Sitting of 6 July 1820

MOTION RESPECTING THE MILAN COMMISSION.
Sir Ronald Fergussonrose to bring forward his motion respecting the Milan Commission. It was with unfeigned regret that he felt himself bound in public duty, conscious as he was of his own inadequacy for the task, to bring this question under consideration. Undoubtedly, the subject was of a most delicate and painful nature, and, in its result, of the utmost importance to the peace and safety of the country. If his majesty's ministers had pursued a proper course either by not erasing her majesty's name from the Liturgy, or by retracing their steps when they saw the mischievous consequences of their conduct, the ferment which now agitated the public mind would have been avoided. The noble
260
lord had on a former occasion observed, that if her majesty had not come to this country, no proceeding would have been instituted against her; and indeed it appeared that her crime was nothing more than daring to set her foot on English ground. The consequence of that act was, that two green bags were laid on their table, of the contents of which, however, he thanked God that House was totally ignorant. Gentlemen turned their backs on those bags, and, a few evenings afterwards, to use the phrase of the noble lord, he "he turned his back on himself," and abandoned the proceeding which he had instituted, by voting that the measure would lead to discussions "derogatory from the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the empire." The public and that House had a right to know (for though they had not opened this green bag. they had learned that a report had been elsewhere founded on its contents) where the facts contained in it had been collected. He would therefore state what, perhaps, would be denominated rumours, in explanation of this question. If he were wrong, the noble lord would contradict him, and he should feel obliged to him for that contradiction, because persons were said to be connected with this transaction who had heretofore held some rank and character in this country; therefore he should be rejoiced at their exculpation. It was generally understood, that the contents of the green bag were obtained through the means of certain persons, whether sent out in a public or a private capacity he cared not. They were, it seemed, commissioned to go to Milan, and to obtain all the information they could on the subject of the queen's conduct. Common rumour did not point at ministers as the inventors of this plan; that honour was given to another person—to one who held a high judicial situation in this country—he meant the vice-chancellor of England. If wrong he should be happy to hear his statements contradicted; but it was certainly understood that this gentleman took great pains in the proceeding. He indeed was supposed to be the head or inventor of this milan commission. In order to get at the facts, he recommended to notice a person who had practised in the same court with him long and successfully. One of his qualifications for the situation was rather extraordinary, for it appeared that he understood no language beyond

261
his native tongue. A second, and, he believed, a third individual, were added to the commission. He did not himself know any of the parties employed on this occasion, and God forbid he ever should. To prove that the vice-chancellor was at the head of this army of espionnage, it was only necessary to observe, that he himself went to Milan in 1818, and remained there till September 19th in that year. The expense attending this commission (he cared not by what name it was called—whether a secret court of judicature, or a combination of spies) had been very great indeed. It must have been well known to ministers, that those persons had been employed, because he knew that no commission would be suffered to remain in Milan without a regular correspondence having taken place with the Austrian court. From the date he had mentioned, the statements contained in the green bag must have been received by his majesty's ministers a year ago; and yet not one step had been taken on the subject until the queen landed, and set her calumniators at defiance. Let not ministers think, that the dissatisfaction out of doors on this subject was a mere idle clamour. It was, on the contrary, deep-rooted; and, from the Land's-end to the Orkneys, pervaded persons of every station and description. The question was not whether her majesty was guilty of the high crimes alleged against her, but whether she, the queen of these realms, and the first subject of England, should not experience that justice which ought not to be refused to the lowest. In the first place, gross injustice had been done to her by introducing this green bag; and in the second place, they had acted still more unjustly by her when they brought in a bill, the most palpably disgraceful that was ever known in England. He should be glad if the noble lord would set him right as to the expense of this commission, but he understood it had cost the country 33,000 l. In the first five months of its existence no less than 11,000 l. was drawn by these commissioners. Now he would engage for half that money to procure such witnesses in Italy as would blast the character of every man and every woman there, however respectable. Let the House consider the creatures by whom the affidavits were sworn; they were procured from the meanest, the most rascally of mankind. And, was the queen of England, on such
262
evidence as this, to be degraded at once and without trial? He said she was de graded, because ministers had brought in a bill which now hung over her majesty's head, accusing her with such gross crimes as could not be separated from the idea of degradation. They talked of granting her justice—of giving her the best means of defending herself; but how was such an intention proved? He was sorry, even thus shortly, to have occupied the attention of the House, but a sense of what was due to public justice and to the character of the country induced him to come forward. The gallant general concluded by moving—"That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a copy of any commission or commissions, instruction or instructions, issued by his majesty's commands, since the departure of her majesty the queen from this country in 1814, for taking depositions, or making other inquiries, relating to her majesty, during her residence abroad; together with an account of all sums of money expended in the execution of such commissions or instructions, and by whom such sums were respectively issued."
Lord Castlereaghfelt it to be his duty, under the circumstances in which the House was at present placed, to oppose the motion. It would, he conceived, be a waste of their time, if he were led, in consequence of what had fallen from the gallant general, to enter into an explanation of the course of conduct that his majesty's ministers had been induced to take in consequence of the important subject which had recently occupied their consideration. Had the gallant general, he would ask, seen any thing in the general conduct of ministers that rendered it necessary to bring this question under discussion? Or had he perceived any part of their proceedings that appeared to justify the casting the least imputation on them, as the authors of this painful investigation? He conceived that the gallant general had not; and therefore he would simply apply himself to the motion now before the House. The objection he took to it did not arise from any indisposition on the part of ministers to give the fullest information on the subject when the proper time arrived; for, whatever might be the gallant general's opinion of ministers— whatever cause might have induced him

263
to imagine that they threw an improper shade of mystery over this transaction, with respect to the mode in which it was conducted, or the manner in which the charges were to be provided for—he could assure the gallant general, that there was no portion of the painful investigation with which it was connected that he would more readily, if the occasion suited, place him and the House in possession of. He believed, most sincerely, that the whole transaction, from the first to the last, would bear the light, at least as far as he had any knowledge of it. But he might be allowed to say, that the present was a very curious mode of proceeding, if it were introduced with a view to assist or elucidate the inquiry now pending before parliament. It was most extraordinary, in the very outset, before the House had adopted any measure of inquiry of their own, and without waiting for that which it was quite clear they would arrive at by another process—while they were ignorant of the whole course of evidence—that the gallant general should call on one of the parties to put the House in possession of all the means that had been adopted to gain information, and to state facts which would not in any degree render other parts of the case intelligible. It certainly was not very common in judicial proceedings to give up the means by which information had been procured. Indeed, nothing could be more subversive of the course of justice, nor was any thing ever known more contrary to the order of proceeding within the walls of parliament. It was such a line of conduct as he thought the gallant general would not, on reflection, persevere in. Feeling thus, it was not his intention to negative the motion, but to meet it with the previous question. As he had formerly stated, with respect to the conduct of foreign ministers abroad, he did not wish to wrap up the government in mystery. When the proper time came, ministers were ready to give every information, but they would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if they did so prematurely. The House could not decide whether they acted with a view to the ends of justice, or for the purpose of oppression, until all the facts were before them; then only could they judge correctly of their conduct, or of the conduct of their agents. Those facts were not before them, and therefore he contended that the motion of the gallant general was wholly premature. In this stage of the
264
proceeding he must intreat the House to enter fully into the reasons why, in his opinion, information on this part of the subject should not be laid before them. He had no hesitation in stating, broadly and distinctly, what was the fact. The outline of the case, unconnected with the bill before the other House, was simply this:—The statements concerning the conduct of her majesty reached ministers from so many quarters, and had become so notorious (statements, let it be observed, that were not procured by any system of fishing, but which came voluntarily from various quarters, many of them of the most grave and official character), that it was deemed necessary to inquire into their truth; and, unless the gallant general laid it down as a maxim, that the servants of the Crown were obliged to shut their eyes and ears against every offence that threatened the welfare of the state—unless he conceived, because they must experience the most painful feelings, when charges were made against a person of such illustrious rank, that, therefore, they ought not to take the plain course of justice on such occasions, and ought not to institute any inquiry into reports of this nature;—unless the gallant general reasoned thus, there was nothing in the conduct of ministers that deserved censure. He would hereafter argue with the gallant general why the course of inquiry to which he objected was, at the time, the most proper. He admitted that that course of inquiry was not strictly official—it was not sanctioned by any proceeding that could give it the name of a commission—it was not distinguished by any of those formal instruments which were usually known to the constitution. He would state, in due time, why he considered this demi-official proceeding—a proceeding not strictly according to the forms of the constitution—was, under the view then taken, the fit and proper one to be adopted; and he would also consider the question, whether the commission had acted with severity or injustice; or had hunted for that sort of information, which, according to the gallant general, Italy was famous for—which a sum of money could buy, and by means of which the fairest character might be blackened. If the gallant general had waited for the facts of the case, instead of applying his reasoning to certain rumours, he, perhaps, would not have made his motion. The information alluded to was not drawn from Italy

265
alone; and although he called the persons who were sent out "the Milan commission," their inquiries were not restricted to conduct pursued in that place. Their orders were to look to every thing that could be devised, in reason, to detect and separate falsehood from truth. That was the system adopted in this case; but certainly the inquiries of the commissioners were applied to a much more extensive portion of Europe than the gallant general seemed to suppose. With respect to the characters of the persons employed, he was sure the gallant general could not mean to insinuate any thing against them. There was nothing in the character of those individuals that could lead the House to suppose that they would take any step inconsistent with British justice. At a proper moment he should be prepared to defend all their proceedings. When the facts alleged against her majesty flowed in on government with so strong a tide, when the number of charges hourly increased, and when they assumed a most grave and serious aspect, ministers felt that they had no right, intrusted as they were with a responsible authority, to let those accusations rest on the ground of rumour. They thought it was their duty, even with reference to the character and dignity of the queen herself, to take the best means to discover what degree of weight they deserved. Under the circumstances, they did not deem it a case, in the examination of which it would be wise or prudent to employ that formal commission which would place on record the statements that were to be inquired into, even though they turned out to be unfounded. They conceived it would answer the ends of justice if they were inquired into by persons of such character in their profession as would enable ministers to place confidence in their proceedings, and to give credit to their report. Certainly, it did not fall within the province of the vice-chancellor to lend himself voluntarily to such a proceeding; but he must at the same time observe, that there was nothing in the conduct of the vice-chancellor on that occasion that could in any way reflect discredit on his character. He held a high judicial situation; but, when he was called on to inquire into the matter at issue, he (lord C.) knew of no just ground which could be alleged to prevent him from informing himself of the truth or falsehood of the reports that had been circulated
266
against the character of the illustrious individual who was then residing abroad, and afterwards stating the conviction of his mind. He was yet to learn that there was any thing in the vice-chancellor's situation that ought to preclude him from entering on an inquiry of this nature—always provided that it was pursued with truth and honour. The character of the vice-chancellor, so far from militating against the impartiality of the inquiry, afforded an additional pledge that it was a just one. He would now briefly notice the course that was taken. In the first instance, application was made to a gentleman at the bar of the chancery-court, a Mr. Cooke, for his assistance. There was no man in the country, he believed, who had the honour of his acquaintance, that did not respect him. He had seen him only once; but, if a person might judge from the propriety of his appearance, and the gravity of his manner. For his own part, he thought it would have been wrong to send a young gentleman on such a mission; although the gallant general might suppose that he would get much sooner into all the secrets of the matter than a person of more mature age. When the business was of so delicate a nature, it was, in his opinion, most proper to employ an individual of grave and thinking habits. The gallant general said, an individual was selected who knew nothing of foreign languages. This, he conceived, was a pledge that nothing more was intended, but that the individual should go to the appointed place, merely to hear the evidence as a professional man. It showed that he was not sent out to insinuate himself as a spy into those transactions, but that he was specifically sent out as a person who, when the witnesses that were to substantiate the facts came before him, was ready to take their depositions, and to take them in that form which was suitable to the practice of our jurisprudence, and surrounded with all those safeguards by which our law was characterised. It was necessary, therefore, to delay any motion of the nature of that now before the House, because, to understand the question well, the gallant general ought to see the depositions, examine their forms, and observe the safeguards by which they were surrounded. If he had seen them, he would probably feel that no censure attached to those who superintended them. Every thing was done to guard those who were examined from stating any matter on

