Star. — London, England, 1821-02-01 00:00:00

. . . fo in other words, till her rotted in the Liturgy ; the Bill had c n was . established? , Why, if L . soc en 7„ - ,, e 1 to degrade her, surely it would be a disgrace disgrace which, he was persuaded, . tbel°rp ar liament, a k i n dly feeling of theilonourable Member would , coint ee t ante; Co lewie her, even degraded as she w ithout some provision, so that in either case a vs, r be voted. Had the motion for the Com .„ilee'*rr Ms. keen agreed t himself the w ouldHonourale Gentleman t e, he pledged that he . not have e into the iie question of the Queen ' s guilt or in would have thought the introduction 0 046 Of StXh topic most unmanly under the peculiar co l Instances of the case—(Hear, hear, hear).— T , would say, that he had no intention of drag ;gei into discussion judicial proceedings which had ;tabs place in another House, and which were now :dour the Public. If he had thought it necessary to ;Jo so , it would not certainly be with the view of li w-ng the provision of her Majesty, for under an (ion that reference ought to be made to such i : P qn es res tion, any limitation would be an inadequate vo i s lmient. But was it because lie forbore from koducing this topic that he we.; to listen in silence t o the taunts of Hon. Gentlemen on the other side. Was he to allow the Government, after the long and flftil duty that they had to di 'charge, to be pub rev • led 2—(Hear, hear, and a laugh).—Or was it not rather to shew that they had discharged a sn ottanxious duty in a most honourable and con scientious manner ?—(Long continued laughter).— Was he to sit by quietly and permit that House to go witiran Address to the T h ron e, the sp irit of which 'sight unfortunately be at variance with that which bad prevailed in the other House, a circumstance than' which he could contemplate nothing more prejudi cial? Was het because it might please his opponents, to forego recollection of all the circumstances 'via tire to the late proceedings which were on the re cords of the country, and stared the Honourable Gen demo in the face? Was he to suffer the Honour able Member for Essex, and the Noble Lord on the s ame side (Lord A. Hamilton) to agitate the country? --(Lord cries of" Order, order.") I le did not con ceive that he was out of order. Why had they not brought the question as doing justice to the Queen (* t idy before the House, and let it be tried on its own merits? Why had the Noble Lord to-night dis graced the books with another notice referring to the question upon which he was defeated on Friday last? This notice related to some Presbyterian Clergyman in some part of Scotland—nobody knew where. It was quite clear that the only object which Honour able Gentlemen on the other side had in view, with arra to the present question, was to contend for raver!—(Lourl cries of Hear !) Sr. TIERNEY rose to order, and submitted, that such an riras that now thrown upon himself and his Honour eda was contrary to all order and decorum of debate. The SPEAKER concurred with the Right Honourable Gen lane, and.thought the Noble Lord had made an allusion to the liinierable Member for Essex, which was not perfectly in order. Lord CASTLEREAGH, after apologizing for hay * been led into any hasty expressions in the warmth sidebate, proceeded.—He had stated on a recent oc casion, that his Majesty's Government did not con template any new measures against her Majesty, and bethought that ought to have the effect of silencing those who were so clamorous against him and his Honourable Friends. He, however, considered the whole of the proceedings that had occurred open to the judgment of the House and the Country. The Noble Lord concluded, by insisting that the regular course was to go into the Committee at once, as the House would thus best evince that respectful duty, which the Crown had a right to expect. Mr.TIERN EY now rose, and addressed the House. He commenced by adverting to the circumstance which obliged him to call the Noble Lord to order. k was quite unparliamentary for the Noble Lord to ay of him or his Honourable Friends, that all their as emanated from a love of power—(Hear, hear). & had not the affectation to say, that he was not ambitious ; he felt that he was so, but it wits from quite a different feeling to that attributed to him by the Noble Lord. It was natural to seek power, as the only bond of union that could give effect to the principles they professed. He knew of no other bond of union than power—.