Commons Sitting of 21 August 1820

THE QUEEN—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord Castlereaghrose to move that the House at its rising should adjourn to that day four weeks. His object in moving such an adjournment was, that the House should be enabled to provide for the proper course, in whatever state the proceedings of the Bill before the House of Lords might be at the time. So that in the event of any interruption to the proceeding, by giving time to her majesty to call evidence from abroad, an ulterior adjournment might then take place, or that time might be given for the fullest attendance by a call of the House.
Mr. Tierneysaid, if he understood the noble lord, the arrangement was, that nothing should take place at the period when the proposed adjournment should end, but to fix a convenient period for a call of the House.
Lord Francis Osbornesaid, his objections to the bill now in progress
826
through the other House were so deep-rooted and insuperable, that, if it were in his power, he should think it his duty to prevent even the threshold of the House from being polluted by it. He for one begged to give notice to the noble lord that no power on earth should ever induce him to enter into that mockery of justice. He meant not to say that he would not attend in his place to oppose the introduction of the bill; but sooner than incur the disgrace of making himself a party in a mock judicial proceeding, he would resign his seat. He protested against a proceeding that would convert that House into a judicial tribunal, for which it was wholly incompetent; and so strong was his conviction of that in competency, that he thought he was not using too strong an expression when he said that the House had damned itself as a court of justice by passing the Grenville act. He should therefore move as an amendment to the motion of the noble lord, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that his majesty will be graciously pleased forthwith to prorogue the parliament."
Mr. Hobhouserose to second the amendment. He had that day come down to the House under the full impression of moving a similar amendment to that proposed by the noble lord, if no member more competent to the task undertook that duty. He was most anxious to take the first opportunity of entering his protest against that monstrous measure of iniquity which was now in progress in another place, to the disgrace of the House of Lords, and the degradation of the monarchy. If he had no other objection to the measure, the preparations he had witnessed that day—preparations got up by the ministers for the purpose of hedging themselves in their alarming course—would alone have compelled him to call upon them to desist. Never, he believed, had this country witnessed such a sight as had been presented to him that evening on coming down to perform his duty as an English member of parliament; never since the days of Oliver Cromwell had a similar spectacle been exhibited. What was the world to think of a measure that could not even be generated without an assemblage of military guards; and that could not be carried on without filling with troops every apartment in the neighbourhood of parliament, and every avenue leading to either House? Indeed

827
he should have thought it his duty, had he not been prevented by the motion of the noble lord for the adjournment, to move that the commanding officer be called to the bar, to state by whom he had been ordered to take such a station. It was not enough to say that the House of Lords required the protection of the. military; he for one would object to moving one step in this business until the army was removed from the chambers of parliament. He did not know if it was not even the duty of a member of that House to move that the military be withdrawn from the House of Lords; for it could not be forgotten that by a military force, Cromwell dismissed an English parliament, and Buonaparte dissolved the Council of Five. Hundred at St Cloud. Without entering into any discussion of a question that had already been so ably argued both in that and in the other House of Parliament, he should content himself with expressing his gratitude to the noble lord for his amendment, which he gladly seconded.
Mr. Tierneycould not agree to the amendment recommending a prorogation of Parliament, after the proceedings that had already taken place in the Lords. It would be most unjust to her majesty, after what had passed, to stop short, and deprive her of the means of defence. When he said that, he begged it to be understood, as not lending himself in any degree in support of the form of proceeding. To that, no man could feel a stronger objection than himself. In acceding to the motion of adjournment, he felt he was giving no pledge to the course he should pursue, whether to receive the bill, or to suggest another mode, or that he was surrendering an iota of the privileges of that House.
Mr. Westernexpressed his decided aversion to the erection of that House into a court of justice. In every view of the subject, such a course was attended with difficulty and danger. He assured the House, that from one end of the country to the other, there could not be found an impartial person who did not regret the prosecution that was now going on. Not an individual could be met who did not regret, nay even condemn, the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy. He never yet heard a single ground on which that fatal act could be defended. The people were loud in the expression of their abhorrence
828
at the treatment her majesty had received. Possessing the same feelings, he should give his support to the amendment of his noble friend. He did so the more willingly, because that House had, by its former resolutions, condemned the commencement of the prosecution. It at present stood clear of the contamination, and he trusted it would never find its way within its walls.
