Lords Sitting of 26 June 1820

COMMITMENT FOR LIBEL—PETITION OF MR. BUTT.
Earl Greypresented a petition from JR. G. Butt, stating his having brought an action against sir N. Conant for false imprisonment, in committing him on a charge of libel before any indictment found or information filed, and that the judges had decided the point against him; he therefore complained to the House, and prayed relief, &c. His lordship, in presenting the petition, adverted to what he had formerly said upon the subject of the power assumed, or, he would rather say, usurped by magistrates, of judging of the nature of libel, by committing on charges for that alleged offence, without any indictment being found or information filed. To the opinion he then expressed, he still adhered, considering, as he did, such a practice to be a departure from the ancient laws of the land, and to be contrary to the principles of the constitution.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the judges had given it as their opinion, that there was no ground of complaint in the petitioner's case. With regard to the motion made by the noble earl on a former occasion, his objections to the power of the magistrates were, at the time they were made, deserving of every attention; but was fully of opinion, that they were not founded in law.
Lord Erskinesaid, he had on a former occasion, when his noble friend brought the subject before the House, stated that he considered arrest for libel, before an indictment was found, to be illegal; and he still maintained that opinion.
Ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION FROM THE QUEEN.
Lord Dacrerose. He said he had been requested to present a petition which he felt it to be his duty to offer to their lordships, inasmuch as it related to matters of great importance, and was worded with propriety. The petition was from her majesty, and it had been hoped that that illustrious person would have been enabled to place it on the table through a medium better calculated to give weight to the proceeding—namely, through that of the highest authority in the House. As, however, that expectation had not been realized, it fell to his lot to call their lordships attention to the subject. In this petition
1324
her majesty complained of the mode of inquiry instituted against her being by a secret committee, she complained that this inquiry respecting her conduct was instituted at a period when she had not time to procure witnesses from the continent. She complained that by this course of proceeding an unfavourable impression might be made against her before she had an opportunity to rebut the evidence brought secretly forward by her accusers. Such was the nature of the petition he held in his hand; but, before he presented it, he thought it proper to observe, that, totally ignorant as he was of the nature of the transactions referred to, and never having been honoured with her majesty's acquaintance, or having had the slightest communication with her, he was on this occasion merely performing what he considered a duty to a person under accusation, and against whom proceedings had been adopted of a nature in which he could not concur. He had already taken an opportunity of stating his dissent to the course which their lordships had chosen to sanction, but to proceed in which would now be unbecoming the character of that House. Why was it desired to proceed hastily to an inquiry, the result of which was expected to prove equally injurious to the dignity of the Crown and the interests of the people? Their lordships must be aware that the public opinion was. decidedly against an inquiry by a secret committee, the appointment of which was notoriously in the hands of his majesty's ministers. Many of the names included in the list of that committee were those of noble lords who had already given an opinion on the case. If that committee was, as had been asserted, to perform the functions of a grand jury, what effect must the manner in which it was composed have on the feelings of the people? The list contained the names of four cabinet ministers who had already made up their minds on the question, and were acquainted with the whole of the case. There were two other names of persons of high station, who must naturally be supposed to have received impressions unfavourable to the illustrious person accused. It was not to-be believed that the right reverend prelate at the head of the church, or the noble and learned lord, would have suffered the name of her majesty to be excluded: from the Liturgy, had they not admitted that there were grounds for that proceeding. They must, therefore, be considered

1325
as having already come to a decision. One of them was the person responsible for the exclusion of the queen's name [Here some noble lord, we believe the lord chancellor, intimated his dissent from this opinion]. He must repeat, that he considered the right reverend prelate the responsible person for this act. He would not go over the whole list. It was sufficient for him to observe, that there were several others who must be conceived by the public to have formed a bias against the interests of the illustrious person under accusation. In such a state of things, when the greatest agitation prevailed among all ranks, and the vital interests of the country were at stake, he hoped their lordships would pause at least for a moment, to consider how far the claims of her majesty, as expressed in this petition, were just and equitable—how far they could be warranted in rejecting her majesty's claim to that justice to which every Englishman must consider her entitled—namely, that she should not be proceeded against until she had the opportunity of bringing her witnesses from the continent. Her majesty further prays, that she may be heard by counsel against the sitting of the secret committee. This prayer he hoped their lordships would grant, and then the objections to that proceeding would been-forced by arguments much stronger than any he could use.