(Chars). But if the Noble Lord meant to say, that he (Mr. Tierney) or his Ho nonrable Friends would hold power upon the same taros as the Noble Lord and his friends held it— then he would throw back the imputation in his teeth, and tell him, that he would rather die on a dunghill, than go through some of the work which he had seen performed !--(Loud and long.cheer ing), However, he was very willing to make every allowance for the Warmth of the Noble Lord. lie (Mr. Tierney) might be warm at the idea of getting into power, and the Noble Lord might be warm at the idea of getting out of it—(Laughter). But the Noble Lord and his Colleagues appeared to act upon the principle of men who, having no substantive merit of their own, sought to exalt themselves by their attempts to degrade others—(Chars). This was precisely the system by which the public conduct of the present Miniiters was regulated. The Noble Lord found it necessary to bring the Queen as low as he could in the public estimation, for he knew that her re-establishment in all her rights must be incompatible with his contintr, ante in otfice—(Hear, hear). It was very amusing to observe with what confidence the Noble Lord asked—at Would you think me so unmanly as to in troduce the question ofthe Queen's guilt or innocence?" Be knew not whether the Noble Lord was so unmanly to-day or not, but he was certain of his having been so unmanly on Friday last—(Laughter). Never yet had there been heat d a more unmanly attack on a &fenceless woman, than that contained in the latter part of the Noble Lord's speech on Friday. The Mes sage sent down by the Queen was not palatable to the Noble Lord. Upon the merits of it, be (Mr. Tierney) mould pronounce no opinion ; but this he would, however, say, that had he been the Queen he would have sent a similar one under tb,e ctiOntstances.— At was said by the Noble Lord, that the professed object of it was, to attack and insult the Crown—quite the contrary. There might per) aps hale been some colour for the imp utat i on , had Message been sew the money was voted ; but it wai obvious that the object of the Queen was to avoid any 'remarks. of t h e kind while at the same time she sought to vin dicate her honour—(Cheers).—Before accepting any PeoviUon of a pecuniary nature,. she said, st I owe it aq*if to declare, that I . will not take your money. you absolve my character." This he contended Was language every way worthy of a queen—(Lrear, 4ear)-:Lbut then the Noble I,6rd made a boast of his lorbearance, by stating that no new proceedings were - to be instituted against her Majesty. The reason WAS obiious, he knew he Jared not institute any—( Hear, .isear).—.lt was also said by the Noble Lord, that the 'House was bound to study the Records of the House of tords io reference to the late proceedings. This lie (Mr. Tierney) denied, they were under no such obligation. Ile had himself perhaps the most reason lo complain of the Charge brought by the Noble Lord against him and his Honourable Friends of disturbing _the public tranquillity. He thought he was the last man in the House against whom such a charge could be brought—( Hear, hear ).—lle had always cau tiously abstained from offering any opinion on the inei its of the question till all the proceedings were concluded, reserving to himself, however, the right of delivering his sentiments when the s e v e ra l d e t a il s were gone through. Indeed, he had even gone so' far as to incur a complaint from the Noble Lord for his moderation—(A laugh).—He would now honestly and sincerely declare, that he regarded with horror the doctrines advanced by the Noble Lord within the last half hour--(Cheers).—He had been bred a lawyer, and he considered these doctrines not only as repug nant to every principle of law and justice, but to every , principle of gentlemanly feeling—( I fear, hers r). — So help him GOD * he n7ver thought that the most desperate efforts of a discomfited Administration would have resorted to them—(Hear).—CTlie Right lion. Gentleman was here proceeding to read some extracts from the Lords' Journals, when he was called to order.) —Well, he was not allcwed to read those documents, but he might talk of what he heard—(.4 laugh). He had heard it said, that a majority of the House of Lords had declared the Queen guilty, This he positively denied. The Right Hon. Gentleman then urged some arguments, to shew that the second reading of the Bill did not amount to a moral con viction of the Queen's guilt in the minds of many of the Peers who had voted for it. They might have sup ported one stage of the Bill and not another. If the contrary doctrine was maintained, there would be an end of all public security, and England would be re duced to the state