HL Deb 19 June 1820 vol 1 cc1136-47
The Earl of Liverpool

rose and said:—My lords; upon several occasions I have of late had to move your lordships to postpone the meeting of the Secret Committee appointed, in pursuance of his majesty's message, respecting charges of which we are all aware, on the ground that discussion and explanations were going on, pending which it would not be expedient to enter into the consideration of the papers communicated from the Crown. It is with regret I have now to state, that contrary to the expectation entertained, at least for a time, by myself and by others, and I may say generally by both Houses of Parliament and the country, that discussion and those explanations have failed in producing the desired result, and paying upon the table a bundle of papers] I am commanded by his majesty to lay these papers upon the table, containing the details of that negotiation. As in all cases where papers are laid upon the table by command of the Crown, they are in a course of printing, and will be ready for delivering to the members of the House to-morrow-morning. Your lordships are aware that the meeting of the secret committee, to whom the papers communicated by his majesty's message are referred, stands fixed for to-morrow, but as in fairness and candour noble lords ought to have an opportunity of considering the papers I have now laid upon the table, previous to the meeting of the secret committee, in order that they may be enabled to judge whether there is any thing in these papers that ought to influence them, either in still further postponing the meeting of the committee, or in adhering to their original vote, or in any other manner; I therefore now move, that the order for the meeting of the secret committee to-morrow be discharged, and that the secret committee do, instead thereof, meet on Friday.

This motion was agreed to.

The Marquis of Lansdowne

—I wish to ask the noble earl, whether it is his intention to found any proceeding upon the papers which he has just laid upon the table by command of his majesty?

The Earl of Liverpool

—I have no difficulty, my lords, in saying that it is not my intention to found any proceeding upon these papers. It will be for your lordships to judge of their contents, and it will be competent for any noble lord to make any motion respecting them that he shall deem expedient, or any motion as to the further proceeding or not of the secret committee.

The Marquis of Lansdowne

—If I understand the noble earl, he does not mean to found any proceeding upon these papers; but it surety must follow, from the conduct of the noble earl upon this point, that his opinion is made up, that the consideration of these papers will form no ground for a further postponing the meeting of the secret committee.

The Earl of Liverpool

—My lords, I have delivered no such opinion, nor do I mean to do it. It will be for your lordships to consider, whether there is any thing in these papers that ought to have the effect or not, of further postponing the meeting of the committee.

Earl Grey

did not rise to oppose the motion, but wished merely to ask some explanation, in the hope of obtaining, if possible, from the noble earl, something like the statement of a ground for this extraordinary proceeding. A message from the Crown, relative to the conduct of the queen-consort, had been delivered to the House; that message was accompanied by papers, containing, it was said, serious charges against her majesty; and these papers had been referred by their lordships to the examination of a secret committee. That committee, however, had never proceeded to the examination and the day of meeting had been adjourned from time to time. There appeared no reason for this conduct; none had been assigned, and none could be as- signed, except that it was thought necessary for that House to watch what was done in another place. It was inconsistent with the character and dignity of the House to have its proceedings controlled by what passed elsewhere; and yet, that it was subject to that control, appeared from the repeated adjournments which had taken place. The noble earl had spoken of discussions and explanations which had been going on; and, these discussions being ended, the correspondence was laid before the House. Now, he should be glad to know what was the object of laying these papers before the House. None had been assigned; and. he could not help remarking to their lordships the extraordinary and unprecedented nature of this proceeding. There were several occasions in which it was usual for the Crown to lay accounts of negotiations before parliament—as in the case of discussions with foreign powers, when the papers involved the question of peace or war. In such cases, however, the papers were submitted to parliament with a view to some measure being founded on them; but this was the first time, he believed, in which the Crown had been advised to lay before parliament the account of a negotiation carried on between the king's ministers and his subjects. But what was still more novel and unprecedented was, that, when the noble earl had brought these papers to the House, he proposed no measure respecting them. He did not suggest the necessity of any farther proceeding relative to them. If the committee was to sit without reference to these papers, why was the House called upon to take them into consideration? But the noble earl desired their lordships to direct their attention to the correspondence, and consider whether it was necessary to found any measure upon it. He contended that it was, in the first place, the duty of ministers, who already knew the nature of the papers, to say whether they were such as called for consideration, and ought in their opinion to form the ground of some measure. But the way in which they had acted now resembled their conduct on every other occasion when any difficulty or embarrassment arose. They constantly showed a disposition to shrink from their duty, and to divest themselves of the responsibility of giving advice to the Crown. In this spirit they proposed, on the present occasion, to shift from their own shoulders a duty which particularly belonged to themselves, and to throw it on that House. If this were submitted to, it would only complete that disgrace into which the House had already appeared so much disposed to fall.