The Lord Chancellorhad no objection to the petition being laid on the table, but thought it necessary to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord who presented it. He felt that he had, as a peer, duties to perform to every subject of the realm; but in the situation in which he stood he knew that he had also one great duty to perform to that House. He declared, upon his honour, that when he declined to present the petition he entertained no objection to its being submitted to the consideration of the House, but it appeared to him better that it should be presented by any other noble lord than by himself. A due regard to the situation in which he stood induced him to pause, when called upon to present this petition. He had not, however, three minutes for the consideration of the question. He had certainly taken great pains to learn what was the proper mode of proceeding in such a case, but no light could be derived from any thing found in the Journals. He had on a former occasion refused to present a letter
1326
to the House from the illustrious person who was now a petitioner. He would have willingly complied, but there was no precedent in the Journals for such a proceeding. He again repeated, that his only reason for not presenting the petition was, his belief that it would be more proper for any other of their lordships to perform that office. No feeling of disrespect to the illustrious person had in. fluenced his conduct. He declared to their lordships, and was ready to declare in the face of the whole world, that he would rather suffer death than admit any abatement of the principle that a person accused is not therefore to be considered guilty. As there was no precedent, he was not yet aware what proceeding could be taken on the petition; but certainly the illustrious person would have, somehow or other, the opportunity of being heard. That he had refused to present the petition was, however, no objection to its being now received and considered.
Earl Greywas sensible that no person was more disposed on every occasion to discharge his duty to the House and the country conscientiously than the noble and learned lord. That no motives but such as arose from the consideration of his duty could have prevented the noble lord from presenting the petition he was well convinced; but the noble and learned lord must allow him to think, that the view he had taken of his situation was an erroneous one. That his sitting on that woolsack gave him different duties with respect to applications of this kind from any other noble lord was what he could not admit. He apprehended that there was no distinction of the nature of that which the noble lord endeavoured to set up. For his part, feeling that the doors of that House ought always, in some way or other, to be open to every person who complained of a denial of justice, had that petition been offered to him he would not have thought it necessary to take three minutes to consider the propriety of submitting it to the consideration of their lordships; but after satisfying himself that it was couched in proper language, should have thought himself bound to present it. The noble and learned lord had formed, doubtless most conscientiously, a different opinion; but that opinion, he must contend, was founded on a mistaken view of the noble and learned lord's situation. He could not help making these observations on this subject; for it was important

1327
that no distinction should be considered to exist among the peers who composed that House.
The Lord Chancellorhad no desire to prolong the discussion, but wished that the noble lord, and others who concurred with him would lay down some course which he could follow. Notwithstanding all that the noble lord had said, he considered that duties were imposed on him very different from those which the great majority of their lordships had to perform. He was not aware that any similar petition had ever been presented; but, as he had said, he had no objection to its being submitted to the House.
Lord Hollandconcurred with his noble friend. The duties of the noble and learned lord, in rising and speaking from that wool-sack, differed in no respect from those of any other peer of parliament. His duties in that House were not to be regulated by any other duties. While he sat there he was bound to consider himself only as a member of that House. It was a doctrine of great importance, that nothing coming from him was to be considered as having greater weight or authority than if it came from any other peer. His conduct therefore was not to be regulated by other motives than those which regulated that of any other member of that assembly. They were all peers, and no individual among them could address the House with any greater authority than that which belonged to his character. The privileges of the House would indeed be materially abridged, were it to be presumed that any man among them could, by what he individually did, bind that House. There could, therefore, be no objection to the noble and learned lord's presenting the petition, which would not have been equally an objection on the part of any other noble lord. There might be a difficulty in finding precedents for the present case, and he had no doubt that the journals had, as the noble and learned lord said, been searched in vain; but when there was no other mode in which the illustrious petitioner could apply than this, it was not reasonable to think that there could be any impropriety in presenting her petition. The noble and learned lord said that he had refused to present letter from her majesty; but that was quite a different case, as he might then have appeared as acting for the House. No such objection, however, could apply to the presenting of a petition.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that all their lordships were agreed as to the propriety of receiving the petition. He would receive it, not because there was any precedent for it, but because it was a clear principle of constitutional right that the applications of subjects, however high or however low, should be received by their lordships, in cases in which their interests were affected. The only question was, whether it should be received in a more solemn and formal manner than other applications; and as that could not be the case, it should be received in the usual way. He begged, however, to say a word or two on the plea of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack for refusing to present the petition, and what had fallen from the noble lords opposite on that subject. He admitted that their lordships were all equal in point of duties and privileges, and if the illustrious petitioner could not have access to the House but through one individual of their lordships, that individual should have presented it. But there were individual peers through whom it would be highly improper to present certain applications. Suppose, for instance, a petitioner were to request any of their lordships to present a petition against one of his own relations, could he not very properly decline, and request the petitioner to apply to some other quarter? To say, therefore, that any individual peer of parliament might not have particular reasons for declining to do certain duties which might be more properly done by others, and that, in the exercise of his discretion, I he might not decline those duties, would I be denying him his undoubted privilege. There might be petitions which, considered as a peer of parliament, he might have no objection to present; but, considered as holding a particular office, and exhibiting a particular character, he might be prevented from offering to the House. This was the case with his noble and learned friend. But his noble and learned friend might have another reason; he knew I that there was no precedent for this, and he did not think that, this being a new case, he ought to comply without deliberation. It was, therefore, more proper that it should come from any other member of the House. Any noble lord might say, that such a petition, though fit to be presented, might not be fit to be presented by him.