of Turkey. Since the Bill had been abandoned, the whole policy of Ministers was to cast a stigma upon the Queen. The Noble Lord had said, that he knew the motives which had in duced his Noble Friend to give up the Bill ; did he meal! to say that his Noble Friend had not publicly declared, that if it was not passed her Majesty'would be entitled to all her rights as Queen Consort ? The Noble Lord was surprised to think that there should be any objection to voting away the public money ; this might be very well for the Noble Lord, who al ways paid so little regard to' economy; yet it was the duty of those who were more careful of the public purse, to See that the sums voted were for proper purposes. The Noble. Lord had offered nothing in the shape of argument, in reply to his Honourable Friend. He did nothing but endeavour to raise a clamour about their efforts to pull down the Constitution. For his own part, he was sure he was not acting unconstitu tionally, however unpleasant his style of - acting might be to the Noble Lord!—(Laughter.) lie was fully convinced that the only mode of restoring tranquillity to the country was to re-establish the Queen in all her constitutional rights and privileges—(Hear, kear)— after her providential escape from the prosecution which Elio Ministers of the Crown had instituted against her. According to the speech of the Noble ' Lord, he had no objection to be tried himself for his conduct. Perhaps not, if he himself were allowed to draw up the indictment!—(Laughter.) The Queen had gone through a most dreadful ordeal; she had experienced the most cruel treatment--(Hear, /rear) — she had, however, come off victorious; and why was she not to enjoy the fruits of victory in the possession of her just rights? The mode of proceeding against her was unknown to the Constitution - of the land ; but, as a grand panacea, the Bill was to pass bcth Houses, and then receive the Royal assent. That not being done, he denied in Coto that any verdict against her had been pronounced. 'f he Lords, a select body, did not represent the People, but were as a balance, for a wise purpose, between the Crown and the People. Yet it would be observed, that in the late proceed ings the Lords shewed infinitely more regard for the rights of the people than those Representatives in this House who acted in concert with the Noble Lord— ( Hear, hear).—The Right Hon. Gentleman then animadverted on the majority on the third reading of the Bill, observing, that it was composed only of the Queen's accusers; and that they bad led some honest Peers through all their dirty work, who, find ing that Ministers acted so inconsistently in abandon ing the measure, signed a protest, si;nifying their disapprobation at its being given up. The Noble Lord said it was his object, as it was his wish, to preserve tranquillity, &c. He (Mr. Tierney) gave him entire credit for the feeling, but he differed with the Noble Lord as to the definition of the word. He certainly did not admire that sort of tranquillity in the House which gave a simple " aye" to every de mand for a sum of money—(Year).—But he asked those Gentlemen, who, like the Noble Lord, wished for tranquillity, did they think the Noble Lord's course was likely to secure it ?—(Hear).—Who, put ting his hand to his heart, would say that the refusal by Ministers to restore her Majesty's name to the Liturgy was likely to put an end to the general de lusion, and restore tranquillity to th e country?— He defied any Member, however warm in the cause, to deny that such a measure was not, on the contrary, calculated to increase the irritation, and keep for ever alive those lamentable divisions, which agitated the country from one end of it to the other. And with regard to the hope now thrown out fo the peo ple's feelings, did the Noble Lord calculate that a grant of £50,000 a-year to the Queen would act as a sedative to all the irritation which his former mea sures, ill-advised and unjust as they were, had pro duced? If the Noble Lord supppsed so, he deceived •himself, and if he would deceive the House, by lead ing it into the same delu,sion conduct, was crimi :n4 in a high degree, He (Mr. Tierney) could assure :the Noble Lord, if, indeed, he was at this hour of the day, without knoWing the fact, that the country would 'not be satisfied with half-measures,things could not • • remain in stutu giro, with a mere R.5Q,0005 a-year— ,they would not be content until she was put in full 'restitution of all her rights,(Hear). And he (Mr. Tierney) honoured her Majesty fur her Message toe night. It showed_ her character in such high light, It reflected