Sitting of 17 October 1820

Preamble
The House met pursuant to adjournment.

COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIONS—PETITION FROM LIVERPOOL.
General Gascoyne, in presenting a petition from the inhabitants of Liverpool, begged leave to call the attention of the House for a few minutes to the statements which it contained. He was aware that one topic occupied almost exclusively the attention of parliament and the public; still, however, the state of the country required that the House should take the subject of this petition into early consideration. The increase of pauperism in the town of Liverpool, which the petitioners ascribed chiefly to the distressed state of their trade, was truly alarming. So great was the increase, that not more than 20,000 of the inhabitants of Liverpool were rated. The population of that town was somewhat above 100,000, say 110,000; out of that number he was instructed by the mayor, who had called the meeting at which the resolutions upon which this petition was founded were passed, to inform the House, that 20,000 only were rated, and of these 7,000 were incapable of paying the annual rates. The petitioners were aware that the House had taken the

749
subject of the Poor laws into its consideration, and they were perfectly aware also, that their burdens were in no degree diminished by the result of their deliberations. They were of opinion, that the commercial distress of Liverpool arose from the prohibitions and restrictions upon the importation of other countries, and above all, from the prohibition upon the importation of corn. They concluded by praying the House to give its attention as soon as possible to this subject. The petition was signed by 20,000 persons; and, but for some unforeseen circumstances, it would have been presented at an earlier period.
Ordered to be printed.

MR. HATSELL.—
The Speakersaid, he had to inform the House that John Hatsell, esq. late clerk of that House, died on Sunday morning and that his majesty would speedily appoint a clerk.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that it was a duty which the House owed to the memory of the individual, whose decease had just been communicated from the chair, to record upon their Journals the high sense which they entertained of his meritorious services.
Mr. Tierneyentirely concurred with the noble lord, that the House was bound to mark its respect to an individual who had so long and so faithfully discharged the duties of the situation which he filled in that House.
The Speakersaid, he would venture to suggest the propriety of a motion, which it was competent for any hon. gentleman to make if he should think fit. It was in the power of any member to move, that the vote of the year 1797, passed in acknowledgment of Mr. Hatsell's services, should be now read, and the repetition of that vote would then form a part of the proceedings of this day.
Lord Castlereagh moved accordingly, and the following entry in the Journal of the 11th of July 1797 was read:
"Resolved, nem. con. That Mr. Speaker be requested to acquaint Mr. Hatsell, that the House entertains a just and high sense of the distinguished and exemplary manner in which he has uniformly discharged the duties of his situation during his long attendance in the service of the House."

THE QUEEN—BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.
Lord Castlereagh Lord Castlereagh moved,
750
"That a Committee be appointed to inspect the Journals of the House of Lords, with relation to the present state of any proceedings, bad respecting the bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty."
Mr. Tierneysaid, that from some circumstances which had come to his knowledge, it was of great importance that the proceedings of this day, in the House of Lords, should be included in the motion.
Lord Castlereaghthought it was sufficient, to move generally for a committee to inquire into, and report upon the present state of the proceedings.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that any question not immediately connected with the innocence of her majesty, but connected with the manner in which the proceedings had originated, was a fit subject for the consideration of that House. He should move that it be an instruction to the committee to include the proceedings, of their lordships on this day.
The motion, so amended, was agreed to.
Lord John Russellrose, to present a petition from the inhabitants of Plymouth against the bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty. It was signed by 2,000 inhabitants, the largest number of persons who had come forward upon a public question since the petitions against the property tax. The petitioners prayed that if the bill should ever come down to that House, the House would immediately throw it out. They were of opinion, that this proceeding, whether considered in a judicial or political point of view, was calculated to bring the administration of justice into contempt, and to endanger the security of the country. As this petition had been entrusted to him, he felt it his duty to present it. He had no hesitation in declaring that he entirely concurred in the sentiments of the petitioners; and that if ever the bill should come down from the other House, as he sincerely hoped it would not, he should be ready in his place to oppose it in every possible way. Without entering into the merits of the evidence which had been delivered before the House of Lords, he might be permitted to say, that the result of that evidence was not such as to make the people of England believe the Queen guilty. If the pretence for this bill were a tender regard for the morals of the country, be conceived that the whole ground of it taken away; if it had been entertained as a public measure, in order to prevent the effects of a bad example, it

751
was quite clear that if the people believed the Queen to be virtuous, the public morals could not be affected. Besides, let the House look at the mischievous consequences which the mere agitation of such a measure had produced. In addition to the evidence taken at the bar of the House of Lords, there had been propagated by the public press a thousand calumnies which could not be foreseen. Through that medium some members of the highest classes of society had been grossly calumniated, for no other reason than the giving evidence in her favour. He hoped, on the other hand, that the people would not lose any opportunity of expressing, in that House, their opinion against the unwarrantable and unprecedented conduct at present pursued and persevered in against her majesty.
Mr. Lockharthoped that the House would pardon him for a short time, if he ventured to deliver his sentiments on the subject of this petition. That opinion was in entire concurrence with the sentiments expressed in the petition itself. He could not but regard its prayer, as he looked upon the mode in which this bill of pains and penalties had been instituted, and the record of which was now before them on their Journals, as not only a most unconstitutional violation of the parliamentary laws of this kingdom, but as endangering the safety of the lower and middling ranks, by first of all striking, as was the practice in former ages, at the lives of those who were in the highest. When he called such a mode of instituting a proceeding, and such a proceeding itself, a violation of the laws, he meant to say a violation of the statute of Edward 3rd, which was the statute of treasons, and a violation of the express declaration of our Magna Charta itself, which had ordained in these words:—"Nemo capiatur aut imprisonetur, aut aliquo modo destruatur; nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terræ." Now, this very bill of pains and penalties—this unjustifiable species of encroachment—was that "aliquis modus destruendi," which our ancestors had so well pointed out and with so much providence endeavoured to avert—a method of procedure which was now in a civilized age revived—which was at this day brought forward, against the authority of all precedents, and the force of all laws. He meant to say, and he said it unhesitatingly, that by this measure, the statute of Edward 3rd was
752
most essentially violated; for, as the House had now a formal knowledge of the bill, he thought that was made to appear, and was charged as a misdemeanor, which, on the showing of the framers of the bill, was high treason. He ventured to affirm, that under the pretext of the commission of a misdemeanor only, the bill itself, however carefully it had been drawn, did in fact charge that which was high treason; or at least pointed out no particular crime in favour of which such a distinction could be taken, as to render it less than high treason. He had understood, that the general reason assigned for the opinion that the charges alleged against the Queen did not amount to high treason was this—that a queen consort was incapable of committing high treason with a foreigner in a foreign country. Now, what would the House think of this proposition, when it learned, that though the bill alleged the acts to have been committed with a foreigner, it did not allege them to have taken place in a foreign country? He was surprised that those learned gentlemen who had drawn this bill, and from whose habits more legal accuracy might have been expected—had not more carefully performed their task.—The hon. gentleman then proceeded to read the preamble and various clauses of the bill of Pains and Penalties, for the purpose of showing that there was that omission of which he had spoken; and further, that though the intercourse was charged to have been continued in various foreign places, no place was laid where it was charged to have been commenced. He contended, that the utmost precision and certainty and accuracy were required in the preambles, provisions, and enactments of all bills of this extra-judicial nature; and that whatever might be the difference of opinion entertained among men as to the character; or expediency of such bills, every one would readily agree, that it was not competent for parliament to assume that sort of jurisdiction which they had done in the present case, namely, to soften down a particular offence into one of another character, and then to proceed against it by a bill of pains and penalties, under a pretence of favour and kindness to the party against whom it might be instituted.—It was urged, that if they proceeded by impeachment in this instance, there was this danger—that they might decide that the crime was high treason; and then the

753
accusation must necessarily fall to the ground. Now, he maintained, that the very circumstance of this being a doubtful case as to whether it was one of high treason or not, took it entirely out of their cognizance, the law itself upon this point too, was in extreme doubt. It was doubtful notwithstanding all the authorities which might be cited, whether the queen-consort, or the companion of the eldest son of the king committing adultery was high treason or not, whether with a foreigner or otherwise. And first there was lord Coke's authority, he said, "If the queen-consort consents to him that commits the crime, she is equally guilty with him." And this he illustrated by authorities; but those authorities he (Mr. Lockhart) had looked into; one was the case of Anne Boleyn, as reported by a judge of the name of Spelman; and the other that of Catherine Howard, who was attainted. With respect to the first case, supposed to be reported by Spelman, who, by the way, was the judge who tried sir Thomas More, a circumstance not much in his favour, he had searched almost every library for it, and he believed that no such report existed. Burnet, indeed, mentioned his having seen the Common-place book of Spelman, containing the report of Anne Boleyn's case, with some of the leaves torn out. He believed, however, that it could not be Anne Boleyn's case, for he could prove to the House that she was not tried for adultery. First of all, the proceedings were suppressed and burnt, and the sentence only remained. But it-did appear, that before Anne Boleyn was executed, a divorce was obtained by Henry 8th, and sentence pronounced against her, declaring the marriage void ab initio, on account of a pre-contract. If this were so, it was utterly impossible that she could be guilty of high treason, because she was not the wife of the king. She never could have been tried for adultery; and as the statute was silent upon the subject, the case cited by lord Coke was no authority to prove that a queen-consort could be tried for high treason. This conclusion was confirmed also by the authority of parliament; for it appeared that the crime with which she was charged was not high treason, but conferring with divers persons to the danger of the Icing's person. The other case cited by lord Coke was that of queen Catherine, and he had. been followed by Hawkins, Hale, Mr. Justice Blackstone, and all the other
754
text writers, who concurred in declaring, that a queen-consort consenting to the crime of adultery was equally guilty with her accomplice. It was not true, however, that queen Catherine was attainted for the crime of adultery; and he could prove that it was not true by the best evidence in the world. He had been favoured by the president of Magdalen College, Oxford, with a book written by Mr. Thomas, clerk of the privy council to Henry 8th, and his son Edward 6th. It was there stated, that Mr. Thomas being in Italy, and making apologies to divers enemies of the king, who was of course much detested in Catholic countries, among other things he had occasion to answer the charges against him for cruelty to his wives. When he came to queen Catherine, what did he, who was an eye-witness of the proceeding, state the charge against her to be? He told them, that Catherine was attainted not for adultery, but for her dissolute life previous to her marriage. Was it possible for any gentleman to believe, after the authority of the manuscript to which he had alluded, and which was now in the Cotton library, that queen Catherine was attainted for adultery, when the great apologist of Henry 8th, stated distinctly what her real crime was? This very defence, too, was followed up by an act of parliament declaring it to be high treason, if any woman who had been deflowered should marry the king, or if any queen-consort should, by letter or token, solicit the commission of adultery. Lord Coke, therefore, was no authority to prove that a queen-consort was within the provisions of the statute, and there were most serious doubts whether a queen-consort could commit high treason. The very circumstance of the other House calling upon the Judges, and asking whether the offence amounted to high treason, was sufficient to show that great doubts existed upon the subject. This was a point to which he was extremely anxious to draw the attention of, the House. If it was doubtful to every reasonable mind, whether the offence amounted to high treason or not, the legal mode of resolving that doubt was not to resort to a bill of pains and penalties, professing, as a sort of salvo, to change the nature of the crime by diminishing the punishment. This course was quite contrary to the spirit of the law; for if an officer of justice were to change one punishment for another—if, for instance, he

755
were to substitute decapitation for burning, a punishment now happily abolished, lie would, by the law of the land, be guilty of murder. Where any doubt existed in cases of high treason, the law did not even trust the Judges with the explanation of that doubt. In all other cases the exposition of the law was confided to the Judges, but in cases of high treason the only legal and constitutional course was to refer all doubts and difficulties to the king in parliament. With respect to the express words used in the statute of Edward, "se l'on violast," he contended that those words were never meant to imply carnal cognition. In the Weavers' case, as reported by sir Matthew Hale, a doubt arose whether going about to destroy looms in general amounted to high treason. The question was referred to the Judges, but they delivered no opinion upon it. They declared, that it was doubtful whether the offence came within the statute, and they advised the facts to be specially found and submitted to the judgment of the king in parliament. This was the course recommended to the attorney-general, and the attorney-general declined proceeding any further.—He contended that her majesty ought to have been proceeded against by impeachment, and not by a bill of pains and penalties. If impeachment had been resorted to, the facts might have been separately found, and any doubts arising out of those facts as to the nature and amount of the offence, might have been referred to parliament. The bill of pains and penalties was a flagrant violation of Magna Charta, a proceeding fatal to the liberty and security of the country—a proceeding vexatiously protracted, when no doubt could remain of her majesty's innocence, like a wounded snake, "dragging its slow length along," unfit to live, and yet unwilling to die. He could not say that the husband alone, or the king's ministers alone, were guilty of vast laches in permitting the departure of the Queen from this realm, because he feared that many persons in that House, and himself, unfortunately, among them, had been their accomplices. He well remembered that the late Mr. Whitbread, who was extremely averse to her majesty's quitting this country, put a question to the noble lord opposite, whether it was meant that the Queen should go abroad or not? The answer given to that question was, that it was not meant to imprison her royal highness. If any
756
crime had been committed, and he was happy to think that no court of justice would say that crime had been committed, but even if there had, it would have been more for the dignity of the Crown, more for the security of the government, more for the public morals of the country, and much more expedient in every sense of the word, if it had been arranged in any other way than that which was so unfortunately, and fatally, and to no purpose adopted. He entertained the strongest doubt with regard to the bill itself, whether it was a proceeding to which parliament could consent, under any circumstances, without a departure from its duty: whether the only course in which they could have proceeded constitutionally, was not that of impeachment. But, however the House might feel as to that opinion, he hoped at all events that they would take some decisive step to get rid of the proceeding at once, to get out of it in some way, or in any way, no matter how, as a proceeding which every consideration of justice and expediency required that they should resist.
Ordered to be printed.

MOTION RESPECTING THE LIBERATION OF FRANKLIN CHARGED WITH WRITING AND ISSUING SEDITIOUS PLACARDS, &c.
Mr. Humesaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to a question of considerable importance, a question involving consequences more extensive than those who had not traced the progress of the mischief, as he had done, could easily believe, and calculated to bring before their view a series of proceedings, the manifest object and tendency of which was, to disturb the peace of the country. The motion with which he should conclude was, that sir Robert Baker, the chief magistrate of Bow-street office, should be called to the bar of that House to answer for his conduct, in permitting the escape of an individual charged with circulating a seditious hand-bill. He would prove, that the practice had been carried to a great extent, and that the mischievous consequences had spread further and been felt more severely, both in England and Scotland, than would on the first statement appear credible. The conspiracy, for a conspiracy he would call it, he would prove it to be such hereafter in the committee, as he had no doubt that the House would see the necessity of appointing one to investigate

757
such a case.—The conspiracy was of the nature he had already described, but much more mischievous than at present they could have any conception of. It begun, as far as his present information went, with the year 1818; though in a short time he expected to trace it much higher; but even now he could state, that from 1818, down to the present moment, a regular manufactory of treasonable placards had been conducted by a man who went at different times by the names of Fletcher, Forbes, and Franklin. He had followed him to the different houses where he went by those names, until at length he was arrested in the name of William Franklin. When he considered the important consequences that had followed from the publication of those treasonable productions—when he recollected the stress which the noble lord (Castlereagh) had laid on them while bringing forward his bills to abridge the liberties of the country—when he recollected that up to the last meeting of the House but one, the same noble lord had complained of such publications as proceeding from those who had advocated the cause of the Queen—when he recollected how many lives had been sacrificed to the system of which he was now speaking, he could not but feel that it was on every account entitled to the solemn consideration of parliament. The House was already aware that on the '1st of April, 1820, a treasonable placard had appeared at Glasgow and Paisley. He had it in his hand; it was not so violent as many of the others; but what were the consequences of that? [Here the honourable gentleman read part of the placard]. As soon as this placard had made its appearance, the magistrates offered a reward of 300 l.for the author, and his majesty's government having received the information, offered a reward of 500 l. on the 8th of April, with a promise of pardon to all but the individual who wrote it. Nor did the proceedings rest there. On the 8th of April, the heads of twenty families were arrested at Glasgow and Paisley, and put into confinement; and he had a letter in his hand from one of those individuals, a very respectable person, which stated that he was conveyed to prison by a military guard, and that when he was brought to be examined before Mr. Hope, the charge against him was, for having issued a reasonable placard. All his papers had been seized in the mean time. Yet the
758
only ground upon which the accusation could be supported was, that they had found out that he was a friend of rational reform, and disapproved of the introduction of the military, except in subordination to the civil power, and in cases of extreme necessity. Thus, in one night, the heads of twenty families were seized; an evil of no small magnitude itself to the unfortunate individuals, but still worse, and more calamitous than that, those riots were produced which ended in special commissions, and as every body knew, in public executions. It was, therefore, of more importance that the proceedings to which he alluded should be traced to their source. The common answer given by persons of authority, when applied to for the purpose of detecting any conspiracy of this kind, was, that it was extremely difficult to trace these things. But, what would these persons think when they heard that the individual connected with them had been traced by Mr. Charles Pearson in a manner which did him much credit? On the appearance of the placard issued in the name of the Queen's Plate-committee, Mr. Pearson had naturally felt much concerned, because he was connected with that committee; and accordingly he used every means which ingenuity could suggest to detect the author. He might here remark, that this committee had been occasioned by the conduct of his majesty's ministers, and the detection of this conspiracy seemed a judgment upon them for their treatment of the Queen. He said so, because he was convinced that this conspiracy was carried on and supported by his majesty's ministers [Cries of "hear, hear!]; and he should not have laid the matter before the House if that had not been his belief. He had not come to make the present statement on his own simple judgment; he had affidavits of all the facts he was going to state; so that, if his statements were in any respect erroneous, the fault was not his. He had not been satisfied with the declarations of one, two, three, or five individuals, but he had himself traced the hand-bill to the person who received the commission from Franklin; he had examined the compositor who set up the bill, and was furnished with his depositions on that subject. He had also seen the billsticker, who had been employed to stick them up by night; and, in short he had taken every precaution to arrive at the truth. The first affidavit he should read

