Commons Sitting of 6 July 1820

MOTION RESPECTING THE MILAN COMMISSION.
Sir Ronald Fergussonrose to bring forward his motion respecting the Milan Commission. It was with unfeigned regret that he felt himself bound in public duty, conscious as he was of his own inadequacy for the task, to bring this question under consideration. Undoubtedly, the subject was of a most delicate and painful nature, and, in its result, of the utmost importance to the peace and safety of the country. If his majesty's ministers had pursued a proper course either by not erasing her majesty's name from the Liturgy, or by retracing their steps when they saw the mischievous consequences of their conduct, the ferment which now agitated the public mind would have been avoided. The noble
260
lord had on a former occasion observed, that if her majesty had not come to this country, no proceeding would have been instituted against her; and indeed it appeared that her crime was nothing more than daring to set her foot on English ground. The consequence of that act was, that two green bags were laid on their table, of the contents of which, however, he thanked God that House was totally ignorant. Gentlemen turned their backs on those bags, and, a few evenings afterwards, to use the phrase of the noble lord, he "he turned his back on himself," and abandoned the proceeding which he had instituted, by voting that the measure would lead to discussions "derogatory from the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the empire." The public and that House had a right to know (for though they had not opened this green bag. they had learned that a report had been elsewhere founded on its contents) where the facts contained in it had been collected. He would therefore state what, perhaps, would be denominated rumours, in explanation of this question. If he were wrong, the noble lord would contradict him, and he should feel obliged to him for that contradiction, because persons were said to be connected with this transaction who had heretofore held some rank and character in this country; therefore he should be rejoiced at their exculpation. It was generally understood, that the contents of the green bag were obtained through the means of certain persons, whether sent out in a public or a private capacity he cared not. They were, it seemed, commissioned to go to Milan, and to obtain all the information they could on the subject of the queen's conduct. Common rumour did not point at ministers as the inventors of this plan; that honour was given to another person—to one who held a high judicial situation in this country—he meant the vice-chancellor of England. If wrong he should be happy to hear his statements contradicted; but it was certainly understood that this gentleman took great pains in the proceeding. He indeed was supposed to be the head or inventor of this milan commission. In order to get at the facts, he recommended to notice a person who had practised in the same court with him long and successfully. One of his qualifications for the situation was rather extraordinary, for it appeared that he understood no language beyond

261
his native tongue. A second, and, he believed, a third individual, were added to the commission. He did not himself know any of the parties employed on this occasion, and God forbid he ever should. To prove that the vice-chancellor was at the head of this army of espionnage, it was only necessary to observe, that he himself went to Milan in 1818, and remained there till September 19th in that year. The expense attending this commission (he cared not by what name it was called—whether a secret court of judicature, or a combination of spies) had been very great indeed. It must have been well known to ministers, that those persons had been employed, because he knew that no commission would be suffered to remain in Milan without a regular correspondence having taken place with the Austrian court. From the date he had mentioned, the statements contained in the green bag must have been received by his majesty's ministers a year ago; and yet not one step had been taken on the subject until the queen landed, and set her calumniators at defiance. Let not ministers think, that the dissatisfaction out of doors on this subject was a mere idle clamour. It was, on the contrary, deep-rooted; and, from the Land's-end to the Orkneys, pervaded persons of every station and description. The question was not whether her majesty was guilty of the high crimes alleged against her, but whether she, the queen of these realms, and the first subject of England, should not experience that justice which ought not to be refused to the lowest. In the first place, gross injustice had been done to her by introducing this green bag; and in the second place, they had acted still more unjustly by her when they brought in a bill, the most palpably disgraceful that was ever known in England. He should be glad if the noble lord would set him right as to the expense of this commission, but he understood it had cost the country 33,000 l. In the first five months of its existence no less than 11,000 l. was drawn by these commissioners. Now he would engage for half that money to procure such witnesses in Italy as would blast the character of every man and every woman there, however respectable. Let the House consider the creatures by whom the affidavits were sworn; they were procured from the meanest, the most rascally of mankind. And, was the queen of England, on such
262
evidence as this, to be degraded at once and without trial? He said she was de graded, because ministers had brought in a bill which now hung over her majesty's head, accusing her with such gross crimes as could not be separated from the idea of degradation. They talked of granting her justice—of giving her the best means of defending herself; but how was such an intention proved? He was sorry, even thus shortly, to have occupied the attention of the House, but a sense of what was due to public justice and to the character of the country induced him to come forward. The gallant general concluded by moving—"That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a copy of any commission or commissions, instruction or instructions, issued by his majesty's commands, since the departure of her majesty the queen from this country in 1814, for taking depositions, or making other inquiries, relating to her majesty, during her residence abroad; together with an account of all sums of money expended in the execution of such commissions or instructions, and by whom such sums were respectively issued."
Lord Castlereaghfelt it to be his duty, under the circumstances in which the House was at present placed, to oppose the motion. It would, he conceived, be a waste of their time, if he were led, in consequence of what had fallen from the gallant general, to enter into an explanation of the course of conduct that his majesty's ministers had been induced to take in consequence of the important subject which had recently occupied their consideration. Had the gallant general, he would ask, seen any thing in the general conduct of ministers that rendered it necessary to bring this question under discussion? Or had he perceived any part of their proceedings that appeared to justify the casting the least imputation on them, as the authors of this painful investigation? He conceived that the gallant general had not; and therefore he would simply apply himself to the motion now before the House. The objection he took to it did not arise from any indisposition on the part of ministers to give the fullest information on the subject when the proper time arrived; for, whatever might be the gallant general's opinion of ministers— whatever cause might have induced him