The Marquis of Lansdowneperfectly agreed with a great part of what had fal-

1329
len from the noble earl opposite, while he contended that it had not touched any of the objections of his noble friends. He allowed that any noble lord might decline to present a petition, upon personal considerations. He could have no objection to any peer of parliament exercising his own discretion on what petition he ought, or ought not, to present. What he objected to was, the reason which the noble and learned lord gave for declining to present the petition—namely, that he felt precluded from presenting it by the particular situation which he occupied in the House. The principle for which his noble friends and himself contended was, that no peculiarity of situation precluded the noble and learned lord on the woolsack from presenting any petition, or performing any duty, which might be presented, or performed by any other peer of parliament. The noble and learned lord's situation as Speaker of that House differed from that of Speaker of the House of Commons in this respect—that the latter was elected by the House itself, and the former was appointed by the Crown. The noble and learned lord, therefore occupied the woolsack by command of his majesty, but still without relinquishing any of the privileges or freeing himself from any of the duties of the peerage, which were common to him with the other peers, and which, when he quitted the woolsack, he might discharge in any other part of the House. The noble earl therefore had not answered this objection by placing the refusal of the chancellor on personal grounds.
The Lord Chancellorexplained. He claimed all the privileges, and was willing to execute all the duties of the peerage; and desired it to be understood, that he would never refuse to present a petition, whether from the highest or the lowest subject, if consistent with what he thought his duties to the House He would not allow that he was acting from personal motives while he declined presenting a petition for which he had no precedent. He thought that the presenting of this petition was a strong measure, which he was not called upon to execute sitting where he did.
The Petition of her majesty was then read as follows:
"To the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled.
"CAROLINE R.
"The Queen, having been informed that
1330
proceedings are about to be instituted against her in the House of Lords, feels it necessary to approach your lordships as a petitioner and a fellow subject. She is advised that, according to the forms of your lordships House, no other mode of communication is permitted.
"Now, as at all times, she declares her perfect readiness to meet every charge affecting her honour; and she challenges the most complete investigation of her conduct. But she protests, in the first place, against any secret inquiry; and if the House of Lords should, notwithstanding, persist in a proceeding so contrary to every principle of justice and of law, she must in the next place declare, that even from such an unconstitutional course she can have nothing to apprehend, unless it be instituted before the arrival of those witnesses whom she will summon immediately to expose the whole of the machinations against her. She is anxious that there should now be no delay whatever in finishing the inquiry; and none shall be occasioned by her majesty. But the queen cannot suppose that the House of Lords will commit so crying an injustice as to authorize a secret examination of her conduct, in the absence of herself and her counsel, while her defence must obviously rest upon evidence which for some weeks cannot reach this country. The instant that it arrives she will entreat the House of Lords to proceed in any way they may think consistent with the ends of justice; but in the mean time, and before the first step is taken, her majesty desires to be heard by her counsel at your lordships bar, this day, upon the subject matter of this petition."