759
was that of the printer, who had produced eighteen other hand-bills printed by him, all of the most inflammatory nature. This person stated who it was that employed him, and who it was that paid him—and that was William Franklin, whom a magistrate of Bow-street had allowed to escape. To those who were magistrates he would state the following fact, and leave them to judge of it for themselves:—Franklin was arrested on the warrant of one magistrate, and, after having been brought to the office, was discharged by another, without even seeing that one who issued the warrant. He was discharged, too, on Sunday—a thing which, he understood, was not usual, vickery, the officer, who was not in town at present, had told him (Mr. Hume), that Franklin was discharged from his custody on Sunday, by sir Robert Baker, without having seen him. He was taken in bed at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning, and at 7 o'clock he was brought before Mr. Birnie. Mr. Pearson, who was unable to attend, thought it proper to write a letter to the magistrate, stating that the charges were of such a nature, that he should be cautious in taking bail for his appearance, and that, if bail were admitted, it should not be less than two securities of 500 l. each. Although the charge on which the warrant was granted, referred only to one hand-bill, there were fifteen others ready to be produced against him. The consequence was, that Mr. Birnie, seeing the importance of the charge against the prisoner, refused to accept bail. Franklin then said, he wished to be taken before sir Robert Baker, for he was sure sir Robert would admit him to bail. He (Mr. Hume) was not prepared to state that the letter of Mr. Pearson to Mr. Birnie was shown to sir Robert Baker; but the fact was, that the latter allowed Franklin to escape. Now, his objection to the conduct of sir R. Baker was, that he acted improperly as a magistrate; and he had, in fact, stated a deliberate falsehood in his (Mr. Hume's) hearing—namely, that he had taken security for this person's appearance. What connected this with the Home-office was, that when it was said the man would not be forthcoming, sir R. Baker had declared that he was sure he would, and that he had taken proper security. But Franklin's daughter having told Williams, next day, that her father was a hundred miles from London, Mr. Pearson went to the Home-office on the subject, and found that
760
Mr. Clive, the under-secretary, was already acquainted with all the facts. The object of his motion for bringing sir R. Baker to the bar of the House was, to know when he made the communication of these facts to government, and what was his reason for letting Franklin escape. Considering all the facts of the case, he thought he was warranted in saying, that this conspiracy was connected with the Home-office. Mr. Pearson, on applying at the government-office for assistance in the apprehension of Franklin, presented some of the hand-bills to Mr. Clive, that he might judge of their character; and that gentleman had said to him—"Oh, we know all the circumstances already, and if you will call to-morrow, we shall give you an answer." Mr. Pearson then stated that he knew Franklin had proceeded in the course of the night 100 miles from London, and represented that his object was to prevent the man from escaping. Mr. Pearson, and those who accompanied him, left some of the bills at the office; and, when they came back, the answer given them was, that my lord Sid-mouth did not think the subject worth an investigation by government. It was not his intention to go through all the placards of which he was in possession; but he should select a few, for the purpose of showing the manner in which government had proceeded. In 1796, while the duke of Portland was secretary for the Home-department, an inflammatory hand-bill was issued, which did not amount to half the mischief which those that he complained of were fraught with. The paper was found on the door of the town-hall of Denbigh, on the 3rd of February, and on the 13th of the same month, government issued a proclamation offering a reward of 100 guineas for the principal offender, accompanied with a pardon to all the other persons concerned, who might give information at the office of the secretary of state. In a later instance, when a treasonable paper, entitled, "An Address to the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland," and purporting to be issued by a committee of organization, for forming a provisional government, was affixed to the walls in Glasgow and other places, on the 1st of April, 1820, a proclamation was issued on the 11th, offering a reward of 300 l. for the author or printer, and a pardon to the inferior agents, as in the former instance. The gentleman who waited on Mr. Clive had requested that govern-

761
ment should offer a reward in the present case, as an inducement to the officers to be on the alert. Every one knew the effect of such proclamations in stimulating the vigilance of those persons, but lord Sidmouth was of opinion that government ought not to interfere with that public-spirited magistrate sir Robert Baker—who had done nothing [hear, hear!]. But government, it seemed, was determined to do less. If such was to be the conduct of government in all such cases, in what a situation must the country be placed? When he called to his recollection the use that had been made of the placards, and the fact of the individual being without means of his own, for he would prove that he had no visible means of support, he trusted the House would accede to the appointment of a committee. He would farther prove, that he had dined with a minister of the Crown, at least that he had left the house to do so. He would show that he had been traced with one of the placards from Howland-street to Charing-cross, from Charing-cross to St. James's, and from St. James's to the large house in Downing-street, where the sentry walks; that he entered that house, and, after some delay, came out and proceeded to the house of Mr. Denis O'Bryen, in Craven-street, who now denied any acquaintance with Franklin, though, perhaps, he would be convinced before long that he knew him as Fletcher. With these collateral, or as he would call them conclusive, grounds upon his mind, he felt every confidence in proceeding with his case. He had selected three placards from the mass before him. In the first place, he would lay before them the affidavit of the printer:
"Arthur Scale, of No. 160, Tottenham-court-road, in the county of Middlesex, printer, on his oath saith, that in the latter end of June, or the beginning of July, 1818,a man of gentlemanly appearance, who was then a stranger, called at my office, and asked me if I would print some bills, saying, if I would undertake to do them, it would be very beneficial, as there would be a great deal to do in the same way, and he then produced the manuscript of a bill; I read the bill, and perceiving that it was of an inflammatory nature, I hesitated doing them, whereupon he said he would allow me a little time to make up my mind, and accordingly he went away, and returned in about two hours, when I still scrupled, and he said, I need not fear, for that I should be protected in all I did. I then asked his name and address; he answered, that was of no consequence, for I might rely,
762
not only on being protected, but amply rewarded. I then printed five hundred, and he came and fetched them away at night. On the 12th of July he again came and brought me the manuscript of a bill relating to the chairing of sir Francis Burden, in the body of which are these words—'Have we not in our glorious Burdett a leader fit to disturb the peace of all the world, and rule it when its won:' and also, 'Strike not at all, or strike home; think of our present insupportable servitude, and always remember that the alternative is liberty or a glorious grave.' And I further on oath depose, that a few days previous to the trial of sir Francis Burdett at Leicester, the same gentleman brought me a manuscript letter, headed, 'Private,' apparently intended to be sent to jurors, and desired me to print 48, which I did, and gave them to him. In the course of conversation I understood from him that they were to be sent to the jury who were to try sir Francis Burdett; and I afterwards saw by the newspaper reports that they were used for that purpose. I further depose, that on the 20th of July, 1819, the same person brought me the manuscript of another inflammatory bill, drawing the attention of the public to the Smithfield meeting, which was to be held next day, and headed, 'To the Non-represented,' and I printed, under his direction, near 500 of this last bill, and gave them to him. And I further depose, that I have printed for the same person many other inflammatory and seditious bills, and among others four separate editions of hand-bills respecting the Queen's plate, and headed, 'Evil be to him that evil thinks.' And I further depose, that on many occasions when I expressed my reluctance to print such dangerous papers, and my fear of prosecution, he told me I had nothing to apprehend, for I should be perfectly safe if any discovery took place, and he gave me to understand, that he was officially employed by the executive. But having some doubt of his assertion, I determined to watch him, and also employ others to do the same. And on one occasion, when he left my office I saw him get into a hackney-coach, which I followed to Charing-cross, where he got out, and he afterwards entered two other coaches, and went by a very circuitous rout to Downing-street, and I watched him into a large house next to the sentry box. I waited until he came out again, which was nearly two hours, and I then traced him to the house of Mr. Denis O'Bryen, in Craven-street, Strand. And I further depose, that I have discovered the said person who so employed me to be Mr. W m. Fletcher, otherwise Franklin. "ARTHUR SEALE."
The next document to which he would call their attention was the following, addressed to the Non-represented, dated, the 21st of July, 1819—"To the Non-Represented.—May that day

763
of trial, which our intrepid leader, in his answer to our requisition, said could not be far distant, be this day.—Universal suffrage, annual elections, and voting by ballot, if possible without breach of peace; but, at all hazards, those objects.—No riot, no bloodshed by choice; but blood-thirsty despots must grant our rights. If that over-grown pauper; if the puppet of C——, of L——, and S——, whose villainous impudence at his late prorogation of the houses of corruption could mock the miseries of the Non-represented by jargoning about our 'happy constitution!'—if he can be put down without breach of peace, let peace be preserved.—If that compound of villainy and fraud, the B of Ed—if those who deserve the punishment they indict upon their fellow counterfeits and merit halters more than the forgers they hang, can be annihilated without breach of the peace, let all be peaceful. Peace is our wish; but let us never forget that resistance to oppression is the constitutional privilege of every Briton. In London, Westminster, and South-wark, there may be perhaps about twenty thousand voters; shall a million of stout non-franchised hearts, reduced to the abject condition of slaves, lick the feet of such a comparative handful of rascals, who trample upon us, as they are lorded over by superior scoundrels? Shall ten-times tenfold the whole body of electors in infamous Westminster crouch to those, who, in a fifteen days' poll, insulted the venerable Cartwright with 38 voices? None but the Borough thieves of both the factions can maintain that any practical liberty remains to once free England. If the work can be done without fasting, praying, or peace-breaking, good; but if the unspeakable grievances of non-representation cannot be redressed without vengeance, 'tis better to break our chains upon the heads of our common tyrants, than longer to endure our servitude. And oh! if the day of trial is come, recollect that the corrupt knaves of the daily London press, with their hellish types, have been our greatest oppressors.—July 21, 1819."
He had a paper in his possession which be considered of great importance to the investigation of the case. It was the only one that had been preserved in the handwriting of Franklin. Having found that he was prosecuted for crim. con. by admiral Goodall, he (Mr. Hume) had succeeded in procuring one of his letters to the lady, and on a comparison of the hand-writing with that of the placard, by-two persons of skill and ingenuity in such matters, the hand-writing in both was pronounced to be the same. Another address was dated the 7th of Sept. 1818, and was of a nature peculiarly malignant. The object of such publications generally,
764
was to excite the lower and middling classes against the higher; but this was an appeal to the lower classes only against the middling and the higher:
"Let us, in this mighty crisis, bear in mind, that the great are not our only foes. Those middle ranks who make us hew and draw; and dole their pittance to us according to their humour—these are our most grinding enemies. What is the constituent body but the tyrants of the non-represented? What are the ten thousand wretches who, in Westminster, voted against Mr. Hunt, but oppressors of their non-franchised fellow-citizens—content to crawl before the higher orders, that we may continue slaves to both. Alike then, and equal, be their common destiny. The brave, though starving outstanders of Manchester should be avenged in London. Shall non-represented Britons in such a cause, be scared by the fear of gibbets or bayonets? Be' our remonstrance to the Crown decorous, but let us, in one heroic day, convince mankind that the grievances of non-representation are now become insupportable. ONE OF THE NON-REPRESENTED.—September 7, 1818."
Here, then, was a series of inflammatory placards, extending from 1818 till 1820. There was, indeed, a small chasm of the Glasgow address, and one or two placards since, which they had not been able yet to trace to their origin. Having stated these facts, and also the conduct of government, and of the magistrate who had a situation in the Home-office, he could not separate from the conduct he had stated, a direct charge of conniving at Franklin's escape. He understood that, when it was reported that Franklin had been at Dover under the name of Harrison, and Mr. Pearson had applied at the Foreign-office for a passport, it was granted with great willingness. This was so far well. Until this individual should be forthcoming, it was impossible that the case could be made as strong as it ought to be; but he was prepared to make out a strong case before a committee, where only the actors and acts in such a proceeding could be fully disclosed. It was found that technical impediments were presented elsewhere to an inquiry sufficiently extensive to be satisfactory. This was an inquiry of the utmost moment; it was a case of state-necessity; it was the peace of the country that was at issue. What was the object of government but the protection of the many against the lawless acts of a few? And if they allowed this conspiracy to pass unascertained and unpunish-

765
ed, was not the object of government perverted? His own opinion was, but he spoke only for himself,—his own opinion was, when he contrasted this proceeding with the escape of Edwards, who had not been equally guilty with this individual by means of whom twenty families in Glasgow were dragged from their houses, and committed to dungeons;—when he contrasted the conduct of government on this occasion with their conduct towards Castles, well-known to an honourable and learned gentleman opposite (the solicitor-general), and justly described as the well-clothed Castles—and when he found lord Sidmouth describing Oliver as "a much-injured individual;"—when he contrasted the present case with the escape of Edwards, the good treatment of Castles, and the commiseration of Oliver, he was of opinion, that there was just ground for parliamentary interference. No court of law could entertain the question in the shape which the rights of the country required; no court of law could award the justice which the manes of those sacrificed to the arts and practices of such traitors demanded. In taking this course, he thought that, in the first instance, the House ought to have sir Robert Baker brought before them, in order to explain his conduct. If he were one of his majesty's ministers, or one of their advisers, he would court this opportunity of explaining and justifying their conduct. If they refused to avail themselves of it for that purpose, the conclusion against them would be much stronger. The refusal to probe this case to the very bottom would be considered as proof, that countenance was somewhere given to the nefarious transactions in question. Although a Bow-street magistrate could not understand treason against the people, they in that House were bound to inquire into this case for the people of England. That House would not do its duty if they did not call the individual implicated in discharging the offender before them, and probe the whole business to the bottom. If any hon. member could suggest a better mode of proceeding, he was not so pertinaciously attached to his own motion as to refuse to alter it; but he should now conclude with moving, "That Sir Robert Baker, of the Public Office, Bow Street, be ordered to attend this House, to be examined respecting the liberation of William Franklin, alias Forbes, alias
766
Fletcher, arrested on the 8th of October, on a charge of writing and issuing Seditious and Inflammatory Placards, Letters, and Hand-bills, without bail."
Lord Castlereaghdeclared, that he was quite astonished at the motion with which the hon. member concluded, as it was so very incommensurate with the opening of his speech. But that motion itself was of a surprising character. For he believed it was the first time that an application was made to that House, in the first instance, to take cognizance of the irregularity of any magistrate, the usual way being to make such application to the Court of King's-Bench. But as to the opening of the hon. member's speech, he distinctly charged the existence of a conspiracy for the purpose of fabricating and circulating seditious and treasonable publications, of which he alleged that his majesty's ministers formed a part. What! that ministers should become a party to a confederacy for exciting discontent, for promoting sedition, for contriving the means of endangering the security of the government, and of the constitution of the country, merely with a view to defeat an endeavour to procure a service of plate for the Queen? The hon. member had often drawn upon the credulity of the country, but he himself could hardly calculate upon the acceptance of such a draft at sight as his statement of this evening presented. There was not surely such a lack of libels in the country as to render the assistance of government necessary to the manufacture of such articles. Mr. Carlile, Mr. Hone, and Mr. Wooler, were found, he believed, to produce quite enough of sedition, or of inflammatory and treasonable placards, to satisfy the amateurs of that species of composition, and to forward their object, without any aid from his majesty's government, which it was their object to overthrow. But, if ministers were parties to the conspiracy, which the hon. member alleged to exist, how clumsily must they have proceeded, according to his description. They, indeed, if the hon. member's information were correct, had selected an agent for the advancement of their end, who must necessarily have been brought into public view; for, as that hon. gentleman had stated, Franklin, who had absconded, was the confidential friend of ministers, with whom he dined on one day, while on the other he was found in a carriage with a multitude of seditious placards, accompa-

767
nied by a person almost without clothes, and who was employed to distribute these placards in such an ostentatious manner, that detection could not be avoided. So that the person thus employed was taken into the very midst of danger, from which no one could hope to protect himself, to distribute seditious hand-bills; and this was done, or directed by a man whom the hon. gentleman described as the confidential agent and convivial companion of ministers of state. Amidst the indefatigable efforts 'of the hon member to collect accusations against his majesty's ministers, the present was really the most extraordinary. It was surprising, indeed, that the hon. member should have attempted to bring such an affair before that House. He assured the hon. member, that he fully concurred with him in thinking, that if any one connected with government could take any part in such a conspiracy as he charged to exist, either as a principal or as an agent, such person would deserve the utmost detestation. Any person, indeed, ought to be consigned to universal execration and contempt who could countenance, promote, or belong to such a scandalous confederacy; for the publications which the hon. member had quoted were of the most infamous description. They bore, indeed, upon the face of them such flagrant guilt, that he thought them not unlikely to have proceeded from some radical committee, so peculiarly calculated were they to favour the views of such a committee, and so congenial were they with that abominable system which had brought this country to the verge of a national convulsion. Ministers then, if they had promoted such publications, must have determined to second the views of the radicals; for such publications were those which the radicals must naturally desire to circulate. But could any one of common sense or common justice suppose ministers guilty of lending their aid to such an infernal purpose? If a conspiracy existed as the hon. member charged (for the charge of conspiracy was the fashionable cant of the day) would any man, whose mind was informed or regulated by the principles of justice and the laws of the land, determine that instead of carrying the charge before the ordinary and regular tribunal, an inquiry should be instituted in that House, upon so grave a question, in the way proposed by the hon. member? But upon what ground was the hon. member's
768
application made to that House? Why, upon the affidavits of persons who deposed that they were acquainted with the existence and progress of the alleged conspiracy since the month of April.
Mr. Humesaid, No, from September last.
Lord Castlereaghmaintained, that affidavits were produced by the hon. member from persons who stated that they had a knowledge of the proceedings of this alleged conspiracy since 1818, when the placard referring to sir Francis Burdett was promulgated during the Westminster election. Did the hon. gentleman then really mean, that persons who were so long in possession of the character and conduct of this plot, without making, until very lately, any disclosure upon the subject, were, entitled to the credit which he appeared to assume? The hon. member came forward with extra-judicial affidavits, which, if even full of falsehood, could not subject the deponents to any punishment; and yet, upon the faith which he claimed for such affidavits, he came down to that House to propose the institution of a parliamentary inquiry. If upon such grounds any proceeding was founded, it was scarcely possible to imagine into what awkward situations the House might be occasionally led. It must, indeed, suggest itself to any one acquainted with the laws of the country, that that House was not the proper place for such an inquiry as the hon. member desired to institute. Having said so much as to the folly and absurdity of the course which the hon. member proposed, with regard to a case already in a course of legal proceeding—
Mr. Humeasked, where?
Lord Castlereaghreplied, that a warrant had been granted for the apprehension of Franklin, and, if justice should not appear to be duly administered, it would then be time enough to call upon that House to interfere. But, with respect to the case of Franklin, he would now state to the House an outline of what he understood to be the particulars of that case, and what remained, other gentlemen, from whom he obtained his information, would be ready to supply. It was only this day that he had been at all aware of the intention to bring the case before the House; and feeling it his duty to make every inquiry which the time afforded, he obtained all the information in his power upon the subject. But first he would assure the hon. member, that until

