Italy should eventually lead to any interruption of tranquillity in that quarter; but it will, in such case, be my great object to secure to my people the continuance of peace. "Gentlemen of the House of Commons "The measures by which, in the last session of parliament, you made provision for the expenses of my civil government, and for the honour and dignity of the crown, demand my warmest acknowledgments. "I have directed, that the estimates for the current year shall be laid before you, and it is a satisfaction to me to have been enabled to make some reduction in our military establishments. "You will observe from the accounts of the public revenue, that notwithstanding the receipts in Ireland have proved materially deficient, in consequence of the unfortunate circumstances which have affected the commercial credit of that part of the United Kingdom, and although our foreign trade, during the early part of this time, was in a state of depression, the total revenue has nevertheless exceeded that of the preceding year. "A considerable part of this increase must be ascribed to the new taxes; but in some of those branches which are the surest indications of internal wealth, the augmentation has fully realized any expectation which could have been reasonably formed of it. "The separate provision which was made for the Queen, as princess of Wales, in the year 1814, terminated with the demise of his late majesty. "I have, in the mean time, directed advances, as authorized by law; and it will, under present circumstances, be for you to consider what new arrangements should be made on this subject. "My Lords and Gentlemen; "I have great pleasure in being able to acquaint you, that a considerable improvement has taken place within the last half year in several of the most important branches of our commerce and manufactures; and that in many of the manufacturing districts the distresses which prevailed at the commencement of the last session of parliament have greatly abated. "It will be my most anxious desire to concur in every measure which may be considered as calculated to advance our internal prosperity. "I well know, that, notwithstanding the agitations produced by temporary circumstances, and amidst the distress which still presses upon a large portion of my subjects, the firmest reliance may be placed on that affectionate and loyal attachment to my person and government, of which I have recently received so many testimonies from all parts of my kingdom; and which, whilst it is most grateful to the strongest feelings of my heart, I shall ever consider as the best and surest safeguard of my throne. "In the discharge of the important duties imposed upon you, you will, I am confident, be sensible of the indispensable necessity of promoting and maintaining, to the utmost of your power, a due obedience to the laws, and of instilling into all classes of my subjects, a respect for lawful au thority, and for those established institutions, under which the country has been enabled to over come so many difficulties, and to which, under Providence, may be ascribed our happiness and renown as a nation." His majesty quitted the House with the same state as on entering it, and the Commons retired from the bar. The addresses in reply to this moderate speech, passed in both Houses without a division. In the Lords, the address was moved by lord Belmore, and seconded by lord Prudhoe. Lord Grey, though it was not his intention to offer any opposition, could not concur in the address, because the speech contained none of those explanations of the state of the country which were to be expected at a time like the present, and stated nothing distinctly with regard to the line which the government had taken, or meant to take, in the affairs of Italy. Lord Holland dilated on the same topics, and pressed for an answer to three questions: First, whether our diplomatic relations with Naples were changed by the recent political changes in that country? Secondly, whether the secret articles of the treaty concluded between Naples and the allies on the 12th of June, 1815, were communicated to ministers, and when? Thirdly, whether any, and what application, had been made to Austria last year respecting the re-payment of the loan? The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the present was not the moment to go into such details, but that he would be ready to meet the noble lord on the subject on any future occasion, when he should think proper to submit a motion respecting it. His lordship had previously an swered lord Grey's objections. The discussion was conducted with similar moderation in the House of Commons, where the address was moved by Mr. Banks jun., and seconded by Mr. Browne. Mr. Tierney thought the speech as moderate and correct as could be expected; and expressed his satisfaction at the assurance which it gave of the probable continuance of peace. Lord Folkestone arraigned the conduct of ministers, and spoke with disapprobation of the loyal addresses, which had been sent up to the throne from various parts of the country, and which, he alleged, were generally procured