267
hearsay—every thing was done to guard them against speaking unadvisedly—every thing was done that could make them dismiss from their minds the hope of receiving any emolument in consequence of their testimony; and they were informed that their characters would be examined in some competent court of law. He was convinced that no individual could be selected better adapted to fulfil the duties that were intrusted to him than this gentleman; and he was quite sure, that with respect to the necessary safeguards, no depositions had ever been more strictly drawn up. He believed that those who had seen the proceedings in this case, had viewed them with no other feeling but that of the greatest respect for those who conducted them. He hoped he had repelled the idea that any servant of his majesty had been disgraced in the discharge of his duty, because he had looked into facts which materially affected the honour and dignity of the Crown; and he had also, he trusted, repelled any insinuation that had been thrown out against Mr. Cooke, or against the eminent solicitor who accompanied him, and who had assisted in taking those depositions. As to the expenses of the commission, no disposition existed to withhold from the House all the information that was necessary, when the proper moment arrived. There would be a want of delicacy in obtruding it on the House at present; but when the proper time arrived it would not be concealed. The expenses incidental to the parties who were sent abroad must be brought before the House on the same ground that the House would be called on to defray the sum necessary for her majesty in entering on her defence. The expense attending the allegations on the one side, and the preparations for meeting them on the other, would be laid before parliament in due time. As he had before said, ministers wished for no mystery with respect to any part of this transaction. But he did protest solemnly against this mode of introducing partial motions, for it exhibited the air of a mere party proceeding much more than it did that of a real desire to forward the ends of justice. Individuals would not wait for the proper moment to argue those questions; they ran unprepared into the midst of a most important subject, and dragged it into view, not at once, but piecemeal. They did not take a plain and intelligible course, but came forward in a way the most in-
268
vidious, both with respect to the proceeding itself, and with reference to private character. Would it not be better for gentlemen to restrain their feelings until they saw the whole proceeding? If, when that was done, ministers could not explain themselves to the satisfaction of the House, then would come the time for them to encounter the animadversions of gentlemen. But, at that moment, he protested against investigating a transaction of this nature. He would not consent, when a charge was brought against the queen, that it should be set aside, and that ministers should be placed on their trial, with reference to some collateral circumstances. He would not wrap himself up in mystery as to this transaction; but, at the fair and proper moment, he would give all the information in his power. In the mean time, he thought he aid not ask too much of the House, when they had suspended their opinion with respect to the proceeding itself, also to suspend their opinion with respect to the conduct of ministers. He felt it necessary to make this appeal, because he was dragged into partial explanations on this subject, in consequence of the course adopted, which, he must say, was rather dictated by political feeling than by a strong regard for the principles of justice. Owing to this system, he was compelled to give garbled and broken explanation to the House, and to defend the character of individuals less fully and less forcibly than he would be enabled to do if he had an opportunity of discussing the whole question. He would not negative this motion, but he would meet it with the previous question, to show that the information should not have been called for; and he hoped it would be a warning to gentlemen on the other side, not to let their zeal get the better of their understanding, in submitting motions to the House under circumstances like the present. Let the subject rest until the whole case was brought forward; and let not the House and the country be lowered in the eyes of Europe, which they would be, if it were seen that, when a great question, important to the Crown and the empire, was agitated, they could not deal with it fairly, but must meet it by little motions of this kind, in order to get some unfair advantage over ministers, as if they were on their trial. He asked for no favour—he shrank from no responsibility. All he claimed was, that the conduct of ministers should be fairly and strictly ex-

269
amined, when the circumstances were before the House, when they would have an opportunity to explain themselves fully; he only protested against these repeated anticipations of explanation.
Mr. Creevey, not withstanding he might incur the displeasure of the noble lord, and notwithstanding the protest and the warning the noble lord had given to the House, would maintain that the proposition of his gallant friend was a perfectly just one, and the time precisely that in which the motion ought to have been made. His gallant friend had not precipitated his motion; he had delayed it till a certain proceeding had taken place in the other House of Parliament. So anomalous a course was, perhaps, never pursued upon any former occasion. The queen of this country was criminally proceeded against; and how? By the introduction of a bill in which she was called by the most infamous and scandalous names. Neither her majesty nor that House had any information on the subject; and, under these circumstances, his gallant friend said, what he conceived to be most proper. "Let me see the foundation of this measure; if you make a charge of this nature, let me see your infernal Milan commission, or whatever commission it may be, on whose statement it is founded." It was quite a novelty, a thing hitherto unknown to the constitution of this country, for the king to authorize a commission to hunt a subject with lawyers, attornies, and spies, assisted by the emperor of Austria, through every part of Europe. This indeed was quite a novel system. It was dangerous when any responsible servant of the Crown was placed at the head of such a proceeding; it was much more dangerous when a person like Mr. Leach—he begged his pardon, he should have said sir John Leach—who was not a responsible servant of the Crown, organized a system of es-pionnage against any individual of this country; but it was still worse when a person, placed in the situation of that gentleman, inflamed the feelings of particular persons by stating to them things of a doubtful nature, but which were calculated strongly to excite their passions. They had a right, he contended, to have this vice-chancellor before them. He would maintain that he was a disturber of the public peace of this country. [Hear, hear! and order.] He would show how he was a disturber of the public peace.
270
In 1814, all the unhappy differences between his majesty and the queen were supposed to be settled: an arrangement with respect to money matters took place; and one of his majesty's ministers negotiated with her for leaving the country. It was quite impossible that the noble lord opposite, or the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), considering the feelings he had expressed towards the queen, could have again awakened those differences which were thought to have expired. Who then had done it? It was the vice-chancellor who had kept alive the vindictive feelings of his majesty towards the queen [Order, order.] He was not out of order: he would contend that it was the vice-chancellor who had kept alive the vindictive passions of the king against the queen. If the feeling were not vindictive, he did not know what the word "vindictive" meant. Several years ago the queen was prosecuted; she left the country: after a long, absence she came back, and now she was prosecuted again. If this was not vindictive, he did not know what was. But now for the result of this commission. By the aid of his confederates—the emperor of Austria, Italian spies, English lawyers, and English money—he contrived to have this bag filled and brought over. It was clear, however, that it was not wanted: it had been in the possession of ministers of the Crown for these twelve months, and they had never made any use of it. This showed that they considered its contents as of a private nature, and not as state evidence against the queen. If they thought otherwise, why did they not prosecute her at once? Instead of doing that they negotiated with her at St. Omer's, and in this country; and it appeared on the Journals of the House, that the business was in fact a family difference. But the queen, it appeared, would not consent to the propositions made to her. That was her crime at present. Her first crime was having placed her foot on the English shore, and her next, a determination not to leave it. This vice-chancellor was again answerable to the House for his conduct on this point, because they were called on to assist in the utter subversion of the law of this country, and to adopt a completely anomalous proceeding in consequence of his conduct. Secret evidence had been taken by a secret commission; and, after a period of twelve months had elapsed, it was laid before the

271
Lords, who, without any examination of witnesses, had finally adopted certain charges against the queen. A bill was then brought in for the purpose of degrading her. If this were allowed, if a bill of this nature were suffered to pass into a law, he contended that the laws of this country would be totally subverted, and no man in the kingdom would be safe. They had a right to know who the author of this measure was. That individual was answerable to the House in another point of view, perhaps as important as those he had mentioned;—he was answerable as the enemy of the sovereign; for no man could tell what situation the king might be placed in before that bill passed. Whatever ministers might state, this was a mere private charge: it was the king wanting to get rid of the queen. Ministers knew there was no crime cognizable by law, and therefore they sought to relieve him by bill. He must then appear as a private individual when he came to parliament for relief; and when he came before that House to be released from his wife, he must come, like all persons applying for relief to a court of equity, with clean hands. He owed all this to sir John Leach. When a case of that nature came before them, they ought to use the words of Jesus Christ when the woman was taken in adultery—"Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." They were told that there must be no recrimination in this case. He knew that no such word was allowed in a court of justice; but, as he had before stated, when his majesty applied to that House, he must come with clean hands. The bill declared her majesty to be guilty of adultery; and when that measure came before the House, it would be their duty to inquire whether, when the princess of Brunswick, the cousin of his majesty, came to this country to espouse him, he was not himself then living in adultery [Order, order.] Of this he was sure, that the king had been placed in his present situation by the officious adviser to whom he had alluded. He saw the proceeding with pain and regret from the beginning; and when the message came down he warned the House of the situation in which it would place the country, because he was certain that the course adopted on this occasion, that of proceeding by bill, would not only overturn the laws of the land, but would shake the steady, sober, moral habits of
272
the people. Looking to the case in every point of view, there was, in his opinion, an absolute necessity for the production of this Milan commission, in order that they might properly know the author of these unfortunate circumstances.
The previous question was carried without a division.

KING'S MESSAGE—PAPERS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE QUEEN.
Lord Castlereaghrose, pursuant to notice, to postpone the order of the day for taking his majesty's Message into consideration. Before he proceeded to that question, he wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had recently addressed the House. He knew not how far the order of the House would suffer an individual to go when he was determined to transgress the bounds of decency. But certainly, in this case, the hon. member had uttered sentiments which would not be suffered where the feelings of private individuals were concerned, and which never should have been used in speaking of the character of the sovereign [Hear, hear!]. He protested solemnly, in the face of the House and of the country, against the speech which the hon. member had made that night. No individual was warranted in making such assertions—no individual at all acquainted with the fact would have applied such epithets to the feelings and the mind of the sovereign. Though placed under the most trying circumstances in which a monarch ever was or ever could be placed, his majesty had never betrayed the slightest symptom of a vindictive spirit [Hear!]. In every part of this unfortunate transaction he had evinced a feeling completely the reverse. Whatever his sense of injury might be, or whatever personal feeling might have been elicited by these transactions, his majesty had shown the most perfect forbearance with respect to every measure that ministers had adopted for the peace and safety of the country [Hear, hear!]. If they had gone on with this inquiry, it was from a sense of the justice of the cause, and in consequence of the manner in which the queen had conducted herself. A vindictive or passionate feeling had never been manifested by his majesty; and, instead of censuring his conduct, the honourable member and the country ought to offer him their heartfelt thanks for the efforts he had allowed ministers to make for the

273
safety and protection of the empire. He would say nothing more on this unpleasant subject. The House had marked their sense of the hon. member's conduct; and, if he possessed the feelings which a member of parliament ought to possess, the reproof which he had received on this occasion would convey a much stronger comment to his mind, on the course he had pursued, than any thing which he could utter.—His lordship then called the attention of the House to the ulterior proceedings respecting the king's message. He detailed the different circumstances that had taken place since the message was brought down, namely, the address to her majesty—the rejection of the advice which it contained—the report of the lords—and, finally, the introduction of a bill of pains and penalties. When he before postponed the order for considering his majesty's message, he had stated, that, if a proceeding took place in the other House, it was his intention to move a farther postponement. Such a proceeding had occurred, and he new wished, in consequence, to put off the order to a future day. It was necessary, he thought, that their proceeding should rather be of a suspensive than of an abandoning nature. There were several reasons for adopting this course. If, for instance, the bill did not pass the lords, in consequence of some technical informality, the subject would again come back to this House; and it was proper that inquiry should be open to them. Again, if the evidence before the lords led them to reject the measure, this House would, of course, wish to examine the information laid on their table, in order to see how far ministers could justify themselves by the evidence for bringing the measure before parliament. In either event, a postponement was necessary. His lordship then moved, "That the debate be farther adjourned until the l0th of August."
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, it was not his intention to bring into discussion the delicate points connected with this question. He did not view this as a personal question, but a question to be decided as between the public and her majesty. He thought the House had acted in a judicious manner in agreeing to the resolutions which had been passed, and he regretted that those resolutions had not been attended with effect. But if he had possessed the information which ministers appeared now to have possessed, and to the extent of the charges
274
laid against her majesty, he was by no means prepared to admit that he could have voted as he had done. Ministers would have grossly misled his majesty and the country if they had compromised charges which he certainly could never have consented to compromise. But it was not his intention to enter into an enlarged discussion upon this subject. The noble lord had said that he wished the green bag to be left in a suspensive, and not a conclusive, state. But he was desirous that it should be put into a conclusive state, and he should now give his reasons. The whole question now assumed a very different aspect; they had now the report of their committee, stating that a legislative measure was instituted in the other House. If then, while her majesty stood arraigned at the bar of the public, they kept a second inquisition suspended over her, did they intend to institute a second inquisition. If her majesty should be acquitted of the charges against her in the other House, would proceedings be again instituted in this House by the green bag? According to the analogy of grand jury this would be inadmissible. If they failed in proving the preamble of the bill in the other House, was not the queen to have the benefit of a full acquittal? The noble lord had said that there might not have been sufficient evidence before the lords. If there was not, did the noble lord say that they were to institute proceedings in that House? The noble lord had assigned as a reason for keeping the green bag in a suspensive state, that the House might have what withal to bring against minisers, if their conduct should come to be inquired into. He should be sorry to see the noble lord in that situation, although he certainly thought that fitter men might occupy the places of the noble lord and his friends. But it was not out of the green bag that evidence was to be brought forward against ministers, but from the conduct and means by which the green bag was made up and managed. If the question were to become a lapsed order, and no proceeding should be founded upon it, he was not prepared to say that he should oppose a motion to that effect; but as the House might be sitting on the 15th of August, he should move an amendment, that the order be discharged.
Lord Castlereaghexplained. If the measure now instituted failed in the lords, there was no idea of founding criminal proceedings in that House. He had only