Lord A. Hamiltonobserved, that he felt as fully as any member the unfortunate predicament in which the House was placed. He felt as fully as his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) the conflicting difficulties and dangers that on every side surrounded the question, but he also was convinced that these difficulties and dangers were much more likely to be increased by a continuance of the present course, than by at once putting a termination to it. It was with that conviction that he should give his support to the amendment. To justify his own consistency hereafter, he took that opportunity of declaring, that whenever or in whatever shape the proceeding came before them, his vote should never be regulated by the consideration of the guilt or innocence of the accused. He felt, then, as he from the first moment declared, that his insuperable objection to the prosecution of the Queen, whose life, not for the last six, but for 26 years, has been a life of unparalleled persecution, arose from his full conviction of her being precluded from the possibility of having justice extended to her, on the consideration of her guilt or innocence. In considering the guilt or innocence of that unhappy woman, there must be taken into consideration so many shades, such a variety of discriminations, such palliations, that he ever must contend, that those who originated the prosecution, were disqualified by their very own acts towards her, from proceeding against her. When he reflected on the manner in which she was forsaken, abandoned, and insulted at home—persecuted and vilified abroad—he felt he should not be acting with justice towards her, if he did not protest against a trial, instituted under such circumstances, and conducted by such accusers. That was not the proper time to cast imputations on his majesty's ministers: but he could not help saying to them, that they could with a very ill grace, accuse others of inconsistency, who had themselves given such frequent proofs of

829
the most palpable contradiction. In what a perilous predicament, he would ask the noble lord, would the country be placed, if, after the House of Lords approved the Bill of Pains and Penalties, the House of Commons rejected it! The House would recollect, that at the same moment a Green Bag was sent to both Houses; and yet his majesty's ministers had themselves declared, that nothing could be more unadvisable than that two proceedings should be going on at the same time in both Houses. He felt, in common with every man in the country, an insuperable aversion to a legislative proceeding which constituted the offence, affixed the crime, judged the criminal, and inflicted the sentence. But above all, when he considered that this anomalous proceeding was to be carried into execution in defiance of all public opinion, denying that power of recrimination which the law of the land afforded to every other person labouring under the same accusation, he must continue to view it as a most fatal prosecution. With that body of evidence before him—with such a mass of misapplication as the whole proceeding presented, he found himself obliged to make a choice of evils, and be felt he took the least when he voted for the amendment of his noble friend.—Referring to the motion which had been made on a former occasion by the hon. member for Bramber, he observed, that the effect of that motion had been to fortify his majesty's ministers on the question. It was impossible that the hon. member's motion could have succeeded: for it was, in fact, to ask a person who had already suffered great injury, to submit to still greater. If the amendment which he (lord A. Hamilton) had moved to address the Crown to restore her majesty's name to the Liturgy, had been carried, all the evils which had ensued, and which would ensue, would have been obviated.