The Earl of Harrowby

did not know whether there was properly any question before the House; but he could not refrain from making a few observations on what had fallen from the noble earl opposite. The noble earl had very unreasonably made it a charge against the executive government, that they did not proceed in this case by precedent. Now, he would challenge him to show, in the annals of the country, any case which could afford any precedent for the present. If there was no case from which a precedent could be drawn, and if little light could be derived from any similarity between this and former proceedings, the fair inference rather was, that ministers had acted with propriety in not attempting to establish on precedents measures for which no precedent could be found. The noble earl, perhaps, in consequence of his absence from that House, had not been correct in his statement of the cause of the adjournment of the committee. That adjournment had been proposed in consequence of the wish expressed in that House, as well as in another place, that means might be found to spare to parliament and the country the pain to which the disclosures and discussions incident on the investigation might give rise. This wish was expressed as intelligibly as the vote that had been founded upon it. But when the negotiation was now closed, would it not have been rather a ground of accusation against his majesty's servants, if, after they had advised it, they had refrained from laying a full account of all that had passed before parliament? He was convinced it would have been made a charge against them, if, after having entered into a negotiation, they had refused to give the House any information on the subject. The noble earl was also wrong in what he had stated respecting the practice of laying papers before parliament. It was, he conceived, not altogether uncommon for the Crown to lay papers on the table, without calling for any opinion on them. This had been done not merely in matters of minor importance., but at the end of a war treaties of peace had been laid before parliament without any opinion being asked upon them. There was, as had already been observed, no similar case. It was in vain, therefore, to object that the proceedings were unprecedented. On a subject not only most delicate and interesting, but also of a nature altogether unexampled, he did think that it was proper for ministers to advise his majesty to call for the wisdom of parliament. It was the first time he had ever heard of such an appeal being made a ground of accusation. Could it be wrong for the Crown to ask their lordships assistance, when obliged to steer a course for the direction of which neither rule nor compass was to be found?

Lord Holland

wished to draw their lordships attention to the real state of the subject under discussion. He understood his noble relation to have been desirous of ascertaining what the drift and bearing of papers laid on the table were—whether they were such as might be expected to prevent the sitting of the committee, or to make their lordships consider that it would be their duty to direct the committee to proceed. When the noble earl who had just sat down argued that the case was unprecedented, he did not take into consideration, that what his noble friend objected to was, not only that the proceedings were without precedent, but that they were without reason also. When there was no precedent to go by, it at least might be expected that then reason would be chosen for the guide. The message from the Crown assured their lordships that every thing had been done to avert the painful disclosures which must unavoidably take place. Besides the papers which accompanied that message another set was now laid before their lordships, without any object for such a communication being assigned. They had but very lately been told that the utmost had been done to avert the dreaded disclosures and now came forth another batch of papers to show that something more than the utmost had been done. But the noble earl acted on the present occasion in a very different manner from what was usually practised when similar proceedings were instituted. When green bags full of accusations against the people were brought down, did ministers content themselves merely with referring them to a secret committee, and refuse to say a word on the nature of the charges? By no means. An inflamed description of the contents of the bags was then given. At present, however, not a word was said, though, after a secret committee had been appointed, a farther collection of papers was produced without any reference being made to the bearing they were expected to have on the former proceeding. This transaction was of a piece with all the other conduct of ministers. If there was any thing odious to be done, they were perfectly prepared to let it attach either to the Crown or to parliament, as it might happen. Of the consequences they were quite regardless, provided they kept their places. The noble earl had signified that the failure of the negotiation was contrary to his expectation. He qualified, indeed, what he said, by stating, that for a part of the time he had entertained an expectation of a favourable result. On what ground had he entertained that opinion? Their lordships must recollect that the noble earl had expressly stated at the outset, that he had no expectation of any beneficial result from the delay. In proposing the adjournment, he said that he did so without any expectation, on his part, that advantage would arise from the postponement. When the noble earl who spoke last observed, that the postponement was approved by noble lords who objected to the present proceeding, he did not advert to the ground of that approval. Those who were against the appointment of the committee altogether, were, naturally enough, willing to consent to its postponement for ten days. The man who does not wish to do a thing will not readily object to the leaving it undone for a time, in the hope that, in the chapter of accidents, something may turn up to prevent its being done altogether. In this way he, and other noble lords, had certainly wished for the delay; but this was very different from what the noble earl meant. Had the motion of the noble baron (Kenyon), for deterring the appointment of the committee been adopted, the House would have escaped the disagreeable situation in which it was now placed. Since that, every postponement of the committee which their lordships had agreed to had only plunged them deeper and deeper in the mire. Their lordships must now be sensible how much the House would have gained in true dignity, had the advice of the noble baron been followed in preference to that of the noble earl. Their lordships were, however induced to proceed to the appointment of the committee, and a I great part of the lords so appointed were persons who must be already acquainted with all that was in the green bag. They might, of course, as well give an opinion on it now as at any future time. But, though appointed, they were not allowed to meet. The fifteen noble peers who composed the committee, and were to be the judges in this case, continued with their functions suspended in the air. Would it not have been better not to have appointed them at all? He and his noble friends had contended that the first vote vas unconstitutional, and therefore consistently maintained, that if the meeting of the committee was to be postponed, it would be better not to appoint it at all. The whole proceeding, as it had been managed, was most disgraceful to the House.