275
said, that the green bag would show to the House whether ministers had had evidence for introducing proceedings respecting her majesty.
Mr. Bennetbegan by expressing his surprise that none of his majesty's ministers had attempted to answer his hon. friend, (Mr. Creevey); for though some unguarded expressions might have fallen from him, yet many of his observations had been much to the purpose, and would have a stinging effect out of doors. Ministers were bound to stand up and to justify their master. The noble lord had said, in express terms, that the king of England had lent himself to an accommodation respecting indecency and adultery. No sovereign had ever been so publicly degraded. He did not believe that ministers themselves had ever believed the charges in the green bag, because, if they had believed them, they could not have given such advice as had been given. The queen of England, charged with adultery, was not only to be addressed by both Houses of Parliament, but she was to be acknowledged in certain courts near which she might choose to reside. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), after seeing all the charges in the green bag, had in a most manly speech, a speech which did him the greatest credit, professed his respect and his affection for her majesty. The right hon. gentleman, after having seen the charge, had used the remarkable expressions, that his attention, affection, and respect, remained the same as they had been. He could therefore produce the right hon. gentleman as an authority opposed to his colleagues, for he at least dissented. If, in the opinion of the other ministers, she was black with guilt, in the right hon. gentleman's opinion she was white as snow. What was the feeling of the country upon this subject at the present moment? From every part one sentiment (whether just or not, he knew not) of respect for her majesty, and of conviction that she was innocent, was heard. This was the natural result of the mode of proceeding adopted against her majesty. The noble lord had come down to that House and proposed the most hateful of measures—a green bag, to be investigated by a secret committee; and had, in some degree, explained how it was to be composed. The queen's legal advisers were to be excluded; of course the attorney and solicitor-general must also have been excluded. The committee, then, must
276
have been formed (yet ministers talked of avoiding all party distinctions on this occasion!) out of the adherents and friends of the noble lord, out of what he would call a sort of country gentlemen of the court. Some might have been from his side of the House, but they would have been those whom the noble lord had known on former occasions to lend a willing ear to the stories of his majesty's government. But even they, he believed, would rather have followed the right hon. gentleman's example; they would have refused to have become her majesty's accusers. But ministers were determined to have a verdict against her, if not in one way, in some other way. They had therefore got a jury to try her, who would have found her guilty, if she had been as Cæsar's wife ought to be, even above suspicion. A committee was formed of which four cabinet ministers were members, and one of them, the Nestor of the administration and the keeper of the king's conscience. The keeper of the king's conscience had been member of this committee, as the vice-keeper of the king's conscience had been member of the Milan commission. Did it require any second sight to know what the result of such an inquiry would be? Did not every man in the streets foresee the result? The queen of England was now charged as another queen of England had formerly been charged. The just and pathetic language of queen Anne Boleyn was—"Try me, but let me have a lawful trial, and let not my sworn enemies sit as my accusers and judges? yea, let me receive an open trial, for my truth shall fear no open shame. "The same language was now used by her majesty." Try me (she said), but let not my accusers and enemies be my judges; let me have an open trial, and I shall prove my innocence; let not the lord chancellor, the keeper of the king's conscience, and three other cabinet ministers, sit in secret judgment upon me." If they were not her majesty's accusers, who were her accusers? Who were the advisers of the measures adopted against her. The secret committee had been compared to a grand jury. But it was a strange anomaly to find the accusers forming part of the grand jury; and stranger still to find them afterwards form part of the petty jury who were to sit in. judgment and pronounce a verdict upon the charges. It was a course of proceedings like this that affected the people of England; this it was that caused the cry

277
that was universally raised for the queen, and against her persecutors, who had put her under the ban of excommunication throughout Europe. This course of persecution it was that raised an angry feeling throughout the country. The people never would have interfered when the administration of justice was fair and equal; but a foul administration of justice roused the deepest indignation. He cautioned ministers, because no man could see the end; the boldest might shudder at the consequences. It was not against a fair trial that any feelings were entertained, but against proceedings to get a verdict. The noble lord had thought proper to talk of the tone in which he had expressed his indignation at the terms offered to her majesty in St. Omer's. In the persuasion that the steps taken were a departure from public justice, had he expressed his indignation, and every honest man in the country had felt the same indignation. He, indeed, was probably disqualified from taking a fair view of the subject, because he had not been an accuser. But whenever the question came before that House, if unhappily it should ever come, no man would bring less of party feeling into its consideration. Justice in favour of a helpless and desolate woman was called party. Ample illustration of the feelings of party had been given on the other side. Every man in the country was satisfied whether party feelings operated on this question, and where party feelings prevailed. He at least would do his duty as stoutly as any member, in order to right the injured, and to defeat persecution. The illustrious person who was now queen of England had been persecuted ever since she first landed on their shore. She had not been a week in England (he was old enough to remember that period), when she began to be persecuted. Her person, her manners, her gaiety, were misrepresented and slandered. He would remind the noble lord, the right hon. gentleman, and an equity lawyer elsewhere, of the part they took in former stages of her history. She had been seduced—seduced, he believed, against her better judgment, certainly against the strongest advice of Mr. Whitbread, the most honest man then in England—to go out of this country. The authors of that step might have been rewarded: he would not look into the black and dark intrigues. A manuscript was in the hands of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham),
278
containing, in the strongest terms, the advice of Mr. Whitbread and the member for Winchelsea, not to quit the shelter of her home, or leave the society and security to be found only among her friends. They had anticipated the consequences of her going abroad; they had anticipated the spies, the attornies, and the vice-chancellors that would pursue her; they had anticipated the plots by which she would be assailed; they had anticipated the consequences that would arise from her frankness and gaiety of temper; for, like Anne Boleyn, her lively and gay manners afforded food for calumny. They had known and stated this before her majesty had left the country; but, unhappily, the advice given by the right hon. gentleman opposite, the very worst that could be given, prevailed, though he did not accuse the right hon. gentleman: indeed he believed him incapable of giving advice with so base an intention. And who was the opponent of this illustrious and much injured lady? The king was her opponent; he who was, not absolute master of their lives and property, but the grand source of distinction and honour, and often of property; who had a direct and positive influence where her majesty was to be tried; who held the means of reward, titles, orders, and ribbons.
Lord Castlereaghrose to order. He really must submit to the House whether it was decent or parliamentary to impute to the king acts which could only be considered as done by his servants.
The Speakersaid, he felt this to be a very difficult question. It was evident it was impossible on this occasion to exclude what was excluded on every other occasion. But where the introduction was neccessary, still greater caution ought to be used. It was highly improper to impute direct influence to the king in either House of Parliament, but he was aware that the same thing could be conveyed by putting it hypothetically. He did not suppose that any thing of that kind was intended; but in the warmth of debate, when any thing of that nature might be inadvertently introduced, the hon. member would see in what situation he (the Speaker) and the House were, if he did not use greater caution and restraint than on any other occasion, and carefully avoid whatever might excite strong feelings on this head.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he had certainly wished to allude to the king bonâ fide, but only

279
in a parliamentary manner. There was obviously, on this occasion, great difficulty in separating the personal character of the king from his political character, when he was prosecutor in this country. But it was the odds of a question, where the king with all his power and influence was on one side, against a destitute and forlorn woman on the other, which roused the public to stand by her. Although other classes abstained from those respects towards her majesty which it might be found inconvenient for the courtly adherents of power and fashion to bestow, that was made up to her by her reception with the people, who, viewing her forsaken state, the manner in which she was treated, the proceedings, and the green bags, resorted to against her, conceived that the odds were indeed against her, and therefore they threw themselves into the opposite scale. In this situation he cautioned ministers how they proceeded. He did not say that the people entertained any feeling against a fair trial. But proceedings of this nature brought the names of the royal family into unfavourable and dangerous discussion. All knew well that if her majesty's daughter were now alive—if the late king were alive, and in the vigour of his faculties, proceedings like the present could not have been attempted. The king, though dead, had left the testimony of his opinion how she had been treated. The late king had left a document containing his opinion of the manner in which she had been treated, and the provocations she had received. Although provocation could be no justification of foul conduct, yet he could not see why the Crown should be exempted from the general law which required that the party who applied for divorce should come into court with clean hands. The caution he gave the noble lord was this, not to provoke discussions respecting the royal family, and affecting the institutions of the country, and the credit of the monarchy—discussions which they who lived longest might rue while they lived. It was the saying of an able and eloquent statesman, Mr. Burke, that "formerly situations supported persons, now persons supported situations." He cautioned the noble lord, therefore, not to throw the country into a state of confusion and discord, which the boldest could not contemplate without terror.
Mr. Tierneysaid, he had, on the last time on which he had occasion to speak
280
of this subject, stated the great pain and sorrow which the whole proceeding gave him. This most delicate and difficult question was now canvassed and agitated in every part of England. Much more was he now therefore affected with pain and sorrow when all he heard, and all he saw, from day to day, was calculated to to increase the difficulty and distress in which the subject was originally involved. He always felt great regret when he could not cordially co-operate with his friends around him; but, party-man as he was, and as he always would avow himself, he never would shrink from stating his real personal opinion [Loud cheers from the ministerial side]. With respect to his hon. and gallant friend no reproach could be thrown upon the manner in which he had brought forward his motion. His hon. and gallant friend had exercised his judgment and discretion in the manner he ought, to have done. But the motion itself he was no party to, and though it was unnecessary now to declare it, he thought it right to say, that, if the motion had come to a vote, he would not have supported it. He felt so upon that motion, because it appeared to him to be an intermeddling with matters not fairly coming under their consideration, and liable to great misconception. From this day he must act judicially, and consider the subject in no other way. He rejoiced in the different situation of the House now from that in which it had been formerly placed. They now knew that formal proceedings were entered upon the Journals of the House of Lords—what proceedings they were not to know, because the report of their committee had not stated, but simply informed the House, that a bill, whose title was to take certain privileges from the queen, was introduced. He must presume that those who introduced the bill had ground enough for doing so. But it would be time enough to speak of that when it came before that House, if, unhappily, it should ever come into that House. At present, he should keep his mind clear and unbiassed, and preserve a painful suspense upon the subject, until he should be called upon to say what he thought. God knew how distressing it was to hear daily discussions on this painful subject, and how difficult it was to preserve an even and impartial judgment; but he trusted that every man would do his duty to the king, to the accusers (for parliament itself was accu-

281
ser) and to the accused. Her majesty should have in him a firm and strenuous friend of truth and justice; he should hear with equal attention all that should be urged against her and in her favour. This evening was not the moment for giving any opinion; but when the question came before them, whatever might be the event, be would do his duty, without fear, favour, or affection; without regarding popular clamour on the one hand, or court influence on the other. He had only one word more to say, before he sat down, respecting the mode of disposing of the green bag. There appeared to him to be little difference between the motion and the amendment, but he preferred his hon. friend's amendment as the more manly way of getting rid of the green bag. They agreed, whether wisely or not, that the lords should take precedence in this proceeding; but all the while they preserved the green bag in the midst of them. They still had the green bag; whether it was six weeks or six months, still they would have the green bag; the green bag they could not get removed without a specific motion. All agreed now, that whatever should be the event of proceedings elsewhere, no fresh charges were to be got out of the green bag. He was happy to hear that declaration from the noble lord, because apprehensions had been entertained by many, that the green bag was reserved for farther proceedings if necessary. He hoped he had made himself understood; the course he had stated he should abide by, and all he required of every individual was, to keep his mind in the same state of suspense and impartiality.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that on the immediate subject of debate now before the House he was inclined to agree with Mr. Tierney, and though it was of little importance which way it was disposed of, he thought that on the whole it would be better to drop the motion for resuming the debate than to adjourn it to a future day. That debate was on the proposition for referring the papers contained in the green bag to a secret committee; but whatever course it might be expedient hereafter to adopt, it was clear that the appointment of a secret committee would be absurd, after all the matter to be examined, had been made public by the proceedings in the other House. With respect to the proceedings themselves on this momentous and perilous question, he had already
282
stated his reasons for regretting that a course so disrespectful to the Crown should be pursued as to pass over in absolute silence a communication upon a subject so essentially affecting its dignity. It appeared only that the House, after solemnly pledging itself to take the matter into its most serious and immediate consideration, had repeatedly adjourned its investigation, and at length dropped it altogether. Perhaps this breach of the pledge already given, and apparent neglect of the royal message might in great measure be avoided, if either a second message were brought down recommending that no further step should be taken by the House of Commons, or if an address were to be presented stating that in consequence of the proceedings already instituted in the other House of Parliament, the Commons thought it inexpedient to proceed in the inquiry.—The real cause of all this difficulty was, that his majesty's ministers had not originally decided what course of investigation they should propose to parliament. Two modes of proceeding were open to them, one criminal by impeachment, in which case the communication should have been made to the House of Commons alone, the other remedial by divorce, a bill for which might properly originate with the House of Peers. It had, he understood, been elsewhere stated, that the first of these was impracticable, for that the facts alleged against her majesty having been committed abroad and with an alien, could not be made the subject of an impeachment, inasmuch as impeachable and indictable were convertible terms. This doctrine he felt it his duty to deny, however high and respectable the authority might be from which it had originated. He protested against it as tending, in many instances, to render nugatory the great safeguard of the constitution, the trial by impeachment. It did indeed appear inconceivable how any man, even in the slightest degree conversant with parliamentary history, could assert that no offence could be the subject of impeachment, which was not also cognizable by indictment. The direct reverse was apparent, from almost every impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The sale of Dunkirk, the signature of the Partition Treaty and of the Peace of Utrecht, had successively been the subjects of impeachments, and yet it was obvious that these were offences of which no inferior court could take cogni-

