:

greater importance remained untouched, which was, the restriction of the Bank from paying in specie; respecting which, notwithstanding the approaching expiration of that period, he would ask whether any man in the kingdom would rely upon the resumption of cash payments?

Such were the principal topics which were touched upon in the speech of the noble marquis.

The Earl of Liverpool, who spoke next, found little more ground for his address than a resumption of the subject already contained in the speech of the Prince Regent. There was, indeed, one topic upon which, as an important minister of the crown, he ventured to give a free opinion. He had no hesitation in saying that, considering the present state of the exchanges, and the progress of the pecuniary operations alluded to in the last session, he thought it impossible that cash payments could with safety be restored on the 5th of July next. If such should be found to be the case, it would be prudent to extend the Bank Restriction act till the succeeding session, when the whole question might be deliberately weighed, and finally decided on.

After a short reply from the Earl of Lauderdale, the Address was unanimously agreed to.

In the House of Commons, the correspondent address to the Prince Regent was moved by Mr. Brownlow, who was seconded by Mr. William Peel.

Mr. Macdonald then rose, and said, that he could by no means concur in the opinion of the

mover of the Address, namely, that courtesy required, that the speech should pass unopposed or unremarked upon, lest it should prejudice any future discussion of the subjects which it comprehended. On the contrary, he thought it was an additional motive for making some observations, not on the particular loss to which his Royal Highness alluded, but on the general view which the Speech took of public affairs. And here he was compelled to say, that the extravagant representations of the state of the country which the speech contained, would justify many more observations than those with which it was his intention to trouble the House. He rejoiced to find that considerable reductions had taken place in our military establishment, and was ready to concede to government as much merit on this subject as they were entitled to; but with respect to civil retrenchment and regulation, it would, in his opinion, have been much more satisfactory, if the Speech, instead of a vague promise of concurrence and co-operation in any parliamentary measures to secure the full enjoyment of the benefits of peace, had pointed out such measures. Was it not notorious that by the suppression of some of the superior offices, not only a great saving would be effected in the expense of collection, but a better collection would be made? Reformation of this nature, however, could scarcely be expected from such ministers as the present.

Then came the congratulatory passage in the Speech-on the

increase

increase of the revenue. It was well to hear that the people had been enabled to pay nearly four millions more than they had done last year; but it would be much better to be told that in future they would have to pay less. The omission in the Speech of all allusion to a reduction of our taxation was highly inauspicious. With unmingled satisfaction would the people hail any improvement of the public revenue, if the past afforded them any assurance that that improvement would be the means of diminishing the evils under which they laboured; but burthened as the country was, what prospect could the Chancellor of the Exchequer hold out of a removal, or even a considerable diminution of that galling taxation which it suffered. The fact was, that a realization of the hopes which had been held out on that subject could be effected only by such a demand for our productions as would absorb a very large additional portion of our population in manufacturesan evil of the most serious kind, morally and politically. When he contemplated the mass of human misery which these circumstances occasioned, he could not help being surprised at those mutual felicitations on the state of the country which a little sober reflection would have checked. If at a time of peace we were unable to diminish the public expenditure, how should we be prepared for a time of war? It might happen that we should be engaged in a war for the defence of every thing that was valuable to us. Were the House to listen to the tone of the royal

speech, and of the speeches of the honourable gentlemen, it seemed that they might be spared the trouble of contemplating any such possibility. They were told they might safely rely on the inviolability of treaties, and on our intimate union with foreign powers; the one substantial security for permanent peace was, a wise, economical, and conciliatory administration of public affairs, and an undeviating system of justice and liberality to the people of other countries, whether powerful or weak. As to any other objects of the alliances in question, the British public regarded them with the utmost indifference. As to the principal result of the congress, it seems to be thought that no course could be resorted to but that of deprecating every species of discussion. There was one subject, however, to which the people of this country had looked with anxious expectation. They expected that at length the detestable traffic in human creatures would be denounced and finally extinguished, by the high and assembled professors of peace and of Christianity. It was, however, well known, that the power which had opposed so desirable a consummation, was France. France, a member of the holy alliance! France, under the restored rule of his most Christian majesty! Thus it had appeared that all the sacrifices which this country had made in favour of the Bourbon dynasty, had been insufficient to obtain from the court

of Louis Dix-huit a measure which was little more than one of decency.