263
to imagine that they threw an improper shade of mystery over this transaction, with respect to the mode in which it was conducted, or the manner in which the charges were to be provided for—he could assure the gallant general, that there was no portion of the painful investigation with which it was connected that he would more readily, if the occasion suited, place him and the House in possession of. He believed, most sincerely, that the whole transaction, from the first to the last, would bear the light, at least as far as he had any knowledge of it. But he might be allowed to say, that the present was a very curious mode of proceeding, if it were introduced with a view to assist or elucidate the inquiry now pending before parliament. It was most extraordinary, in the very outset, before the House had adopted any measure of inquiry of their own, and without waiting for that which it was quite clear they would arrive at by another process—while they were ignorant of the whole course of evidence—that the gallant general should call on one of the parties to put the House in possession of all the means that had been adopted to gain information, and to state facts which would not in any degree render other parts of the case intelligible. It certainly was not very common in judicial proceedings to give up the means by which information had been procured. Indeed, nothing could be more subversive of the course of justice, nor was any thing ever known more contrary to the order of proceeding within the walls of parliament. It was such a line of conduct as he thought the gallant general would not, on reflection, persevere in. Feeling thus, it was not his intention to negative the motion, but to meet it with the previous question. As he had formerly stated, with respect to the conduct of foreign ministers abroad, he did not wish to wrap up the government in mystery. When the proper time came, ministers were ready to give every information, but they would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if they did so prematurely. The House could not decide whether they acted with a view to the ends of justice, or for the purpose of oppression, until all the facts were before them; then only could they judge correctly of their conduct, or of the conduct of their agents. Those facts were not before them, and therefore he contended that the motion of the gallant general was wholly premature. In this stage of the
264
proceeding he must intreat the House to enter fully into the reasons why, in his opinion, information on this part of the subject should not be laid before them. He had no hesitation in stating, broadly and distinctly, what was the fact. The outline of the case, unconnected with the bill before the other House, was simply this:—The statements concerning the conduct of her majesty reached ministers from so many quarters, and had become so notorious (statements, let it be observed, that were not procured by any system of fishing, but which came voluntarily from various quarters, many of them of the most grave and official character), that it was deemed necessary to inquire into their truth; and, unless the gallant general laid it down as a maxim, that the servants of the Crown were obliged to shut their eyes and ears against every offence that threatened the welfare of the state—unless he conceived, because they must experience the most painful feelings, when charges were made against a person of such illustrious rank, that, therefore, they ought not to take the plain course of justice on such occasions, and ought not to institute any inquiry into reports of this nature;—unless the gallant general reasoned thus, there was nothing in the conduct of ministers that deserved censure. He would hereafter argue with the gallant general why the course of inquiry to which he objected was, at the time, the most proper. He admitted that that course of inquiry was not strictly official—it was not sanctioned by any proceeding that could give it the name of a commission—it was not distinguished by any of those formal instruments which were usually known to the constitution. He would state, in due time, why he considered this demi-official proceeding—a proceeding not strictly according to the forms of the constitution—was, under the view then taken, the fit and proper one to be adopted; and he would also consider the question, whether the commission had acted with severity or injustice; or had hunted for that sort of information, which, according to the gallant general, Italy was famous for—which a sum of money could buy, and by means of which the fairest character might be blackened. If the gallant general had waited for the facts of the case, instead of applying his reasoning to certain rumours, he, perhaps, would not have made his motion. The information alluded to was not drawn from Italy

265
alone; and although he called the persons who were sent out "the Milan commission," their inquiries were not restricted to conduct pursued in that place. Their orders were to look to every thing that could be devised, in reason, to detect and separate falsehood from truth. That was the system adopted in this case; but certainly the inquiries of the commissioners were applied to a much more extensive portion of Europe than the gallant general seemed to suppose. With respect to the characters of the persons employed, he was sure the gallant general could not mean to insinuate any thing against them. There was nothing in the character of those individuals that could lead the House to suppose that they would take any step inconsistent with British justice. At a proper moment he should be prepared to defend all their proceedings. When the facts alleged against her majesty flowed in on government with so strong a tide, when the number of charges hourly increased, and when they assumed a most grave and serious aspect, ministers felt that they had no right, intrusted as they were with a responsible authority, to let those accusations rest on the ground of rumour. They thought it was their duty, even with reference to the character and dignity of the queen herself, to take the best means to discover what degree of weight they deserved. Under the circumstances, they did not deem it a case, in the examination of which it would be wise or prudent to employ that formal commission which would place on record the statements that were to be inquired into, even though they turned out to be unfounded. They conceived it would answer the ends of justice if they were inquired into by persons of such character in their profession as would enable ministers to place confidence in their proceedings, and to give credit to their report. Certainly, it did not fall within the province of the vice-chancellor to lend himself voluntarily to such a proceeding; but he must at the same time observe, that there was nothing in the conduct of the vice-chancellor on that occasion that could in any way reflect discredit on his character. He held a high judicial situation; but, when he was called on to inquire into the matter at issue, he (lord C.) knew of no just ground which could be alleged to prevent him from informing himself of the truth or falsehood of the reports that had been circulated
266
against the character of the illustrious individual who was then residing abroad, and afterwards stating the conviction of his mind. He was yet to learn that there was any thing in the vice-chancellor's situation that ought to preclude him from entering on an inquiry of this nature—always provided that it was pursued with truth and honour. The character of the vice-chancellor, so far from militating against the impartiality of the inquiry, afforded an additional pledge that it was a just one. He would now briefly notice the course that was taken. In the first instance, application was made to a gentleman at the bar of the chancery-court, a Mr. Cooke, for his assistance. There was no man in the country, he believed, who had the honour of his acquaintance, that did not respect him. He had seen him only once; but, if a person might judge from the propriety of his appearance, and the gravity of his manner. For his own part, he thought it would have been wrong to send a young gentleman on such a mission; although the gallant general might suppose that he would get much sooner into all the secrets of the matter than a person of more mature age. When the business was of so delicate a nature, it was, in his opinion, most proper to employ an individual of grave and thinking habits. The gallant general said, an individual was selected who knew nothing of foreign languages. This, he conceived, was a pledge that nothing more was intended, but that the individual should go to the appointed place, merely to hear the evidence as a professional man. It showed that he was not sent out to insinuate himself as a spy into those transactions, but that he was specifically sent out as a person who, when the witnesses that were to substantiate the facts came before him, was ready to take their depositions, and to take them in that form which was suitable to the practice of our jurisprudence, and surrounded with all those safeguards by which our law was characterised. It was necessary, therefore, to delay any motion of the nature of that now before the House, because, to understand the question well, the gallant general ought to see the depositions, examine their forms, and observe the safeguards by which they were surrounded. If he had seen them, he would probably feel that no censure attached to those who superintended them. Every thing was done to guard those who were examined from stating any matter on

