dignities. He now called upon them in the name of justice, and in the name of the English monarchy, to give Parliament some information, and to submit the whole case to its inquiry. He pledged himself most solemnly, that, if a case should be made out against the Queen, he would second whatever measure might be requisite to set his Majesty's mind at rest. Should no case, on the contrary, be made out, it might and must be considered as a misfortune, that parties so connected, and in so elevated a station, could not live together; yet this, as unavoidable, must be borne. The Queen of this country, however, she must then be considered; and out of the mouths of the gentlemen opposite must that name proceed before he would consent to vote one shilling of the public money.

This speech of Mr Tierney involved admissions which were exceedingly inconvenient and disagreeable to the friends of her Majesty. Mr Brougham, whom his situation rendered her natural defender, rose, stating, that he differed entirely from his right honourable friend in the view which he had taken of this unfortunate subject; and it was quite new to him to learn that any Parliamentary recognition, and much less any mode of speaking in Parliament, or that any ceremonial of the church was at all essential to make out the title of a Queen, or to vindicate the rights appertaining to that character. According to his understanding of the constitution, she who was the wedded wife of a King regnant, was eo ipso, Queen-consort; and her claim to that title was as indisputable as that of the King himself. It was not the less so because she was prayed for in no liturgy; or because her name appeared in no order of council; or because no addresses

either of condolence or congratulation were presented to her. As little could she be affected by the noble lord preferring to call her a high personage, rather than to describe her by the title to which she had succeeded. Mr B. therefore conceived there was nothing to prevent the advance of money to her Majesty upon the civil list, even though her name should not be introduced. He must, at the same time, state distinctly, that he was wholly unacquainted with any grounds of suspicion. He refused his ears to all such rumours; as long as she was the King's consort, he knew and should treat her only in the character of Queen-consort. He was wholly ignorant of any inquiries that had been instituted; he listened not to their reported results; nor would he suffer his mind to receive any sinister impressions. But if a charge should ever be brought forward, he would deal with it as became an honest member of Parliament; and he would endeavour to do justice between the parties most concerned; though, God knew, they were not the only parties that were concerned. Until that moment, big with importance, with unspeakable importance to the parties, with an importance of which those who were ignorant of the case could form no conception-until, he repeated, that moment should arrive, his lips were sealed. The House might, however, in justice, recollect

in justice to her whose character had been so freely dealt with on one side, and whose name even had been suppressed on the other, and without forming any premature opinionthat, throughout the whole period of her past tribulation, she had never been slow either to meet or to repel accusation. It was not, therefore, too much to give credit to her now, for having the same alacrity in under

Notwithstanding this, when the vote came under discussion, Mr Tierney demanded how, under this vote, provision could be made for the Queen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed:-If the demise of his late Majesty had not taken place, an annuity, under the act of Parliament, would have been payable as to the Princess of Wales; and the resolution now before the House will undoubtedly empower the Treasury still to continue that payment to the individual.

Mr Tierney. In the first place, I totally deny the power to grant this annuity; because the grant depended on the life of the King. It stood on a particular footing; it had reference to the continuance of the King's life, and was not attached to the particular person whose rank would be affected by that event. Besides, who is to receive this annuity? There is now no such person as the Princess of Wales. If they intended to grant to her Majesty that which had previously been conferred on the Princess of Wales, words to that effect ought to be introduced; and if the right honourable gentleman advances one penny, under the authority of that resolution, for the service adverted to, he will be guilty of a great offence against the House of Commons. The Chancellor, however, insisted in reply: An alteration of station cannot divest the individual of a local and personal interest in the grant; and therefore the annuity will be payable to the individual, under the authority

of the House, although her political situation may be changed.—But Mr Tierney retorted: She has ceased to be Princess of Wales; there is no such person. How, then, I ask, can this resolution grant an annuity to an individual not originally in the contemplation of Parliament? I know the right honourable gentleman must not mention the word Queen. I am quite aware of that. I should be very glad to hear the right honourable gentleman use the word, and I should be still better pleased if I could get him to record it on the journals.

