Sitting of 10 July 1820

SIR WILLIAM MANNERS.
Sir Robert Heroninformed the House that he understood sir William Manners had surrendered himself, and was then in the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. The two individuals also, H. Manners, esq. and W. Atter, who had been ordered to attend were then in attendance. Knowing, as he did, that the evidence of the two latter was no longer wanting before the Grantham committee, and remembering the lenity which the House seemed disposed to exercise in their case, as having acted without an independent will of their own, he should conclude with moving, that the order for their attendance be discharged. The House would recollect, that A. Jarvis, another person who had refused to attend the notice of the committee, was on Saturday last committed to Newgate. He believed that he should shortly have to present a petition in his behalf. With regard to sir W. Manners, it was not his intention to submit any motion.
Mr. Wynnwas of opinion that, considering the view which the House originally took of the situation in which the individuals who were the subject of this motion stood, there was equal ground for at present exercising the same lenity.
The order for the attendance of H. Manners, esq., and W. Atter was then discharged. The serjeant-at-arms reported that sir W. Manners was in attendance.
Mr. Wynnthought there was but one course to pursue, and that the House was clearly bound to act as it had done in the case of Jarvis. He therefore moved, "That sir William Manners, baronet, having absconded, in order to avoid being taken into custody pursuant to the Order of this House, be for his said offence com-

319
mitted to his Majesty's Gaol of Newgate; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly."
Sir James Grahamsaid, that he understood sir W. Manners had left his home before the order was made for taking him into custody. By the evidence of the messenger it appeared, that before the House debated upon that order, sir W. Manners had gone from his usual place of residence at Buckminster, and could not justly therefore be said to have absconded. He trusted, as some misconception seemed to have prevailed, that the House would not deem it necessary to adopt the motion, and should move that the order for his attendance be discharged.
Dr. Phillimorewas persuaded, that if the hon. baronet were apprised of the resolutions to which the House had already come upon this subject, and the course which it had hitherto pursued, he would not have brought forward his amendment. It appeared in evidence, that sir W. Manners had set at defiance the order of the House, and had actually barricadoed his doors for the purpose of preventing its execution. He must remind the House likewise, that they had already punished one person for similar conduct, and that person the servant of sir W. Manners. Could they with any propriety liberate the master, after they had sent to prison an individual dependent upon him, and who, from his station in life, could hardly be so well acquainted with the nature of the offence he had committed. He felt assured they would deal out equal justice, and should only observe in addition, that it was not on a report of the committee that they were proceeding, but that the House had satisfied itself by an examination at the bar.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that on a former occasion he had interfered in favour of sir W. Manners, conceiving that as he had been selected as nominee in the committee for his son, it might fairly be expected of him as an incidental duty. He unfeignedly agreed in what had fallen from the hon. baronet who had moved an amendment, for the absconding certainly did not appear in the evidence on the Journals. The House should also know, that though it had been applied to on behalf of the sitting member to enforce the attendance of sir W. Manners and others as material witnesses, yet they had not been examined, though in attendance the whole of that day, which had brought the pro-
320
ceedings of the committee to a conclusion. —The hon. member was proceeding, when
The Speakerspoke to order. It was subversive, he said, of the authority of the House that a person called upon as a witness by a warrant of the House, should take upon himself to refuse obedience to that warrant, on the consideration whether or not he was a material witness; and therefore it was disorderly to urge as an excuse the circumstance stated by the hon. member. Also, if observations were permitted on the manner in which an election commitee executed its duty, it could not be foreseen how far interference with committees might be carried.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, he should be the last person in the House who would undervalue the warrant of the Speaker, and would ever be found among the first to maintain its due authority and dignity; and if he had been permitted to proceed, he was persuaded he should not have been called to order, and that, as it appeared to him, in a manner which seemed to imply some reproach—he might almost venture to say reproof, which he did not feel he deserved, merely wishing to discharge his duty. As to what he had said respecting the witnesses not being called, he had referred merely to the counsel and parties interested for the sitting member, and not to the conduct of the committee; and he had wished to observe also, not for the purpose of defence, but with a view to the mitigation of punishment, that if he might reason by analogy to the practice of courts of law, where a party could not apply with effect to the court against a witness who refused to attend on a subpoena, unless he accompanied his application by an affidavit that the person who refused to attend was a material witness.
The Speakeragain spoke to order, and said that the hon. member had much misunderstood the observations which he had felt himself called upon to make: nothing was farther from his wish or intention than to convey the slightest reproof to the hon. member, and he regretted that he should have thought so; but he had a strong impression that the subject matter of the hon. gentleman's speech was disorderly, as conveying the idea that a difference should be made by a person to whom a warrant was issued, in the obedience which he might pay to it by the consideration whether it was or was not necessary that he should attend.

321
The amendment was negatived, and the motion agreed to; and the following order was made: "That the keeper of his majesty's gaol of Newgate do to-morrow, and from time to time, bring the said sir William Manners, when he shall be a prisoner in his custody, to the committee on the Grantham election, in order to his being examined as often as the said committee shall think fit to require the same; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."

OPHTHALMIC INSTITUTION.
Mr. Bennet Mr. Bennet moved for an account of the number of soldiers pensioned on account of blindness. He felt it his duty to state, that since he had before mentioned the subject of the Ophthalmic institution in the House, he had visited it in company with an hon. friend of his. He had gone there without any notice, and he never saw any thing of the kind better managed.
Sir T. Aclandsaid, he could bear testimony to the merits of sir W. Adams. It was worthy of attention, that many persons who had received pensions for life on account of blindness, had been since cured by sir W. Adams.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, he had felt confident when the subject was before under discussion, that Mr. Bennet would do as he had done, state simply and plainly what he had seen. The question as to the manner of granting the pensions was before the Chelsea board.
Mr. Barhamobserved, that sir William Adams had failed only in those cases in which the subjects had been pronounced incurable by other oculists; but even in such cases that eminent oculist had afforded relief.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, he had felt it his duty from what he knew of the melancholy disease which gave rise to this institution, as well as from what he had heard of the distinguished individual under whose superintendence it was placed, to visit that institution, and he was at once astonished and gratified by the result of his observation; for he found that several gallant men who had bled in the service of their country, and who had, in the opinion of other surgeons, been totally bereaved of sight, were quite recovered, while the worst cases were considerably ameliorated. Having witnessed such cases, he could not forbear from making the statements which upon a former occa-
322
sion he thought it proper to submit to the House. The fact was that sir W. Adams had, by a long course of study and experiments, succeeded in discovering the means of curing one of the most dreadful maladies that ever afflicted mankind; and the army having been the principal sufferers from this malady, he was requested by government to make known his discovery to the army surgeons. With this request sir William complied without hesitation or reward, and the consequences were universally and gratefully felt, especially by those members of the government who had the best opportunity of judging. When, then, it was determined to erect an hospital for the purpose of relieving those soldiers and seamen who were still afflicted with ophthalmia, sir W. Adams was very naturally selected to preside over that institution; and the selection was equally creditable to the judgment and liberality of the secretary at war. The noble lord had, he understood, incurred considerable obloquy for this selection, especially among these army surgeons who allowed their feeling of envy to supersede their sense of duty. But the noble lord firmly withstood every clamour, arising from professional prejudice or private pique that would dissuade him from patronising merit and removing disease. Hence the Ophthalmic Hospital was established, and continued in despite of opposition, and for the benefit of humanity.
The motion was agreed to.

HENRY D'ESTERRE, ESQ. RECORDER OF LIMERICK.
On the motion that Henry D'Esterre, esq. be brought to the bar in order to be discharged agreeably to his petition,
Sir J. Mackintoshrose, not with a view to oppose the motion, but in order to suggest the condition in which this unfortunate individual was placed by his own conduct. He did not mean to interpose between this individual and the proposed lenity of the House. This individual admitted that he was guilty of prevarication on oath, and as he was a member of a liberal profession, it would be for those who composed that profession, to consider whether it were fitting that he should be allowed any longer to belong to such a profession. But without desiring to aggravate the suffering which the reflections of his own mind must inflict upon this individual, he must observe upon that which was material to the public. This indivi-

323
dual occupied a high judicial station in Ireland; and was it fining, that after his own confession of guilt, he should be allowed to fill such a station?
Mr. Dawsonsaid, he was one of the members of the committee before which the prisoner had been guilty of gross prevarication; and without desiring to interfere with the rights of the corporation of* Limerick, he could not help saying that such a person should not be allowed to remain in any judicial station.
Mr. Dalysaid, that he presented the petition, as that petition was couched in language respectful to the House; but he had no desire whatever that the petitioner should continue to occupy a judicial office.
Sir J. Mackintoshexpressed a doubt whether the prisoner should be released without some assurance that he would be removed from the office of recorder of Limerick.
Mr. Dalysaid, that as the office which the prisoner occupied was subject to annual election, and as that election must be sanctioned by the lord lieutenant, there could be no reason to apprehend the reappointment of the petitioner after the decision of that House.
Mr. Grantremarked, that there could be no doubt whatever of the attention of the lord lieutenant to the decision of that House.
Mr. Bankesobserved, that the conduct of the prisoner was, according to his own confession, so grossly disgraceful, that it would be obviously indecent to allow his continuance in a judicial or any other office of trust or consequence.
Mr. Dalythought the prisoner should resign the office which he held.
Mr. Grant,understanding the office which the prisoner held was one of annual election, and that such election would take place in September, subject to the approbation of the lord lieutenant; had no hesitation in stating that this approbation would not be granted to the election of the prisoner after what had transpired in that House.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that after what his right hon. friend had stated, and as the election for the office which the prisoner held would take place at no distant period, he thought there could be no objection to the motion.
Henry D'Esterre, esq. was then brought to the bar, where he received a Reprimand from Mr. Speaker, and was ordered to be
324
discharged out of custody, paying his fees-The Reprimand was as follows:
"Henry D'Esterre; You were reported by the select committee appointed to hear and determine the merits of a petition complaining of an undue election and return for the city of Limerick. as having been guilty of gross prevarication. For this you were committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate. Your petition, praying to be released from further confinement, has been received, and you are brought this day to the bar, in order that you may be reprimanded and discharged.
"If I were now called upon to reprimand a person of the lower ranks of life, half educated, and half ignorant perhaps of the solemn obligation of the oath he had taken as a witness, it might have been my duty to enlarge upon the nature, the character, and the consequences of such an offence; to have impressed upon him, as far as I was able, how such an offence, if tolerated, must defeat all the ends of truth and justice, and how it differs rather in a legal, than in any moral construction from a direct act of perjury. Into all these details to such a person it might have been necessary for me to enter;—but when I am addressing a person of higher rank and station, of better education, and clothed too himself with a judicial office, it cannot be necessary that I should thus add to the painful duty already imposed upon me; either by expatiating upon the enormity of the crime, or the disgrace of the punishment.
"Your own mind will suggest to you, more and severer reflections than any words I am master of could convey. To these reflections I am prepared entirely to trust, and shall conclude with communicating to you the order of the House, that you be discharged from further imprisonment; and you are hereby discharged, on the payment of your fees."