267
hearsay—every thing was done to guard them against speaking unadvisedly—every thing was done that could make them dismiss from their minds the hope of receiving any emolument in consequence of their testimony; and they were informed that their characters would be examined in some competent court of law. He was convinced that no individual could be selected better adapted to fulfil the duties that were intrusted to him than this gentleman; and he was quite sure, that with respect to the necessary safeguards, no depositions had ever been more strictly drawn up. He believed that those who had seen the proceedings in this case, had viewed them with no other feeling but that of the greatest respect for those who conducted them. He hoped he had repelled the idea that any servant of his majesty had been disgraced in the discharge of his duty, because he had looked into facts which materially affected the honour and dignity of the Crown; and he had also, he trusted, repelled any insinuation that had been thrown out against Mr. Cooke, or against the eminent solicitor who accompanied him, and who had assisted in taking those depositions. As to the expenses of the commission, no disposition existed to withhold from the House all the information that was necessary, when the proper moment arrived. There would be a want of delicacy in obtruding it on the House at present; but when the proper time arrived it would not be concealed. The expenses incidental to the parties who were sent abroad must be brought before the House on the same ground that the House would be called on to defray the sum necessary for her majesty in entering on her defence. The expense attending the allegations on the one side, and the preparations for meeting them on the other, would be laid before parliament in due time. As he had before said, ministers wished for no mystery with respect to any part of this transaction. But he did protest solemnly against this mode of introducing partial motions, for it exhibited the air of a mere party proceeding much more than it did that of a real desire to forward the ends of justice. Individuals would not wait for the proper moment to argue those questions; they ran unprepared into the midst of a most important subject, and dragged it into view, not at once, but piecemeal. They did not take a plain and intelligible course, but came forward in a way the most in-
268
vidious, both with respect to the proceeding itself, and with reference to private character. Would it not be better for gentlemen to restrain their feelings until they saw the whole proceeding? If, when that was done, ministers could not explain themselves to the satisfaction of the House, then would come the time for them to encounter the animadversions of gentlemen. But, at that moment, he protested against investigating a transaction of this nature. He would not consent, when a charge was brought against the queen, that it should be set aside, and that ministers should be placed on their trial, with reference to some collateral circumstances. He would not wrap himself up in mystery as to this transaction; but, at the fair and proper moment, he would give all the information in his power. In the mean time, he thought he aid not ask too much of the House, when they had suspended their opinion with respect to the proceeding itself, also to suspend their opinion with respect to the conduct of ministers. He felt it necessary to make this appeal, because he was dragged into partial explanations on this subject, in consequence of the course adopted, which, he must say, was rather dictated by political feeling than by a strong regard for the principles of justice. Owing to this system, he was compelled to give garbled and broken explanation to the House, and to defend the character of individuals less fully and less forcibly than he would be enabled to do if he had an opportunity of discussing the whole question. He would not negative this motion, but he would meet it with the previous question, to show that the information should not have been called for; and he hoped it would be a warning to gentlemen on the other side, not to let their zeal get the better of their understanding, in submitting motions to the House under circumstances like the present. Let the subject rest until the whole case was brought forward; and let not the House and the country be lowered in the eyes of Europe, which they would be, if it were seen that, when a great question, important to the Crown and the empire, was agitated, they could not deal with it fairly, but must meet it by little motions of this kind, in order to get some unfair advantage over ministers, as if they were on their trial. He asked for no favour—he shrank from no responsibility. All he claimed was, that the conduct of ministers should be fairly and strictly ex-

269
amined, when the circumstances were before the House, when they would have an opportunity to explain themselves fully; he only protested against these repeated anticipations of explanation.
Mr. Creevey, not withstanding he might incur the displeasure of the noble lord, and notwithstanding the protest and the warning the noble lord had given to the House, would maintain that the proposition of his gallant friend was a perfectly just one, and the time precisely that in which the motion ought to have been made. His gallant friend had not precipitated his motion; he had delayed it till a certain proceeding had taken place in the other House of Parliament. So anomalous a course was, perhaps, never pursued upon any former occasion. The queen of this country was criminally proceeded against; and how? By the introduction of a bill in which she was called by the most infamous and scandalous names. Neither her majesty nor that House had any information on the subject; and, under these circumstances, his gallant friend said, what he conceived to be most proper. "Let me see the foundation of this measure; if you make a charge of this nature, let me see your infernal Milan commission, or whatever commission it may be, on whose statement it is founded." It was quite a novelty, a thing hitherto unknown to the constitution of this country, for the king to authorize a commission to hunt a subject with lawyers, attornies, and spies, assisted by the emperor of Austria, through every part of Europe. This indeed was quite a novel system. It was dangerous when any responsible servant of the Crown was placed at the head of such a proceeding; it was much more dangerous when a person like Mr. Leach—he begged his pardon, he should have said sir John Leach—who was not a responsible servant of the Crown, organized a system of es-pionnage against any individual of this country; but it was still worse when a person, placed in the situation of that gentleman, inflamed the feelings of particular persons by stating to them things of a doubtful nature, but which were calculated strongly to excite their passions. They had a right, he contended, to have this vice-chancellor before them. He would maintain that he was a disturber of the public peace of this country. [Hear, hear! and order.] He would show how he was a disturber of the public peace.
270
In 1814, all the unhappy differences between his majesty and the queen were supposed to be settled: an arrangement with respect to money matters took place; and one of his majesty's ministers negotiated with her for leaving the country. It was quite impossible that the noble lord opposite, or the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), considering the feelings he had expressed towards the queen, could have again awakened those differences which were thought to have expired. Who then had done it? It was the vice-chancellor who had kept alive the vindictive feelings of his majesty towards the queen [Order, order.] He was not out of order: he would contend that it was the vice-chancellor who had kept alive the vindictive passions of the king against the queen. If the feeling were not vindictive, he did not know what the word "vindictive" meant. Several years ago the queen was prosecuted; she left the country: after a long, absence she came back, and now she was prosecuted again. If this was not vindictive, he did not know what was. But now for the result of this commission. By the aid of his confederates—the emperor of Austria, Italian spies, English lawyers, and English money—he contrived to have this bag filled and brought over. It was clear, however, that it was not wanted: it had been in the possession of ministers of the Crown for these twelve months, and they had never made any use of it. This showed that they considered its contents as of a private nature, and not as state evidence against the queen. If they thought otherwise, why did they not prosecute her at once? Instead of doing that they negotiated with her at St. Omer's, and in this country; and it appeared on the Journals of the House, that the business was in fact a family difference. But the queen, it appeared, would not consent to the propositions made to her. That was her crime at present. Her first crime was having placed her foot on the English shore, and her next, a determination not to leave it. This vice-chancellor was again answerable to the House for his conduct on this point, because they were called on to assist in the utter subversion of the law of this country, and to adopt a completely anomalous proceeding in consequence of his conduct. Secret evidence had been taken by a secret commission; and, after a period of twelve months had elapsed, it was laid before the

271
Lords, who, without any examination of witnesses, had finally adopted certain charges against the queen. A bill was then brought in for the purpose of degrading her. If this were allowed, if a bill of this nature were suffered to pass into a law, he contended that the laws of this country would be totally subverted, and no man in the kingdom would be safe. They had a right to know who the author of this measure was. That individual was answerable to the House in another point of view, perhaps as important as those he had mentioned;—he was answerable as the enemy of the sovereign; for no man could tell what situation the king might be placed in before that bill passed. Whatever ministers might state, this was a mere private charge: it was the king wanting to get rid of the queen. Ministers knew there was no crime cognizable by law, and therefore they sought to relieve him by bill. He must then appear as a private individual when he came to parliament for relief; and when he came before that House to be released from his wife, he must come, like all persons applying for relief to a court of equity, with clean hands. He owed all this to sir John Leach. When a case of that nature came before them, they ought to use the words of Jesus Christ when the woman was taken in adultery—"Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." They were told that there must be no recrimination in this case. He knew that no such word was allowed in a court of justice; but, as he had before stated, when his majesty applied to that House, he must come with clean hands. The bill declared her majesty to be guilty of adultery; and when that measure came before the House, it would be their duty to inquire whether, when the princess of Brunswick, the cousin of his majesty, came to this country to espouse him, he was not himself then living in adultery [Order, order.] Of this he was sure, that the king had been placed in his present situation by the officious adviser to whom he had alluded. He saw the proceeding with pain and regret from the beginning; and when the message came down he warned the House of the situation in which it would place the country, because he was certain that the course adopted on this occasion, that of proceeding by bill, would not only overturn the laws of the land, but would shake the steady, sober, moral habits of
272
the people. Looking to the case in every point of view, there was, in his opinion, an absolute necessity for the production of this Milan commission, in order that they might properly know the author of these unfortunate circumstances.
The previous question was carried without a division.