Lord Castlereaghwas of opinion that nothing ought to drag the House, under the present circumstances, into any thing like a discussion of the great question at issue. On a subject so extensive, so important in all its bearings, and requiring so much calmness and time, the House ought not to be forced into an immediate deliberation. He was not aware of any existing circumstance which should lead the House to depart from the course they thought best at the period of their last se-
830
paration. He was not surprised that the noble lord thought fit to object, in a constitutional point of view, to the mode of proceeding which had been adopted. He was not surprised that the noble lord differed from him on the subject. Whenever it should be the pleasure and convenience of the House, however to make the inquiry, he should be quite prepared to justify his colleagues and himself, both with respect to the merits of the measure itself, and with respect to their conduct upon it. But that was not the question on the present occasion. After the extended and elaborate debate which preceded the last adjournment of the House, it was considered expedient to separate, leaving the question as it was at that time pending before the House of Lords, and which might probably bring the bill before the House of Commons. It was then understood that it was probable no other subject would arise at their re-assembling, than what would be the ulterior adjournment which it would be expedient to adopt. To press any other subject at present would be rather a surprise on that part of the House not present, who had no idea that any important business would be transacted without notice. Unless the noble lord, therefore, could show that something had occurred since the last adjournment, that afforded a new view of the case, he did not think it would be expedient to introduce the important subject into discussion in the present attendance of members, which, although great, was not what both sides of the House must wish for on this serious and constitutional question. What circumstance had occurred since the separation of the House, to make it more consonant to wisdom and justice to interpose and quash the proceedings? When the House last separated, there was of necessity some doubt whether or not the other House would take any proceeding. But they now knew by the examination of the journals of the House of Lords that a proceeding had been adopted by that House. It was a matter, indeed of public notoriety, and he might therefore perhaps say so without being very disorderly, that all the facts of the case had been opened to the other House, and would necessarily go forth to the world. Under such circumstances, he thought that no man who had a value for justice, for the dignity of the Crown, for the morals of the country, and above all, for

831
the personal honour of her majesty, would propose that the subject should be quashed and extinguished; and thereby leave her majesty in the calamitous situation of having such a case opened against her, without giving her the opportunity of answering it. Did the noble lord who spoke last, look to the perils with which the constitution was assailed, only in the form which those perils; assumed in a bill of Pains and Penalties. The noble lord did not always contemplate penal statutes with so much horror. The bills for reforming the representation of certain boroughs in Scotland were tolerably penal. The noble lord, however, seemed to have made up his mind, more like a stoic than a friend, to leave her majesty in her painful and degraded situation, without giving her the means of justifying her character from imputation. God forbid that he should consider that any thing which had yet passed in the House of Lords had been proved, but no man who regarded the honour of the Queen, the Crown, or the country, could propose to arrest the case in its present state. To address his majesty to prorogue parliament would be to quash and extinguish the whole proceeding, without affording her majesty any mode of vindicating herself. He could not but consider the noble lord who had last spoken, a singular kind of friend to her majesty to recommend such a course. The House would feel, that the Queen would be placed in the cruellest situation that woman was ever placed in, if they were now to tender advice to his majesty—advice, which indeed, under the circumstances of the case, would be scarcely constitutional—to prevent the other House of parliament from proceeding, and thus to extinguish their deliberative faculties. What interpretation would such an act bear in the eyes of the country, contrasted as it would be with the grounds on which the House had last separated? Would it be attributed to considerations connected with the public interest or safety; or would it not be rather imputed to fear and intimidation—feelings which every effort had been made to excite since their last separation? There was nothing before the House to induce them to accede to such a proposition. It would, therefore, be ascribed to a base surrender to the endeavours so actively and perseveringly made, to create a flame in the country, to inculcate the belief that a
832
conspiracy against her majesty had been got up by government, for the purpose of inflicting an injustice upon her which every honest mind abhorred. Although in that House he felt it unnecessary to disclaim any such intention on the part of government, it would be in vain to make such a disclaimer to the persons to whom he alluded. In the name of God he adjured that House not to add their influence in disseminating this delusion. Let them do their duty fairly and steadily. They might depend upon it, that the facts would tranquillize the country one way or the other. Either the honour of the Queen would be vindicated, and the charges against her majesty would be proved to be destitute of foundation; or the accusation would be substantiated in a way that would leave it to the wisdom of parliament to deal with it. The House might rely upon it that the moment the facts were known the country would be tranquillized. If the House wished to keep the country in constant fever and agitation, open to every daring spirit, fit. for the purposes of every base conspirator and political adventurer, they could not succeed better than by addressing his majesty to prorogue parliament, as if there was no consideration of public justice or public safety which required that they should remain assembled. One hon. member seemed to regard with something like constitutional jealousy the military force then in the neighbourhood of the Houses of parliament, and appeared to consider the placing of that force in such a position as quite a novel proceeding. If the hon. member would inquire, he would find that it was not a measure of the executive government that the troops were so stationed. It had been done in consequence of an order of the other House of Parliament, which order was founded on precisely the same resolution as that agreed to at the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, when no one supposed that there was any necessity for an armed force to be in the neighbourhood for the security of parliament. It would be remembered that the peers invariably went to the hall accompanied by a body of horse-guards. He said this to repel the notion that there was any thing in the measure which had not a precedent in the best of times—at times when it could not be pretended by any one that the liberties of the subject were in any way threatened.
