Sitting of 5 July 1820

PETITION FROM NORWICH FOR TWO GENERAL GAOL DELIVERIES.
Sir James Mackintoshpresented a petition from Robert Hawkes and Edward Taylor, sheriffs of Norwich, complaining that the assizes for the city were only held once a-year. The grievance of which the petitioners complained was a very serious one. The House was aware that, under the present regulations, the assizes for Norwich were only held once a-year, and that the spring assizes for the county did not extend to the city. The city of Norwich had, therefore, the same grievance to complain of as the four northern counties, which had already been under the consideration of the House. The spring assizes for the county of Norfolk were held at Thetford, and the summer assizes in the city of Norwich. One individual, committed on the 11th Sept. 1819, was confined ten months in prison previous to trial; two were committed on the 30th Sept. 1819; one on the 6th Oct. 1819; two on the 15th Jan., and one on the 3rd Feb. 1820. The petitioners expressed their hope that the House would take the subject into their serious consideration, in order that they might enjoy the same right possessed by nearly the whole of the counties of England. The hon. member trusted that the wisdom of parliament would devise some means of redressing this great grievance.
Mr. Harbordthought that the grievance complained of could not be expressed in too strong language, and objected parti-

217
cularly to the unhealthiness of the cells in which the prisoners were confined. Several of these cells were three feet below the surface of the ground, and the only day-room for the accommodation of the prisoners was eight feet below the ground, and consequently very damp and unwholesome. At the time he examined the prison, there were then ten untried prisoners, of whom the eldest was 18, and they were only divided from the convicts by an open railing. There were four cardinal points which were peculiarly deserving of attention on this subject—classification, inspection, constant employment, and moral and religious instruction. Three of these were wholly neglected in the gaol in which these prisoners were con6ned.
Mr. Colbornedid not deny the existence of the grievance complained of, but thought it might be easily remedied. The Norwich sessions might be empowered to try those prisoners who had been confined for any length of time; or the prisoners might be removed to the town of Thetford, there to undergo their trial. He saw no reason why a short bill should not be introduced to this effect.
Sir J. Mackintoshobjected to the two remedies proposed by the hon. member: to the first, because he thought it would be an act of injustice; and to the second, because an unnecessary expense would be incurred.
Ordered to lie on the table.

STEAM ENGINES COMMITTEE.
Mr. M. A. Taylorbrought up the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the possibility of Steam Engines consuming their own smoke. He said that the object of the inquiry had been completely answered, and he trusted that, ere long, the metropolis would be freed from the nuisance to which it had been long subject. He intended in the next session to introduce a bill, to declare the law upon the subject, and to prevent those nuisances from being longer continued.

PETITION OF HUGH CAMPBELL RESPECTING CELTIC LITERATURE.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, he held in his hand a petition of rather a singular nature. It was one from Mr. Hugh Campbell, a student at law, complaining of the conduct of the Highland Society of London. The petitioner, it appeared, had been inspired by a laudable zeal for the literature
218
of his country, and had undertaken tours through the Hebrides, and the province of Ulster, for the purpose of illustrating the topography of the poems of Ossian, and particularly that of Fingal. It might be worthy of remark, that in the college of Madrid were to be seen large and accurate maps of the tour of Don Quixote through the various provinces of Spain, and the petitioner seemed to be actuated by a wish to perform some such task with respect to the poems of Ossian. In the petition he had asserted that the Highland Society was bound to remunerate him for his labour, and he complained that that society had refused him compensation. The hon. member was not aware in what manner relief could be afforded to the petitioner; but he felt it his duty to lay the petition before the House.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SCOTS MALT DUTY.
Lord A. Hamiltonhaving risen to make his motion respecting the Tax on Malt in Scotland,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he should inform the noble lord what he intended to do, that the noble lord might know how far his motion was rendered unnecessary. He should propose a temporary allowance of 6d. per bushel on malt made from big or beer, under certain regulations.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that this concession was so inferior to what the people of Scotland considered as due to them, that he should persist in his motion. The grounds on which he objected to the tax lately imposed on Scots malt were three. I, That it had been the practice for more than a century to impose on Scots malt only half the duty that was imposed on malt in England; 2, that a less tax had been generally imposed on beer or big than on barley malt; and 3, that the tax was passed at an improper time and in an unfair manner—in the last week of the last session, when scarcely any Scots members were present, or knew of the bill. The effect of the increased duty had been such in Scotland, that the distilleries could no longer work except at a loss. The fact was, very few of the great distilleries had worked during the last twelve months, and those only were satisfied with the duty as it at present stood who found means of defrauding the revenue. It seemed probable, indeed, that this in-crease of duty on Scots malt had originated in some mistake, for a letter

219
written in October from the Treasury, in answer to an application from Scotland, the 23rd of August last, stated that the increase of duty on Scots malt was 1s. 2d. per bushel, whereas it turned out to be 1s. 9½d. Petitions had poured in against this tax from every part of Scotland. Upon the cultivators of inferior soils, where the inferior descriptions of barley were grown, it was most oppressive. The small stills, which had been encouraged by government for the counteraction of illicit distillation, were now obliged to cease working, and to give way to unlawful competition. The noble lord having urged his arguments against the tax, under the several heads mentioned, said, he should propose certain resolutions. The resolutions stated, that in the malt duty acts of 1725, 1760, 1779, 1780 and 1787, the principle had been recognized, that the rate of duty on malt in Scotland should be one half of the rate of duty on malt in England; that by those and various other acts, smaller duties had been imposed on beer or big, than on barley malt; that by the act of the last session, the duty on malt had been increased 16 per cent in Scotland and diminished 23 per cent in England. The resolution with which he intended to conclude the series was to this effect—that the departure from the principle previously acted upon in the imposition of the duties on malt had been injurious to the agriculture and general interests of Scotland. The noble lord moved his first resolution.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid the practice with respect to the imposition of the duty on malt had not been entirely uniform; for in 1713, six years after the Union, 6d. per bushel duty was imposed on Scots and English malt equally, though 12 years after it was reduced in the case of Scotland. There was obviously great inconvenience in the existence of unequal taxation in different parts of the island. It was to be observed that in 1802, a tax of 1s. O¼d. per bushel, and in the next year 2s. more per bushel had been imposed on malt in Scotland as well as England; a tax not much less than that which existed at present. Though on the whole the English might be somewhat superior to the Scots barley, yet much of the barley of Scotland was quite equal to that of England; and in many of the counties of England, especially the northern counties, the English barley was inferior to the average of Scot-
220
land. He allowed that in the case of beer or big there was a claim for a reduction of the duty, and he proposed to grant a temporary allowance of sixpence per bushel. If the duty in Scotland were less than that in England, it would be necessary to prohibit the intercourse in grain between the two countries, because 250,000 quarters of barley had been imported into Leith from England, and would probably be sent back in the shape of malt or strong ales. He should, therefore, persevere in the principle which parliament had adopted, and would move the previous question.
Mr. Fergussoncould not agree that there should be no deviation from the old proportion of the duties in the two countries, though he wished the duty to be somewhat lower in Scotland than in England.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that the only point on which he meant to divide the House was this, that the existing duties were too heavy.
Sir J. Marjoribankscomplained that the act imposing an additional duty on malt made in Scotland, was passed at a late period of the last session quite unexpectedly, when a great part of the Scotch members had left town. He professed his determination to vote for the resolution.
Mr. Kennedysaid, that if the agriculture of Scotland had improved, it was owing to a very spirited expenditure of capital in that country, and not to any cause connected with the taxes. Formerly, much encouragement was given to the establishment of small legal distilleries. The act for that purpose passed parliament four or five years ago, and produced the most beneficial effects. But since the act of July last, that encouragement was entirely taken away, and the consequence was that the revenue was very much diminished by the number of smugglers. He put it to the right hon. gentleman, whether it would not be for the benefit of the country, even with a view to revenue, to allow the occupiers of land to distil the corn grown within their own lands.
Mr. Boswellsaid, that from the variableness of the climate in Scotland, it frequently happened that a great part of the corn was damaged before it could be got in, and was rendered unfit for consumption in any way except in the way of distillation. But when the duty on all kinds of grain was the same, it acted to

221
the exclusion of that damaged grain from the distilleries. He did not ask that the duties should be reduced to one half; but he thought it extremely necessary to diminish them to some extent.
On the first and second resolution, the previous question was carried without a division; but on the third resolution the House divided, Ayes, 43; Noes, 53.