honour on her; because it shewed that she ihad. a becoming contempt for money, and that ;4 preferred her character above every other minor or baser consideration—(Ffear). But it was said by the Noble Lord, that if the money.was once voted, the Queen would be at liberty to accept or decline it. This iusertion must have been made by the Noble Lord in the ignorance of the Queen's character, and the respect x+hich was due to the dignity of the House of Commons, for he (Mr..scierney) could as sure the Noble Lord that her Majesty would not treat the House of Commons in such a way as to re fuse its grant, without having given it previous no tice of her intention to do so. But it was in vain 'to disguise the real nature of this proposition, for what was it-after all but a continuation of that low malt._ cious persecution, too unmanly to be called hostility, and too contemptible to be designated as anything but a lame and miserable attempt to vilify -the - Queen by occult and collateral attacks—(Hear). But he would gravely ask the Noble Lord what founda tion in fact the House had for voting this sum to the Queen ? Look to the King's Speech, not a word was to be found there like authority for such a measure. He (Mr. Tierney), therefore, doubted much whether the House could vote anything, and he confessed he was totally at a loss to see any recommendation in the speech to make a " provision for the Queen." For were not the words " I have from time to time made such advances as were necessary, !cc. and it now remains for Parliament, under the present circumstances, to consider, Stc."—(Hear).-- Who would venture to say, th a t this was a recom mendation to vote anything? mid what was the no cessity on her Majesty's part, to which the advances in the Speech were referred? Was it any voluntary' or wanton extravagance on her part ? No such thing; the money was required by her to defend herself—to shield her from attacks directed against her honour, which was dearer to her than her life. But why did not the Message say manfully " make such provision for the Queen as her rank and station require ; give her Majesty that which will enable her to sustain, with becoming eclat, her dignity and her character." Why not say so, and the recommendation would be honourable to the Crown, and intelligible to that House. But no, the King was made to say, " Take the Queen's case into your hands, and give her that which to you, not me, appears fitting under the pre sent circumstances"—(Hear, hear).—Present circum stances! What did the words meam? What was there peculiar in the Queen's case fit for , alie conside ration of Parliament? or what other knowledge had the House and the Country of her Majesty, but that she had been tried, persecuted, and acquitted, and that up to this good hour she had not yet received a shilling of the public money ?—(Cries of Hear). — The Noble Lord would do well to explain the words, and he would also give satisfaction, if he accounted for the omission of the word "provision" in the Speech ; for the word, though in the Address of the House, was entirely left out in the Speech ; and he (Mr. Tierney) well knew that such omission was not the effect of chance or negligence—for every . word was studied, and intended to have a certain effect.— But what reason was there for speaking of that magic sum of £50,000 a-year? It ought to be less, or it ought to be a great deal more. The Noble Lord said, that if the Queen was convicted, the House would have made some provision for her ma:ntenance.— True, it would so : an English House of Commons, considering the high rank which her Majesty once enjoyed, and her illustrious connexions, would not, doubtless, leave her entirely unp r ovided for. But was it pretended that a sum of L:50,000 would be expected or granted undEr such circumstances ? Certainly, such a speculation never could be indulged for a moment. Well, then, as the Queen was not a con vict, and as her allowance was no longer a matter of charity, he (Mr. Tierney) asserted, that £50,000 was too little for her to maintain her high station; and the Noble Lord ought to shew that she had necessa rily a Court to keep up, and other expenses to defray, before he asked so large a sum as £50,000 a-year.