Lords Sitting of 7 June 1820

MOTION FOR A SECRET COMMITTEE ON THE PAPERS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE QUEEN.
The Earl of Liverpool moved the order of the day for the consideration of his Majesty's Message, which was read by the clerk. His lordship then, in pursuance of his first notice, proceeded to move an address to his majesty in return for his message.
Lord Hollandwished to know with what measure his majesty's government meant to propose the examination of the papers laid on the table should be followed up, before the House was pledged to any opinion on the subject.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that the address he intended to move would, as he had stated yesterday, pledge their

887
lordships to nothing but to return thanks to his majesty for his most gracious message, and to assure his majesty that they would adopt such a course of" proceeding as the justice of the case and the honour and dignity of the Crown might require.
The address was then put and agreed to.
The Earl of Liverpoolnow rose to make the second motion of which he had given notice, and which related to the course of proceeding. He said, he meant to propose to their lordships that a secret committee consisting of fifteen lords, should be appointed by ballot to examine the papers relative to the conduct of the queen, which he had laid on the table yesterday, and to report thereon. This he considered the most suitable course of proceeding, with reference to the delicacy of the case, the illustrious person to whom the papers related, or indeed to any person whatever who might be the object of such an inquiry. He was on the present occasion particularly desirous of saying as little as possible, and wished to reserve himself until he saw whether any of their lordships thought the course he proposed liable to objection. In that case, he would be ready to give any explanation which might appear necessary. He had yesterday stated, that the purpose for which he would propose to appoint the committee would be, to inquire whether any or what, further proceedings should take place on the papers submitted to their examination. This would be the object of their report. He had thought it necessary to state this yesterday, to guard against misunderstanding, and he thought it necessary to repeat it now. He trusted there was not a man in the House, or in the country, who would suppose him capable of proposing a mode of proceeding against any person, and least of all against the illustrious person who was the object of this measure, without allowing the fullest opportunity for defence. But the course now suggested, he was convinced, was the most proper in point of delicacy towards the illustrious person, and the best with respect to all the important interests connected with the case. Here he wished to leave the subject, being prepared, however, to give such explanation as might, in consequence of observations from any of their lordships, appear necessary. He concluded by moving the appointment of the committee.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he had
888
heard the message from the throne yesterday with more pain than it was possible for him to express, because he felt, and should always feel, that any inquiry instituted in this or in the other House of Parliament, into the conduct of any of the members of the royal family, was a proceeding not only most revolting to the feelings of the illustrious persons themselves, but inconsistent with the duties of parliament. Nothing could have induced him to open his mouth on this subject but the situation in which the House was placed. As the subject had been forced on the attention of the House, it was impossible for him to avoid saying something on the course of proceeding proposed by the noble earl. In a case of so much importance, and attended with so many extraordinary circumstances, be should have expected the noble lord to have taken occasion to acquaint the House with the grounds on which he brought forward his proposition, and to have given some explanation of the reasons on which he recommended the course of proceeding he had suggested. In a state of entire ignorance of the transactions to which the papers proposed to be examined referred—and he wished to God that that ignorance might be allowed to continue!—it would be important to their lordships to be informed what was the opinion of his majesty's ministers on the subject—what was the view of the case entertained by those persons who must have had their attention particularly directed to it in the course of their official duties. But, deprived of this information, he felt himself bound to state to the House those objections which occurred to his mind against the course proposed to be adopted by the noble earl. That course, if he understood it rightly, was the appointment by ballot of a secret committee to examine the papers referred to in the communication from the throne. Now, under what circumstances was this communication made? With a perfect knowledge on the part of their lordships, that a message of similar purport had been delivered to the other House of Parliament, and that it contains a distinct statement, advised by the servants of the Crown, that the conduct of her majesty has been such as to call for the attention of parliament.—Now, under these circumstances, he earnestly desired their lordships to consider the character in which they stood as a court of judicature [Hear, hear!], and