GRANTHAM ELECTION.
On the motion of Mr. Wynn, the short-hand writer on the Grantham election committee was called to the bar, and read the minutes of the evidence he had taken this day relative to the service upon sir W. Manners of the warrant of the Speaker requiring his attendance. A witness had deposed, that he had repeatedly endeavoured to serve the warrant upon sir W. Manners, but in vain, and at last had been obliged to throw it over the gate of his residence, near Grantham.—Sir It. Heron moved that sir W. Manners be taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms.—Mr. Tennyson moved as an amendment, that sir W. Manners be ordered to attend the House on Monday—Dr. Phillimore thought it impossible for any person who had attended to the evidence to doubt that there had been an intention to evade the orders of the House, or that the witnesses had kept purposely away. Mr. Wynn was also of opinion, that due notice had been served upon the witnesses, and that the House was bound to vindicate its authority. The original motion was agreed to.—Sir It. Heron then moved that R. A. Jarvis be also taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms.—Sir J. Mackintosh said that the present was a most flagrant contempt of the authority of the House, and he should support the motion, in order to teach all parties, either directly or indirectly concerned, that the commands of no person were a sufficient excuse for such a defiance of their orders—The motion was agreed to; and Hugh Manners and W. Atter were also ordered to attend.

IRISH TITHES BILL.
Sir H. Parnellrose, to call the attention of the House to a subject which materially concerned the agriculturists of Ireland; namely, the present system of collecting the tithes. As an instance of the practical inconvenience and injustice of the present system, he held in his hand a receipt for 3l. 8s. paid by a small farmer in Ireland to a
222
tithe proctor, who, instead of summoning the farmer before a magistrate for a sum of 18 s. 10 d. which was due. issued a subpoena from the Court of Exchequer, on the 19th of May, calling upon the farmer, who lived at a distance of fifty miles from Dublin, to appear in the Court of Exchequer, on the 2nd of June following, thereby incurring an expense of 2l. 10 s. for the recovery of a debt of 18 s. 10 d. The present was a system of oppression on the poor tenantry, as would appear from the returns on the table, in which it was stated, that in five counties there were no less than 1,400 tithe actions at one quarter sessions, besides exchequer subpoenas. He only wished that the law which passed the House in 1817, should be extended to Ireland. The measure which he had now the honour of submitting to the House had the approbation, not only of the parochial clergy, but of many of the Irish bishops, as it was intended at once to relieve the poor from the oppression of proctors and tithe farmers, and to secure the interests of the clergy. He should now move for leave to bring in a bill to enable the clergy to grant leases of tithes under certain regulations. He would wish the bill to be printed, and left in the hands of members until next session.
Sir J. Newportagreed that this would be a conciliatory measure, and tend to allay much of the discontent which existed in consequence of the system adopted in the collection oftythes. It would do away with much of the jealousy which existed towards the clergy of the established church, and would set at rest that which was growing up of late in Ireland; namely, the setting up claims to make articles titheable which had not been hitherto so. This measure had the approbation of the clergy.
Lord Castlereaghhad no objection to the bill being brought in and printed, but he wished it to be fully understood, that it was not a bill interfering with the general commutation of tithes, but a counterpart of a bill which passed the House in 1817, but which was thrown out in another House.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldbore testimony to the oppression practised by tithe proctors in Ireland, and to the general approbation of the clergy of the measure proposed.
Mr. Lockhartexplained the object of the bill which he had supported in 1817,

223
and said, if the present conformed in its provisions to that bill, he would support it.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, in the present stage of the proceeding he should certainly not oppose it. He should, however, reserve to himself the privilege of examining its provisions carefully in a more advanced stage.
Mr. Newmanobserved, that the bill of 1817 seemed not to be looked on by the church, generally speaking, with alarm, as might be proved from its not having been opposed by the bishops. It was solely rejected on the ground of its being brought forward so late in the session.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

THE LATE KING'S OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Supply,
Lord Castlereaghstated, that when he yesterday submitted to the House a resolution founded upon the king's message, relative to a provision being made by parliament for the other branches of the royal family, he had stated the general nature of the resolutions which he should this evening have the honour to propose to their notice. This would render it unnecessary for him to do any thing more than repeat the general principles upon which it was founded. The House were already aware that upon the demise of the queen a reduction of nearly 180,000 l. immediately took place in the annual expenditure of the country; but that the saving really gained to the public did not amount to more than 160,000 l., owing to the House thinking it proper that a provision, amounting to 18,000 l. ought to be made for the menial servants who had been in the employment of her majesty. The saving of this sum was certainly of great advantage to the country; but as a set-off against it he must now propose that 24,000 l. be granted to his majesty to enable him to provide for the servants of his late father. The House might, perhaps, be aware, that there was no precedent to sanction such a grant to the servants of a deceased king, though such a provision had been made for the servants of a deceased queen, after the demise of queen Mary, queen Anne, queen Caroline, and the dowager princess of Wales. To the servants of queen Mary a grant of 24,000 l. had been made; but the provisions for the servants of her late majesty had been made upon a much more
224
narrow and confined scale, no pensions being asked for her state officers, but only for her menial servants, though in former cases it had always been usual to grant them for life to both descriptions of persons. The House would also perceive that one reason why grants of this nature had never been made on any previous occasion to the servants of a deceased king was, that his successor, having his establishment to form, had it in his power to retain in his service those who had been in the service of his predecessor, and that in consequence of that circumstance it was not requisite to call upon parliament to make any provision for them. At present, however, the case was otherwise. His present majesty had had, for many years before he acceded to the throne, a regular establishment, which rendered it impossible for him to continue in his service those who had been in the service of his father, unless indeed he discarded some of those who had served him faithfully; and therefore it became necessary for the ministers of the Crown to apply to the liberality of parliament. This they now did, not in behalf of his late majesty's state officers, but in behalf of those who had attended him in a menial capacity. Of these there were four classes. The the first of these, which consisted of servants who were actually in the king's service at the time of his death, and had been so for many years previously, he should propose that a grant of 9,519 l. should be made. To the second of them, which consisted of servants on the Windsor establishment, discontinued, on the reduction of that establishment some few years ago, he should propose that a sum not exceeding 4,100 l. should be granted. The individuals who composed this class had, in consequence of the reduction to which he had just alluded, been provided for out of the privy purse of his late majesty; but gentlemen would recollect, that the salaries which were received out of it would naturally be discontinued as soon as that privy purse ceased to exist. To the third of them, which consisted of persons who had received pensions from his majesty's privy purse, he should propose that 10,500 l. should be granted. He could assure the House, that of this sum 8,000 l. had been granted by his late majesty out of his privy-purse previously to his lamented illness; and the persons who shared it among them might therefore be supposed to have?

