Lord Castlereagh rose, and stated, that this refusal of the House to make what was judged by ministers and the Royal Family the necessary provision for the Duke of Clarence, might be considered as putting an end to the treaty of marriage. This was confirmed next day, when his Lordship stated, that he had that morning communicated the matter to his Royal Highness, and added, "I beg to say, that I should not be doing justice to his Royal Highness, if I omitted to state, that in receiving this communication, and in the observations which he made to me upon the subject, he seemed impressed with sentiments of the highest respect for the decision of the House. But as his acceptance of any provision which might be voted for him, would necessarily imply an obligation to maintain an establishment such as would be required by his situation in this country after his marriage, and as his Royal Highness is thoroughly convinced that he could not undertake to maintain such an establishment with the sum proposed, without the certainty of incurring embarrassments from which he would have no means of extricating himself, his Royal Highness deems it incumbent upon him, in this state of the proceedings, to authorize me to declare, with the utmost deference to the opinion of the committee of the whole House, that he feels himself compelled to decline availing himself of the provision intended for him."

The House having now gone into a committee, Lord Castlereagh proposed, without further comment, the vote of 6000l. a-year to the Duke of Cambridge. Mr Brougham did not conceive it as necessarily following from what had passed, that it was only needful to name a royal duke, to get him 6000l. a-year. He was certain, that if any thing could make the grief of the nation more poignant, it would be

the manner in which these wholesale grants had been proposed to other members of that illustrious house. If the principle was applicable to all the princes, why pass on to the youngest, and leave out one royal duke, whose character stood so eminent, whose public conduct was so excellent, and who had so particularly distinguished himself by the measures he had taken for relieving himself from those incumbrances which he believed could not be considered as imputable to himself? The Duke of Kent had already been mentioned. Much had been said of the private affairs of the Duke of Cambridge, and viewing, as he did, economy, not only as meritorious, but as a virtue, (and if not a virtue, the most rigid moralist would allow it to be the parent of many virtues), he should offer to his Royal Highness the tribute of his admiration. But his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge had practised it in circumstances which made that virtue comparatively easy. He had a large military income, and in Hanover he had an income which had been stated at 6000l. a-year, besides a town and country house, a shooting seat, with the use of the king's stables and servants. The cry of economy had gone forth from one end of the kingdom to the other; and if one kind was more loudly called for than another, it was that particularly connected with the Princes of the Royal House. If the sum was grant ed to the Duke of Cambridge, he did not see how it could be refused to the Duke of Cumberland.

Lord Castlereagh, in reply, observed, that it was not the fact, as had been represented by the honourable and learned gentleman, that the House was called upon to decide the cases in the lump. No lumping or general vote had been proposed; on the contrary, every question was a subject of special motion. According to the honourable

and learned gentleman's principle, when a marriage in the royal family happened to be desirable, from any circumstances, with a view to perpetuating the succession in the reigning family, the course to be pursued would be to search and pick out that prince who would be willing to marry on the lowest terms; and on the same principle any member of the family, however low or remote, provided he was lineally, or collaterally in the line of descent, if willing to marry with a less provision than another. He must acquit the people of England of harbouring any principle of economy so contemptible as that which the honourable and learned gentleman had attributed to them. If no proposition had been made for the Duke of Kent, it was merely because his Royal Highness's marriage was not at present in contemplation. Mr Wilberforce, in supporting the motion, took occasion to express his disapprobation of the act relative to royal marriages. That act he did not think wise or salutary. It precluded the several branches of the royal family from entertaining the best feelings, and from forming connexions which would at once promote their happiness and guarantee their virtue. It seemed to imply, that they could be rendered better political characters by being worse men, which was one of the most mistaken notions, as well as the most immoral of public doctrines. The conduct of the Dukes of Kent and Sussex in devoting their time, in rendering their rank and influence subservient to purposes of charity and instruction, was such as to conciliate universal praise. It were to be wished that other princes, especially on the continent, would imitate such illustrious examples. On the whole, he thought that ministers had upon this occasion brought forward a very moderate demand, which the finances of the country could easily afford to meet. Mr

Tierney declared, that it was contrary to his private feelings of esteem that he opposed the vote to the Duke of Cambridge. Should his appointments in Hanover cease, he would be willing to make the allowance; but he considered these in the meantime sufficient for the purpose. Other members opposed the grant, which was, however, carried by a majority of 177 to 95.

Lord Castlereagh now brought forward, with much modesty and hesitation, the proposition of a similar grant to the Duke of Cumberland. Mr Brougham observed, that from the manner in which the noble lord had opened the measure, it was evident he did not feel the least expectation of prevailing on the House to adopt it. Yet the motion was at first received in a manner unexpectedly favourable. Mr Wrottesley said, if amiable conduct in private life, if dignity of manners, if goodness of disposition, could endear to the people of England an individual brought amongst them from a foreign country, he knew not of any personage in elevated life who possessed those qualifications in a higher degree than the Duchess of Cumberland. Mr Forbes appealed to the House," would they object to the vote, and thereby offer an insult to those royal personages? Would they decide on the scandalous. reports, which, he believed, were without any foundation whatever, that had been propagated against those illustrious individuals? He did not know those illustrious persons. He acted on public grounds alone; and doing so, he called on the House to consider the case well before they came to a vote-before they came to a decision-for he should insist on dividing the House on this occasion;" and Sir W. Scott said, that the Duchess of Cumberland had, during her residence in this country, discharged in the most exemplary manner the duties of her station. Her character was known, and by univer