Lord Dacre then moved, that her majesty's counsel be called to the bar. The motion was agreed to, and her majesty's counsel were accordingly called. A pause of some minutes ensued, while the messengers went to inform Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman that their lordships desired their attendance. The two learned gentlemen, accompanied by Mr. Williams, then appeared at the bar. The petition was again read, and
Mr. Broughambegan to address their lordships. He said he had the honour to attend their lordships as counsel for her majesty, the Queen, and he understood that he should now be heard in support of the petition which had just been read. It might perhaps have been more consistent with his duty if, feeling,

1331
as he did, the extensive importance of the interests which he was now called upon to defend, and sensible how feebly it was in his power to defend them, and how small the abilities he brought to the task, he had asked for a delay of a few hours to prepare himself for the execution of it. But he had in it command from his illustrious client not to spare any personal sacrifices, on his own part, to avoid delay, and not to offer any obstruction on hers to the immediate commencement of the inquiry. It became, therefore, the more necessary for him to make the statement which he was about to make on the part of her majesty, that she should not appear to ask for delay in the accustomed and vulgar sense of that word. She asked for no delay of the prosecution; she asked for no delay of judgment, because she was conscious that she was innocent, and because she knew that their lordships were just; but she asked for delay because she knew that all the forms of law and justice would be set at defiance if they refused to listen to her petition, and proceeded to try her on the ex parte statements of her enemies. As it appeared from a message on the table, her majesty was to be brought to trial on grave charges contained in papers submitted to their lordships. These papers, as stated in the message, referred to the conduct of her majesty when residing abroad. What the charges themselves were—by what testimony they were supported—who the base tools were who lent themselves to procure, collect, and arrange them—how they were scraped together—by whose influence they were conjured up, he could not tell; but it was enough for him to know this, that be it creditable to the collector, or be it odious and disgraceful to the collector and the witnesses, it went to affect the character and to impeach the conduct of her majesty for something that was alleged to have been done abroad. Now, it was known to their lordships, that her majesty had resided for the last five years at a great distance from this country; that she had lived beyond the Alps and the Apennines, and that it was physically impossible for her to procure the production of a single document, the presence of a single witness, or even the answer to a single letter that might be necessary for the vindication of her character, in less than five or six weeks. But unless the House waited till witnesses on the part of her majesty should be collected and brought to this
1332
country—witnesses whose presence were absolutely necessary, not only to enable him to rebut a single charge, but even to cross-examine a single individual of those wretches—he begged pardon of their lordships for his warmth; he meant of those personages whose evidence had been thrown into the sealed bag—the ends of justice could not be accomplished, and her majesty might as well be condemned without any of the formalities of it. It would, then, be more than five or six weeks before her majesty could be prepared to repel the charges against her, and enter upon her defence. Now, let it not be understood by persons out of doors—as he was sure it could not be understood by the honourable minds of their lordships—whatever construction might be attempted to be put upon it by her majesty's enemies—that this claim of delay was made from any consciousness of guilt, or with any desire to elude investigation. The more important this charge—the more the accused party felt conscious of innocence—the more secure of an honourable acquittal—the more essential it was she should have at her command all the means of vindicating her honour, and confounding her enemies. He called on their lordships to recollect, that when an Englishman's wife or daughter came before the public, to have her conduct, during a long course of years, sifted with the strictest scrutiny, in order to enable her to meet the dangers attending such an investigation, the witnesses must all be English; no foreigner must be admitted as an evidence against her—none whose principles hung on them by a loose tenure—* none who denied the obligation of an oath—none who conceived that an oath taken here, whatever importance they might attach to it elsewhere, was not to be rigorously attended to. That was the first safeguard of an Englishwoman, tried for her conduct in England. In the next place as the witnesses against her were of her own country, she had an opportunity of knowing them; the judge knew them, and the public knew them, the press showed to the world their conduct in the witness-box—their conduct as regarded their duty to their fellow-creatures, and to their God. The third safeguard of an Englishwoman, brought to her trial in England, was that compulsory process, by which she might bring into court witnesses to her conduct, against whom neither bribes, nor threats, nor any procurements of her adversaries,

1333