ALIEN BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Alien Bill,
Sir James Mackintoshrose, not to oppose the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair, nor yet to enter into any discussion on the general merits of the bill then before the House. He had expressed his opinions upon that question so frequently upon former occasions, that he felt himself perfectly justified in not repeating them at present. He had another motive, of a much more powerful

325
nature, for not entering into any general discussion on this bill upon the present evening, which he should take the liberty of shortly stating to the House. The last time that this bill was brought before the attention of parliament was in 1818, and it was then proposed by his majesty's ministers because there happened to be thirty-eight French exiles and three French newspapers established in the; Netherlands. That was thought to be a sufficient reason for withdrawing the protection of the law from 22,000 individuals who were then living under it. But at present not even such a pretext as was then employed had been brought forward. His majesty's ministers, from a confidence arising out of their former success, now proposed the renewal of this bill, not only without any reason, but without even the allegation, intimation, or insinuation, of any reason. The House had heard the bill introduced, and had heard it also recommended by three or four ambiguous phrases, which applied as much to it as they did to any other subject which had been introduced into that House since the era of its first foundation. That might be well enough on the first reading of the bill; but what occurred on the second, when those who were hostile to it came down to the House in expectation of hearing arguments advanced in favour of it, and prepared, if such arguments were advanced, to refute them in every particular? Why, that ministers were equally silent upon that occasion also; and thus evinced their determination of proposing a bill for the partial suspension of the constitution, without urging a single argument to show the necessity of it. Upon that occasion a speech had been delivered against the measure, which was not less distinguished by its solidity than its brilliancy, and which proved the power of a superior mind to give novelty to an exhausted subject. A most lame and impotent reply to that speech had indeed been attempted, and it was contended that the bill was necessary, because by possibility our domestic tranquillity might be disturbed by foreign incendiaries. He would not dwell upon the absurdity of supposing, that, under existing circumstances, incendiaries from Seville, or Berlin, or Paris, were likely to avail themselves of tumults at Glasgow or Manchester. This miserable interest for continuing the measure had been exposed by all the powers of wit and reason, and
326
had been justly held up to the scorn and derision of the House. He should not, therefore, on the present occasion, do any thing so needless as to repeat the arguments which had been already urged against this measure; nor any thing so hopeless as to endeavour to obtain an answer to them from his majesty's ministers. Indeed, it appeared to him as if their design was to have this bill renewed, time after time, without giving a single reason why it should be renewed, until they obliged those who opposed it to relinquish their opposition out of mere lassitude; and then, when they had produced that effect, to make it permanent, as if it were a mere matter of course that it should become so. However paradoxical it might appear, this bill was likely to creep on till it became part of the law of the land; merely because the objections to it were never answered. No lawyer had ever yet proved it to be consistent with the law of this country, and no statesman had ever yet shown it to be at all necessary to the tranquillity of the empire: and the House had been called upon to register this ministerial edict, simply because it was the will and pleasure of ministers that it should do so. He should not at present employ more words upon this tyrannical and execrable bill, which he always would call tyrannical and execrable so long as the liberty of speech was left to him. His only object in obtruding himself at that moment upon the House, was to propose that certain instructions should be given to the committee before the bill was submitted to its consideration. It was requisite that such instructions should be given, since he could not otherwise propose, in the committee, certain clauses which appeared to him to be expedient, the title of the bill not being an act to "amend and continue" the act of the 56th of the late king, but only "to continue" it. The instructions which he proposed that the House should give to the committee were, to receive and consider three clauses, which he should hereafter propose as amendments to the bill; and if it were consistent with the forms and proceedings of the House, he should move also that the words of the amendments be put upon the Journals of the House, as an appeal to posterity against this most unconstitutional measure. The first of these clauses related to the appeal to be made to the privy council. By the bill of 1814 a sort

327
of appeal was given to the alien; for the privy council were empowered to consider any reasons which the alien might urge against his being sent out of the kingdom. That clause might have afforded a sufficient relief to the alien, if it had been understood and acted upon in the same spirit with that in which it was passed. But as it was now construed, it gave to the alien no right to demand what was the specific charge against him, no right to call witnesses to disprove that charge, and no right to employ counsel to defend him against it; it was therefore nothing else than a bitter insult and a cruel mockery upon him. A case had even occurred in which, another difficulty had been thrown in the way of the alien by a petty fogging magistrate, who had refused to hear his appeal because the act stated that it was to be made, not to a magistrate, but to the privy council. There were thus four clear and distinct grounds on which the act, as at present worded, required amendment. First of all it called upon an individual who might not understand our language to defend himself, and did not allow him the benefit of counsel; secondly, it did not enable him to call for an explanation of the charges on which he was to be sent out of the country; thirdly, it did not enable him to call witnesses in his own defence; and fourthly, it did not allow him that appeal to the privy council through a magistrate. To remedy this crying injustice, he should propose a clause authorizing the privy council to give the alien, on his being arrested, a general summary of the charges exhibited against him; and giving to the alien the power of calling witnesses to refute those charges, and the right of being heard in his defence, either in his own person or by counsel. He did not ask that the alien should know who were his accusers, much less that he should have the right to be confronted with them; he only asked for such an extension of the fair principles of English law to him as was requisite to procure him justice. The second clause which he had to propose was one which he thought would put the sincerity of his majesty's ministers to the test, and would show whether they were really in earnest in the professions which they had so frequently made to the country. They had said that this bill was introduced to protect the public peace against foreign agitators, and did not extend to individuals who followed
328
a civil or industrious profession, or who gave a pledge of their tranquillity to government by placing their families, their property and every other tie which binds man to man in society, under its protection. He should, therefore, propose, that all aliens who had been settled in this country previously to the 1st of January, 1814, should be exempted from the operation of this act. The period which he had chosen was before the first peace of Paris, which was not made till May in the same year; and therefore this clause exempted no Napoleonist, no Jacobin, and indeed no other class of men who were likely to disturb the peace of civilized Europe. If it did not exempt such characters from the operation of the law, whom did it protect against it? Merchants and their families—men of letters and ingenious artists—useful and peaceable artisans, who came to this country, not for their own private advantage only, but also for the general benefit of the community of which they formed a part, and which they enriched by their talents and ingenuity. After the manner in which ministers had treated the admirable speech which had been made upon a former evening—and which he supposed that they had allowed to remain unanswered because they found it to be unanswerable-he could not expect that they would show more attention to any thing which fell from so humble an individual as himself. But if they would allow him to speak to them as legislators, he would ask them to specify what class of men would be exempted from the law as it would stand if his clauses were agreed to? Would they tell him that, in spite of its precautions, two or three dangerous characters would still be able to remain in this country, and to brood over their dark and wicked machinations in secret? If they should make him that answer, he would ask them to point out the case where laws were made against two or three individuals only; and the time when there had not been two or three individuals with mischievous and mistaken views in the country? He must, therefore, maintain that this clause ought to be added to the bill, if the House wished to preserve that character which England had hitherto always maintained for justice and humanity towards foreigners. The third clause which he had to submit to the House was one which it would not be necessary to propose on any other occasion than the

329
present, but to which, on that very account, he was anxious to draw the attention of every gentleman who heard him. There was at present before parliament one subject of the most delicate and deplorable nature, on which he had not as yet made a single observation for many reasons, and chiefly that he might preserve that temper, which, if judicial duties were to be imposed upon him against his wishes and without his consent, was so necessary to be preserved unimpaired, in order to the proper discharge of those duties. The only interests which he regarded in that transaction were the interests of public justice—the highest and most valuable of all. In furtherance of those interests, it was the duty, not only of himself, but of every other member of that House, to take care that the course of justice should not be disturbed, that its impartiality should not be questioned, that its character should not even be suspected, in a case the most painful and deplorable that had ever fallen under the notice of parliament. Honourable gentlemen would of course be aware that he was alluding to the case of the queen. It was his opinion—and he much doubted whether any member would be found bold enough to oppose it—that no party in that transaction ought to have any undue influence over the witnesses who might be called on to give evidence regarding it. He presumed that it was so obvious a truth as not to require him to say a word in illustration of it, that no party ought even to entertain a wish that any such influence should be exercised. He should, therefore, propose to the House, that it should give instructions to the committee to consider a clause to exempt from the operation of this bill any person or persons who might come from foreign parts to give evidence either for or against a bill of pains and penalties now pending against the queen of England. He said "witnesses who might come to give evidence either for or against;" for the reason which rendered this clause necessary to be applied to both parties. It was essential that ministers, who, in spite of their denial of it, were certainly the constitutional prosecutors of the queen, should not have the power of excluding the witnesses in favour of her majesty from this country, for such a power would tend to the lessening of justice; neither was it fit that they should have the liberty of banishing their own witnesses; for, if such power were to be
330
allowed them, parliament would grant to them the power of sending out of the country all those who were likely to give what they would deem disagreeable testimony. He must own that he, for one, did not expect that any such power would ever be exercised by the present ministers; he would not say, even for the sake of debate, that he thought any such violation of justice was likely to proceed from them; but still that formed no answer to his argument: for, would any man say that a number of witnesses, some of whom were, he understood, from the lowest classes in society, and therefore, in all probability, totally ignorant of our language and our laws, might not, on hearing that there was such an act in existence as the Alien act, take it into their heads to think that some power, in abuse of it, might be exercised against them? It was requisite to the purposes of justice that they should be released from all such fears; for, whilst they existed, it was impossible to suppose that some unfair bias would not influence their minds, calculated to produce a testimony not exactly according with the dictates of their conscience. Even if he could suppose that foreigners, in such a situation—entertaining, too, religious sentiments widely different from those of the majority of the country, and therefore likely to entertain more fear of every thing which could be urged in a hostile manner against them by its inhabitants—would not be actuated by any such dread as he had described; still he had another reason behind, which made him more anxious than any other that this clause should be adopted: it was the possibility that a report of such injustice being practised towards her majesty might prevail both in this country and upon the continent. It was to deprive the constant calumniators of parliament at home, and the irreconcileable enemies of our honour and our institutions abroad, of the opportunity of propagating so foul a slander, that he wished the House to adopt the instruction which he had proposed. He owned that he had no fear himself of any unjust or undue influence being exercised by ministers on this occasion; but he could not infuse that opinion into the minds of many thousands of ignorant persons, both in our own and in other countries, without the adoption of some such clause as he had just read to them. He should therefore move that it be the instruction of this House to the committee to con-

