were detected in the abuse of the power entrusted to them by any act of partiality towards either side, it would be competent to Parliament to recal that power, and to confide it to others who might be considered capable of exercising it more conscientiously.

The House resolved itself into a Committee, and the several clauses of the bill were agreed to.

ON THE PRINCE REGENT'S SPEECH,

ADJOURNED DEBATE.

NOVEMBER 24th, 1819.

Address at the Opening of the Session, Nov. 1819.

"THAT an humble Address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, to return the thanks of this House to His Royal Highness for his most gracious speech from the Throne.

"To express to His Royal Highness the great concern with which we receive the intimation of the continuance of His Majesty's lamented indisposition.

"To assure His Royal Highness that we learn with the deepest regret that the seditious practices so long prevalent in some of the manufacturing districts of the country, have been continued with increased activity since we were last assembled in Parliament; that they have led to proceedings incompatible with the peaceful habits of the industrious classes of the community; and that a spirit is now

fully manifested utterly hostile to the Constitution of this kingdom, and aiming not only at the change of those political institutions which have hitherto constituted the pride and security of this 'country, but at the subversion of the rights of property, and of all order in society.

"To return our thanks to His Royal Highness for his gracious intention to lay before Parliament the necessary information on this subject; and to assure His Royal Highness, that we shall not fail to apply our immediate and most anxious attention to the consideration of such measures as may be found requisite for the counteraction and suppression of a system, which, if not effectually checked, must bring confusion and ruin on the nation.

"To thank His Royal Highness for having directed the Estimates for the ensuing year to be laid before us.

"To assure His Royal Highness, that while we regret the necessity of providing for the protection of the lives and property of His Majesty's loyal subjects by any addition to our military force, we shall be happy to find that the arrangements for this purpose have been made in the manner likely to be least burthensome to the country."

MR. CANNING began by saying, that, unusual as was the course which had been pursued the preceding night, in

+ I am not able to state positively whether this speech-eloquently illustrative of the state of the country at this period-was revised by Mr. Canning; it certainly bears all the marks of having undergone his correction-except that, if corrected by him, contrary to his general and approved practice, it was permitted to stand, as it is now published, in the third person. He was perfectly sensible of the advantage of having his speeches reported in the first person, which, in his opinion, brought the speaker, as it were, directly and personally before the reader, and imparted a pleasing zest to the perusal of his sentiments.-EDITOR.

consenting to the adjournment of a debate on the Address, he could not help congratulating the House on that deviation from the ordinary rules of its proceedings; for, the technical parliamentary difficulty being once gotten over, he felt it to be of the utmost importance that the vote to which they were to come on this occasion, should not have been adopted without the fullest and most patient discussion. They had now before them all the different classes of opinion which prevailed in the House, with respect to the Address and the Amendment; and with respect to the general state of the country—a state which, to most persons, appeared alarming, and to all perplexing and difficult. Those gentlemen who held cheap the perils described in the Address, would act manfully if they either voted against it, or proposed an Amendment expressive of their opinion; but he could not comprehend the reasoning or the policy of those who were prepared to vote for the Address, and yet to tack to it such an Amendment as that now proposed.

He would ask of those, who were for mixing together sentiments so incongruous-whether the first necessity of the time were not to put down the revolutionary spirit which had spread throughout the country? If that were admitted, he would ask next, whether the decision of the House upon this night would not go forth with tenfold authority, if unaccompanied by the mitigating appendage proposed by the Right Honourable Gentleman ?* Would not the original Address, if voted unanimously, without qualification or addition, carry to the minds of those whose designs it pledged the House to crush, more complete conviction of the serious determination of the House to effect that purpose, than if reinforced by all the denunciations conveyed in the first part of the Amendment, to be afterwards weakened by the vague and unsatisfactory expres

* Mr. Tierney.

It was true,

sions with which the Amendment concluded? that in the first part of the Amendment, the turbulent and disaffected were rebuked in phrases of even more asperity perhaps than any contained in the original Address; but, in the concluding part, a certain sympathy was expressed, if not with the projects which the disaffected had in view, at least with the principles on which those projects were professed to be framed. Now, refinements were not readily understood by the multitude. Many of the disaffected, or of the misled, might conceive, however erroneously, that persons who could in any degree approve or countenance their principles, would be ready, if not to lend their assistance towards the accomplishment of their objects, at least to see the accomplishment of them without regret. They might construe any expression, however guarded, of a common feeling, into encouragement, if not into co-operation; especially when they compared what was passing in that House with what had recently taken place elsewhere. For was it not a fact that the Radicals, (as he was obliged to call them, though he hoped by some laborious periphrasis to avoid the term in future), could boast of having been associated in a public meeting with the first names in the land? that the possessors of those names, blessed with wealth, distinguished by title, elevated by honours, the boast of the country, the ornament of mankind--had stood side by side with them on the same stage, trembling for a hearing, and only obtaining that grace by their intercession ? Did not the Radical Reformers recollect all this? and did they not recollect further, that these mighty aristocrats, in entering upon a discussion in which two distinct topics were involved, on one of which they agreed with the Radical Reformers, while they widely differed from them on the other, had consented, (oh! shame to rank, property, and aristocracy!) for the sake of a little paltry triumph over

their political adversaries, to keep out of sight the topic on which they differed from their new allies, and to put forward exclusively that on which they agreed? They agreed that there ought to be an inquiry into the proceedings at Manchester a subject unquestionably of great importance, (and regarding which it would be seen, in what he should say presently, that he (Mr. C.) felt as deeply and acutely as any man)-but still a question of insulated importance, of comparatively narrow range and limited consequences: they disagreed upon the wide subject of Parliamentary Reform.

As to the importance of this last subject of difference, what was the sense of those who had moved the proposed amendment? What were the words of the amendment, regarding the schemes of the Radical Reformers? "That the House express their reprobation of the attempts which have been made to persuade the suffering classes of the people to seek relief from their distress in schemes injurious to themselves, dangerous to the public quiet, and inconsistent with the security of the Constitution.” Thus, then, it appeared that those exalted individuals shared the honours of the hustings with men, whom they considered as entertaining projects" dangerous to the public quiet, and inconsistent with the security of the Constitution ;" and that with such men they combined their votes on another question, throwing entirely out of their view that by which the public quiet and the Constitution were, in their opinion, endangered. This conduct was the more extraordinary if compared with the doctrines which had been preached in this debate, regarding the duties of the great towards the lower orders of the people. "Deal kindly and openly with them (it had been said); endeavour to convince them of their mistakes; argue with them calmly and temperately; and they will, no doubt, listen with patience, and acknowledge and retract their errors." How had these doctrines been