889
the only court before which any ulterior proceeding founded on the report of its committee could come. He knew nothing of any degree of guilt or impropriety which might be imputed to the conduct of the queen; but when their lordships considered the weight and importance of the communication which had been made to them, and the nature and extent of the course of proceeding now proposed, they could not exclude from their minds the possibility of that communication leading to an impeachment by the other House of Parliament. No person who was unacquainted with the contents of the papers to be submitted to the committee, could form any opinion on the consequences of the inquiry, or could say that its result would not lead to such an event as that which he had supposed possible. And if such should be its result, let him beseech their lordships to consider well the situation in which they would be placed. He need not remind their lordships of the anxiety shown in ordinary courts of justice to take care that unprejudiced persons should be called to perform the office of jurors. When such pains were taken to prevent the minds of those who were to decide in any ordinary case from being biassed, would their lordships, with the probability of their becoming judges staring them in the face, adopt a course of proceeding which, in the opinion of all mankind, must disqualify them for that office? He hoped they would pause before they agreed to the noble earl's proposition. He wished them, before they proceeded farther, to consider whether the course which it was recommended to them to adopt might not lead to something inconsistent with those functions which belonged to them as a court of judicature. But was the course proposed by the noble earl attended with any advantage capable of inducing their lordships to encounter this risk? Certainly, if the reference of the papers to a secret committee would really have the effect of secrecy with respect to the public—if that reference might be the means of preventing the public of England from becoming parties to transactions which it must be the wish of their lordships and every honest man rather to conceal in oblivion—he would approve the course proposed by the noble lord. But did any man actually believe that the reference to a secret committee would have such an effect? Was the illustrious person who was made the
890
subject of inquiry to receive no notice of the evidence laid before the committee, and to have no opportunity of rebutting it? When the committee should make their report merely on the papers before them, in what situation would the House stand? The report of a committee so limited might prove only one step gained towards a further investigation. The noble earl did not propose that evidence should be heard by the committee on the part of the illustrious personage; it followed, therefore that, on a report founded merely on ex-parte evidence, some further proceeding, leading to most important consequences, might be proposed far their lordships' adoption. Why, then, were not their lordships in the first instance informed of the view which his majesty's government had taken of the case? Were there not in that House noble lords who had been the advisers of the Crown in this affair? What additional information to that which these noble lords possessed was it possible to convey through the medium of the committee? His majesty's ministers had had every opportunity of forming an opinion, and must know all the circumstances of the case infinitely more correctly than they could be known by the committee. This surely must be the opinion of any man who recollected all that had been stated respecting the circumstances of this case, and who was aware that it had been for more than a year under the consideration of the king's government. The noble lords opposite had had the fullest opportunities of satisfying themselves on every point of the evidence. They knew what credit and what weight ought to be given to every part of the evidence. It was most extraordinary then, that they should now come forward, and avow that they could not tell in what course they ought to proceed without the assistance of a committee. They ought to be far more capable of saying what was fit to be done than any other noble lords, who could know nothing of the matter except what those noble lords were pleased to lay before them in papers, to be reported on after perhaps an examination of eight and forty hours, or indeed of any other time. It was therefore for the noble lords opposite to say themselves what course ought to be pursued, without the intervention of any committee. There were, undoubtedly, occasions in which it had been the practice to appoint secret committees. All secrecy was in its nature

891