331
sider of three clauses, in order to their insertion in the present Alien bill. The first instruction which he should wish to be given to the committee was this—"That it be an instruction to the said committee, that they have power to provide that the lords of his majesty's privy council shall cause to be delivered in writing, a general summary of the matter alleged against any alien to such alien; and that it shall and may be lawful for him to summon, and examine upon oath, witnesses before the privy council, and to be heard before them, by himself or his counsel, in support of the excuse or reason by him alleged."
Lord Castlereaghsaid, as he understood the hon. and learned gentleman to have commenced his speech by saying, that he would not enter into any discussion of the general merits of this bill, he should certainly imitate his example, and apply himself more to the consideration of the clauses which the hon. and learned gentleman had proposed than to the general observations into which he had digressed, notwithstanding his promise at the commencement of his speech. And here he could not help remarking, that it was easy for any hon. and learned gentleman to assume that nothing had been said on his (lord Castlereagh's) side of the House in support of the measure which was now before it; and if such an assumption were afterwards to be insisted on as a truth, it would be a convenient mode of arguing, and a cheap method of acquiring a victory. If, however, such a mode of arguing were to be held satisfactory, and if assertion were to be deemed equal to truth, he might meet the assertions of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite with others of his own, and might say, that the arguments formerly urged in defence of this bill had not only been satisfactory to his (lord Castlereagh's) mind, but also to those of former Houses of Parliament. It was from knowing how convincing those arguments had appeared to those who had sat in former parliaments, and also from knowing how widely those arguments had been discussed, and how generally approved by all who had attended to them, that he had deemed it unnecessary to inflict a repetition of them upon the House on present occasion, especially as no arguments had been advanced by the opponents of the measure, which had not been a thousand times advanced, and as often refuted; and therefore, if he had abstained
332
from entering into a long discussion upon the bill at present, it was not because he had nothing to advance in behalf of it, but because nothing new had been advanced against it. The clauses for which the hon. and learned gentleman had wished the House to give instructions to the committee were none of them new except the last; the other two had certainly been brought forward once before; and, if his memory did not fail him, more than once by the hon. and learned gentleman himself. The general feeling regarding those clauses, on their first introduction, was, that if the Alien bill were to be looked upon as a permanent measure, then it might be necessary to enact such clauses; but, as it was only proposed as a temporary measure, that such clauses were not requisite; for what, he would ask, was the nature of them? The first of them was to enable the privy council to enter into a regular judicial investigation of any charge that might be instituted against an alien; and, in order that this point might be effected, it was proposed that the alien should be presented with an account of the charges on which he was considered to be dangerous to the state, and should be enabled to summon witnesses, and employ counsel in his defence; in short, every precaution was taken to ensure a regular investigation into every charge of a political or personal nature that could be preferred against him. Now, it was quite clear that, if there was any danger in allowing an alien to remain in the country, the charges against him could neither be framed with that preciseness, nor proved with that accuracy, which was necessary to a bill of indictment; for it would be evidently injurious, as the hon. and learned gentleman seemed himself inclined to admit, to call into court the witness on whose evidence the charges were first preferred. If the House was not inclined to pass the bill in its present shape, let them say so at once; but let them not continue it in such a manner as would introduce into the country a new and, as yet, an unheard of, tribunal. With regard to the 2nd clause proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman, he did not think that it was quite so clear as he appeared to think it to be, that no persons had come into the country, and were in it at the time which he had specified, who entertained views hostile to its tranquillity and freedom; and therefore, unless the hon. and learned gentleman could show

333
some better reason than that which he had just urged for this clause—as, for instance, tyranny or oppression in the execution of the present law—he must oppose it as unnecessary upon the present, as he had upon former occasions. He could not agree to the distinction of the hon. and learned gentleman, between foreigners who had resided in this country before or since any particular period; nor could that distinction furnish any criterion, whether they were or were not objects of suspicion and jealousy to the state. The only just distinction which could he recognized by the legislature was that between foreigners who were naturalized in this country, and those who owed no allegiance to it. He felt infinitely stronger objections to the third clause than he did to either of the two former ones, because he could not conceive how any greater libel or, any more unjust reproach could be devised against his majesty's ministers than that which it contained. For, what did it imply? That his majesty's ministers would use the powers intrusted to them by the law in preventing justice being done to a most illustrious individual. The hon. and learned gentleman had certainly done his majesty's ministers the justice of saying that he did not believe they would employ such powers to such improper purpose; and had further added, that he did not think that any government would have the assurance to do so. That was all very candid on the part of the hon, and learned gentleman; but he seemed not to have taken into consideration, that so far from endeavouring to retard any individual from coming to give evidence in favour of her majesty, he (lord Castlereagh) had even offered to use any influence which he might have abroad to obtain the evidence of any individual whose attendance might be deemed by her majesty essential to her defence. If this clause were added to the bill, it would be deemed abroad one of the grossest stains that could be inflicted on the present government, and would tend to disgrace it more in their eyes than any other measure which he could possibly devise. Such disgrace, however, he boldly asserted that ministers did not deserve; but if the hon. and learned gentleman had been really anxious to know who did deserve disgrace, he might have looked in quite a different direction, and there he would have found circumstances which were likely to entail lasting disho-
334
nour upon the country. He would have discovered that foreigners, who had come to this country to bear evidence, be would allow, against the queen, under the pledge of its hospitality and humanity being extended to them, had been insulted on reaching our shores, in the most gross and outrageous manner. In noticing that circumstance, the hon. and learned gentleman would have shown himself a supporter of practical, instead of merely theoretical humanity. For these reasons he trusted the House would not accede to this clause, but would repel with indignation the foul calumny which it tended to throw upon ministers; and that they would also show, in rejecting it, that, if there were individuals in this country who could disgrace themselves by participating in such outrages as those to which he had just alluded, there were none in that House who would raise up their voices in support either of the outrages themselves, or of those who had committed them.
Mr. Scarlettfelt considerable surprise at the very extraordinary speech which he had just heard from the noble lord. For, what was the argument of it? That the power given to ministers by this bill was so odious, that it was a gross libel and a wicked calumny upon them to suppose that they could ever employ it. Why, if this argument were to be allowed for a moment, the ministers might in a short time ask for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act upon a similar principle. They might address parliament to the following effect—"For God's sake suspend the Habeas Corpus act—for God's sake give up your right to a trial by jury—for God's sake repeal all your most valuable laws. The power we shall gain by such measures will be so odious and abominable, that it will be a libel upon us to suppose that we shall abuse it, and therefore you will be in quite as good a condition as you are at present." But could any thing be more ridiculous than this line of argument? He, for one, thought not. The noble lord had misrepresented the arguments of his hon. and learned friend. His hon. and learned friend had not proposed these clauses for the purpose of insinuating any calumnies against his majesty's ministers; on the contrary, he had distinctly stated that his object was, to repel such calumnies. He (Mr. S.) could not believe that the noble lord would make any improper use of the powers conferred by this bill; yet it was extremely possible

335
that the noble lord might be suspected, and he would tell the noble lord why. He did not believe that the country at large entertained that opinion of the perfect integrity and freedom from all motive of his majesty's government, which the noble lord could not but entertain himself The very circumstance to which the noble lord had alluded to in proper terms of reproach, was a proof that the public opinion of his majesty's government was not what the noble lord thought it deserved. The noble lord had said, in answer to his hon. and learned friend, that he had satisfied the House on former occasions, and there was therefore no occasion to repeat his arguments. Now, he would ask the noble lord whether the existing circumstances of Europe might not render some arguments necessary to justify the renewal of this bill which were not necessary on its last adoption? Was there no change of circumstances in the last two years? Had nothing been clone to secure the safety of this empire? Were we still exposed to the danger of revolution from foreign incendiaries? Surely if it was necessary to renew this tyrannical bill it was necessary to accompany it with a statement of the circumstances which rendered it imperative upon government to continue it. If such a bill were to be carried at all, he rather wished that its provisions should be as odious and tyrannical as possible, because there would be the less chance of its becoming a permanent measure. He well knew that a great part of the House had such confidence in the integrity, talent, and eloquence of the noble lord, that, if he wished to make the Alien bill permanent, they would think it a matter of public expediency to accede to his wishes. The country might therefore consider it as an instance of the noble lord's moderation that he called for its renewal only for the space of two years. He, for one, thought it ought not to be renewed for a single moment. With respect to the constitutional grounds of the measure, he thought no man could do credit to himself or good to the country by looking back for precedents in its justification to the age of the Tudors. The practice of that age was inconsistent with the liberties of the country, and deserved to be held up to execration rather than example. He would look only for authorities to the time of the Revolution, and to subsequent periods, and he was prepared to contend that the Crown never had the prerogative
336
which enabled it in time of peace to dispose of the persons and liberties of aliens in the manner in which government was empowered to do by the provisions of this Bill.
Mr. Wellesley Polesaid, he should not trouble the House at any length upon the merits of this question, but he could not forbear making some observations upon what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down. That hon. and learned gentleman had intimated that a suspicion existed in the country that the ministers did not intend to act with the utmost justice and delicacy towards her majesty. The hon. and learned gentleman who had proposed these clauses, and whose talents, eloquence, and candour, he admired upon all occasions, had however stated, that no such suspicion existed in his mind. The hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down asserted in round terms that a proof of the suspicions which the public entertained of his majesty's ministers was to be found in the outrageous violence which had been exhibited at Dover towards certain individuals who landed there, because it was supposed that they came for the purpose of giving evidence on the approaching important state proceeding. Did the hon. and learned gentleman call that act the expression of public opinion? It was the act of a rabble. He (Mr. W. P.) readily allowed that the rabble were hostile to the present administration. He hoped they always would be so. It was a proof that the present administration had acted with energy, and had successfully supported the dignity of the Crown and the interests of the country. But, on account of this abominable and scandalous outrage which the hon. and learned gentleman chose to consider the expression of public opinion, the House of Commons were called upon to throw a slur on government, in the face of the public and the world, by indicating such a suspicion of government as to withhold from them the powers with which they had formerly been entrusted. He wholly subscribed to the declaration of his noble friend, that if his majesty's ministers were found attempting, what — not the hon. and learned gentleman himself, but, according to him, the public suspected they would attempt—if they not only did not take no means to prevent persons from coming forward to give evidence for her majesty in the pending proceeding, but if they did not give

