring's) opinion was an) speech delivered upon a similar occasion more provocative of tumult and disapprobation ; yet not one word was uttered by that Hon. Gentleman but was listened to with the greatest good-humour. If Honourable Gentlemen would only compare the good-humour and order of that Meeting with the clamour and confusion of the exclusive Loyalists at the Egyptian flail, they would see that the former at least would not lose by the com pad son—( eers). Mr. FLEMING, in explanaticn, said, that having understood that the Meeting was convened for the purpose of discussing certain propositions, be bad ven tured to deliver himself with freedom and candour. The Petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed ; as were four others, to a similar effect, from different pal is of the County of Southampton. Sir W. GUISE presented a Petition from the Free holders of certain Parishes of Gloucestershire, to a similar purport with those presented in the course of the evening, with respect to her Majesty and the con ' duct of Ministers.—Ordered to be printed. Lord BELGRAVE presented a similar Petition from the Town of Chester. Ile said, that it was in a very few days signed by 1500 persons, and it stated that their grievances were connected with the present system of Government—and prayed the I-louse to use its endeavoers to procure the dismissal of Minis ters. With this Petition, he added, was connected an instance of violence, such as that resorted to by the Ultra Loyalists, in order to prevent the expression of public sentiment. While some of the persons whose names were to this Petition, were signing it, some of the opposite party came in, and absolutely tote it from their bands !—Ordered to be printed. Sir T. ACKLANI) presented a similar Petition from the Inhabitants of Dartmouth, signed by 1250 persons, consisting of one Magistrate, and between two and three hundred Yeomen—one hundred Master Manufacturers—between four and five hundred Ar tizans, and the rest of respectable Females and pri vate Gentlemen. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in support of the Peti tion, thought that Ministers would do well to com ply with the universal feeling of the country, and as to their thundering threats of renouncing office before they could restore her Majesty's name to the Liturgy, yet a recollection of their compliant demeanour upon their defeat upon the repeal of the Property Tax, led him to believe, that if the House agreed to the motion of his Noble Friend below him, the Ministers themselves would come down to the House to-mor row, and announce that her name had been restored —( Hear, heart Ordered to be printed. Nil-. BARING presented a similar Petition from the Town of Taunton. Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS another from the Seven Incorporated Trades of Dumfries, and another from the Journeymen of the same town.----They were all read, and ordered to be printed. _ . _ Mr. W. SMITH presented a Petition, signed by 4500 persons, who, he said, were remarkable for their talents, integrity, understanding, and education, pray ing for the restoration of the Queen to all her rights, and a Parliamentary Reform.—Read, and ordered to be printed. Mr. LITTLETON presented a Petition from the Master Manufacturers of Staffordshire, praying for a removal of all Commercial restrictions, which was laid on the table. The Honourable Member said, he was instructed to ask the Member for Taunton, if it was his intention to move for the revival of the Committee appointed last Session, for the consideration of Commercial Regulation? Mr. BARING replied in the affirmative. ADJOURNMXNT OV THI 110 MG On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER, the House resolved to adjourn, at its rising, to Wednes day next. COMMITTIZ OP SUPPLY. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the Order of the day for the House going into a Committee of Supply. Mr. CREEVEY observed, that the present was the first stage of the process by which million: were about to be voted a p wa rev l eL l ed at eh be e being subverted, he (Mr. C.) hoped. that, in like in:inner, .y hoped ianeen n fr o o w m fo bc r b in e g tte: ac t r iLeL d, A a n.sdtht the Public lalvsfr h o a n d t would come forward in defence of their property. If a Public Meeting in this country had been deemed a farce, such language must have come from Troppau. But the real far ce among was the Com mittee of Supply, where lit individuals, sha ring £170,000 out of the revenue of the country,votedawaythtehme public money. The House then went into the Committee, where , . on the mo tion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQULR, a Supply was granted to his Majesty.