Commons Sitting of 21 February 1820

DROITS OF ADMIRALTY, &c.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that early in the session of 1812, he had moved for a return of the amount and application of the different monies received by the Crown, which were not under the immediate control of parliament. This was at all times a matter of great importance, but it was more particularly so at a period like the present, when new arrangements for the support of the royal dignity were about to be entered into. The funds to which he alluded were important, as they involved a considerable variety of influence and management. When he made the motion to which he had alluded, he was answered, that arrangements having been made by parliament for supporting the civil list, it would be improper to enter into such an inquiry, as it would be a breach of the terms agreed upon. But it was admitted at the same time, that such an inquiry might be made on the demise of the Crown. He had felt the full force of this objection. But now he conceived the period was arrived when such a motion ought to be made. Those funds had arisen to such an amount that they ought to be settled on a permanent and constitutional footing. He should therefore move for, "An account of the total produce of all funds at the disposal of the Crown, and usually deemed not to be under the immediate control of parliament, since the accession of his late majesty, distinguishing the monies arising from droits of Admiralty and droits of the Crown, 4½ per cent West India duties, Scotch revenue, and those from all other such sources not hereinbefore specified.—Ordered.
Lord Palmerstonbrought in a bill for continuing the Mutiny Act, from the 24th of April to the 24th of June. After a short conversation, the bill was read a first and second time.

WRITS SUSPENSION BILL.
Lord J. Russel Lord J.
1616
Russel moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for suspending the issuing of writs for Grampound, Penryn, Barnstaple, and Camelford.
Sir C. Burrellthanked lord Castlereagh for his liberal conduct hitherto on this Bill, and hoped that he would endeavour to secure its final success by using his influence with his friends in another place [Order! and Hear!] so that it might not fall to the ground after it had passed that House.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he had never heard any thing much more disorderly than the allusion of the hon. baronet; but even if that suggestion, were attended to, he thought it quite impossible that the bill could pass into a law. It was because he was in earnest, in support of the measures which this bill professedly furthered, that he did not wish the House to be so misled, as to suppose that any assembly could pass a bill condemning four boroughs, while in the case of one only they had any evidence. It was only in the case of Barnstaple that the House of Lords had any evidence. He wished to see the writs suspended till the circumstances which had appeared to criminate these boroughs could be inquired into, and he therefore wished the House to proceed by address, which was, in his opinion, the true parliamentary course. According to the present mode of proceeding, the House was at the mercy, not only of the Crown, but of the other House of Parliament. He contended, that the issuing and suspending of writs should depend on the House alone, and upon this doctrine the House had hitherto acted.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the proceeding by way of address would go to the overthrow of the constitution, by putting the whole elective franchise into the hands of the Crown. The address of the House could not confer on the Crown a power not before possessed; it could only call on the Crown to exercise a power already existing. It would, therefore, recognise that the Crown could, at its own will and pleasure, put an end to the elective rights of any portion of the electors of the kingdom. This proposal was not, indeed, without precedent, for he had heard of a plan of reform, promulgated under the high authority of the Hampden Club, by which the king was to be begged, as the simplest and best plan of reform, to abstain from sending writs to certain boroughs, and to send writs to other places.

1617
It was extraordinary, indeed, that this doctrine should have been promulgated under the name of Hampden. Such a power was, indeed, formerly claimed by the Crown, but the matter was taken up by the House of Commons, and it was declared that the writs might be demanded by those boroughs as writs of right. Writs were accordingly sent to some places from which they had been withheld, and for one of these places, Wendover, John Hampden was first returned to parliament. He was ready to go as far as any man in defence of the privileges of parliament, but he thought they were most safe when confined within legal bounds. He should not be willing to disfranchise these boroughs without hearing the fullest evidence; but he conceived the Lords had sufficient evidence to say that the Commons having proved bribery to have existed in those boroughs, and being desirous of taking measures to regulate the elections in future, they would suspend the issuing of writs for this time. To proceed by the authority of the two Houses of Parliament and of the Crown was the only legal course, and he should therefore support the bill.