225
claims upon his favour and bounty, either as old and valued servants, as men of letters, or for various other causes which it was not necessary for him then to enumerate. All such salaries, allowances, and pensions, had not been brought before the notice of parliament, as it was clear that some of them had only been granted during his majesty's life, and therefore must naturally cease with it. It was only intended to continue these allowances to those who appeared to have the best claim to them. The fourth class consisted of persons who had only been a short time in his late majesty's service, and to whom it was proposed that one year's salary should be continued upon the discontinuance of their employment For these he should demand a grant of 403 l. The whole sum which he called upon parliament to grant was 24,000 l. The House ought to avail themselves of every opportunity which occurred of showing their reverence for his late majesty, and he thought that they could not have a more favourable opportunity than the present for doing so. He therefore trusted that the House would evince their liberality by supporting the grant which ministers felt it their duty to propose to its consideration, in order to provide for the late servants of his majesty.
Mr. Bankesobserved, that if the House consented to grant these sums in their present shape, they would establish a precedent which would lead them an indefinite length in the way of example on every demise of the Crown. Though unwilling to object to the whole of the resolutions, he could not bring himself to vote for them as they stood at present, for many reasons:—first of all, because he found that a proper scale of compensation had not been adopted in the provision proposed, a person of 35 years of age being often placed in the same situation as a person of 65 years, who had spent half his life in his majesty's service: secondly, because many of the individuals to whom he alluded were not retiring on half pay, but were receiving their full salaries and allowances when they were performing no services, and were thus adding an additional and unexpected burden to those which already pressed upon the country: thirdly, because they were able to discharge other offices, and thus might be provided for in another manner. Indeed, he could not help observing that until the present time no one had ever beard of these charges on the privy purse.
226
Why, then, might they not be continued on it, or why might they not be transferred to the pension-list? Besides, there were large savings out of the privy purse of his late majesty, and those savings were, he understood, in the absolute disposal of the Crown; why, then, might not the grants which parliament was called upon to supply be furnished out of those savings? If it should be deemed inexpedient to supply them in that manner, and if parliament should decide that they should come from the pockets of the public, he trusted that ministers would, as the lives on the pension lists of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively fell in, place the individuals for whom it was now proposed to provide by those grants upon them, and would not, by rendering these grants annual create as it were a fourth pension-list. He thought these resolutions ought to be postponed, in order to their being further considered; and he would therefore advise his noble friend either to refer them to a committee, or else to reconsider them with his colleagues. He had no wish to press economy to an extreme; but extravagance, in the present state of the country, ought by no means to be tolerated, especially as one act of extravagance was now-a-days generally made a precedent for another.
Mr. Humesaid, the noble lord had Stated that there was no precedent for continuing the salaries and pensions to the servants of the king after the death of their illustrious master; and yet he had called upon the House to imitate the precedent of 1819, which he had defended by three others, and from which it appeared that it was usual to continue such salaries to the servants of a deceased queen. He also called upon the House to imitate it: for they would recollect that a committee had then sat and had recommended the scale of pensions which the House had afterwards adopted. If the noble lord would look to one of the documents then presented to the House, he would see that the committee had stated, that there were two classes of servants to be rewarded. In the first class no individual was admitted who had not been in the service of her majesty for 8 years at least. The salaries of the servants in this class amounted to 5,721 l., and the pensions granted to them to 4,100 l.; so that there was a difference of full 20 per cent between the salaries enjoyed and the pensions granted. The first case upon which he cast his eye was

227
one in which the person enjoyed a salary of 183 l., and had only a pension of 164 l.: the next was one in which the salary was 377 l., the pension only 300 l. But, in the present case, the noble lord proposed pensions equal to the whole salaries, though the committee had recommended that not more than one-fourth of the nett salary, discarding all allowances, should be paid to any servant in the way of pension. If the noble lord thought the precedent of 1819 so worthy of imitation, why did he not recommend the same scale of reduction as was then adopted, and continue consistent to his own precedents? The committee of that day had recommended that only 4-5ths of their salary should be granted as pensions to those who had been in her late majesty's service for a less period than eight years; but in looking into the present estimates, he saw that one individual who had only been two years in his majesty's service, and who was only 22 years of age, and another who had been only one year in his service, and was 28 years of age, were presented with their whole wages, 16 guineas, as a pension for life. Now he would ask the House, if an individual who had been only two years in his majesty's service, and was only 22 years of age, was entitled to the whole of his wages as a pension for life, what ought an individual belonging to the first class of persons mentioned by the noble lord, as between 60 and 70 years of age, to receive as a reward for his services? The present was a question of great importance, and he could wish it to be postponed to a future day. If ministers should persevere in pressing this vote through the House, he should certainly feel it to be his duty to move, that the pensions should be reduced upon the same scale as was applied in 1819, and that the persons who enjoyed them should be placed upon one of the pension lists, as regularly as the lives of those now upon it fell in.
Mr. W. Smithwas extremely happy to hear that it was not the intention of ministers to grant any pensions to the great officers of state, as he had long thought that the great chamberlains, &c. about the court might be well content with the dignity which they enjoyed, without debasing it by receiving a-salary. Among the names of those who had received pensions out of the privy purse, he found those of Sir W. Herschel and Miss Herschel, for400 l. There was not a man in the House who did not think that that pension had been
228
most worthily earned—that it did the highest honour both to the head and heart of his late majesty, and that it ought, on every consideration, to be continued. But was it right that the claim of Sir W. Herschel, a gentleman 85 years of age, to the bounty of the nation, should be placed on a level with those of sundry musicians, only 45 years of age—respectable men in their situation in life he had little doubt—who were to be presented, according to the estimates, with 130 l. a year for life? There was one circumstance which he could not refrain from bringing before the House. He had been told, that West, who was equally illustrious in his department of science as Herschel was in that over which he presided, had been presented with a pension by his majesty, and that that pension, on the demise of his majesty, had been stopped immediately, and without any notice. If the rumour was not true, he should like to hear it contradicted, because as West before his death was in want of assistance, it ought not to have been denied him. He thought that there was great weight in what had fallen from the hon. member for Corfe-Castle, about applying the savings of the privy purse to a provision for the servants of his late majesty. He could not agree to the resolution now proposed, as it was inconsistent with precedent, and economy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that, with a limited pension-list, however much it was to be regretted, it was still evident that circumstances would arise which rendered an application to the liberality of parliament absolutely necessary. He thought the circumstances of the present case fully justified him in appealing to it, notwithstanding the objection by which he had been met, that if this precedent were established, others would be defended upon it He could not see into futurity; but as the present circumstances were so very extraordinary, he thought it would be still more extraordinary if similar circumstances should again occur. In proposing the present pensions, they had by no means continued the late salaries, because the persons who held them had along with them board wages, and many other emoluments. The pages of the back stairs were particularly entitled to the pensions which it was proposed to grant, as they had been employed about the person of his late majesty till his demise, and, to their honour be it spoken, no anecdotes derogatory to his dignity or

229
painful to public feeling had escaped to the public. With regard to the late Mr. West, he was not a pensioner on the Crown, but a repairer of his majesty's pictures under the lord chamberlain, and received his salary from the lord chamberlain's office.
Mr. Williamsenforced Mr. Hume's view of the proposed grants, thinking that according to the precedent referred to by the noble lord, they ought to be reduced at least one-fifth.
Mr. Huskissonstated, that according to the recommendation of a committee upon the subject, there was a compensation granted to the queen's servants in lieu of perquisites, in addition to the vote alluded to by the hon member for Aberdeen, and therefore that hon. member's comparison was erroneous. With regard to Mr. West, he was enabled to say not only that the allowance from the lord chamberlain's department was continued to that illustrious artist to the end of his life, but to add, that Mr. West received 1,000 l. a year from the privy purse of his majesty, with a view to encourage the arts, and that the whole of the sum thus granted by his majesty, whose patronage of the arts was proverbial, amounted to no less than 40,000 l.
The several resolutions were agreed to.