337
every possible facility, at home and a broad, for the production of such witnesses, they would deserve to be driven from their offices with degradation and disgrace. He feared that he was intruding on the patience of this House. It was his apprehension alone which induced him to remain silent on former occasions, when the hon. and learned gentleman, and: other honourable gentlemen accused ministers, as if they were the vilest, lowest, and most incompetent of human beings. The hon. and earned gentleman had, night after night, called his majesty's ministers, a weak, vacillating, disjointed, wretched administration, incapable of conducting the affairs of the country, enjoying no confidence any where [Mr. Scarlett appeared to deny having used those terms],—The hon. and learned gentleman had a short memory. Did he say that he had not meant to describe ministers as a wretched, miserable, vacillating set of men? He should be happy to hear the hon. and learned gentleman disavow it.
Mr. Scarlettsaid he had no intention of disavowing it.
Mr. Wellesley Poleobserved, that he had a right then to consider the hon. and learned gentleman as avowing it.
Mr. Scarlettallowed that his meaning had the tendency supposed by the right hon. gentleman, but trusted that he was incapable of using some of the words imputed to him. He had called the right hon. gentleman's colleagues weak, vacillating, and incapable of administering the affairs of the country in the present crisis. Their acts and measures fully justified his having so characterised them, and he would so characterise them still. He said this without intending personal disrespect to any of the individuals of whom the administration was composed: but as a member of parliament, he was entitled boldly to declare his opinion of their conduct as a body.
Mr. Wellesley Polewas proceeding to make some further remarks on what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman, when
The Speakerinterfered, and reminded the right hon. gentleman of the great inconvenience that might arise, were the rules of the House to permit any hon. member to refer to particular expressions used in former debates.
Mr. Wellesley Polereplied, that he should always bow to the chair with that respect which was due to it when it was
338
filled as it was at the present moment— Without, however, referring to former debates, he would advert to what the hon. and learned gentleman had pretty boldly stated in the present discussion. According to the hon. and learned gentleman, he (Mr. W. Pole) and his colleagues were now a vacillating administration, they were now an incompetent administration, they were now a disjointed administration. His majesty's present government were charged with wanting the confidence of the House and of the country. Who were they who so charged them? Had ministers never appealed to the House or to the people, that this absence of confidence on the part of both were so loudly asserted? He would state it hypothetically; if it had so happened that they had during the last few years made three or four appeals to the people, and had gained strength in every appeal—if such had been the case, with what grace could they be accused, after such an ordeal, of wanting the public confidence? If it had happened that, on a great question in the last session—a question which the leader of an adverse party had declared in a plain, open, country-gentleman-like manner, was a question whether ministers should stay in or go out, that wretched administration had beat their opponents three to one, would they then have been told that they wanted the confidence of the House of Commons? He had long wished for an opportunity of touching on these things. He would say nothing of the conduct of the gentlemen opposite during the late war. He would say nothing of their prediction, that not one of our soldiers would land in the Peninsula who would not remain there as a prisoner. He would say nothing of their unvaried anticipations of the triumph of Buonaparté. The public plainly saw that these men of genius— these animadverters upon the conduct of others, with all their talents and all their confidence, were eternally foiled, as he trusted to God they always would be; and that when they came to the point, they were wholly ineffective and feeble. He was sorry to see that what he had said had agitated the hon. and learned gentleman. He truly and conscientiously declared, that the only question for the House to determine simply was, if, by adopting the proposed clause, they would throw a slur on his majesty's government, which had not been cast upon them by any former House of Commons?
Mr. Scarlettrose to explain. With respect to the conduct of the populace at Dover, he had not intended to adduce it as the expression of the public feeling, he had merely mentioned it as having been first alluded to by the noble lord, with whom he would unite in condemning it as highly reprehensible and improper. What he had observed was, that a great many persons out of doors might entertain suspicions of the intentions of government, which certainly were not entertained by himself. He no more considered the sentiments of such persons to express the public opinion, than he considered the votes of that House to express the public opinion.
Mr. Wellesley Polesaid, he understood the hon. and learned gentleman to say, that what passed at Dover was a manifestation of public opinion.
Mr. Abercrombydeclared, that if an opinion were to be formed of the talents, judgment, and discretion of the administration from the speech of the right hon. gentleman, those who opposed the administration could not wish that question should be put on a better issue. It appeared to him that his hon. and learned friend's proposition deserved to be received by the House of Commons with a far different temper than had been displayed by the right hon. gentleman. The object of the clauses proposed by his hon. and learned friend was, to secure to foreigners on coming to this country, ignorant as they must be of the nature of the constitution, of the feelings of the people, of the securities on which they were to depend, not only for their case and comfort, but for their personal safety while in the country, such a certainty of being protected as would place them beyond all fear and doubt on that head. If the members of the House of Commons, satisfied with the knowledge of the British constitution, felt assured that there would be no danger attendant on the arrival of those witnesses, who would undertake to aver that similar feelings prevailed in the bosoms of men coming from a far distant country, to a nation which they looked upon with prejudices, to a people of which they entertained strange notions? That House might know that the power entrusted by the bill to government would not be abused; but how could that knowledge be conveyed to foreigners? On the recent landing of some foreigners the people of the place where they landed, with
340
a feeling which he trusted was only local, took a course with respect to those persons that was in defiance of all law. How was it possible that those persons could find out that there were powers in the hands of the government which might justify them in discharging all apprehension of further outrage? If ever there was a circumstance which rendered necessary some additional legislative protection for aliens, it was the occurrence to which he alluded —an occurrence which he was persuaded no individual in that House or in the country, of a right way of thinking, could view otherwise than with detestation and horror. Of that occurrence no man with feelings of an Englishman but must wish that all trace could be blotted out. While he was speaking on this subject he begged leave to observe, that it was a pity that such persons as those of whom he had been speaking were left exposed to popular indignation; and that he conceived a better arrangement ought to be made with respect to them than to allow them to be driving about the streets of London at midnight seeking a place of shelter.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, with respect to the general question of continuing the Alien act, I vote for that proposition for those reasons that have been so ably urged by the noble lord. Now, as to the third resolution, which is supposed necessary to protect the witnesses of her majesty, I am compelled to give to that resolution not only my negative, but my hearty reprobation; and I do this more from motives of regard to the queen than of justice to the government. The object is not to prevent any foreigner in the interest of the queen from being sent away, for I am bold in this assertion, that her majesty the queen's defence will depend on those witnesses that are to be brought into the country through the exertions of the noble lord, and not on any now liable to the provisions of this act. Is there one man so lost to truth as to say, he doubts the assurance given, that my noble friend will exert every power, direct and indirect, to procure the presence of every person deemed necessary to the queen's defence. Again, is there a man who will not allow, that without such assistance it would be difficult at least for her majesty to be prepared for her trial. As the queen's friend (if I may be so bold), I do protest against this resolution, because' it would surrender the effectual pledge already given, and substitute an idle, in-

341
operative clause in its stead, and this for the purpose of maligning government. I have heard much from the hon. and learned member of vacillation and incapacity in the king's ministers. The hon. and learned member is too good a patriot to plot the subversion of the present (incapable as he considers them) administration, without being prepared to propose a government ready to accept their situations. He, no doubt, is fully prepared to take his share in these new arrangements. However the modesty of men may make them doubt on some subjects, almost every man thinks he is born to be a prime minister. I remember a French hackney coachman accosted me thus—"What do you think of our foolish king"—(and he added a more degrading epithet to the queen's name. She, sir, was the most unpopular of the two. She and her royal consort were known to live happily with each other, and this rendered both obnoxious to the Parisian mob.) I replied to the man of the people, that I did not think any gentleman would consent to be their king. "I will charge myself to find one—I will propose myself at the next meeting of my section." I shall never forget the figure of this fellow—nothing like the caricatures we see—he was a plump, round, well-fed citizen, and looked more like an abbot of a convent than a meagre coachman. Those who hint that the exalted individual requires this fence for her protection, know as well as I do, that the most guilty foreigner would find protection from the government he outraged, the moment the queen's solicitors hinted he might be found necessary to her cause. If the government acted otherwise, her acquittal would be certain, and then the trials of the corrupt ministers would begin with a certainty of their conviction and punishment. I vote, then, against this clause, with a view to protect the queen, and to vindicate the nation from the unjust calumny it would inflict if agreed to
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, that in the few observations which he was about to submit, he should confine himself to that clause which had been chiefly discussed, and which he considered by far the most important of the three —he meant that which was intended to afford protection to the foreign witnesses for and against the queen. It was not his intention to attempt to follow the right hon. gentleman opposite through the various points
342
of his speech—a speech distinguished by so much moderation, so strict an adherence to order, so complete an absence of unnecessary digression, so thorough a self-command, so abundant a portion of temper and discretion. As to the character of the present administration which had been given by his hon. and learned friend, of this he (sir J. Mackintosh) was certain, that if any man out of that House had been, during the last six weeks, asked that character, he must have replied, that it was a weak, vacillating, and disjointed administration. What else could be said of an administration that adopted an accusation against a high and distinguished individual one moment, and disclaimed it the next—that one day evinced a spirit of decided and unalterable hostility to that individual, and on the next willingly laid the majesty of parliament prostrate at her feet, in the hope, by conciliation, of effecting a compromise? — What else could be said of an administration that assembled the whole force of the House of Commons to sanction a proceeding unprecedented and dangerous—a proceeding which was as great an infraction of its principles as it was a degradation of its dignity—a proceeding which exposed it to the risk of a greater outrage than it had been exposed to during the six centuries which had elapsed since its institution?—Under those circumstances there was no man, in the capital at least, who could describe his majesty's present government in other terms than those to which he had alluded, without subjecting himself to instant and hearty laughter; and he could assure the noble lord that such was the feeling out of doors, no less of those who sincerely supported the general measures of himself and his colleagues, than of those who were their determined opponents. The noble lord and the right hon. gentleman had altogether passed unnoticed the main argument which he (sir J. Mackintosh) had urged in favour of the proposed clause, namely, the necessity of removing from the aliens, who were summoned as witnesses on the approaching solemn proceeding, all apprehension that the powers vested by the bill in his majesty's government would be exercised to their inconvenience or disadvantage. He appealed to the House if that argument had been so weak, so primâ facie absurd, as to deserve to be thus passed over in contemptuous silence? And if not passed

343
over on that ground, the inference was, that it was unanswerable. The noble lord had charged him with not having alluded to the late conduct of the mob at Dover—conduct which, unquestionably, was most infamous and disgraceful. But that conduct was punishable by the law as it stood. It was punishable by preferring a bill before a grand jury. The attorney general had sufficient means of prosecuting the perpetrators of that outrage. The interposition of the legislature was wholly unnecessary. If he (sir J. Mackintosh) were to meddle with the ordinary administration of the law in that case, he might be justly accused of needless, if not mischievous interference. And by whom had he nevertheless been called upon to interfere? By those who, in the last session, prevented parliament from inquiring into the most serious and important transactions, on the ground that it was inexpedient to interfere with the ordinary course of the law. He denied that the clauses which he proposed involved any reflection or insult towards government. Was there a single prerogative in the whole of our constitution against which our ancestors had not provided securities? Were those securities considered to be insults? According to the principle of the noble lord, the Habeas Corpus act, the Bill of Rights, and every other provision which parliament had made for the maintenance of the liberties of the people—nay, our liberties themselves, were so many insults to government. Such a principle was applicable only to such governments as those of Turkey and Algiers. Our most sacred and valuable laws were founded on jealousy of the Crown; but all these guards and securities of English liberty were proscribed and anathematised by the noble lord in a single sentence. So far from wishing to avoid such restrictions as those now proposed, it was honourable to every government to adopt them as a protection against their own weakness, and against the calumnies both of their malicious and of their just enemies. It was a false pride which, instead of taking that wise course, blustered and talked big of pledges to the public, and of insults sustained by the adoption of measures calculated to prevent the occurrence of abuses. The only sure way in which a government could show that it was determined not to abuse its power was, to submit to have that power restrained by the law. All other policy—all intimation of apprehended in-
344
sult from the restriction of power, was hypocrisy when it proceeded from tyrants, and weakness when it came from those who entertained no bad intentions.
Mr. Canningsaid, he found himself in a situation of considerable difficulty; for if it was the privilege of a member, on moving a clause, to conclude the debate by a reply, as in the case of a motion, then he was precluded by the practice of the House from offering any observations in answer to those of his hon. and learned friend. As his hon. and learned friend's proposition was in the shape of an amendment, and not of an original motion, it appeared to him (Mr. Canning) that what his han. and learned friend had just said could not be deemed a reply.
Sir J. Mackintoshbegged to consult the Chair on the subject, and to be informed whether the moving of an instruction to a committee entitled the mover to the privilege of a reply.
The Speakersaid, the original question before the House was, "that the Speaker do leave the chair;" and therefore, unless that motion were withdrawn, the proposed instruction must be considered an amendment.
Mr. Canningsaid, he only desired to set himself right with the House on this point; and to show his hon. and learned friend that he had no wish to take advantage of the right which the forms of the House allowed him, he should wait till the first of the motions had passed.
The Speakersaid, that the question which he must first put was, "that the original words stand part of the motion;" and if, on that question, the House determined that he should leave the chair, the right hon. gentleman would have no opportunity of speaking on the question.
Mr. Canningobserved, that as that was the case he would proceed, with the intention, however, of limiting his remarks within a very small compass. His hon. and learned friend had abstained from answering that which was transcendantly the most important part of his noble friend's speech—namely, that the proposed clause, was to prevent an abuse of such a nature that if his majesty's present ministers were supposed capable of permitting it, they were unworthy to remain for a single hour in that capacity, and ought not merely to be restrained, but to be driven with scorn and indignation from their offices. His hon. and learned friend had said, that he had drawn this clause