—Report on Wednesday. THE LITURGY. Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON, in rising to make his motion relative to the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy, begged leave to ex pressart s of h his t hopes that countryth at uthoealidi makeup umbo er of Pet itions fry aade ffirocmi deficiency p on his part in doing justice to the subject. The num ber and the nature of these Petitions well entitled them to the consideration of the House, as contain ing a clear and unequivocal expression of publ i c opinion. The general ferment of the country, from one end to the other, must also have its due weight with the House ; as it had not only extended to that House, but Interfered with the daily avoca tions of People at large. Ministers might be of opinion, that he had taken up the question as one of the party, but it would be in the recollection of the house that he had, before the clear manifesta tion of public opinion, asserted, in his place in that House, the constitutional right of her Ma jesty to have her name in the Liturgy. That he had done at the time when her name had teen only mentioned by a degrading circumlocution.— When the Member for 13ramber (Mr. NVilberforce) made his motion, he (Lord A. Hamilton) had, in the shape of an Amendment, made substantively the same motion that he then submitted to the House, and had that Amendment been carried, a great part of the subsequent evil would have been prevented.-- In his motion, he meant nothing personal to the Crown, as the whole was to be traced to the respon. sibiiity of Nlinistei s...(Hear, hear, from the 11 intstetial Benches).—lt was impossible that matters could re main in their present state, nor could the Queen be satisfied with a mere pecuniary establishment. Some thing must be done to restrain the ebullitions of the Press, and the restraint he would propose, would be to do away the cause. If any one thing had a greater effect on tile Public than another, it was the unjust and unconstitutional exclusion of the name of the Queen from the Liturgy of the Church—( Hear ). Should that not be done away, no effectual means could be proposed to allay the irritation in the public mind ; he must call the whole of the proceedings against the Queen revolutionary, with which the con duct of no Radicals could be compared. It would seem, front what had on a former night been stated in the House, that Ministers intended certain pro ceedings of a retrospective nature. An Honourable Alderman (lleygate) had blamed the omission of her name in the Liturgy in the first instance, but for sooth would defend the exclusion, on account of the Queen's letter to the King. But that would, in effect, be to try the Queen for one offence, and to punish her for another. But the situation of the Queen, at the time, was to be looked to, when her name bad been omitted in the Liturgy; and he must contend, that the act was not only illegal but unjust, to an oppressed and an injured woman. The Queen, at that time, had no home nor establishment in this country, though she was by law a Queen; and, with rela tion to domestic life, was to be regarded as without at husband. She had also left the country with a letter of licence—(Hear, hear, hear, and No, no !)-- had been watched by spies while abroad, and had met with no protection from any qualiter. Amidst such circumstances, would the House place itself in the moral chair ? Even if all had been done that had been alleged, no fair and candid man would bring any accusation against her. It ought also to be remembered, that she had formerly been tried and acquitted ; and if she had been guilty of any crime, she had been provoked to it. It was said, that heavy charges bad beets made against her; if those were proved, then let her be punished; if false, her name ought to be restored. There was no alterna tive; but Ministers would neither assert she was guilty, nor admit of her innocence. The Noble Lord then went on to comment on the Order of Council fcr the exclusion of the name ; and mentioned, that by the Act of Uniformity, no alteration could be made in the Prayers ; but one name could only be substituted for another. Had the Act meant to con vey any such power, it would have described it in clear and precise terms. Even the Order in Council was only