KING'S MESSAGE—PAPERS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE QUEEN.
Lord Castlereaghrose, pursuant to notice, to postpone the order of the day for taking his majesty's Message into consideration. Before he proceeded to that question, he wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had recently addressed the House. He knew not how far the order of the House would suffer an individual to go when he was determined to transgress the bounds of decency. But certainly, in this case, the hon. member had uttered sentiments which would not be suffered where the feelings of private individuals were concerned, and which never should have been used in speaking of the character of the sovereign [Hear, hear!]. He protested solemnly, in the face of the House and of the country, against the speech which the hon. member had made that night. No individual was warranted in making such assertions—no individual at all acquainted with the fact would have applied such epithets to the feelings and the mind of the sovereign. Though placed under the most trying circumstances in which a monarch ever was or ever could be placed, his majesty had never betrayed the slightest symptom of a vindictive spirit [Hear!]. In every part of this unfortunate transaction he had evinced a feeling completely the reverse. Whatever his sense of injury might be, or whatever personal feeling might have been elicited by these transactions, his majesty had shown the most perfect forbearance with respect to every measure that ministers had adopted for the peace and safety of the country [Hear, hear!]. If they had gone on with this inquiry, it was from a sense of the justice of the cause, and in consequence of the manner in which the queen had conducted herself. A vindictive or passionate feeling had never been manifested by his majesty; and, instead of censuring his conduct, the honourable member and the country ought to offer him their heartfelt thanks for the efforts he had allowed ministers to make for the

273
safety and protection of the empire. He would say nothing more on this unpleasant subject. The House had marked their sense of the hon. member's conduct; and, if he possessed the feelings which a member of parliament ought to possess, the reproof which he had received on this occasion would convey a much stronger comment to his mind, on the course he had pursued, than any thing which he could utter.—His lordship then called the attention of the House to the ulterior proceedings respecting the king's message. He detailed the different circumstances that had taken place since the message was brought down, namely, the address to her majesty—the rejection of the advice which it contained—the report of the lords—and, finally, the introduction of a bill of pains and penalties. When he before postponed the order for considering his majesty's message, he had stated, that, if a proceeding took place in the other House, it was his intention to move a farther postponement. Such a proceeding had occurred, and he new wished, in consequence, to put off the order to a future day. It was necessary, he thought, that their proceeding should rather be of a suspensive than of an abandoning nature. There were several reasons for adopting this course. If, for instance, the bill did not pass the lords, in consequence of some technical informality, the subject would again come back to this House; and it was proper that inquiry should be open to them. Again, if the evidence before the lords led them to reject the measure, this House would, of course, wish to examine the information laid on their table, in order to see how far ministers could justify themselves by the evidence for bringing the measure before parliament. In either event, a postponement was necessary. His lordship then moved, "That the debate be farther adjourned until the l0th of August."
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, it was not his intention to bring into discussion the delicate points connected with this question. He did not view this as a personal question, but a question to be decided as between the public and her majesty. He thought the House had acted in a judicious manner in agreeing to the resolutions which had been passed, and he regretted that those resolutions had not been attended with effect. But if he had possessed the information which ministers appeared now to have possessed, and to the extent of the charges
274
laid against her majesty, he was by no means prepared to admit that he could have voted as he had done. Ministers would have grossly misled his majesty and the country if they had compromised charges which he certainly could never have consented to compromise. But it was not his intention to enter into an enlarged discussion upon this subject. The noble lord had said that he wished the green bag to be left in a suspensive, and not a conclusive, state. But he was desirous that it should be put into a conclusive state, and he should now give his reasons. The whole question now assumed a very different aspect; they had now the report of their committee, stating that a legislative measure was instituted in the other House. If then, while her majesty stood arraigned at the bar of the public, they kept a second inquisition suspended over her, did they intend to institute a second inquisition. If her majesty should be acquitted of the charges against her in the other House, would proceedings be again instituted in this House by the green bag? According to the analogy of grand jury this would be inadmissible. If they failed in proving the preamble of the bill in the other House, was not the queen to have the benefit of a full acquittal? The noble lord had said that there might not have been sufficient evidence before the lords. If there was not, did the noble lord say that they were to institute proceedings in that House? The noble lord had assigned as a reason for keeping the green bag in a suspensive state, that the House might have what withal to bring against minisers, if their conduct should come to be inquired into. He should be sorry to see the noble lord in that situation, although he certainly thought that fitter men might occupy the places of the noble lord and his friends. But it was not out of the green bag that evidence was to be brought forward against ministers, but from the conduct and means by which the green bag was made up and managed. If the question were to become a lapsed order, and no proceeding should be founded upon it, he was not prepared to say that he should oppose a motion to that effect; but as the House might be sitting on the 15th of August, he should move an amendment, that the order be discharged.
Lord Castlereaghexplained. If the measure now instituted failed in the lords, there was no idea of founding criminal proceedings in that House. He had only