THE QUEEN.
Lord Castlereagh Lord Castlereagh moved for the appointment of a committee to examine the Journals of the House of Lords, in order to ascertain whether any and what proceedings had taken place in that House with respect to her majesty, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House.—The motion was agreed to.—The noble lord then said, that he had submitted this motion with the view which it implied; and if from the report of the committee, it should appear that the other House had instituted any proceeding, he should then consider whether, pending that proceeding, the notice of a motion which he had given for to-morrow should not be dropped; and also whether he should not to-morrow move the reading of the order for taking his majesty's message into consideration on Friday, with a view of moving the postponement of that order until some future day. This postponement he should feel to be proper, in order that the House might wait the result of the proceedings in the House of lords, still reserving to itself the right of taking his majesty's message into consideration.
Sir J. Newportasked, whether it was the intention of the noble lord to keep the order which was fixed for Friday in abeyance, until the lords should pronounce their decision upon the subject? If such were the noble lord's intention, it would be a very uncommon course of proceeding.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that the proceeding instituted by the lords might never be brought in any legislative way before that House, and, therefore, he proposed only that the order for considering his majesty's message should be delayed, but that the House should by no means abandon its right of inquiry upon the subject.
Sir M. W. Ridleyhoped the House would not agree to the course proposed by the noble lord. If no other member would take the sense of the House upon the subject, he should feel it his duty to do so.

ALIEN BILL.
Lord Hollandsaid, he had a petition to present relative to an act of parliament, which, having now ceased, he might without scruple describe as most unconstitutional. There were points contained in this petition to which he wished to direct their lordships' most serious attention. Besides stating broad constitutional grounds against the measure, the petitioners urged particular reasons for not passing the act at the present moment—reasons which showed how often it happens, that when governments deviate from the strict line of constitutional principle, they were very apt to involve themselves in embarrassment and difficulty. He therefore trusted that their lordships would not pass the bill at all if it came before them; but if they did proceed with it, he hoped they would introduce a clause to secure against its operation all persons called as witnesses on either side in the important proceeding upon which they were about to enter. This he should think would be but just and fair at any time or in any case; but how much more so when the proceedings in which their lordships were about to be engaged were of a judicial nature, and had for their object acts alleged to have been committed abroad? The petitioners stated, that the act, if passed would put it in the power of ministers to send out of the kingdom all foreigners who might be able to give evidence, or whom they might suppose to be able to give evidence, in favour of her majesty, and to give protection to all who might now be disposed to give evidence against her, or hereafter be brought forward for that purpose. He thought the particular objection highly important, and the constitutional ground on which the petitioners prayed that the bill might not pass would surely obtain their lordships' most anxious consideration. It was necessary that all ground of suspicion of partiality should be removed. Hostile as he was to the act, he was most desirous that it should be rejected; but if it were entertained by their lordships, he thought

195
it would not be possible for them to pass it without introducing some clause to protect the witnesses alluded to in the petition from any authority which might otherwise have the power of molesting them.—The petition, which was from certain inhabitants of Westminster, was then read, and laid on the table.

PETITION FROM THE QUEEN.
Lord Dacresaid, he held in his hand a petition from her majesty. Her majesty expressed her surprise at the nature of the document on their lordships table. She also stated, that she had a variety of weighty matters to urge for their lordships consideration, and that it was most important that she should be hoard in this stage by counsel. He should merely remark, that when her majesty stated that it was necessary for her defence that she should be heard at this period, he did not think it would be becoming in their lordships to refuse her prayer. He would add, that he had been assured from a quarter, the authority of which he could not doubt, that to allow her majesty to be now heard by counsel, instead of delaying, would greatly tend to expedite the proceedings in this very lamentable case. He moved that the petition be read. It was as follows:—
"CAROLINE R.
"The Queen observing that a most extraordinary report has been presented to the House of Lords by their lordships secret committee, and now lies upon the table of the House, represents to the House that she is prepared at this moment to defend herself against it as far as she can understand its import; and has also Various weighty matters to urge to their lordships touching the same, and which it is absolutely necessary for her future defence to have stated at the present stage of these proceedings;—The Queen therefore desires that she may this day be heard on the subject matter thereof, by her counsel."
The Earl of Liverpoolcould see no ground for such an application as that which was now made, merely on a notice for the introduction of a bill. It really appeared to him, that the advice which must in this instance have been given to the illustrious petitioner was of a most extraordinary nature. She applied to be heard in the present stage by counsel; but their lordships were as yet in no stage whatever of the proceeding. A commit-
196
tee, appointed by their lordships, had made a report. On that report an individual member of the House had given notice that he would present a bill. This was all that had been done, and he could not understand on what principle this could be considered an occasion for hearing counsel. If the noble lord waited until the bill was introduced and read a first time, it would be competent to him to renew his application, on the propriety of which their lordships would then decide; but at present it appeared totally irrelevant. If he was permitted to lay the bill on the table, a copy would be sent to her majesty, and then would be the time to state any objection which it might be thought fit to make to the measure.
Lord Dacrewas aware that he was placed in a difficult situation when he offered the petition to their lordships; for, as he was not acquainted with the circumstances on which the application was founded, it was not in his power to state particular grounds for inducing their lordships to grant the prayer of the petition. He was, therefore, obliged to confine himself to general reasons, or to suppositions. The noble earl had made it an objection to the application, that her majesty had no regular means of being acquainted with their lordships' proceedings. Now, though no regular communication had been made, was it not a sufficient ground for presenting a petition, when an individual of high station, like her majesty, heard of such a step being intended as the bill of which the noble earl had given notice? If her majesty thought it necessary to make some statements which she believed it would be important to her interests should now be heard, would their lordships refuse her prayer? He had stated that he was not acquainted with the reasons of her majesty's application; but he would put a case hypothetically. He I would suspose—but he begged to be understood that he had no information whatever on the subject—that her majesty wished to submit to their lordships, by counsel, reasons why the proceeding against her should not be by bill The noble lord had argued that the period for considering her majesty's application would be when the bill was on the table.; but if the ground of the application was what he supposed, the proper time would then be passed. Her majesty might have strong grounds for preferring a judicial to a legislative proceeding. Considering,