769
that night he knew nothing whatever of Franklin, or Fletcher, or Forbes, except through the newspapers, and that he could make the same assurance on the part of all his colleagues. After saying this, he thought it not necessary to deny the convivial part of the hon. member's charge. With respect to the other parts of the charge, he could state, upon the authority of the Home-department, what had occurred upon the subject. A warrant was granted, for the apprehension of Franklin, by Mr. Minshull, the police magistrate, upon an affidavit from Mr. Pearson, which affidavit certainly contained rather loose charges against the accused. Franklin was, however, arrested, and upon his arrest was carried before Mr. Birnie, to whom application was made for his release. But the ground of the application being deemed unsatisfactory by Mr. Birnie, with whom he (lord Castlereagh) had had no opportunity of conversing upon the subject, the application was refused.—Franklin was then taken to the house of sir Robert Baker, in Berner's-street. The hon. member in his eager zeal to fix an imputation upon his majesty's ministers, had thought proper to insinuate, that the arrest of Franklin was known at the Home-department before sir Robert Baker dealt with the case, and the object of that insinuation could not be misunderstood. He (lord C.) had not the honour to know sir Robert Baker, except by sight, but he was assured by the Home-department that sir Robert was a most honourable man, and that in any capacity he was not the sort of character likely to submit to the dictation of any man. Such was the magistrate who thought proper to release Franklin, upon His solemn assurance that he would appear again next day, that assurance being seconded by a very respectable tradesman, who was known as such to sir Robert. But as to the hon. member's statement respecting the time at which the arrest of Franklin was known to the Home-department, he could assure the hon. gentleman, that this department had received no information upon the subject until the Monday; and he could further assure the hon. gentleman, that the information as to Franklin's non-appearance at Bow-street, notwithstanding his pledge, was received in the first instance, not from sir R. Baker, but from Mr. Minshull, who thought proper to apply to the office to issue an order for stopping Franklin at the out-ports, or to
770
proclaim a reward for his apprehension. Therefore it was not correct that this application originated with Mr. Pearson, as it was made by a magistrate, who thought that the course which he recommended was the best mode of curing the evil that resulted from sir Robert Baker's liberation of Franklin. Mr. Minshull's application was set aside by his hon. friend behind him, ad referendum, for the consideration of lord Sidmouth, who determined against the propriety of issuing, in such a case, either a proclamation for Franklin's apprehension, or an order for stopping him at the out-ports. Such an order had, indeed, never been issued, unless upon a charge of felony or treason; and it was naturally apprehended, from experience in such cases, that if an order were issued for stopping Franklin at the out-ports, above twenty Franklins would have been most probably arrested. He would appeal, then, to the hon. gentleman, what was, in candour, likely to be the decision of his mind, if the question were taken the other way? If, instead of a supposed agent or partisan of government, the object was to arrest an apostle of liberty charged with sedition, and that lord Sidmouth issued a special order to stop him at the out-ports, what loud objections were likely to be heard against such a proceeding, by those who had raised such an out-cry against the circular letter of lord Sidmouth, with respect to the holding of a libeller to bail upon an affidavit before a magistrate. If, indeed, lord Sidmouth had issued such an order in such a case, there could be little doubt of motions in that House, day after day, pregnant with complaints of the violation of the liberty of the subject.—But as to the original arrest of Franklin, he held in his hand the affidavit of Pearson, upon which the warrant for that arrest was granted by Mr. Minshull, and he could not help expressing a doubt whether, upon more loose allegations than this affidavit contained, a warrant to hold a man to bail, could have been obtained from any magistrate. There was no such word as treason or felony in any part of the affidavit. There was indeed the word "treasonably" mixed up with the word "sedition;" but that the offence, as it stood, was a bailable offence, was clear; because the whole charge against sir Robert Baker was, that he had not regularly required bail. It was hardly necessary to trouble the House with reading the papers, because all that Pearson

771
had sworn was, that be had reason to believe (upon grounds which he did not describe), that the person who had delivered the placards to the boy was a person named Franklin, but whose Christian name he did not know. He (lord Castlereagh) had no design to lessen the magnitude of the charge; the act imputed was an act equally profligate and mad; but he did think that, under the circumstances, lord Sidmouth had exercised a sound discretion, in declining to issue the warrant which had been applied for. The hon. member opposite had stated, and with great candour, to the House, that Pearson had found no indisposition in any department of government to assist him in pursuing Franklin, and following up his charge; that passports had been immediately granted and every facility afforded. He believed that passports were unnecessary; but he was free to state, that every step had been taken to induce the foreign authorities to assist the efforts of Mr. Pearson; and that his majesty's ministers were most anxious that those efforts should be successful—that Franklin should be produced—that the charge should be brought forward, and the offence, if proved, punished with the utmost severity of the law.—There was only one more observation with which he would trespass upon the time of the House. The Foreign-office, he scarcely knew why, did very often find its way into the mouth of the hon. member opposite; and it had been introduced, he hardly knew how, upon the present occasion: it had been said, that the individual, Franklin, had been traced to a house in Downing-street, where there were two soldiers at the door. Now, he begged most clearly and directly to state, without evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation, his firm belief, that no individual connected with government had any connexion of any kind with Franklin. The noble lord then contended, that the House ought not, at all events in the present stage of the business, to interfere; that the matter, which might be considered in a train of legal investigation, would be more properly examined in a court of justice, where testimony upon oath would be substituted for assertion; and concluded by characterizing the case presented by the hon. member, as the most inconsistent, inconceivable, and incomprehensible romance that had ever been invented for the annoyance of a government.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he knew not which was most to be admired, the lofty tone which the noble lord had maintained throughout his speech, or the lame and impotent conclusion, in which that speech had terminated. Surely, it might have been expected, that persons so anxious to prove their innocence before the House and the country would seize the first opportunity which presented itself for investigation. But the noble lord objected to examination even in limine,; he would not suffer the House to look at the subject—and why? Because, forsooth, a criminal information might be filed against the magistrate in the court of King's-bench! but he would tell the noble lord, that, before any thing could be done in a court of justice, corruption must be proved; and, although he did not mean to accuse sir It. Baker of corruption, he had no hesitation in saying, that the conduct of that gentleman had been most irregular and extrajudicial, and that he ought to be called upon, at the bar of that House, to explain a conduct which, in spite of the defence of the noble lord, still remained involved in suspicion. Was there an instance—he would put the question to any magistrate sitting in the House—was there an instance in which a warrant granted, no matter upon what ground, by one magistrate, had been dismissed by another, without the complainant or the granter of the warrant, being consulted in such dismissal? He did hope, that he should have some better excuse for the apathy of the Home-department than that which had been offered by the noble lord who had last spoken. He looked at the conduct and at the character of the Home-office in a very different light from that in which he viewed either the noble lord's office or the War-office. Those departments had not fed a Castles, clothed an Oliver, or panegyrised an Edwards. In cases like the present, he looked at the Home-office with suspicion. It was an impure office; and he so considered it, not from any airy fancy of his own, but from facts which were in the mind and in the mouth of every man in the country. Lord Sidmouth had been told, "Here is a man committing an act of almost unparalleled atrocity; he is distributing papers of the most inflammatory and dangerous tendency; this is not his first offence; he has been two years engaged in the commission of similar crimes; and he has done all this, calling himself a loyal man,

773
and having received reward for his loyalty. Lord Sidmouth had heard all this, and had thought it not worth his while to interfere. After such an escape, he really believed that there was no individual in the country, lord Sidmouth alone excepted, who would hesitate to give any assistance in his power, whether by proclamations, by pecuniary sacrifices, or by personal exertions, to facilitate the apprehension of such an artful and abominable incendiary. But what rendered the conduct of sir Robert Baker more extraordinary was this, that usually no magistrate released a prisoner, even upon bail, without consulting the magistrate who granted the warrant for his apprehension, or the party by whom that warrant was obtained; and that custom was founded upon this reason, that it did not follow, because only a certain charge was alleged in the warrant, that there might not be other charges against the prisoner. Here the hon. gentleman took occasion to contrast the manner in which the principal in this case was allowed to escape with the manner in which his miserable instrument was treated—that instrument, a poor boy, who could not read, having been fined and committed to prison for three months by a magistrate, who mocked common sense while he pronounced the sentence, by the pompous profession of humanity. But the ministerial connexion of Franklin, notwithstanding all the noble lord's lofty language, it was not difficult to imagine. He was traced, it appeared, into the house of Mr. Denis O'Bryen, whose intercourse with some of the ministers the noble lord would hardly venture to deny. Yet Franklin was the connexion of this person, who had aggravated the turpitude of his apostacy by the foulest and most unprincipled attacks upon the character of those gentlemen with whom he was at former times permitted to enjoy some society, while he affected to concur with them in political opinion. Two scurrilous letters, which were some time since addressed to earl Fitzwilliam, in "The Morning Post," and which he was sorry the noble lord had not prosecuted, he understood, could be fully proved to have been the production of this O'Bryen. Of such a man, Franklin was a worthy colleague in this base confederacy, the main object of which had for some time been, to depreciate the character, to wound the feelings, to aggravate the sufferings of a woman, and that woman
774
a Queen. He did not moan to charge ministers themselves with sanctioning such a system of publication. But there were notoriously some minor agents, who had long pursued that system with a view to alarm timorous people into a belief of the existence of a base and black spirit in the country, and thus urge such people to rally round ministers, although they abhorred their general principles, and execrated their general conduct. The noble lord ought, in his opinion, to feel obliged to his hon. friend for bringing forward the present motion, especially as it afforded the noble lord an opportunity of proving that innocence which he so confidently affirmed on the part of himself and his colleagues. But he could not help observing that it was a strange way of proving their innocence, to shut up every avenue to the detection of their guilt; and the noble lord opposed all inquiry by stopping it in limine, on this occasion. Still he hoped that his hon. friend would persist in his motion.
Mr. Clivedeclared, that the Home-office, in which he had the honour to hold an appointment, had no knowledge of the case of Franklin until the Monday after Franklin's arrest. It was the custom of sir Robert Baker to attend at the Home-office every Monday for the purpose of making an official communication. Upon the Monday alluded to, some conversation took place with respect to Franklin, and the boy detected in circulating the seditious bills. But the first information of Franklin's non-appearance was brought to the office by Mr. Minshull, who made the application referred to by the noble secretary of state. Mr. Pearson came immediately after Mr. Minshull. The latter might, indeed, have almost met the former going down stairs. Mr. Pearson left with him two hand-bills, the one issued with respect to the trial of Brandreth, and the other upon the subject of the Queen's plate. He answered the applications of Mr. Minshull and Mr. Pearson doubtingly at first, but upon reference to lord Sidmouth, to whom he showed the papers left with him by Mr. Pearson, he was instructed by his lordship to say, that it would be inconsistent with official practice to comply with these applications, or to interfere with the police magistrates, who had ample powers to take proceedings for the apprehension of Franklin. Of this Franklin he had heard for the first time on the Monday after his arrest; and

775
as to Mr. O'Bryen, all that he had ever heard of him was, that he was many years ago the author of some political pamphlets; and that he held a place under the government, to which he was appointed by the administration of 1806.
Mr. Gurneydeclared his intention to support the motion. The worst symptom of the times was, the total want of confidence in the government of the country, which existed in all classes of the community, and amongst persons of every variety of political opinion. This want of confidence was an enormous evil, and it was the duty of the House to sift to the bottom any transaction which came before them in so questionable a shape as the present one. But his principal reason for rising was, to remark shortly upon a part of the speech of the noble secretary of state.—The noble lord had distinctly avowed, that he had given Mr. Pearson letters to the English ambassador at Paris, to aid him in the apprehension of Mr. Franklin. Now, it must be remembered, the offence charged was, the distribution of seditious hand-bills; and if the governments of Europe were under agreement to play into each other's hands in this way—mutually giving up persons who might be obnoxious to accusation for political misdemeanors, it would go, under the present circumstances of the world, to the establishment of the most unqualified tyranny. Our Alien act had been loudly declaimed against; but the enactments of our Alien bill shrunk into nothing, as compared with the exercise of arbitrary power, which it appeared the noble lord bad claimed of the government of France.
Lord Castlereaghrose to explain how the case stood as to the facts mentioned in the latter part of the hon. member's speech. The assistance which was occasionally rendered by one country to secure the persons who had fled from justice in another, was only given in consequence of mutual arrangements. This country had been applied to to make such arrangements; but there was not one of the powers which had made those applications, respecting the securing of murderers and forgers, to which it had not been told, that whatever assistance they might give us, we could not give reciprocal assistance, as it was repugnant to the spirit of our laws; for whatever notion existed that the Alien act had been indirectly applied to that purpose was quite erroneous; ail foreign powers had been informed, that
776
such assistance was against our laws, and that whatever aid they might give us, there could be nothing reciprocal.
Mr. Gurneysaid, his allusion was to the demand made for the giving up a person accused simply of seditious proceedings, and had no reference whatever either to murders, felonies, or other crimes.
Mr. Gippscould not vote for the motion, but said, that for several months past he had seen with indignation the activity with which placards of the most inflammatory nature had been circulated, to excite the people to discontent. He thought that this could not have been carried on to such an extent if the Home-department had been sufficiently active, and had employed agents either to pull down the placards, or to bring the authors to punishment.
Mr. Bernalwished to know whether the noble lord meant to let the matter rest in its present shape, and whether he would refuse that inquiry which was so necessary? Without imputing to the administration itself, a participation in the criminal matters which had been discovered, it was not too much to infer that there might be knaves and fools in the inferior departments of the government. Very grave facts had been stated, that had not been repudiated in any material respect. This fact especially remained unshaken, that notwithstanding the reasons stated by various gentlemen at the Home-office, steps were not taken to apprehend the offender, and that even as yet no reward had been offered, though in the case of the placard published at Glasgow, a reward of 500 l. had been offered for the author, whose production did not contain any thing more criminal than the placards which had been issued by the person who had absconded. The noble lord had referred them to the court of King's-bench, and had said, that that Court would take cognizance of the whole affair. This he denied. They would have nothing to do with the agents of government. The Court would try any offence which was charged against an individual, but would not trace the whole of the transaction. He, therefore, thought, that if the noble lord induced the House to throw out the motion of his hon. friend, he was bound to pledge himself to take some measure which his great influence might enable him to carry through at a future time to elucidate these transactions.
Sir John Sebrightsaid, that in this, as in all other cases, he was the friend of the fullest inquiry, but he did not see any practical end that would be answered by calling sir Robert Baker to the bar. As to any participation which the government of the country was supposed to have had in the distribution of these placards, he could not conceive for a moment that they would have been so absurd as to commit such an act of suicide. The thing was improbable on the face of it, and he gave full credit to the assertions of the noble lord, which he had never any reason to question. He was sorry to agree with Mr. Gurney, that the government of the country was excessively unpopular, and that was a reason for the fullest inquiry. But, what was equally important, he was sorry to believe, that in such a state of feeling as existed, the people would be satisfied with no government whatever. The ministers had given reason for discontent; but all possible means had been employed to foment it.
Mr. Tierneysaid, he was very forcibly impressed by what had been said by an hon. gentleman as to the state of the public mind, which demanded a full inquiry into all proceedings of the nature of that which had been brought under their attention. The noble lord should bear in mind, that whatever he might say, whether the magistrates might be justified or not, whether the Home-department was in the right or not, a general impression prevailed in the country, that the government, in order to produce explosions, were accustomed to employ agents, who systematically urged the discontented to go greater lengths than they would otherwise go to. The fact, too, yet remained unexplained and unanswered, why a reward had not been offered. Here was a case in which a person had been distributing placards almost treasonable; he was apprehended, and taken to the Police-office, and then a different magistrate from the one who had caused him to be apprehended comes, and on what he considers the assurance of a respectable gentleman, discharges him. The man absconds—on the face of it this was an implication of guilt, and yet the government said, that there was on the face of this nothing which justified their interference! But what said the noble lord to this? Why, that it was all a dexterous plan of the radicals; and so because the noble lord was pleased to suppose that it might turn out to be a
778
plan of the radicals they were to rest content without any inquiry! As to the motion which had been submitted to the House, he was sorry he could not vote for it, because, in the first place, they could not properly call the magistrate to the bar to criminate himself. The noble lord had observed, that they should give a little time to see whether the man who had absconded could be found. To this he had no objection, and he hoped his hon. friend would, with a view to see what might be the result of the efforts to apprehend him, withdraw his motion for the present. That some inquiry should take place in the event of the man's not being apprehended was absolutely necessary. It was impossible to conceive any thing more calculated to inflame the public mind, than the facts which now stood before the public. The placards which had been issued by this person were ten times more inflammatory than those which, not long ago had been put into green bags and formed the ostensible ground of laws against the liberties of the people. He had said thus much because he wished it to be known, while he objected to the form of the present motion, that he was not insensible to the facts which had been disclosed. He believed that the impression, as to the part which the government had taken in proceedings like this, was working in the public mind. He had heard it from so many quarters, that he felt a firm persuasion, that unless the matter was sifted to the bottom, this feeling would produce unpleasant consequences. He hoped, however, that the Home-department would be able to give what they had not yet given, a satisfactory account t why, after all the representations that had I been made, they had not offered a reward for the apprehension of the offender. It seemed odd, by-the-by, that the noble lord, should have written letters for the persons who went in pursuit of the fugitive, which according to his own account, were not worth a single shilling. "Oh," said the noble lord, "I gave them letters to sir Chas. Stewart, and would willingly have given them letters to the ministers in any other countries, but foreign governments will not interfere at our request." Now there was no reason to think the noble lord was correct in this. He had read in the newspapers, that there were cases in which foreign governments had actively interfered to make their own subjects come over to this country [Hear!]

