THE
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
T. C. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. II.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE
TO
THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1820.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY T. C. HANSARD, PETERBOROUGH-COURT, FLEET-STREET;
FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME,
AND BROWN; J. M. RICHARDSON; BLACK, KINGSBURY, PARBURY, AND ALLEN;
J. HATCHARD & SON; J. RIDGWAY & SONS; E. JEFFREY & SON; RODWELL &
MARTIN; R. H. EVANS; BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1821.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. KING'S MESSAGES.
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
V. PETITIONS.
VI. REPORTS.
VII. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
1820.
Page
1820. June 27. Earl Grey's Motion for discharging the order for the meeting of the Secret Committee on the Papers relating to the Conduct of the Queen
1
1820. July 3. Report of the Committee on Foreign Trade
139
1820. July 4. Report of the Secret Committee on the Papers relating to the Conduct of the Queen
167
1820. July 5. Alien Bill
194
Petition from the Queen desiring to be heard by her Counsel on the subject matter of the Report of the Secret Committee on the Papers relating to the Conduct of her Majesty
195
Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty brought in by the Earl of Liverpool, and read the first time
207
1820. July 6. Petition from the Queen protesting against the proceeding against her by Bill, and desiring that her Counsel may be admitted to state her Claims at the Bar of their Lordships
230
Mr. Brougham, her Majesty's Attorney-general, heard in support of the Claims of her Majesty
232
Mr. Brougham further heard on the Mode of Proceeding to be had on the Bill of Pains and Penalties, and on the Time when those Proceedings should take place
236
Mr. Denman, her Majesty's Solicitor-general, heard to the same points
248
1820. July 10. Motion for reading the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty a second time on the 17th of August
304
1820. July 11. Petition from the Queen desiring to be furnished with a List of the Witnesses to be examined against her
358
1820. July 13. Marriage Act Amendment Bill
419
1820. July 14. Lord Erskine's Motion, That a List of Witnesses, intended to be examined in support of the Bill of Pains and Penalties, be forthwith delivered to her Majesty's Legal Advisers
428
1820. July 17. The Earl of Lauderdale's Motion for Papers relating to Parga and the Ionian Islands
485
Marriage Act Amendment Bill
489
Criminal Law—Privately Stealing Bill
491
1820. July 18. Criminal Law—Capital Felonies Repeal Bill
524
State of the Navy
528
Alien Bill
529
1820. July 19. Petition from the City of London praying the House to reject the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty
551
Marriage Act Amendment Bill
553
1820. July 20. Irish Court of Chancery Bill
569
1820. July 24. Petition from the Queen desiring to have a Specification of the Places in which the Criminal Acts are charged to have been committed
574
1820. Aug. 17. PROCEEDINGS ON THE BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY
612
Motion by the Duke of Leinster, That the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill be rescinded
612
Debate on the Earl of Liverpool's Motion, that the Counsel be called in
613
Mr. Brougham, her Majesty's Attorney General, prays to be heard in this Stage of the Proceeding against the Principle of the Bill
634
The House agree that her Majesty's Counsel may urge their Objections to the Principle of the Bill, either at that time, or after the Evidence should be closed
638
Mr. Brougham heard against the Principle of the Bill
638
1820. Aug. 18. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
651
Mr. Denman, her Majesty's Solicitor-general, heard against the Principle of the Bill
651
Mr. Attorney-general (Sir Robert Gifford) heard in support of the Principle of the Bill
674
Mr. Solicitor-general (Sir John Copley) heard in support of the Principle of the Bill
689
Mr. Brougham heard in Reply
698
1820. Aug. 19. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
710
Debate on Lord King's Motion, That it is not necessary for the Public Safety, or the Security of the Government, that the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty should pass into a law
710
Mr. Attorney General heard in part to open the Allegations of the Bill
741
1820. Aug. 21. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
774
Mr. Attorney-general further and fully heard to open the Allegations of the Bill
774
Teodoro Majoochi examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
805
1820. Aug. 22. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
837
Teodoro Majoochi further examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
837
Teodoro Majoochi cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
841
1820. Aug. 23. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
869
Teodoro Majoochi further Cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
871
Teodoro Majoochi re-examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
874
Teodoro Majoochi examined by the Lords
881
Gaetano Paturzo examined by Mr. Attorney-general
889
Gaetano Paturzo cross-examined by Mr. Denman
896
Gaetano Paturzo examined by the Lords
900
1820. Aug. 24 Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
907
Vincenzo Gargiulo called in and sworn
907
Mr. Williams, one of her Majesty's Counsel, submits, that the Witness should be asked, Whether the Oath administered to him was that which was most binding on his conscience?