Lord A. Hamiltonin explanation, stated, that what he had said was, that being bound to vote on the present occasion, he, after deliberating on the difficulties which pressed on both sides of the question, would give his reluctant vote for the amendment. The noble lord had talked of him as being the friend of the Queen. He wished to be understood as the friend of the country, and in that capacity he was anxious to put a stop to the present proceedings.
Mr. Wilberforcewould not have troubled the House with any observations on the present occasion, had it not been for what had fallen from a noble lord, who had alluded to the motion which he (Mr. Wilberforce) had some time ago made on the subject of her majesty, but which had not experienced the success that he expected. But for that he should have contented himself with silently acquiescing in the motion for the adjournment, it being distinctly understood, that in doing so, no hon. member pledged himself to any opinion on the bill of pains and penalties, if it should come down to that House. The noble lord had stated in that House what would he studiously and industriously repeated elsewhere; that he (Mr. W.) had been anxious in making the motion to which he had alluded, to fortify ministers. He declared, from the bottom of his soul, that nothing could be more sincere than his desire on that occasion to put an end to the necessity of any further proceeding. He had no intention to fortify ministers.
Lord A. Hamiltonobserved, that what he had said was, that the hon. member's motion had that effect—not that the hon. member had that intention.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that when a proposition such as that which the noble lord had advanced, was accompanied with a guard, the proposition generally appeared elsewhere, but without the guard. That was generally dropt. It would, in all probability, be stated elsewhere, that the noble lord had said, not that such was the effect, but that such had been the object of his motion. He had frequently been subjected to the most detestable calumny so originating. He was obliged to the noble lord, however, for the explanation. As to the amendment proposed by the noble lord on that occasion, to address the King to restore her majesty's name to the Liturgy, he had not made such a proposition to the House, because he knew he
834
could never have carried it. It had been declared by his majesty's ministers, that they would lose their places rather than advise his majesty to acquiesce in any such recommendation. How, therefore, could he hope to carry his motion? He solemnly declared, that when he made the motion alluded to, he thought it would be successful. He argued thus: The assurance of so large a majority of the House of Commons, that her majesty's acquiescence in the request of the House would not be construed into a disposition to shrink from inquiry, but only as manifesting a wish to coalesce with the Wishes of parliament. He did think that the character of the House of Commons was so high, that it would be a far greater boon to her majesty as an equivalent, than that proposed in the antecedent negotiation by her majesty's law advisers. He certainly never did wish to stop any thing so much as he did to stop that proceeding. It had already produced many evils; but he did not think the House foresaw all that would ensue. Already disclosures of the most injurious moral tendency had been made; but the matter would be much worse when the evidence appeared, and was followed by the necessary discussion. With reference to the form which the proceeding had assumed, he confessed that his mind had been so completely occupied with a disposition to quash the matter altogether, that he had not paid sufficient attention to that particular. This however was not the time to discuss the question, but he reserved to himself the full right of expressing a future opinion upon it. He must say, however, that if the bill were to be brought down to that House, it appeared to him that it would become an absolutely interminable proceeding. The House of Lords was accustomed to act as a court of justice. Many members of it had filled the highest official situations, and of course were listened to by the other peers on questions of law with great deference. If necessary they had also the twelve judges to refer to. But how was the House of Commons situated in that respect? Every single question to a witness might become the subject of debate for an evening. His legal friends knew that the other hon. members of the House demurred, allowing that they had more legal knowledge. There would, therefore, be as much discussion on the points of law, as on any other part of the sub-

835