Mr. Marryatsaid, the bill required serious consideration. The House had not all the evidence before them en the different cases. Besides, there were in the different cases various shades of criminality. Two of their own members also (Mr. Swann and sir M. Lopez) had been severely visited, as well as several voters of two of the boroughs. Was it likely that these persons, after the warning they had had, would again commit the crime for which they had suffered? Indeed, if he were asked where he should expect to find the greatest purity and independence in the elections throughout the country, he should naturally lay his hand on those boroughs. There was such a difference also in the evidence before the Lords and that before the Commons, respecting Barnstaple, that the difficulty concerning that case was much increased.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that his doubts as to the expediency of passing the bill were founded on his sense of the great importance of the measure ultimately in view. They were not in those circumstances, or in that period of the session, when they could enter into the consideration of a change in the representation with advantage or effect. The change now proposed was no less than to extinguish the fran-
1618
chises of four boroughs, and to tranfer them to other unrepresented places Though neither of these objects was directly affected by the bill, it would distinctly recognize the principle, that though there was not evidence to disfranchise the boroughs for ever, yet on a prima facie case they might suspend the franchises. It might be proper to legislate on this business hereafter, when they had time to view the question in all its complicated bearings, but it seemed strange to say that they had evidence to deprive a borough of its franchise pro hac vice, and not for ever. The circumstances of the representation of these boroughs being filled up, could not operate as a bar to legislation on the subject; and it would be better indeed, constitutionally, that the question of the disfranchisement of these boroughs should be discussed when their members, who might be supposed to act as their attornies, were present. As to the proposal of proceeding by address to the Crown, it had been satisfactorily disposed of. If indeed the Crown could disfranchise four, it might disfranchise 44 or 100 boroughs; and he did not see why, if this power were recognized, it might not also extend to counties or universities, so that the very existence of the House of Commons would be at the mercy of the Crown. The only course of proceeding therefore was by bill. He felt unwilling to conclude without stating his feelings, respecting those who were suffering under, perhaps just, but certainly not lenient sentences, for offences committed in these boroughs. When they considered that these offences were not solitary, when every member of the House must necessarily have been acquainted with so many unconvicted offenders of the same description, he felt that the sentence of two years imprisonment, coupled with a very heavy fine, was severe. He did not know the individual so punished even by sight; he had never spoken, or had any communication with him, but he felt in common with many others equally unknown to sir M. Lopez, that the House should show that it would not oppose any impediment to the clemency of the Crown, which would not of course be advised to exercise its right of pardon, in a case in which the House of Commons were concerned, without their concurrence. The prisoner, he believed, was 68 years of age, and though a grave and serious offence against their privileges, against law

1619
and morality, the crime he had committed could not be said to be extremely rare. His case would operate as a warning, even if the whole of the sentence were not carried into effect; and similar offences would not be more frequent, but probably more rare, after such a warning.
Mr. Scarlettthought it would be a delicate matter for the House to interfere to induce the Crown to remit a sentence which the court of King's-bench had imposed. The members of that House, too, should be the last to appear disposed to treat with lenity such offences, which they were out of doors but too generally supposed to view with favourable eyes. He was himself not prepared to say that the sentence was too severe. Though offenders of this kind might, in some instances, gain the cross, and in others the crown, the court of King's-bench did well always to show a severe front to such offences. He felt reluctant to make these observations, because he had had to appear as advocate for this individual. After having done his duty on this occasion, however, his connection with him had ceased.
Sir J. Yorke Sir J. Yorke, though he thought the case of sir M. Lopez a hard one, could not but feel for his friend Mr. Swann, who had only been found guilty because he had done an act of kindness.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, the only object of this bill was to enable the House to apply any punishment it might inflict on these boroughs earlier than they otherwise could. The non-existence of the bill would not form an obstacle to the taking cognizance of these cases in a new parliament. Though he had made up his mind to vote for the bill, he could not disguise the fact that it was a strong measure, and went beyond the precedents which had been adduced. The case of Shaftesbury only applied to the issuing of writs during the existence of a parliament over which the House had a constitutional control. But it was a bolder measure to interfere with the elections for a future parliament, when they were, in some measure, tied up to a specific number of members by the act of Union.