907
Mr. Brougham heard in support of this Argument
910
Question thereupon put to the Judges
913
Lord Chief Justice Abbott delivers the Opinion of the Judges
914
Vincenzo Gargiulo examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
915
Vincenzo Gargiulo cross-examined by Mr. Williams
923
Vincenzo Gargiulo re-examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
928
Vincenzo Gargiulo examined by the Lords
928
Teodoro Majoochi again cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
934
Teodoro Majoochi examined by the Lords
937
Francesco Birollo examined by Mr. Parke
937
1820. Aug. 25. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
940
Francesco Birollo further examined by Mr. Parke
942
Francesco Birollo cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
944
Francesco Birollo examined by the Lords
946
Samuel George Pechell, esq. Post Captain in the Royal Navy, examined by Mr. Attorney-general
948
Samuel George Pechell, esq. Post Captain in the Royal Navy, examined by the Lords
950
Thomas Briggs, esq. Post Captain in the Royal Navy, examined by Mr. Attorney-general
951
Thomas Briggs, esq. Post Captain in the Royal Navy, cross-examined by Mr. Denman
953
Thomas Briggs, esq. Post Captain in the Royal Navy, examined by the Lords
954
Pietro Cuchi examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
958
Pietro Cuchi cross-examined by Mr. Williams
961
Pietro Cuchi examined by the Lords
966
Meidge Barbara Kress examined by Mr. Attorney-general
969
1820. Aug. 26. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
972
Meidge Babara Kress further examined by Mr. Attorney-general
972
Meidge Babara Kress further cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
975
Debate on the Mode of cross-examining the Witness
983
The Counsel against the Bill requested by the House to state, whether they were desirous of proposing any and what, departure in these Proceedings from the usual course of Cross-examination
994
1820. Aug. 28. Further Proceedings on the Bill, of Pains and Penalties
997
Debate on a Motion made by Lord Manners, That the Lord Chancellor be directed to instruct the Counsel against the Bill, that if at any time they should be desirous to re-examine a Witness already cross-examined they must state a Case as the ground of that Re-examination
997
Counsel called in and informed, that, "It having been proposed to withdraw the permission to her Majesty's Counsel, of reserving their Cross-examination, and to direct that they should proceed in their Cross-examination in the usual course, but with a full claim, on circumstances or facts not now known to them coming to their knowledge, to call back those witnesses for further Cross-examination" if they were desirous of being heard against this proposed mode of proceeding in cross-examination, the House would be ready to hear them
1016
Mr. Brougham heard against the proposed mode of proceeding in Cross-examination
1016
Mr. Denman heard against the proposed mode of proceeding in cross-examination
1027
Mr. Attorney-general heard in support of the proposed mode of proceeding in Cross-examination
1034
Mr. Solicitor-general heard in support of the proposed mode of proceeding in Cross-examination
1037
Mr. Brougham heard in Reply
1043
1820. Aug. 29. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1049
Debate on the Earl of Harrowby's Motion, "That under the Special circumstances of the Case, the House do consent to the Counsel for the Queen proceeding in their Cross-examination in the manner they proposed, namely, that they may be at liberty to cross-examine Witnesses immediately after the Examination in chief, to such extent as they may think proper, with liberty to call back the Witnesses, at a future time, for such further cross-examination as they may desire"
1049
Debate on Lord Erskine's Motion, "That the Counsel for the Bill be instructed to deliver to her Majesty's Counsel a List of the remaining Witnesses, together with a specification of the Names and Places to which their Evidence is to apply"
1066
Meidge Barbara Kress further cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
1077
Meidge Barbara Kress further examined by the Lords
1085
Giuseppe Bianche examined by Mr. Parke
1087
Giuseppe Bianche cross-examined by Mr. Denman
1089
Giuseppe Bianche re-examined by Mr. Parke
1091
1820. Aug. 30. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1092
Paolo Raggazoni examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
1092
Paolo Raggazoni cross-examined by Dr. Lushington
1095