283
zance. If even the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, commenced and prosecuted within our own days, was adverted to, the maintainers of this opinion would find it difficult to argue, that the charges preferred against him could have been turned into an indictment, and that the grand jury at Hicks's Hall could have presented the injustice and impolicy of the Mahratta war.—In opposition to these new-fangled doctrines, and attempts to confine the jurisdiction of the supreme tribunal of the land, the high court of parliament, within the contracted and local limits of the courts of Westminster Hall, he was ready to contend, that any offence affecting the safety of the country or the honour of the Crown, wherever it might be committed by any British subject, was cognizable by the high court of Parliament. The true principle of the constitution was, that those injuries which, if directed against an individual would be the subject of a civil action for damages, if committed against the public were criminal and triable as misdemeanors. Of this nature evidently was the crime of adultery in the consort of the sovereign, whether committed at home or abroad, with a British subject or an alien. It was true, that in most of the writers upon law, that offence was described as high treason.—It had generally been stated that the word"violer" in the statute of Edward 3rd was to be understood as extending to a criminal connection with her consent as well as without. This, however, would be a question not of law but etymology, and the more it was examined the more difficult would it be found to maintain, that force was not essential to constitute this offence, whether the French word used in the statute were considered or the Latin one from which it was derived. Upon this argument it was at present unnecessary to dilate, but he apprehended that even if the sense of the word was more doubtful than he thought it, no court could be found which, on the authority of the single decided case of Anne Boleyn (if that could be called a case in point which was very doubtful) would construe an ambiguous expression, in a statute so highly penal, against the person accused. Upon these grounds, as well as upon others which he would not detain the House by stating, he had himself no doubt, that if the charges brought against her majesty could be substantiated, they would warrant an impeachment against her for high crimes and misdemeanors; and he was
284
therefore disposed to oppose any proceeding by bill of pains and penalties—a proceeding always highly objectionable, and which nothing could in any degree apologize for but an absolute impossibility of adopting a more regular course. In every former instance some reason had been alleged why an impeachment could not have been preferred. In lord Clarendon's case, he was considered as having withdrawn himself from justice by quitting the country. In sir John Fenwick's a witness had been suborned to abscond, and in those of Atterbury and Kelly a principal witness had died; but there was no instance of a bill of pains and penalties where the person accused was ready to meet the charge, and where it was not even alleged that there was a single witness wanted to support it who was not forthcoming. The bill now pending in the House of Lords had been called a bill of pains and penalties, but it appeared to him that it was not more so than any other bill of divorce; and it was for this reason that he was enabled to acquiesce in it so far as to suspend all proceedings in the House of Commons. The clause for degrading her majesty was the necessary consequence of the dissolution of her marriage. It was true, that it deprived her of her rank and privileges, but so did any ordinary divorce bill in the case of a peeress. In neither case was punishment the object, though it was the necessary consequence. In one respect certainly the present did most essentially differ from a common divorce bill. Both were remedial measures, but in other bills the remedy was to be afforded to the husband alone. Here, if the case were made out, it was due to the public, whose interests were deeply concerned, that a person against whom such charges could be substantiated, should no longer hold that high and exalted situation which afforded so much opportunity to influence the morals and manners of the country.—He had heard with deep regret the argument or rather declamation of an hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) against the propriety of bringing this case before the other House of Parliament, because the peers were bound either by gratitude or by expectation to the Crown. If this argument were good for any thing, it would equally militate against the House of Peers retaining any of the functions which the constitution entrusted to it. If the lords really were so much the creatures and tools of the

285
Crown, as to be unfit to be trusted with the decision of this case, they were equally unfit to try any impeachment for high treason, or to deliberate on any bill by which the patronage, the prerogatives, or the interests of the Crown might be supposed to be affected. It was impossible thus to depreciate one of the essential members of the constitution without degrading and injuring the whole.
Mr. Kecksaid, that he had been more pleased with the observations of Mr. Tierney, than with any speech which he had heard upon the very distressing subject before the House. Whenever the main question might be brought forward, he should feel it his duty to dismiss even the remembrance of general imputation from his mind. He should look for proof, and for proof only; and nothing short of the most damning proof should induce him to give credit to the stories which were in circulation.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that as the House was not in a situation to see its way as to the whole extent of the proceedings, he had thought it more convenient to postpone the order to the 15th August, than to discharge it altogether, or to move an address to the Crown. He should be extremely sorry, however, that there should be any difference of opinion in the House upon a mere matter of form.
After a few words from Mr. Tierney, lord Castlereagh consented that the order should be discharged.

EXCESS OF SPIRITS BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on these acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that from the time of the Union, Irish spirits had been imported into this country without an)' obstruction in the state in which they were manufactured, but that in the acts under consideration, a clause was introduced, imposing a prohibition of the import of any raw spirits into this country, unless received into the stock of a rectifier. By this clause it was complained, that the Irish distillers were subjected to a very great grievance, and upon that representation being made to his majesty's government, the case had been fully considered. The result of that consideration was a conviction, that in common justice, the clause ought to be repealed. He moved that the chairman be directed to move for leave to bring in the bill for the repeal of the said clause.
Mr. Brightsaid, that if the facility for the import of Irish spirits were afforded, which the proposition was calculated to produce, it would be impossible to prevent that part of the English coast with which he was immediately connected, as well as the coast of North Wales, from being deluged with that article. He maintained, that the clause referred to did not involve any violation of the act of Union, as a fair review of the system of the countervailing duties would fully manifest. The fact was, that the Irish spirit generally imported into this country required rectification before it was fit for use, and therefore it was no grievance to let the clause stand as it did. At least it was no grievance to the people of England, who might be disposed to consume such spirits. But he begged the House to consider the consequences likely to follow from making such ardent spirits cheap in this country.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldwas surprised how-such a clause as that to which the motion referred happened to be smuggled into the act before the committee. This clause was evidently devised to interfere with the free and fair trade of Ireland, and to prevent the Irish distillers from coming into competition with those of Ireland. That it was cunningly contrived with that view, there could be no doubt. While he bore testimony to the candour of the chancellor of the Exchequer towards Ireland on this occasion, he begged to differ from him as to his construction of the act of Union. Spirits formed a distinct manufacture in Ireland, and were as free from the regulation of the English excise as its linen manufacture. The spirits distilled in Ireland were recognised by several laws of the legislature of that country, previous to the Union, as a distinct manufacture, and the principle of these laws ought to be respected by the imperial parliament. It was not any reason for placing Irish spirits under the control of the English excise, that they were of greater strength than the spirits distilled in this country. But as the terms of the clause referred to in the motion mentioned raw spirits he was prepared to argue, that it did not correctly speaking, extend to Irish spirits. For the Irish spirits, as he was enabled to show, was not a raw, but a complete spirit. It was indeed, much more a complete spirit than rum, and yet the produce of the colonies was treated with more liberality than the spirits of Ireland, for it was not required that the for-

287
mer should be put into the hands of the British rectifiers. Upon what ground, then, should that measure of liberality be refused to Ireland, which was granted to the British colonists and to the traders of France? Upon what pretence should the English board of excise demand that Irish spirits should be subjected to British rectifiers, in order to have it mixed with deleterious articles, and denominated rum or brandy, before it was brought to sale? Such a system was quite absurd, and calculated to injure the character, because it must serve to spoil the quality of the Irish spirit. Thus, indeed, it was, that Irish spirit lost its favour with those in this country, who would otherwise be delighted with that article. The fact was, that through the preposterous system of the English board of excise, the Irish spirit was not brought to sale in England until it was actually spoiled. For himself, he had no connection whatever with the Irish distilleries; he took up this question entirely upon public grounds, knowing that a large capital was embarked in the business of distillation in Ireland—that this capital gave employment to a great deal of industry, and that it was most materially advantageous to the agriculture of his country. It was clear that the English board sought to break down the Irish distillation of spirits, as far as that could be done, by excluding that article from the British ports, or destroying its character after it was imported. Yet it was pretended that the English distillers were not jealous of the Irish. But how did the liberality of the English distillers appear? Why, the proposed motion was scarcely made known, when a petition was laid upon the table from the English rectifiers, decidedly against it. But he trusted that parliament would not be influenced by the narrow, illiberal views of any set of men, and above all, that it would never sanction a positive act of injustice, by injuring the trade of Ireland, and violating that solemn compact, the Union.
Mr. W. Dundasexpressed his concurrence in the motion; but he could not help requesting his right hon. friend to remember that he was chancellor of the Exchequer for Scotland as well as for Ireland, and to reflect that if the Irish distilleries were allowed the free import of their spirits into England, it was but common justice that the same privilege should be granted to the poor distiller of Scotland.
Mr. Marryatsaid, it was impossible, if
288
fairly manufactured, that either Scotch or Irish spirits could find a market in this country, yet a large quantity did find its way here, and every gallon which was imported turned out of consumption a gallon of English spirits, paying a higher duty. This might be claimed as an indulgence; for the act of Union did not give it; the Irish spirit came here now only because it paid a lower duty than the English distiller had to pay on his manufacture; and yet they came and asked for a further exemption; they now wished their spirits not to pass through the hands of the rectifiers, which regulation was most necessary for the protection of the revenue. The consequence would be, if the resolution was carried, that the market would be entirely supplied by illicit distillation. He was the more surprised at this measure being now introduced, as a neighbour of his (a distiller) had informed him, he had seen a letter from the chancellor of the Exchequer which disclaimed any such intention. If the measure passed into a law, the English distillers would certainly be entitled to claim an indemnity, as their business would be destroyed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the board of excise had suggested to him that this measure might affect the security of the revenue; but he was bound not to let any consideration of revenue interfere with the due execution of the act of Union, and if any of the clauses of that act were of doubtful meaning, the House was equally bound, in justice and liberality, to explain them in the sense most favourable to Ireland.
Sir J. Newportdeprecated the language of an hon. member, in so loosely casting an imputation upon the conduct of the Irish and Scotch distillers. The hon. member had not a particle of evidence to sustain the charge, that the spirit of Ireland was not as fairly manufactured as that of England. But the fact was, that the Irish spirit was of a much superior manufacture, or it would not have had so much sale in competition with the spirit manufactured in England. The Irish distillery was under the special protection of the Union. But such was the superior quality of Irish spirit, that a great quantity of it was imported into this country before the Union, as might be seen upon reference especially to the imports of 1797. The import of this article had, however, considerably increased since the Union, and nothing could prevent that increase, if

289
the Irish spirits were not deteriorated by the interposition of jealous manufacturers. Let the spirit be sold in the state in which it was originally manufactured, and there could be no doubt of an increasing demand for it in England [Hear!]. Ireland felt a great interest in the success of its distilleries, and whatever it gained from that source, could never be regarded as a gain at the expense of England; as every wise statesman must feel that the gain of any part of the united kingdom was the gain of the whole, as the strength of any part contributed to the strength of the empire at large.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that previous to the Union this subject had come under Mr. Pitt's consideration, and he had received several representations, stating that the effect of it would be, that a large portion of the trade and capital of the distilleries would he transferred from England to Ireland. He replied, as a statesman of enlightened views ought, that it was a matter of indifference to him to what part of the empire the capital was transferred. On that principle, the union was framed, and he thought they had no right to consult the question of revenue at the expense of the first principles of the Union.
Mr. W. Smithacknowledged, that Ireland was a country to which England owed a debt of fearful magnitude for many ages of misgovernment, but this he thought was a bad mode of payment. He could not agree, that because some of the manufactures of Ireland had been destroyed, we were therefore to destroy some of the manufactures of England also. His hon. friend, whom he was glad to see in his place (Mr. J. Foster) had often contended, that the House had no right to interfere with the internal regulations of Ireland; he should like to know if that principle were now to be maintained. He strongly objected to the late period of the session at which this matter was brought on; and he also thought that as the excise had found sufficient reason for the mention of the obnoxious clause, the House ought to be acquainted with those reasons, now that it was about to be rescinded. It was not correct to speak of the rectifiers as the rivals of the Irish distillery; it would have been more consistent so to denominate the malt distillers, and on their behalf he must protest against this measure, except as an experiment. They had no objection to the importation of Irish spirits, if they were put on the same
290
footing, but they could not contend against high duties and wide consciences. He thought if a manufacture was to be set up, it was indifferent to the statesman where; but where a manufacture was already established, flourishing, and paying a large revenue to the government, it was neither prudent nor just to put all that to risk for the sake of something which might be carried on more advantageously in another part of the country.
Mr. John Foster, as he had been called upon in so pointed a manner, would only observe, that he had not said what the hon. member had imputed to him, and he would tell him why it was impossible he should have said so. At that time the English parliament was the parliament of Ireland, and he never could have been guilty of the absurdity of asserting, that they could not legislate for the whole of the empire. He put it to the hon. gentleman whether he could consider it as the part of a good member of parliament to be setting the manufacturers of one part of the country against those of another part, as if they had separate interests. He hoped never to see a national question so treated again.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