779
There were statements of persons who had been examined as witnesses, and who declared, that they had no notion of coming over here, but that they were obliged to come by their governments [Hear!] And how did it happen that those governments interfered, but that they knew it was an object of desire to our government to get those witnesses sent here? The noble lord, however, said, that if we received obligations of this kind from foreign countries, we could never oblige them in return, for that the Alien act was never employed directly or indirectly to any such purpose. The noble lord's memory was treacherous; two of the most respectable individuals in Europe had been ordered to leave this country, not because they were doing any thing contrary to the interest or wishes of our own government, but because their residence here was unpleasant to a foreign government [Lord Castlereagh gave signs of dissent]. Had the noble lord never heard of——,a Dutchman? [Mr. Tierney here mentioned a name which was not audible in the gallery; lord Castlereagh said across the table, No.] He affirmed the fact on evidence which left no doubt on his mind, that these persons were sent out of the country merely at the wish of a foreign government. The fact occurred about two years ago. It would hereafter be brought in a distinct shape before the House. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion; as the day could not be fat distant when either the man would be apprehended, or his apprehension would be shown to be impracticable. In the one case it would be investigated in the ordinary course of law, in the other, the Home-department would be bound to give the most satisfactory explanations why they had not used the same means of apprehending the offender in this as in other instances.
Lord Castlereagh, in explanation, denied having admitted, that the letters would be of no use. He had only stated, that foreign governments were not bound by any agreement to assist in the arrest of subjects of this country, except in the cases he had mentioned; but they had in many instances given that assistance, when they were not bound so to do. The case of the individual alluded to was only a misdemeanor, and they might if they pleased assist even in that.
Mr. Cliveobserved, that it was not the practice of the Home-department to offer
780
rewards in cases of offences similar to the one charged in this instance. They had offered a reward for the apprehension of the author of the Glasgow placard; but then it should be recollected, that that was in times of known existing treason.
Mr. Beckettwas anxious, in addition to the statement of his hon. friend, to mention, that in the course of his experience it was not the practice of government to offer rewards in such cases as the one alluded to. They usually offered rewards in cases of murder, burglary, and other cases of violence; and the reason was, that the party being likely to escape, the offer of a reward would tend to prevent the purposes of justice from being defeated; but it was only in cases where it was supposed that the ordinary methods would fail that such rewards were offered. But this application was made instanter, and the secretary of state of course said, "you must first employ the ordinary means;" if those failed, it then became a question whether the extraordinary means at his disposal should be resorted to. With respect to sir Robert Baker, he could not let the debate pass without observing, from his knowledge of that gentleman, that he was utterly incapable of a corrupt motive. But whatever might be thought of him, it was quite impossible for any one to condemn him in that House, when the law had provided a remedy in the court of King's-bench. It was open to any member of the House to bring the conduct of sir It. Baker before that court.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he only wished to express his entire concurrence in the recommendation to his hon. friend to reconsider his motion, and to postpone his proceedings till the ordinary means of detection, and he might add, the ordinary means of defence had been resorted to; for though there might be a prima facie case, and though he was the last to deny the right of the House as the great inquest of the nation, without waiting for the decision of any other court, to inquire into circumstances which were presented to them, though this right was inherent and inseparable from them at all times, yet the very fact that it was an extraordinary power, showed that it should not be exercised, but on very extraordinary occasions. He quite agreed, that the ordinary remedies of the law afforded no means for inquiring into the conduct of the ministers; but the facts stated, afforded no matter of impeachment, and if they were

781
pressed at all, they must go to impeachment. But with respect to sir Robert Baker, though he was glad to hear the statement of the judge-advocate, it was utterly inconsistent with that of the hon. member for Montrose. A magistrate might be right or wrong in the use of his discretion of setting a person at large without bail, and supposing him to be wrong, he might be wrong only through error. The statement of the hon. member for Montrose seemed, however, to be inconsistent with a correct motive, for when sir Robert Baker had set this person free without bail, he represented that he had taken bail, and that the person would be forthcoming in a few minutes. He hoped there was some misunderstanding on the subject; and he was the rather inclined to believe there was, as the conduct of sir Robert Baker must appear very foolish, as well as very culpable, in making a false statement, which was sure to receive a decisive and speedy contradiction. But what required more explanation was, that no reward had been offered by the Home-office. The representation had been made to that office, not by any private person, it should be observed, but by the magistrate who had issued the warrant. The judge advocate had made this defence for the secretary of state, that the offer of rewards was only an extraordinary remedy, that the offer was never made in the first instance, that it was necessary to see whether all other means had failed before they resorted to this. But in this case the government was the party, and they had shown no lack of alacrity on other occasions. Was it not also a material fact, that at the time when the application was made to the Home-office, the ordinary means in such cases had been resorted to in vain; the man could not be found. The statement of the right hon. gentleman was not a defence; he hoped ministers had something else to offer, and he wished them a better advocate.
Mr. Beckettbelieved he had been misunderstood in what he had said with respect to sir Robert Baker. He had stated, and he repeated the assertion, that from the knowledge he had of that gentleman, he believed him wholly incapable of acting from a corrupt motive. But if any fault was found with his conduct, the King's-bench was the place where that conduct might be inquired into. As to the offering of a reward, it was not customary to
782
use the king's prerogative except in such cases as those he had mentioned. But in other cases the secretary of state would require, that it shoulds atisfactorily appear that the ordinary mode had failed before he resorted to a reward. Now, in the present case, that could not have appeared; for the thing was only known in the office about an hour befor the time mentioned.
Mr. C. Calvertjoined in the suggestion to the member for Aberdeen to withdraw his motion. As to Sir R. Baker, he was convinced that he was as incapable of stating a falsehood as any man in or out of those walls.
Sir R. Wilsonwished to know whether, in case of the apprehension of Fletcher, the law-officers would be directed to prosecute? If not, the expense would fall upon individuals, and there would be no more possibility of redress, than there was for the sufferers at Manchester.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he could not answer for a department of which he was not at the head; but he had no doubt there would be every anxiety shown to bring the author of those placards to punishment.
Lord John Russellexpressed his satisfaction, that notwithstanding the activity with which those seditious and inflammatory placards had been circulated within the last few years, and the great distress and privation of most of the lower ranks of people during that time, they had been productive of so very little effect, and that it should be a matter of consideration, that perhaps some of those unfortunate persons who were now suffering in prison for having been connected with illegal meetings, might have been instigated by some of those placards.
Mr. Humesaid, that though he still thought the motion which he had made was proper on the commencement of the inquiry, he should yield to the superior experience of others, and withdraw it. The noble lord had made a bold assertion when in defence of the placards he had said, that more seditious publications daily issued from the press of Wooler and Hone. If the noble lord was sincere, he had then passed the severest censure on the attorney-general, who had suffered them to go unnoticed. But he utterly denied that such was the fact, or that Mr. Hone or Mr. Wooler ever published anything like those placards. It was a piece of injustice, and only a trick of the noble

783
lord to cover himself, to insinuate that these placards originated from radical committees. He (Mr. Hume) had not "drawn on the credulity of the House;" he had given them affidavits and facts which did not rest on his assertion; and j as to the general statement of the impression which prevailed in the country, he was fully borne out by the testimony of the hon. baronet (sir J. Sebright), and another hon. gentleman, near him (Mr. H. Gurney). The noble lord had attempted to turn oft' these charges by protestations of innocence. But protestations would not serve against grave and serious facts. The only course which he could have pursued with credit, was, to pledge himself at a future period to institute a full inquiry. He had not done so, and that was quite sufficient to identify the proceedings with the government. He had no hesitation in saying, that sir It. Baker had asserted in court, that he had taken bail, and that Franklin would be there by-and-by. He was one out of many hearers, and neither this nor any other of the statements rested on his individual testimony.
The motion was withdrawn.

THE QUEEN—BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES—ADJOURNMENT.—
The committee appointed to search the Lords' Journals, made its report, through Mr. Brogden. The report being read,
Lord Castlereagh Lord Castlereagh moved, that the report do lie on the table. He should also move a further adjournment of the House to a period when it was probable the bill would one way or other, be disposed of in the Lords. When the House had last met, his idea was, that at the present time he should have had to propose an adjournment to some time between the 5th and 10th of November, and to accompany his motion with an order that the House be called over on that day, as he had thought it probable that by that time the bill would have come down, or been rejected. It did not now seem to him that there was the same prospect of an early decision, and he should therefore propose an adjournment to Thursday, the 23rd of November, and should move that the House be called over on that day, giving notice that in the event of the bill being by that time in a state to be brought down from the other House, he should enforce the call, but that if the bill was still pending there, or was rejected, the
784
call would be suspended, or abandoned ac cordingly.
Sir G. Noelsaid, he had before compared the House to a pack of hounds, who were whipped in or out by the noble lord as by the hunter. So, it seemed, he still resolved to treat them. He objected to so long an adjournment. They should continue to meet, to attend to the affairs of the nation at this critical period. He would move, as an amendment, that the House, on its rising, adjourn to to-morrow.
Mr. P. Mooreseconded the motion.
Mr. Tierneysaid, he quite agreed with the hon. baronet, that the adjournment proposed was very much too long, but he was not prepared to support the amendment for an adjournment only till to-morrow. It was very extraordinary that now, after the trial had proceeded so far, a proposal should be made to them for a longer adjournment than was proposed at the very commencement. The noble lord knew better than he did, what was going on; but when he saw that there had been printed nearly 900 pages of evidence, he thought he was not hasty in concluding, that the proceedings were advancing towards their termination. Yet the noble lord had now proposed an adjournment longer than on any former occasion. He had thought, on a former occasion, that time should be allowed to see what the Lords would do, not understanding that he was to be at all bound by their proceedings. But the present motion made them quite subservient to the proceedings of the Lords. As a spectator of their proceedings, he imagined, that they would close in a week. If there was a possibility of that kind, why should they adjourn for so long a period? If the noble lord could inform the House that the bill of Pains and Penalties would never be heard of more in this place, then he was ready to adjourn, not merely to the 23rd of November, but to the 23rd of January. The noble lord had said, that if the bill were thrown out by the Peers, the order for the call need not be enforced; but surely, even in that event, there would remain many matters to be discussed of a most serious character. The noble lord must forgive him for saying, that in the public mind there existed a general indignation against ministers for the pass to which they had brought the country. It would be no adequate satisfaction to the nation to be told hereafter,

785
that the Lords, in the exercise of their discretion, had thrown out the bill—that the nuisance had been got rid of, and that no man was now responsible for the condition to which the kingdom was reduced. He asserted, that ministers were deeply responsible—that nothing could or ought to screen them, not only from mere indignation, but from public punishment, if they failed in making out a clear, unequivocal case against her majesty, such as no man could doubt. If their case fell short of that, they had trifled with the public. On a former occasion he had said, that ministers must either betray the King or insult the Queen; but if they did not succeed in this desperate project, they would do both. One important question must arise respecting the body in which the whole case had originated—the Milan Commission—the conduct of which, at all events, must one day be investigated. He knew that ministers, by a side-wind, had endeavoured to inculcate a belief, that the Milan commission was totally independent of the King's servants—that it arose from another quarter. He did not believe it, and the less, on account of the dexterity they displayed in trying to shift the weight from their own shoulders. Its appointment had been, to all intents and purposes, the act of the government; and for its acts government was most deeply responsible. All he asked was, such a reasonable adjournment as should put the House in a situation not to lose time in investigating the subject; a fortnight from the present day seemed to him ample time; for, be it recollected, that independent of the Queen's trial, a great deal of public business remained to be performed. The last session, in consequence of the threatened inquiry, had been a mere blank as applied to public business. And were members to shut their eyes to all the exigencies of the public service because it seemed good to the noble lord and his friends? It might be very inconvenient to the right hon. gentlemen on the other side that the House of Commons should be sitting while particular transactions were in a course of investigation elsewhere; but was this to be set against the inconvenience the public must sustain? The assembling of the House a fortnight or three weeks hence might be a great advantage, even if it were unaccompanied by a call. The call might be fixed for the 23rd of November, but he would support an amendment, that the
786
adjournment be only for a fortnight. If it were otherwise, the House of Commons would stand before the country as almost the only body of men totally indifferent to the progress of the measure in the House of Lords, and adjourning to a distant day merely on the suspicion of the noble lord, that the further the Peers proceeded with the bill before them, the further they were from the end of their labours.
Lord Castlereaghthanked the right hon. gentleman for the candour with which he had met the question. He would as fairly state the grounds upon which he differed with him. The calculation he had made was founded on nearly the same data as that of the right hon. gentleman. He was perfectly ready to admit, whatever might be the issue of the bill, that a great variety of questions might arise out of it requiring the serious attention of parliament; but he knew of no instance where a great public topic was ever passed over for want of a favourable opportunity of discussing it in either House. The right hon. gentleman would probably allow, that those questions, be they what they might, collateral or immediate, ought not to be introduced but with such an attendance of members as should give to the House all the gravity belonging to it. It was quite correct, to state, that he now proposed a longer adjournment than in an earlier stage of the proceeding; but for this obvious reason—that before he had looked simply at an adjournment, and now he combined with it the question of a call. He could not well give less than a fortnight or three weeks to the course of the case, as it was at present circumstanced in the House of Lords. He did not foresee, that in less than that time the Peers could have brought their proceedings to a close, allowing them a week or ten days for the evidence, and the remainder for the discussion of the different stages of the bill. Upon this point there could be no difference of opinion—that it was desirable to discuss the measure in a fuller House than would probably be obtained if merely a question of adjournment were expected. In naming the 23rd of November, he had selected a period which, after the supposed close of the business elsewhere, would give members at a distance due notice of the period when their presence would be required. Any intermediate adjournment would only give unnecessary trouble, es-

787
pecially if that adjournment were unconnected with a call. Upon the whole, it appeared to his lordship, that by far the more convenient arrangement was that which he had suggested.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that even if the proceedings in the House of Lords were not to close sooner than three weeks, the utmost inconvenience that would occur to members, would be, in case the House now adjourned over for a fortnight, that they might possibly be detained in town for three or four days before any particular business would be entered on; but, on the other hand, if they were to adjourn to the 23rd of November, they would be exposed to much inconvenience, and her majesty to much injury. He could not comprehend any inconvenience, if the House were to adjourn to that day three weeks, to be then peremptorily called over; to adjourn for five weeks, would be to do that for which no fair reason had been assigned.
Sir W. De Crespignyhad no objection to the adjournment proposed, and trusted, that the reason for so long a separation was, a belief, on the part of ministers, that they would be enabled to get rid of a bill in toto, which had excited so much disgust throughout the nation.
Mr. Creeveytrusted, that his right hon. friend would forgive him for saying that he had met this question in rather a strange way. He little expected that he would have talked of the private convenience of members, instead of meeting the subject with some expression, on the part of the House, of an opinion that it never would permit the bill of Pains and Penalties to enter its doors. It was a most strange consideration, and at the same time a most melancholy one, that the House of Commons, that House which ought to be the guardians of the laws and the defenders of public liberty, were the only body in the nation who appeared insensible to the alarming consequences of this bill. He would ask them to look to the petition presented that night from Plymouth. From the language of that petition, the parliament might learn what was due to the laws and constitution of England from the common inhabitants of the sea-port town of Plymouth. On a former occasion, it was stated in that House, that if the bill should be ever attempted to be brought before them, the best way of proceeding would have been, to move an address to
788
his majesty to prorogue the parliament, and so get rid of the bill. There was only one thing which had since occurred to render it improper to address the throne. In the present progress of the trial, if trial it might be called—for the last two days it was certainly not the trial of the Queen, it was more a trial for conspiracy on the part of the government of this country—in this extraordinary state of the proceeding, he thought that they ought not to address the throne. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Wellesley Pole) seemed to smile with much self-complacency. He did not envy the composure which the right hon. gentleman affected. Had the right hon. gentleman attended the progress of the bill before the House of Lords? Had he attended to the evidence which had been given at the bar of that House? Did he understand the questions which had been referred to the Judges? Had he observed the arts that had been resorted to, and the technical question? which had been raised, to get rid of important disclosures? The right hon. gentleman certainly was at liberty to smile; but he might not perhaps have much cause to smile before the bill should be got rid of. This subject, important as it was, should not have been left to him. He regretted that it was not taken up by other bands: he regretted that the heads of the independent interest did not advocate the case. But however others might act, he would fearlessly perform his duty—a duty he owed not less to the liberties of his country, than to the insulted rights of human nature. The bill, not merely as it affected the Queen, but as it affected the nation, was a bill of a most infamous nature. Bills of pains and penalties were abhorrent to the constitution. In former times, bills of pains and penalties were only resorted to in cases of extreme necessity, in times of party conflict, and when the peace of the country was threatened by a rival claimant to the throne. In later times, the country had been disgraced by proceedings of that nature in the memorable cases of bishop Atterbury, sir John Fenwick, and lord Strafford; but in the present case, they had a bill of Pains and Penalties where there was no public conflict, no treason; where there was no one to oppose or to put down but a woman, whose life had been a life of hardship and of suffering. That a bill of that kind should have but