— Unless the Queen was liable to those expenses which attend upon her high station, £50,000 was too much ; and if she had all those rights to which she was enti tled, perhaps it was too little. The Noble Lord had talked of the allusion, made on a former night, to the sending the Orders in Council respecting the Liturgy into Scotland, The Noble Lord, if he under stood him rightly, had defied that side of the House to make any Motion on the subject ; and he could assure the Noble Lord, that he would be gratified— ' there would be another Motion made, which would raise the question as to the propriety of leaving her Majesty's na - re out of the Liturgy—(Hear, hear). — The Noble Lord might be assured that there would be another motion on the subject, and, indeed, he (Mr. Tierney) and his friends would be deficientin their. duty if they failed to do So—(Hear, hear). And he would now take occasion to warn the Noble Lord against indulging in those feelings of contempt which he seemed to entertain for what he termed the lower classes. That class to which he attached the invidi ous appellation was very different now from what it had been some forty or fifty years ago. They were no longer a rabble, with whom everything was car ried by noise and clamour—they were now persons well educated, capable of thinking fairly, and of judging correctly of the state of public affairs. But though their judgment was matured, yet it was ca pable of being-warped by the pressure of severe dis tress, now near they were now to that state he (Mr. Tierney) would not hazard an opinion, but he would say, that it was only upon the most momentous oc casions that the possibility of such a crisis ought to be braved, But what indulgence was to be shewn men who would beard that feeling upon a question, of whether an acquitted queen was or was not to be entitled to all the benefits of her acqUittal?—(Loud cheers.)—The Noble Lord talked of tranquillity— was this the conduct likely to secure it ?—(Hear.) Was he likely to restore peace by advancing such a proposition in the very teeth of the People? The Noble Lord Might, indeed, boast of his majorities in that House; but did it chew strength to propose an adjournment of the Douse, the other morning, at seven o'clock, instead of meeting the question fairly, us it ought to he met?—(Hear, hear): And revert ing to that debate, he would , say it vas impossible but that many Members who voted for the adjourn ment, would haye given a different vote on the merits of the question. There was no man who, being asked his private opinion, could, lie was.sure, lay his hand to his breast, and. say he did n‘t condemn the measures of Ministeis: The Noble /kid as many awl hig.ll-spoding phase,. as he pleased, but the Queen's name would, notwithstanding, bt re stored to the Liturgy. Let the NOble Lord believe him, and he would Stake his credit upon the evert. And if it happened that things were so bad, that this very night he was to make a motion for restoring her name to the Liturgy, and that only twelve Members went out with him, the 600 stopping within, yet would he pledge himself that, one day or other, and that not a very distant day, her Majesty's name would be eventually restored ! (Hear, hear). —For what was it that gave, the impulse to every question debated there—was it not public opinion? And when he Fsaw abroad so sincere an attachment to the cause of the persecuted, and so cordial an abhorrence of per secution, he was convinced in his own mind that the people would never give over until they had obtained the full restitution of her Majesty to all her rights —( Hear ).—The omission. Of her name had caused a ferment which the Noble Lord was bound to allay. He would advise the Noble Lord to set speedily and sincerely about it, and he would suggest to !him that the only means of accomplishing the thing was by proving to the country, that she. who had been ac quitted, ought and would have the full benefit of that acquittal—( Hear, hear). Mr. C. BATII(JRST vindicated his Majesty's Speech, the preliminary part of which he contended contained a clear recommendation to make provision for the Queen. The Speech stated, that her Ma jesty had not had as yet any provision, and from that might be gathered the meaning of the word " pre sent circumstances." Surely Parliament was the fittest Tribunal to entertain the question of the Queen's allowance. The Noble Lord had properly alluded to the matters in the other House, for they were now become the property of the public. By the second reading of the Bill, the principle of it sac adopted, as he contended. That House and the Country might judge of the evidence in the other House, without taking into acco an t t h e j u d gments o f their .ordships. The Queen now stood in the same situation as if she had never been accused. She was not entitled to ask a boon from the Crown. The motion of the Noble Lord (A. Hamilton) was but a trick of political expediency. The Right Hon. Gen tleman concluded, by saying, that