an evil, but occasions might occur in which it was necessary. In no instance, however, did the usual practice in the appointment of secret committees apply to the present case. Secret committees had been appointed in cases of plots and conspiracies, the proof of which depended on the evidence of persons whose names could not be revealed—in cases when the investigation related to individuals whom it was important to keep unapprized of the existence of any proceedings against them—or in cases in which the interests of foreign states were concerned. But were any of these instances applicable on the present occasion? Was it necessary to conceal the names, characters, and situations of the witnesses in a case on which their lordships might be ultimately called upon to give judgment?" Whatever propriety there might be in concealment, it could not be admitted in cases the result of which might be penal. If, indeed, any preliminary secrecy were necessary, that might be as well attained by enforcing the order for the exclusion of strangers as by the appointment of a committee. After the report of the committee, the House would not be placed in a better situation to judge than they would be on the statement of the noble lord opposite; for the committee, it appeared, were to have no opportunity of hearing any other evidence than that which his majesty's ministers chose to lay before them, and could not call for the defence of the party accused. He thought, therefore, that their lordships had as yet heard no ground stated for the appointment of a committee, more especially when the delicate situation in which the House stood was considered. Liable to become a court of judicature, it was of the utmost importance that the high functions their lordships might be called upon to I exercise should be assumed under no questionable circumstances. At a time when the feelings of the public were so deeply interested by the extraordinary nature of the case, it was of importance that they should not be farther excited by the inconsistent mode of proceeding proposed by the noble lord. On these grounds he objected to the appointment of the committee.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble marquis, to give such explanation as it was in his power to give on. the present occasion. He trusted that the answer he
892
should now make would be satisfactory to the noble marquis and to all their lordships, and that he should stand excused for not doing that which the noble marquis appeared to consider indispensable, namely, stating, under the circumstances of the case, what he thought ought to be the future course of proceeding. He contended that the appointment of a secret committee was the fittest course of proceeding; and if it was proper to refer papers containing evidence to that committee, it would be improper in him to anticipate what might be the result of the investigation. Having resolved to recommend that the course of proceeding should be to refer the subject to the consideration of a committee, that was a sufficient ground why his mouth should remain closed as to what he might expect would be the opinion of that committee. With regard to the inference of the noble marquis, that because a communication had been made to the House of Commons similar to that laid before their lordships, this was a case on which they might have to pronounce judgment, any objection taken under that view was perfectly groundless; for this was not a case on which their lordships could be called upon to decide in a judicial capacity. The case was certainly one of great difficulty and delicacy, and he more particularly felt all the difficulty and delicacy which belonged to it in the observations he was about to make, because, in what he had to say, for the sake of explanation, it would be necessary for him to assume guilt; but he wished their lordships distinctly to understand that he meant to speak hypothetically when he supposed certain facts to which he should allude to have taken place. With regard to the objection of the noble marquis, if there were ground for it, he would not only agree with him as to the impropriety of the present proceeding, but would go a great deal farther; for, were it supposed that evidence existed to convict the queen of high treason, he would not think it fit to refer the case in the first instance even to the House of Commons; but would consider it the duty of his majesty's confidential advisers to institute proceedings at once before the proper tribunal, and to put her on her trial according to the regular course of law. But, suppose the queen guilty of what by some might be supposed high treason—the commission of adultery abroad and suppose that such

893