LOTTERY BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the order of the clay for the third reading of the Lottery bill, said, that in consequence of the communications which had taken place between an hon. friend of his and the hon. member for Aberdeen, he had consented to withdraw what were considered the objectionable clauses in the bill.
Mr. Humeexpressed his satisfaction at the decision of the right hon. gentleman and pointed out some passages in the 33d and 38th clauses of the bill, which also required amendment. He also protested against the use of black letter in bills, which sometimes rendered it extremely difficult to ascertain their precise contents. In consequence of its having been alleged that the secretary of the lottery had some share in the contract, and might therefore favour one lottery office keeper or another, he wished to bring up two clauses, prohibiting the secretary, or any of the commissioners, from having any interest, direct or indirect, with the contract for the lottery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that such an enactment would be wholly unnecessary. The secretary was

291
an annual appointment, under the control of the treasury, and if any misconduct were proved against him, it was their duty to remove him. He considered such control more effective than any legislative interference.
Sir M. W. Ridleydeclared it to be his opinion, that a greater fraud had never been practised on the public, than that which had taken place in the last lottery. The amount of the prizes was stated to be 130,000 l., when, in fact, it was only 130,000 l. stock. The whole system of lotteries consisted of fraud and trick; and the right hon. gentleman would deserve well of the country by taking the earliest possible opportunity to put an end to it.
The bill was then read a third lime.

PETITION FROM HER MAJESTY TO BE HEARD BY HER COUNSEL.
Lord Dacrepresented the following petition from her Majesty:—
"CAROLINE REGINA:
"The Queen has heard, with inexpressible astonishment, that a bill, conveying charges, and intended to degrade her and to dissolve her marriage with the King, has been brought by the first minister of the King into the House of Lords, where her Majesty has no counsel or other officer to assert her rights. The only alleged foundation for the bill is the report of a secret committee, proceeding solely on papers submitted to them, and before whom no single witness was examined. The Queen has been further informed, that her counsel last night were refused a hearing at the bar of the House of Lords, at that stage of the proceeding when it was most material that they should be heard, and that a list of the witnesses, whose names are known to her accusers, is to be refused to her. Under such circumstances, the Queen doubts, whether any other course is left to her, but to protest in the most solemn manner against the whole of the proceeding; but she is anxious to make one more effort to obtain justice, and therefore desires that her counsel may be admitted to state her claims at the bar of the House of Lords."
Lord Dacre Lord Dacre moved, that the counsel be called in.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that it was a matter of infinite importance that the practice of their lordships' House should be regulated by strict and invariable principles. The petition did not explain on what points her majesty wished to be heard by counsel. The ordinary course was, for counsel to be heard upon the second reading of a bill, and when the evidence to be brought forward was explained; but he believed this was the first time that ever it was proposed that counsel should address their lordships upon circumstances not specified, and when there was no evidence before them. If counsel were to he heard, he thought that they must be required to explain what were the points to which their address was intended to apply. If they were not so limited, their address might apply to matters of fact which could have no concern with the defence. The question was not, therefore, whether counsel should be called in, but whether they should not be confined by an instruction of the House if they were called in.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, the proper course would be, either immediately to agree to instruct the counsel, or otherwise to order them to be called in, and asked on what points they meant to address the House. If they meant to argue that the preamble of the bill was not sufficiently detailed, that would be an intelligible ground; if they meant to contend that a list of witnesses ought to be furnished to her majesty, that would be an intelligible ground; if they meant to propose to expedite the proceedings, or to delay them, all these would be intelligible grounds: but he could not consent to their being called in without some limitation. The hearing counsel at all at the present stage was quite unprecedented. If therefore their lordships, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, agreed to hear them, it must be after calling on them to fix precisely the points on which they were to address the House. As the noble baron had moved that they be called, he should therefore move that they be asked what points they meant to urge.
The motion was agreed to, and the counsel were called to the bar.
The Lord Chancellorthen stated, that he was desired by the House to ask upon what points the counsel intended to address their lordships, and, after they
232
had answered, then to direct them to withdraw.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that he was commanded by her majesty to appear at their lordships bar, in consequence of the proceeding instituted against her, and that he had several points to urge in behalf of his royal client. Her majesty had last night been served by the gentleman usher of the black rod with a copy of a bill, presented to their lordships, which contained charges of the gravest nature, and her majesty could not suffer the shortest interval to elapse without stating her objections to the whole proceeding thus instituted by bill. Their lordships, he hoped, would also suffer him to add his regret that the request made by her majesty yesterday to be heard against this proceeding was not complied with. It was also the wish of her majesty's counsel to object to the course of proceeding on account of the relative situation in which their lordships and her majesty stood with respect to proceedings which it might still be necessary to adopt. They were also directed to address some observations to their lordships, touching the mode of proceeding, and to the time; touching any delay, also, which might be proposed, as to whether that delay should take place at the present, or be interposed in some subsequent period of the proceeding. It was also their wish to declare certain matters on the part of her majesty, which they thought calculated to have an important effect on the proceedings before their lordships; and he had to add, that the present was the stage of the proceedings in which it was proper for them to state to their lordships those matters to which he had thus generally adverted. They begged further to observe, that it was matter of very serious detriment to her majesty that their lordships should have rejected the prayer of her petition of yesterday, and refused to hear her counsel before the bill to which her petition of this day referred had been brought in and read a first time. This appeared to her majesty the more extraordinary when the ground of that refusal was considered. It was said that a report on which a bill was to be founded, had been made in a certain place; but that of the existence of any such proceeding her majesty could have no knowledge. Her majesty and her counsel were held to be quite ignorant of this proceeding, though every body in the metropolis but themselves

233
was well acquainted with it. In fact, the report was by this time in the possession of every man, woman, and child, within the range of the circulation of the newspapers. It was stated by these newspapers, that their lordships had ordered the report to be printed, and every one of them had published copies of it. These statements might, perhaps, be fabrications—they were perhaps gross libels on the secret committee which their lordships had appointed, and on their lordships House: but as they were given in a very consistent form, and as those who had dared to circulate assertions apparently so calumnious had not been judicially visited for their presumption, her majesty's counsel began to be afraid that there was some foundation for them, and that the report, of which they and her majesty could know nothing, might in fact be in existence. But that report, if it did exist, went farther than the bill, with a copy of which they had been furnished. There was matter in the report which had not found its way into the bill; and that was a point upon which her majesty's counsel were also most desirous of being heard.
The counsel was ordered to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellorthought it quite impossible for their lordships to permit counsel to address them in the way proposed. It was his most anxious desire that strict justice should be done, in this as in every other case; but if certain matters were to be stated at the bar, to show why this proceeding could not be adopted, they must either be matters of fact or matters of law; if matters of fact, as the circumstances of the evidence were not yet known, they might be irrelevant; and if they were points of law, they might have nothing to do with the defence which was to be made against the bill.
Earl Greywas sensible of the necessity of adhering to precedent and analogy in their lordships proceedings, but it ought to be recollected, that this was a case for which there was no precedent, and he hoped that it would never form a precedent for any future one. If they were to be guided by precedent, it was impossible for them to find any. Their lordships object ought to be to do substantial justice. The learned lord proposed, in the first place, to limit the hearing of the counsel to the mode of proceeding on the bill; but it should be recollected that the petition objected to proceeding by bill at
234
all. He understood the counsel to state that he had several facts and circumstances to urge; but he did not state whether those facts and circumstances related to the defence, or to the manner in which their lordships were proceeding. He wished their lordships seriously to consider whether they would not be acting too hastily, if they, from a mere regard to form, excluded the counsel from stating any facts which might be of importance to the case of his client.
The Earl of Liverpooldid not understand what possible limit there could be to the statement of counsel, if they were allowed to proceed in the way they proposed. To allow them to speak on matters not connected with the defence would be to allow them to speak on every possible subject. He thought the course proposed by his learned friend afforded as great a latitude as could be allowed.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that after a bill of this description was read a first time, the nature of the evidence on which it was founded must be explained before any noble lord could propose its second reading. Every person who was interested in opposing it would then be entitled to be heard against it; but if counsel were allowed to be heard now in the way proposed, such a proceeding would be neither more nor less than a surrender of all their lordships functions. He therefore put the motion, that the counsel be called in, and instructed to confine their argument to the mode of the proceeding on the bill, and to the time of such proceeding.
The Marquis of Lansdownobserved, that the real question was, not whether their lordships should hear counsel on the mode of proceeding with regard to the bill, but whether they would hear arguments to induce them to abandon the bill altogether, in order to adopt some other course.
Earl Grosvenorregretted that counsel had not been heard before the bill was introduced. That certainly was the time at which their lordships ought to have taken the objection into consideration. He, however, thought that the hearing should now be granted.
The Earl of Lauderdalecould not conceive how their lordships could be asked to hear counsel against the proceeding by bill at this period. When they came to the second reading, counsel might very properly be heard on that point; and if it

235
could then be shown that they ought to abandon that course—that the measure ought not to be a legislative one—the bill would be given up. In the mean time it appeared to him that it would be most improper to hear counsel.
The Lord Chancellor, as a peer of parliament, gave it as his opinion that counsel could be heard on nothing but the mode of' proceeding to be had on the bill, and the time at which the proceedings should take place. When, however, he stated that their lordships ought so to confine the counsel, it was to be understood that he meant the limitation to be without prejudice to any argument which might be urged against the course adopted by bill. Surely, according to every parliamentary principle, their lordships must reject any attempt to tell them what they ought to do in this stage.
Lord Hollandreminded their lordships, that the great point on which her majesty's counsel desired to be heard, was to show that the proceeding by bill was a hardship to his client. If he understood what was likely to be done in the progress of the bill, all the witnesses for the prosecution would be heard at a stage long before any defence could be made. If this was so, the question of proceeding by bill had best be discussed now, because, if there were any hardship in the case, that hardship would occur before the counsel could have an opportunity of stating any thing against it.
Earl Greyagain insisted on the propriety of hearing counsel now against going on with the bill. When they came to the second reading, if it should be shown that the course adopted was wrong, time and labour would be lost, as well as evil done. If counsel were to be heard against the bill at all, this was, on every principle of justice and propriety, the proper time for hearing them. Undoubtedly their lordships could not suffer counsel to obtrude themselves, and to dictate the course of proceedings to be adopted by the House; but that did not prevent their lordships from seriously weighing the reasons which might now be offered against the bill.
The Lord Chancellorrepeated the reasons on which he thought the counsel ought not to be heard. Were he in a situation to consult his feelings as a man, he would not object to the application which had been made; but, in his situation as a peer of the realm he was bound
236
to resist it. His lordship then put the question on the motion for limiting the counsel, which was carried.
The counsel being then called in, the Lord Chancellor stated, that he was commanded to inform them, that in what they should represent to the House they were to confine themselves to the mode and manner of proceeding to be had on the bill, and to the time when those proceedings should take place.
Mr. Brougham, her Majesty's Attorney General, then proceeded to address their lordships to the following effect:—His learned friend and himself were totally ignorant of what had occurred in their absence, and therefore their lordships would naturally suppose that they were at a loss to comprehend the exact points to which as they had been told, their argument was to be limited, and the manner in which they were to be tied down in entering upon the important task which they were then called upon to perform. In making the effort which he was then making, with all good faith to comprehend the command which their lordships had just imposed upon him, he should trust to the indulgence of their lordships for his pardon, if, in the discharge of his duty, he happened to misinterpret the order which they had issued, and he therefore begged of their lordships, if he was guilty of any such misinterpretation, to impute it to accident, or rather to misfortune, that he had not caught in its right sense their lordships meaning, and not to any intention on his part (which before God he disclaimed) of offering any observation to their lordships which should in the slightest degree disobey the instructions which they had given him. He gathered from what had been intimated to him, that those instructions commanded him to confine whatever he had himself to urge, or whatever her majesty had commanded him to urge on her behalf, to the manner of proceeding with respect to or upon the bill which had been served upon her majesty last night by the ordinary officer of their lordships; and assuming it to be right to proceed by bill—
The Lord Chancellor.—" By this bill."
Mr. Brougham.—By this bill? He would take it so; because by that admission their lordships would decide two points in his favour:—first of all, they would determine that the proceedings by bill (to which many heavy and grievous objections might be made, if permission