Paolo Raggazoni re-examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
1098
Gerolamo Mejani examined by Mr. Parke
1099
Gerolamo Mejani cross-examined by Mr. Tindal
1100
Gerolamo Mejani re-examined by Mr. Parke
1103
Paolo Raggazoni again examined by the Lords
1103
Paolo Oggioni examined by Mr. Attorney-general
1104
Paolo Oggioni cross-examined by Mr. Wilde
1105
Paolo Oggioni re-examined by Mr. Attorney-general
1108
Paolo Oggioni examined by the Lords
1109
Louisa Demont examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
1111
1820. Aug. 31. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1126
Louisa Demont further examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
1126
1820. Sept. 1. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1157
Louisa Demont cross-examined by Mr. Williams
1157
Questions submitted to the Judges, "Whether in the courts below, a party on Cross-examination would be allowed to represent, in the statement of a question, the Contents of a Letter," &c
1183
Lord Chief Justice Abbott delivers the Opinions of the Judges
1183
Question submitted to the Judges, "Whether, when a witness is cross-examined, and upon the production of a Letter to the Witness under cross-examination, the Witness admits that he wrote that letter, the Witness can be examined in the courts below, whether he did or did not make statements, &c."
1191
Lord Chief Justice Abbott delivers the Opinions of the Judges
1191
Louisa Demont further cross-examined by Mr. Williams
1193
1820. Sept. 2. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1195
Louisa Demont further cross-examined by Mr. Williams
1196
Louisa Demont re-examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
1206
Louisa Demont examined by the Lords
1211
1820. Sept. 4. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1221
Copies of two Letters written by Louisa Demont
1221
Luigi Galdini examined by Mr. Parke
1233
Luigi Galdini cross-examined by Mr. Tindal
1236
Luigi Galdini re-examined by Mr. Parke
1237
Luigi Galdini examined by the Lords
1238
Alessandro Finetti examined by Mr. Attorney-general
1239
Domenico Brusa examined by Mr. Parke
1242
Antonio Bianchi examined by Mr. Attorney-general
1244
Antonio Bianchi examined by the Lords
1245
Giovanni Lucini examined by Mr. Parke
1246
Giovanni Lucini cross-examined by Mr. Denman
1247
Giovanni Lucini examined by the Lords
1247
Carlo Rancatti examined by Mr. Attorney-general
1247
Carlo Rancatti cross-examined by Mr. Williams
1249
Francesco Cassina examined by Mr. Parke
1249
Francesco Cassina cross-examined by Mr. Denman
1250
Giuseppe Restelli examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
1250
Giuseppe Restelli cross-examined by Mr. Denman
1252
Giuseppe Restelli examined by the Lords
1258
Giuseppe Galli examined by Mr. Parke
1258
Giuseppe Galli cross-examined by Mr. Williams
1260
Giuseppe Galli examined by the Lords
1261
Giuseppe Dell'Orto examined by Mr. Solicitor-general
1262
Giuseppe Dell'Orto cross-examined by Mr. Tindal
1263
Giuseppe Guggiari examined by Mr. Parke
1263
Giuseppe Guggiari cross-examined by Mr. Wilde
1264
Giuseppe Guggiari re-examined by Mr. Parke
1265
Giuseppe Guggiari examined by the Lords
1265
1820. Sept. 5. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1266
Giuseppe Sacchi examined by Mr. Attorney-general
1266
Giuseppe Sacchi cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
1275
Question submitted to the Judges, "Whether, according to the established practice of the Courts below, Counsel cross-examining are entitled, if the Counsel on the other side object to it, to ask a Witness whether he has made representations of a particular nature, not specifying in his question, whether the question refers to representations in Writing or in Words
1282
Lord Chief Justice Abbott delivers the Opinions of the Judges
1284
Giuseppe Sacchi further cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
1287
Giuseppe Sacchi re-examined by Mr. Attorney-general
1289
1820. Sept. 6. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1295
Mr. Brougham complains of a Misrepresentation in "The Morning Post" Newspaper
1298
Questions arising out of the question put to Giuseppe Sacchi, "Upon your saying that your were a Witness, did Marrietti make any observations upon the subject of your being a Witness?" submitted to the Judges
1296
Opinion of Mr. Justice Richardson
1302
Mr. Justice Best
1302
Mr. Baron Garrow
1306
Mr. Justice Burrough
1306
Mr. Justice Holroyd
1306
Mr. Baron Graham
1307
Lord Chief Baron Richards
1307