The two honourable members thus continued to reassert their respective positions, while Mr Hume urged: What reason is there, I wish to know, for not stating specifically, that the annuity formerly granted to the Princess of Wales shall in future be paid to her Majesty the Queen? By such a statement the objection of the right honourable gentleman will at once be obviated. Mr Lushington endeavoured to shew, that this, in point of form, would render necessary the insertion of the names of all the other persons concerned; and after all this skirmishing, no opposition was finally made to the vote.

On another ground, these votes were the subject of a pretty serious discussion in the Upper House. Lord Lauderdale contended, (February 24) that the granting of sums by the Commons, which could not be appropriated, nor consequently come before their Lordships during the present Parliament, was a manifest breach of their privileges; and, unless noticed in some shape or other, would form a most pernicious precedent. He perfectly well knew, that when sums were voted in a committee of supply, it was the practice to apply certain portions of the money so voted to particular purposes; but then, this was

always done under the supposition that the application would appear in the act of appropriation; and thus, before the close of the session, be brought under the consideration of both Houses of Parliament. A resolution for supply, voted by the House of Commons, if not followed up by an act of appropriation, was, in fact, only so much waste paper. But the present was a very peculiar case; for this and the other House of Parliament had been informed that a dissolution was about to take place. The resolution was adopted in one House of Commons, and the appropriation was to stand over to another Parliament. The vote was not for services that might be expected to come under the cognizance of Parliament in the regular course of business, but for payments which were to cease on the demise of the King. Among these payments were several pensions and annuities, one of which was 35,000l. a-year to the Princess of Wales; but the resolutions bore that these sums should be paid to the Prince Regent himself, although they were granted for other persons. He complained that the other House of Parliament, knowing that those annuities were to expire on the demise of the Crown, thought fit to say, on its own authority, that they should be continued. The message requested them to adopt the necessary measures for expediting the public services. The House of Commons certainly took the quickest mode of doing this; but in accomplishing their purpose they had broken through every rule in proceeding to do that by a resolution which could only legally be done by Act of Parliament. The noble lord finally read three resolutions, arising out of his views on this subject. The first merely enumerated the money votes which had been passed by the Lower House.

"Resolved-That the Commons House of Parliament, informed by his Majesty's message of the intended dissolution of Parliament, have, in these resolutions, attempted to appropriate money to be paid for services subsequent to the dissolution, which can only legally be effected by an Act of Parliament appropriating the supplies voted; and that they have further, in a most unprecedented manner, assumed the power of providing for, and authorising the payment of, certain pensions and annuities, subsequent to the dissolution of Parliament, which by law are declared to be at an end.

"Resolved-That under these circumstances, we feel it our duty to declare, that though we regard these proceedings as derogatory to the privileges of this House and of Parliament, yet we are induced, by a sense of the state in which public business is now placed, to forbear from any immediate proceedings, and to declare that we will concur in indemnifying those who may pay money, or otherwise act under these resolu tions, which we must nevertheless deprecate, as threatening the subversion of the best and wisest principles of the constitution of our country."

Their Lordships would see, that in proposing these resolutions it was by no means his wish to embarrass in any degree the measures of Government, but merely to enter a protest against the proceeding which had taken place being hereafter drawn into precedent. He concluded by moving the resolutions.

The Earl of Liverpool was certainly ready to admit, that the resolutions moved by the noble earl were consistent with the description he had given of them in the conclusion of his speech. They were well drawn up, as to his view of offering no ob

struction to the progress of public business; but, at the same time, they contained a censure on the other House of Parliament, which, before their Lordships could admit, would induce them to pause, and consider whether any thing had been done by that House, which was not fully warranted by precedent and practice. There was an important distinction between granting money, and appropriating it when raised; but into this distinction the noble earl had not entered. No money, either in the shape of a tax or avoluntary contribution, could be granted except by an Act of Parliament; but in cases of supply the practice of Parliament was to be very liberal. Nothing was more common than to grant for specific services, sums from money already voted. If the noble earl extended his objection so far as to say, that no money ought to be granted without an Act of Parliament, that might be a matter of consideration, though the practice was otherwise; but if money were to be applied in the usual way, he could see no real practical difference, whether the appropriation was sanctioned by an Act passed in this or in the next Parliament. What was the nature of the resolution complained of? It was not raising money, but making it lawful to issue, out of money already voted, sums for certain services until Parliament should open. This was not levying money on the subject, and in that lay the chief distinction. At the same time he was not unwilling to meet any fair proposition on the subject, for removing the scruples of the noble earl, if he gave up parts of the resolution which could not seriously be intended to be pressed. Before their Lordships could agree to resolutions censuring the other House, they must be assured that there had been a departure from the usual practice, but no such thing had been shewn. He would therefore propose,

that, after the first resolution, words should be inserted, stating in effect that this House was induced, in consequence of the state of public business, to acquiesce in the payments voted by the House of Commons, though no act of appropriation had been preferred, or had come before them.