by secret and improper means, and sometimes contained extremely objectionable matter. Some of these addresses, he said, had gone the length of arraigning the conduct of individual members of both Houses of Parliament; and more especially one, purporting to come from certain clergy in Scotland, who stated that they had with much concern read the violent and unconstitutional speeches of some Opposition members in both Houses of Parliament, and particularly their conduct at the time of the late prorogation. This document, containing such a stigma upon members of parliament while in the exercise of their public duty, and which might have called down upon the writer the vengeance of a breach of privilege, was nevertheless selected by the noble lord who managed such matters for insertion in the Gazette. Lord Folkestone condemned this selection as partial and unjust, and as ill-calculated to put the sovereign in possession consideration, in determining upon of the real state of the opinions the legality or illegality of the of his people. He contended, omission of her majesty's name that nothing could be more im- from the ritual of the church. proper than the mode adopted of Lord Castlereagh moved the prelate years in framing speeches vious question, which was carried from the throne; for now, instead by 260 against 169. Upon this, of making them comprehend an Mr. Wetherell gave notice of a explanation of the state of the similar motion for the following country, the art was, to express day. On that day it was granted in them as little as it was possible without opposition; lord Castlefor language to convey, for the reagh stating, that he had resisted purpose of avoiding the disagree it before, on account of the inable consequences of a debate. convenient time and informal mode which had been chosen for bringing it forward on the first occasion. Before the speech was taken into consideration, lord Archibald Hamilton gave notice of a motion which he intended to make on the following Friday, relative to the omission of the Queen's name from the Liturgy. Mr. Wetherell immediately moved," that there be laid on the table of the House, copies of all collects and litanies used in the public Liturgy of the church of England in each reign, from the reign of James I., inclusive, to the present time, in which the name of the queen consort has been inserted from time to time: also, that there be laid on the table of the House copies of all the collects and litanies contained in the 13th of Charles II. chap. iv., commonly called the Statute of Uniformity relative to the king and queen, together with their titles, noticing the manner in which the blanks were to be filled up; and likewise that there be laid upon the table a copy of the order of council, dated Feb. 12, 1820, by which the name of her majesty was ordered to be omitted in the Liturgy." His object was to place the House in possession of the facts and documents, which it would be necessary to take into The In the interval between the late prorogation of parliament and the opening of the present session, all her majesty's friends and all who were, for any reason, hostile to the ministry, had been active in procuring, first, congratulatory addresses to the Queen, and afterwards petitions in her favour to the Lords and to the Commons. These petitions were very numerous, and their language was often extremely violent. meetings, at which they were agreed to, were attended by multitudes, among whom it was in vain to attempt any opposition; for the lowest populace, ever ready to revile the actual possessors of power, enabled those who espoused her majesty's cause to command a majority. The temperate part of the nation did not choose to compromise their quiet and tranquillity by engaging in political brawls, which could not lead to any important results. In many parts, however, private meetings were held, composed of persons in respectable situations in life, and loyal addresses were drawn up and signed. These per sons were stigmatised by the name of "hole and corner men ;" and because a riotous crowd could any where be collected ready to raise their voices for her majesty, it was inferred that the nation was zealous in her cause. In truth, however, she had ceased to excite much interest; and the petitions in her favour emanated not from attachment to her, but from opposition to the ministers. A number of these petitions was presented to the House of Commons on the second day of the session. They complained in general of the late proceedings against her, and prayed that an inquiry might be instituted into the conspiracy from which these proceedings had sprung up, that she might be re-instated in all her rights and privileges, and that her name might be restored to the Liturgy. They gave rise to some short discussion; in the course of which lord Castlereagh stated, that from the moment of withdrawing the bill, the government had renounced all idea of any further hostile proceedings against the Queen. Mr. Brougham immediately inquired, whether he was to understand, that nothing in the nature of punishment would be continued. Lord