237
were granted to enter into that question) were the proceedings which their lordships had adopted; and, secondly, they would determine, in so inflexible a manner that it would be in vain to offer resistance to it, that they would proceed by bill in no other manner than the bill then before their lordships warranted them in doing. He should therefore presume that that bill was unalterable at present, and irrevocable till some future opportunity, and should argue for his illustrious client under the idea that he was confined to the manner of the proceedings, and the time or times in which those proceedings were to take place. If he rightly understood the instructions of their lordships with respect to the mode of proceeding, there was no occasion for him to say a word upon it; the only mode of proceeding which their lordships could now adopt was to propose the second reading of the bill; and therefore, as he was not prepared to propose that the third reading of the bill should precede the second, or indeed to suggest any other fanciful mode of legislation, he felt that, when they called upon him to argue on the mode of proceeding which was instituted against his illustrious client, they knew that they were not subjecting themselves to a long argument, as it was impossible for him to urge any argument at all upon such a subject. He could understand the instruction which had been given to him with regard to the time of proceeding, but he declared his incapacity to comprehend the instruction which had been given him relative to the mode or manner in which it was to be conducted.
Having stated thus much to their lordships, he should now confine his argument to the time of proceeding only; but he had been led to suppose that there were two points to which their lordships had wished to direct his attention, because they had first addressed him upon the manner of proceeding, and had afterwards limited him to the time or tunes of such proceeding. He now found that he had been mistaken; for if he were to go into the argument whether evidence ought to be received before the second reading of the bill, which the rules of their lordships' House (for which he entertained the highest respect) precluded, he should labour entirely in vain, and would be met by the obvious remark, that counsel ought not to be allowed to dictate to their lordships the mode in which they were to proceed,
238
and also that they ought not to be heard in detail against the bill until its second time of reading. The question of time was, therefore, one of the utmost importance, not only as regarded their lordships, but also with respect to the illustrious party whom he represented; for if he could satisfy their lordships that the nature and tendency of the present bill was such as suspended absolute destruction over the head of her majesty—if he could succeed in showing that the interests of justice demanded that it ought to be speedily discussed, and that her majesty the queen had, inconsequence, commanded her legal advisers to inform their lordships, as he on their behalf now did inform them, that she did not call for any delay; that she was ready to proceed forthwith in her defence against the report of the secret committee, and also against the charges in the preamble to the celebrated bill now before their lordships; that she desired their lordships to prove that evening, if they could, or else tomorrow, all the accusations which were contained in that unparalleled preamble to a bill as unparalleled and unprecedented as the preamble itself.
If he could succeed in the argument which he had urged, partly from the indulgence extended to him by their lordships, and partly in the delivery of the strong, impetuous, and even clamorous desire of her majesty to have the accusations, now brought, proved against her, if either their lordships, or the attorney-general, or any other of the king's counsel, could prove them; then he trusted that he should have made out a case, even in confining himself strictly to the question, which would induce their lordships to throw out the present bill now upon its first time of reading. The suggestion of throwing it out, even in its first stage, was one which arose naturally out of the argument which he had been allowed to employ upon the time of the proceeding; for it was his duty to protest against all delay, and to satisfy their lordships, that the only just and consistent measure which they could pursue—indeed, the only measure which did not militate against the safety of his illustrious client—was, either by throwing out the bill in its present stage, or else by proceeding immediately to read it a second tin:e.—The learned gentleman then proceeded to state, that it would not be a difficult matter to deal with the instruction of their lordships, if

239
it were distinctly stated that he and his learned friend were not to be heard against the bill until its second reading, because such instruction would be consistent and intelligible. But, from the obscurity of the present instruction, he was at a loss to know the exact path on which he ought to walk; and he was afraid that, if he veered but a single hair's breadth, and but for a single moment, from the straight line upon which be was suffered to tread, even though it were for the mere purpose of gaining a purchase, in order to get on better in that straight line, he should be accused of not showing the deference which was due, and which he was particularly anxious to pay, to the expressed wishes of their lordships. He trusted that their lordships would consider the advantage with which he should be able to address them, if he could throw off the advocate, and address them as an individual upon this question. The relief he should gain by such a change would be incalculable; as he should then only have to answer for his opinions as an individual, and not for those which he might have to propound as an advocate. Feeling, however, that he was now standing at their lordships bar in the character of an advocate, he felt obliged to fling himself upon the compassionate consideration of their lordships, and to implore them to consider any thing offensive which he might utter, as forced by necessity from the advocate, and not from the individual, who addressed them.
He now felt it to be his duty to state that it had reached her majesty—and these were times, and her's was a situation, in which the ear was open to every report—but it had reached her majesty, that it had been argued (and he had himself seen the argument in the public newspapers, and therefore, aware, as he was, that it could not at all influence their lordships decision, he was still bound, on behalf of his illustrious client, to guard against any popular impression reaching the minds and perverting the judgments of those who were her judges, who he trusted would treat it with the contempt it deserved) that she was to be dealt with as if she was the lowest and not the highest subject in the realm. In opposition to that argument he would say, "God grant that she were in the same situation with the lowest subject in the realm! God grant that she had never risen to a higher rank than the humblest indivi-
240
dual who owed allegiance to his majesty!" For, if she had not, she would not have had occasion to complain of a single day's delay in obtaining relief from the load of calumny which had been cast upon her by the present anomalous proceeding. If she had been the meanest instead of the most exalted personage in the country, she would have had no proceeding served upon her, such as he held a copy of in his hand; she would, on the contrary, have been fenced round by the triple fence whereby the law of England guards the life and honour of the poorest female. For what, he would ask, was the nature of the proceeding now instituted against her majesty? A bill of Divorce, not founded upon any evidence of adultery—a bill of Pains and Penalties, not founded upon any previous proceedings, either in the courts of common or civil law. Before such a bill could have been introduced against any other individual, there must have been a sentence in the consistory court—there must have been the verdict of a jury, who might have sympathised with her feelings—who, being taken from the same rank in life as herself, and knowing that the evidence produced against her might, under similar circumstances, be produced against their wives and daughters the next, would have been influenced by a desire to guard against a common danger. There would then have been among her judges none who were the servants of her husband, for her counsel would have had the right of challenging all such—none who were hired during his pleasure—none who were placed in a situation to feel gratitude for the past, or expectation for the future favours which he had it in his power to bestow. She would have been tried by twelve honest, impartial, and disinterested Englishmen, at whose doors the influence which would act upon her present judges might agitate for years, before it would make the slightest impression either upon the hopes or the fears which it was calculated to excite. She had, therefore, good cause to lament that she was not the lowest subject of his majesty; and he could assure their lordships, that she would willingly sacrifice every thing, excepting her honour, which was dearer to her than her life, to obtain the poorest cottage which had ever sheltered an Englishwoman from injustice.
Upon such grounds was founded his reason for making as short as possible

241
(for he was still observing upon the time of the proceeding) the interval which would elapse between the present evening and the discussion on the second reading of the bill. He had many other reasons of a similar nature, all pointing in a similar direction, all tending to the same point—he meant the granting of her majesty's prayer for the immediate commencement of the investigation—which he was prevented from urging by the limits to which their lordships had confined him. He could not, however, refrain from railing the attention of their lordships to the situation in which they might hereafter be placed, and to the anomalous condition to which they might be reduced, if they did not get rid of the present bill as suddenly as possible, and indeed altogether. Their lordships would observe, that there was nothing in the allegations of the preamble which precluded their lordships from becoming judges in a criminal proceeding, upon charges arising out of the very evidence which they were called upon to examine as legislators in support of those allegations. He took it for granted—indeed, his respect for their lordships compelled him to suppose it impossible that they could have done otherwise—that they had well perpended whether the whole charge which had been brought against his illustrious client might not amount to an impeachable offence. He took this point, he repeated it, for granted; because, if an impeachment were not an impossibility they would never have taken into their consideration a bill which by probability, might render them masters of the evidence on which they might afterwards be called upon to give sentence as judges. He took it also for granted that it was equally certain that they must have also decided another point; he meant this— that where there was no indictable offence which could be punished by the common law, there also was then no impeachment which could be sustained; though, for his own part, he must confess that he did not know any principle of law, or any course of practice, upon which that doctrine could be defended. Indeed, he had always understood that an impeachment was never instituted except where an indictment could not lie; but their lordships, from the peculiar constitution of their House having had the opportunity of learning the opinion of the twelve judges, appear-
242
ed to have come, upon long and mature deliberation, to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that which he had, no doubt very erroneously, supposed to be the true one. Still, though he conceded all these points to their lordships there arose out of the bill itself a point, which no respect to their lordships could induce him, as an advocate, to give up for a single moment. Granted that no high-treason had been committed under the statute of Edward the 3rd, because the adultery—or he ought rather to have said, the alleged adultery—had been committed with a foreigner, and abroad; yet he would ask, was Malta no part of the king's dominions?—Was Gibraltar not included in the possessions of his majesty?— How could he, or their lordships, tell that his illustrious client might not have touched at Malta, where he believed she actually did touch, during her voyage for a-year and a half up and down the Mediterranean, with the very individual with whom this adulterous intercourse was said to have been carried on?—How could they tell whether it might not have been carried on at other places intra prœsidia? —If such adultery had been committed in such places, were their lordships prepared to admit that an impeachment could not be founded upon it in another quarter?—Supposing that they were inclined to make that admission, he would then ask them—or rather he would take it for granted that their lordships had applied also to the court of Admiralty, and had decided another point against him by the authority of the civil courts of the country. That point was, that nothing done on board of a king's ship could be construed into—
The Lord Chancellorhere interrupted Mr. Brougham by observing to their lordships, that he thought the learned counsel was transgressing the rules of the House in alluding to what their lordships might be supposed to have done or left undone. He was likewise of opinion, that, in pursuing that line of argument, the learned counsel had not complied with the instructions which had been notified to him as the commands of their lordships. If their lordships thought fit to allow such a-latitude of argument, they certainly had the power to do so; bur, as a peer of parliament, he must say, that he would not sit upon the woolsack to listen to it.
Mr. Broughamthen continued.—He would persist in making the attempt to

243
pursue that line of argument until he was silenced by the authority of their lordships. In doing so he was only performing a sacred duty which he owed to his illustrious client, and which his conscience informed him that no difficulty or danger ought to induce him to neglect. If prevented from performing it, he must certainly bend before their lordships' power. Their lordships, however were used to be just.
The Lord Chancellor.—Their lordships were just, and had made their present order for the purpose of continuing so.
Mr. Brougham.—As he was not allowed to proceed in the course which he had intended, he should now proceed to show the immediate connexion which existed, between the topics on which he had just been speaking and the point of time to which he had been limited by their lordships. His argument was to prove, that this bill ought to be sent out of doors immediately, and that it could not lie 24 hours upon the table without producing great and imminent danger to the safety of his client. Indeed; he would assert that, unless that bill was discarded by their lordships, no justice could be done to his illustrious client. The line of argument which he was then adopting was perfectly consistent with the instructions of their lordships; for, the more clearly he could show the bill itself to be pregnant with mischief and danger, the more did his argument apply to the time in which this proceeding was to be carried on. As he had been instructed to confine his argument as to the time, he could not help observing, that the light in which he had endeavoured to put this question was one which had struck upon his mind most forcibly; and he therefore felt himself bound to present it to their lordships until he was silenced by their authority. All that he had now to add was, that her majesty desired no delay; that she was most anxious to have the evidence who were to substantiate, or rather to endeavour to substantiate, those foul and false charges against her honour, called without delay to their lordships' bar. He ought perhaps to apologize for applying such language to the 'preamble of a bill which their lordships had allowed to be read a first time; but still his sense of duty informed him that he ought to be allowed to say that those charges were foul, false, and most malignant, since they originated from a report, which, having
244
been made in the first instance upon written documents, and without the examination of witnesses, and having been backed in the second by the approbation, of their lordships, had propagated many circumstances to the great and manifest detriment of her majesty.
The learned gentleman then proceeded to say that the queen was not only desirous that the proceedings now instituted against her should meet with no obstacle on her part to a speedy investigation, but was even desirous that the proceedings, after they bad once commenced, should continue de die in diem. He was not certain whether in making that observation he was conforming strictly to the line which their lordships had chalked out for him; but what he wished to urge was, that their lordships, after they had once commenced the proceedings, ought not to allow them to meet with any suspension; for could there be a more crying injustice towards her majesty, than to go on with the accusations which had been preferred against her, to hear part of them supported by evidence; then to discontinue the examination of them, in order to allow that evidence to be collected, sorted, and patched up, so as to tally even with those parts of it which made most materially in her majesty's favour? The first demand, therefore, which he had to make of their lordships, was an immediate, the next was, a continued proceeding. That this would not occasion any difficulty or inconvenience to those who had preferred these accusations, he conceived that he bad a full right to assume; for was it to be imagined, that between the period when the Milan commission was first established and the present hour, they had not had time sufficient to bring over the evidence requisite to substantiate them? Was it to be presumed that any of the parties (he begged pardon—there was only one party—his illustrious client) was unprepared? He said there was only one party of which he could at present take notice, for he had no right to call their lordships, who were to be the judges, a party to this prosecution. Still, when he saw that the attorney-general, or some person appointed by him, was to appear at a future day by order of their lordships, he could not help surmising that there must be another party. He would assume that the party opposed to her majesty was an abstract or an allegorical personage, called Public