275
said, that the green bag would show to the House whether ministers had had evidence for introducing proceedings respecting her majesty.
Mr. Bennetbegan by expressing his surprise that none of his majesty's ministers had attempted to answer his hon. friend, (Mr. Creevey); for though some unguarded expressions might have fallen from him, yet many of his observations had been much to the purpose, and would have a stinging effect out of doors. Ministers were bound to stand up and to justify their master. The noble lord had said, in express terms, that the king of England had lent himself to an accommodation respecting indecency and adultery. No sovereign had ever been so publicly degraded. He did not believe that ministers themselves had ever believed the charges in the green bag, because, if they had believed them, they could not have given such advice as had been given. The queen of England, charged with adultery, was not only to be addressed by both Houses of Parliament, but she was to be acknowledged in certain courts near which she might choose to reside. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), after seeing all the charges in the green bag, had in a most manly speech, a speech which did him the greatest credit, professed his respect and his affection for her majesty. The right hon. gentleman, after having seen the charge, had used the remarkable expressions, that his attention, affection, and respect, remained the same as they had been. He could therefore produce the right hon. gentleman as an authority opposed to his colleagues, for he at least dissented. If, in the opinion of the other ministers, she was black with guilt, in the right hon. gentleman's opinion she was white as snow. What was the feeling of the country upon this subject at the present moment? From every part one sentiment (whether just or not, he knew not) of respect for her majesty, and of conviction that she was innocent, was heard. This was the natural result of the mode of proceeding adopted against her majesty. The noble lord had come down to that House and proposed the most hateful of measures—a green bag, to be investigated by a secret committee; and had, in some degree, explained how it was to be composed. The queen's legal advisers were to be excluded; of course the attorney and solicitor-general must also have been excluded. The committee, then, must
276
have been formed (yet ministers talked of avoiding all party distinctions on this occasion!) out of the adherents and friends of the noble lord, out of what he would call a sort of country gentlemen of the court. Some might have been from his side of the House, but they would have been those whom the noble lord had known on former occasions to lend a willing ear to the stories of his majesty's government. But even they, he believed, would rather have followed the right hon. gentleman's example; they would have refused to have become her majesty's accusers. But ministers were determined to have a verdict against her, if not in one way, in some other way. They had therefore got a jury to try her, who would have found her guilty, if she had been as Cæsar's wife ought to be, even above suspicion. A committee was formed of which four cabinet ministers were members, and one of them, the Nestor of the administration and the keeper of the king's conscience. The keeper of the king's conscience had been member of this committee, as the vice-keeper of the king's conscience had been member of the Milan commission. Did it require any second sight to know what the result of such an inquiry would be? Did not every man in the streets foresee the result? The queen of England was now charged as another queen of England had formerly been charged. The just and pathetic language of queen Anne Boleyn was—"Try me, but let me have a lawful trial, and let not my sworn enemies sit as my accusers and judges? yea, let me receive an open trial, for my truth shall fear no open shame. "The same language was now used by her majesty." Try me (she said), but let not my accusers and enemies be my judges; let me have an open trial, and I shall prove my innocence; let not the lord chancellor, the keeper of the king's conscience, and three other cabinet ministers, sit in secret judgment upon me." If they were not her majesty's accusers, who were her accusers? Who were the advisers of the measures adopted against her. The secret committee had been compared to a grand jury. But it was a strange anomaly to find the accusers forming part of the grand jury; and stranger still to find them afterwards form part of the petty jury who were to sit in. judgment and pronounce a verdict upon the charges. It was a course of proceedings like this that affected the people of England; this it was that caused the cry

277
that was universally raised for the queen, and against her persecutors, who had put her under the ban of excommunication throughout Europe. This course of persecution it was that raised an angry feeling throughout the country. The people never would have interfered when the administration of justice was fair and equal; but a foul administration of justice roused the deepest indignation. He cautioned ministers, because no man could see the end; the boldest might shudder at the consequences. It was not against a fair trial that any feelings were entertained, but against proceedings to get a verdict. The noble lord had thought proper to talk of the tone in which he had expressed his indignation at the terms offered to her majesty in St. Omer's. In the persuasion that the steps taken were a departure from public justice, had he expressed his indignation, and every honest man in the country had felt the same indignation. He, indeed, was probably disqualified from taking a fair view of the subject, because he had not been an accuser. But whenever the question came before that House, if unhappily it should ever come, no man would bring less of party feeling into its consideration. Justice in favour of a helpless and desolate woman was called party. Ample illustration of the feelings of party had been given on the other side. Every man in the country was satisfied whether party feelings operated on this question, and where party feelings prevailed. He at least would do his duty as stoutly as any member, in order to right the injured, and to defeat persecution. The illustrious person who was now queen of England had been persecuted ever since she first landed on their shore. She had not been a week in England (he was old enough to remember that period), when she began to be persecuted. Her person, her manners, her gaiety, were misrepresented and slandered. He would remind the noble lord, the right hon. gentleman, and an equity lawyer elsewhere, of the part they took in former stages of her history. She had been seduced—seduced, he believed, against her better judgment, certainly against the strongest advice of Mr. Whitbread, the most honest man then in England—to go out of this country. The authors of that step might have been rewarded: he would not look into the black and dark intrigues. A manuscript was in the hands of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham),
278
containing, in the strongest terms, the advice of Mr. Whitbread and the member for Winchelsea, not to quit the shelter of her home, or leave the society and security to be found only among her friends. They had anticipated the consequences of her going abroad; they had anticipated the spies, the attornies, and the vice-chancellors that would pursue her; they had anticipated the plots by which she would be assailed; they had anticipated the consequences that would arise from her frankness and gaiety of temper; for, like Anne Boleyn, her lively and gay manners afforded food for calumny. They had known and stated this before her majesty had left the country; but, unhappily, the advice given by the right hon. gentleman opposite, the very worst that could be given, prevailed, though he did not accuse the right hon. gentleman: indeed he believed him incapable of giving advice with so base an intention. And who was the opponent of this illustrious and much injured lady? The king was her opponent; he who was, not absolute master of their lives and property, but the grand source of distinction and honour, and often of property; who had a direct and positive influence where her majesty was to be tried; who held the means of reward, titles, orders, and ribbons.
Lord Castlereaghrose to order. He really must submit to the House whether it was decent or parliamentary to impute to the king acts which could only be considered as done by his servants.
The Speakersaid, he felt this to be a very difficult question. It was evident it was impossible on this occasion to exclude what was excluded on every other occasion. But where the introduction was neccessary, still greater caution ought to be used. It was highly improper to impute direct influence to the king in either House of Parliament, but he was aware that the same thing could be conveyed by putting it hypothetically. He did not suppose that any thing of that kind was intended; but in the warmth of debate, when any thing of that nature might be inadvertently introduced, the hon. member would see in what situation he (the Speaker) and the House were, if he did not use greater caution and restraint than on any other occasion, and carefully avoid whatever might excite strong feelings on this head.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he had certainly wished to allude to the king bonâ fide, but only