Lord Chief Justice Dallas
1307
Lord Chief Justice Abbott
1307
Giuseppe Sacchi further re-examined by Mr. Attorney-general
1311
Giuseppe Sacchi further examined by the Lords
1312
Mr. Attorney-general applies to the House for an Adjournment, in consequence of the absence of certain Witnesses
1320
Mr. Brougham heard against the Application
1321
Mr. Denman heard on the same side
1323
Mr. Attorney-general heard in reply
1324
1820. Sept. 7. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1330
Mr. Attorney-general withdraws the application for an Adjournment in consequence of the Absence of certain Witnesses
1330
Teodoro Majoochi further cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
1331
Teodoro Majoochi further re-examined by the Attorney-general
1337
Teodoro Majoochi further examined by the Lords
1338
Mr. Solicitor-general sums up the Evidence in support of the Bill
1345
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1820. June 28. Mr. Brougham's Motion for leave to bring in a Bill, for the better Education of the Poor in England and Wales
49
Mr. Daly's Motion for a Select Committee on the Disturbances existing in Ireland
91
1820. June 29. Female Offenders Whipping Bill
105
Lord John Russell's Motion for Papers relating to Parga
106
Mr. Maxwell's Motion for a Select Committee on the Distress of the Cotton Weavers
116
1820. June 30. Metropolis Turnpike Road's Bill
123
Irish Court of Chancery Bill
125
Criminal Laws—Privately Stealing in Shops Bill
137
Linen Bounties
138
Marriage Act Amendment Bill
139
1820. July 3. Limerick Election
141
East India Company's Volunteers Bill
142
Complaint against the Magistracy of Carlisle
143
King's Message respecting a Provision for the Royal Family
143
Private Property of the late King
153
King's-bench Proceedings Bill
155
Expense of the Coronation
156
Irish Court of Chancery Bill
167
1820. July 4. Mr. Hume's Resolutions relative to the Management and Collection of the several Branches of the Revenue
176
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Private Property of his late Majesty
190
1820. July 5. Petition from Norwich for two General Gaol Deliveries
216
Steam Engines Committee
217
Petition from Hugh Campbell respecting Celtic Literature
217
Scots Malt Duty
218
Grantham Election
221
Irish Tithes Bill
221
Provision for the late King's Officers and Servants
223
The Queen—Motion to examine the Lords' Journals to ascertain what Proceedings had taken place with respect to her Majesty
229
1820. July 6. Sir Ronald Fergusson's Motion for Papers relating to the Milan Commission
259
King's Message—Papers relating to the Conduct of the Queen
272
Excess of Spirit's Bill
285
Lottery Bill
290
1820. July 7. Postponement of the Coronation
291
Sir William Manners
291
Alien Bill
292
Union Duties Bill
300
Military in the City of London
303
1820. July 10. Sir William Manners
318
Ophthalmic Institution
321
Mr. Henry d'Esterre, the Recorder of Limerick, called to the Bar and Reprimanded by the Speaker
322
Alien Bill
324
1820. July 11. Grantham Election
361
Ophthalmic Institution
362
Mr. Martin of Galway's Complaint against "The Morning Herald"
362
Motion, that the Queen's Attorney and Solicitor-general, though Members of the House, should be permitted to attend the Bar of the House of Lords as Counsel for her Majesty
364
Education of the Poor Bill
365
Lord John Russell's Motion for an Address to his Majesty to shorten the term of Imprisonment awarded to Sir Manasseh Lopez
367
Dr. Lushington's Motion relative to the Establishment of a Bourbon Dynasty in South America
376
East India Company's Volunteers Bill
394
State of Westminster Abbey
395
1820. July 12. Grantham Election—Mr. R. A. Jervis reprimanded
396
Grantham Election—Resolution relative to the practice of paying money to Out-voters
397
The Queen's Attorney and Solicitor-general, though Members of the House, permitted to attend the Bar of the House of Lords, as Counsel for her Majesty
400
Audit Office
404
Alien Bill
405
Sale of Spirits Bill
417
1820. July 13. Petition from the Protestant Dissenters for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts
423
Barrack Agreement Bill
425
1820. July 14. Petition from Olive Serres Wilmot, stating herself to be the legitimate daughter of the late Duke of Cumberland
472
Mr. Hobhouse's Notice of a Motion relative to the Situation of the Jews
473
Barrack Agreement Bill
473
Irish Distillery Bill
474
1820. July 15. Dr. Lushington's Motion for Papers relating to the Queen's Plate
477
Petition of Mr. James Mills respecting Borough Influence