197
then, the high station of the illustrious petitioner—considering the delicate situation in which she was placed—and considering also the interest which these proceedings had excited from one end of the country to the other, he trusted their lordships would pause before they excluded her majesty from making any statement important to her honour and character—perhaps even to her life
Lord Ellenboroughcould not admit that the situation or rank of the petitioner afforded any reason for their lordships departing from their usual course. Whether a petition came from a princess, or from one of the lowest subjects in the kingdom, their lordships were bound to act according to the principles of equal justice. He therefore thought that the House would best perform its duty by refusing to extend any facility in the present case, which they would not be inclined to grant to another person under similar circumstances. He would vote against the petition for this reason—that it asked that which, if prayed for by any other individual in the country, would not be granted.
Earl Greyadmitted that the question under consideration was one of some difficulty, but he reminded their lordships that that difficulty arose out of the extraordinary course of proceeding which they had thought fit to sanction on this unhappy occasion. In the sentiment expressed by the noble lord who spoke last, that it was the duty of that House to administer impartial. and equal justice to all persons, whether high or low, he most sincerely concurred; but at the same time he must observe, that the present was a case so peculiar in its circumstances, that ordinary rules did not apply to it. Her majesty was arraigned by a committee appointed by their lordships on charges unheard of in modern times. He must ask, then, whether the particular circumstances of such a case did not require particular attention on the part of their lordships? At the same time he was far from proposing that an undue advantage should be extended to her majesty. All that he desired was, that she should not come before them under any disadvantage from the course of proceeding they had adopted. And here let him ask, in what situation her majesty stood? Their lordships were not informed of the particular object of the bill which the noble earl was about to introduce; but he would suppose that it wight be a bill for the dissolution of the
198
marriage of her majesty with the king, Then how different would be the situation of her majesty from that of every other individual against whom a proceeding of divorce is instituted! No case of the kind could ever come before their lordships, unless previous proceedings had been gone through in the ecclesiastical court, and some one of the courts below. The effect of this course was, to give the party accused full possession of all the particulars of the charge, and the details of the evidence to be brought against her. Of that advantage her majesty was deprived; but she was placed under the great disadvantage of their lordships' committee having reported, that evidence, supported by the testimony of various persons, charged her with an adulterous connexion of the worst description, and with a long course of licentious conduct. He would ask, then, whether, under this peculiarity of situation, it was not natural that her majesty should wish to have the opportunity of counteracting the impression which such a report might make on the public, if not on their lordships? The noble lord opposite had observed, that her majesty could have regularly no knowledge of the proceeding which had taken place in the House. This objection had been already answered by his noble friend who presented the petition; but he must take the liberty farther to remind their lordships, that this was nut the first petition which had been presented from her majesty. One had been laid on the table, and counsel heard on it, before the committee proceeded to their inquiry. It was not then stated, that her majesty could have no knowledge of the appointment of the committee, though of that appointment she certainly could have no more regular knowledge than of the report. He confessed that he felt that there was, to say the least, much inconvenience in the proceeding then adopted. He was not satisfied in his own mind of the propriety of allowing counsel to be heard against the appointment of the committee. He was, however, unwilling to object to the proceeding, lest the result should have conveyed the appearance of the House being disposed to prevent a course which was thought necessary to her majesty's defence. On that account he acquiesced in the motion. But as their lordships did not object to hearing counsel on that occasion, he must observe, that on comparison her majesty's claim to be heard at

199
present was much stronger. The noble lord objected to counsel being heard, because this was no stage of the proceeding. He would be glad to know in what stage their lordships were when they heard counsel before? The question was not whether the report could come regularly to her majesty's knowledge or not: it appeared to him that a sufficient ground for her application was laid, when she stated that she had weighty matters to submit which it was important that their lordships should hear at this time. Considering the deep sympathy taken in her majesty's situation—considering the agitation into which the public mind was thrown by the proceedings—though it would be far from his inclination to advise their lordships to yield to any popular clamour, he did think that, when such a claim on their justice as that which now came from her majesty was made, it could not be either for the public interest or the honour of the House to stand too much upon precedents. It had indeed been repeatedly stated, on all sides, that this was a case without precedent. It therefore was one in which their lordships could not be bound by the rules applicable to common cases. Without venturing to give any positive opinion, he had thus stated the grounds on which the inclination of his mind led him to conclude that the prayer of the petition ought to be granted.
The Lord Chancellordeclared, that he entered on this question, as he would on every other connected with the present proceedings, with an impartiality which could not be affected by any thing that might have occurred in the late investigation. He had heard a great deal on that and former occasions of objection to the inquiry by a secret committee. On this subject it was not his intention to say a word more than this—that he did not think their lordships could have acted rightly without adopting that measure, and that ministers would have violated their duty had they not proposed it. With regard to the present question, he would be glad to know where, in the history of parliament, it was to be found that counsel were ever admitted to be heard against a measure of some kind or other not yet submitted to their lordships, but which some noble lord was expected to propose. Would their lordships consider for a moment what would be the consequence of such a practice? He did not go the length of saying that a bill must on every
200
occasion be received on its being offered to their lordships' consideration; but their practice differed thus much from that of the other House of Parliament—that when a noble lord had to present a bill, he did not ask leave to bring it in. Now, let the subject who petitioned be high or low, he would ask their lordships whether they were prepared to hear counsel against the privilege of a peer to present a bill? [No, no, from the opposition side.] He thought, however, that was in effect the object of the petition. He was anxious that, in all their lordships proceedings, impartiality should be observed. He should be ashamed of himself as a peer of parliament, if he did not know, when he came to decide on a case, how to dismiss from his mind every thing that passed in a preliminary inquiry. There were cases in which juries would, in the same manner, have to pay no attention to preceding evidence. Suppose an accessary to a crime admitted an evidence, and, confessing his guilt before a jury, did not tell all he knew, and should therefore be put on trial himself before the same jury that had heard his confession;—that jury, would not be warranted in finding him guilty unless the charge was supported by other evidence. Their lordships ought to take care that rights which they possessed for the benefit of all the community were not infringed on account of a particular case. Was it ever before imagined that counsel could be heard against the right of a noble lord to present a bill? This appeared to him one of the most extraordinary and inadmissible propositions ever made to the House.
The Marquis of Lansdownemaintained, that all the inconvenience which had been felt, and the threatened injustice which was now complained of, had arisen from the extraordinary course of proceeding proposed by the ministers of the Crown, and acceded to by their lordships. Every word uttered by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, against the agreeing to the prayer of this petition, applied with much greater force to a proceeding already adopted, namely, the hearing of counsel on a former occasion, in consequence of an application from her majesty. For what was the nature of that application, and what was its tendency? The noble and learned lord had maintained, that the present petition had a tendency to intercept the course of their proceedings. Now, if there ever was an

201
application which tended more than another to intercept their proceedings, it was the queen's former message. The application, then, was intended not directly to oppose the adoption of a measure against her majesty, but to prevent the House from making itself acquainted with the king's message, which it had appointed a committee to investigate. The House alone was the fit judge to decide whether it would make itself acquainted with the contents of the papers submitted to it by the Crown; and yet, on the allegation that the queen might be affected by the result of its inquiry, her majesty's counsel were heard against entertaining that inquiry. How did the case stand now? The proceeding of their lordships at present assumed a distinct character of charge and accusation against the queen. The question was not now, whether the secret committee should meet and examine documents affecting her interest and character. They had examined those papers, and had embodied the charges contained in them in the report on the table. Against that report the application of her majesty was directed; and when it was stated by the noble lord that her majesty had no means of knowing, without a breach of privilege, what was going on in their lordships' House, he would call their lordships' attention to the introductory sentence of the message which they had received from her majesty a few days ago:—"The Queen," it said, "having been informed that 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." The noble lord then acquiesced in the propriety of her possessing that information, the knowledge of which now was declared irregular, and was to be made the ground for resisting the application which proceeded from it. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack had not only denied that her majesty could be cognizant of the proceedings of the House, but had gone further, and had said the petition could not be complied with, because it was directed against a bill not yet submitted to their lordships, and consequently not known to be in existence. When he heard the noble and learned lord making use of this language, he could scarcely believe his ears. The expression of being heard against a bill was not to be found in the whole of the petition. Her ma-
202
jesty made no mention of a bill, or of any intention to introduce one. She stated, that she had been informed that a report was presented to their lordships from a committee to whom certain papers were submitted, and prayed that she might be heard by her counsel to answer the allegations of that report, on which future proceedings were recommended, and to state certain facts necessary for her future defence. He, in perfect ignorance of the reasons which her majesty might allege by her counsel at the bar—in perfect ignorance of the nature or the importance of the information which she offered to communicate—in perfect ignorance of all that she wished or intended to state, was compelled to admit the possibility of her being able to bring forward sufficient objections against the mode of proceeding in contemplation, to prevent its adoption. Feeling, therefore, that this might be the case—feeling that important explanations might be given—feeling that sufficient reasons might be adduced for abandoning the intended measure, or materially altering its nature—feeling that the rule which their lordships were now urged to enforce had been broken through in an instance much less connected with public justice—and being convinced that, though some inconvenience might result from departing from their accustomed forms, or establishing a new precedent, their course, in complying with the prayer of the petition, would be conformable with that justice which they were anxious to administer, and evince that impartiality which they were desirous to exhibit; he would vote for granting the prayer of the petition.
Lord Redesdaleapprehended that there was a great difference between the circumstances in which the last application had been received, and those which attended the present. In the former case, there was a proceeding before the House which her majesty prayed might be abandoned—in the present, there was none. But what was the prayer of the petition? It was that the queen might be heard by counsel, to state certain facts necessary for her future defence. It was not for her present defence that she was to make these statements, nor did they relate to any proceeding on a specific charge. If, then, their lordships should agree to hear counsel on an application so indefinite, how could their lordships limit their arguments? They might go on to any length—they might talk of every thing or any