ject. He regretted exceedingly that some other mode of proceeding had riot been preferred. There had been a necessary deviation from precedents. In the establishment of a new proceeding, it ought to have had at least some analogy to other proceedings. For instance, formerly in the House of Lords, the lord high steward summoned a committee of the Lords to investigate cases of treason; at which the whole House might be called at pleasure to attend; although that was abrogated by the 7th or 8th of William 3rd. He wished that some such proceeding bad been adopted in the present instance, that, by way of guarding against the frailties of our nature, a reduced committee had been framed, such as, so much to the honour of that House, was effected under the Grenville act—that a secure firm spot of land should be rescued from the great ocean around. For the noble lord's proposition to address the King to prorogue parliament he could, however, by no means vote. It would be just neither to the Queen nor to the country to leave her majesty in her present condition. Most heartily should he rejoice if her majesty should acquit herself of the charges preferred against her; although in that event he should be far from admitting, what was so roundly asserted, that a conspiracy had been formed against her; for he was satisfied that those who had preferred these charges had done so fairly and honourably, and not with any calumniatory intention. But, without determining the question of guilt or innocence, to leave her majesty's character in its present state, would be derogatory to the dignity of the royal family and to the interest of the country, of which the dignity of the Crown must ever form an important part.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that perhaps this was a question on which he ought not to say any thing, but, with the permission of the House, he begged to offer a few words. No man who had attended to the course of the proceedings in that House would accuse him of having shown any anxiety to press this subject on, or any disinclination to allow of any interval which might afford a chance of doing justice, without any further parliamentary investigation to the high parties implicated. On the contrary, from the moment the message from the Crown was presented to the House, he had intreated parliament to pause before it was too late.
836
Parliament did listen to his advice by acquiescing in the motion which the hon. member had made at his suggestion. He had stated this much to remind the House that he had shown no disposition, to precipitate the measure, but the reverse. He had implored the House to pause before it was too late. The period for pausing had now however gone by. With great submission to the noble lord, and to those who supported the amendment, it was now too late to stop. Whose fault it was, he would not pretend to say. The proceeding had, however, commenced, and it was too late to stop short. The House were well aware of what had passed elsewhere. The case had been opened. The whole of the facts had been stated certainly with a detail and particularity which he had seldom observed in any other case. Nay more. A witness—the chief witness—one whom they had all been expecting—one who was to prove almost the whole of the case, had been examined. His examination in chief had nearly ended; but he had not yet been cross-examined. Now, at such a moment, he could not conceive any proposition so untenable as to propose to parliament to stop. He could not conceive any thing more unjust towards her majesty, than now that the accusation had been promulgated, and a witness heard in its support, to propose to pause even before that witness had undergone any cross-examination. This would indeed be a most crying act of injustice. There was another reason why it would be peculiarly so. The House of Lords, on the present occasion, had acted on a different principle from that which they had adopted on any former occasion. On a comparatively trifling case, that of lord Melville, the House of Lords thought fit, doubtless with a view to the ends of public justice, strictly to prohibit the publication of a tittle of the evidence until the whole should have been produced; in the present delicate and important question, when so much might depend on the publication, their lordships had never taken a single step to prevent the disgusting details from being served up for the public palate, and presented morning after morning to the whole country. What the grounds were for this proceeding he could not pretend to determine; but it furnished the strongest reason for not stopping the proceeding. To stop it, would, in fact, be

837
the grossest outrage to justice. He did not impute any motives to the House of Lords; they were all honour and justice; the arrangement which they had made might turn out to be a just and wise arrangement, but it would be converted into a crying injustice against her majesty, if the amendment proposed by the noble lord were acceded to. He implored the House, therefore, not to listen to the proposition. On the merits of the great question itself, he would not say a single word. It would be time enough to discuss them, if, which he could not anticipate, they should hear any more of the proceeding in that House.
Lord F. Osborne consented to withdraw his amendment, and the House adjourned to the 18th of September.