Sir J. Mackintoshmaintained, that there was a sufficient prima facie case, with respect to the boroughs alluded to in this bill, to induce the Lords to acquiesce in the measure for suspending the issue of any writs, until the merits of the case should be fully gone into. It was
1620
clear from what had appeared in evidence, that such corruption had taken place in each of those boroughs, that it would be inconsistent with the principles of the constitution, and with the character of the House itself, to allow the electors, who had been guilty of such flagrant criminality, to send members to that House. The course pursued on this occasion was fully warranted by the precedent of the Shaftesbury case. For in that case the Lords agreed to the suspension of any new writ upon the same ground as that which was assigned in the preamble of this bill. The only difference, indeed, between the two cases was, that in the Shaftesbury case the bill for suspending the writ was passed on the eve of a prorogation, whereas in the present case the suspension was proposed on the eve of a dissolution. In point of principle the two cases were precisely the same. On the ground of precedent then, as well as upon principles of constitutional justice and sound policy, the present measure ought to be adopted.
Lord Castlereaghthought the Shaftesbury case much, stronger than the present, as in that case the Lords had obtained from that House a copy of the evidence taken before a committee upon the subject, in order to examine such evidence before the act was agreed to.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell, in reply, animadverted upon the observations which had been made with respect to the merit of the bill. It was true, that the Lords had obtained a copy of the evidence upon the Shaftesbury case before the act of the 14th Geo. 3rd was passed, but then their lordships had not much more time, previous to that enactment, to examine such evidence, than they were likely to have at present. But the material objection which offered against the delay of the proposed enactment in this case was, that if new writs were issued to these boroughs, each would continue so to demean itself at a new election, as to raise some argument to defeat the object of this bill, or to palliate the proved delinquency upon which it was founded. To postpone or reject the present bill would serve to raise a doubt in the country as to the sincerity of the promise held out by the House, that in any borough where flagrant corruption was proved, measures would be taken not only for the punishment of the corrupt, but for the prevention of such corrupt practices in future,

1621
by the disfranchisement of the borough in which they took place. With respect to Barnstaple, the House had had only one efficient member for that borough since the rejection of sir M. Lopez, and yet no complaint had ever been heard of the inadequacy of its representation. As to the sympathy expressed for the fate of sir M. Lopez, he did not mean to find fault with those who entertained that sympathy, although it must be admitted that such corruption as that of which this baronet was convicted, deserved punishment. But as to the corruption which prevailed in small boroughs, where the voters were comparatively few, poor and ignorant, he much feared that it was idle to calculate upon the prevention of such corruption; and he felt, that whenever it was proved to take place, the only remedy was, to transfer the right of election from boroughs of that description, to large and populous towns. He had no disposition to blame those who felt sympathy for sir M. Lopez. He submitted, however, that much more sympathy or consideration was due to the poor voters who accepted the bribe; because, from their ignorance, they were probably not aware of the magnitude of the crime which they committed. As to the praise pronounced upon Mr. Swann, who was at present suffering imprisonment in consequence of a conviction for bribing an elector, he should only say in the language of the poet—"Rara avis in terra nigroque similima cygno."
The bill was read a second time.

THE QUEEN.
On the motion that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Humeobserved, that before the Speaker left the chair, he was anxious to obtain some information upon a point, with regard to which he had on a former evening felt it his duty to put a question to the noble secretary of state, to which question he had received a very unsatisfactory answer. He meant with respect to the situation of the Queen. If there was any subject which more than another interested the feelings of that House and the public, he believed it was the condition of this illustrious personage. For what was that condition? It was clear from recent occurrences, as well as from the language of the noble lord, that the Queen was not only unacknowledged, but that it was determined that she was not
1622
to be acknowledged. Every loyal man must witness such a course of proceeding with surprise and regret. He by no means intended to express any doubt of the disposition of his majesty to act with fairness and liberality upon this or any other occasion, but he must say that he was extremely surprised at the course which his ministers seemed inclined to take. Was it proposed that the dissolution should take place without making any distinct provision for the Queen? It was known, that the act by which 35,000 l. a year were granted to her majesty had expired upon the demise of the king, and was it now intended to leave her unprovided for? In what situation was it meant that the queen of England should stand? Was she to be left as a beggar on the continent, or was she to depend for her subsistence upon the mere bounty of some person or persons in England? He maintained, that as queen she was peculiarly entitled to the attention of that House, and that something definite as to the means of her future provision should be immediately stated. He was quite sorry to see the manner in which the queen was treated. Why was was not an address of condolence and congratulation voted to her majesty upon the demise of the king, and upon the accession of her husband to the throne, as was the case with regard to the queen consort of George 2nd? Upon what ground was the queen passed by altogether upon this occasion, or why was her majesty's name omitted in the Liturgy? He did, he must confess, expect a different course from ministers. But her majesty was so completely slighted, that it was quite unknown to the public in what manner she was hereafter to be treated. If the queen were to land at Portsmouth tomorrow, there was no arrangement or understanding how she was to be received, or whether she was to meet the marks of recognition and respect usually evinced towards the members of the royal family, or how the public functionaries were to behave towards her majesty. These were circumstances, with regard to which some explanation should be given to the House and the country, and he called upon the noble lord to give that explanation in definite terms. He asked the noble lord, how the wedded wife of the king was to be treated, or whether as a husband in private life was bound by law to provide for the subsistence of his consort, the queen consort was to have any settled provision?