279
in a parliamentary manner. There was obviously, on this occasion, great difficulty in separating the personal character of the king from his political character, when he was prosecutor in this country. But it was the odds of a question, where the king with all his power and influence was on one side, against a destitute and forlorn woman on the other, which roused the public to stand by her. Although other classes abstained from those respects towards her majesty which it might be found inconvenient for the courtly adherents of power and fashion to bestow, that was made up to her by her reception with the people, who, viewing her forsaken state, the manner in which she was treated, the proceedings, and the green bags, resorted to against her, conceived that the odds were indeed against her, and therefore they threw themselves into the opposite scale. In this situation he cautioned ministers how they proceeded. He did not say that the people entertained any feeling against a fair trial. But proceedings of this nature brought the names of the royal family into unfavourable and dangerous discussion. All knew well that if her majesty's daughter were now alive—if the late king were alive, and in the vigour of his faculties, proceedings like the present could not have been attempted. The king, though dead, had left the testimony of his opinion how she had been treated. The late king had left a document containing his opinion of the manner in which she had been treated, and the provocations she had received. Although provocation could be no justification of foul conduct, yet he could not see why the Crown should be exempted from the general law which required that the party who applied for divorce should come into court with clean hands. The caution he gave the noble lord was this, not to provoke discussions respecting the royal family, and affecting the institutions of the country, and the credit of the monarchy—discussions which they who lived longest might rue while they lived. It was the saying of an able and eloquent statesman, Mr. Burke, that "formerly situations supported persons, now persons supported situations." He cautioned the noble lord, therefore, not to throw the country into a state of confusion and discord, which the boldest could not contemplate without terror.
Mr. Tierneysaid, he had, on the last time on which he had occasion to speak
280
of this subject, stated the great pain and sorrow which the whole proceeding gave him. This most delicate and difficult question was now canvassed and agitated in every part of England. Much more was he now therefore affected with pain and sorrow when all he heard, and all he saw, from day to day, was calculated to to increase the difficulty and distress in which the subject was originally involved. He always felt great regret when he could not cordially co-operate with his friends around him; but, party-man as he was, and as he always would avow himself, he never would shrink from stating his real personal opinion [Loud cheers from the ministerial side]. With respect to his hon. and gallant friend no reproach could be thrown upon the manner in which he had brought forward his motion. His hon. and gallant friend had exercised his judgment and discretion in the manner he ought, to have done. But the motion itself he was no party to, and though it was unnecessary now to declare it, he thought it right to say, that, if the motion had come to a vote, he would not have supported it. He felt so upon that motion, because it appeared to him to be an intermeddling with matters not fairly coming under their consideration, and liable to great misconception. From this day he must act judicially, and consider the subject in no other way. He rejoiced in the different situation of the House now from that in which it had been formerly placed. They now knew that formal proceedings were entered upon the Journals of the House of Lords—what proceedings they were not to know, because the report of their committee had not stated, but simply informed the House, that a bill, whose title was to take certain privileges from the queen, was introduced. He must presume that those who introduced the bill had ground enough for doing so. But it would be time enough to speak of that when it came before that House, if, unhappily, it should ever come into that House. At present, he should keep his mind clear and unbiassed, and preserve a painful suspense upon the subject, until he should be called upon to say what he thought. God knew how distressing it was to hear daily discussions on this painful subject, and how difficult it was to preserve an even and impartial judgment; but he trusted that every man would do his duty to the king, to the accusers (for parliament itself was accu-

281
ser) and to the accused. Her majesty should have in him a firm and strenuous friend of truth and justice; he should hear with equal attention all that should be urged against her and in her favour. This evening was not the moment for giving any opinion; but when the question came before them, whatever might be the event, be would do his duty, without fear, favour, or affection; without regarding popular clamour on the one hand, or court influence on the other. He had only one word more to say, before he sat down, respecting the mode of disposing of the green bag. There appeared to him to be little difference between the motion and the amendment, but he preferred his hon. friend's amendment as the more manly way of getting rid of the green bag. They agreed, whether wisely or not, that the lords should take precedence in this proceeding; but all the while they preserved the green bag in the midst of them. They still had the green bag; whether it was six weeks or six months, still they would have the green bag; the green bag they could not get removed without a specific motion. All agreed now, that whatever should be the event of proceedings elsewhere, no fresh charges were to be got out of the green bag. He was happy to hear that declaration from the noble lord, because apprehensions had been entertained by many, that the green bag was reserved for farther proceedings if necessary. He hoped he had made himself understood; the course he had stated he should abide by, and all he required of every individual was, to keep his mind in the same state of suspense and impartiality.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that on the immediate subject of debate now before the House he was inclined to agree with Mr. Tierney, and though it was of little importance which way it was disposed of, he thought that on the whole it would be better to drop the motion for resuming the debate than to adjourn it to a future day. That debate was on the proposition for referring the papers contained in the green bag to a secret committee; but whatever course it might be expedient hereafter to adopt, it was clear that the appointment of a secret committee would be absurd, after all the matter to be examined, had been made public by the proceedings in the other House. With respect to the proceedings themselves on this momentous and perilous question, he had already
282
stated his reasons for regretting that a course so disrespectful to the Crown should be pursued as to pass over in absolute silence a communication upon a subject so essentially affecting its dignity. It appeared only that the House, after solemnly pledging itself to take the matter into its most serious and immediate consideration, had repeatedly adjourned its investigation, and at length dropped it altogether. Perhaps this breach of the pledge already given, and apparent neglect of the royal message might in great measure be avoided, if either a second message were brought down recommending that no further step should be taken by the House of Commons, or if an address were to be presented stating that in consequence of the proceedings already instituted in the other House of Parliament, the Commons thought it inexpedient to proceed in the inquiry.—The real cause of all this difficulty was, that his majesty's ministers had not originally decided what course of investigation they should propose to parliament. Two modes of proceeding were open to them, one criminal by impeachment, in which case the communication should have been made to the House of Commons alone, the other remedial by divorce, a bill for which might properly originate with the House of Peers. It had, he understood, been elsewhere stated, that the first of these was impracticable, for that the facts alleged against her majesty having been committed abroad and with an alien, could not be made the subject of an impeachment, inasmuch as impeachable and indictable were convertible terms. This doctrine he felt it his duty to deny, however high and respectable the authority might be from which it had originated. He protested against it as tending, in many instances, to render nugatory the great safeguard of the constitution, the trial by impeachment. It did indeed appear inconceivable how any man, even in the slightest degree conversant with parliamentary history, could assert that no offence could be the subject of impeachment, which was not also cognizable by indictment. The direct reverse was apparent, from almost every impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The sale of Dunkirk, the signature of the Partition Treaty and of the Peace of Utrecht, had successively been the subjects of impeachments, and yet it was obvious that these were offences of which no inferior court could take cogni-