negative, and did not warrant the altera tions. The Act of Uniformity no more authorized the praying for George IV. than for the Queen. The accession of George IV. made his wife a Queen, and entitled her equally, to the Prayers of the Church. The Act was never meant to have a penal effect, which it must have, if the construction attempted to be put upon it was right. He was doubtless surprised that the Head of the Law, as well as the Church, should sit in Council when such an Order was made. The same Order had been sent to Scotland, for which there was no authority, and where it had been regarded as mere waste paper. The manifest illegality in the one case made him strongly doubt the legality in the other. Among the other names, that of Mr. Canning was subscribed to the Order in Council. It might appear illiberal to censure a man in his absence ; but it was his absence of w hich he complained. It was al s o sa id, th a t h e had differed with his colleagues on the subject of the Queen; and, in that case, he ought to have waited for a few days, and explained the reasons for his conduct. At one time he spoke i n f avour o f t h e prosecution—then his name appeared to the Order in Council—and, lastly, the Public had been in formed that he had differed from his colleagues. But, in that case, he ought to have stated the cause to the House. The Noble Lord said, his motion would be, that the omission was ill-advised and in expedient. But he should not limit himself to that, as the injury could only be repaired by the insertion of the name. At the same time he should not call fora specific vote to that effect—(Hear, from Lord Castlereagh).—The Noble Lord would probably have enough to do in dealing with the motion as it was made; and he bad no doubt, had he called for a di rect vote to replace the name of the Queen in the Liturgy, he would have been told that he offered an insult to the Throne. Prayers were not offered up for the Royal Family, merely on account of their personal qualifications ; but merely because they were members of the Royal Family and and unwise to lead the Public to di between the different members of th conduct of Ministers on the present to make Religion a mere erg:ne of felt that they were not warranted in L. against the Queen, and had theref( them, but could lay no claim to a bearance, as the Country N:oul d to proceed farther in their career The most abominable charges had bt the Queen, and as such action woul, tion, the tranquillity of the country stored while things remained in th If the country was still to be delugi abomination, they would be led to House and they had nn common believed that the Noble Lord and hit too sensible men to have instituted ing of themselves, and was of opinii vertently given a pledge that such pi be commenced, on the event Of thi over. He believed that lini , ters xre conduct that they had not advised, servility he complained—( /fear, her the House took the matter into thei would say, in the language of the behind him, discord would continue to out the country. lie conclude,l by That it is the .ense of this House, eta oil of l'eb. 12, 1820, authorizing the otniy.i name from the Liturgy, was in.),t ill-. tivis, Mr. ELLIS defended the con& ning, who (he stated) had declared ning, that lie would take no part in against the Queen. Oa that accot absent during all the proceedings in fineing he could continue no lunge: chosen to resign. When charges h, brought against his Right lion. 1 serice, the House should recollect hi fence. From the responsibility att, der in Council, he (Mr. Canning) shrink. He trusted Honourable G postpone their attacks on his Right his leturn, as he could assure them, actuated either by attachment to of of popular a pplatt , .e. Mr. F. ROBINSON entirely cons nion of the Noble Lord, that Mini responsible for the proceedings ag though that opinion the Noble quently seemed, in some measure, ti ther the advice to exclude the nat from the Liturgy was right or w were alone responsible, and by th, must stand or fall. When the N( charged Ministers with revolutior would have been cowardly, indeef avowed their responsibility. But now did Ministers entertain any dour gality of the proceeding. If the A( tive as to the insertion of the name of the names of all the Royal Progeny • but as the latter had often been might the Queen's. The Queen hat rated from the King ; that separati cognized by the late King, and a se). ment had been sanctioned by Act of They would recollect it was also at gined that the Queen had consented and the insertion of her name in the have been incongruous with such a as grave charges might be brought ag it was not fitting she should have the ing her name inserted in the Litut Ministers) had found it their bounder the King to refuse that mark of rest jesty ; because, if they had not don( have been treating her in a way as i been even accused of anything—(Hi there were some who thought that been so treated ; but there were oth , differently, and that they ought not her according to her high dignity, gi and so forth. They had been accuse, of having brought the country to lion—(Hear).