245
Justice. Still he would say, that if public justice had collected charges in March, 1819, it might have been prepared to support them by July, 1820. But then he supposed, it would be said that this proposition would take the accusing party by surprise. It might be so; but when he saw that there were persons high in office, and ministers of the Crown, ordering the counsel for the Crown to attend on behalf of the prosecution, he thought he had a right to assume (though he knew nothing of it officially) that they had something to do with it. But if the ministers should say that they were taken unawares, and without preparation, then he would apply himself to their lordships not only as a branch of the legislature, but also as a court of justice, not to allow further time to those individuals, who, in this case, were his antagonists, and of whom it would be improper and highly derogatory from their lordships, to suppose that they could be among the judges of his client. From such a plea, if made, he would draw two conclusions—either that they were ready with their witnesses, and able to go on with their charges (which he deemed to be a false conclusion); or, what he believed to be the true conclusion, that the king's servants believed every iota of the charges in the preamble to the bill to form part of a tissue of the most gross falsehood and the most rank imposture. It was impossible for a moment to suppose that the king's ministers believed the queen guilty. Had they really thought that there was the slightest foundation for any one of the charges in the preamble to the bill, they would not have ventured to offer her 50,000 l. a-year, with the privilege of residing in a foreign court with the rank and dignity of a queen.
The Bishop of Exeter.—My lords, I move that the counsel be ordered to withdraw. [Counsel having withdrawn] I ask the House, whether the counsel has or has not attended to the directions of the House?
Lord Hollandsaid, that he had never heard a more extraordinary appeal. The counsel had been directed to confine themselves to certain limits, and they proceeded accordingly; but in the midst of the speech a reverend lord had thought fit to rise in his place, and ask, as a matter of information, whether the counsel were obeying the direction of the House? If the reverend lord had formed any opinion
246
of his own in the negative, it became him with the great knowledge and acuteness he possessed, to point out in what way the counsel had deviated. It was strange, indeed, that he should call upon the whole body of the House to decide the point, merely for his personal satisfaction. After what had occurred, it would be even stranger still if the reverend lord did not undertake to go through the whole argument of the learned counsel, and prove in what way he had deviated from the line the House had directed him to follow-This would afford the House a singular advantage, especially as the counsel had himself stated that he had great difficulty in understanding the precise points to which he was to direct his observations.
Mr. Brougham, having again taken his station at the bar, proceeded:—In adverting to the question of time, he had called upon the House to proceed without delay, and one answer he had anticipated was, that the supporters of the bill would say that they were not yet prepared with their evidence. To this he was endeavouring to reply when he had been interrupted: he was attempting to show that the confidential servants of the Crown were placed in this dilemma—either that they were satisfied that there was some ground, some colour for the accusation, which might be a sufficient reason for not proceeding immediately; or, on the other hand, that they were not ready to go on, because they had been taken by surprise, because the bill had been forced upon them, and because they themselves, utterly disbelieving every tittle of charge against the queen, could not be prepared with testimony to support the preamble. He had ventured humbly, and out of respect to the ministers of the Crown, to assert, that if they had believed, he did not say any material part of the allegations, but any part, however insignificant, they never would have pursued that line of conduct which was now notorious; they never would have consented that her majesty should remain abroad unmolested, without any measure of degradation or divorce, exposing the dignity and honour of the Crown, and the morals of the country where she resided—the first to be lowered, and the last to be contaminated. They had offered her a splendid, a royal revenue; she was to live where she chose, to be announced at foreign courts as the lawful and rightful queen of England; and, above all, the ministers of the Crown

247
were themselves to move addresses to her in parliament. Was it to be credited that they would have acquiesced in all this, if they had given a moment's belief to any part of the statements in the preamble of the bill?
Having dealt with this topic, so far at least as to bring it within the notice of their lordships, he begged once again to be allowed to implore the House to mark the painful situation in which her majesty was placed. He said nothing of the condition in which her counsel stood; they must do their duty, and had no right to complain; but the situation of the queen was hard indeed. Before any step had been taken against her—before her title had been disputed—before even men's minds were made up that any thing should be done, various measures had been adopted to stigmatize and degrade her. If those who hitherto had prosecuted this business were indeed aware of the full weight of the evidence—if they relied upon it—if they knew that it must in the end lead to a conviction of enormous guilt, they still had happily contrived that the bitterest stigma, the basest degradation, should precede even that conviction. How unspeakably more severe was the lot of the queen, how infinitely more unjust the treatment she had experienced, since it appeared that the very first step taken to ensure her a fair and an impartial trial was previously to sentence her —or rather to pass over the form of sentence, as they passed over the evidence —and to inflict a punishment that had never been awarded, arising out of a trial that had been never had; and all this for the purpose, forsooth, of securing her afterwards a calm and an unprejudiced hearing. Of this the queen now complained: she could not complain before, because till now she never knew that she was to be put upon her trial. Under these circumstances she had a right to remonstrate that the first step towards bringing her to her trial was not only to deprive her of the presumption of law (falsely called merciful, because it was only just), that until the accused were convicted she should be deemed innocent; but to deprive her of it, not by general expressions and vague insinuations, but by affixing a stain upon her forehead, which compelled every man who resorted to his church to see in the very service of God that a crying injustice had been done to his fellow-subject. From all such persons
248
as had inflicted this odious stigma—from all such authorities—from every species of extrajudicial proceeding—from every cast, colour, and shade of party feeling—from every kind of oppression and indignity, her majesty appealed to this House. She came before their lordships as the highest branch of the legislature, the supreme court of judicature—she claimed protection from those who were now trying her by bill, and who hereafter might be called upon to try her by impeachment—who were now legislating, when they might at some future period be required to sit in judgment; but, whether acting in the one capacity or in the other, with the confidence of injured innocence she flung herself upon the House, and trusted that no mixture of party—no presence of interested persons—no adventitious influence exercised out of doors—no supposed want of sympathy with the feelings of the country—no alleged, though falsely alleged, tendency on the part of their lordships to truckle to royal favour, would stand between the queen and justice, or prevent her case from receiving a fair, impartial, and an unprejudiced decision. She appealed to their lordships with the more confidence, because she knew that the House was composed of the most illustrious peers, spiritual as well as temporal, that any nation of the world could boast.
Mr. Denmanimmediately followed on the same side. In submitting to their lordships those prayers not contained in her majesty's petition, he said, he was placed in a singularly difficult situation between the instructions he had that morning received from his royal client and the directions of the House. It would immediately occur to every man, that when a charge of this weighty nature had received the sanction of a bill—when that bill, which had been once read, imported not only degradation from rank, but the dissolution of an existing marriage—considerations of a very different kind must have thronged into the mind of the party accused from any questions as to the mere mode and time of such a proceeding. He would not conceal from their lordships that he and his learned friend had received from their illustrious-client one especially delegated duty, namely, to press upon the House the absolute necessity, if justice were to be done, that this most extraordinary, most anomalous, and most unprecedented proceeding should be brought to the spcedi-

249
est possible conclusion. Therefore, by the instruction of the House as to the manner, he had not been so much taken by surprise, though her majesty did not presume to prescribe what course their lordships ought to pursue; but the question of time was of the last importance, because, unquestionably, if these heavy charges were to remain a rankling poison in the public mind, afflicting even that judicature which might ultimately be called upon to pronounce as to the queen's guilt or innocence, he should despair of a just decision from the united wisdom of the world. On a former occasion, her majesty had submitted an application, that the secret committee, which she was informed had been instructed to report, should not enter upon the inquiry until she were provided with the means of defence; that petition, like the request of yesterday, was rejected. He alluded to this fact, because he was anxious, in the first instance, to show that there was no inconsistency in then requiring delay, and now most earnestly entreating the House that the bill just introduced should be allowed to take its unobstructed course, that the whole might arrive at the most speedy termination. It was not to be supposed that an accused female, and that female a queen, would willingly allow an imputation of this kind to rest upon her without asserting her innocence, and defying her adversaries to the proof of her guilt. If any delay occurred, it was impossible not to see that the public sympathy, so powerfully excited on this occasion, for the injured sufferer, might be perverted and polluted by such charges going forth to the world in the authoritative shape of a bill. However imperfect, then, her means of defence; however deprived of the instruments to repel so deadly an attack upon her honour, the queen was anxious to meet her accusers face to face—if possible at this very instant, but, at farthest, after the lapse of only twenty-four hours. No injustice could be done by such a course—there was nothing to prevent the production of all the evidence against her because that evidence had already been submitted to a secret committee: the whole case, on the part of the Crown, had been heard by a body which had felt itself warranted, in the character of a grand jury, to pronounce upon the accusation, and to call upon the queen to reply to it. He was aware that that committee sat to examine the contents of a scaled bag—he
250
was aware, also, that a second bag was submitted to its consideration; but he presumed that its deliberations took a wider range. Speaking as an English subject of a committee of the higher House of the English parliament, he was confident that it could not have proceeded upon written documents alone: acting as a grand jury on charges of the most atrocious description, it could not have decided without the examination of a single witness, or without seeing a single person from whose conduct and deportment it could judge of the truth or falsehood of the fearful accusations. The same evidence produced before the secret committee last week might be brought before the whole House to-morrow; the queen would then have an opportunity of confronting her foul calumniators, and of convincing the world that the verdict of the grand jury committee, if not false, because it was founded upon testimony of some kind however disgraceful, was at least erroneous and mistaken. In all our courts of justice such was the ordinary and established course; the grand jury itself was composed of persons wholly indifferent; they were summoned by a compulsory process and by a sworn officer; and if he were in any way connected with the parties, by an old statute the bills found by the grand jury he had summoned were null and void: the witnesses examined were all sworn in open court; and lastly, the true bill, by being filed, commenced its first stage of proceeding. If the same course had been pursued in this case, where would be the injustice of pressing it forward immediately? On a charge of high treason, the prosecutor and the accused were by law entitled to delay; but this case was different, and the royal lady for whom he appeared demanded immediate inquiry, and called upon her accusers to prove their case, that she might have an opportunity of vindicating her slandered fame, and covering them with shame and ignominy.
In looking at the analogies of common law, and in mentioning the words of "jury" and "courts of justice," he was well aware how inferior those institutions were to the illustrious body he was now addressing. Yet, though their lordships had adopted many of the principles by which they were guided, it was somewhat strange to observe how complete a contrast the whole of this proceeding formed to the ordinary and regular trial of a Bri-

251
tish subject. As a British subject, the queen now stood before their lordships; as a British subject she claimed not to be excluded from rights which the meanest individual in her kingdom enjoyed. She asked for no privilege—for no favour—for no advantage; justice, and strict justice only, constituted the whole of her demand. It was difficult to separate the question as to time from the nature of the offence and the character of the proceeding: in this respect he might, therefore, be guilty of some unintentional infringement of the directions of the House; but so essential was the urging of those points to the interests of his illustrious client, that he should venture to proceed with them until interrupted by the House. In the first place, this was a bill of degradation and divorce, without the intervention of a jury or the sentence of a spiritual court; and he need not remind the House that in a case between two subjects those wholesome forms could not have been avoided. In the case of the king, such a mode of proceeding, it was true, could not be adopted; but he was not aware that the objection applied to the prince of Wales, even though acting in the capacity of Regent; and in the bill it was charged that the misconduct of the queen had continued for six years. He had a right to presume, therefore, that until lately no sufficient ground had existed, or the ordinary course would have been pursued. Did it follow, however, that every thing was to be taken for granted in the same way as if the usual forms had been strictly observed? On the contrary, if the mode of defence furnished by the intervention of a jury were denied, it seemed to follow from these premises, that no divorce could now be obtained. The royal character of both parties to this suit were here laid aside, and, in considering in what respects the conjugal contract had been violated, and the consequences that ought to result, it would be fit that the House should strictly examine what had been the conduct of both the exalted individuals concerned. It would be its duty to examine, whether the wife had had no reason to complain—whether any circumstances of recrimination could be advanced—and whether the abandonment and destitution of the wife, if it had not cleared her of moral guilt, had not at least deprived the husband of his remedy. In all he was now advancing he did not for a moment concede that it was possible for her majesty
252
to have been guilty of the foul charges against her; but if the House should for a time be persuaded by some infamous witnesses to believe that there was the shadow of truth in them—even if he admitted, for the sake of argument, that a degree of criminality did attach to the queen on these accusations, which nothing but the most infernal malignity could have invented—still she might be able, by the circumstances of recrimination to which he had alluded, to defend herself sufficiently against the operation of this bill. Was it, then, too much to ask that one moment's needless delay should not occur, that the queen might know her accusers, see the witnesses, prove their infamy, and establish her own purity?
As to the mode of proceeding, it was her majesty's pleasure that her counsel should urge, as indispensable, that she should be furnished with a list of the witnesses against her; it was, in fact, so obviously necessary, that he could conceive nothing more alarming than that any one who might sit in judgment upon her should for one instant doubt its propriety. It had been doubted, whether this was not a case of high-treason, and, if it had been, the law of the land would have given the accused a right to such a list; and, because the proceeding was separated by such nice and merely technical differences, was it fit that it should be withheld? In every case, indeed, where a grand jury intervened, the names of the witnesses were of course endorsed upon the bill, and a full opportunity was afforded long before the trial, of impeaching their character or their principles. Did the House mean, with such dreadful charges impending over the head of the queen of England, to say that hers was the only case to be excepted—that a right granted to the meanest subject was to be denied her? If so, it would become the counsel of the queen to consider well whether it would not be their duty, not only to their ill—fated and illustrious client, but to the world, to abandon her defence, and to leave her accusers, who thus pursued her in defiance of the protections of the law, and the dictates of common justice, to the indignation and vengeance of posterity.
In addition to her claim for a list of the witnesses, her majesty expected that the rest of this grave proceeding should not form a striking contrast to the ordinary course of law. From the days of