345
without consulting any one. Certainly his hon. and learned friend could not have consulted the hon. and learned gentleman near him; for that hon. and learned gentleman found in the character of his majesty's government a necessity which his hon. and learned friend disclaimed, for the enactment. That opinion of the hon. and learned gentleman would inevitably appear to the world to be adopted by the House if they sanctioned the instructions now proposed; for it was not to be supposed that the House could add such clauses without creating a suspicion in the minds of all men, both in this country and in foreign countries, that parliament thought ministers capable of abusing the power which the bill at present gave them. To the argument of his hon. and learned friend, that all power was by our constitution attended with securities against its abuse, the answer was, that against ordinary abuses every guard ought to be established, but that the abuse which the proposed clause contemplated was of so detestable a nature, that no legislature in a civilised country ought for a moment to anticipate its perpetration, but should look at in the same point of view as that in which the ancient republic had regarded parricide. If the proposition were made in tenderness to his majesty's ministers they did not thank his hon. and learned friend. If it were meant as a precaution to guard them against temporary suspicion, it was a precaution that must prove ineffectual—If the clause were agreed to, and if, with other matters, the suspicion which cither existed out of doors, or was to be created by the speeches within those walls, were to be made matter of history, what defence could the present ministers have against the charge, that they were so notoriously unjust, that parliament found it necessary to add a clause to the Alien act to prevent them from sending out of the country the witnesses which the queen might find it necessary to call in her defence? Ministers could not hesitate between the two kinds of suspicion. They preferred the present, knowing that they could guard against its continuance by their conduct—knowing they could confound and act it down; and that it would be much better and easier to do that than to incur suspicion for all time to come. He would not be betrayed by the retrospective view which his hon and learned friend had taken of the proceedings respecting her majesty, into
346
any detailed remark on the subject. He had hoped that, the period having arrived, when the painful subject which had so long agitated the public mind, was in a course of being settled judicially, that House would not, on any occasion, be dragged into any farther notice of it, until it should come regularly before them. It was not calculated to farther the ends of public justice, to calm the existing effervescence of feeling, or to qualify that House to perform the duty which might eventually devolve upon them, to debate, by snatches, the most difficult and delicate points of the question, and thus to keep alive a constant and injurious irritation. He would therefore confine himself to one single remark in his hon. and learned friend's speech. His hon. and learned friend's great accusation against the ministers of the Crown was, that having thought it imperative upon themselves, in the performance of their duty, to bring forward the charges which they had brought forward, they nevertheless, in defiance (according to his hon. and learned friend) of the principles of justice, and at the risk (according to his hon. and learned friend) of incurring a greater blot than ever had been thrown on the House in the annals of the country, did yield to the opinion of that House, expressed, if not unanimously, by a most commanding and unprecedented majority. His hon. and learned friend thought it matter of blame, that his majesty's ministers, having found it necessary (although with great reluctance) to bring the matter in question under the consideration of parliament, had nevertheless what he was pleased to call the weakness and the inconsistency to persevere to the last in endeavouring to avert what they themselves, what parliament, and what the country considered to be a great national calamity. To himself, he could assure his hon. and learned friend, that he took no blame for his share of the transaction. Undoubtedly, had the resolution to which the House acceded, been drawn and worded by his colleagues and himself, there were some expressions, some awkwardnesses which they would probably have omitted. But from that fact let this fair inference be deduced— that the resolution in question had not been submitted to the approbation of ministers; but that considering it to embody the sentiments of the House, although the words were not theirs, they thought that, to have considered them with criti-

347
cal severity, would have shown fastidious delicacy at the expense of that which they were convinced was sincerity of intention. Whatever might have been the effect of that attempt at conciliation, no man could say that it had not been made with earnestness—no man could say that in the mode adopted for its attainment, a cold niggardly parsimony of language had been fallen into. If the proceeding could be charged with any error in that respect, it was error of excess. Would to God that excess had been tenfold, so that the result had been more fortunate! But as that was "past praying for," he had the satisfaction to know that, so far from shrinking from the accusation of his hon. and learned friend, that they had deviated from the straight-forward path, his colleagues and himself, and more especially himself, to the latest hour of their lives, and whatever might be the result of the melancholy transaction, would feel a consolation which they would not exchange for any earthly advantage; that the last hope and chance of avoiding the menaced evil had been most sincerely tried.
The first instruction was then negatived without a division. The second instruction, excluding from the operation of the bill aliens resident in this country previous to January 1814, was also negatived without a division.
Sir J. Mackintosh,in moving the third resolution, begged to make one or two observations, in answer to what had fallen from his right hon. friend First, it was remarkable how strictly his right hon. friend applied the proposed resolutions as personal to himself and his colleagues. He seemed to consider himself and his friends as the permanent immovable administration of the country, and that everything proposed was directed against them. Every measure which was brought forward, in opposition to their views or feelings, his right hon. friend appeared to consider as affecting them in a personal manner. Every measure which might even be thought to affect the hon. and right hon. gentlemen, however remotely, his right hon. friend seemed to think a personal affront, and a very ungentlemanly proceeding. The possible abuse of power generally seemed to be totally lost sight of. Among other things, his right hon. friend regretted that the subject respecting the queen should have been introduced into this question. From that discussion, however, he (sir J. Mackintosh)
348
had hitherto abstained, and was determined most studiously to abstain, until fit occasion occurred to render it incumbent upon him to express his sentiments on the subject. But his right hon. friend had indignantly denied the charge of inconsistency which had been stated against his majesty's ministers. This charge of fluctuation and vacillation on their part, as connected with their support of an address, pending the proceedings, was established, he should contend, not only by facts, but by the admission of his right hon. friend himself; for his right hon. friend did allow that they had deviated a little from the strictness of the law, and the regularity of proceedings in this case; and what was this deviation but inconsistency? Her majesty was threatened with the severest proceedings on her arrival, and in three days after the House of Commons was prostrate at her feet. He did not mean to cavil with the words of the address to the queen. His objection to it was made on constitutional grounds, and he would venture to say, that at no former period of parliament had there been an address of advice or opinion to a subject. The ancient usage in this respect, like all the other usages of parliament, was founded in the purest wisdom, and proceeded upon this principle and reason—that if parliament offered, in the usual form, its humble advice to the Crown, and that without any effect, they might take the necessary remedial measures by proceeding against the advisers of the Crown. But, on the other hand, it was evident that in the case of a subject, the advice of parliament was liable to the indignity of being rejected, in consequence of which its determination and wisdom might be exposed to contumely and contempt; and it must be remembered, high as was her rank, that the queen herself was but a subject. He would venture to state that, from the return of the earliest, the most ancient writ, to the parliament of this country, it had never proceeded to advise a subject. There had been various addresses of condolence and congratulation to princes at different periods, but never until June 1820 was parliament known to have presented an address of advice to a subject. These were the grounds by which his vote against that address was actuated, and upon those grounds he founded his censure of the conduct of ministers, whose duty it was to protect the dignity of par-

349
liament. His right hon. friend had indeed asserted that the resolution was not the resolution of ministers. It was their resolution: it was the resolution of all who voted for it. He disdained any minute investigation into the construction of its sentences, he looked only to the principle upon which it was brought forward. The next observation which occurred to him was this —that his right hon. friend seemed to argue that it was proper to provide securities against the ordinary abuses of power, but not against those which were of a more serious and alarming nature. Now he begged leave to ask him whether any thing could be more truly horrible than the murder of an innocent roan, and yet whether there was any thing which the laws of England had taken more jealous care to guard against than the putting to death an innocent person, under, the forms of law? So, in the case of high-treason, he would ask again, what other principle had caused those multiplied and vigilant securities which invested the life of the subject but this—that where the Crown was the prosecutor, there the greatest danger of abuse of power existed? It had been wisely supposed, and humanely provided for, that the time might come—the ministers might be in office—the king might reign—when such a danger might be seriously apprehended. His right hon. friend had said that the existing laws had provided against all ordinary abuses; but the tenour of his argument was, that it would be quite uncalled for and affronting to provide against the more alarming encroachments of power. According to his right hon. friend's proposition, the necessity of a remedy was exactly in an inverse ratio to the magnitude of the evil. His right hon. friend thought parliament had no right to suppose, that it would be uncandid in them to imagine an administration capable of such acts as those against which his (sir J. M.'s) resolutions went to provide. He would repeat that it was against acts of the most monstrous nature that the constitution most strongly provided. Let his right hon. friend recollect the year in which the act for regulating proceedings in cases of high treason was passed. It was passed in the reign of that great man who rescued this country from civil and religious tyranny. The ministers of king William, instead of resenting the introduction of that act as a personal attack, or suspicion against them, considered it as an additional security for
350
public liberty, and gave it their most cordial support. He would ask any one who had heard the arguments of his right hon. friend, however, whether the government of king William might not have advanced them with equal reason against the statute in question? Upon the same principle was the Habeas Corpus act introduced; it was introduced to prevent arbitrary imprisonment of the king's subjects, nor did the then ministers feel the introduction of such a measure as pointing suspiciously at them. His right hon. friend had urged, that if this instruction were not moved, his majesty's ministers would have an opportunity of vindicating themselves by abstaining from the exercise of the power vested in them. Now he denied that this would be the case. The evil of which he complained was not theoretical, it was certain. Foreigners came into this country with an impression that ministers had the power of removing them. They saw such a power daily exercised in their own countries, and naturally imagined that it would be similarly exercised here. This must produce a bias which would act in a hundred ways without any possibility of detecting it. On this ground it was that he felt it necessary to press the resolution, namely, "that it be an instruction to the said committee, that they have power to provide that nothing in this bill contained shall extend to any aliens who have come or who shall come into this kingdom, to give evidence for or against a bill of pains and penalties now pending against her majesty the queen."
Mr. Canningsaid, that his hon. and learned friend, in alluding to the administration of king William, and to the ministers under whom the law of habeas corpus was enacted, had asked, whether they might not have met the great measures which had been alluded to in the same way as his hon. and learned friend's propositions had been met? whether the same arguments would not have been equally applicable in either case? He would answer no. But in the case of any measure directed virtually against a pending proceeding, and upon which the arguments (though not perhaps on the part of the mover himself, yet certainly on the part of those who supported him) were derived from the assumed character of the existing administration—for his own part, he could not think, that, in such a case, it was so monstrous for ministers to suppose (nor did he perceive how they could be accused of