—lf so, what should fate ? not the milk-and-water moti Lord—(llear)—who talked of an of which they knew nothing. Why Lord, if he desired to drive them ft not make his motion fully at onct tempting, by a mitigated proposition, votes of all who might have the sli' difference of opinion from Ministers the Petitions had for their object tin nizters, while they only prayed for her Majesty's name to the Liturgy of Commons would not take that . speak openly and plainly, as they were ther more definite object brought lot Noble Lord. He would not meet motion by a direct negative, but w' this House do now adjourn. Mr. HOBHOUSE thought the thing better to do than to enter int the Right Honourable Gentleman whose eloquence was capable of defeno whenever he might be openly and He hoped that the Parliamentary Right Honourable Gentleman woulo away, by a Parliamentary manoeuvre, from vom: against that Administration which he had qu As to the speech of the President of the Board' Trade, he was surprised that he had heard no rvcc in defence of the conduct of Ministers as respect! the Queen, though upon them lay the onus probalii and of defending their conduct. Since 1544, t/ 4 was no instance of a Queen Consort's name beA excluded from the Liturgy. He saw the Attar!! General taking his pen, as if he (Mr. Hobhouse)k+r made a slip: but there was no instance, unless it ., of the Queen of Geo rge I. c o u ld be called one; D. , ire contended that she was never recognized as C10e,!.! or known as Princess of Wales in this country,.. was divorced before her husband became long this country ; and there was no instance of the oto sion of a Queen Consort's name from the LoturgTe, The Right Honourable Gentleman should have to. them under what law her Majesty's name had , Ite! so omitted. All that the Right Honourable 609' man had said in defence of Ministers was, that , they had advised the insertion of her name In t: Liturgy, she would have come to the c ountryo i 3 - . have claimed all her tights. That very -.tcpr lnw iittt.cOsmin;asit. :„,tt .. I,,! : tr o iiilc c eo(n c :tum ..t i t , pesder i u .i ffni ; tr i s, , ecttroitietf.:l jest) hat family. t have rodsce r present `p< State. their proee et ti,. uP . •efore aban tefrifi i h gr)isi e deey e ,i .2 1 1 .1 believe th at t ' mpathies i. ti s colleagues et, -the ion they had ine ~ro:eedin~s'T `Lust ib • l k) iue n t -gat le Queen connr. Cattesponsible , and of such be al e.ir own hands, no, e gallant Gen e , the it the o:iier in Ce:!, Get arc ct of i t -dandi3 ;; r . ek P , 3(.011,1‘j Jlton; th e be a 4 In fl the , im.""e•li4 m a )unt he had pa' o the Lo r d s, not ar neutral, he tux :ad fut merly be b y Friend in his ces, ti tr urn pliant Cache.[ to theO : rive had no wil l s t h o Gentlemen uni! Acl it 110 n. friend, a sl 1, he had not be t Lit otLe, or theke con . scurred in the, ww a! s alone re t t h e ain't the Qum' liar Lord had Th: to retract. We e , t h e ame of the Qu..., cot wrong, Mini, w h that advice nat Noble Lord Itl wa miry conduct, t a ed, had they to tha neither then wa loubt as to the wa Act were im, gre of the Queen, must be in as excluded, so , Co td been long In ttion had been of separate estab' of Parlarnen pn t the titne L ed to live abm an to Liturgy we proceeding;• ag against the ' on he honour of , tlu urgy. They rct len duty to ad • na espect to her • to ne so, they wne bli sif she had • • in: ycar).—llel to she aught tall de hers who &light• to )t to haves re riven her a palate, as ed of high cri ,, an the eve of dr i have been tion of the )1 , - ye ulterior motif ! tr. ty did the N la from their s' or re, instead of r th ion, to catch • th sli i to he hi g rb ' e h eum t r e.it e l s os t t tetio. 0?1. tlt • fr , ' hint, but sro , o f were to have " L Orward by an. to the Noble Lori he iy,tnwnoHtoofuouri(till:hdsileierdn.lubsodcatdoanodvenceibeeScrenowila: tc dpeufebnlicicilnygchh!rge.in!