283
zance. If even the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, commenced and prosecuted within our own days, was adverted to, the maintainers of this opinion would find it difficult to argue, that the charges preferred against him could have been turned into an indictment, and that the grand jury at Hicks's Hall could have presented the injustice and impolicy of the Mahratta war.—In opposition to these new-fangled doctrines, and attempts to confine the jurisdiction of the supreme tribunal of the land, the high court of parliament, within the contracted and local limits of the courts of Westminster Hall, he was ready to contend, that any offence affecting the safety of the country or the honour of the Crown, wherever it might be committed by any British subject, was cognizable by the high court of Parliament. The true principle of the constitution was, that those injuries which, if directed against an individual would be the subject of a civil action for damages, if committed against the public were criminal and triable as misdemeanors. Of this nature evidently was the crime of adultery in the consort of the sovereign, whether committed at home or abroad, with a British subject or an alien. It was true, that in most of the writers upon law, that offence was described as high treason.—It had generally been stated that the word"violer" in the statute of Edward 3rd was to be understood as extending to a criminal connection with her consent as well as without. This, however, would be a question not of law but etymology, and the more it was examined the more difficult would it be found to maintain, that force was not essential to constitute this offence, whether the French word used in the statute were considered or the Latin one from which it was derived. Upon this argument it was at present unnecessary to dilate, but he apprehended that even if the sense of the word was more doubtful than he thought it, no court could be found which, on the authority of the single decided case of Anne Boleyn (if that could be called a case in point which was very doubtful) would construe an ambiguous expression, in a statute so highly penal, against the person accused. Upon these grounds, as well as upon others which he would not detain the House by stating, he had himself no doubt, that if the charges brought against her majesty could be substantiated, they would warrant an impeachment against her for high crimes and misdemeanors; and he was
284
therefore disposed to oppose any proceeding by bill of pains and penalties—a proceeding always highly objectionable, and which nothing could in any degree apologize for but an absolute impossibility of adopting a more regular course. In every former instance some reason had been alleged why an impeachment could not have been preferred. In lord Clarendon's case, he was considered as having withdrawn himself from justice by quitting the country. In sir John Fenwick's a witness had been suborned to abscond, and in those of Atterbury and Kelly a principal witness had died; but there was no instance of a bill of pains and penalties where the person accused was ready to meet the charge, and where it was not even alleged that there was a single witness wanted to support it who was not forthcoming. The bill now pending in the House of Lords had been called a bill of pains and penalties, but it appeared to him that it was not more so than any other bill of divorce; and it was for this reason that he was enabled to acquiesce in it so far as to suspend all proceedings in the House of Commons. The clause for degrading her majesty was the necessary consequence of the dissolution of her marriage. It was true, that it deprived her of her rank and privileges, but so did any ordinary divorce bill in the case of a peeress. In neither case was punishment the object, though it was the necessary consequence. In one respect certainly the present did most essentially differ from a common divorce bill. Both were remedial measures, but in other bills the remedy was to be afforded to the husband alone. Here, if the case were made out, it was due to the public, whose interests were deeply concerned, that a person against whom such charges could be substantiated, should no longer hold that high and exalted situation which afforded so much opportunity to influence the morals and manners of the country.—He had heard with deep regret the argument or rather declamation of an hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) against the propriety of bringing this case before the other House of Parliament, because the peers were bound either by gratitude or by expectation to the Crown. If this argument were good for any thing, it would equally militate against the House of Peers retaining any of the functions which the constitution entrusted to it. If the lords really were so much the creatures and tools of the

285
Crown, as to be unfit to be trusted with the decision of this case, they were equally unfit to try any impeachment for high treason, or to deliberate on any bill by which the patronage, the prerogatives, or the interests of the Crown might be supposed to be affected. It was impossible thus to depreciate one of the essential members of the constitution without degrading and injuring the whole.
Mr. Kecksaid, that he had been more pleased with the observations of Mr. Tierney, than with any speech which he had heard upon the very distressing subject before the House. Whenever the main question might be brought forward, he should feel it his duty to dismiss even the remembrance of general imputation from his mind. He should look for proof, and for proof only; and nothing short of the most damning proof should induce him to give credit to the stories which were in circulation.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that as the House was not in a situation to see its way as to the whole extent of the proceedings, he had thought it more convenient to postpone the order to the 15th August, than to discharge it altogether, or to move an address to the Crown. He should be extremely sorry, however, that there should be any difference of opinion in the House upon a mere matter of form.
After a few words from Mr. Tierney, lord Castlereagh consented that the order should be discharged.

EXCESS OF SPIRITS BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on these acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that from the time of the Union, Irish spirits had been imported into this country without an)' obstruction in the state in which they were manufactured, but that in the acts under consideration, a clause was introduced, imposing a prohibition of the import of any raw spirits into this country, unless received into the stock of a rectifier. By this clause it was complained, that the Irish distillers were subjected to a very great grievance, and upon that representation being made to his majesty's government, the case had been fully considered. The result of that consideration was a conviction, that in common justice, the clause ought to be repealed. He moved that the chairman be directed to move for leave to bring in the bill for the repeal of the said clause.
Mr. Brightsaid, that if the facility for the import of Irish spirits were afforded, which the proposition was calculated to produce, it would be impossible to prevent that part of the English coast with which he was immediately connected, as well as the coast of North Wales, from being deluged with that article. He maintained, that the clause referred to did not involve any violation of the act of Union, as a fair review of the system of the countervailing duties would fully manifest. The fact was, that the Irish spirit generally imported into this country required rectification before it was fit for use, and therefore it was no grievance to let the clause stand as it did. At least it was no grievance to the people of England, who might be disposed to consume such spirits. But he begged the House to consider the consequences likely to follow from making such ardent spirits cheap in this country.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldwas surprised how-such a clause as that to which the motion referred happened to be smuggled into the act before the committee. This clause was evidently devised to interfere with the free and fair trade of Ireland, and to prevent the Irish distillers from coming into competition with those of Ireland. That it was cunningly contrived with that view, there could be no doubt. While he bore testimony to the candour of the chancellor of the Exchequer towards Ireland on this occasion, he begged to differ from him as to his construction of the act of Union. Spirits formed a distinct manufacture in Ireland, and were as free from the regulation of the English excise as its linen manufacture. The spirits distilled in Ireland were recognised by several laws of the legislature of that country, previous to the Union, as a distinct manufacture, and the principle of these laws ought to be respected by the imperial parliament. It was not any reason for placing Irish spirits under the control of the English excise, that they were of greater strength than the spirits distilled in this country. But as the terms of the clause referred to in the motion mentioned raw spirits he was prepared to argue, that it did not correctly speaking, extend to Irish spirits. For the Irish spirits, as he was enabled to show, was not a raw, but a complete spirit. It was indeed, much more a complete spirit than rum, and yet the produce of the colonies was treated with more liberality than the spirits of Ireland, for it was not required that the for-