351
being too sore, and too tenacious, or too much alive, either to their good or ill reputation, for supposing—for entertaining a little, a slight, passing, distant, shadowy suspicion)—that such a measure might, by possibility, be levelled against them. Another hon. and learned gentleman had spoken upon the question, with a peculiar confidence, as it were, of an approaching dissolution of the present administration; but, sanguine as that hon. and learned gentleman might be about the term of that dissolution, he could surely hardly expect that it was to take place by that day se'nnight. If his majesty's ministers were allowed liberty to act, they would have an opportunity of quelling suspicion; but if their hands were tied up, as they would be by the proposed clause, then they would have no opportunity of doing away with any insinuations thrown out against them.—There was another point in his hon. and learned friend's speech, to which he wished to advert. His hon. and learned friend seemed to think that he (Mr. Canning) had admitted some degree of vacillation and inconsistency to have been manifested in the conduct of ministers by reason of their having brought down a proposition of their own, and afterwards supported,—what? a motion of their own too?—No; but one originating in another quarter, and to which they could only be considered parties in so far as they formed a part of the majority by which the House had agreed to it. That support they gave, in the same spirit in which they had for months and months previously been acting. They had acted altogether, in the matter in question, under a necessity which seemed to them to be paramount and overwhelming. The course they had pursued, and in favour of which they so relinquished the discussion of their own proposition, was suggested, hon. gentlemen must well know, by the most respectable authority, and confirmed and sanctioned by a commanding majority of that House, to whose expressed and decided feeling upon the subject they had (not too much confiding in their own judgment, but finding it to be in unison with that of parliament) paid that deference and respect which it was proper for them in all possible cases to pay. The proposal which had been made was made in order, if possible, to avert the necessity of all painful inquiry; and would to God that that proposal had been attended with the desired success. He was sure that it
352
would have been much more conducive to the peace and tranquillity of the country than the measures now unhappily forced upon them.
Mr. Scarlettconfessed that he really did not know what expression of his had warranted the construction which the right hon. gentleman had put upon his words. He might be allowed to say that he had himself a little stake in the property, and could not therefore be indifferent to the welfare of the government of the country; but no man was ever less sanguine than himself in expecting, or thought any thing less likely to happen, than the dissolution of the present administration; for he thought they would not dissolve until the country did; and that the country would be dissolved by them; and no doubt had he but many persons would support them until it came to that crisis. He denied that any paramount necessity had been imposed upon ministers to adopt that course of proceeding on account of the mere circumstance of the queen's return, which the right hon. gentleman himself had so feelingly lamented, or to put the parties in that state which the whole country so deeply deplored. It was in this view that he had characterised the present as a weak administration. What other epithet could justly be applied to them? He contended, that the moment his majesty's ministers had admitted that great question to be one capable of negotiation, they had themselves given the lie to those who had maintained that a paramount necessity existed for following the course that had previously been taken. If any gentleman was of opinion that he, in the warmth of debate had shown any prejudice or party feeling on the subject, he wished to set himself right. He could assure the House, that he entertained no such feeling. He wished to see justice impartially done. He could not help stating, that he felt compassion, strong compassion for the situation of her majesty, but he also entertained a strong feeling, for the peace and tranquillity of the country, which he conceived were endangered by the proposed investigation.
Mr. Denmanobserved, that when he entered the House, he had no idea that the resolutions now before the House were to be proposed. But he could not help stating the reasons urged in support of that clause, formed a strong ground against the existence of such a bill, and unless the

353
paramount necessity of such a measure, from 1792 down to 1820, could be shown, it ought not to be proposed; at all events, at a period like the present. It was not, however, for this purpose that he rose. He rose for the purpose of entering his protest against the statements of the right hon. gentleman opposite, who contended that the proceeding now pending against her majesty was a necessary consequence of the failure of the address voted to her. He did not mean then to enter into the prudence or imprudence of the late address to her majesty, but he protested in the face of the House and the country, that it was proposed not out of regard to her majesty's interests, but because parliament had no taste for entering into a discussion where the Crown was a party, and when they believed in their consciences that the Crown was in the wrong. If it was fit for the queen to be advised on the subject of the liturgy at a time when she had no responsible advisers—indeed when she had none other than her own lofty and honourable mind—it was equally fit that the House, if it really believed that the expunging of her name from the Liturgy was a proceeding contrary to law—(and he had yet met no lawyer in either House who had attempted to say that it was legal)—if it thought it a proceeding contrary to the principles of Christianity, and to the feelings of a gentleman and a man it was equally fit that the House should pause, and refuse to proceed further in a course which he was sure its own feeling would not excuse. It became it to protest against the impropriety of proceeding upon the depositions contained in a sealed bag—depositions of witnesses whose names were not known, and of which some might not be signed. That inquiry had, however been entered into, in another place. He knew not what the House of Commons would have done had the inquiry been persisted in, but he did hope that there would not have been found among them any twenty-one gentlemen base enough voluntarily to offer themselves to enter into an examination of the disgusting statements contained in the green bag, into papers without a name, and unsupported by any authority. He was confident that the House would take it as a compliment from the noble lord that no such proposition had been made to it.
The Attorney-Generalknew not what information the hon. and learned member possessed, upon what authority it was
354
that he founded his statements-respecting the contents of the sealed bag, or how he could so positively attest that that evidence was unfounded and unworthy the attention of the House. But he must observe, and the House and the country ought to feel, that whenever parliament entered upon that inquiry they ought to do so with unbiassed minds. It was strongly urged on the other side of the House, and he fully concurred in the observation, that the queen ought to have the full benefit of being presumed innocent until proved guilty; but on the other hand, he protested against the doctrine of declaring the queen innocent and her accusers guilty before any thing was known of the nature of the evidence against her. This was not the way to carry unbiassed minds to the investigation. His mind was perfectly free from any bias, yet he could not believe that the accusations had been made against her majesty without having any foundation for them. He must here observe, that a great deal of irrelevant matter had been introduced into the question before the House. The question before the House, and to which he begged to call their attention was, whether, on the renewal of this bill, a clause was to be introduced which showed that his majesty's ministers were viewed with suspicion by parliament—his hon. and learned friend might shake his head, but such was the impression which the clause would create in the public mind. He admired the reasoning of his hon. and learned friend. But were the Habeas Corpus act, and the other acts to which he alluded proposed, like the present resolution, at a period when the cases to which they referred were pending, or with the avowed purpose of marking a suspicion of ministers? On the second reading of the bill, however, it was conceded that the power of sending aliens out of the country should reside in the executive; and it was now too late to take an exception to its use as directed to a particular case. On this ground it was that he felt it necessary to oppose the instruction.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, it appeared as if the ministers thought they were for ever to be continued as such; or, at all events, during the proceeding against her majesty. But whether that might be the case or not, of one thing, at all events, he was sure, that in conferring such a power on his majesty's ministers, they were con-

355
ferring a most monstrous power. On the subject of her majesty he had abstained from offering any opinion; when properly called on he should state that opinion impartially; but as to the improper conduct alluded to at Dover, he felt it was alien to the disposition of the English people to prevent the fair administration of justice, which must necessarily result if witnesses were to be ill treated, or deterred from giving their evidence on the points to which they might be called.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he merely rose to disavow all personal suspicion of the ministers, while he begged leave explicitly to avow a constitutional jealousy of the power now vested in them.
The instruction was then put, and negatived without a division; and the bill went through a committee.

BARRACK AGREEMENT.
On the motion for bringing up the report of this agreement,
Mr. Calcraftbegged to call the attention of the House to a subject which came to his knowledge on Saturday. He understood it was intended to build barracks in the Regent's Park for 437 men of the Life-guards, in lieu of the barracks in King-street, Portman-square. That fit barracks should, if necessary, be built, he had no objection; nor had he any that the Regent's Park should be the spot selected. But he thought the terms upon which those barracks were to be erected rather novel. The expense of erecting them was to be defrayed by annuity. The reason for this was, that the sum paid for the buildings now occupied by the soldiers was 5,400 l. a year. Upon this sum the builders were to have an annuity for 31 years. So that at 5 per cent, interest these barracks would cost 84,000 l. and upwards. Now the barracks at Glasgow, for 348 men, were to cost the public 15,600 l.; and those at Leeds, for an equal number, 28,250 l. And yet, though the ground in the Regent's Park would cost nothing, yet for an additional 100 men, there would be an extra charge on the public of 60,000 l. His objection was not so much to the largeness of the sum as to the principle. He thought this required explanation. He understood that the barracks were actually begun. If so, the right hon. gentleman had much to answer for, as the House had not voted a single shilling for the purpose, nor had parliament even been consulted upon it. It was said
356
that they had already voted the 5,400 l; but then they had only voted it for one year, and that, too, only to pay the lodging money for the troops.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he considered there was a good reason for accepting of the contract before them. If the regiment in question were to have been removed from London, it might perhaps have been argued, that so large a sum should not have been expended for their accommodation But if any garrison whatever were to be kept in London, the Horse-guards surely ought to be preferred, their good conduct being justly admired and praised. It was about eight years ago since a proposition for building a barrack for that regiment in the Regent's Park had been made; the estimate of the expense amounted to 120,000 l. The estimates made by the surveyor of the barrack board, on the plan now proposed, did not amount to more than 70,000 l. The annuity proposed to be paid by government to the contractors of 5,400 l. for 31 years, would amount to 70,000 l. and after the expiration of that period the barracks would become the sole property of the government, and the annuity of course would cease. He allowed, however, that the matter was not publicly advertised.
Sir J. Newportstrongly condemned a proposition of this sort having been introduced at the close of a session. He condemned the mode proposed as changing altogether the principle upon which the country had heretofore acted with respect to barracks. The right hon. gentleman had said, that if the House should not approve of paying an annuity of 5,400 l. they might build the barracks at an expense of 70,000 l.; but the House had not determined to build any barracks at all; why, then, should ministers take it for granted that the House would approve of the building of those barracks? He could not but protest against ministers taking the opinion of parliament for granted.
Mr. Williamsdid not see any reason why this regiment should have been quartered at London. If ministers would look at Croydon, they would find barracks there, built at great expense, almost entirely empty. He saw no reason for going to the enormous expense for the erection of new barracks.
Mr. Elliceintreated of the House to reflect on the consequences which might follow the barrack system—they might

357
shelter an armed force, which could be turned as a means of attack upon the people. He entreated the House to consider how far they would go towards the creation and support of a military government, which they might afterwards vainly deplore, as fatal to the liberties and happiness of their country. As to the financial part of the question, his objections to it were equally strong: it appeared to him as if ministers determined that the public expenditure was in no instance to be diminished, and that the calls for retrenchment were never to be attended to.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that instead of asking to raise a sum of 70,000 l., his right hon. friend simply proposed to continue an annual existing charge of 5,400 l. for thirty-one years, at the expiration of which, these barracks would become the sole property of the public. With respect to the other objection—if the erection of these barracks would have the effect of introducing one additional soldier into the metropolis, he might see some force in the objection, but not one single man would be added to the regular force in consequence of the erection of these barracks. The object of the work was merely to provide better accommodation for the soldiers, who were now in a most inconvenient state. The officers and the men were divided, whilst the latter had too much opportunity of mixing with the neighbouring inhabitants.
Mr. Gordonreprobated the grant, as one which must ratify an usurped privilege on the part of ministers, as well as sanction a most suspicious transaction. He objected to the principle laid down by the noble lord, as repugnant to that of our ancestors, who thought the best security they had for their liberties consisted in their maintaining closely the connexion between the citizen and soldier, and not treating the interests of one as separated from those of the others.
Lord Binningwas surprised at the nature of the objection. Had his right hon. friend been compelled to ask a vote for a large sum of money, there would have been a colour for the opposition offered. Here it was proposed to effect a considerable object, by most convenient advances, from time to time, on a fair estimate, and finally the public would reap the advantage by having acquired a specific property in the buildings thus erected.
After some farther conversation, the House divided; Ayes, 48;Noes, 34;
358
Majority, 14. The report was then agreed to.

BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose to call their lordships' attention to the order of the day made with reference to the bill he had introduced on the report of the secret committee. When this subject was under discussion on a former occasion, it was thought that the illustrious person against whom the proceedings were instituted, and her counsel, were desirous of considerable delay; but, in consequence of the report of the secret committee, and the bill which he had laid on the table, an application of a different nature had been made by the queen's counsel; namely, that their lordships should proceed forthwith with the inquiry. He by no means meant to complain of this as inconsistent, because he was perfectly sensible, that the different circumstances in which the case was then placed might give just ground for a change of opinion as to the time of proceeding. It must be obvious, however, that this change must, in some degree, affect those before whom the proceedings were to take place. But he did not make this observation with the view of casting any weight on that objection. On the contrary, he said that the call for an immediate inquiry having been made, their lordships were bound to answer it as far as it was practicable for them to do, consistently with the administration of substantial justice. This was a case in which they must put out of question every motive of mere convenience. On the last day on which this subject was under discussion, he had thrown out for their lordships consideration, whether they would think proper to

305
proceed with this inquiry without the presence of the judges. In the communications he had had with those whom he thought right to consult on this point, he was confirmed in the opinion, that their lordships would not exercise their duty in the manner which became them, if they proceeded in this measure without having the advantage of at least a portion of the judges. He said a portion; for, in looking back to precedents of the attendance of the judges in parliamentary inquiries, he found that the presence of the whole twelve had not been considered necessary. It had always been so arranged, that some were allowed to go the circuit. In the present case, there was no period, not even that which would be the most convenient—he meant November next—in which their lordships could order the attendance of the whole of the judges, without greatly interfering with the administration of justice. On this point, then, he certainly thought it would not be proper for their lordships to proceed without a part of the judges; but, from what he had stated, he was convinced the presence of the whole was unnecessary.
He had now to call their lordships attention to the next stage of the bill. Consistently with the wish of answering the call made for an immediate proceeding with as little delay as possible, he had made it his duty to inquire, what was the earliest period at which the presence of a part of the judges could be obtained, and he had found that, by the 17th of August, their lordships might have at least the attendance of four. It was therefore his intention to move that the bill be read a second time on the 17th of August next. He should follow up that motion with others which were consequent upon it. He was aware that the time proposed for prosecuting the inquiry was a most inconvenient period of the year; but he had no doubt, from the extreme importance of the case, that the House would be attended in such a manner as would render the decision, whichever way it might be, equally satisfactory to the public and to their lordships themselves. He had no doubt that their lordships would all be ready to make every sacrifice to the performance of their duty on so important an occasion. There were among them individuals who certainly had claims to indulgence on account of the constant attendance which their duties required, and who must naturally look to that period of the year as
306
one of relaxation; but they, feeling the urgent necessity of the occasion, would be disposed to make every necessary sacrifice. There was one thing he thought should be impressed on their lordships minds—that this was a case in which peers neither could nor ought to vote by proxy. They ought all to be present during the deliberations, and all should vote in person. What would be the view of the illustrious person who was the object of the bill, with regard to the course he now proposed, remained to be seen. He knew not how far that illustrious person might, or might not, have objection to the time. He must observe, however, that if it should be thought advisable to make any application to their lordships for a change of time, or delay, he trusted that such application would be made within a few days; because, if it came in August, after the preparations for proceeding had been completed, and their lordships had made their arrangements for attending, it would be very inconvenient to comply with it. He must therefore repeat his hope, that if any such application was intended, it would be made without loss of time. If their lordships agreed to his proposition for fixing the second reading of the bill for Thursday the 17th of August, he would next move that a copy of the order be sent to her majesty,—that counsel be allowed to he heard for and against the bill before the second readings—and that the judges on that day be ordered to attend. The noble lord concluded by moving, "that the bill be read a second time on Thursday the 17th of August."
Earl Greydid not oppose the motion made by the noble earl, but observed that, if there was to be any delay, he thought it would be much better that it should take place before the proceedings commenced than during their progress. He was ignorant as to what course the illustrious person against whom these proceedings were directed might wish to adopt; and, in the present state of the information before their lordships, it was difficult to suggest any thing on the subject. He thought, however, that some arrangement might be made with her majesty, so as to have the delay previously to the inquiry, instead of making it interpose, as it otherwise might do, to allow time for the preparation of the defence. How this was to be brought about he did not know, but he thought it might be accomplished by communicating to her

307
majesty a copy of the charges, and a list of the witnesses against her, which he considered nothing more than what strict justice required. Were this done, it was probable that their lordships might then adjourn the farther proceedings to a period of the year much more convenient for their attendance. Whatever delay might be necessary for the preparation of the defence might be procured by some arrangement like that he had taken before the second reading, and thus contribute to the convenience of all parties. To this suggestion he must add, that he did not think the noble earl had shown any necessity for the postponement. If their lordships were to endeavour to answer the call to proceed forthwith, why delay till the 17th of August? The noble earl was of opinion that the attendance of four judges was sufficient. Why was it necessary to wait till the 17th of August to obtain that number? He thought the attendance of that number of judges might be obtained now; and in that case it would be better to go on than to begin at the 17th of August with the probability of suspending the proceedings after that period.
The Earl of Liverpoolassured the noble lord, that, from the inquiries he had made, he had found it was not possible for their lordships, with a due regard to the administration of justice, to call for the attendance of any of the learned judges before the 17th of August. He perfectly agreed with the noble earl, that it would be very desirable to obtain a delay before the commencement of the proceedings, rather than at any other time, if an arrangement for that purpose could be made suitable to the convenience of all parties. The noble earl thought that this object might be facilitated by communicating the charges and a list of the witnesses. As to the charges, he conceived that they were already sufficiently made known. They were as fully detailed in this bill as ever they had been in any other of the kind. With regard to the other and more important point, the communication of the names of the witnesses, he had given it his most serious consideration, and he was perfectly satisfied that no claim whatever could in justice be made to such a communication. It would be dangerous to make such a precedent, for it would tend to the establishment of one of the most inconvenient principles that could be adopted in proceedings of a similar kind,
308
and to the introduction of a practice inconsistent with the ordinary course of the administration of justice.
Lord Hollanddesired the standing order, No. 47, which regulates proceedings of inquiry before their lordships, and directs that defendants may be heard by counsel, &c., should be read. He had no hesitation in saying, that if the date of this order, as it stood in the order-book, was correct, it was imperative on their lordships to grant to her majesty the substance of the depositions or charges against her. He had no wish to call upon their lordships to do any more in this case than what substantial justice required, and therefore he did not rest much on this ground; he would indeed candidly confess, that he had some doubt of the accuracy of the date: it was the 3rd of April, 1623. It appeared that proceedings were then instituted in that House against the lord-treasurer Middlesex. A report from a committee, at the head of which was the archbishop of Canterbury, had been made on the 2nd of April, stating that, in the course of their inquiry, reflections had been found to attach on the honour of the lord-treasurer. On the 5th a committee was appointed in the Commons to inquire into the conduct of the lord-treasurer Middlesex. If this order were entered on the Journals on the 3rd of April (the period specified), no doubt whatever could exist but that it was done for the purpose of granting to the lord-treasurer a communication of those charges that had been made against him in a secret committee, and with respect to which the other House had given him no information. A conference took place between the two Houses, and at that conference an accusation was preferred against the lord-treasurer. That accusation, and a report of the proceedings at that conference, were referred to a committee of their lordships, and they almost unanimously caused articles of impeachment to be drawn up against the lord-treasurer. The manner in which the business seemed to be conducted was this:—There was, on the part of the plaintiff and defendant, a certain report drawn up by the House, and witnesses were sworn at the bar to give evidence on the subject. On the 3rd of April, an inquiry took place as to whether the information required by the lord-treasurer should be granted to him or not. On that occasion, they did not arrive at any decision. On the 3rd of

309
May, a petition was presented from the lord-treasurer to that House, accompanied by certain interrogatories, which he wished to be propounded to some other witnesses, who were yet to be examined; and the lord-treasuser, in his petition, said, "Since your lordships have appointed Friday next for proceeding with this suit, I pray to have copies of the depositions furnished me in some convenient time before that day, in order that I may prepare myself for my just defence." On the motion that the lord-treasurer shall have just copies of the said depositions, which was moved by lord Say and Sele, and seconded by lord Morton, it was negatived at that moment, because the lord-treasurer's own witnesses had not then been examined; and it was also refused, on the ground that it might form a precedent for posterity. The subject was then referred to a committee of privileges, and they reported" that means of justification might be afforded before the final answer was given in, and that the lord-treasurer might then be allowed the depositions of all the witnesses, as well for him as against him." Then came an order of the 3rd of May, which specially related to those depositions. Now, as far as he had been able to understand what those depositions were, they comprised the whole body of evidence on which the House proceeded to judgment, which was simply read at their bar. He wished their lordships would get a clear understanding of the whole transaction with respect to the propriety of granting the depositions, and that they would make up their minds upon it. If the order to which he referred were placed on their Journals at the date which was then noted down, it was a case worthy the attention of their lordships. The whole point turned on the consequences that might be derived from a publication of the depositions, whether the matter terminated honourably or dishonourably for her majesty. If it were not proper in this state of the business to communicate the whole of these proceedings to her majesty's counsel, yet their lordships, he thought, must feel that it would be necessary that the substance of those depositions, and copies of the evidence, should at least be laid before those who were to act as judges in this case, prior to the hearing of the cause. This was done in ordinary cases, and ought, as far as they could consider the matter, with reference to analogy, be
310
acted on here. Where informations were taken before a magistrate, the depositions were generally given in the presence of the party accused; but, whether they were sworn in the presence of the person accused or not, when the case came before the court for trial they were communicated to the judge. They were produced for the purpose of giving the judge an opportunity to ascertain the credibility of the witnesses, by checking the evidence sworn at the bar with that which had previously been given before the magistrate. There could be no reason surely for abandoning so fair a system. They had a right he conceived, so far to regulate themselves by the analogy which he had pointed out, as to give to the accused and to her judges the same advantages that would be given to any other individual in the country. By this course only could her judges properly consider and apply the evidence. He supposed the course of proceeding would be, when the second reading was proposed, for some noble lord to propose that counsel be called in and heard forthwith. That motion would of course be followed up by a communication to the attorney-general; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the noble earl to furnish that individual with the contents of this bag? If he strictly adhered to precedent, he must do so; and he could not conceive how such information could be furnished to one of the parties, and not to the other. It was not possible, in his opinion, to furnish all necessary information to the prosecutors, and to withhold it from the party accused. The course of proceeding was a point to which they ought to apply the most vigilant attention, particularly if the report of the secret committee were such as could not be paralleled throughout the whole of their Journals. A great mass of evidence had been referred to a committee of that House for examination. The course of proceeding usually adopted by a committee of this sort was, to report the general nature and tendency, and, in some point, the details of the evidence, submitted to their notice: leaving their lordships, in a great measure, to draw their own conclusions on the matter in agitation. On this occasion, however, no information whatever was given with respect to the subject; on the contrary, the committee advised their lordships to adopt a certain mode of proceeding. This was the first time that a committee of their

