terests of my people, as well as my own domestic happiness; and it will be to me a source of the most lively satisfaction to find the resolution I have taken approved of by my parliament.

"The constant proofs I have received of your attachment to my person and family, persuade me that you will enable me to provide for such an establishment as may appear suitable to the rank of the prince, and the dignity of the crown."

The other topics alluded to in the royal speech were indeed sufficiently important in themselves, but were treated in the vague and undefined terms to which we have been so long accustomed on similar occasions. Her majesty continued to receive from foreign powers assurances of their unabated desire to maintain with her majesty the most friendly relations. Her majesty also congratulated the parliament on the satisfactory termination of the civil war which had so long desolated the northern provinces of Spain, and expressed a hope that the cordial endeavours of the five powers to arrange the affairs of the Levant would finally succeed in preserving the integrity of the Ottoman empire, and the peace of Europe. A confident hope of adjusting our differences with the court of Persia was also declared by her majesty, who had likewise given the most serious attention to the breach in our commercial intercourse with China. The suc cess of the European and native troops in India, in the expedition to the westward of the Indus, was a subject of great satisfaction.

Her majesty recommended to the early consideration of the parliament two measures of importance, relating to our home policy,

the state of the municipal corporations in Ireland, and the measures suggested by the ecclesiastical commissioners, with respect to the church establishment in this country.

The speech concluded with some remarks on the unfortunate spirit of insubordination, which had exhibited itself in some of the manufacturing districts, and which had been speedily repressed by the firmness and energy of the magistrates, and the steadiness and good conduct of the troops.

The duke of Somerset, in moving the address, which it is unnecessary to say was a mere echo of the speech, expressed his lively satisfaction at the first paragraph, announcing the royal marriage, which he thought, from the previous connection of the families of the illustrious personages seemed to presage a union happy in itself, and beneficial to the country at large.

Lord Seaford, the seconder of the address, thought that her majesty, from her early and intimate acquaintance with the prince, must have had the opportunity of forming a mature judgment of his character and disposition, and that a choice thus determined by the joint influence of reason, and of feeling, must form the foundation of a happy union. He sincerely hoped, that on such an occasion the most entire unanimity with regard to the address would be found to prevail, in fact the speech had been studiously framed, so as to avoid exciting any discordant feelings or hostile discussions. For example, with regard to Spain, whatever might be the opinions of some noble lords, with regard to the pretensions of Don Carlos, there could be but one common sentiment of rejoicing

among men of all parties, that the barbarous and sanguinary warfare which had so long raged in the Pyrenees, had been at length brought to a conclusion. He did not pretend to sufficient know ledge of the complicated political interests of our Indian empire, to enable him to appreciate the views of the governor-general in undertaking that great enter prise; but if he had been at first startled at the hardihood of the undertaking, he only felt the more disposed now to admire the saga. city that had been able to measure the extent of the difficulties, and provide the means for obtaining so complete and apparently so easy a triumph over them.

The duke of Wellington warmly concurred in the expression of congratulation to her majesty, upon the alliance which had been announced to the country. He had the honour of being summoned to attend her majesty in privy council when this important speech had been first made known. He had heard, that the precedent of the reign of George the 3rd had been in all respects followed except one, and that was the declaration that this prince was a Protestant. He was sure he was a Protestant, he knew he was of a Protestant family. But this was a Protestant state, and although there was no doubt about the matter, the precedent of George the 3rd should have been followed throughout; and the fact that the prince was a Protestant should have been officially declared. The House of Lords could not then omit this, their first opportunity of declaring their opinion in such terms as should leave the public in no doubt of the prince chosen by her majesty being a Protestant prince.

George the 3rd had, according to the noble duke, declared to the privy council, that the princess he was about to espouse was a Protestant; but he was married to her before parliament met, and the circumstance of the princess being a Protestant was not again mentioned in the speech from the throne, although in the address from the House of Commons an amendment was moved, by which the word Protestant was inserted; and the address so amended was presented to his majesty. In conclusion the noble duke moved the insertion of the word Protestant before the word prince in the first paragraph of the address.

Lord Melbourne had hoped, from the spirit of forbearance which pervaded the duke's speech, that the unanimous feeling of the house would have been undisturbed. He, for his part, considered the amendment proposed as altogether superfluous. The act of settlement required that the prince should be a Protestant, and it was not likely that the ministers would advise her majesty to break through the act of settlement. The precedent which the noble duke had endeavoured to establish, was not a case in point, for George the 3rd did not declare to his privy council that the princess Charlotte of Mecklenburgh Strelitz was a Protestant, but only that she was descended from a long line of Protestant ancestors. All the world knew that the prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg was a Protestant, and that he was descended from the most emphatically Protestant house in Europe. To the eldest branch of his family the Protestant religion owed its existence; and the elector of Saxony lost his throne for his ad

herence to the Protestant cause. The prince would not be more or less a Protestant because the house declared him so; and he, lord Melbourne, thought the amendment perfectly immaterial and un

necessary.