287
mer should be put into the hands of the British rectifiers. Upon what ground, then, should that measure of liberality be refused to Ireland, which was granted to the British colonists and to the traders of France? Upon what pretence should the English board of excise demand that Irish spirits should be subjected to British rectifiers, in order to have it mixed with deleterious articles, and denominated rum or brandy, before it was brought to sale? Such a system was quite absurd, and calculated to injure the character, because it must serve to spoil the quality of the Irish spirit. Thus, indeed, it was, that Irish spirit lost its favour with those in this country, who would otherwise be delighted with that article. The fact was, that through the preposterous system of the English board of excise, the Irish spirit was not brought to sale in England until it was actually spoiled. For himself, he had no connection whatever with the Irish distilleries; he took up this question entirely upon public grounds, knowing that a large capital was embarked in the business of distillation in Ireland—that this capital gave employment to a great deal of industry, and that it was most materially advantageous to the agriculture of his country. It was clear that the English board sought to break down the Irish distillation of spirits, as far as that could be done, by excluding that article from the British ports, or destroying its character after it was imported. Yet it was pretended that the English distillers were not jealous of the Irish. But how did the liberality of the English distillers appear? Why, the proposed motion was scarcely made known, when a petition was laid upon the table from the English rectifiers, decidedly against it. But he trusted that parliament would not be influenced by the narrow, illiberal views of any set of men, and above all, that it would never sanction a positive act of injustice, by injuring the trade of Ireland, and violating that solemn compact, the Union.
Mr. W. Dundasexpressed his concurrence in the motion; but he could not help requesting his right hon. friend to remember that he was chancellor of the Exchequer for Scotland as well as for Ireland, and to reflect that if the Irish distilleries were allowed the free import of their spirits into England, it was but common justice that the same privilege should be granted to the poor distiller of Scotland.
Mr. Marryatsaid, it was impossible, if
288
fairly manufactured, that either Scotch or Irish spirits could find a market in this country, yet a large quantity did find its way here, and every gallon which was imported turned out of consumption a gallon of English spirits, paying a higher duty. This might be claimed as an indulgence; for the act of Union did not give it; the Irish spirit came here now only because it paid a lower duty than the English distiller had to pay on his manufacture; and yet they came and asked for a further exemption; they now wished their spirits not to pass through the hands of the rectifiers, which regulation was most necessary for the protection of the revenue. The consequence would be, if the resolution was carried, that the market would be entirely supplied by illicit distillation. He was the more surprised at this measure being now introduced, as a neighbour of his (a distiller) had informed him, he had seen a letter from the chancellor of the Exchequer which disclaimed any such intention. If the measure passed into a law, the English distillers would certainly be entitled to claim an indemnity, as their business would be destroyed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the board of excise had suggested to him that this measure might affect the security of the revenue; but he was bound not to let any consideration of revenue interfere with the due execution of the act of Union, and if any of the clauses of that act were of doubtful meaning, the House was equally bound, in justice and liberality, to explain them in the sense most favourable to Ireland.
Sir J. Newportdeprecated the language of an hon. member, in so loosely casting an imputation upon the conduct of the Irish and Scotch distillers. The hon. member had not a particle of evidence to sustain the charge, that the spirit of Ireland was not as fairly manufactured as that of England. But the fact was, that the Irish spirit was of a much superior manufacture, or it would not have had so much sale in competition with the spirit manufactured in England. The Irish distillery was under the special protection of the Union. But such was the superior quality of Irish spirit, that a great quantity of it was imported into this country before the Union, as might be seen upon reference especially to the imports of 1797. The import of this article had, however, considerably increased since the Union, and nothing could prevent that increase, if

289
the Irish spirits were not deteriorated by the interposition of jealous manufacturers. Let the spirit be sold in the state in which it was originally manufactured, and there could be no doubt of an increasing demand for it in England [Hear!]. Ireland felt a great interest in the success of its distilleries, and whatever it gained from that source, could never be regarded as a gain at the expense of England; as every wise statesman must feel that the gain of any part of the united kingdom was the gain of the whole, as the strength of any part contributed to the strength of the empire at large.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that previous to the Union this subject had come under Mr. Pitt's consideration, and he had received several representations, stating that the effect of it would be, that a large portion of the trade and capital of the distilleries would he transferred from England to Ireland. He replied, as a statesman of enlightened views ought, that it was a matter of indifference to him to what part of the empire the capital was transferred. On that principle, the union was framed, and he thought they had no right to consult the question of revenue at the expense of the first principles of the Union.
Mr. W. Smithacknowledged, that Ireland was a country to which England owed a debt of fearful magnitude for many ages of misgovernment, but this he thought was a bad mode of payment. He could not agree, that because some of the manufactures of Ireland had been destroyed, we were therefore to destroy some of the manufactures of England also. His hon. friend, whom he was glad to see in his place (Mr. J. Foster) had often contended, that the House had no right to interfere with the internal regulations of Ireland; he should like to know if that principle were now to be maintained. He strongly objected to the late period of the session at which this matter was brought on; and he also thought that as the excise had found sufficient reason for the mention of the obnoxious clause, the House ought to be acquainted with those reasons, now that it was about to be rescinded. It was not correct to speak of the rectifiers as the rivals of the Irish distillery; it would have been more consistent so to denominate the malt distillers, and on their behalf he must protest against this measure, except as an experiment. They had no objection to the importation of Irish spirits, if they were put on the same
290
footing, but they could not contend against high duties and wide consciences. He thought if a manufacture was to be set up, it was indifferent to the statesman where; but where a manufacture was already established, flourishing, and paying a large revenue to the government, it was neither prudent nor just to put all that to risk for the sake of something which might be carried on more advantageously in another part of the country.
Mr. John Foster, as he had been called upon in so pointed a manner, would only observe, that he had not said what the hon. member had imputed to him, and he would tell him why it was impossible he should have said so. At that time the English parliament was the parliament of Ireland, and he never could have been guilty of the absurdity of asserting, that they could not legislate for the whole of the empire. He put it to the hon. gentleman whether he could consider it as the part of a good member of parliament to be setting the manufacturers of one part of the country against those of another part, as if they had separate interests. He hoped never to see a national question so treated again.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

LOTTERY BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the order of the clay for the third reading of the Lottery bill, said, that in consequence of the communications which had taken place between an hon. friend of his and the hon. member for Aberdeen, he had consented to withdraw what were considered the objectionable clauses in the bill.
Mr. Humeexpressed his satisfaction at the decision of the right hon. gentleman and pointed out some passages in the 33d and 38th clauses of the bill, which also required amendment. He also protested against the use of black letter in bills, which sometimes rendered it extremely difficult to ascertain their precise contents. In consequence of its having been alleged that the secretary of the lottery had some share in the contract, and might therefore favour one lottery office keeper or another, he wished to bring up two clauses, prohibiting the secretary, or any of the commissioners, from having any interest, direct or indirect, with the contract for the lottery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that such an enactment would be wholly unnecessary. The secretary was

291
an annual appointment, under the control of the treasury, and if any misconduct were proved against him, it was their duty to remove him. He considered such control more effective than any legislative interference.
Sir M. W. Ridleydeclared it to be his opinion, that a greater fraud had never been practised on the public, than that which had taken place in the last lottery. The amount of the prizes was stated to be 130,000 l., when, in fact, it was only 130,000 l. stock. The whole system of lotteries consisted of fraud and trick; and the right hon. gentleman would deserve well of the country by taking the earliest possible opportunity to put an end to it.
The bill was then read a third lime.