Графични страници
PDF файл

before the house? Then let the noble lord look at the state of commerce. Here again he would say that he did not think there was ground for despair, but be

ond all question it was extremey low and distressed. Then look at the internal policy of the country. Could it be said that we were upon a bed of roses? Did not some of the most eminent men hold opinions strongly differing from that which was now pursued ? Were there no other questions to require the utmost attention of parliament? Were there not the poor laws demanding immediate attention, and requiring, when they should be considered, all the patient feeling and all the good sense that could be called into action ? He should be glad too if they could be quite sure that our foreign policy would not call for serious and deep attention. They had been told by the noble lord that peace would continue to be preserved so far as this country was concerned; but it was too obvious that two principles now existed, and were likely to continue a conflict throughout Europe;—a good principle and a bad principle—a principle of liberty, and a principle of slavery. He doubted not that ultimately the good principle would become prevalent: but who could say that this country could avoid being involved in confusion and conflict during the struggle? Would the noble lord say that it might not become the fate of this country to stand in the breach between civilized society and the slavery of barbarians? When those and similar subjects pressed upon their consideration, and required all the

good sense, all the good humour, all the deliberate attention which parliament could bestow, nothing could be worse policy than to keep the country agitated when good humour was so necessary, both in parliament and among the people. The processions, parades, addresses, meetings, disturbances, such as had been already so striking and so frequent, would continue and increase till his majesty's ministers should accede to the universal wish of the nation. Mr. Tennyson seconded the motion. Nothing could be more clear than that the king was

bound by statutes in spiritual as well as in civil matters. He, therefore, would pass at once to the last statute on the subject— he meant the statute of uniformity. No king did subsequently to that act promote any change without conceding to the wishes of parliament. When, then, the words were all so evidently arranged to bar strictly any encroachment of the crown, it was difficult to perceive by what argument their force could be evaded. Changes had been made from time to time, such as were required by the changes in the royal family. It must have appeared at once to the framers of the act, that attention to such changes would be necessary, and, therefore, they had introduced an express clause for the purpose. That very clause, by forming a part of the statute, showed that without it the crown could have no power to alter the liturgy. Therefore, the authority thus conferred was to be exercised according to the terms of the clause which conferred it. He begged to call the attention of the house also also to the fact that previously to the passing of the statute—that was from the period of the reformation to the time of passing the act of uniformity in the reign of Charles the Second—every queen consort in England had been prayed for by name. So uniform had the practice been, that it was confirmed by a canon of the church. Upon this point he appealed to any learned civilian in the house. He should like to know where the honourable and learned gentleman (the solicitorgeneral) who had formerly argued this point, found the power given which enabled the king in council to omit any one of the personages for whom the prayers of the church were required. The names of those personages were directed to be changed, but they were to be changed according to the actual changes in their lives or relations to the state, without caprice, affection, or prejudice. Where then, he asked again, did the honourable and learned gentleman find such a power as he contended for? He, for one, regarded it as a mere subterfuge to say that the queen was prayed for as one of the royal family. He denied the power of directing her majesty to be prayed for as one of the royal family. The words “royal family could only be received as synonymous with royal progeny;” and it was persectly absurd to say that the queen-consort could be prayed for as one of the royal progeny. He therefore contended that the queen must be prayed for distinctly by name. Uniform usage proved the correctness of the argument: and he had yet to learn where there was any pretence to

be found for the power of excluding her name. He did say that ministers had dispensed with the statute. He felt great respect and reverence for the constitutional principle that the king could do no wrong; but when an act of parliament was dispensed with, the king's advisers were guilty of the most unconstitutional wrong. What imaginable grounds could ministers stand upon in resisting the restoration of her majesty's name 7 Could it be any grounds of morality or justice? After they had referred the trial of the case they had prepared to the tribunal they had themselves chosen—after having presented their prosecution in their own shape—and after having themselves withdrawn that prosecution, how could they reconcile it to their own principles, how could they reconcile it to the principles of universal justice, to inflict now upon the queen what was, in fact, a punishment, what the people at large called a vindictive punishment. He did say that the people did consider this punishment as the result of disappointed vengeance. What were always the effects of proceedings

which were believed to be viola-. tions of law Did they not tend

directly to create contempt of judicial solemnities and sanctions? Did they not bring into contempt even the highest tribunal in the country? Was it then to be said that it was expedient to persist in a measure believed by the body of the people to be a violation of law 2 He was now bound to assume that her majesty had been unjustly deprived of her right. Her majesty's royal predecessors had always been prayed for; she

was

[ocr errors]

was directed by statute to be prayed for; here, then, was an illegal act, and by that act the public tranquillity was disturbed. Mr. H. Legge said, that he considered the original omission as ill-advised and expedient. The original insertion of her majesty's name as princess of Wales had been no particular mark of royal grace and favour, and the continuance of it as queen would have been only what had been usual. The effect, however, of the original omission had not been to prejudge the queen. He meant that it had not disposed the minds of men to presume her majesty guilty: on the contrary, it had made many partisans to her cause. Mr. C. Wynn said, his persuasion was, that whether or not sufficient had been proved in another place to show that her majesty was unfit to fill her exalted station, or whether she was so proved in any other indirect manner, her avowed conduct subsequently, the reviling and opprobium which she had been advised to cast upon all the institutions of the country, there was no ground laid for the present motion. The result of the fullest consideration which he had been able to give this subject was, that the original omission was unwise, although not illegal; and that after what had occurred, and under all the present circumstances, it would not be advisable to address his majesty for the purpose of supplying that omission. Mr. Wilberforce had hoped that, by some arrangement,and by means of mutual concession, the question that was now brought before the