proof existed on the subject as to leave no doubt of the fact—on that supposition the opinion of the highest legal authority had been taken, and he had to inform their lordships, on that authority, that, supposing such adultery to have been committed, it would not be high-treason according to the law of the country, nor any crime cognizant by our laws. He expected that their lordships would call upon him for explanation on this point—He should therefore observe, that the statute of Edward 3rd, by which the act of adultery committed by any person with the queen, or another member of the royal family, is made high treason, did not apply to such a case as he had supposed. That act did not virtually constitute the commission of the crime of treason in her; but it was the practice of the law-courts to consider her guilty, likewise, because she was an accomplice, and in treason all the parties are considered principals. But if the queen or the princess of Wales were to commit adultery with a foreigner abroad, that foreigner, owing no allegiance to this country, would not be guilty of high treason, and indeed of no crime against the laws of this country.—In this supposition, the queen also would not be guilty; for she could not be an accomplice in-a crime where no crime was in existence. Such was the state of the case; it might be an omission in the law; but still it was the law of the country, and could not be made high treason in and individual case. But were the Crown and the country, therefore, to sustain all the inconvenience of this omission, without any means of obtaining a remedy?—It might be asked, whether there were any other grounds on which an impeachment might be founded? He was not aware of any. A noble lord opposite (Erskine) had once given it as his opinion, that it should be made indictable; but in the courts at present, ecclesiastical excepted, it was considered merely as a civil injury. If an indictment, therefore, could be brought in the court of King's-bench, on what ground could the queen be proceeded against for high crimes and misdemeanors? There was no ground, therefore, for the noble marquis's objection, that this was not a case of which their lordships could take any judicial cognizance. It was one with which parliament only could deal legislatively.—Having removed the objection, he now came to the question of the expediency of the course of
894
proceeding which he had recommended; and he contended that, upon a matter so new and of such peculiar delicacy, it was more proper to refer the subject to a secret committee than to submit at once a proposition without any previous step. In all cases of bills of pains and penalties since the Revolution, he believed secret committees had been appointed. On these grounds, he thought the course he had recommended was most decorous and respectful to the queen, and most suited to the case. The noble marquis had asked the intentions of ministers, for they themselves must know what they intended to recommend in the case. This might be said with respect to every other measure. In every case of conspiracy they might know a great deal more than was referred to a committee, and scarcely a case could occur in which they did not know more than those to whom the inquiry was referred. This, therefore, was no sound objection. What it was proposed to inquire was, whether any proceeding was proper, and, if any, of what nature and to what extent; and he would ask, was not this more decorous to the individual than for a minister to come down at once with a proposition?
Lord Hollandobserved, that a great part of the speech of the noble earl had gone to establish the principle, that if their lordships concurred in the appointment of the secret committee moved for, they would by that concurrence, convey the opinion that no judicial proceeding could be instituted before them on the application of the Commons House of Parliament. In this opinion he agreed; but his conviction of its justness constituted his objection to the course recommended. The noble earl opposite had given it as the opinion of many lawyers, that a queen could not be impeached of high treason for adultery committed with a foreigner; but. could he assure their lordships that this would be the opinion of the other House of Parliament, the grand inquest of the nation, with whom an impeachment might originate? All that their lordships knew was, that his majesty had sent to the other House a message, accompanied with papers containing matter of accusation against her majesty. When, then, their lordships heard that the queen-consort was accused, and that evidence had been transmitted to the Commons in support of that accusation, how could they be assured that

895
the great inquest of the country would not institute judicial proceedings? If, then, the Commons originated an impeachment, their lordships, by the appointment of this committee, would, in the opinion of the noble earl, disqualify themselves from acting as a tribunal of justice. The course of ministers therefore should have been to have advised the sending of a message, and the reference of evidence to the House of Commons, without transmitting either in the first instance to their lordships; and thus the difficulty which would occur, if the Commons instituted judicial proceedings, would have been avoided. With respect to judicial proceedings, he was sensible that, if they took place at all, they must take place in parliament, and in parliament only: but his objection to the appointment of a secret committee to make a report on ex-parte evidence was, that results highly injurious to the character of their lordships House with the public as a