Some fresh observations were stated by the Marquis of Lansdowne, who considered their present situation as one of the evils arising from the gross act of inadvertency, to call it by no worse name, of which ministers had been guilty, in calling upon Parliament to deliberate on its own dissolution. The Earl of Donoughmore, however, declared himself satisfied with Lord Liverpool's amendments, which were agreed to without a division.

The only other measure which excited much interest in this concluding portion of the session, lay in the penal steps proposed against the boroughs convicted of bribery-Barnstaple, Grampound, Penryn, and Camelford. The lead in this affair was taken by Lord John Russel, who observed, that as it was intended to take care that the civil list, and several other matters, should not receive any detriment from the dissolution of Parliament, he hoped that the House would be equally anxious to protect their own privileges, by directing that new writs for members to serve for certain boroughs in the ensuing Parliament should not be issued. For this proceeding a precedent was to be found in an Act of the 15th of George III., cap. 30, which related to the borough of Shaftesbury. That Act set forth, "that there was gross and notorious corruption practised in the election of members for that borough

that the House had, from time to time, ordered the issuing of a new writ to be suspended—and, as a pro

rogation was about to take place, it was enacted that the writ should not be issued, until after that prorogation had expired." He proposed to extend this principle to the dissolution of Parliament. There evidently was considerable analogy between the two cases; and it had been held, that, where an impeachment was prosecuting, a dissolution of Parliament did not affect the proceeding more than a prorogation.

Lord Castlereagh, without object ing to the principle of the Bill, suggested some difficulties which would occur in its passage through the Houses. He had traced the progress of the Shaftsbury bill through the House of Lords, and he found that a message was sent to the House of Commons, requiring that all the information which had been laid before the House, and which induced the House to pass the bill, should be submitted to their Lordships. On the consideration of the evidence in that case, the bill was agreed to. Now, the proceedings of the Committee on the Grampound election were more grave and serious than those connected with the Shaftsbury case; and they must be aware, that if they sent this bill up to the other House, their Lordships would demand all the information on which it was founded.

Mr Wynn, however, strongly supported the bill, observing, The noble ford (Castlereagh) said he would consider this question, if it came before a new Parliament, whether an election of members did or did not take place in these boroughs, as exactly in its present state, and that Parliament, under these circumstances, might still exercise the same plenitude of power as it now could with respect to them; but the noble lord must feel how strong the argument would be against such a proceeding: after a general

VOL. XIII. Part I.

election had taken place, and no corruption, in the course of that election, was proved against those boroughs, they might continue as corrupt as ever. But they would take very good care, on such an occasion, to keep their corruption completely out of sight.

When, however, on the 21st February, the second reading of the bill was moved, it was opposed even by several whig members. Mr Calcraft could not give it his support, because he thought it would be something like imposing upon the country, to hold out to it any expectation that the House of Commons was in earnest. It was too much to expect that the House of Lords would not throw out the bill for withholding the writ in four cases, when in regard to one only, Barnstaple, it had any information or evidence before it. With regard to Grampound, Penryn, or Camelford, it had not a tittle of information.

An address to the throne, praying that writs might not be directed to the boroughs enumerated, was the true parliamentary course of proceeding. To this Mr Wynn replied: If the House should address the Throne for such a purpose, it would be a recognition of the right of the Crown at any time to suspend the sending of writs to any county or borough. Mr Marryat argued : As to the danger of allowing the writs to be re-directed to places like Penryn or Camelford, he could not discover any: half the voters of Grampound were now suffering in gaol, and two members were also enduring the heavy punishment of the law for corrupt practices. Surely, then, they would now, if ever, take warning, and not repeat their offences: and if he were called upon to point out boroughs in the kingdom where the elective franchise would be exercised with the

C