« ÖncekiDevam »
what was this equivalent ? Ludicrous as it might sound, -the introduction of Her Majesty to any one petty court in Germany; to the court of any one of the Landgraves, or Margraves, or Rhingraves; whose territory extended three miles on each side of the turnpike road, and whose quota to the military defence of the Germanic body, was two whiskered grenadiers, one corporal, and a fraction of a drummer! An introduction, such as this, to the drawingroom of Kniphausen, Sonderhausen, or Hohenzollern-Hechingen. would be, in the recorded opinion of Her Majesty's legal advisers, an equivalent, for what was in the same breath represented as a spiritual right, a celestial aspiration of the highest order! It was surely unnecessary to dwell longer on so palpable an inconsistency. It must be unnecessary to detain the House with commenting on the grossness of this attempt to impose upon their best feelings. The plain truth was, that this point of the omission of Her Majesty's name in the liturgy, had been seized upon only because it was the single act which had been done, and the single act therefore that could be retracted. It was of little importance in itself; but it was of much importance as calculated to inflict humiliation in the concession of it, and to give triumph in the attainment. Therefore it had been insisted on. That concession he, for one, could not advise. If the House thought that the name of the Queen ought at once to be inserted in the liturgy, they would pronounce their opinion accordingly; but if it were required that His Majesty should be advised to retract his decision in that respect, other advisers must be found than himself and those by whom he was surrounded. And this opinion he would be willing to maintain simply on the ground already stated, that the basis of the negociation excluded retraction; and that it was one, therefore, which the negociators had no right to require. But he denied that in the substance of the omission there was any thing of the nature apprehended. If, indeed, other names had been inserted in the “ prayer for the Royal Family"—if the name of the Duke of York, for instance, the heir presumptive, had been inserted, then indeed there might have been something disparaging in the omission. But from the absence of all specification, there was no such inference to be drawn. It was, as he had before described it, and as it had been justly described by others whom he could name, before it was thought expedient to exaggerate the matter into such importance,--a measure purely neutral. Nor could there be any doubt as to the competency of the authority by which it had been ordained. When it was shown that the late Duke of Cumberland in one reign was included in the liturgy, and was excluded from it in the next, was it not clear that the admission or exclusion was not a matter of law, but simply one of discretion? The power of George I. to exclude his Queen from the liturgy had never been, questioned ; although her son, afterwards George II., unquestionably believed his mother to be an innocent, and injured woman. He did not, however, adduce this precedent to prove that her present Majesty ought also to, be excluded ; but only to prove, beyond the possibility of contradiction, that it was a question, not of law, but of discretion. Nothing, indeed, could be less consistent than the course taken by the honourable gentlemen opposite on this, question, who at the same time that they insisted upon the insertion of Her Majesty's name in the liturgy as a matter of law and strict right, were willing to take it as a concession. If, as those honourable gentlemen contended, the omission was illegal, the abandonment of it could not be called a concession; and in exact proportion as Her Majesty was entitled to be prayed for, without any reference to conduct, the concession of that privilege became valueless for
the vindication of her character. Upon the whole, he protested that if it had been referred to him as an arbitrators to settle the points in dispute with an even hand between the illustrious parties concerned, he knew not what settlement he could have awarded more equitable than that proposed—a settlement which, as he had already stated, could not, from the very nature of the transaction, be exclusively favourable to one side only, but which, if in any degree partial, inclined (as it was proper that it should do) in favour of the weaker side.
The House were now to consider whether they would proceed in the direct course that was opened to them by his honourable friend, or turn aside and adopt the amendment proposed by the noble lord. It was not the province of those who sat around him to recommend either course. To whatever result the House might arrive, they should submit with deference to its decision. But he thought that, whatever might be the vote of the night, no renewal of the negociations would be advisable. His Majesty's Government had entered on those negociations with the sincerest disposition to bring them to a satisfactory issue ; but having been broken off, those negociations could not now be renewed but under the greatest disadvantage. Indeed, the course which the present debate had taken, rendered it idle to talk of renewed negociations. The honourable and learned advocates for the Queen might think the course which they had pursued, and the manner in which they had enforced their arguments, calculated to benefit their illustrious client. If so, he did not blame them, although certainly what had fallen from them was not likely to facilitate adjustment. With respect to others, who had been more violent, he really did not think that any thing which they had said would produce an impression on the mind of any man who had wisdom and self-command enough
to view a subject so deeply interesting as the present in a calm and dispassionate manner. As to the furious declamation of the honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett) in particular, he did not believe that it would have the slightest effect on the youngest member of the House. He was sure that neither he nor his noble and right honourable friends had thrown any impediments in the way of an amicable arrangement; but he conjured the House, if they thought that a period had arrived in which negociation ought to terminate, to put an end to it by some decisive expression of their opinion. He was anxious to render his free homage to his honourable friend the member for Bramber for his good intentions. His honourable friend had been as usual labouring in his praise-worthy vocation. It had been his honourable friend's noble object not to exasperate, not to inflame animosities, not to put the parties in a position from which neither could retire with honour; his objects were of a higher and holier nature—the healing of differences, the cessation of angry discussions, and, where reconciliation was unfortunately unattainable, at least oblivion and peace.
On a former occasion, an honourable gentleman had said something of the baseness of Ministers in allowing His Majesty to be at all visible in an affair in which they ought to be the sole actors. On a question of so delicate a nature
-connected intimately and necessarily with the personal feelings and peace of mind of His Majesty-it was difficult, and indeed impossible, to speak without occasional reference to the Monarch in his individual character; much as it was to be desired, on all constitutional principles, that the person of the Sovereign should be kept out of sight in their debates, and his acts only canvassed through the responsibility of his Ministers. But let that principle be fairly and generously acted upon. If blame should he thought to attach
to any quarter; if the arrangement which had been wished for and recommended by the House of Commons should be supposed to remain unaccomplished only in consequence of some culpable act or omission on the part of the Crown; by Ministers alone let the responsibility of such act or such omission be incurred, but let the King stạnd clear. In a case so full of difficulty, and so much calculated to distract the understanding as well as to distress the feelings, it would be idle to pretend that not a word had been written or spoken amiss; but on a review of all that had passed, the Ministers had the consolation of believing that they had not been wanting in duty to their Sovereign on the one hand, nor on the other hand in consideration for the illustrious female now approaching to that awful trial, which she braved with courage, and had demanded with a voice not to be resisted. But whatever might be the judgment of the House with respect to the conduct of Ministers, let not the House forget that magnanimity with which the King had acceded to every sacrifice required of him. The proposition of his honourable friend, the member for Bramber, afforded another gleam of hope. The success of - that proposition depended not upon His Majesty or his Ministers. But the Ministers, he could answer for them, would hail that success with joy; and when the day of congratulation and acknowledgment arrived, the House would convey to His Majesty the expression of their gratitude for the willingness which he has shown in subduing his own personal feelings, in consideration for the wishes of the House of Commons, and for the peace, and happiness, and morals of his people.
The question “ That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question,” was then put and agreed to. The main question being then put,