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 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 general 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

In con

decision on the topic. clusion, 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.

Commons.

N January 25th, the Earl of Liverpool having moved the 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

patronage, be it more or less, which belonged to the office, 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.

majesty, to be the fittest person who could be chosen for that high trust; but he still thought that the bill was, by the clause relative to the Windsor establishment, made inconsistent, and that to render it an intelligent piece of legislation, it was absolutely necessary that the clause should be struck out. Their lordships' would recollect that it was not the first time the noble earl had changed an opinion, after intimating that opinion in that House. And he gave some examples of such a change. On a former occasion, when he (lord Holland) thought the Windsor establishment much too large for any purposes of comfort to our afflicted monarch, lords of the bed-chamber started up to say, that they who had stuck by the king in his prosperity, would not desert him in his adversity; and that they would not take away one iota from the splendor which surrounded their sovereign. What security was there now, that lords of the bed-chamber might not again start up, to declare that they would not take away any of the splendor which surrounded the monarch? Surely it became the House to pause before they sanctioned an establishment, without knowing of what that establishment was to consist.

The Earl of Liverpool observed, that their lordships were now only proceeding to legislate on a part of the subject upon which no difference of opinion existed. They were all agreed as to the propriety of establishing the custody of the king's person in one of the royal family, and also, that the duke of York should be the person appointed.

They were further agreed in vesting in him the establishment to be settled upon him in consequence of such appointment. A difference of opinion might arise with respect to the amount of the establishment; but the best way of proceeding would be to appoint the duke of York in the first instance, and to leave the other subject for a future occasion. The noble lord had objected against giving to the duke of York the patronage of the establishment, when they did not know to what it was to be reduced. But the question was, whether they would refuse to the duke being custos persona, the privileges that belonged to the character in which they were agreed that he should be placed.

Lord Holland said, that he did not join issue with the noble earl. In one word, his objection was this; that if they agreed to the clause in its present shape, without any qualification, they would allow a principle of larger extent than the noble lord would himself, upon reflection, be willing to recognize. Having thus stated his opinion, he would not give their lordships the trouble of dividing.

The amendment was then negatived.

The earl of Liverpool having now to propose filling up the blank left by the death of lord Ellenborough, moved the appointment of marquis Camden.

Lord Holland concurred most heartily in the motion, and said he was the fittest person that could be selected.

The bill then went through the committee.

On the 4th of February, a message