203
thing that they might think necessary for her majesty's future defence. The proceeding appeared to him of an extraordinary nature, and, though shown to be analogous to one previously adopted, was not therefore justifiable. Because their lordships might have acted wrong once, that was no reason why they should act wrong a second time.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the noble and learned lord who had just sat down had quite mistaken the objects of the petition. They were twofold. The petition prayed, first, that her majesty might be heard by counsel against certain allegations in a report before their lordships; and secondly, that she might be allowed to communicate certain weighty matters connected with her future defence. He admitted that this was an extraordinary proceeding, and that a compliance with the petition would be a departure from the usual forms of their lordships' House; but when this was stated was it to be forgotten that their forms had recently, in this case, been violated? The noble earl opposite had said, that the report on the table could not properly be known beyond the walls of the House; but was this an answer to her majesty, who, having been informed of its nature, prayed to be heard by her counsel against its allegations? He knew that, strictly speaking, nothing could be known or taken notice of out of parliament which took place within it; but was this rule always or even generally, observed? When an impeachment was brought against any noble lord before the other House of Parliament, the party was allowed, on application, to be heard in his defence; and it was never pleaded, in bar of his being so heard, that he must necessarily be ignorant of the existence of the charge. There was here a charge against her majesty in the report of a secret committee. If the House were to follow the strict rule in one case, they ought to do it in all; and he would engage to show precedent for granting the prayer of this petition, if the noble lords opposite would show him a charge of criminality on the report of a secret committee. The whole course of proceeding in this case, was of an anomalous and unprecedented nature; and when rules were violated to the prejudice of her majesty, it was not asking too much to require the same indulgence for her defence. A noble lord had said, that justice should be administered with an
204
impartial hand to all ranks; and that he would not grant more to the illustrious petitioner in this case than he would to the meanest subject. But if she could claim no advantage above her fellow-subjects, ought she to be subject to any additional inconvenience? and did the noble lord mean to say that the lowest subject of the land would be exposed to the imputations of a green bag report, without an opportunity of refuting or contradicting them? The whole proceedings were at variance with justice and precedent, and precedent was only pleaded as a bar to justice. From the beginning to the end of them there had been no rule, no form, no precedent, no regularity. Looking at the case, and taking into view the whole of what their lordships had done, he would say, that it was one to which the forms of law could not apply, and therefore their lordships had fallen into so many anomalies; but if there had been a departure from form and precedent in the prosecution, was it right that the illustrious personage affected by these irregularities should, in making her defence, be fettered down to the strict forms of law? It was wrong to attend to forms, when, by adhering to them, substantial injustice would be done. All forms that broke through the laws of substantial justice should be disregarded; and parliament, especially in a case which was confessedly without precedent, should not enforce the observance of forms which would take away from an accused party any means of defence. He could not but observe on one remark that had fallen from the learned lord on the woolsack. The learned lord had said, in speaking of the report on the table, that their lordships who had made it could dismiss from their minds as judges, the impressions which they had received as members of the committee; and he had illustrated his observation by referring to the case of a jury, before whom a person who had been heard, as a witness, confessing his guilt, should afterwards be tried as a criminal denying it. Now, he would say, that the cases might be parallel, if the latter were true; but he apprehended that the same jury could not try the two cases, and that the criminal would bring a valid objection against any juryman in the second case, by saying that he had sat in the box when the first was tried. In saying this he did not mean to assert that all the noble lords who composed the committee must ne-

205
cessarily be prejudiced; but he would maintain, that by the analogies of law, they had disqualified themselves from sitting as judges by reporting as a committee. The whole of the proceedings had, indeed, been most irregular and unprecedented. A report had been made on documentary evidence—evidence not known to be received, legally speaking, under the sanction of an oath. Against that report her majesty prayed to be heard by her counsel. It was perfectly true that the petition was unusual, as it was directed, not against any known act of their lordships, but against a prospective measure, and offering information necessary for a future defence; but if this proceeding was extraordinary, it arose out of a course of extraordinary proceedings, which constituted its justification. A learned lord had said, that though their lordships might have acted wrong formerly, that was no reason why they should act wrong again. But strong objections existed against the former petition which did not now exist If they compared this case to an impeachment, the analogy would be in favour of her majesty's counsel being heard. She would have been heard in such circumstances in the House of Commons. The report against which she prayed to be heard recommended a legislative proceeding. Now the facts which she might communicate, or the defence that she might make in this stage of the business, might tend either to quash proceedings entirely, or show the propriety of adopting a measure different from that contemplated. A crime was alleged—a form of proceeding was in consequence recommended; and her majesty stated, that she had a contradictory statement to make to the charge, and weighty matters to bring forward regarding her future defence. It might not be regular to hear her defence, if the precedents of common bills were followed; but no fixed precedents for bills of attainder and bills of pains and penalties existed. They had been often passed, but they were always considered anomalous. There had been many observations made about them lately, but it had never been said that the common rules followed in passing other bills were to be observed. He did feel this petition to be irregular, if common forms were to be adhered to—he did feel it an intrusion—he did think it an extraordinary step; but as their lordships had themselves departed from precedent in the way of bringing accusa-
206
tion, they should now allow a departure in the line of indulgence, and extend that privilege in defence which they had exercised in the charge.
The Marquis of Buckinghamconcurred with his noble friend, that the House had placed itself in a situation of some difficulty, by agreeing, in the former instance, to hear counsel at the bar. But there was this difference between the present case, and that in which the petition was assented to; that then there was a proceeding pending, whereas now there was none. In the former instance their lordships had appointed a secret committee, they had suspended the sitting of that committee, and in the interval her majesty had applied to be heard by counsel, against the proceeding. It was possible that their lordships might, after the arguments of counsel, have prevented the meeting of the secret committee, and voted that they should proceed no further. But what was their situation now? The committee had made their report, and the noble earl had given notice of a bill founded on that report: in the interval there was no proceeding. Suppose, then, that the counsel were permitted to plead, on what proceeding could the House divide, after having heard the arguments? They would not determine that the noble lord should not bring in his bill. What then could they do the moment after counsel had withdrawn, which they could not have done without hearing one word of the argument? Her majesty did not pray to be heard against the proceeding. There was none before the House. When the proceeding was instituted, then was the time to make any application connected with her defence, and God forbid that he, or any one, should object to grant any thing, which might be necessary to her defence, or, if possible her justification.
The Earl of Darnleycontended, that the report of the committee was a proceeding of the most serious nature, on which her majesty had a right to present a petition. The situation in which they stood was one in which they had no analogy to guide them, and they were placed in that situation by a series of measures which appeared to him objectionable in many respects. But how did they stand at present? After referring the case of the queen to a secret committee, her majesty had petitioned to be heard by counsel. He knew nothing of the facts; he wished much that it was

207
possible for him to know no more; but if they refused the request of the queen in the present instance, it would seem as if they had not granted her all the advantages which her defence required. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not refuse the application.
Lord Dacreagain stated the two objects of the petition, namely, first, to repel the charge in the report; and, 2dly, to state certain weighty matters necessary for the future defence of her majesty. Thinking that her majesty's counsel ought now to be heard in support of these points, he would move that they be now called in.
The question was put and negatived.

BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that in rising to propose the bill founded on the report of the secret committee, he thought it unnecessary to enter into any statements for the purpose of impressing on their lordships the importance of the measure. The preamble of the bill spoke for itself; and it would undoubtedly be for those who would be employed officially in conducting the prosecution to prove at their lordships' bar the truth of the allegations contained in that bill. Under these circumstances, he should most deeply regret if, in this stage of the proceeding, any thing should take place in that House to create more prejudice in the public mind, or in the minds of their lordships, than must unavoidably arise from the nature of the accusation. With respect to the course of proceeding which had been adopted, he certainly did not feel disposed to revive former discussions; but he must say, after having consulted his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, and after having given the best consideration to the question, that if he had now to retrace the steps he had taken, he knew not how he could move in any other course than that which had been decided on. He knew it had been thrown out that the course of impeachment was open to their lordships. He had then stated what difficulties he conceived to lie in the way of such a proceeding; and, without going over his argument again, it appeared to him to be a matter of grave doubt whether a constitutional impeachment could lie, if he might use the expression, on account of the commission of a crime not recognised by the common law of this country. He thought he said enough to justify government in adopting the course
208
that had been taken, when the propriety of proceeding by impeachment rested only on a doubtful opinion. Some of the highest law authorities in that House entertained the opinion that they could not proceed by impeachment. This doctrine was held by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, by another noble and learned lord (Erskine) who had filled that situation, and by a third who had borne a distinguished part in the administration of the criminal law of the country. On a question of this kind it was necessary to proceed on safe grounds, no matter what feeling might be attached to it. Here a point of doubt was raised, and it was to be considered, whether, in consequence of that doubt, any proceeding in the nature of impeachment might not have failed, not on account of the substantive merits of the case, but wholly in consequence of pursuing a wrong course in the first instance. Therefore he must contend, that a bill, in the nature of a bill of pains and penalties, was the most proper measure to be tendered to their lordships. Indeed, it was the only measure that was fairly open to parliament on this occasion. Their lordships were all aware, that this was not a subject on which proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts, or the courts of common law, could be taken. If therefore, proceedings could not be instituted there and if they could not institute an impeachment, justice could only be obtained through the means of some legislative proceedings to be pursued in parliament. This had already been stated in the House, and the only question then for consideration was, in which House of parliament the proceedings should most properly commence. He had stated, that by the law and constitution of the country it was competent for either House of parliament to take this step; but he had also stated, at the same time, that it was more particularly fitting that the proceeding should commence in the House of Lords. From the fairness of the mode of trial in that House, and the power their lordships had to examine evidence on oath at their bar, he conceived there was a greater chance that substantial justice would be done between the parties there than in the House of Commons. He might state farther, that though this could not be considered a bill of divorce, in the common and ordinary sense of the word, still its effect would be the same. The king and the queen did not come be-

209
fore them as individuals; it was a question between the accused party, in her capacity of queen, and the state itself. Yet as it must necessarily relate, in some degree, to the marriage contract between the king and the queen, it was on that ground more consistent with the dignity of the parties that it should come there, than be brought in the first instance before the other House of parliament. The only question that remained was, whether this bill should have been brought in originally under the responsibility of the executive government, or whether it was not more proper to submit the documents in the first instance to a secret committee. He had reconsidered this question: he had reconsidered it with reference to principle and to precedent; and he had no hesitation in saying that, with reference to either, he thought the course adopted by their lordships was the just one. He would venture to say, that there could be found no instance where measures of this kind were adopted without previous inquiry. When he said this, let it not be supposed that ministers wished to shrink from responsibility. The precedents which they had followed would not weaken that responsibility; their wish in calling for a committee was, not to bring forward any measure on the mere ipse dixit of the ministers of the day, but to have some intermediate inquiry, which might prove that there was a proper ground for the present proceeding. He had already said, that a thousand reasons might so operate on the minds of a committee as to induce them not to make such a report as had been made, and which could not be considered as judicially sufficient. But, if such were likely to be the case, what would be the danger of a disclosure of the evidence which must, in the first instance, have accompanied a proceeding by ministers? They had carefully abstained from any disclosure of that nature before the measure was actually brought in, because they wished as far as possible to avoid prejudicing the case of the accused party. He was, however, free to say, that the bill on their lordships' table, founded on the allegations contained in the report, did tend to create some degree of prejudice: he was ready to admit that fact: it was an unavoidable consequence; for there was nothing in the form of justice, though it went to protect an individual who was accused, that did not tend to excite some prejudice. Even where a person was taken into
210
custody, and brought before a magistrate on oath, though the administration of the oath was meant to assist the individual accused, still it went, to a certain extent, to raise a prejudice against him: it was a circumstance that arose out of the very nature of justice itself. It was, in such cases, necessary to consider the two branches of the question, and to decide whether the advantage to the individual accused, and for whose protection the law was intended, was not greater than any temporary prejudice to which its administration might expose him. The present question was, however, one of a most extensive nature: it was one in which great state considerations interfered, as well as others of a more private and delicate character. Therefore it was that he conceived the course now about to be pursued was the best: it combined the sound and substantial principles of justice with a proper view of the practical end that was sought to be obtained.—He would now state to their lordships what the nature of the bill was. It was a bill of pains and penalties, and its preamble would point out with as much particularity as was ever displayed in any criminal case, and as much as the nature of the circumstances required, the offences charged against the accused party. Assuming that the allegations in the preamble were proved, it proceeded to deprive her majesty of the title, prerogatives, rights, privileges, and exemptions of queen-consort of this realm, and it also went to dissolve the marriage between his majesty and the queen. This was the nature of the bill, which enacted no penal consequences over and above those he had stated. It had been endeavoured to frame the bill in a manner that should not bear more severely on the illustrious personage accused than the safety of the state and the ends of substantial justice required. With respect to any question relative to a provision for the illustrious personage, their lordships must be aware that it could not originate in that House. The allegations of guilt were to be found in the preamble of the bill, and for the proof of those allegations he would propose that it should go to the second reading. He trusted their lordships would endeavour to discharge this duty, as they had discharged every other judicial duty in which they had been engaged, in such a fair and impartial manner as would entitle them to the respect and confidence of the country—that re-