could avail one straw. But how was her majesty situated? All the witnesses by whom the charges against her were supported, were, either by religious observances, or by other circumstances of character and situation, of such a description, that he would venture to say, although all the noble lords whom he addressed were as bold as the distinguished captain (the duke of Wellington) in whose presence he then stood, there was not one of them who would not shrink back with terror if he thought one speck of such evidence was to be brought forward against his wife or daughter. Her majesty was not, in the present case, clothed with power, or invested with patronage: her friends abroad were neither numerous nor powerful, nor were they likely to atone by their zeal for the smallness of their number and their want of power. She was discountenanced by all the public authorities of this country, and despised and rejected by those abroad; and, under these disadvantages, she had to meet all that bribery, all that force, all that fear, all that malignity could collect and array against her. He would ask their lordships, if they could doubt that her majesty was conscious of her innocence, and fearless of the result, when under such circumstances as these she called on her law officers to go on, and demanded no delay of the proceedings. But it was his duty to take care, and if he neglected it, their lordships who took upon themselves the character of her judges, would look to it, that she should not be suffered, by her fearless readiness to meet the charge, to injure herself by acquiescing in a course which, however innocent so ever she might be, might prove fatal to her cause. Until he had an opportunity of communicating with the witnesses of his illustrious client, it evidently would be impossible for him to become acquainted with the characters and habits of all her accusers, of some of whom indeed he knew enough, and his knowledge of these made him anxious to know the rest. Unless he had a personal intercourse with the witnesses for the defendant, so as to learn the habits and inducements of those who supported the charges, he would put it to any person who had ever seen a cause tried, whether it was possible for him to cross-examine one single witness in such a manner as the ends of justice required. He would put the case of one of her majesty's accusers who had been dismissed from her service
1334
for stealing 400 napoleons. Was that fact to make him careless respecting the testimony and the character of the next witness? To prove this fact, he had two witnesses, one of whom was at Rouen; no Hanoverian baron, no Milan spy, but an English naval officer, who had fought and bled in the service of his country. This honourable man, he was aware, would turn the other witness out of court; but was that to make him less cautious about receiving the testimony of others? Surely not. He asked their lordships, therefore, under the awful sanction of their oath, as the queen's judges, if they would drive him into the defence of this case, without granting the delay which he now demanded, and thus prevent him from refuting one tittle of the evidence adduced against her majesty?—He again begged their lordships not to misunderstand him. He did not ask for any thing that might avert this prosecution, still less any thing that might delay the result when once the proceeding had begun: he only claimed a delay of the commencement, not of the result of the prosecution. The question was, whether this delay should be granted after the invisible tribunal—he begged their lordship's pardon—after the secret committee had reported, or before that preliminary step was taken. He was here assuming, with great humiliation, that after this secret preliminary inquiry had taken place—after the noise of it had been echoed over all the country—and that noise would be greater or less, according to the secrecy or publicity of the inquiry—after her majesty's character had been blackened over all Europe, without the possibility of putting one cross question to any of her accusers, their lordships would then at least allow the delay of a few months to enable her to bring forward her witnesses. He was assuming this because he supposed that there was no English tribunal—not even a Milan tribunal—that would deny an accused party some opportunity of defence. The only question here was, whether their lordships would grant this delay in a stage of the proceedings, when it would be essential to the defence of her majesty, or would withhold it till it would be useless, or indeed, till the sentence was in effect pronounced. He implored their lordships to consider that all her majesty's legal advisers asked was, that a mode of proceeding should I not be resorted to which must inevitably J lead to her condemnation whether she was

1335
innocent or guilty. he asked for her that only without which, in every British court of justice, no man could with safety go to trial, without which an indictment for any offence, and against any individual whatever, could not be sustained. He had a right to assume that the expressed opinion of one branch of the legislature would not be totally disregarded by the other, and he should therefore cite the authority of the Commons House of Parliament as at least worthy of the attention of their lordships. That branch of the legislature, including in it the movers and authors of an investigation into her majesty's conduct, had pronounced that such a proceeding would be "disappointing to the hopes of parliament, derogatory from the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the empire." He felt the more confident that their lordships would listen to his present application, when it was further considered, that he asked not that the result, but that the commencement of a trial, which the House of Commons had so characterised, should be delayed for two short months, and that legal murder should not be committed on the first subject of the land.
