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.