sal attestation approved. Nay, Mr F. Douglas, who had voted against the allowance to the Duke of Clarence, declared himself ready to vote for the present one. Sir John Newport, how ever, contended, that as the House had negatived a proposition of the same kind three years ago, they were bound to reject it in the present instance. Mr Wynn also remained staunch to his former purpose. Were they, he exclaimed, to be addressed with such language as "Will you enter into the character of the royal family?" when it was obvious, that in the cases of these grants, that character was of the greatest importance towards the settling of the question? Upon such occasions, was advantage to be taken of that delicacy which every man felt when he was destined to hear of his own failings? and was it to be assumed, that all that was said in praise of individuals, was to pass current for truth, because no one had taken upon himself the invidious task of contradicting it? No other marriage had taken place on which they had not called on the House to congratulate the throne; but upon that occasion they felt that there was no ground for doing so. A female of the highest rank in this country had testified her objection to the match by refusing to receive the lady in her presence. It was on these grounds that the former decision of the House was one that gave satisfaction to the feelings and morals of the country; and whatever had since been the conduct of the lady to whom he alluded, the best panegyric that could be pronounced on her was, that nothing further whatever had been heard of her. Notwithstanding, therefore, the favourable promises at the opening of the debate, the grant was rejected by 143 to 136. The sum of 6000l. was, however, granted as a jointure to the Duchess of Cumberland, in case of her husband's death.

The allusions made on these occasions by several members to the Duke of Kent, were not long of being met. On the 15th May, a message from the Prince Regent announced his approaching nuptials with a German princess, strongly recommended to the nation by being the sister of their favourite, Prince Leopold. The proposed allowance was passed with little opposition, and amid high panegyrics on the character of the royal Duke.

The Duke of Clarence meantime completed his proposed matrimonialengagement, without even accepting the reduced allowance made by Parliament. It was understood that the means of forming a suitable establishment had been supplied out of the private funds of the Royal Family. Lord Castlereagh, in remotely alluding to this circumstance, endeavoured to point out the disgrace incurred by the nation in obliging its Princes to look elsewere for so essen tial an object; but this taunt produced no effect in the obdurate quarter towards which it was directed.

A bill was introduced by the Chancellor into the House of Lords, for altering some clauses in the Regency Act. The motive of the change was produced by the state of her Majesty's health, which rendered her residence at Windsor inexpedient, and which also afforded apprehensions of a speedy dissolution. In reference to the former circumstance, it was proposed to empower her Majesty to nominate four commissioners, in addition to those who at present aided her, in the custody of his Majesty's person. In reference to the latter, without, however, any express allusion to it, the clause which ordained, that in case of the Queen's ceasing to have the care of his Majesty's person, Parliament should be forthwith summoned, was proposed to be omitted, on account of the inconvenience it would occasion, and the care of his Majesty to be left in the hands

of the Commissioners, till the meeting of Parliament. Earl Grey opposed both these clauses, particularly the last, with great pertinacity, demanding, not very judiciously, the reason why it should be introduced at present, which, though well understood, it would have been obviously improper to mention. The House, on the whole, seemed to be satisfied, when the first clause was so far altered that the appointment of the Commissioners was vested in Parliament. The measure then passed with little opposition through both Houses. This year concluded by a tragical, though for some time expected event in the Royal Family. The Queen after a lingering and dangerous illness, died on the 17th November. This event did not excite throughout the nation nearly the same emotion as had been caused in the former year by the fate of her daughter-in-law. There was nothing in it abrupt or premature. The Queen had for a long time led a retired life, and been little in the public eye. She had even lost somewhat of her former popularity; though the

investigation which this crisis prompted, seemed to shew, that this change of sentiment took place without any sufficient cause. She had, in fact, been a good queen, and had fulfilled all the functions of her high station, without overstepping them. She had performed all her domestic duties in an

exemplary manner, and was never accused of any undue interference in public affairs. She shone peculiarly in the proper station of a queen, in maintaining the propriety and dignity of her court. Without any revolting austerity, she took unremitting care to maintain the strictness and purity of public morals. At a time when licentiousness of manners was making rapid progress among the higher ranks, her circle was irrevocably shut against all whose character had sustained any taint; and she thus, at a critical period, essentially contributed to the maintenance of that domestic purity which has so honourably distinguished the female character, in the nation over which she reigned.

IN Scotland, the cause of burgh reform continued to be eagerly pursued, though its progress did not correspond to the sanguine expectations which its votaries had at first been led to entertain.

The point which, by every one interested in this question, was looked to with the greatest anxiety, was the decision to be formed by the Privy Council in the case of Aberdeen. On one side it was urged, that after granting a new set and a poll-election to Montrose, it was impossible, with any shew of reason or decency, to refuse a similar boon to a city, with claims so much stronger. The constitution of Montrose had been set aside solely on account of some unintentional and trivial omissions in point of form; and the new set had been granted merely upon the expressed wish of the parties concerned, without any circumstances clamantly demanding it. But Aberdeen had fallen under a catastrophe unprecedented in the annals of burgh policy. Bankruptcy, to the enormous extent of 230,000l. of

which the town was not even able to pay the interest, had exposed it to disgrace, and involved in loss or ruin many individuals and public establishments. The magistrates, under whom this disaster ensued, had openly acknowledged their own incapacity, and had pointed to the defective constitution of the burgh as the source of the dreadful condition to which it was reduced. After such a confession, was it possible even to contemplate the replacing of these magistrates, and this constitution unaltered? Whatever the Privy Council might feel or wish, the circumstances of such a case left them no choice whatever, but that of following the example of Montrose.

In reply to these arguments, it was urged by the supporters of an opposite system, that Montrose had been considered as a single and insulated case, such as it then stood. In this view, government, willing to gratify the wishes of a body of respectable individuals, had consented, too hastily perhaps, to adopt the proposed alteration. But the case was greatly