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

bles the flashes of seditious harangues; whoever shall teach them to look to any quarter, but to the legislature for a redress of their grievances, or an alteration in the established institutions of the country; whoever in Yorkshire or South Wales, shall hold this most seditious, he would almost say, this treasonable doctrine, that if the sovereign dare to change her counsels there would be an end of the peace of the country, and an end to the allegiance of the people, and that recourse must be had to other means,-whoever holds such language in his addresses to those meetings, is the proximate not the remote cause of the breach of the peace, that may follow, though he may withdraw himself from the combat which he may have excited, and keep himself safe from the perils into which he has cheated, duped, seduced, or driven, his followers. That person has the blood that is so shed on his head, even although he may, from some unaccountable reason, evade the penalties of the law. With regard to the offenders who have not escaped, I hope, and trust, that as justice has been administered to them on its true principles, with the utmost learning with the greatest dignity and the most patient attention; that now when it has left the hands of the judge, it may still be administered in the same merciful and humane spirit; but I must say, that if there be others who have done what I before described as the proximate cause of rebellion; it cannot but appear strange that while to one set of men the gibbet should be given, another set of men having the same guilt should receive not the gibbet but the patronage of the crown. Distinctions indeed

might easily be found between the two classes of men, though hardly of a kind to explain the different treatments they have experienced. For instance, I have not heard that any of these men in Wales, have been accustomed to play alternately the part of a slanderer and a sycophant; one day pouring forth the venom of their foul defamation, and another pouring forth the more nauseous slaver of their coarse overdone fulsome and offensive praise and adulation. Another difference may be remarked between the two sets of men. You may not find among the Welshmen exhortations to raise fiery attacks on all respectable men, and all venerable institutions, incentives flung about among the combustible matter to make them kindle and blaze, followed by such admonitions as, "Pray do nothing against the public peace," "Pray be quiet and orderly however," any more than you find those same honest Welshmen, throwing oil on the flame and beseeching it not to burn, or scattering firebrands among gunpowder, and begging it not to explode.

There is another circumstance of difference which certainly does distinguish them, that, worthy of all reprobation as these Welsh and Yorkshire proceedings have been, they do not seem to have been brought about by men with any sordid end in view. They do not seem to have had a design of raising a cry in order to enable the perpetrator of the sedition also to perpetrate an inroad on the exhausted resources of his famished followers. These circumstances distinguish the one class from the other, but how far they afford a reason for the totally opposite course pursued towards the followers

of sedition in two different parts of the empire, I leave to your lordships' penetration and calm reflection to decide." Throughout the whole of these and other passages in the speech of lord Brougham, the allusion to the great Irish agitator was sufficiently pointed, and the forcible truth as well as the eloquence which pervaded it, made a deep impression on the house, and on the country. It called to mind an observation which Horace Walpole makes on one of lord Chatham's celebrated attacks ou lord Mansfield, at a time when they were both members of the house of commons. Every word was "Murray" although he was never directly adverted to.

After a few remarks from lord Stanhope, the duke of Richmond, and the duke of Cambridge, the address as amended was agreed to be presented to her majesty.

Mr. Cavendish, and sir William Somerville, moved and seconded the address in the house of commons, in much the same terms as had been employed in the other house of Parliament; and sir R. Inglis, objected to the omission of the word Protestant, and also protested against any approval of the policy of this country, in the conduct of Chinese affairs. He did not, however, think proper to disturb the unanimity of the members, by moving an amendment. Sir Robert Peel, likewise concurred in the general indisposition to make that an occasion for a full discussion of the state of public affairs, although the excitement prevailing throughout the country afforded him great temptation. He felt it necessary, however, to seek explanation on one point with reference to the slave-trade as carried on by Portugal. During the

past session extraordinary measures were called for by government to compel that nation to ful fil her treaties, or in case of refusal to take their fulfilment into our own hands. It would appear from a paper in the Despatch office signed by lord Howard de Walden, that the abolition of the slave-trade was made a condition sine qua non with the Portuguese government. But there had been recently published by that government,a correspondence which he could not reconcile with that laid before the house of commons. In it there appeared a letter from lord Howard de Walden, which the hon. baronet, read to the house, wherein the slave-trade was not designated piracy nor its abolition made a sine quả non, but wherein on the contrary, it was expressly consented to, that the slave-trade should not be styled piracy. This was a mystery which in sir R. Peel's judgment required some explanation.