It seemed to be thought by the hon. gentlemen who had moved and seconded the Address, that there was nothing so simple and natural as to admire every thing that was done by "the powers that be," and that no fault was to be found with any of their proceedings. For himself, it gave him little satisfaction to find genera! discontent in the country, and more especially when that discontent occasionally exhibited itself in an intemperate and malignant character. Whence came the extreme irritation among the people, the existing tendency to tumult and violence? How happened it that towards an administration under which, notwithstanding their egregious blunders, the military glory of the nation had been carried to the highest point, so much apathy had been shown by most classes of society, and so much decided disinclination by the remainder? It was because they were found deficient in those qualities, without the possession of which no administration could ever enjoy public confidence. When the opinion of government was called for on questions of the greatest general interest, it was discovered that they had no opinion.

The hon. gentleman then instanced his proposition in Mr. Grenfell's question respecting Bank paper; in the subject of the poor laws; in that of the criminal code, introduced by Sir S. Romilly; in the discussions on the Catholic question, in which government pledged itself to remain neutral, while the Prince Regent was to avoid assisting in any

decision on the topic. In conclusion, he said, that the mover of the Address in reply to the Prince Regent must not be astonished if he found that a considerable portion of the House could not see in his recipe of union and harmony any thing but a general prostration at the shrine of ministers.

Mr. Sinclair, who gave the last speaker the title of his honourable relation, was strenuous for approving the Address, which he considered as highly creditable to the candour and moderation of his majesty's ministers. If, said he, we regard its general scope and tenour, we shall find that it contains such sentiments, and is couched in such language, as no friend to his country can reasonably object to. Every topic has been studiously avoided which could elicit any material difference of opinion, or excite any angry discussion. His honourable relation, however, had not thought proper to follow this example of forbearance; and there is scarcely a single measure, either in retrospect or in contemplation, upon which he has not attacked with severity the past conduct, or the presumed intentions, of his majesty's advisers. Mr. S. however declared that it was far from him to expose his own presumption by entering the lists with one whom he so much respected. He also added, that he was far from being decidedly hostile to all the opinions which he had supported with so much eloquence; and he should think meanly of his own fairness and judgment if he did not always listen to his arguments

with deference as well as with attention. He trusted there were some, of whom he did not hesitate to profess himself of the number, who think that they do not deviate from the path of constitutional consistency, by presuming to judge for themselves, without stooping to complete subjugation to party influence. Sir Henry Parnell wished to know from some one minister of the crown, why, upon this occasion of calling the attention of Parliament by the Speech from the throne, the situation of the Catholics of Ireland had been, as usual, wholly omitted. It was to no purpose to treat the Catholic question as one of no importance it had for the last eighteen years been by far the most important one that had come before parliament, and would so continue to be. No one could deny that the Catholics had just cause to complain of the manner in which the engagements made to them at the time of the Union

had been violated, and the various pretexts by which the settlement of their question had been avoided. This was a question

which, of all others, ought not to be left to time and chance; for the exclusion of millions of his majesty's subjects from their constitutional rights ought to be justified by some sound and visible principle of public policy, or it became an act of flagrant injustice to continue it.

Mr. Tierney said, that it was not his intention to oppose the motion of an address, or to detain the House with observations of his own, after the very able speech which had been delivered by his honourable friend behind him. His object in now rising was merely to observe, that by consenting to the address, he did not bar himself from all possibility of entering, at a future period, on the subjects alluded to in the Speech.

The Address was then agreed to without opposition.

CHAP.

N January 25th, the Earl of

order of the day relative to the speech of the Lords Commissioners, and the death of the Queen, mentioned their purpose to commit the care of his Majesty's person to that individual to whom it was most proper the trust should be consigned; and this person he did not doubt would be found in his royal highness the Duke of York. It was his intention, therefore, to introduce a bill for placing the custody of the King's person in the hands of the Duke of York, subject to the assistance of a council. A bill for this purpose was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

On the 26th of January, when the second reading of the bill was ordered, Lord Holland took notice of what he termed an imperium in imperio, which would be established in the person of the Duke of York, with respect to all the offices on the establishment which it was intended to confer upon him.

The Earl of Liverpool, in giving an explanation of the noble lord's query, said, that if the appointment made by the bill appeared proper, the conclusion to be drawn would be, that all the

ought to be vested in the individual named in the bill. But in fact it was intended that the establishment should undergo a reduction, upon which principle the bill would be founded; but as to the details of that reduction, they had no connection with the present bill; which would come first before the other House, and in the usual course of business would be brought under the consideration of their lordships. Some further discussion then took place, in which lord Holland said, that he could not accede to the principle so broadly laid down by the noble secretary of state, that all the patronage of the establishment ought to be vested in the person to whom the care of the king's person was intrusted.

The bill was then read a second time.

At the third reading of the bill, Jan. 27th, Lord Holland said, that he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he did not object to vesting the care and custody of the king's person in the duke of York, whom he undoubtedly thought from his station, his high character, and the relation in which he stood to his majesty,