253
Henry 8th to the present moment no precedent could be found to guide a parliamentary decision; this was the first attempt of the kind since the reign of the arbitrary sovereign to whom he had alluded; in the interval, the mild principles of English law, which protected the weak from the vindictive vengeance of the strong, had prevailed, and cases of this kind had been left to the ordinary tribunals. Though bills of attainder and bills of pains and penalties had been passed, they were in general matters of regret to constitutional minds; but they had always received one sweeping apology—state necessity. Could it be pretended that this apology existed in the present case, when six years of misconduct had elapsed, without trial, complaint, or remonstrance—when it was known that a commission had been laboriously employed abroad in sifting rubbish for evidence which was afterwards embodied into a report, and when that report had been long in the hands of the advisers of the Crown without any proceeding being founded upon it.
All pretence of state necessity then being wanting, as far as dispatch was concerned, would it be said that it existed on the ground of danger arising from spurious issue? Where was the proof of any connexion to produce a foreign offspring to claim succession to the Crown? Admitting, however, this plea of state necessity, it was the desire, the claim of her majesty, that it should be immediately carried into execution.
He wished to offer another consideration to their lordships; and whether it fell strictly within the order they had issued, he would not determine; but it was the desire of the queen that this application should be made to the House. She had heard of witnesses by scores, by hundreds—and, if by thousands, considering the quarter from whence these charges proceeded, she would not have been surprised; her humble request, therefore, was, that all the evidence contained in the green bags should be communicated to her majesty and the public. She wished to shelter herself under no concealment—the more the case was sifted, the more her own innocence and the guilt of her enemies would be apparent. She wished for every thing to be conducted openly, fairly, and without reserve. She feared nothing from inquiry, or from the utmost publicity; on the contrary she in-
254
vited and courted it, and therefore was most anxious that the whole of the evidence should be disclosed that the full means of investigation as to the nature and character of the testimony might be afforded to her.
He had already stated more than once, that he had no guide in an anomalous case like the present, but in the principles of the common law of England: that common law knew of no secret committees—no tribunals where the most illustrious persons might be accused and condemned without a hearing; and he only entreated, that the same forms and modes pursued in the lower courts should be adopted here, by which the queen would enjoy the fullest opportunity of vindication at the earliest possible moment: she would then be placed in a situation where she might examine how far the conjugal relation had been preserved on both sides—whether it had not been at least first violated by her accuser in almost every particular in which a queen could have a right to complain of her royal husband. Whether, after the proof of such allegations, the House would think fit to proceed at all, and to pass the bill upon the table, it was not for him to state; but if injustice must be done, he trusted it would not be forgotten, that the parties were thus far upon equal terms; they were man and wife, and if, in the course of what he or his learned friend had said, any thing had dropped which might be thought to bear hard upon the stronger party, he trusted it would be attributed to the zeal they felt in advocating the cause of the weaker. It had been said, that this was a bill of divorce, not of pains and penalties; he knew not what heavier pains, what severer penalties could be devised or inflicted, than hurling an individual from the highest rank in station, and the loftiest point in character, to the lowest level and the basest degradation, and that by the proceeding of a secret tribunal, by the constitution of which all vindication was precluded, while it lent a too ready ear to the vilest aspersions. Was there no pain, no penalty, in being degraded from the rank of queen of England, and for a supposed crime, the commission of which would cover the individual with never-dying infamy? If there ever was a bill of pains and penalties in the strictest sense of the word, it was the measure now upon the table. If however, pains and penalties meant only temporal

255
punishment, fine, imprisonment, and corporal infliction, then he insisted, that this bill contained no protection of the queen from those pains and penalties. After the degradation of character which this bill would inflict, she would still be subject to impeachment—still exposed to the penal consequences of this imputed crime. He was aware that in pleading thus weakly, though zealously, he had done great injustice to the cause he was employed to advocate: it might have been better had he remained silent, and left unimpaired on the minds of their lordships the effect of the speech of his learned friend. He entreated the House to give the full affect to all the arguments his learned coadjutor had so forcibly advanced, and he was sure that the deep impression they had made could not be easily obliterated, and he concluded by expressing his fervent hope, that the House would still do the queen that justice, which, from the extraordinary course of proceeding hitherto adopted, there was but too little reason to expect.
Counsel were then ordered to withdraw.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that some delay would be requisite to make the necessary arrangements for proceeding with the bill. The regular interval between the first and second reading of bills of this kind was a fortnight. He wished that as little delay as possible, consistent with the interests of justice, and the usual course of their lordships proceedings, should intervene in the present case; but some time must be required for making the necessary arrangements, for securing a numerous attendance of their lordships, and the presence of the learned judges. He would propose to fix Monday next as the day on which he would be able to state to their lordships when he thought it would be convenient to read the bill a second time.
Lord Hollandcould not help making an observation or two on what had fallen from the noble earl. After he had submitted certain papers to their lordships—after he had moved for a committee to examine these papers—after that committee had finished their labours and made their report, and after the noble earl, in consequence of that report, had brought in a bill, which had been read a first time, the illustrious individual whose interests and character were affected by these proceedings applied for an immediate trial,
256
and the noble earl proposed delay. On what grounds was this delay proposed? The noble earl said it was usual to allow a fortnight to intervene between the first and second reading of bills of this kind. What did the noble earl mean by this comparison? Was this a bill like those common bills introduced for relief at the instance of any other individual, and not a bill of pains and penalties? During the whole of this discussion their lordships had heard much of precedent; but what was the precedent on which it was now proposed to act? These bills of pains and penalties were exceptions to all principle, to all rule, form, and precedent. The noble earl had given his bill a double character, that of a bill of divorce and of pains and penalties; but as it was not a common bill of divorce, he was not entitled to follow the rules which governed their lordships in such cases, but ought to proceed as was usual with bills of the latter description, where they immediately went to trial. He did not say but that reasons for delay might be given. He admitted the force of one of those stated by the noble earl, namely, the absence of the learned judges, but he could not see the force of the other. The analogies of common law could not here be followed. He called upon the noble earl, therefore, to state what were his other grounds of delay, and what he meant by necessary arrangements? Under that term did he include the necessity for farther evidence? Were they to understand that the evidence submitted to the committee was insufficient to support the charges? And was it necessary to wait until more were received from abroad? The proceedings against her majesty had been going on for a year. His majesty's government had been collecting depositions for so long a time. The noble earl must have considered deeply, what course of proceeding it was proper for him to pursue; and yet he was not now prepared to state when he would be ready to go on with the trial.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he would allow that this was a bill of pains and penalties conveying with it the consequences of a divorce. It was not a bill of divorce; for a bill of divorce was an application of one person to be relieved on account of adultery from the matrimonial ties con-traded with another. This was not a bill for the relief of one individual from another, but for the relief of the state, which was supposed to be aggrieved by the acts of

257
an individual. He saw no reason for altering the notice which he proposed for Monday. To say that their lordships ought to proceed to-morrow, at 7 o'clock, because counsel required them to commence within 24 hours was absurd. The last time the learned counsel addressed their lordships they asked for a delay of nine or ten weeks. He did not mention this for the purpose of insinuating anything against the learned counsel. He was aware that different circumstances might render the two requests consistent. Three weeks intervened between the first and second reading of Atterbury's bill, and yet that was considered a proceeding forthwith. He delayed his motion till Monday, that he might be able to ascertain when a full attendance of their lordships, and the presence of the judges, could be obtained.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that although he was not prepared to accede to the request of her majesty, that their lordships would proceed in 24 hours with the trial, yet he was convinced that their lordships ought not to let more than 24 hours pass without considering when they were to proceed. The interests of justice, and the requests of her majesty, demanded of them, that they should not allow four days to intervene without considering when and how they were to begin the trial. He could scarcely believe that the noble earl, in possession of all the facts, and accustomed, as he must be, to reflect deeply on the measure before the House—having moved for a secret committee, and having submitted papers to them on which they had reported—having had the good fortune to obtain the concurrence of their lordships in all the various changes of proceeding, should now be unable to point out the course which he meant to pursue, and should ask four days' delay to consider of it. He thought 24 hours quite sufficient for preparation.
The Earl of Carnarvoncontended, that the noble earl ought to give his notice for to-morrow. How would the illustrious person accused feel, if, after bringing forward such charges as were contained in the bill on the table, ministers, by asking delay, declared that they were unprepared to carry their projects into effect? If they had any reasons for delay they should be connected with great and important interests. Nothing secret, nothing that could not be revealed, should prevent the immediate commencement and steady ter-
258
mination of proceedings which so completely occupied the public mind. Ministers ought not, on the present occasion, to insult the nation with a show, which, in the lamentable circumstances of the royal family, would call down upon them nothing but general execration. They ought not to exhibit their sovereign as an actor in a gaudy pageant, while his consort was subject to proceedings which might degrade her to the lowest abasement. Let them do their duty, in advising their royal master to concur with the wish of every sensible man in the country, and postpone the coronation to a future period, though he would now make no specific motion on the subject, yet, if ministers, whom he implored to consider the matter, still persisted in their design, he would bring forward a proposition on a future day for an address to the Crown, or some other parliamentary proceeding, to postpone the coronation.
Earl Greysincerely wished that the observations of his noble friend would receive from ministers that attention which they deserved, and that, under the present painful circumstances, the coronation would be deferred. In saying this, he was sure he uttered the wish of every feeling man in the country. With regard to the point immediately before them, he concurred with his noble friends in raising his voice in support of the proposition against delay. Considering that the noble earl must have been long in possession of all the facts and circumstances, and considering the intervals of delay that had already occurred, it was not too much to expect that he should be prepared to state immediately his views and proposed mode of proceeding. If it was unreasonable to expect that be should immediately do it, surely to-morrow was the most distant day to which he ought to postpone his notice. The necessary arrangements could only be, of three sorts—either for the production of witnesses, or for obtaining a full attendance of their lordships, or securing the presence of judicial advice. Now, which of those arrangements rendered delay necessary? With respect to the production of witnesses, the evidence which they could give must have been months ago collected. It was impossible therefore, to conceive why the noble earl, if be had done his duty, should not be ready within twenty-four hours to state bow he meant to proceed with regard to it. The arrangements for securing a full at-

259
tendance of their lordships could not occasion any delay; for, painful as it was at this season of the year for their lordships to begin a proceeding which might occupy so much of their time, he was sure that no personal consideration would prevent them from executing their duty. But, with respect to the judges, was it indispensable to have their presence? If it was, he was afraid that the proceeding must be much farther postponed, for by Monday they would have departed for their several circuits. He would therefore propose that their lordships be summoned for to-morrow.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that it could make no difference ultimately, whether he stated his plan to-morrow or on Monday; for, with regard to the judges, they would not all go on the circuits, and the presence of those who were going could be as little commanded in the one case as in the other. The presence of all the judges of course, would not be necessary.
The Earl of Darnleydeprecated all delay, and could not avoid lifting his feeble voice, in accordance with what had been so well said by the noble lords who had spoken on his side of the House. On many accounts he wished the ceremony of the coronation to be postponed, and on none more than the agitated state of the public mind.
The original question, that their lordships be summoned for Monday, was then put, and the House divided—Contents, 56; Non-contents, 19: Majority, 37.