tried, any hope of compromise which they had not explored and exhausted, he should have considered their conduct most unwarrantable. But in this respect he could say boldly for his colleagues what he had said for himself, that every personal and private feeling conspired with their sense of public duty, to seek for all practicable means of abstaining from any proceeding in this case. But they had no The sounder advice of Her Majesty's acknowledged legal advisers was overborne ;—that illustrious personage was persuaded to return to this country, and His Majesty's Ministers were left without an option.

escape.

The honourable baronet had thought proper to describe the language in which he (Mr. Canning) had spoken of that illustrious personage on a recent occasion as extravagant, and as inconsistent with his conduct. If that language had procured him any credit with the House for sincerity, he hoped he might be believed, when in the same spirit of sincerity, he professed that he thought it in no degree inconsistent with the strongest feelings (if the honourable baronet would permit him to use that expression) the strongest private feelings of admiration and regard for any individual, whose conduct might, whether justly or not, have become subject to suspicion, for any person holding a public situation, and having public duties to discharge, to determine that he would use every effort to prevent any proceedings tending to bring that conduct into question, unless a step should be taken on the part of the suspected individual, which would render such proceedings inevitable, and yet to be unable to resist the consequences of -such a step once taken. Unfortunately, most unfortunately in this case, such a step had been taken! Would to God, he could have dissuaded it! But, once taken, there was no alternative: the suspicions which before might have been left uninvestigated, must now be, and God grant they might be, disproved! To the

courage which Her Majesty had evinced in coming back to this country, with a full knowledge of what the consequences must be of such a step, he did full justice: happy if that display of courage should prove the prelude to complete vindication!

*

With respect to the conduct of the negociation at St. Omer's, it was not his intention to impute blame to any one. A time might arrive when a minute explanation of all the circumstances of that transaction might become necessary: at present he would merely repeat the declaration which he had previously made, that the honourable and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Brougham) was the bearer of the only proposition which was intended to be conveyed to Her Majesty. There had been an intimation confided to the noble lord, by whom the honourable and learned gentleman had been accompanied, that Her Majesty's coming over to this country would at once terminate all negociation. This intimation had been so confided to the noble lord at the suggestion of the honourable and learned gentleman himself; and on this fair ground, that if it were attached to the proposition of which the honourable and learned gentleman was the bearer, it would have too much the air of a menace. The noble lord had not even been furnished with a copy of the memorandum of the official proposition, of which the honourable and learned gentleman was exclusively in possession. The noble lord was charged with the intimation which he had described, only to be used should the Queen express her determination to return to England. This he had said in the way of explanation upon a point which had been much misunderstood. If there were other points connected with the subject, upon which any explanation was required, he should be equally ready to give it.

But the interest of the negociation at St. Omer's was now

* Lord Hutchinson.

swallowed up in the greater importance of that which had recently been carried on in London. Amidst all the details of that last negociation which had been now laid before the House, was there the slightest ground for any charge against His Majesty's Ministers of having evinced any disposition to lend themselves to widen the unfortunate differences, or to conduct themselves towards the Queen with any other feelings than those of moderation and forbearance? It had been observed, indeed, that the terms proposed to be granted to Her Majesty, did not include every object of her wishes. To be sure they did not. Who ever heard or thought before, that a compromise implied a triumph. Did not the very word compromise imply the contrary? Was it not always understood, that in effecting a compromise, the persons deputed on each side were virtually empowered to make a reasonable deduction from the claims of the one party and of the other, with the view of obtaining an adjustment, fair in the opinion of the umpires, although not completely satisfactory to the wishes of either of the parties? As to the proposition for restoring Her Majesty's name to the liturgy, it was one which could not be assented to by His Majesty's Government, as might have been inferred from the basis on which it had originally been proposed to treat, namely, that the accused party "should not be required to admit, nor the accusing party to retract any thing." This basis had been laid down, in the hope, that by thus saving the point of honour on both sides, an arrangement might at length be effected, satisfactory to both parties in point of form, and in substance satisfactory, if not to them, to the House of ComThat House had constituted itself the umpire between the parties; and it was for that House, and not for the partizans of either conflicting party, to judge whether the arrangement proposed was such as ought to bind both parties, and whether it was not the more satisfactory and the more just, precisely because it did not give a triumph to either.

mons.

Having agreed, in the outset of the negociation, that no admission on the one hand or retractation on the other, should be required, how happened it that the legal advisers of Her Majesty did nevertheless, in the very first conference, and to the great astonishment of those to whom His Majesty's interests were confided, require that the King should retract a public act, which, had it been considered by them (as it was now attempted to be represented) as a bar to all treaty, ought to have been mentioned as such in the first instance? Now, it seemed, this-being the only point not gained-was the only point thought at all desirable; and the basis being laid down, that there should be no retractation, and this being in truth the only act done, it was now found to be indispensable that this act should be retracted. Thus, no sooner was the first conference held, than the basis so solemnly settled in the previous notes, was set aside by the Queen's legal advisers, and the acknowledgment was required of a principle directly in contradiction to that basis. "Nothing shall be required to be retracted," said the basis: "retract, or we will treat no more," said Her Majesty's legal advisers. Was that fair? Was that consistent? Would His Majesty's Ministers have been justified in conceding a point, upon the assumed and understood settlement of which the whole. negociation had proceeded? As to the charge so often refuted, but again revived of their having offended the Queen by an offer of money, could so shallow a sophistry any longer deceive any one who did not wish to be deceived? Was not Her Majesty entitled by law to a settlement of £50,000 on the death of the Prince of Wales? Had not a bill been introduced into that House in 1814 to give Her Majesty this exact allowance of £50,000 a year? But the question in the late negociation with regard to the Queen's income did not originate with Government. It was intro

duced by Her Majesty's legal advisers themselves, who stated that the points to be settled were residence, patronage, and income. If those points had been alluded to specially, it was their own specification. In the first oral conference, however, it came out that that which was to be preferred to residence, patronage, or income, was the introduction of Her Majesty's name in the liturgy.

Exaggeration was undoubtedly a favourite figure in that House, but, he confessed, he never recollected an instance in which it had been carried to so great an height as in describing the importance to Her Majesty of restoring her name to the liturgy. He never recollected such an attempt to press sacred topics to the aid of topics merely human before. If, however, the matter was of such importance, not merely in a worldly but in a religious sense, what was to be thought of those negociators for the Queen who, when coolly enumerating the objects most essential to be settled in negociation, lost sight altogether of this half-divine consideration, or at least postponed it to the purely mortal considerations of residence, patronage, and income? Nay, when they did at length introduce this awful, heavenly point of exclusion from the ceremonial of the church into discussion, did they even talk of it as essential and indispensable? as that, without which nothing earthly was worth having, and for which nothing earthly could compensate? Nothing like it. They introduced it at last as a matter for commutation for an equivalent. They were equally ready to take it in kind, or in value. The privilege in question (if the House was to credit the glowing representations of to-night), was nothing less than that of ascending on the orisons of millions to the presence of the great Creator. But this celestial privilege admitted, it seemed, of compensation; nay, not only compensation, but, irreverent as it might seem, of an equivalent! And