tribunal of justice, would arise from their acting on a report so drawn up. If it was proper to apply to parliament without the necessity of instituting a judicial inquiry—if an evil existed which called for a legislative remedy—if it was necessary to institute proceedings to obtain divorce, or to introduce a bill of pains and penalties—his majesty's ministers might have brought the business before the House without a message like the present, without the appointment of a secret committee, or without transmitting any message or evidence to the other House. If, on the other hand, judicial proceedings were contemplated as the result of the message and the papers, then the other House, which could alone originate or conduct an impeachment, ought only to have received the message, and to have originated the inquiry. By doing as they had done—by asking their lordships to prejudge by a committee a question that might come before them as a tribunal of justice, they placed their lordships House in the situation either of refusing to pronounce a decision on points referred to them by the Crown, or of expressing an opinion on the law and fact of a case on which the Commons might subsequently demand their judgment [Hear, hear!] The noble earl had not referred to precedent, because precedents in point did not exist. What he (lord Holland) objected to was, the concurrent jurisdiction of the two Houses of Parliament, and
896
there was no precedent of judicial proceedings following reports made by committees on separate messages to both Houses. He remembered a case in which a communication was made in a speech from the throne, and consequent in a speech delivered to both Houses of a plot existing against the government. The House of Commons received the evidence, and proceeded by bill. They appointed a committee of inquiry—that committee brought in a report, and a bill was founded upon it. When this bill was sent to their lordships House, the evidence was transmitted along with it, and their lordships appointed a committee of inquiry before they proceeded to decide on the attainder. If judicial proceedings should be the consequence of the message sent to the other House, his objection to the appointment of a secret committee of their lordships House was, not that their minds would be prejudiced by the report which it drew up, for he believed that on the trial they would act with perfect justice, and would not be guided by the opinion of the committee, except in so far as it would be supported by evidence, but that, by appointing such committee, they declare, without any knowledge of facts, that there could be no judicial proceedings. Nay, they made such a declaration of their conviction when they knew that the other House were deliberating on a course of proceedings out of which an impeachment might arise. They knew that papers conveying matter of accusation had been referred to the grand inquest of the nation, and that they were now consulting upon them. By appointing a committee, therefore, to inquire and to decide, before they knew what would be referred to them for their; judgment in their judicial capacity, they placed themselves in a situation either of being a tainted tribunal, or of refusing justice altogether [Hear, hear!]. This was an objection to the motion now recommended which he could urge on constitutional grounds; but the influence of this objection was greatly strengthened in his mind by a recollection of the mode in which secret committees had lately been appointed, the manner in which they had conducted themselves, the measures they recommended, and the unfortunate associations connected with them. He would not examine the laws which had been enacted on the suggestion of such committees; but he could not forget that

897
their acts had been of such a nature that a green bag and a secret committee were considered by the public as the prelude to the most monstrous displays of injustice, harshness, and tyranny ([Cheers!]]. It could not be denied that there existed great sensitiveness and irritability in the public mind on the question now before the House; and it would be unfortunate if these feelings should be increased by seeing a mode of proceeding adopted so odious and obnoxious as that by a secret committee. He therefore conjured their lordships, as they valued their own character and estimation with the country, not to adopt such a mode of proceeding. If there was one point to which the attention of parliament should be more peculiarly directed than to another, it was that their lordships should administer justice—he would not say with impartiality and freedom from every sinister influence, for he believed they were incapable of doing otherwise—but in a form and manner that would satisfy the most suspicious and discontented. If there were two modes of proceeding by which justice could be equally administered, the one open and tender, and the other harsh and suspicious, the former ought to be adopted. It was possible that a secret committee might be the most tender mode of proceeding, but it was an odious, and might be an unjust one, and therefore he would protest against it [Hear, hear!].