789
few advocates, was natural in a country where the principles of liberty and of humanity were cherished. He believed in his heart, that there was but one human being in England who was for the bill. In other cases high treason had been alleged; but here adultery, or rather an adulterous intercourse, was charged. Adultery was not a crime known to the law of England; it was held to be a civil injury, for which reparation might be obtained, under certain circumstances. By the law of the land they could not prosecute the Queen or any other individual for adultery. It was not more than twenty years ago since a bill was brought in to make adultery a legal crime; but the legislature rejected the bill; and yet they now attempted to punish the Queen, on the imputation of an act which they had so recently refused to constitute a crime. He did not say, that the Queen was guilty—he believed her not to be guilty; but whether guilty or innocent, he never would entertain such a bill—he never would be a party to so odious a proceeding. He would say, as lord Dig by had said in the case of lord Strafford, "God keep me from giving judgment of death on any man, and of ruin to his innocent posterity upon a law made à posteriori;" adding, what he was ready to add on the present occasion, "let the mark be set on the door where the plague is, and then let him that will enter, die."* What he felt on this subject was felt by all; one sentiment pervaded all classes and all ages. As far as the bill had gone, it was impossible not to look at it, not only with abhorrence, but with absolute contempt. The House and the country recollected the manner in which the charges against her majesty had been brought forward. It would, indeed, be difficult to forget that odious part of this odious proceeding. The individual conduct of her majesty was held up to the horror of the world. She was charged with having carried on an adulterous intercourse in no fewer than three parts of the globe, and that atrocious allegation was attempted to be upheld by wretched and perjured evidence. But now what did the charge amount to? All the imputations so foully and so falsely cast upon the Queen had been exposed—had been triumphantly refuted—and the only ex-
* See New Parliamentary History,
790
cuse that remained to the supporters of the bill was, the fact of her majesty having reposed on the deck of a vessel, in the presence, it was said, of her attendant. This was really a thing of no moment—it ought not to have a feather's weight—it was easily explained [a laugh from the Ministerial side, and loud cheers from the Opposition]. So help him God, he thought the Queen as innocent of crime in this particular, and in all others, as the most spotless female the world had ever produced. He did not believe that there was one word of truth in all that the miserable Italians had been bribed and persuaded to swear. The next allegation, on account of which all England had been put in motion, was, that the conduct of the Queen had degraded the character of the country—that the morals of the nation were at stake—and a fastidious court—so pure in itself, and so anxious for the purity of all the rest of mankind—wished to drag the British parliament through the dirt and filth of this inquiry—to divorce and degrade the Queen—under the pretence that the national honour had been tainted and sullied by her deportment! Most fortunately for that national honour, not a single English witness had been called who did not swear that, so far from degrading the country, they had never seen in her conduct any thing in the slightest degree indecorous. But the fastidious court—the delicate and scrupulous court—the pure unblemished court—had found one ally, one poor solitary witness, who had sworn, that the refinement of his moral sense was such, that he had been induced to withdraw his innocent nephew from the contagious sight of the Queen of Great Britain. He hoped that her majesty, who had evinced some little courage in facing and daring her enemies, would have sufficient fortitude left, to bear up against the shock of this dreadful imputation, from a person at once so antediluvian in his morals, and so disinterested in his testimony [Hear, hear!]. A third point contained in the preamble was, that the Queen had violated her duty to the King. But what duty did she owe to one, who, under his own hand, had confessed that he had turned her out of doors? That she owed allegiance to the King as his subject was not to be disputed; but that she owed duty to the King, he most strenuously denied; nor would he be any party to try her for a supposed breach of it.

791
Yet this House was to be driven into the inquiry; but, without power to administer an oath—without Judges to assist it in point of law—with the public opinion, on the score of corruption and influence, most decidedly against it, he hoped it would never consent that in such an assembly the Queen should be put upon her trial. For himself, he felt a perfect horror at the bare notion of it; nor was his shame less that, while such a topic was presented, the private convenience of the members had that night been the only subject of discussion.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that he felt as warmly as any man, the constitutional objections to bills of pains and penalties. The principal difference between him and his hon. friend who spoke last being, that he (Mr. T.) was able in some degree to restrain and keep down his feelings. Yet he knew nothing of the evidence as a member of parliament; but he could not approve of the summary mode in which it had been proposed to get rid of it by a prorogation of parliament. Had he been in the House when it was moved, he should have voted against it. He begged clearly to be understood that it was not because he did not express his opinion at present that he was to be supposed to feel less warmly than others upon this subject.
Mr. Scarlettbegged pardon of the House for rising at the present moment; but, after the call which had been made by his hon. friend, he deemed it incumbent upon every man to declare his unbiassed sentiments. He would not enter into a discussion upon the merits of the evidence; but he begged to state, that he, for one, would never, upon any public grounds yet promulgated, give his consent to this bill of Pains and Penalties. With respect to the measure before the House, it was so far connected with the proceedings in the House of Lords, as to entitle him to observe somewhat on those proceedings. They had before them a report, stating, that certain questions had been put to the learned Judges. Until he had heard that report read, he was altogether ignorant of its import. The import of those questions, if he understood them rightly, was, whether the House of Lords were entitled to inquire whether any undue and improper means had been employed to collect evidence against her majesty? He could only say, that if he had been of counsel for the prosecution against the meanest subject in the realm,
792
and had been told, that the defendant possessed the power of proving, that some of the testimony against him, had been obtained by corrupt practices, though he could not perhaps bring it home directly to the prosecutor, he should think that he did no honour to his client, if he interposed an objection to its production. He would feel that such an objection on his part would be an attempt to interrupt the clear current of justice—he would feel that he was disgracing the prosecutor, and betraying the trust reposed in him, if he were, on such a point, to object to any form of inquiry, however ample, or however strict [Cheers]. If such would be, as they certainly would be, his sentiments on a case of a private nature, how much more strongly should he feel in a case where the government stood as the prosecutor, and where the prosecution was conducted, before one branch of the legislature, and by the public officers of the Crown! If the bill of Pains and Penalties ever reached that House, he should consider it as a disgrace if it was entertained for a moment; and he would say, that if the promoters of that bill had intended to bring into contempt all those institutions which had hitherto been held most sacred and most dear, they could not have done it more effectually, than by the measure which they had resorted to. God forbid, that he should say that any particular individuals entertained those views—it would not be parliamentary to say so; but he would repeat it, if they had formed a criminal design to bring this once happy country to the brink of destruction, to bring into contempt institutions that had been hitherto respected, they could not have taken a better mode to accomplish their object. Who could doubt now, that the question was between the Queen of England on the one side, and his majesty's ministers on the other? He, for one, never approved of the introduction of the sacred name of the King in the discussions upon this business. He could never bear to hear the name of majesty used with this irreverence. This measure must not be called the measure of the King. Against such language he must raise his loudest protest: it was, like all other public acts, the measure of ministers, and as such it must be judged. Before he concluded, he begged to enter his protest against the conduct of those who urged technical objections, in order to exclude inquiry into that most vital

793
point, namely, whether undue influence had been exerted, and bribes offered to witnesses, to swear against her majesty. He hoped that such objections would never be tolerated. The House of Lords were not bound to listen to an objection which went to say, that the accused shall not have the liberty of inquiring into the character of the witnesses against her; she shall not have the liberty of asking whether those witnesses were bribed to swear against her. The proceeding before the House of Lords, was less a judicial than a legislative proceeding; and their lordships unquestionably had the right, without being shackled for a moment by the objections of counsel, to enter into a minute inquiry as to the conduct and motives of the witnesses—a proceeding which justice required, and which the country expected. He was not insensible, he participated fully in that general and universal feeling which pervaded the country on this subject. Never was the country more agitated than at the present moment, and never was the conduct of the people more honourable to the character of the nation.
Mr. W. Courtenaysaid, he felt as much impressed as any man with the impropriety of being drawn into any discussion upon this subject at this premature period; but he could not in silence hear one set of gentlemen arrogate to themselves all purity of principle, and deny it to those with whom they differed upon political topics. Let them pause, and see whether, in the case in which they were involved, there were any ground for all this reprobation so unsparingly heaped upon their course. What was the course of that proceeding? Reports of a most degrading nature respecting the princess of Wales [A laugh]. If gentlemen who opposed his views refused to listen to any thing at variance with their own preconceived opinions, then there was an end to all freedom, or, indeed, utility of debate. [Hear, hear!] Reports of a most degrading nature respecting the conduct of the princess of Wales had reached this country; and, putting out of view all the statements of Italian witnesses, it was said, that an English lady of high rank and character, had been obliged to withdraw herself out of the Queen's society in Italy. These statements called for inquiry, and the step taken was the natural and proper one. A commission—that much abused commission—was sent out in consequence. Steps
794
were taken by it to investigate the truth of these reports. Persons had been sent out intrusted with this commission, and he wished particularly to mention one of them, Mr. Cooke, whose name had been the subject of abuse as unfounded as it was ever undeserved by any man. Mr. Cooke, who was the object of abuse so liberally bestowed on him, had the super-intendance of these inquiries. If ministers had any sinister object to pursue by this inquiry, as had been insinuated, was it likely they would have selected as their agent a gentleman who could never be made a subservient tool, whose situation placed him above all suspicion—a man who had long been engaged in the active pursuits of a profession, from the duties of which he was recently compelled by ill health to retire? Mr. Cooke had nothing to gain by being the tool of any set of men: his competent means rendered him superior to such an imputation. Mr. Cooke had passed his life in the same profession as one of the hon. gentlemen who had been foremost in abuse, and had not hesitated to make him the object of his unbridled invective (Mr.Creevey) had originally embarked, until he quitted it for the more seducing field of politics: and he would now say, that that gentleman might be well contented to barter such fame as had followed his political career, for the unsullied purity and high reputation of Mr. Cooke's professional life. The real question was, did the circumstances justify ministers in recommending this inquiry. One gentleman (Mr. Creevey) had taken much pains to state, in the course of his argument, that adultery was no crime by the law of the land, and that such offence, if proved, was no ground for any proceedings against the Queen. Was this a course of argument which would be adopted by the country? Would the sober and honest feeling of the people really go along with the hon. gentleman, in concluding that it was of no consequence whether the Queen of England was or was not justly accused by report, of adultery, because it was not a crime punishable by law? Would there have been no impropriety in permitting a person to remain queen consort of this realm, to whose court their wives and daughters were to be introduced, if she remained the object of so much degrading insinuation? But it was said, that technical obstacles should not have been interposed before that tribunal. Gracious God! what a

795
mode of reasoning was that! Were the Lords immediately to adopt any course prescribed upon every vague insinuation, however groundless—upon every rumour, however unsupported? Surely that was too much to expect from any tribunal. It was said that the Italian witnesses were suborned, were perjured. If this observation were true, it must be taken in a general sense; and he believed there were some of those who did not hesitate to make the insinuation for partial purposes, who would shrink from admitting its general application. He was also one of those who could not suffer it to be nightly re-echoed by the gentlemen opposite, that the universal sense of the country was consonant to their view of this grave and serious subject [Loud cries of Hear! from the Opposition-benches]. Notwithstanding that cheer, he would repeat his assertion, that the tide of popular feeling was on the turn, and that the people were coming to a more sober and rational view of the subject. The result of the pending investigation he should not anticipate; but, be it what it might, he was satisfied, that the people of the country would eventually feel that the investigation itself was unavoidable, and necessary for the honour and dignity of the nation.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that he had meant to have complimented the hon. and learned gentleman, on the bold and manly course he had set out with taking, in defiance of popular feeling; but he found, in the progress of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech, that he must abandon this intention; for it seemed that, so far from having this boldness, he had happily and judiciously selected the favourable moment when he was to have the tide of popular feeling with him. For his own part, he must say, that, in the discharge of his public duty, he did not presume to know on which side of a question the tide of popular feeling ran. He always felt it to be his duty to take the course which his own judgment and sense of principle suggested, as becoming a representative of the people in parliament. But if he were to judge of the current of popular feeling on the question now in agitation, he should say that, so far from the tide being about to turn in favour of the opinion of the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite, the universal feeling was decidedly hostile to the pending investigation, and more particularly at the present time; and that, so far from
796
thinking it either proper or necessary, the people looked upon it as a violation of the best institutions of the country, as an out-rage upon the laws of the land, and felt that the House of Lords had embarked in a course in which they could derive no aid from either human or divine law. The public feeling upon this occasion, was, indeed, as it in general would be found when fairly collected, honourable to the morals and character of the middling and humbler classes, from whom it emanated. They looked at the situation of their Queen with a right feeling; they bore in mind that when she was cast loose upon the world, without guide or protector, she had the permission and. assurance, as far as it could be given (though he knew that any such permission was nugatory), that no advantage would be taken of her conduct, as in the case of ah ordinary woman [Cries of No, from the Ministerial benches]. He repeated, that she had received such an assurance that her conduct would not be looked at, as if she stood in the ordinary relations of a female in private life. Those who, after giving such an assurance, could collect together and act upon reports, be they what they might, could, he thought, derive little consolation from reflection. That commission (the Milan) would for ever remain a blot in the annals of the country. It was not the best advice a minister could give his sovereign, after such a communication had been made to a lady, to beset her with systematic watchfulness, even if it could be done by less censurable means than those which had been resorted to. Was it decent, was it manly, to pry into, to watch, to sift the domestic concerns of a deserted and disconsolate woman; and then afterwards to arrange and embody evidence so procured into a grave and formal charge, to be legislated upon in a tribunal in a form and manner which, he repeated, could derive no sanction from any human or divine law? Whoever advised the monarch to embark in such an inquiry did an injury to that monarchy, which, if he revered, he must for ever lament the longest day he lived. Never was the public sense so generally and unequivocally manifested as upon this occasion. It was impossible to observe it without admiring the general character of the people. He had, during the adjournments, week after week, refrained front I expressing any opinion upon the case now under inquiry. The ultimate issue of

797
guilt or innocence would have no weight with him, feeling, as he did, the roost invincible repugnance to entertaining such a question—a question which nothing upon earth could not one moment induce him to entertain. A good reason truly, that because the Lords had adopted a course which the House of Commons rejected, that therefore the House of Commons should desert its sense of duty, and adopt theirs Far different was the conclusion which he should recommend. The House of Commons should take credit to itself for anticipating those objections with which both Houses at that moment felt themselves embarrassed. The noble lord opposite complained of an attempt to degrade the House of Lords. Let the noble lord reflect on the course he was now pursuing. The House of Lords was the last court of appeal in this country. Its functions that House had ever discharged with unsuspected credit, and great reputation. Assisted by the co-operation of the lord chancellor, and the presence of the Judges, they were peculiarly competent to discharge the trust with all its befitting solemnities. Now, however, by the bill of Pains and Penalties originating there, the House of Commons was converted into a court of appeal, without any one of those solemnities—without the power of administering an oath—without the presence of the judges, to whom, on any legal difficulty, they could apply for their opinions. Six hundred and fifty-eight gentlemen were to sit to try the Queen (a mockery of trial) without one of those advantages which the House, whose proceedings they had to review, possessed. We were to have, in addition, the five gentlemen who conducted the prosecution and defence, also transformed into judges, and their puppets, or subordinates (he spoke the words without offence) conducting the cause at that bar. The noble lord talked of upholding the institutions of the country, and in the same breath recommended a proceeding which made the House of Commons a court of appeal from the House of Lords. He talked of guarding the two House of Parliament from imputation, and still so inverted the course of justice, as to convert the paid advocates of the parties into dernier judges on the decision of the House of Peers. Was that the way to try the Queen of England? Nothing, he was confident, induced ministers to take that unnecessary and unconstitutional course, but the affection
798
they bore, not to the institutions of the country, but to their places. It was considered by them altogether as a question of office; and what a sorry policy! If the noble lord and his colleagues had had the boldness to lose sight of their emoluments even for the shortest period—had they on such manly grounds surrendered office, who would have dared to become their successors? In his conscience he believed the whole mischief had arisen from the ambition of one man in this country, who calculated on being a chancellor, and of another, a chancellor, who wished to retain his office. It was our misfortune to have a vice-chancellor, who wanted to be promoted, and at the same time a lord chancellor who was determined not to retire till he had completed his million [Hear, hear!]. He said this in no disparagement of that noble and learned character. No man more respected his private qualities; he was fully sensible of them, enjoying, as he did, the happiness of having him as his nearest neighbour. He was, indeed, a most excellent sporting country gentleman [A laugh]; but speaking of him as a politician, he had been instrumental in producing as much public mischief as any man he ever knew. He (Mr. Calcraft) was one of those politicians who, in general, looked to the bright side of the question; and he felt a firm assurance that the country would, by its own strength and character, surmount its present embarrassment, but he also felt, that if the King's ministers had manifested but the courage to render justice to that country, all the present confusion and irritation of feeling would have been spared. With all their calculations they were, he knew, taken in. They proceeded from the beginning under the impression that the Queen never would come to England-"She will never come," was their hope and their conviction. She did, however, approach so near as to create alarm, and their famed negotiation at St. Omer's was the result. Still, though so near, "she will never come," was the impression; till at last some unlucky colleague was so indiscreet as to give, in some quarter, an undertaking that if she did come she would be proceeded against. The noble lord opposite knew well that was the fact—He did not expect to extract confession from him; but if he could construe his smiling into an admission, he felt convinced that he was right. For, recollect how happy the noble lord was, to