The Earl of Darnley

could not avoid noticing the statement of the noble earl that the delay which had taken place was in consequence of the desire of that House. He positively denied that assertion. The vote of the House, in fact, did express a wish that the committee should be appointed, and nothing else. But it was not the opinion of that House which had been the ground of the delay, but what had occurred in another place. He would ask their lordships whether any of them really believed that the proceedings of the committee would have been delayed bad the House of Commons come to the same vote as that House had? By this transaction he conceived that the House had covered itself with disgrace.

The Earl of Harrowby

was confident that the wish expressed by every noble lord who took part in the debate on the appointment of the committee was, that farther time should be granted for discussion and explanation.

The Earl of Darnley

again observed, that it was impossible for a moment to doubt that the committee would have sat and proceeded to business, had the House of Commons come to the same vote as their lordships did.

Earl Grey,

in explanation, said, that if there were instances of papers having been laid before parliament by the Crown, on which no subsequent measure was founded there was at least no instance during a pending proceeding of fresh papers being communicated without some reference to the manner in which those papers would affect such proceeding. Ministers, in all they had said, had never given a hint as to the view they entertained of those pa- pers. They had never told their lordships whether they expected their effect would be to hasten the proceeding which was begun, or to lead to its abrogation.

The Marquis of Lansdowne

reminded their lordships, that on the day when the message was taken into consideration, he had stated a broad constitutional doubt against the course of proceeding recommended by the noble earl. Every thing which had 6ince occurred convinced him of the propriety of the opinion he then gave; but the noble lords opposite did not on that day hold out the slightest idea that there could be any possible objection to the immediate commencement of the investigation by the secret committee. On the second day, however, before any noble lord spoke a word, the noble earl proposed a course of proceeding by which the committee, though appointed, was to be prevented from transacting business. The whole of this proceeding was roost inconsistent and improper.

The Earl of Liverpool

was now as firmly of opinion as he was on the first day, that if the committee was to be appointed, the mode which had been taken was the most constitutional, and consequently the best that could be adopted. From the circumstances which had occurred since the appointment, he was also satisfied, that the postponement of the sitting of the committee was not un constitutional, and indeed that it was highly proper. With respect to the justification of the original course, he should not go into that now; but he was fully prepared to explain the grounds on which he had proceeded, as soon as the proper time for that explanation came. All that he had proposed on the second day was, that if the House agreed to ballot for the committee, it should not sit for a few days, in order to give time for a negotiation. He was not then arguing whether it was most proper to proceed to the ballot, or to adjourn the sitting of the committee; but he was confident that the feeling of the House was, that both courses came practically to much the same point. Whatever difficulties presented themselves now, would equally have existed had the ballot been delayed. The noble baron had supposed him to have said, on the first proposition for delay, that he had no expectation of a favourable result to the negotiation; but he believed be did not assert, either that he had or had not any expectation. All that he stated was, that discussions and explanations had taken place, but that he knew nothing which could lead him to draw any positive conclusion as to what might be the result. He was perfectly ready to agree to a short delay, and on a subsequent day after the discussions had commenced, he stated that they were such as to render a farther adjournment desirable.

Lord Rolle

believed that there was no question before the House, and, as the whole discussion was therefore out of order, he should if it was proposed to continue it longer, move that the House do adjourn.