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he never had had so painful a duty to discharge as the present. The difficulty arose partly front the connexion of the proceedings with an illustrious person, whose situation in the state commanded respect and reverence. But when he said this, he did not mean to insinuate that to the rank of the party belonged any greater title to justice than to the meanest subject. If a secret committee were to decide on the character or the interests of any individual, he would be the last man to agree to such an appointment. He would rather at once refer the papers to the House. But the appointment of a secret committee, while it could not be unjust in its decision, it not being allowed to decide, was designed to prevent injustice. The objection of his noble friend to the appointment of a committee did not appear to him well founded. There might be judicial proceedings at the instance of the Commons, after the com-
898
mittee had reported on the papers before the House, as the secret committee could, in that case, be regarded only in the light of a grand jury, deciding that matter of accusation existed. The committees, on examining the papers, would declare, either that there were grounds of accusation or not. If the former, the House would know how to deal with it; and if the latter, no injustice could be done. What, therefore, could accrue from the appointment of the committee? Good God! could their lordships be said to be deciding against individuals because they stood forward to protect them from the result of disclosures where there had not been found grounds of trial? He agreed in the interpretation put upon the statute of Edward 3rd by his noble friend, that, if any subject violated the person of the queen, of the princess of Wales, or of the princess royal, he was guilty of high treason, and the female was guilty as an accessary; and as all accessaries in high treason were principals, she might be guilty of high treason as a principal. A stranger not being amenable to our laws, and owing no allegiance to our sovereign, could not commit high treason against him. The law only affecting the female as an accessary, and there being in this case no principal, the female, by committing adultery with a foreigner, could not be impeached of high treason. This was said in the law-books. But it was said, if an impeachment for high treason could not be supported, might there be a proceeding for a divorce in the ordinary course of law, or in the spiritual courts? The difficulties in both cases would strike those who were acquainted with legal subjects. In a case like the present, parliament must interfere, or there could be no interference whatever- But the noble marquis had said, that if you appoint a committee, you decide that there shall be he judicial proceeding, because by the report of the committee the cause of the accused would be prejudged. He (the lord chancellor) thought that there could be no judicial proceeding, but he thought so not from the reason assigned by the noble marquis. Why should a committee not decide that there were grounds of accusation, and make a report recommending a trial, which would be in the nature of a bill found by the grand jury? The committee might say there were no grounds for a judicial procedure, or they might say that there were. They might

899
say that there was a case demanding legislative interference, or that there was not; but in no instance could injustice be done, as the decision of the committee was not final. There might be differences of opinion on the best mode of proceeding, but for God's sake, if their lordships differed, let it be understood that they had all the same object in view, and merely differed about the best mode of executing it. He thought the committee was preferable to any other mode of proceeding, and therefore should certainly support it.
The Marquis of Lansdowneexplained He had said that it was impossible for the House to be assured that the Commons would not institute judicial proceedings, and therefore that their lordships, by appointing a committee and adopting its report, would be previously deciding on charges which would afterwards come before them for judgment. There were other crimes and misdemeanors besides high treason that might be brought before their lordships, and by appointing this committee they disqualified themselves for deciding on all. There was no trust of greater importance, and therefore, none more deserving to become the subject of public investigation, than the trust which appertained to the situation of the queen of England. Could the noble lord take upon himself to say, that it would not be competent to the House of Commons, with respect to any act which constituted a breach of that trust, to bring the illustrious person in question, not under a charge of treason, but of high misdemeanor, before their lordships? Might not that mode of proceeding appear to the House of Commons to be the most fitting and decorous; I and when the noble and learned lord com-pared the situation of the House to that of: a grand jury, did he not forget that a grand jury could never afterwards become the petty jury who tried and decided upon the merits of the cause?
The Earl of Donoughmorecould not allow the question to be put without stating the nature of his opinion to the House, particularly as that opinion was at variance with the sentiments of individuals with whom he had long been in the habit of acting, and for whose motives and conduct he entertained the sincerest respect. Differing from those noble persons, he felt that he ought to distrust his own judgment, but he could not consent to give up his opinion. The noble lords
900