211
spect and confidence which they had always deserved. As to the more immediate proceedings, he wished a copy of the bill to be forwarded in the most respectful manner to the illustrious individual concerned. The next question would be whether their lordships would fix a period for the second reading now, or postpone the determination on that point for two or three days, in order to learn what the wishes of the illustrious individual on the subject were. If he were called on to name a day, he would propose the second reading for that day fortnight, as a proper and reasonable time for a measure of this description; and during that period their lordships would have an opportunity of considering what their future course of proceeding should be. He trusted that the administration would be found to act on this occasion with the utmost calmness and deliberation. It was a most important question, and called for dispassionate inquiry. It would be his endeavour, and he was sure it would be the endeavour of all their lordships, to discharge their duty firmly, but with all due lenity and mildness towards the illustrious person whose conduct had been brought under consideration. It was most satisfactory to reflect that the country had no precedents of a case similar to the present, during a period of 200 years, except in the instance of one individual, who never came over to this country. There had not been a queen in this country during that time against whom even a whisper of shame had been raised to affect her character or sully her reputation. It was a matter of deep satisfaction to reflect, that for the last sixty years this country had derived the greatest benefits from the example of the illustrious individual who, during that long period, had shared the throne of England, and who bad by that example contributed most essentially to the moral character and moral feeling of the country. The individual to whom he had before referred was unknown to this country as its queen; and he had hoped that their lordships and the country would in this, as in that instance, have been spared the shame and scandal that must arise from an investigation of this nature, whatever its result might be. He felt that he, in common with their lordships, was placed in a situation in which they had no alternative: the question now was, if those allegations were proved to be true, whether impunity should be extend-
212
ed to guilt, or justice should be suffered to triumph? Nothing now remained for their lordships to do, but to pursue a clear and straight-forward course—to perform their duty boldly—determined, whatever public clamours might exist, to take care that public justice was satisfied.
The Bill, of which the following is a Copy, was then read by the Clerk:

COPY OF THE BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY.
"An Act to deprive her Majesty Queen Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, of the Title, Prerogatives, Rights, Privileges and Exemptions, of Queen-Consort of this Realm, and to dissolve the Marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth.
"Whereas, in the year 1814, her majesty, Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, then Princess of Wales, and now Queen Consort of this realm, being at Milan, in Italy, engaged in her service, in a menial situation, one Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, a foreigner of low station, who had before served in a similar capacity:
"And whereas, after the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, had so entered the service of her Royal Highness the said Princess of Wales, a most unbecoming and disgusting intimacy commenced between her Royal Highness and the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami;
"And whereas her Royal Highness not only advanced the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, to a high situation in her Royal Highness's household, and received him into her service, and that in high and confidential si-tuations about her Royal Highness's person, but bestowed upon him other great and extraordinary marks of favour and distinction, obtained for him Orders of Knighthood and Titles of Honour, and conferred upon him a pretended Order of Knighthood, which her Royal Highness had taken upon herself to institute without any just or lawful authority:
"And whereas her said Royal Highness, whilst the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, was in her said service, farther unmindful of her exalted rank and station, and of her duty to your Majesty, and wholly regardless of her own honour and character, conducted herself towards the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, and in other respects, both in public and private, in the various places and countries which her Royal Highness visited, with indecent and offensive familiarity and freedom, and carried on a licentious, disgraceful, and adulterous intercourse with the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, which continued for a lung period of time during her Royal Highness's residence abroad, by which conduct of her said Royal Highness, great scandal and dishonour have been brought upon your Majesty's family and this kingdom.
"Therefore, to manifest our deep sense of such scandalous, disgraceful and vicious conduct on the part of her said Majesty, by which she has violated the duty she owed to your Majesty, and has rendered herself unworthy of the exalted rank and station of Queen Consort of this Realm, and to evince our just regard for the dignity of the Crown and the honour of this nation, we, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in parliament assembled, do hereby entreat your Majesty that it may be enacted;
"And be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that her said Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, from and after the passing of this Act, shall be and is hereby deprived of the title of Queen, and of all the prerogatives, rights, privileges, and exemptions appertaining to her as Queen Consort of this Realm; and that her said Majesty shall, from and after the passing of this Act, for ever be dis-
214
abled and rendered incapable of using, exercising, and enjoying the same, or any of them; and moreover, that the marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth be, and the same is hereby from henceforth for ever wholly dissolved, annulled, and made void to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever."
After the bill had been read a first time, the Earl of Liverpool moved, that copies should be sent to her majesty, and her majesty's attorney general, and also to the king's attorney-general, which was agreed to.
Earl Greyobserved, that the more he considered the objections against the mode in which they were proceeding, the more he was confirmed in those objections. The bill, he thought, instead of stating generally the criminality imputed to her majesty, should specify the particulars of time and place, in order that she might be enabled to meet the allegations. The preamble, however, did no such thing, and therefore was wanting in that certainty of description which her defence required to be stated. He therefore wished to know, whether the noble earl intended to adopt any other mode of proceeding subsequently, with a view to supply that defect, he wished also to ask, whether any course was in contemplation for supplying her majesty with the names of the witnesses about to be produced against her?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the second reading of the bill would be the proper time to enter into the discussion. He had no difficulty however in stating, that the specification in the preamble was as particular as any other to which they could refer, and was in all respects sufficient to guide her majesty's defence. With regard to the names of the witnesses, it was unprecedented in the history of parliamentary proceedings to furnish them, while a bill of Pains and Penalties was depending. It was unusual in all proceedings, exept in trials for high treason; but as her majesty had claims to the utmost indulgence, sufficient lime would be allowed her to select her evidence, and this would do away the only plausible ground that existed for demanding a list of the witnesses.
Lord Dacre Lord Dacre moved, that her majesty's counsel should now be called to the bar, in order to state points which were neces-

215
sary to her defence. He did this upon information which he had received recently.
The Earl of Liverpoolsuggested that the noble lord might obtain his object, without resorting to a course which was contrary to the whole analogy of their proceedings, and promised that if a petition was presented to-morrow, the bill being in progress he would not then object to it.
Lord Dacreassented, and did not press the motion.
Earl Greythought, that whatever course was taken under the present proceeding, it must be attended with great disadvantage to her majesty. The commencement of a prosecution, grounded upon evidence which could not be met for a considerable time after the evidence had produced its impression, was unfavourable to the end of justice. It would be more conducive to that end if the whole could be postponed until there was an opportunity for proceeding with the accusation and defence together. In all Divorce bills the accused party had the advantage of the knowledge to be derived from previous proceedings. The noble earl had alluded to the management of the case at the bar; but he wished to know by what authority, or at whose direction, any person could appear at that bar to conduct the prosecution?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the attorney-general might be called upon by the authority of the House either to appear himself, or to provide some person to conduct it.
Earl Greyobserved, that from the noble lord's statement it would appear as if the House itself had assumed the character of a prosecutor in a case which it was about to try.
The Earl of Liverpoolstated, that the House had actually appointed counsel in other cases, and there could be no doubt that they would see justice done between the parties.
Earl Greysaid, he was aware that the House had appointed counsel in other cases, in that for instance of the Berkeley case, but here was a case of prosecution for which he had not heard any precedent. He was as far as the noble lord from suspecting the justice of the House; but, it was not only necessary that they should be just, but that they should appear above suspicion.
The Lord Chancellordefended the pro-
216
ceeding by a bill of Pains and Penalties originating in that House, and justified the interposition of a secret committee. The attorney-general was one of the legal assistants of that House, in which capacity he was liable to be called on to conduct the proceeding.
Lord Hollandremarked, that the attorney-general was a member of another House, and might therefore be objected to as the manager of a prosecution in the House of Lords, upon which he would have to pronounce hereafter in the House of Commons.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that though the order was given to the attorney-general, he would not be obliged to appear personally, but might send some other person, as had occurred in many cases.