Lord Dacre

did not see the propriety of appointing the committee originally. The learned lord on the Woolsack had said that the House was not likely to be called upon in its judicial capacity to decide on the contents of the papers on the table, and that therefore their lordships would not be prejudging the question by making a report upon them. But it was not yet evident to his mind what the House of Commons might do, or that it would agree with the noble and learned lord, and therefore he was against the appointment of the committee altogether. For the same reason he saw no propriety in refer ring the present papers to their lordships without some explanation, or some declaration of the course of proceeding which ought to be adopted. He rose, therefore, to ask the opinion of ministers on the subject; he wished to know why they had not given some reason for the further adjournment, and what probability there was that any steps might be taken in the mean time to prevent the inquiry altogether. He wished to know why ministers, as they knew the contents of the papers, did not take the responsibility of acting upon themselves, and tell the House whether they meant to proceed on Friday next or not. He begged the noble earl opposite to explain what was the object and tendency of the documents now submitted to their lordships—how far they extended—and what specific correspondence they embraced. Did they only contain the correspondence that passed between the ministry and: the agents of the queen during this and the last week? or did they contain any information regarding the previous negotiations?

The Earl of Liverpool

said, that the usual way of answering such a question was, to desire that the list of papers should be read.

The Clerk was about to read the list when lord Rolle reminded the House that the question of adjournment was before them.

Lord Holland

said, he should move that the papers be read, in order to see if it was proper that they should agree to the adjournment.

The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the questions were distinct.

Lord Holland

maintained the right of any peer to call for the reading of papers lying on the table which might have a connection with the question in debate—the reading of an act of parliament for instance.

Earl Spencer

said, there was no question regularly before the House, but the noble earl having laid papers on the table by the command of his majesty, which must shortly come under consideration, the regular way was to read the whole of the papers. Not one of their lordships with the exception of ministers, knew what they contained, so that he thought that the titles might at least be read.

Lord Rolle

said, that if the sense of the House was against his motion he certainly should not press it. He had moved it on perceiving that there was no question before the House.

The Lord Chancellor

said, the only motion before them was the question of adjournment. How far the speeches which their lordships had heard bore any reference to that question, it was for the House itself to decide, but for his own part, he should say that he was not able to discover any. Any noble lord might introduce topics, the application of which it would be difficult to see until he had made it himself.

The Clerk then read the titles of the papers. [For the Papers themselves see this day's proceedings of the Commons.]

The Earl of Lauderdale

wished to know whether it was the intention of ministers to lay before the House any previous communications on the same subject. The House had been told at an early stage of those proceedings, that the utmost efforts had been made, and now papers were brought down which ought in justice to contain all that had passed. It was a maxim which every day's experience confirmed, that those who judged on a partial view must judge imperfectly, so that if any thing had passed antecedently to the papers now communicated, it was foolish and vain to think of arriving at any correct determination on those imperfect do- cuments. The House must have the whole of the information before it, in order to come to a right opinion. The noble earl had seen the whole, and was capable of recommending some proceeding. They had only seen a detached part and were consequently incapable of judging as to any proceeding.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, that there was but one paper of a date anterior to the 9th, and that he should feel no difficulty in communicating it.

Lord Erskine

contended, that his majesty's ministers ought not to demand the opinion of parliament on the late proceedings without giving information on what had previously taken place. The papers now laid on the table contained the official correspondence of a negotiation instituted for the purpose of endeavouring to bring about an accommodation without the necessity of making disclosures. Before their lordships could judge of the propriety of that negotiation, they should be informed of the nature of the charge against the queen, and the evidence on which it rested. Their lordships were called upon to give advice to the Crown on this delicate question; and how could they advise his majesty what to do, without knowing the nature of the charges against the other party? The ministers who possessed the documents in which they were contained, could alone decide with propriety, and ought therefore to take the responsibility of deciding. It was plain that the House could not. He, for one, would never deliver an opinion till he was made acquainted with the whole of the charges. Some thought that her majesty's name should be restored to the liturgy, that she should reside in England and enjoy all the rights and privileges belonging to her station: and how could he or any other noble lord, deliver an opinion for or against these claims without knowing the grounds on which they were denied her? It was not from any desire to see the green bag opened that he thus spoke; but he found himself under the necessity of so expressing himself, when called upon to decide on the result of a negotiation without knowing the reasons why it was begun. He had consented to the appointment of the secret committee: he did not think such a committee either illegal or unconstitutional, but that was not the question now before the House. The question was, whether they should decide without having that information which ought to form the grounds of their decision.

The meeting of the secret committee was postponed to Friday.