Lords Sitting of 16 June 1820

INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL.
On the first reading of the Insolvent Debtors Bill,
Earl Grosvenoradverted to the case of

1097
persons imprisoned for contempt of courts of equity, observing, that those who were imprisoned for non-payment of money could, he believed, take the benefit of the Insolvent act; but there were others who were imprisoned for refusing to obey orders of court, who could not be relieved under that act. He was aware that considerable difficulties stood in the way of granting any relief to persons in that situation, and only mentioned the circumstance that the attention of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack might be called to it.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that he would be very much obliged to the noble lord or any other person who could show him how relief could be administered in cases which really deserved it; but the subject had been much misunderstood. The committals for contempt generally arose in consequence of the party refusing to do some act ordered by the court. Now, if the party had the power, and refused, his case was similar to that of a debtor, who, though he had the means of payment, allowed himself to be taken in execution, and chose to remain in prison; and if the present Jaw did not apply to such a debtor, why should it in the case of contempt? In fact, it was not the law that imprisoned the party, but the party that imprisoned himself. Suppose an individual, who is entitled to have the conveyance of an estate from another, calls upon a court of equity to make an order to that effect, and, when the order is made, the individual refuses to obey, and is thrown into prison, was it the fault of the court that the individual rather chose to remain there than to make the conveyance? If there were any cases to which relief could with propriety be extended, he would most readily concur in any measure to that effect. But their lordships must be careful that such measure was consistent with the principles of justice. It was impossible to give relief in cases where men, to the injury of others, refused to do acts which they were legally called upon to perform, and instead of obeying the order of the court, by which they would be relieved, rather chose to stay in prison and complain.

SECRET COMMITTEE ON THE PAPERS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE QUEEN.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose to move to discharge the order for the meeting of the secret committee to-morrow,
1098
with the view of fixing it for Tuesday next. The same considerations which induced him to propose the postponement on Monday last were still in force. He had proposed the first delay on the ground that discussions were actually pending which were sufficient to induce him to recommend that course; and, for the same reason, he now proposed a farther adjournment.
The Marquis of Lansdownedid not wish to oppose the motion of adjournment; but he could not help expressing his surprise at the extraordinary nature of the proceeding. He believed this was the only case in which a measure adopted on a communication from the throne had been suspended without any public reason being assigned for the interruption, or any fresh communication on the subject being received from the throne. At the same time he believed there were very strong and cogent reasons for the course which the noble earl now recommended—reasons so strong and cogent as to supersede the orders and usual practice of that House, which were themselves of the greatest importance. Their lordships must, however, now clearly perceive the singular and extraordinary predicament in which they had been placed by the hasty appointment of the committee. When, however, the whole business should be brought to a conclusion, he hoped the noble earl would find some means of explaining the extraordinary circumstances which had taken place to the satisfaction of the House, and that the transaction would be entered on the Journals in a way to remove all future doubt or difficulty on the subject.
The Earl of Darnley,though he did not object to the motion, found it impossible to avoid expressing the sense he entertained of the disgraceful state into which the House had been brought, in consequence of following the advice of the noble lord opposite, and appointing the committee. He hoped their lordships would on future occasions weigh well the consequences of their decision before they came to a vote which might involve them in so much inconsistency. He hoped and trusted they would take warning from what had taken place in this extraordinary proceeding.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad no intention of saying any thing more on the subject than what he had stated on moving the adjournment of the committee. He would

1099
willingly have let the matter stand as it was left by the observation of the noble marquis; but, in consequence of what had been added by the noble lord, he thought it necessary to say a few words. He should, however, only remind their lordships, that on a former day, when he moved the adjournment of the committee, he had stated that, with reference to the subject on which it was appointed, certain explanations and discussions had been opened, which might or might not lead to some adjustment, and that he made the motion expressly because he understood that both in that House and in another place, a wish prevailed that an opening should be left for some arrangement. Under these circumstances, he felt no impropriety in moving an adjournment on Monday last, and in repeating a similar proposition now. The noble marquis had expressed a hope that the circumstances which had occurred would be explained. Upon this he should only say, that, whatever the alternative might be, he was confident that the course which bad been adopted would be satisfactorily explained to the House.
The Earl of Darnley,notwithstanding what had been said by the noble lord, still felt the weight of the difficulty in which the House was placed, which had arisen from their lordships being prevailed upon to agree to the appointment of a committee before it was known in what way the other House would proceed. It had been expected that the other House would have been as pliant as their lordships House; but in this ministers were disappointed. The concurrent vote which was anticipated had not taken place: and, in consequence of their lordships reliance on the opinion of the noble lord opposite, they were now placed in a most extraordinary and unprecedented situation. His noble friends had fully warned their lordships of the difficulty into which they were about to entangle themselves, and they must now be sensible that if their advice had been followed it would have been avoided.
The order for the meeting of the committee was then postponed to Tuesday.

ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT.
Lord Hollandrose to bring in a bill for the repeal of the Royal Marriage act. It being the unquestionable privilege of a peer to introduce a bill without asking leave, and it being so much the practice of the House to have a bill read a first time on its being
1100
presented, that any objection to such a course was not to be expected, he intended to move the first reading of the bill which he now offered to the consideration of their lordships. These circumstances rendered it unnecessary for him to make any observations in support of the measure in its present stage. As, however, some misrepresentation of his intentions had gone abroad, he should say a few words on the object of the bill, which indeed was easily described, as it was simply the repeal of an act of parliament. The statute which he proposed to abrogate was that of the 12th of the late king, commonly called the Royal Marriage act. That statute provided for previous communications to parliament on intended marriages; it states, that as those marriages are of great importance, it is necessary they should be regulated; and it goes on to enact, that the descendants of George 2nd should not marry without the consent of the reigning king; and that in future no marriages of any members of the royal family should be legal without the consent of the sovereign. It is, however, provided, that if a member of the royal family, having attained the age of 25, shall wish to enter into a marriage which is disapproved by the king, the case may be laid before the privy council; and if, after the expiration of one year, parliament does not interfere, the marriage shall be legal. Penalties were imposed by the act, and all persons assisting or present at such marriages were made subject to premunire. What might be urged in support of the repeal, or stated in reply to objections to which it might be thought liable, had better be deferred to another period. He might, however, be now permitted to allude to what had taken place on the enactment of this law. From the accounts of what had been done when the measure was before parliament, it appeared that it had passed through that House with great rapidity. In the other House, the bill was warmly debated, and gave rise to many divisions, but it was not printed in its progress through parliament. It had been said of it by one who observed the transactions of the times, that it had passed after more having been said against It, and less for it, than any measure that, ever came before parliament. It was not this circumstance, however, which induced him to propose the repeal of the act. He wished to remove it from the Statute-book, because be considered it a direct invasion

1101
of a natural right—a law hostile to morality, and calculated to promote not only foreign, but also civil wars. Besides these evils, it had, in his opinion, a tendency to render the marriages of the descendants of George 2nd unhappy marriages. It was not his intention to enter into any detailed consideration of these topics at present; but he had no hesitation in saying, that the last had more weight with him than those that preceded it in the order in which he had stated them, and that in any future discussion he should be induced to dwell more on it than on any of the other objections which he had to the act. This, however, was not the time in which he should choose to insist on this point. The same reason, perhaps, which had induced the noble earl opposite to be silent on the topics connected with the motion he had just made, induced him also to wave for the present the enforcement of this part of his argument. He wished, however, not to be misunderstood, and would therefore add one or two words to what he had already said on the view he entertained of the subject. Were he to succeed in proving, to the satisfaction of their lordships, that the tendency of the act was to render the marriages made under it unhappy, that surely might be an inducement to take royal marriages out of the predicament of ordinary marriages, and to place the application of the law to them on different principles—on principles which would give greater facility to their dissolution than in ordinary cases. As the object of the act was merely political, their lordships would be the more inclined to grant this relief, which would of course be applicable only to those on whom the effects of the existing law operated, it had been his intention to bring forward this measure in the course of the present session, but the circumstances which at present existed had hastened the execution of his design. If their lordships adopted the principle he had laid down, any future measure would be facilitated; for it would not be a sufficient objection to say, that the act was in force at the time the marriage was contracted, since the tendency of the act being admitted, it would follow that relief should be granted. In consequence of the misunderstanding which had prevailed respecting his notice, and to prevent its continuance, he had thought it necessary to say these few words; and he should now only move, that the bill be read a first time, intending, with the leave
1102
of the House, to have it printed, and to let it be for some time on the table before he should propose the second reading.
The Earl of Liverpooladmitted that it was usual to allow a bill presented by a noble lord to be read a first time, but the noble lord was in error if he conceived this to be a matter of right. It certainly was the practice of the House to let a bill pass through the first reading unless it contained something so palpably gross as to render it inadmissible. He certainly did not mean to oppose the present motion; but at the same time he thought it necessary to observe, that he had the most decided objection to the principle of the measure proposed by the noble lord, and that he would at the proper time 6tatelhe grounds of his objection.
Lord Hollandin explanation, observed, that he had not demanded their lordships' assent to the first reading as a matter of right, but had stated that to permit a bill to pass through that stage was so much the usage of the House, that any noble lord to whom the same indulgence was refused would have reason to consider himself hardly dealt with.
The bill was then read a first time.