1623
It was due to the rank which her majesty held in the constitution, as well as to the character of the country and the claims of public justice, that the means of providing for the maintenance of her dignity should be definitively fixed—that she should not be left dependent upon mere bounty, and- that, as she lived separate from her husband, some distinct provision should be made for the adequate support of her exalted station.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he thought the answer which he had given the hon. gentleman on a former evening would have been deemed quite satisfactory. If the hon. gentleman had waited for the motion which the chancellor of the exchequer proposed to submit, he would have seen that no distinct provision was to be voted for the king, any more than for the high personage to whom he had alluded, but that a sum was to be voted from the consolidated fund, out of which it was intended to make provision for that high personage, as well as for the general purposes of his majesty. He expressed his regret, that any attempt should be made at present to press into discussion the very delicate question adverted to by the hon. gentleman, as such discussion was but too likely to create a ferment in the country, while it was calculated to give pain to the illustrious personages more immediately interested. The hon. gentleman might be fully assured that the high personage to whom he referred was by no means likely to experience any thing like harshness or inattention [Hear, hear!].
Mr. Humeobserved, that his wish was to have a distinct provision for the queen, at least equal to that which she enjoyed under the late act of parliament.
Lord Castlereaghstated, that such provision was intended to be granted out of the sum for which his right hon. friend proposed to move.
Mr. Tierneydeclared his unwillingness to vote any sum for the queen, until some explanation should be given or promised as to the rumours which had gone abroad with respect to her conduct upon the continent. He agreed with the noble lord in thinking this a very delicate question to be discussed in that House. But by whom was it brought into discussion? Why, by ministers themselves, who, although they deprecated this discussion at present, held out the prospect of some such discussion at a future—[here lord Castlereagh intimated his dissent] "Then,". said Mr.
1624
T. "I mistook the noble lord; and that mistake is an additional reason with me for resisting the proposed grant." So it seemed that there was to be no discussion at all upon the conduct of the queen, after all the world had heard about that conduct. Yet it would appear that her majesty was not to be recognized. He would ask the noble lord, whether any thing like recognition had taken place, or was meditated? Was the queen yet aware of the death of the king, or of the situation in which she stood in consequence of that event? Had any communication been made to her majesty upon the subject on the part of his majesty's ministers? How came it that the name of the queen was omitted in the Liturgy? These things required explanation. But from the whole of the circumstances connected with this transaction, as well with regard to his majesty as with regard to his consort, he had no hesitation in stating, that the king had been betrayed or the queen had been insulted [Hear, hear!]. As an honest member of parliament, he felt himself called upon to make this declaration. He was not actuated by any party motive or personal prejudice whatever, but he would repeat, that in this case, either the king was betrayed or the queen was insulted [Hear, hear!]. He had heard of rumours with regard to the behaviour of the queen, which, if true, could leave no doubt that she was totally unworthy to occupy the throne of England; and if so, the king was surely entitled to the same justice that the law granted to the lowest subject in relieving him from a degraded connexion. This was a discussion into which he entered with the utmost reluctance. He was fully aware of its delicacy, and he could not advert to it without pain, but he felt that he must do his duty. He had heard of a commission having been sent to the continent, in order to collect evidence as to the misconduct of the queen; and was it possible that the noble lord, with evidence in his pocket to show that misconduct, could attempt to apply to that House for any grant of public money to an unworthy person? This was really a case of such a nature, as that House was bound to sift to the bottom, and if the rumours in circulation were true, justice should be promptly done to his majesty; while, on the other hand, if these rumours were mere calumnies, no time should be lost in vindicating the character of the queen. One party or the
*

1625