Castlereagh replied, that punishment was not to be presumed, because the king was not advised to alter arrangements, which had been made before any proceedings were instituted. Many similar petitions were presented to the Lords on the following day (January 25); and some of the peers complained of the obstacles which sheriffs of counties had thrown in the way of public meetings. Lord Carnarvon, in presenting a petition from Hampshire, alleged, that attempts of a very extraordinary kind had been made to prevent that county from assembling: for members of that House, holding high official situations under government, had put forth a counterrequisition, stating, that they had already sent an address to the king, which rendered unnecessary any further expression of the sentiments of the county. The duke of Wellington, supposing himself to be among the persons alluded to by lord Carnarvon, denied that he had signed the counter-requisition, though he concurred entirely with those who circulated it, as to the impropriety of a county-meeting. As an address from Hampshire had been already presented to his majesty, signed by nine thousand names, the public opinion of that district had been sufficiently expressed, and it was useless to go through the farce of a county-meeting. At the meeting which did take place, only one side was heard, and one of the members for the county, who differed in opinion from the requisitionists, and attended to state his sentiments, could not procure a hearing. The Whig Peers, and the Opposition Press, laid hold eagerly of the phrase "farce of a countymeeting" which his grace had used; and, not choosing to see, that he had given the name of farce to meetings which would hear only one side, they declaimed against the dangerous doctrine (which nobody had maintained), that county-meetings were mere farces. On the same occasion, lord Grosvenor charged the sheriff of Chester with a gross transgression of duty at the late meeting of that county. There a loyal address had been proposed, to which an amendment was moved by lord Grosvenor, and seconded by lord Crewe. The sheriff, it was asserted, had refused to put the amendment to the vote, and taking the question on the original address, declared, on the first show of hands, that the majority was in its favour. Lord Grosvenor's party asserted that the majority was with them, and demanded a division. This the sheriff refused, and withdrawing from the chair, broke up the meeting. On the 20th of February Mr. Creevy brought this matter regularly before the House of Commons, by a motion for referring to a select committee a petition which complained of the sheriff's conduct. The defence made for that officer was, that the original address was put to the vote before the amendment, from his ignorance of the forms of popular meetings; that the address was actually carried by a large majority; that from the size of the room a division was physically impossible, and that the usual mode of taking the sense of such meetings was by a show of hands. Upon a division, Mr. Creevy's motion was rejected; the Ayes being 65, and the Noes, 122. The conduct of the high sheriff of the county of Dublin on a similar occasion was also subjected to much public animadversion. The charge against him was of the following nature. On the 27th of December, 1820, he published a requisition from some of the nobility, clergy, gentry, and freeholders of the county, requesting him to call a county meeting, for the purpose of voting a loyal address to his majesty; to the re quisition was annexed a notice from himself, appointing the meeting to be held on a subsequent day, at one o'clock, in the countycourt, at Kilmainham. Accordingly the nobility, clergy, gentry, and freeholders, assembled between 12 and 1 o'clock on the day appointed, outside of the court-house. At one o'clock several of the freeholders went to the door, and requesting admission, were told by the policeofficers who surrounded it, that they had express orders from the sheriff not to admit any but those who were pointed out to them. At a quarter past one, the doors were opened, and the freeholders, on entering, found the room nearly filled with persons who had been admitted previously; among whom they recognised most of those who had signed the requisition, and a large body of police-officers. A motion for a loyal address having been made and seconded, the sheriff, without putting the question on it, proceeded himself to name a committee, who were to prepare it. A respectable freeholder remonstrated in the most temperate manner against this mode of acting, and suggested to the sheriff that he ought to take the sense of the meeting in the first instance, whether an address should be voted, and then on each of the names proposed to be on the committee; but the sheriff refused to listen to the suggestion, and proceeded to name the committee, who retired to prepare the address. In their absence, the freeholder who had before suggested a different course, repeated his strances; upon which the high sheriff told him, that if he uttered another word, he would turn him remon |