house might have been avoided. Unhappily this was not the case,and it had become necessary for them to pause and to form a deliberate opinion upon the important topic under consideration. He had failed in meeting with an opportunity, a few nights since, of stating his views respecting it, and must now begin with a full acquittal of his majesty's ministers, and by expressing his entire concurrence with an honourable and learned gentleman that no blame could fairly be said to attach to them. Differing, as he did, in many points, both with his majesty's ministers, and with several honourable gentlemen, for whom he entertained greatrespect, on the course of these proceedings, he thought it a debt of justice to say that ministers had been placed in a most difficult and trying situation. In the conduct which they had to pursue, they were presented with a choice of evils; and if they had erred, the error was one of judgment, and did not to his mind, indicate any want of capacity, much less any want of integrity. He had now, however, something different in contemplation: he wished to take a practical view of the subject as the best mode by which they could now arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Intending to treat the question in this manner, he must, in the first instance, examine the objections which had been raised, on both sides, to the course of proceeding to which each was respectively opposed. If the only doubt existing on the subject was that which involved the legality of omitting her majesty's name, he should not deem it of very high

importance, importance, and, after all he had heard, should be disposed to leave the question where he found it, in what had been called “the glorious uncertainty of the law." Let it not, however, be imagined, that he had not heard with pleasure and admiration the speech of an honourable and learned gentleman, (Mr. Wetherell) on a former night. For a time the reasoning of that speech produced a great effect upon his mind; but when he came to reflect further upon it, his doubts returned, and whether the original omission was legal or illegal, the question was now to be regarded under another aspect. He felt deeply the force of those considerations which had been É. on the attention of the

ouse by his honourable and learned friend, and could not but think that her majesty, in adopting sentiments so unlike the tone and language which she had used in replying to the address of that house, had shown none of the respect due to the constitution of

arliament and to the established aws of the country. Whatever excuse he might be ready to make, still it must be admitted that the reiteration of such sentiments went to violate the constitution, and were as injurious to the public as they were dishonourable to herself. At the same time it ought not to be considered that the fault was so much that of the queen as her advisers, and he had felt some surprise that those who had printed the queen's letter, or perhaps some other documents, had not incurred the animadversion of the law. When he supported the motion, he supported it, therefore, for the sake of the country, and

for no other reason. He must persist, although it might appear singular, or again expose him to derision, in the opinion which he had formerly expressed as to her majesty being already prayed for under the general title of “all the royal family.” As this might be regarded as a quibble by some persons, he should not further advert to it; and returning to the general impression, he thought it impossible that any honourable member could have failed to observe that a very common remark amongst the people was, “if the queen is bad, there is the more reason to pray for her.” This might serve to illustrate what was undoubtedly true, that the goodness or badness of individual character ought not to influence the admission or exclusion of names from the liturgy. The people now found that her majesty was restored to all the prerogatives of queen, and could not feel satisfied that she ought at the same time to be excluded from their prayers. This exclusion was a most unhappy circumstance in another respect, fearing as he did that it had been the means of introducing a political feeling into the church. Every religious man had before been in the habit of consoling himself with the reflection, that there was at least one day in the week when he might forget all his low and vulgar cares, and when he might dismiss from his mind the animosities which disturbed the course of human life. It was a day when the elements of discord should be at rest, and when every recollection that might tend to create disunion, or excite jarring sentiments, should, if possible, be avoided.

Of

Of all the considerations, therefore, which influenced the opinion that he had formed, that of the effect produced by the exclusion of her majesty's name on the popular mind was the most operative. The omission was brought under public notice every Sunday, and the wound, which might otherwise be healed, was kept in a state of continued irritation. Such an effect could not but be prejudicial to our church establishment at a time when there where but too many causes at work for its overthrow—at a time when so many mischievous men were industriously employing every means for the destruction both of our religious and civil constitution. He had been informed that the queen, whilst excluded from the prayers of the established church, was prayed for in most of the methodist chapels. Nothing, in short, seemed so well calculated as the present state of things for bringing into disrespect and contempt an ecclesiastical system, sealed with the blood of martyrs, and from which the dissenters themselves had derived all the advantages which they enjoyed. He would, therefore, guard and cherish, with redoubled earnestness, what was so sacred in itself, and was now threatened by so many dangers. Those dangers were rendered formidable, both by the pressure of the times and the unceasing efforts made by the malicious to estrange the present generation from the religion of their forefathers. True justice, true dignity, and true magnanimity, did not, in his opinion, consist in resolutely adhering to a measure, because it had been once adopted. If its abandon

ment was likely to confer a substantial benefit on the country, it became a magnanimous as well as an honest man to sacrifice his own opinion to the general interest. Let not the house conceive, let not any honourable member conceive, that to yield to the present motion was to declare a belief of the innocence of the queen. With him (Mr. Wilberforce) the innocence or guilt of her majesty weighed not a feather. Independently of any feeling upon that point, he would vote for the motion, because he thought that its success would go to tranquillize the country: if it would not at once restore peace and harmony to the kingdom, it would at least remove one cause of discontent—one cause perhaps of many, but certainly a cause of very considerable weight. Perhaps the feeling upon which he had acted during so many years, a feeling the advantage of which he had never yet found cause to doubt; perhaps that feeling might impress his mind more powerfully than it would affect the minds of those whom he was addressing; but he would vote for the motion of his honourable relation, if it were only that the motion was framed in a pacific spirit, that it tended to heal the wounds under which the country was suffering. Never, perhaps, had the house been in more danger of opposing itself to public opinion than in the present case;—never, perhaps, could the country with more advantage advert to the principle adopted by Mr. Pitt, when, finding the public feeling strong against his own, he gave up his own opinion to the opinions of the people of England. . That

principle

« ПредишнаНапред »