Mr. Denmanfollowed.—He said, that in advising this petition to be brought down, he did not think that he was guilty of any violation of the forms of the House, or that there was any thing in that proceeding derogatory from the dignity of her majesty. He could not suppose that there were any motives of a personal nature, or any considerations resulting either from effect or connexion, that would make it improper in him to request any peer to present this petition. Still less did he doubt whether it was competent to be received. It had, in fact been received, and therefore it was unnecessary for him to allude any further to the consideration of the mode in which it was presented. He apprehended that every one who was injured had a right to petition that House; and if a petition was to be excluded, it remained for those who opposed its reception to show the grounds of a proceeding so contrary to the justice of their lordships. As to the mode of the present application, he apprehended that her majesty, as the first subject in the realm, had right to petition or remonstrate in a case where her best interests, her honour, perhaps her life, were at their lordships' disposal. He was totally unable to define the anomalous character of the proceed-
1336
ings which had been instituted against her majesty; and when be looked to the judicial process that might arise out of this proceeding, he felt himself in a state of absolute doubt and uncertainty; he had to contend with shadows and clouds, and was ignorant of the next step to be taken. When these papers were thrown on the table of the two Houses of Parliament, he did not know that an impeachment was not intended to be founded upon them, and that consideration should have prevented their lordships from entering into any preliminary inquiry. He contended that their lordships had no right to assume that an impeachment might not be the course finally adopted, for bringing to punishment the illustrious person whose petition he was now supporting. He was aware that another course might be resorted to, and that by a bill of pains and penalties she might be degraded from her rank, and driven into exile. Either alternative was entitled to their lordships most serious attention. If their lordships were hereafter to be called on by the House of Commons to inquire judicially into her majesty's conduct, he would ask them to look at the situation in which this exalted individual was placed? A committee of fifteen of the most distinguished peers of that House, whose minds had been impressed by the contents of this bag, were to pause for a time on these impressions, and then to sit in judgment on her majesty's character, her honour, and perhaps her life. How was it possible for the most honourable mind to divest itself of prejudices so impressed? He would not expatiate on the manner in which this trash had been collected, but he would suggest to their lordships from the experience of what had occurred since the first of the dissensions between his majesty and the queen, the likelihood of worthless characters furnishing readily such evidence, however false, as they might deem to be acceptable. How little likely was it that a demand for such evidence should fail of receiving a full supply. He would not go so far as to say that any great exertions had been made to collect testimony of such a description; but it was enough to rouse suspicion that the desire to receive it was known to exist. But if, in addition to this, some wretches, for the desire of recommending themselves to favour, and to office, had been busy in raking together every filth with which the basest miscreants were ready to furnish them, their

1337
lordships would pause before they attach ed weight to evidence procured through such instruments. His hon. and learned friend, in alluding to the offices of such agents, had almost fallen on the words of the poet:—
"Some busy and insinuating rogue
"Some cogging, cozening slave to get some office,
"Hath devised this slander."
If such wretches had been at work, it was not likely that the most polluted evidence could be wanting in the greatest abundance. On these grounds alone her majesty's legal advisers wished for delay; and it would not be difficult to show that a compliance with the wish would ultimately prevent delay; for nothing was so likely to retard the course of justice, as leaving a cause half heard. He begged the House to reflect, that according to the mode in which justice was generally administered in this land, and which he would take the liberty of saying was very different from the proceeding adopted towards her majesty, the parties received notice to meet each other; and unless that course were pursued, the greatest temptation would be offered to subornation, and thus the course of justice was interrupted, and the difficulty of establishing guilt or innocence increased. It was therefore for the sake of a speedy termination of the prosecution—for that was the object nearest her majesty's heart—that the present application was made. When he considered the circumstances under which her majesty had come to this country—when he considered the situation in which she was now placed;—when he looked around the House and saw to what hands her defence was to be entrusted—he was sure their lordships would grant this delay for the ends of justice. He begged them to remember that one of the most distinguished peers that had ever graced that Houses and been at the head of the administration of justice in this country—the great lord Bacons—had said, that "a judge ought to prepare his way to a just sentence, as God useth to prepare his way, by raising valleys and taking down hills; so when there appear-eth on either side a high hand, violent prosecution, cunning advantages taken, combination, power, great council, then is the virtue of a judge seen to make inequality equal; that he may plant his judgment as upon an even ground."
Mr. Williams was proceeding to ad-
1338
dress the House, when the lord chancellor interrupted him, stating to their lordships that he believed it was not customary for more than two counsel to be heard in support of a petition. His lord ship then put the question, and being decided in the negative* the counsel withdrew. The Earl of Liverpool put off the meeting of the secret committee till Wednesday, to give their lordships time to consider the desire of her majesty's petition.—Earl Grey gave notice, that if the noble lord persisted in proceeding by a secret committee, he should to-morrow stat his reasons for proposing a different course of proceeding. The lords were summoned for to-morrow, and the House adjourned.