Lord Palmerston rose immediately to give the required information on the subject, and it appeared, that the note of Lord Howard de Walden was written at an carlier stage of the negotiations than the failure on which the measure of the last year had been proposed. The powers and authorities then granted by Parliament, were not part of the negotiations to which the papers read by Sir R. Peel referred, but were a subsequent stage of the proceedings. After a few observations from lord John Russell in reference to Canada, the address was referred to a committee. A slight discussion on the abolition of the slave-trade by the Portuguese government, took place also, in the house of lords, on the

occasion of her majesty's answer to the address being read to the house, when lord Strangford made some remarks on lord Howard de Walden's note, of which he seemed to entertain the same opinion as sir R. Peel. Her majesty replied to the addresses of both houses in much the same words, the following was the answer to the house of commons.

"I receive with very great satisfaction your loyal and affectionate address, upon an occasion so deeply affecting the happiness of my future life.

"I thank you for your support and concurrence in my resolution, and I am much gratified by the opinion which you have expressed of the prince, and which I am confident he will justify.

"I thank you for your assurance that you will concur in the measures which may be necessary to provide for such an establishment as may be suitable to the rank of the prince, and the dignity of the crown.

"I shall anxiously endeavour to make my reign conducive to the happiness of all classes of my people."

Some slight conversation took place afterwards, relative to the time and manner of proceeding with the address to the Palace.

Sir Edward Knatchbull complained that the conservative members had no notice given to them, and therefore staid away, when they would have been most anxious to have testified their loyalty by attendance.

Mr. Wakley could not, he said, discover one conservative member out of a hundred who went with the Speaker.

Mr. Bradshaw said he was there, but he did not rise to remove an imputation which was perfectly groundless.

Mr. Blackstone also stated, that he was present, and by way of retort, expressed his surprise at seeing the brother of a cabinet minister in the queen's presence, dressed in a cut-off green coat with brass buttons, although the Court were at the time in mourning for her majesty's aunt.

Lord John Russell explained, that as regarded the presentation of the address, the precedent of the last reign had been followed; at the same time, he admitted, that it would have been more convenient if a public notice had been issued of the time of proceeding to the Palace.

As the announcement of the royal nuptials was the prominent circumstance in the speech from the throne, we may as well connect with it the discussions which took place in parliament respecting the naturalization of prince Albert, and the provision to be made for him by the country.

In the house of lords on the 20th of January, the following bill intituled an act for exhibiting a bill in this present parliament, for naturalizing his serene highness prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha was passed through all its stages, the standing orders having been suspended.

"Whereas it hath pleased her majesty, most graciously to declare her intention to ally herself in marriage with prince Albert &c., and whereas a more grateful proof of the esteem and affection of this kingdom cannot be given to his serene highness than by an act of naturalization, to make him capable of enjoying those rights and liberties which are enjoyed in this realm: And whereas by an act made in the seventh year of king James the 1st,

every person is required to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper within one month before any bill for naturalization be exhibited, and also to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance in the parliament house, before his or her bill be twice read: And whereas by an act passed in the first year of king George the 1st, it was enacted, that no person shall be naturalized unless in the bill exhibited for that purpose, a proper clause be inserted, to declare, that such person shall not thereby be enabled to be of the privy council, or member of either house of parliament or to take any office or place of trust, civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements, or hereditaments from the crown, to himself, or any person in trust for him: And that no bill shall thenceforth be received in either house of parliament, unless such clause or words be first inserted or contained therein: And whereas by an act passed in the sixth year of the reign of king George the 4th, after reciting the said act of the seventh of king James the 1st, it was enacted, that from and after the passing of the act, it should not thenceforth be necessary for any person who is to be naturalized, to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as directed by the said recited act: "Be it enacted, by the queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that a bill for the naturalization of his serene highness the prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha, without the clause in the said recited act of the first year of the reign of king

George the 1st, to be inserted, and without his taking the oaths by the first recited act required, shall, and may be exhibited, and brought into this parliament, and twice read, the said recited acts, or any other law, statute, matter, or thing, whatsoever to the contrary, notwithstanding."

This bill was taken to the house of commons the next day and read three times, and passed during the week without creating any discussion; but on the second reading in the house of lords, the duke of Wellington objected that it was not merely an act for the naturalization of prince Albert, but contained also a clause entitling the prince "for and during the terin of his natural life, to take precedence in rank after her majesty in parliament, and elsewhere, as her majesty may think fit and proper, any law, statute, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding." Under these circumstances, the noble duke moved that the debate be adjourned, as the house had not had sufficient notice of the contents of the bill, as the title of it did not state anything respecting the precedence of the prince.

Lord Melbourne said, the omission was purely accidental, and in his opinion of no importance, at the same time, he admitted, that this bill did differ in form from other bills, inasmuch as it gave her majesty an ability to bestow on prince Albert a higher station than that assigned to prince George of Denmark, or prince Leopold. The reason for the difference in these cases, was to be looked for in the relative situation of the parties. With regard to the marriage of the princess Charlotte, the arrangement then made was entirely temporary. With regard to the mode