799
be stopped from that proceeding by the resolution of the House of Commons—a resolution which he (Mr. Calcraft) most sincerely supported, and whose failure he, with equal earnestness, regretted. That effort having unhappily failed, the next object was, to address themselves. to that more ductile body, who were supposed always to look more favourably to the Crown, even than that unreformed House of Commons, whose inclinations even that way he was as disposed as much as any man to check. At the beck of the House of Lords were the Commons of England to be kept meeting and adjourning from week to week and day to day. What was the meaning of all these adjournments? And why, he would ask, now that the proceedings must, in the House of Lords, be approaching their termination, was the protracted adjournment for five weeks proposed? The noble lord opposite could, if he pleased, give the answer—he well knew the bill of Pains and Penalties would never reach the House of Commons. It was because he was prepared for this re-suit, that he asked for that long adjournment. The noble lord speculated on the effect of time—on the probability that the public irritation would diminish—that people's minds, cheered by the result, would grow quiet, and that by postponing the time for that House again meeting, the discomfiture of the ministers would not be met by that excitement, which it would probably experience, were that House assembled when such discomfiture was first ascertained. In making these observations he indulged no wish at that moment to comment on the character of the Milan commission. Of one of its leading members, he should only say, that it was a subject of regret that he (Mr. Cooke) should undertake an office, so incompatible with his character and prospects of promotion. At the proper period he should not shrink from stating his opinion on its acts as a commission. As to the bill itself, he did believe it would never reach them, but should it offer itself at their doors, he should do every thing in his power to keep it out of that House. Entertaining these feelings, he should have regretted, that the present debate had gone off with the tone that marked its commencement, as such a silence would have afforded a melancholy illustration of the little effect of public opinion on that assembly, and how very imperfectly the people of England were represented in that House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose for the purpose of recalling the attention of the House to the subject actually before it, which was nothing more nor less than what was the proper period to which they should adjourn. He hoped he might be allowed to do justice to one of his colleagues who had been attacked by the hon. gentleman opposite; and he would appeal to the knowledge of every person, whether his noble and learned colleague had ever been swayed by any private or improper motive, and whether the most unimpeachable integrity had not regulated his conduct for a period of forty years. The question upon which they had now to decide was, whether it was consistent with their duty, and consistent with justice, that they should now take a short adjournment, or extend it to a period of five weeks. The hon. gentleman opposite had stated, that he did not apprehend that the proceedings would be closed in a shorter period than three weeks. It was expedient therefore to decide, whether it was better to adjourn to that period by which it was calculated the proceedings might be finished, or by extending the period of adjournment a little further, to make themselves almost certain, that when they next met they should meet with a reasonable probability of proceeding at once to the consideration of the subject. He apprehended that the interests of the public would be best consulted by adopting the proposition of his noble friend, and he felt certain, that if it should fall to their lot to take into consideration the question now occupying the other House of parliament, that they would do it with the same impartiality, and to the satisfaction of the public.
Mr. Calcraft, in explanation, denied, that he had said a word in disparagement of the integrity of the noble and learned lord alluded to. As a Judge he believed him honest to the back-bone.
Lord Folkestonesaid, he was one of those who did not wish to confine the question to the mere motion of adjournment, and keep the merits of the great question wholly out of sight. Such might be the policy of the noble lord, who had left that consideration wholly out of his view; indeed, it was to be judged of, from the manner in which the speech of the only honourable gentleman who ventured to open his mouth on the subject was received. He thanked his hon. friend (Mr. Creevey) for the tone he had as-

801
sumed in the discussion, strongly expressive as it was of that abhorrence at the proceeding which was felt so universally out of doors, and which he fancied ministers would find was strongly felt in that House. As nothing had been said in answer to that speech, he should limit himself to saying, that in every objection urged against the bill he fully concurred, and that at the proper time he would be ready to resist its introduction into that House. The hon. and learned gentleman who was that night the only advocate of the bill of Pains and Penalties, had undertaken to prove, that it was the only measure that could, under such circumstances, be adopted, and that the Milan commission was a necessary preliminary, in consequence of the reports injurious to her majesty, that prevailed throughout the continent. Putting aside the consideration, that these reports originated in a conspiracy, he (lord F.) contended, that the only fair proceeding that could be adopted, was directly the reverse of the Milan commission. For what was the consequence of the Milan commission, and of the means taken to inquire into those reports The consequence was, not to prevent the mischief, not to punish the crime, not to remove the disgrace, but to invite false testimony, and to publish our shame to the whole of Europe. This was the plan adopted to protect the honour of the Crown, to secure the reputation of the country, and to do justice to the honour of the Queen! And, as if to render all the machinery necessary, the Queen was advised, through the medium of a right hon. gentleman who acted for ministers, to leave the country. [No, no]. He repeated, that her majesty was advised to leave the country by a right hon. gentleman who had since delivered his sentiments of respect towards her in that House—a gentleman who, from those sentiments, might have been supposed one of her majesty's defenders—a gentleman who was not now here, and who had gone from his duty God knew where. That minister had removed himself from the opportunity either of defending or of abusing her; but his colleagues were responsible for ever having allowed the wife of the heir-apparent of the throne to quit England. But having sent her away, they became doubly responsible in not calling her back, when they heard the degrading reports that were circulated throughout Europe against her. Instead of that
802
course, they issued their Milan commission, to give an increased publicity to these calumnies, and to give a validity and extent to that degradation to which the throne of England was exposed. As if any thing were still wanting to complete the disgraceful spectacle, she was offered 50,000 l a year, in order to enable her, if those aspersions were justified, to still further degrade the dignity and honour of the British Crown. It was now at length formally announced, that the ministers of the Crown were the parties in support of the bill of Pains and Penalties. After that tardy avowal, it was not too much to expect, that the noble lord opposite would have favoured that House with his opinions on the probable result, without at once calling upon it to dance attendance on the Lords from week to week. Surely the noble lord might have informed them whether it was likely the bill would come at all to that House, or in what shape, or whether it would be altered. From all that desirable information the noble lord had abstained, and limited himself merely to the proposition of an adjournment for five weeks, making the call of the House to depend on the decision of the House of Lords against her majesty. One would have thought, that whatever might be the nature of that decision, whether it announced the guilt or innocence of the Queen, that call would have been enforced. The noble lord, it would be recollected, had, on a former occasion, declared, that if these proceedings were the result of a conspiracy against the Queen, no man would be more active or zealous to investigate that conspiracy than he would be. Then why should not the call of the House take place in that event, as well as on a decision unfavourable to her majesty? For his part, he contended, that the call should then be enforced, in order that the fullest inquiry might take place as to the time and place where tin's villainy was concocted, and to scrutinize the conduct of those ministers who had so unadvisedly thrown the whole kingdom into a state of irritation, and our best interests into jeopardy. If the noble lord would not redeem his pledge, he trusted others would be found determined to discharge that duty; and to give effect to that opinion, which, if not within that House, prevailed so universally on the other side of those walls, in execration of the course they were now pursuing.
Mr. Wellesley Polesaid, he should not

803
have uttered a word, if it were not for the line of argument taken up by the hon. gentlemen opposite; but when he considered the opinions which they had given, that whether the Queen was or was not guilty of the charges, was a matter of indifference—[No, no! we spoke of the mode of proceeding, from the opposite benches]. He misunderstood them, then, because he took them to have said, that whether the Queen was or was not guilty, they would equally feel it their duty to oppose the bill. He thought the House should proceed in the course proposed by the noble lord, because he thought the time had not yet arrived when the House must give an opinion on the subject; and he had always felt, that the proper time for investigation would be when the bill should come down from the Lords; he felt that a time would arrive when his majesty's ministers must answer for their conduct, and he had, until that time should come, determined to abstain from offering any opinion. An hon. member opposite had said, that, with the exception of one hon. and learned gentleman no one had attempted to defend the course of proceeding adopted by ministers; but he would tell that hon. member, that when the time should come, the members of the administration would be as ready and as bold in defending their proceedings, as the gentlemen opposite were in pronouncing their opinion, and in attempting to vilify the conduct of administration. As the question now stood, he did not see that they ought on the one hand to go into the merits of the case, or on the other hand, endeavour, by provoking discussion, to inflame the public mind and to vilify the conduct of ministers. He would say boldly, that his majesty's ministers would not have acted as honest Englishmen, or as honest ministers of the Crown, by recommending any course different from the present. He stated this boldly, and he challenged any man to deny that his hon. and noble friends whom he had the honour to call his colleagues possessed as strong an attachment to the Crown and the country, as any men. It was easy for gentlemen on the other side to assert without proof, and to treat ministers as persons unworthy of the confidence of the country; and he was not surprised at hearing one of them say, that a person whom he had but a minute before described as the vilest creature, was an honest judge to the back-bone. That
804
gentleman had forgotten that he had said, there existed one chancellor, who would sooner destroy the country than give up his office; and that gentleman's memory might be equally deficient, when he made assertions respecting other gentlemen, similar to those which he had made respecting lord Eldon, who, if he possessed such feelings as those imputed to him, was a wretch whom no honest man ought to sit in the same room with. He thought persons in high rank and in high stations, were as likely to possess as nice feelings and as nice a sense of honour as the hon. member opposite. The hon. gentleman had rather ludicrously described the House of Commons as a court of appeal from the House of Lords; but if the House were placed in such a situation, what were all the bills of divorce which came down from the other House? Was this the first time that a bill of divorce came down to the House of Commons, after the House of Lords had passed an opinion upon it? He stated this, because these gentlemen, forgetting constitutional principles, treated as a novelty that which was the known and regular course of proceeding. He begged leave to say, that he offered no opinion upon the merits of the bill, until the question should be brought regularly before them, because he thought such an opinion would be unwarrantable and indecent, before the result of the proceedings in the House of Lords was known. He agreed with the noble lord who had proposed the adjournment, that by voting for it no hon. member would be pledged to the merits of the bill.
Mr. Hobhousesaid:—Sir; my sentiments having been so frequently declared on the subject, I should not now trouble the House, were it not for an observation which fell from the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down. That gentleman seems to think it exceedingly absurd and inconsistent, that the hon. member below me should describe the lord chancellor as being a respectable judge, although he cannot approve of him as a statesman. This criticism was so much applauded by the gentlemen opposite, that I rise to remind them, that there is nothing anomalous whatever in such a character, and that to consider such an inconsistency as unnatural, shows a most lamentable ignorance of human nature. Many names might be mentioned of judges, who, in causes between private individuals, have observed a strict impartiality, but have been notoriously profli-

805
gate on all political questions. What is it that Dryden tells us of the man whom he describes as the wickedest, the most factious, and good for nothing statesman that ever lived? The House will recollect the lines which end thus:
"In Israel's court ne'er sat an Abdethin
"With more discerning eyes or hands more clean.
And yet the hon. gentlemen cheered the notable discovery respecting the inconsistency of the two characters—as if such a poet as Dryden, and such a politician as Shaftesbury had never lived. Sir, I repeat, this shows a gross ignorance of human nature and of the history of many political judges who have sat upon the English bench—I should now sit down, were it not that I wish to ask the noble secretary of state for foreign affairs a question.—The prime minister gave his promise to the other House of Parliament, that the witnesses who deposed against the Queen, should be forthcoming, at least during the trial. It seems, however, that the same minister when he gave the assurance, forgot to issue his directions to the only office through which it was possible that any of those witnesses could obtain the means of evasion. Accordingly, one witness has through that office been furnished with the means of leaving this country. It is almost useless to observe what kind of justice is dealt out to the Queen by this act of government. Here we have the Admiralty records ransacked in order to contradict the assertion of Carrington, a witness for the Queen, who is again placed at the bar, in order to be confuted by those records. And when the Queen's counsel wish to confront one of the witnesses against her majesty with a witness for the Queen, it is at once discovered, that, in spite of all the solemn assurances of the prime minister, the said witness has left the country. The mischief to the Queen maybe irreparable, but I, at least, wish to know whether the noble lord opposite will give his honour that no other witness shall receive passports at his office. Nor am I contented with hearing it said by the prime minister in the other House, that the witness shall be forthcoming during the trial. No; it is necessary they should be detained long enough to give a reasonable time for prosecuting them for perjury, if perjury they have committed, which, in one case, I may say, I know has been done. Not that I have any anxiety for her majesty.
806
The trial, as it now proceeds, is, as observed, not the trial of the Queen, but the trial of the Queen's prosecutors. Unless I am much mistaken the time is not far distant when those prosecutors will be called to answer for their conduct, not at the bar of this House, but at the bar of the nation, and God send them a good deliverance!
The Amendment was withdrawn. The main question was then agreed to, and the House adjourned to the 23rd of November.

Preamble
The order of the day being read for

723
the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to deprive her Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, &c;" and for hearing Counsel for and against the same,
The Lord Chancellorproceeded to inform their lordships, that towards the close of the proceedings of yesterday, a question, which was put by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Queen against the bill, to a witness then under examination, had been objected to by the learned counsel who appeared in support of the bill. The question might be represented to their lordships—at least he thought it a convenient mode of conveying it to their lordships' minds to represent it, in these terms: "Whether a certain person of the name of Vimercati, in order to induce other persons to come forward as witnesses, or to furnish testimony against the party accused by the bill, had not offered a corrupt inducement for that purpose?" An objection was very properly taken by the learned counsel for the bill, which objection was answered by the counsel on the other side, and it became the business of their lordships to determine if that question could or could not be put. For his own part, he must say, that the case of Vimercati might differ much from those cases which had been before argued, and on which the House had ruled, that the acts of agency were not so proved, as that they ought in any manner to affect the case. In stating his opinion upon the immediate question to their lordships, he should be extremely sorry to assume that which had been offered by the learned counsel who raised the objection; namely, that Vimercati being only the counsel, or professional agent to the Milan commission, his acts could in no wise affect the proceedings of that commission. He should be extremely sorry to conclude upon so narrow a view of the case. Looking at the evidence, he conceived, that there was sufficient proof apparent that Vimercati was, in fact, an agent of the Milan commission; and an agent their lordships must consider him. Upon this understanding of the case, he wished to have the opinion of the learned judges, and he would therefore propose a question for their decision, one which he conceived to be absolutely necessary for his own and their lordships' guidance, that they should know what would be the law and the course of proceeding upon a similar case in the courts below, taking the
724
case to be one which had already proved Vimercati to be an agent of the Milan commission, and considering the fact, that he had not been called or examined, and assuming what need not be questioned, that he had offered temptations to witnesses to appear—supposing also, that no proof could be made out, that any of the witnesses who had been examined for the prosecution had been corrupted, in such a case could evidence be admitted to show that any attempt had been made to corrupt the witnesses who appeared for the defence? His question would be, "If in the trial of a civil action or a criminal indictment, evidence had been given on the cross-examination of the witnesses examined in chief for the plaintiff in the civil action, or in support of the charges of the indictment, from which it was to be inferred, that A. B. had been employed to collect witnesses for the plaintiff or the prosecution, and if the defendant in a civil action or under indictment, offered proof that A. B. had gone about to induce C. D. to give corrupt testimony in support of the civil action or criminal charges, no witness called as a witness in chief for the indictment, or the civil action, having, under cross-examination, given any proof of A. B.'s corrupt agency, would the practice of the courts below allow C. D., a witness called for the defence, to give proof that A. B* had offered corrupt motives to induce him to give false testimony in support of the civil suit or the criminal charges?"
Earl Greysaid, that before their lordships came to a decision on this question, he wished to offer a few words. If the noble and learned lord wished to propose the question to the learned Judges merely for his own satisfaction, he should on that ground not object to it. But he must declare he was of opinion, that even if the Judges did decide that, according to the rules of evidence in the courts below, the examination proposed by the Queen's counsel could not be allowed, their lordships were not bound to act on that decision. On the contrary, he would contend that, in consequence of the knowledge of facts which had come to them from the bar, they were bound to inquire into the truth of the allegations. He was, however, not much disposed to oppose the proposition of the noble and learned lord, because, whatever might be the answer given by the learned Judges, he should propose to their lordships to proceed in

725
the course of inquiry which was how suspended. The present point of inquiry was neither more nor less than a continuation of the case of Restelli; into that case their lordships had consented to inquire; but the evidence in that case was improperly admitted, if the rule was to be, that, unless agency could be proved, they were not to receive evidence of corruption. If the rule, however, of receiving the evidence of yesterday applied to that of to-day, the examination proposed on the part of the defence ought to be allowed. Though it was found, from the evidence, that Restelli had been constantly employed in collecting witnesses, yet it was not proved that he had been authorized to make them offers. In like manner, with regard to Vimercati, it appeared that he assisted officially in taking down depositions; but non constat, that out of the room in which the depositions were taken he had been, on any occasion, authorized to do any act. If, therefore, the strict rule of evidence was to be adhered to, the cases were substantially the same. He must also contend, that the rules of courts of law, with respect to evidence in civil actions, were not at all applicable to this case. Their lordships were now sitting as judges; and the case was of the nature of a criminal prosecution. How, then, the noble and learned lord could propose to limit his question to the rules of evidence in civil actions, was what he could not understand. The present was, in every respect, a criminal proceeding; and what was done in the courts below, with respect to civil actions, could have no relation whatever to the case. If, however, a question were to be put, he should wish it to be framed on the supposition of a prosecution for a capital offence; for nothing else could have any analogy to the case. If any one, in answer, said, that this was not a trial for life, he would ask, whether the illustrious person who was the object of this bill was not exposed by it to losses more severe than the loss of life? The question, then, which he would propose to ask, if any were put, would be, whether, in a capital case, if evidence were tendered to a judge of an attempt to corrupt witnesses, whose evidence, if received, would be fatal to the person accused, that judge would not think it necessary to relieve the case from all suspicion, and to ascertain by what means that evidence had been procured on which he was to pronounce judgment
726
of death? The question was immaterial whether agency was proved or not. The counsel for the defence proposed to prove, that an attempt had been made to corrupt justice, in order to obtain a decision from their lordships, the effect of which would be, to deprive her majesty of that rank, station, and dignity, and those privileges, which, to any individual in her situation, must be dearer than life. He thought, therefore, that their lordships, without reference to the Judges, ought to decide that the examination should proceed. Having already received similar evidence, were they now to turn round, and alter the rule they had made? What was now proposed was, not the introduction of a new rule, but of one which had been followed after all the evidence on one side of the case had been heard. What was the necessity of inquiring into the practice of the courts below? If, either on the prosecution or the defence, a case arose in which corruption was alleged, and an attempt to impose false evidence upon their lordships, they were bound to inquire into the facts, unless they were disposed to shut their eyes to every thing which might prove the proceedings into which they bad been drawn, to be the result of a foul and wicked conspiracy to deprive the illustrious individual of all those possessions which were to her far more valuable than existence. For these reasons, he must again say, that he saw no ground for referring the question to the Judges; and was of opinion, that the testimony which had been offered ought to have been received yesterday. At any rate, he could not regard what passed in courts of law on civil actions, as having any reference to the evidence offered; for he considered this as a criminal proceeding of the highest kind. When, in the trial of such a case, evidence was offered, that an attempt had been made to corrupt justice, and to bring to their lordships' bar false testimony, whether that attempt was attributed to an agent or to any other person, he trusted their lordships would not turn their backs on that inquiry which was necessary to detect such iniquity. If that should be their conduct, they would not appear to the public to be doing that justice which was expected from them.
The Earl of Liverpoolwished to offer a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the noble earl. In the first place, as to the objection to confining the