other must have been grossly ill treated. But when, he would ask, were the rumoured discoveries made with regard to the misconduct of the Queen? Upon the death of the queen, about twelve months ago, the liturgy was altered, and on that alteration it was directed that the princess of Wales should be distinctly prayed for. Yet, on the late alteration of the Liturgy, the name of this illustrious personage is left out. The discovery, then, of the alleged misconduct must have been made within the last twelve months, or whence the difference between these two periods? Why was she to be publicly prayed for as princess of Wales, whose name was to be altogether suppressed when she became queen of England? Now the question was brought before the House and the country, it must not be blinked, and he, for one, had no hesitation in saying, that if the queen were really guilty of the rumoured misconduct, no quibbles of law, or quirks in evidence, should prevent justice from being immediately rendered to the king, But, on the other hand, if the queen had been calumniated, he would have her character completely vindicated, and all her rights asserted and maintained. But until her character was re-established, he could not consent to vote her a penny of the public money. While the noble lord called her merely that "high personage," instead of recognizing her as the queen—while all Italy, nay, all Europe, was filled with rumours of her guilt, and of official inquiries about it—while her name was omitted in the Liturgy—while she was not acknowledged, he could not agree to vote her the means of maintaining herself, until the reasons for such extraordinary circumstances as he had recited should be satisfactorily explained. The thick cloud that covered this case must be removed—the deep mystery in which it was involved must be unravelled, before his mind could be satisfied as to the propriety of the proposed grant. He had every disposition to do justice to the queen; and no one would, perhaps, go farther to support her right when her innocence was established. He had no personal knowledge whatever of her majesty. He never received—he never expected any favour from her. His object was to have her case fully explained, from an anxiety for justice, and from a solicitude to maintain the moral dignity and high character of the monarchy of England.
Air Broughamobserved that if his
1626
right hon. friend felt so peculiarly the delicacy of discussing this question, he hoped the House would, for various reasons, give him credit for feeling that delicacy even more. He could not, indeed, enter into this discussion without pain, but he hoped the House would indulge him with its attention for a few moments, and the more so, as he differed very materially from the views of his right hon. friend upon the subject. He concurred fully with his right hon. friend as to the importance of the question alluded to, but he felt, he apprehended, still more than his right hon. friend, the difficulty and the delicacy which that question involved. There was no difficulty, however, in his view, in that part of the case upon which his right hon. friend had so much dwelt, because it did not appear to him a matter of any importance whether the queen were recognized or not by any of the means recited by his right hon. friend. For whether her name were inserted or omitted in the Liturgy or in any act of council, she was constitutionally and indisputably queen consort. Being indeed the wedded wife of the king, the moment he succeeded to the crown she was eo ipse queen of England. Upon the demise of his father she in fact became as lawfully and rightfully the queen as her husband became the king of this country. Her title, then, did not depend upon any words in the Liturgy, or upon any act of council, or upon any expression which a minister of the Crown thought proper to employ in that House. Such things, indeed, had no effect whatever upon the rights of the queen;—they were "trifles light as air," and could not operate in the slightest degree to impeach the title of her majesty. Nor was it in the power of that House, by any vote it thought proper to pronounce, to impeach that title So much as to the title of the queen, and now as to the proposed vote of provision for the maintenance of her dignity. That provision was, it appeared, to be made out of the general sum for which the minister was about to move, and if that sum were sufficient to afford this provision in addition to all the other objects of the grant, that must, he apprehended, serve to answer the purpose of those who were solicitous for the adequate supply of her majesty. Out of the proposed grant, the proportion which would be requisite to make good to the queen the loss of her late revenue of 35,000 l. a-year, would be

1627