who had argued the question upon his side of the House appeared to have forgotten the nature of the proceeding the merits of which they were discussing. Those noble lords seemed to regard the proceeding as one which was to criminate and even finally condemn the illustrious person to whose conduct it was applied; but was it not most clear that the proceeding amounted simply to this—to an inquiry on the part of that House, conducted by a secret committee, conducted in the manner most decorous, most delicate, and most respectful both towards the parties concerned and towards the public, and conducted in the manner most peculiarly calculated to allay that irritation of which such frequent mention had been made? The question merely called upon both Houses of Parliament to advise the Crown whether, from any circumstances divulged by the papers laid before them a proceeding would or would not be necessary. Was not such an arrangement rather calculated to shield the illustrious individual from judicial examination than to deserve the name of a criminatory proceeding? The opinion which might be expressed by either House would not amount to an imputation of guilt; it would merely be a declaration that the papers did or did not contain matter upon which farther inquiry of some description would be desirable. If the committee should find no ground for inquiry upon those papers, then their report would be equal to an acquittal. He could not but complain of the frequent allusions which had been made to the irritated state of public feeling. Was there not full evidence to show the House that the greatest pains had been employed in order to raise and to foster that irritated feeling [Hear, hear!]—to garble and misrepresent the proceedings which had already taken place? [Hear, hear!] If the public feeling was to form a ground of opposition to an unobjectionable measure, it would soon become necessary that the House, in deciding upon any question, should first ask, what was the public opinion? With the noble lord upon the Woolsack he agreed, that the measure, instead of being severe was a lenient measure. When such attention was paid to public feeling, it ought not to be forgotten, that the character of the individual who stood in the high situation of queen-consort of England ought to be free from every stain. The noble lord then adverted to

901
the income which her present majesty had enjoyed as princess of Wales, and to the approaching arrangement of her allowance as queen-consort. Although no one could doubt the propriety and the necessity of giving a sufficient income to that illustrious lady, yet the amount of that income might perhaps be influenced by circumstances, and for that reason also, the present moment was peculiarly well fitted for the proposed inquiry. The noble lord concluded by expressing his astonishment that the measure should have been opposed.
Lord Hollandrose to explain. He said that the arguments which he had addressed to the House had been misunderstood both by the noble and learned lord upon the woolsack, and by the noble lord who had last spoken. The noble and learned lord had directed great part of his speech against that which had formed no part of his speech, or of the speech of his noble friend. The noble lord who had just sat down had spoken of the irritation of the public mind, and had expressed his disapprobation of the means by which that irritation had been excited. Certainly, he was much, mistaken if he had said any thing calculated to increase that irritation and if there were arts cmplo3'ed to raise it, of which he knew nothing and accused no one, he would say, that whether such means were taken either in parliament or out of it, either in writings or in conversations, he from his heart abhorred and abjured both the means and those who would resort to them [Hear, hear] He must be allowed to state, that, when he alluded to the irritation of the public mind he did not mean to urge that such irritation ought to induce the House to do right, as if it would have neglected to do right in case no such feverish sensibility had existed; but merely to contend that, where two modes of proceeding presented themselves, which hypothetically, might be considered as indifferent, and where a strong public feeling did exist, that in such a case it was equally the duty and the policy of men intrusted with the government of a people to select that course which, without defeating or disappointing justice, was most likely to remove both irritation and suspicion. He had been charged, as well as his noble friend with objecting to the severity of the present proceeding. He had not said that the present proceeding was more severe than any other. He had also
902
been charged with objections to the appointment of the committee, which certainly had not escaped him. He had objected only to the system, as taken in connexion with the proceedings in the other House of parliament. If the House consented to select a grand jury from that same body which might afterwards be compelled to perform the duty of a petty jury, the House would place itself in a situation of suspicion and of embarrassment. He did not intend to deprecate inquiry; but certainly, if the House was to be called upon to decide upon charges of such importance as treason or misdemeanor, it ought to come unbiassed to the consideration of those charges. The noble lord who spoke last had spoken of the advantage which the illustrious individual would derive from such a report of the committee as would amount to an acquittal; but the committee of the House of Commons might possibly charge that individual with treason or with misdemeanor, and the answer given by their lordships would be that no judicial proceeding could be taken. If a committee however, were appointed, and he objected to a secret committee, nothing but ex parte evidence ought to be laid before it. The noble lord concluded by adverting to the painful situation in which the House was placed, and by observing that, as a peer of parliament he felt it incumbent upon him at once to call for justice to the individual, and to sustain those general principles by which the conduct of the House had in all cases been regulated.
The Marquis of Lansdownewished that the explanation of his noble friend should be considered as applying equally to the observations which he himself had addressed to the House.
The motion was agreed to without a division.