Lord Winchilsea, as might be expected, from his wellknown zeal on behalf of the Protestant cause, both in and out of parliament differed very widely from lord Melbourne in thinking the insertion of the word Protestant unnecessary. He admitted, that at the time referred to, the family of the prince was decidedly Protestant; but changes had taken place, which called imperiously for the insertion of that word. Near and dear connections of that family had become Roman Catholics; and the husband of the queen of Portugal, a first cousin of this very prince was an avowed one. The noble lord, in the close of his observations, adverted to the alarming state of the country, and the presentation of Mr. Owen to her majesty by lord Melbourne. Mr. Owen being the notorious advocate of doctrines which struck at the root of all religion and morality.

After a few remarks from lord Fitzwilliam, who felt quite indifferent as to the amendment, lord Brougham rose and made a speech of a very different character from the preceding debate, He painted in a striking manner the condition of the distressed population torn, as he described them, by factions, divided by mutual animosities and full of discontent, with falling wages, rising prices, and diminished profits. He indignantly passed over the other topics connected with the royal marriage, and the discussion relative to the word Protestant as unworthy of

engaging the attention of the House, while the people of this country were in the deplorable condition which he had described. The subject, said lord Brougham, respecting the differences between Catholics and Protestants is forced upon me. I mean the state of Ireland-I am firmly persuaded, and it is one of the most settled convictions of my mind which every day's experience and observation strengthen more and more, that to apply the axe to the root of the evils that afflict that country, to take away that influence which with safety to the state cannot be allowed to remain-to lay the foundations broad and deep of lasting tranquillity to the Irish people, to consult the best interests of the state and of the church, the one thing needful is—and it is the duty of the lawgiver to discover how it best can be given, that one thing needful is on just, moderate, well-considered principles, and with well-contrived machinery, to give a due but fixed legal provision to the clergy, who administer to the spiritual wants of the Irish people." His lordship then proceeded to say, that, however much he rejoiced to hear of the success of the British forces in India, he thought it remained to be shown that the policy of lord Auckland was commendable in acting hostilely towards Persia, and resting on the Affghanistan alliance, whereas the best-instructed statesmen had always looked to Persia as a defence against invasion from the north and from the Affghans themselves. Neither did he seem to think the East India Company, with a reduced income and diminished resources in the best condition for incurring such enormous expenses. Reverting

again back to the alarming and discontented state of the provinces, lord Brougham ascribed a great part of the mischief to a change which had taken place in the disposition of the people towards their political leaders.

"I do not mean to say, "continued his lordship," that as relates to this or that borough, these or those corporations, this or that magistrate, anything new had taken place, no doubt those who preside over the Home Department, if they be content with the assurances of self-important and complacent corporations will receive abundance of such assurances, but throughout the country with the exception of a few cases where natural influence still survives, the masses of the people are in all but rebellion, not rebellion against those that govern, not taking part with one or another faction in Parliament, not anxious for the removal of one ministry and the placing of another, but marshalled in distrust and hostility, combined and banded in a deep-rooted and habitual distrust of all politicians, of all ministers, and of all men in power. My lords, I am far from thinking it is a wholesome state for a people to be in, not to think for themselves, and to have others make their opinions for them. On the contrary, I hold it to be no exaggeration of Dean Swift, to pronounce party the madness of the many for the gain of a few." But it is the most consistent sound and rational result of the proper, and legitimate fruit of the people thinking calmly and soberly for themselves, that they should act under their natural leaders, and know in whom they could confide. Else they act without concert, wildly, without obtaining any di

rect influence or accomplishing any useful purpose. Besides, it does not at all follow, that acting under obscure leaders, or no leader at all, they may not be the dupes of designing knaves and unprincipled agitators. Such has been the case in the late proceedings in South Wales and elsewhere.'

"And here I must say," continued his lordship, "that the crimes so committed, I have been astonished to find palliated as political offences. Pillage, alarm, insecurity of life and property, nay, wholesale massacre are included in the idea of civil war, and are of necessity involved in these treasonable proceedings. And this crime of treason is not the less punishable and detestable because it has for its characteristic what no other crime possesses, for whereas all other crimes are more aggravated the more successful they are, and more light in proportion as they fail. This offence is secure of impunity, if it can but accomplish the object it has in view. How then can it be asked, "Why, punish men for conspiring to subvert the state, for conspiring and compassing merely." It is obvious that if the attempt were successful, the criminal would be the ruler, and could not possibly be punished. Therefore the law justly considers it the most grievous, and heinous offence, and whatever leads to its commission not less heinous and grievous. Whoever in Yorkshire or Wales, shall assemble a meeting so numerous that no discussion can take place, shall congregate masses whose very force is sufficient to show that it is not to debate, but to break the peace that they are got together, and whoever having assembled such masses shall proceed to scatter among such combusti