727
question to be proposed to the Judges to the practice of the courts in civil actions, he believed his noble and learned friend would have no objection to strike those words out, and to let the question go to the Judges without any limitation. With regard to the general argument of the noble lord, he thought the view taken by him was altogether founded in mistake. He did not know what the opinion of the learned Judges might be, and would therefore postpone the expression of his own sentiments on the question, till after it had been submitted to their decision, if the House should think proper to take such a course. But, he understood the argument of the noble earl to be founded on this question—Whether or not it was fit, in this stage of the proceedings, that their lordships should go into an inquiry on a charge of general corruption, which had no immediate application to the case now before them, which could have no relation to the business under consideration, and no effect on the ultimate issue. The noble earl had said, that he considered this to be a criminal prosecution, and for a capital offence. He had no objection to take the question on this ground, and consider the present to be a criminal prosecution, and for a capital offence (for the punishment that might be inflicted did not affect the law of the case), and still he would contend, that the noble earl was mistaken in his view of the business. But it was asked, if a subornation of witnesses to appear in this cause can be proved, if it can be shown that any witnesses have been corrupted, or attempted to be corrupted, ought not this to be inquired into? He would admit, that, if it should appear that any of the witnesses produced at their lordships' bar had been corrupted, or attempted to be corrupted, or if any witness could be found to have been engaged in corrupting—in such a case he conceived (giving his opinion as an unprofessional man) their lordships ought to receive the evidence. But the question was here, not whether evidence should be received of an attempt made to corrupt witnesses who had appeared at the bar; but whether evidence could be received of attempts made to corrupt persons who had not been brought forward as witnesses? He desired that no man should suppose that he meant to argue that it was not as bad to endeavour to corrupt those who had not been brought forward as witnesses, as it was to
728
suborn those who had actually been before the House. In his opinion, to attempt corruption in the one instance was just as iniquitous as in the other; but, what he contended was, that, in the latter case, they had nothing to do with it at this time, and ought not to be called upon to go into an irrelevant inquiry, which he did not see could have any effect on the present proceedings.—He would now apply himself to another part of the question, stating what he had to say very shortly, and merely throwing it out for their lordships' consideration in the absence of the Judges, if they should go out on the question now proposed to be submitted to them. He would put it to their lordships, whether they ought to go into an inquiry respecting the conduct of the persons engaged at Milan, without giving some sort of notice to the advocate Vimercati and colonel Browne that those persons might at least have an opportunity of being here to defend themselves? He would go further, and ask if this were not done, supposing the learned Judges should give it as their opinion that the evidence which had been tendered could be received, would their lordships feel themselves justified in receiving it, without admitting, at the same time, evidence of every thing that went to affect the conduct of those who had formed the Milan commission? He considered the admission of all the evidence that might be offered on this subject, to be the necessary consequence of receiving that which was now tendered: and therefore he wished the House to consider well what would be the effect of their pursuing the line of conduct now recommended to their adoption. He had already stated, that he had not the least objection to the gentlemen who had formed the Milan commission being examined respecting all they had done, and he was content, that the advocate Vimercati should, if they pleased, appear at their lordships' bar. All he had to say against receiving the evidence in question was this—that it would lead the House into an inquiry that he could not regard as relevant to the matter now at issue. If the Judges should be of opinion that the evidence might be received, he considered that justice would require, that they should hear what the parties accused could offer in their defence.
Lord Erskinethought their lordships ought not, from a consideration of what might be the future consequences of their

729
decision, to deliberate whether or not they should do right now. If the evidence were proper to be admitted, they ought to decide for receiving it. Having considered the matter still further, and called to his recollection his practice at the bar in early life, he felt convinced with his noble friend, that the examination of the witness ought to be allowed, without any question being put to the Judges. He thought it strange, that, after the admission had been made, that the House were bound by no technical rules, but were to attain the truth and administer substantial justice, the admission of this testimony should be opposed; and in that anomalous proceeding all the disadvantages were still thrust upon the Queen, and none of the advantages accorded to her. Notwithstanding that admission, and the admission (reluctantly made) that nothing could make amends to the illustrious accused, for the absence of a material witness, it was not only wished to fasten them down to the rules of law, but to rules of law totally inapplicable to the present case. He would suppose a criminal indictment preferred against persons for suborning witnesses against the Queen. Were he counsel for the prosecution, he would first prove the existence of the conspiracy, and then endeavour to bring it home to the parties by witnesses who would prove the acts of the agent. In the case of the state trials of 1794s this was the mode in which his noble and learned friend proceeded, A conspiracy to dethrone the king was first attempted to be proved, and then to prove the agents. In the trial of Hardy, the defendant objected, that none of the acts proved were made to connect with him: and the learned judge who presided had said, that the charge was of two parts, and the prosecutor might first prove the existence of the conspiracy, and then bring it home to the parties as well as he could. In like manner, the learned counsel might bring proof of a conspiracy against her majesty. He might bring it home first to Vimercati, he to colonel Browne, and colonel Browne to the actual prosecutor. If there had been a conspiracy on foot, no matter by whom, it was the duty of their lordships to sift it to the bottom, to prove the acts of the agents, and thus trace it to its source. The attempt of Restelli to corrupt witnesses was almost unexampled in the history of jurisprudence. And,
730
were their lordships, with the knowledge of this fact, to suffer the matter to rest here? If the counsel for her majesty proved various acts of subornation of witnesses, how were their lordships to know whether the witnesses already examined had not been procured by these means? He must think they had been suborned, because no person deviated from the truth without some sinister motive; and when their lordships found witnesses declaring on oath what was notoriously and wickedly false, ought they not to be particularly cautious in the evidence they admitted to weigh on their minds? If their lordships divested themselves of the right to probe and examine into the alleged conspiracy, they might undoubtedly do so; but no man who was not a fit inhabitant of Bedlam would say, that, if the evidence were gone into, they were not competent to judge of the probability or improbability of the charge; if they were not, they ought to retire from the situations which they now filled. It was the duty of the counsel for the defence to bring forward evidence to prove this conspiracy; and it was no less the duty of their lordships, as he conceived, to near that evidence and decide upon it. If it was proved, that an agent of the Milan commission had offered to bribe a single person to give evidence against the Queen, that single proof of a conspiracy tainted the whole evidence; for, although there might be some witnesses who could not be proved to have been thus bribed, yet it threw a suspicion upon the whole. He would appeal to the noble earl opposite, whether, if he had known, before the commencement of this unfortunate business, what he knew now, he would have gone into the prosecution? He felt perfectly convinced that he would Dot. Their lordships were not to confine themselves to the rules of a court of justice, for no court of justice ever had to decide on such a cause. He entreated their lordships to permit the counsel to trace the conspiracy to its source; for of the existence of a conspiracy no one could doubt. Their lordships would thus best discharge their duty to the sound principles of justice, to their own character, and to that posterity by which their conduct would hereafter be judged.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he could not but deprecate the line of argument pursued on the other side of the House, by which all the rules of evidence were

731
to be abandoned, and all regularity completely annihilated. He should like to know for what purpose rules of evidence were laid down and adopted in courts of law, unless to elicit truth, and facilitate that regularity which ought always to characterise the administration of justice; and, if that were so in ordinary and common cases, he should like also to know on what novel principle it was, that the highest court should not be governed by the same principles of regularity which governed the proceedings of the lowest? If a common or ordinary case were to be subject to rules and bounds to ensure the regularity of its proceedings, surely a bill of pains and penalties equally demanded the same caution and care, to ensure the eliciting of truth. He had minutely examined the whole of the evidence, and it appeared by that evidence, that the conversation supposed to have been held with Vimercati, as the agent of the Milan commission, was, in point of fact, held when that commission was functus officio, because, according to Mr. Powell's statement, its operation ceased in 1819, and this conversation was supposed to have taken place in 1820. As far as colonel Browne was concerned, Vimercati certainly assisted him. His lordship said, he was most anxious that the opinion of the Judges should be taken on the subject, and that no deviation should be allowed unnecessarily from those established rules of evidence which experience had proved to be best calculated for the discovery of truth.
The Earl of Rosslynsaid, he felt great diffidence in rising to address their lordships on this question, after the able manner in which it had been discussed by his noble and learned friend near him (lord Erskine) and his noble friend below him (earl Grey). His noble friend who had just sat down was, however, of a different opinion. He was of opinion that their lordships ought to be bound by the rules of evidence in the courts below, because the experience of ages had shown that they were in general best calculated for the discovery of truth. He admitted the fact, and he admitted the ground on which his noble friend had placed his argument. He was of opinion, that the rules of the courts below were the best that could be invented for regulating proceedings between two parties, and those parties too, fairly opposed to each other. He could not but feel the necessity for
732
not permitting any deviation from the rules of the courts in such cases, on account of any hardship which any of the parties might suffer; because, the benefit which one individual might gain by taking advantage of the rule of law, or the injury which another might sustain, was not to be put in competition with the public interest in the regular and uniform administration of justice. The rules, however, might differ, and did considerably differ, in civil and criminal cases. The great object in both was the ascertaining of truth; but in criminal cases, the principle of protecting the defendant was carried farther than in civil actions; for the judge was not only held to be impartial, but by a species of humane fiction of the law, was considered as counsel for the accused. In the present case, there was no party except on one side, and certainly none that could suffer by any deviation from the ordinary rules. What were their lordships now doing? They were not trying colonel Browne or M. Vimercati—they were not trying any ordinary case that fell within the known limits of established law; but they were considering how they could punish without law—they were deliberating on a measure, the penalties of which were to be applied to acts, for which the individual charged with them was not amenable to any Taw previously existing. For it had been allowed on all hands, even by those who brought forward the bill, that if the illustrious individual who was its object, were tried by any of the laws which were supposed to apply to her offence, it would be impossible to find her guilty. On this ground, which was the foundation of the bill, its patrons had called on its opposers to show why it should not pass into a law. The opposing party had then doubtless a right to show that the allegations on which the bill was founded were false—to show that the facts were false, the testimony corrupt, and the whole grounds of the bill unsound and fallacious. In the case of this being shown, the dignity and character of the illustrious party would be preserved; because, on showing that the charges were founded in falsehood, their lordships would not pass the bill: for the whole proceeding was a measure of expediency; and surely there was no man in that House who would say, that without any proof of guilt it would be expedient to inflict punishment. But who was the other

733
party in the bill? That party was said to be the state. It was said to be expedient for the interests of the state, that an individual committing certain acts should be degraded from her rank in the state; although by those acts she had violated no law by which degradation was declared to be the punishment attending them. Their lordships had adopted the part of the state in this case, by ordering the bill to be proceeded in, and by commanding the attorney-general to appear for the purpose of opening the case for the bill, and of bringing forth the proofs in support of that case. They were now deliberating on the question whether they would exercise their legislative functions in this way. But it also now became a question for their consideration, whether a conspiracy had not been entered into to deceive them by false evidence? He did not charge the conspiracy against the prosecutor; he did not charge it against the party to the bill; he did not charge it against the Milan commission; nor was he bound to prove the connexion of any of those parties with it. But what he would say was this—"Do not pass this bill until you ascertain whether, and how far you have been misled." It was sufficient to induce them to go into the proposed examination, that there appeared reason to suspect the existence of a conspiracy. It was not necessary that it should be got up by agents of this country; it might be the work of foreign powers. But it mattered not by whom it was hatched. This might eventually appear to be a conspiracy, in which both foreign as well as British agents were employed. But how was this conspiracy to be got at, unless the whole of the agents employed were known, as well as the parties for which they were to be considered as responsible? A notable argument had, indeed, been used—namely, that they ought to confine their inquiries as to the abettors of corruption, if any there were, to the witnesses who had been examined at their lordships bar. In reply to this argument he should say, that these were exactly not the persons to whom they ought to confine their inquiry respecting the imputed corruption; for the persons fed and nurtured at the pampered board of corruption were not likely in person to come forward, and run the risk of detection: on the contrary, they were most probably engaged in the underhand machinations of a system to
734
promote, through the means of others, the main object of their activity. It was not likely that the corrupt agents themselves would run the risk of being stopped in the cause; nor indeed, if they did come forward in person, could it well be expected that they who had sworn falsely, and had been suborners of perjury elsewhere, would speak the truth for their own detection, when they appeared as witnesses in the cause. It was, he thought, obviously impossible to bring to light the acts of such men, except by the failure of some of their efforts to corrupt individuals which individuals might afterwards confront those who attempted to suborn them. The inquiry into these facts had, he thought, become imperative, not indeed for the parties in this cause, but for the honour and dignity of that House. Would their lordships not think it a direct attack and gross outrage upon their privileges, if it were discovered that any of the agents employed in a bill legislatively and judicially before them, should have dared to prop up that bill by the production of tainted evidence, or by an attempt, to obtain it? The House was bound to dispose of the bill according to the evidence adduced by the promoters of it; but, was it nothing to ascertain in what manner that evidence had been collected? Was it nothing to show that the fountain from which it was drawn was corrupted, and that truth could not flow from such a source? Was it nothing to show this from those who had refused the proffered bribe, and who declared the agent that tendered it? Did any body, in point of fact, doubt the agency of Vimercati in this cause? Nobody could now doubt the agency of either colonel Browne or Mr. Powell; for the latter, by his refusal to give the letter of the former, clearly established the direct agency of both. If, with these palpable facts before their lordships, with these proceedings of agents so long engaged in collecting testimony, they should deem it right to reject, in the present stage of their proceedings, the only inquiry which could make their future progress safe, then indeed he should be obliged to confess, that he saw no safety for the administration of justice there—that he saw no hope of the salutary protection of the community, no safeguard against the recurrence of dark and dubious means to entrap testimony destined to sap the foundation of justice. Where was this

735
protection to be found, if parties were, among themselves, to be permitted, for two years, to originate this cause in a foreign country, to corrupt and suborn witnesses, to transmit written depositions, and have them sworn to, before the parties making them were brought before the proper legal authorities; and then to be considered as irresponsible, as men whose acts were altogether to be deemed alien from the inquiry? Were their lordships to be shut from the knowledge of such facts, at the moment when they were called upon to act upon the evidence so impugned? Were they to turn their eyes from the offer to prove the polluted source from which such evidence came? The moment they so decided, in vain would they shelter themselves under the expediency of acting by rules; they would at once appear to the public, not as honest and unbiassed judges, but as parties in the charge of corruption in which the agents were involved, and for a purpose injurious to the interests of that public, and disgracing the functions with which they were intrusted for the administration of justice.
Lord Mannersconsidered the question now before the House to be one of great importance. It was this—whether, under the circumstances of the present case, they would be justified in making it an exception from those rules, which were prescribed for governing cases of the like character in the courts below? It was expedient, in his opinion, to consider the reason upon which these rules, as applied to the evidence of agents, were founded, before they resolved to depart from them. The law as affecting the employer and agent was clear. The employer, for every purpose, must necessarily be bound by the declarations and acts of his agent. This was a plain rule, arising out of the necessity of the case. Before, however, the acts of a supposed agent became binding upon an employer, it was absolutely essential that his relationship of agent should be clearly ascertained. To apply this rule to the present case:—commissioners had been employed to inquire into certain acts charged to have been committed by the individual accused at their lordships' bar, and it was clear, that whatever those commissioners might have done, or whatever they might have authorized others to do, must be received in evidence in the present inquiry. That was a proposition clearly understood.
736
But the declarations and acts of persons not employed by those commissioners, it was equally clear, must be altogether rejected. If this were not the case, any unprincipled fellow might defeat the ends of justice, by assuming a character which did not belong to him, and, under that assumption, committing acts of the most flagitious nature. Any act, therefore, that any unauthorized party had done, could not be received for the purpose of discrediting the witnesses in this case. He confessed that of all others, he considered the principles which bound the courts below—principles which had been sanctioned by time, and found, by experience, to be the best for the attainment of truth—were the most desirable to be adopted by their lordships in the discharge of their important duty on the present occasion. Upon this ground, he should vote that the question proposed should be submitted to the learned Judges, persuaded, as he was, that the rules by which the courts of law were bound, were the best calculated for the safe and substantial administration of justice.
The Earl of Donoughmorewas happy that the opinion of the learned Judges would be interposed on the present occasion; because, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the bias of his mind rather induced him to open the door as I wide as possible to the attainment of truth; a course which might, from the view which he now took of the arguments before the House, tend rather to obviate than to assist the general cause of justice. He could not help, on this occasion, animadverting upon the wide range of observation in which noble lords on his side of the House had indulged, upon a mere abstract question, as to whether certain evidence should or should not be received at their lordships' bar. He wanted to know what those observations had to do with this question, or upon what principle of justice it was, that they were called upon to listen to a long line of argument on the subject of a supposed conspiracy? Were they now trying a case of conspiracy? If grounds existed for charging the Milan commissioners, or his majesty's ministers, with conspiracy, surely the time for examining that charge had not yet arrived. They had heard a great deal of eloquence, sometimes a great deal of misrepresentation, both prose and verse, which he thought might have been spared; and they had heard a great deal of inflamma-