he should" say no more on the principle of the =joie and that the Committee was the proper place fur going into its details, and ascertaining what sum ought or ought not to be granted to the Queen. Lord FOLKSTONE rose to support the proposi tion for an immediate adjournment on the motion of the Noble Lord. He implored the House not to go one step further in this business. From the beginning —from the birth of the Green Bag, he had never ceased to deplore the introduction of this most un happy proceeding. And if it appeared objectionable in the beginning, every step which was taken on it subsequently, only made that disgust which he first felt increase. Neither was the Noble Lord's speech to-night calculated to undo the impression. He did not now talk of the intemperance which that Noble Lord, otherwise so cool—(Hear, hear)—betrayed ; but he sincerely deprecated the angry feeling which appeared to have 1 n called' up in the Noble Lord's bosom, so early as the fourth day of the Session. For if the Noble Lord.betrayed his feelings so soon, what would they be , towards the close of the Session, after many and protracted discussions—and how would they spew as towards the Country? And what in fact was the subject or object of the Noble Lord's proposition—could it. be said that it was meant for her Majesty's benefit, when in the very speech in which he asked a grant-for her, he threw out against her the most bitter sarcasms? Ifear).-- , The Noble Lord went little short olaccusing her Majesty of High Treason ; and was this language which, at the present , moment, ought to go forth to the Public ?—(llea r). — He talked of the - unconstitutional errors of the Queen and some of her friends. Unconstitutional errors, indeed ! Well might the Noble Lord and his col leagues use the words. Errors from the men who suggested and brought in the Bill of Pains.and Pe nalties—(Hear)—who talked of that infamous Bill as a means of reforming the morals of the• country— (l/ear)—who could now distinguish between a Queen judicially acquitted and morally convicted!—(l tear.) Could such men taunt any one with unconstitutional errors? Now, did not these men argue, that be cause one hundred arid twenty-three Peers voted for the second reading of the Bill, that her Majesty had, therefore, been convicted of adultery ? And sup posing they so found • the defendant guilty, what was this number but the third part of the House of Lords ? For it should never be forgotten, that the Bill in which they voted, was a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and that there were many other allega tions in the Preamble besides the charge of adultery. For instance, there was one for taking Bergami into her service, another for taking his family, a third for conferring honours on him, and a fourth for creating those honours for the purpose;—in fine, there were eight distinct charges, and who would say that the majority who voted for the Bill thought all these, or how many of them, necessary to constitute the crime of adultery ?—(I fear, hear). Yet Ministers would hold out to the country that her Majesty had Lad the fairest possible trial. The Noble Lord on the oppo site side was putting the Queen in the same situation as if she had been convicted ; and he maintained that At:was most unfair and unjust to infer guilt to her Majesty from the circumstance of 123 Peers having voted for the second reading of the Bill of Pains anal Penalties. The uniform rile, as in all trial-, was, that the person who got off in any way, whether by a verdict hr in 'abandonment of; the prosecution, was notgoilty ; and that, ever) in such case, it would be unjust Wider a moral-conviction of guilt. It was a most unfortunate circumstance that this subject had ever been brought forwsiA, because every time it had been discussed, a serious evil accrued to the country ; Li t y such discussions the Monarchy wits degraded, and the Members •of the Royal Family were dragged through the dirt. He saw no reason why her Majesty shOuld,not have a provision made for her ma of the Civil List, which, in. thesetimes, when the value of money was increased, 'could very well be spared out of that' fund, fridee4he.shottld hail it as a circum, stance tending . greatly W promote the respectability o f tie Clown, if this subject were withdrawn from Parliament altogether.. iForstliese reasons he shou'd move, as an .- Anientinteist" - Tkaa, instead of the Speaker's leaving. th e.drair,..thie,House should now adjourn. —Effete there was a loud cry of Questio.: ! ,Thq Gallery was ordered to be cleared; and while strangers were retiring:—~T rnn over. 1