311
lordships' House had pursued such a line of conduct. All these circumstances proved the proceeding to be a very singular one indeed. He, therefore, thought that the question put by his noble friend was a very proper one. He could see no reason why the names of the witnesses should not be disclosed to the accused party. Either a statement of the precise evidence should be allowed; or, if that were refused, a list of the witnesses should be forthcoming. What his noble friend suggested to the House was this—whether it would not be proper, when the case was gone into, to allow a given time to elapse, in order to enable her majesty to enter on her defence? If any other mode of proceeding were adopted, it would not meet the justice of the case. The ends of justice would not be properly attained, unless either at this moment, or at some future period, the necessary information were laid before her majesty's legal advisers, and sufficient time were given them to examine the evidence in all its bearings.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, it would be better if the noble lord, instead of introducing this point incidentally, would make a distinct motion on the subject. Unless that were done, the House could not, he conceived, deal with the question. If any noble lord was anxious to introduce the subject to the House, he might do so by offering a distinct proposition with respect to it. For his own part, he had heard nothing that tended in the slightest degree to shake the opinion he had formed on this question. The noble lord, in support of his view of the case, had referred to an old standing order of that House; and he had very candidly observed, that he knew not how far it would apply to their lordships' present proceedings. But he believed, if they examined their Journals, they would find entries considerably later, and connected with analogous cases, where copies of depositions and papers of the nature of those that had been referred to the secret committee, were actually refused to the parties concerned, who had applied for them. In the case of bishop Atterbury divers papers were laid before the House of Commons in support of the charge against that individual. Copies of those papers were afterwards sent to the Lords. The bishop petitioned the House, praying to have sufficient time allowed him, before the second reading of the bill, to inspect those papers by his counsel or soli-
312
citor. That application was, however peremptorily refused. He did not state this as conclusive evidence on the subject, but as a proof that it was not always conceived necessary to furnish this species of information to the parties. He admitted it would not be just to withhold those depositions, if on them alone the judgment of the House was to be formed. But their lordships would see that their judgment was not to be founded either on the depositions, or on the report. They all agreed that it would be improper if the House were asked to declare an opinion on these documents; and, it had been stated all along, that the case was to be proved by oral testimony at their lordships' bar, subject to the examination, cross-examination, and re-examination, to which oral testimony was liable. Therefore noble lords need not give themselves up to the supposition, that their judgment was to be founded on the depositions in question. With respect to the question of time, he had no difficulty in saying, that great advantage would be derived from proceeding with celerity when the business had once commenced; neither had he the least difficulty in believing, that if delay were asked, if a good ground for postponement were adduced, their lordships would not object to such an application. This he would most distinctly state—that, with a view to the furtherance of justice, if a previous list of the witnesses, or else a period of delay between the accusation and the defence, were demanded, he would decidedly prefer granting the latter. This, however, was only his own opinion as to the most effectual way of obtaining substantial justice.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, if he had not misunderstood the noble lord (Holland), the argument which he used on this occasion was at variance with that which he had formerly advanced. The argument adduced against the secret committee was, that the consequence of laying those papers and depositions before such a body, without the examination of witnesses, would be to prejudice their minds in a considerable degree, and thus to render them unfit to act judicially on the subject. This, as far as his recollection served, was the objection against the secret committee; and that objection the noble lord now proposed to extend to the whole House, by placing under the eye of every peer those papers which, in the-former case, he considered as likely to-

313
create a prejudice in the case. So far from the perusal of those documents being restricted to fifteen peers, the noble lord now wished that they should be laid before the whole of their lordships, because it would give them an opportunity of comparing the evidence contained in those depositions, with the statements made at the bar of the House. He, however, thought that neither the circumstance of the depositions being submitted to a secret committee, nor their being laid before the whole House, would in the slightest degree interfere with the exercise of their lordships judicial capacity. He thought so, because they were not only judges in parliament, but hereditary counsellors of the Crown; and he was sure the constitution would not impose on them two duties that appeared to be incompatible with each other. As hereditary counsellors they might be called on to advise his majesty on a matter deeply affecting the honour and dignity of the Crown. Were they to refuse that advice? Were they to say to his majesty, "We cannot attend to your request, because we may hereafter be obliged to act as judges in parliament, and in that capacity we may be expected to decide on this case?" He apprehended that they could not give such an answer. In that case those who were hereditary counsellors of the Crown would be cut off from stating their opinion on matters of great public importance; for there was scarcely a situation of danger and difficulty in which the state might be placed, and on which their advice might not be required, that, by possibility, might not afterwards come before them as legislators, they having previously given that advice which seemed best calculated to meet the evil. He conceived that the noble lord had here fallen into some little inconsistency, which, he doubted not, he would explain with his usual ingenuity.
Lord Hollanddid not deny that the noble lord had stated very fairly the view which he had on a former occasion taken of the formation of a secret committee. He then said, it would be very unsatisfactory to the public, and therefore most unwise, to call for an opinion from fifteen peers, with respect to papers submitted to them, since they would be afterwards called to decide finally on the question in a judicial capacity. Now, in what he had observed this evening, there was nothing that could justly be termed inconsistent with that opinion. There certainly was
314
some little difference between having papers laid before him, to enable him to compare the depositions with the evidence given at the bar, and having papers submitted to him which he had examined antecedently, and on which he had previously delivered some opinion. The objection of himself and his noble friends was, that the individuals who formed the secret committee would be placed in possession of ex parte information, and would, in the first instance, pronounce an opinion on those facts which they would afterwards have to consider as judges. This did not by any means apply to the case put by the noble lord. He had stated most correctly, that when a person who had been committed by a magistrate was about to be tried before a judge, the latter was furnished with the depositions taken in the case; and he argued, by analogy, that the depositions in the present instance should be laid before their lordships, as the judges of the charge. He did not see any thing inconsistent in this argument; on the contrary, he thought he might say there was something inconsistent in the noble lord's mode of arguing the question. If the noble lord really thought there was an advantage in thus proceeding by laying certain documents before a few peers, he could not conceive any reason for refusing the same advantage to the whole House. His argument was, that if fifteen of their lordships had those papers in their possession, and had declared an opinion on them, it was not fair to the parties, nor consonant with the principles of justice or humanity, to call on those peers to assist in deciding the question ultimately. It ought not to be left to judges whose opinion was already on record.
Lord Erskine.—My lords; much as I always desire to hear my noble friend on the right, I am not sure I should have given way to him, if I had not expected it would have been more to the matter now before us. He says that we have two characters, that of hereditary counsellors, and legislators also, and that if looking at the evidence secretly in the former character, disqualified us for sitting in judgment on it afterwards, no such parliamentary jurisdiction should have ever existed; but to that it can be only answered (and I am delivering no opinion on the point), that if looking at the evidence secretly, affects the judgment, as it is impossible to change the nature of

315
the human mind, the practice of the constitution should be altered. But that is not the question now—the committee has made its report—a bill has been brought in—it has been read a first time, and the 17th of August has been appointed for the second reading, and the only matter to be considered at present is, how we are to deal with it most consistently with the honour and character of the House, with the clearest safety to the accused, and in a manner the most congenial to the feelings of an enlightened people. My lords, the proceeding is so rare, or rather so anomalous, that it may be difficult to find a precedent that may exactly apply to it; but I wish to la}' aside precedent altogether for a more satisfactory rule of decision, viz. for that mode of proceeding which is the most analogous to the general principles of our criminal law, on a case the nearest to the present, and which will hold the scales of justice the most even between the accuser and the accused. Your lordships must anticipate that excellent statute of king William for the protection of persons accused of high treason, which gives to the accused, even before the court is opened, a copy of the indictment, and a list of all the witnesses who are to be examined for the Crown. What is the principle of this admirable law which thus bestows a privilege which in ordinary cases is denied? It is, my lords, because in such a case the prisoner has not to contend with an equal accuser, or with equal securities against injustice. It is because he is to contend with mighty power, which is wisely vested by the law, but which demands a balance, and he is therefore covered all over with the armour of the law. Now was there ever a case more clearly of this description? I do not mean to speak invidiously, or to make any charges; but only to point out the situation of the illustrious accused. She has to contend against the Crown and its ministers, and against all the powers and influences they possess. In such a case, my lords, putting all right or precedent out of the question, I would most earnestly advise your lordships to give the list of the witnesses, unless you can show me who offered you this advice, that by doing so you would disturb the balance of justice, and confer a power to weaken and disappoint the accusation however just. Shew me this and I am silent, but you cannot show this without being prepared to repeal the statute of king Wil-
316
liam, because I ask even less than by that statute is compulsory on the Crown. After the list of the witnesses in a case of high treason has been delivered, though a fatal omission is afterwards discovered, it cannot be repaired; and the witnesses, though by accident omitted, cannot be examined; but in a case so anomalous, and where there is no law to demand such proceeding, it ought not to be required; but what objection then remains to a list of those that have at present been determined on?—The noble earl has said that he should prefer a proceeding without interruption, but that if the illustrious accused, after the witnesses for the bill had been examined, should desire time to contradict them, God forbid it should be refused, but that indulgence might come too late. The list of the witnesses is given, not merely that those for the Crown may be contradicted, but that, under cross-examination, if they are false witnesses, they may be made to contradict themselves. My lords, I pray you to consider this—the noble earl has said that the question is not closed, and that it may be re-considered. It appears to me to deserve re-consideration. We are placed in the view of the public, and I know we shall fulfil our duty. The judicial character of the House of Lords supports all the other tribunals of justice, and the attendance of the judges would be of no value here unless our superior character were held sacred by the people, which I hope and trust they ever will be. My lords, I have not made these observations from any desire to disappoint or obstruct the course we are engaged in. When the court assembles I will do my duty, as if all the angels in heaven were taking notes of whatever passed through my mind on the subject; but I wish to be placed in a situation in which I can do this duty with safety.
The Lord Chancellordeclared, that he looked at this case with a feeling of the most perfect impartiality, and he wished to God that it was attended to with the same calmness both in that House and out of it. In that House, he was persuaded, it would be so regarded; but out of that House it was quite shocking to see how much it had been neglected. With respect to what his noble and learned friend had said, it appeared that there was no one case whatever, except that of high treason, which he could state as having the smallest analogy to the present;

317
and even that his noble and learned friend was obliged to give up. He must evidently give it up, as the law at present stood; and he was glad of having this opportunity to state his opinion. In the course of his professional life he had had occasion to see enormously long lists of witnesses, comprising perhaps 200 or 300 persons, given to defendants in cases of high treason. How could this be avoided as the law now stood? There was, in fact, no way of avoiding it; because, in cases of that description, the prosecutor could not call a single witness whose name was not included in the list. And it was most extraordinary, that if the witnesses for the defendant swore, in a court of justice, that every one of their lordships were present at a meeting, where not one of them had, in truth, attended, unless their names were inserted in the list of witnesses for the prosecution, none of their lordships could be called to contradict this statement. The analogy, therefore, between the two cases, was entirely at an end. On what ground could it rest? He contended that it was a much more proper proceeding to go on in the ordinary and established course, unless that House wished absolutely, by adopting a novel principle, to strip itself of its most valuable rights and privileges, and to declare that in future there should be no previous inquiry, either by a select committee or a general committee—unless their lordships meant to say that they never could proceed with such a bill till an inquiry had been instituted in committee. And, as the proceeding was to be ultimately a public one, what danger was to be apprehended? He had never heard any individual express the least belief that the proceeding would not be a public one at the bar of that House. He should be glad to know whether his noble and learned friend could state an instance, except in the case of high treason, where, according to the principles either of law or justice, a list of witnesses was given to the accused party preparatory to trial. He defied his noble and learned friend to do so. The arguments that had been used might afford good reason for postponing the hearing of the defence; and he was sure their lordships did not imagine that there was a man in that House, or out of doors, who believed that the defence would be entered on until a full and fair opportunity was given to sift the character of every witness as far as possible. This was a case
318
not to be considered with respect to the individual, but with reference to the general principle; and he asked their lordships, if they once settled this precedent, contrary to every thing they had ever done, whether it would be possible for them, on any future occasion of the like kind, to proceed in the same manner as that in which their ancestors had proceeded up to this day?
The several motions were then put and agreed to.