737
tory language which he thought ought to have been spared. Whether this were ludicrous, or whether it were serious; whether it were the spontaneous effusions of learned or unlearned persons, or whether it arose from side-wind hints within or without the bar, still he thought that such a course of proceeding was greatly to be condemned. The noble lord concluded by reiterating his satisfaction that the question at issue had been referred to the learned Judges.
Earl Grosvenorconsidered the present question of the greatest possible importance; and although he had not yet troubled their lordships on this subject, he was anxious shortly to state his reasons for thinking that this question ought not, at the present moment, to be submitted to the Judges. He wished to God that the whole question were brought to a decision! He considered the measure as objectionable and unconstitutional in every point of view, and therefore his mind was made up as to the vote he should ultimately give. With regard to the immediate point under the observation of the House, whatever might be the decision of the Judges, he thought that their lordships should not be bound by technical objections, and that they should unreservedly enter upon an examination of the conduct, not alone of Vimercati, but of every person who had been found acting in this mysterious case. It was said, that this was not the time to enter into an examination as to the character of this conspiracy; but he contended, that, of all others, this was the season when this subject should be fully investigated; for it was now that the conspiracy had begun to develope itself. This was its dawn, and the present was the only time forgetting at the truth. He by no means wished to disguise the difficulty which arose from the circumstance that Vimercati was not in this country to be produced. But whose fault was that? It was not a difficulty which ought to be allowed to operate as a gross hardship on the accused. The noble earl opposite had too much manliness, he was sure, to deny the agency of Vimercati; more particularly since Restelli's case had thrown doubts upon the manner in which the witnesses had been collected. All they knew now respecting Restelli was, that strong suspicions attached to his share of the business. That he had offered money was directly alleged; and that he might have
738
been sent out of the way to screen himself from the consequences of such detection was by no means impossible, though he did not mean to assert that such was the fact. If the case had been conducted by English witnesses, then there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the respective share of: each; but here, when mixed; up with the agency of foreigners, the discovery became more perplexed and difficult. He still thought a short bill, now that the other House of Parliament was about to sit, might be brought in, compelling the residence here of the witnesses until the case should be terminated; otherwise he saw no prospect of rendering them responsible for their evidence, particularly after what had occurred in Restelli's case.
Lord Redesdaleobserved, that it would be useless to address any arguments to the noble earl who had just sat down, that noble earl having declared, that he had made up his mind on the subject. The point on which their lordships were now called upon to decide was, whether a question should now be put to the witness, although it was of a nature not permitted by those rules which the wisdom and experience of ages had determined were essential to the sound and regular administration of justice? Why, in this particular case, those rules ought to be departed from, he was utterly at a loss to conceive. If those rules were not effective to the production of the truth, they ought to be abandoned every where; if they were so effective, they were universal in their character, and ought to be invariably maintained. For his part, he knew not how the honour and life of any individual could be safe, if those rules were departed from. Although his own opinion was that which he had already expressed, he was very desirous to have the assistance of the learned Judges, whose long legal habits and constant experience so eminently qualified them for aiding their lordships in the consideration of the question; that should he find they differed from him on any point of this description, he should be very careful indeed before he determined to act on his own opinion.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he would shortly trouble their lordships by stating the grounds upon which he thought this question ought to be submitted to the learned Judges. The House had been now between thirty and forty days en-

739
gaged in the present proceeding, and up to this time, by common consent, they had agreed to abide by the rules of evidence; as administered in the courts below. If those rules had not their foundation in the principles of truth and justice, then the sooner they were altered, the better. It became, then, important that they should satisfy themselves whether they had better maintain their consistency by still adhering to the rules in the courts below, or whether they could venture to strike out into a new path, and make rules for themselves of a different character. If, upon full consideration, they thought the safer course would be to adhere to those rules which had been for ages deemed the best calculated to aid the administration of justice, then he thought it, for their satisfaction, material that they should ascertain, from the proper authorities, what was the rule of practice as applicable to the present point. If the learned Judges were to determine that the proposed question might be asked, he put it to those noble lords who were now of that opinion, whether they would not feel much satisfactory confirmation by such a statement? If, on the other hand, the opinion of the Judges should be, that the question ought not to be put, their lordships would then have to consider all that had passed, and all that must yet pass on the subject, and inquire why they were to be called upon to depart from the principles on which they had hitherto acted, and let in an unprecedented laxity to their proceedings? A great deal had been said about bills of Pains and Penalties, and Impeachments, and other things, which were wholly unconnected with the immediate question before their lordships. He would make only this remark—that if their lordships continued strictly to observe the rules of evidence in the present proceeding by a bill of pains and penalties, it would be hereafter extremely difficult for any man to show that such a proceeding was unconstitutional, or to deny that it was infinitely more favourable to the person accused, than a proceeding by Impeachment. As to the witnesses, he would not say a word with respect to them, but that every one was entitled, until the close of the proceedings, to be considered as a person against whom their lordships were not justified in advancing a charge of corruption. He did not mean to deny that there were witnesses whose testimony
740
ought to be received with scrupulousness and jealousy; but if the testimony of any of those persons who had been so loudly attacked, should eventually prove true, he would ask whether such a witness, ultimately set right, would not have great reason to complain of those who had used such language as he (the lord chancellor) had heard on the subject? The ground which he took was of mighty importance in all cases, and especially in the case of a bill of pains and penalties, which was to be sent down to the other House of Parliament, to abide by the general rules of evidence; admitting, at the same time, the possible existence of a case in which a departure from those rules would be justifiable. Reverting to the decision of yesterday, the noble and learned lord observed, that he had then stated, that if the learned Judges gave an opinion differing from his own, on their opinion he was prepared to act. On the present occasion he would follow exactly the same course. But, taking into his consideration all the circumstances of the case, he should not deal honestly by their lordships, if he did not allow that, on the present occasion, there was doubt enough in his mind to make him at least wish for the assistance of the learned Judges upon it. With respect to the words of the question, he admitted that the expression "civil action" might be struck out as unnecessary, and the question be confined to a capital offence.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he wished to offer a few words on the subject. It was not his intention to protract his remarks to any length, not because he did not consider the proposition under their lordships consideration of great importance, but because the merits of the case had been more forcibly stated than he could hope to state them, by other noble lords, and more especially in the comprehensive, able and constitutional speech of his noble and learned friend on the bench behind him. Far as he should be from considering himself bound by the opinion of the Judges on the question which it was proposed to submit to those learned persons, he did not rise to oppose that particular proposition, since it appeared that to obtain that opinion would be satisfactory to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, as well as to other noble lords. But in order that the answer to the question should be satisfactory to any body, it appeared to him to

741
be necessary that the question should have a precise reference to the case as stated by the counsel at the bar. He was not sure that the way in which the question was proposed to be put, would not have the same effect as would be produced by expressing it in another manner; but certainly he understood, that the object of the counsel at the bar was, to prove, not that an attempt had been made to bribe a witness actually to give evidence against her majesty, but that an attempt had been made to abstract from that witness certain papers in his possession, which were necessary to her majesty's defence. It might be that the terms of the proposed question were applicable to both cases, but to him it would certainly be more satisfactory, if the question to be put were drawn up in such terms, as would point to the alleged attempt to injure her majesty by the abstraction of papers necessary to her defence.—Having thrown out this observation on the wording of the question, he would say a few words as to what he considered ought to be the course to be pursued by their lordships, after the opinion of the learned Judges should have been communicated. He perfectly agreed with the noble and learned lord under the gallery, that it was material that their lordships should take into their view the extent to which undue practices might have been resorted to by the agents for her majesty; and that they should not launch into a kind of inquiry in which those agents might be enabled to deceive them by the creation of a fictitious agency on the other side. It was on that ground alone that he had felt any hesitation on the proposition which had been made by his noble friend near him; because, although it was not probable that such a person as Riganti should be employed for such a purpose by the agents for her majesty, there was not enough to satisfy their lordships that such a thing was altogether impossible. But, with respect to Vimercati, could any one of their lordships, looking at the evidence which had been adduced at this bar, believe it possible that by any delusion however skilfully contrived, that person, evidently acting with the Milan commission, and in constant correspondence with the agents for the bill in this country, could, throughout the whole of that time, be in fact a corrupt agent of the Queen's attempting to deceive their lordships in her favour? He affirmed that the thing was utterly impos-
742
sible; and therefore that no such Inconvenience as that apprehended by the noble and learned lord could result from an inquiry into the conduct of Vimercati.—It had been urged by the noble and learned lord, and by the noble earl opposite, that their lordships bad, in the course of the present inquiry, adhered invariably to the rules of evidence by which the courts below were governed, and therefore that to depart from those rules in this instance would be attended with material injustice and inconvenience. He had heard this assertion with astonishment, for he perfectly recollected, that their lordships had not invariably adhered and considered themselves bound by those rules. He remembered that in a case which made against her majesty, on an occasion precisely analogous to the present, the opinion of the Judges having been taken with respect to a question which it was proposed to put, and that opinion being adverse to the putting of the question, the question was nevertheless deliberately put and that without a single word in opposition to it from the noble and learned lords who now contended for a strict adherence to the ordinary laws of evidence. In support of this assertion he referred their lordships to the 455th page of the printed Minutes of Evidence. They would there find, that the attorney-general wishing to examine the witness, Sacchi, as to any conversation that Marietti had had with him, put the following question:—"Did Marietti make any observation upon the subject of your being a witness?"* To this question the attorney-general of the Queen objected. The consequence was, that it was referred to the opinion of the learned Judges; and in one of those answers which, in the course of the present proceeding had been delivered with so much clearness and ability, and in a manner calculated to throw so much light on the subjects on which they bore, the learned lord chief justice then sitting at their lordships table said, he thought the counsel had a right, upon re-examination, to ask all questions which might be proper to draw forth an explanation of the sense and meaning of the expressions used by the witness on cross-examination, if they were in themselves doubtful, and also of the motive by which the witness had been induced to use those expressions; "but," he added, "I think he has no right to go
* See Vol. 2 p. 1294.

743
further, and to introduce matter new In itself, and not suited to the purpose of explaining either the expressions or the motive of the witness. And as many things may pass in one and the same conversation relating to the subject of the conversation (as in the case put by your lordships, the declaration of a witness that he was to be a witness in a cause or prosecution) which do not relate to his motive, or to the meaning of his expressions, I think the counsel is not entitled to re-examine to the conversation, to the extent to which such conversation may relate to his being one of the witnesses, which is the point proposed in your lordships question to the Judges."*
Lord Redesdaleobserved, that if the noble marquis would refer to the first part of the learned lord chief justice's remarks, he would find the matter fully explained.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he would read to their lordships the early part of the lord chief justice's observations. They were as follow:—"I agree with the other Judges in considering the two questions proposed to us by your lordships to be, with reference to the point on which our opinion has been asked, substantially one; and that question, as proposed by the House, contains these words—'The witness being re-examined, had 'stated what induced him to mention to 'C. D. what he had so told him;' by which I understand that the witness had fully explained his whole motive and inducement to inform C. D, that he was to be one of the witnesses; and so understanding the matter, and there being no ambiguity in the words, 'I am to be one 'of the witnesses,' I think there is no distinction to be made between the previous and subsequent parts of the conversation; and I think myself bound to answer your lordships question in the negative."—What he wished to point out to their lordships attention was this; that notwithstanding the opinion which had had been thus given by the learned Judges, they would find, that the following question had actually been afterwards put to the witness Sacchi: "Did any one of the Marietti's whom you are acquainted with in London, make any proposition to you touching the evidence you were to give in this cause?" What he contended for was, that the answer to this question brought
* See Vol. 2, p. 1308.
744
out precisely that which in the opinion of the learned Judges could not be permitted to be brought out, in conformity to the rules of the courts below, namely, the conversation between Marietti and Sacchi. Their lordships, on the mere suspicion that Marietti might be an agent of the Queen's, meddling with a witness, although there was no proof whatever of the fact, were induced, in order to elicit the truth, to allow of a question being put, for the purpose of ascertaining the conversation which had taken place; and they had thereby departed from the principle which the narrow rules of the courts below prescribed. He maintained that on that, and on other grounds which he would not detain their lordships by specifying, and more especially on the ground of the allegation of the counsel at the bar, that a conspiracy existed against their client, it was the duty of their lordships to admit, at the time when it was most important it should be admitted, an inquiry into the nature and extent of the alleged conspiracy. He was utterly at a loss to conceive now any man could believe that the alleged conspiracy ought to be inquired into, and yet contend that it ought not to be inquired into at that time! If not inquired into at that moment, it could not be inquired into hereafter; or if it were, the inquiry could not be followed by the beneficial result which might flow from it if it were put at once. Good God! the allegation of the counsel at the bar was, that a conspiracy existed to prove certain acts against her majesty. On the evidence which it was alleged was the fruit of that conspiracy, their lordships were proceeding to depose the Queen, and having removed her from the throne, they were then to set themselves about inquiring whether the evidence on which they had done so was actually the produce of conspiracy or not [Hear, hear!]. It was gravely proposed to their lordships to pass a bill deposing her majesty, and after having sent that bill to the other House to require their concurrence, and having also required the assent of his majesty to the measure, then to commence a new inquiry, to ascertain whether or not the alleged facts on which they had so acted were the offspring of conspiracy. Why, perhaps by the time that this new inquiry was terminated his majesty might have married another wife [Hear, hear!]. When that was done, it would be a great reparation to his majesty (for to his ma-

745
jesty such a proceeding would be highly injurious), to her majesty, and to the country at large, if it should be found that all the alleged facts on which the bill of degradation had been agreed to, had their source and origin in a scandalous and infamous conspiracy; and that their lordships must set themselves to pass another bill of divorce, by which the new queen should be deposed, and the former queen reinstated. [Hear, hear!]. The real question for their lordships was, in his opinion, what was the best way of bringing out the facts of the case, on whatever principle that might be done. Quite aware of the danger to which the noble and learned lord under the gallery, had adverted, he was unequivocally of opinion that at least as far as related to the members of the Milan commission, every one of whom might be justly considered as forming a part of the agency for the measure, their lordships were bound to hear and examine, and conclude respecting the conduct which had been observed in the prosecution of the proceeding. On these grounds he should feel it his duty to vote for enlarging the rules of ordinary courts to such an extent as might render them applicable to the case before their lordships—a case for which there was no precedent, and which he trusted would never afford a precedent for future times.
Lord Kingapologised to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack for making the observation, but, he conceived that the words in which the question was framed, would still not exactly meet the case.
The Lord Chancellorreplied, that no apology was due from any noble lord for such an observation. On the contrary, it was conferring a great obligation on him. He was anxious to frame the question so, as to render the answer as satisfactory to their lordships, as, under all the circumstances of the case, could be expected.
Lord Kingobserved, that it had been contended there was no proof of Vimercati's agency. In contravention of this assertion, the noble lord read an extract from the Minutes of Evidence, by which it appeared that Vimercati had agreed to give ten livres a day to a witness in support of the bill. He should vote against putting the question to the Judges, let it assume whatever shape it might; but still he thought, that the part of the evidence which related to Vimercati's agency, should be referred to in the question.
After some conversation, it was at
746
length agreed, that the following Questions should be proposed to the Judges:

1. "If in the trial of an indictment for a capital offence, or any crime, evidence had been given upon the cross-examination of witnesses examined in chief in support thereof, from which it appeared A. B., not examined as a witness, had been employed by the party preferring the indictment as an agent to procure and examine evidence and witnesses in support of the indictment, and the party indicted should propose, in the course of the defence, to examine C. D. as a witness to prove that A. B. had offered a bribe to E. F. in order to induce him to give testimony touching the matter in the indictment, E. F. not being a witness examined in support of the indictment, or examined before it was so proposed to examine C. D., would the courts below, according to their usage and practice, allow C. D. to be examined for the purpose aforesaid, or could such witness, according to law, be so examined, if the counsel, employed in support of the prosecution, objected to such examination?

2. "If in the trial of an indictment for a capital offence, or other crime, evidence had been given upon the cross-examination of witnesses examined in chief in support thereof, from which it appeared that A. B., not examined as a witness, had been employed by the party preferring the indictment as an agent to procure and to examine evidence and witnesses in support of the indictment, and the party indicted should propose in the course of the defence to examine G. H. as a witness to prove, that A. B had offered him a bribe to induce him to bring to him papers belonging to the party indicted, G. H. not having been examined as a witness in support of the indictment, would the courts below, according to their usage and practice, allow G. H. to be examined for the purpose aforesaid, or could such witness, according to law, be so examined, if the counsel, employed in support of the prosecution, objected to such examination?"

The learned Judges desired leave to withdraw for a time; which was granted accordingly. Having been absent for an hour, the learned judges returned, and prayed for leave for further time to consider the said Questions till to-morrow morning; leave was granted accordingly, and the lord chancellor moved an adjournment, when,
The Earl of Carnarvonrose. He said, he did not conceive that their lordships could be more unprofitably employed than in sitting in that place discussing technical questions; because it appeared to him, that the point of law which had been so much debated had no connexion whatever with the point of duty, on which they would ultimately be called to decide for themselves. Whether this alleged conspiracy was proved or was not proved, the real question for their lordships' decision must be, whether they would yield to the demand of ministers, first to give them the human sacrifice for which they thirsted, and, when they had immolated the victim, to proceed to inquire by what foul crimes, by what wicked artifices, that victim had been dragged to the altar? This was the most extraordinary proposition that a minister of the Crown had ever assumed, the right of submitting to their lordships; but still it was the true question now before them. Their lordships might amuse themselves by putting questions to the learned Judges, but it was impossible for them to get rid of the question which he had stated; and therefore, he thought they had better at once meet that question boldly and manfully. But if they thought proper to wait for a decision on this point of law, which, he repeated was wholly irrelevant to the point of duty, it would seem as if they were afraid of the great question. He would not apologise for this short appeal, which, to some, might appear to be a waste of time, because he was convinced that they could not waste their time worse than by pursuing the line of proceeding which they had adopted.
Lord Erskinerose for the purpose of proposing, that another question should be referred to the learned Judges, with the view of ascertaining, whether evidence like that on which their lordships had been debating, and on the propriety of receiving which, no decision had yet taken place, might not, under particular circumstances, be legalized, and rendered admissible. Although the question put to the learned Judges might be by them decided in the affirmative, he would assume that a negative decision had taken place, and under that supposition, he would put the following question:
3. "Supposing that, according to the rules of law, evidence of a conspiracy to suborn witnesses in support of any prosecution ought not to be admitted, except
748
such as directly applies to a prosecutor or an agent employed by him, general evidence of such a conspiracy may not, nevertheless, in the first instance, be received, as a preliminary step to affecting the prosecutor himself, or any agent employed by him; and whether the same rule would not apply as to receiving evidence from a defendant indicted, seeking to establish the existence of a conspiracy to suborn witnesses against him?"
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that though he did not see how this question bore on the proposition in dispute, yet the same principle which led him yesterday to state, that if any noble lord wished to have the opinion of the Judges, he should feel obliged to him for demanding it, and that he would look with deference to the opinion of those learned persons, whatever his own might chance to be, now led him to think that the question of his noble and learned friend ought to be put.
The Question was referred to the Judges, and the House adjourned.