furnished, and that arrangement was at present to his mind quite satisfactory, for he could not rest upon mere technical objections.—Then, as to the rumours to which his right hon. friend had alluded, and which were imagined to cast a cloud of suspicion upon the character of the queen, he totally disregarded such rumours. He would, indeed, refuse his ears to every thing like rumour, suspicion, or insinuation, so long as her majesty remained queen consort. He would listen to no tales about inquiry or commission, nor would he allow the rumoured result of any rumoured inquiry to have the slightest effect upon his judgment. But if any thing in the shape of a distinct charge against the queen should be brought before that House, he hoped he should be found to act as became an honest member of parliament, by pronouncing a fair decision, not only between the parties immediately concerned, but with regard to the public interest, which the consideration of such an important question must necessarily involve. He trusted he would be found, in such a case, ready to do equal justice to the queen, to the king, and to the public, with a due regard to all the national and constitutional points naturally belonging to such an investigation. But till some specific charge should be submitted to that House, his lips should be sealed upon the subject; but he must say, that, in justice to the high personage alluded to, he thought that no opinion should be expressed upon her conduct merely on the authority of rumour. If any charge should be preferred, he begged it to be recollected that this illustrious personage was not remarkable for any slowness to meet accusation, nor for any difficulty to prove her innocence. Remembering, then, her alacrity on the subject of former charges, it was but candid to give her credit for equal alacrity to meet any charges that might hereafter be advanced, and for equal facility, too, in confounding her accusers [Hear, hear!]. But the question which his right hon. friend had thought proper to discuss was of such an important character, that he hoped gentlemen would at all times feel the propriety of considering it with calmness and temper—that bound up as that question was with the feelings of all the royal family, he trusted no appeal upon the subject would ever be made to any turbulent passions out of doors [Hear, heat!]. Such an appeal, indeed, upon
1628
such a subject could not be too forcibly deprecated at any time, because its only effect would be the radical subversion of the principles of justice. But especially under existing circumstances an appeal of that nature must serve to raise a ferment in the country, and to have the names of illustrious personages dragged through the mire of every hustings throughout the empire [Hear, hear!]. If any discussion of this important question should ever arise in parliament, its character was ample guarantee for the examination of the subject with justice, moderation, and candour; and deeply interested, as he must be in the question, from professional considerations, as well as from his duties as a member of that House, he would enter into the discussion with a full confidence of an equitable result.
Lord Castlereaghrose only for the purpose of thanking the hon. and learned gentleman for a speech which did equal honour to his head and his heart, and which must have carried conviction to all who heard it. His majesty's ministers had not lost sight of the inconvenience which might arise from a lapse of the provision which had been made for an illustrious personage, and it was their intention to submit a suitable measure to the consideration of the House.
The House then resolved itself into a committee of supply; and the chancellor of the exchequer proposed a vote of 200,000 l. towards satisfying such annuities and pensions as would have been paid out of the consolidated fund, in case the demise of his majesty had not taken place. Also for a sum not exceeding 50,000 l. to provide for such expenses of a civil nature as did not form a part of the ordinary charges.—Agreed to.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILL.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the second reading of the Insolvent Debtors bill. He said that one of the principal objections which had been made to this bill was the clause which gave the creditor a power to compel the surrender of the debtor's effects, and afterwards to imprison him. It had been contended, that it would be hard to compel the debtor to surrender his properly, when he had rather remain in prison; but he could not help considering this as one of the great advantages of the bill. It was extremely desirable to give effect to the principle which gave the creditor a power over the property rather than the

1629
person of the debtor. In the present state of the law, a man might remain in prison for any length of time, and set his creditors at defiance. As to the making of freehold property liable to the payment of debts, an arrangement would be made on this point, which would, he hoped, prove satisfactory. The strongest objection had been made to the clause giving the creditor a power of imprisonment after the debtor surrendered, which had been considered by many persons as a very severe and unnecessary power. As the law stood at present, the debtor must remain three months in confinement previous to being brought up for judgment, and this was agreeable to the principle of imprisonment, which was to be regarded not as a punishment but as a security for the creditor. When, however, the cessio bonorum was adopted as the principle of legislation between debtor and creditor, the imprisonment was to be taken more as a punishment than before, and if not resorted to, those persons would escape with the greatest impunity who had contracted debts with the least ability to discharge them.
The bill was ordered to be read a second time this day fortnight.