479
1820. July 17. Catholic Claims—Petition from the Roman Catholics of Dublin
496
Barrack Agreement Bill
496
Petition from the City of London praying the House to reject the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty
499
Dr. Lushington's Motion for Papers relating to the Queen's Plate
499
1820. July 18. Mr. Calcraft's Motion respecting Fees in the Court of Chancery
540
Barrack Agreement Bill
513
Report of the Committee on Foreign Trade
545
Sir William Manners discharged from Newgate
548
1820. July 24. Mr. Wetherell's Complaint of a Libel upon the Queen published in "Flindell's Western Luminary"
586
1820. July 25. Mr. Wetherell's Complaint of a Libel upon the Queen published in "Flindell's Western Luminary"
589
Reform of Parliament—Petition of George Edmonds
609
Landlords and Tenants Bill
611
The House adjourns to the 21st of August
611
1820. Aug. 21. Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty
825
Lord Francis Osborne's Motion for an Address to his Majesty praying him to prorogue the Parliament
825
The House adjourns to the 18th of September
837
III. KING'S MESSAGE.
1820. June 30. King's Message respecting a Provision for the Royal Family
124
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
1820. July 5. Copy of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty
212
V. PETITIONS.
1820. July 5. PETITION from the Queen desiring to be heard by her Counsel on the subject matter of the Report of the Secret Committee on the Papers relating to the Conduct of her Majesty
195
1820. July 6. PETITION from the Queen protesting against the Proceeding against her by Bill, and desiring that her Counsel may
be admitted to state her Claims at the Bar of their Lordships
230
1820. July 11. PETITION from the Queen desiring to be furnished with a List of the Witnesses to be examined against her
358
1820. July 24. PETITION from the Queen desiring to have a Specification of the places in which the Criminal Acts attributed to her are charged to have been committed
574
VI. REPORTS.
1820. July 4. REPORT of the Secret Committee of the House of Lords on the Papers relating to the Conduct of the Queen
167
1820. July 25. REPORT of the Committee of the House of Lords relative to the Enforcement of the Attendance of Peers during great and solemn Occasions
587
VII. LISTS.
1820. June 27. LIST of the Minority in the House of Lords, on Earl Grey's Motion for discharging the Order for the Meeting of the Secret Committee on the Papers relating to the Conduct of the Queen
49
1820. July 4. LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons on Mr. Hume's Resolutions relative to the Management and Collection of the several Branches of the Revenue
190
1820. July 7. LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons on the Second reading of the Alien Bill
300
1820. July 12. LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons on the third reading of the Alien Bill
417
1820. July 13. LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons on the Barrack Agreement Bill
428
1820. July 14. LIST of the Minority in the House of Lords, on Lord Erskine's Motion, That a List of Witnesses intended to be examined in support of the Bill of Pains and Penalties, be forthwith delivered to her Majesty's Legal Advisers
472
1820. July 17 LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons on the motion for receiving the Report of the Barrack Agreement Bill
498
1820. Aug. 17. LIST of the Minority in the House of Lords, on the Duke of Leinster's Motion for rescinding the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty
612
1820. Aug. 19. LIST of the Minority in the House of Lords on Lord King's Motion, That it is not necessary for the Public Safety, or the Security of the Government, that the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty should pass into a Law
710
1820. Aug. 29. LIST of the Minority and also of the Majority on the Earl of Harrowby's Motion, That the Counsel for the Queen be at liberty to cross-examine Witnesses immediately after the examination in chief, to such extent as they may think proper, with liberty to callback he Witnesses at a future time, for such further cross-examination as they may desire
1075
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
During the First Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Twenty-first Day of April 1820, in the First Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth
1820.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, June 27th, 1820.
SECRET COMMITTEE ON THE PAPERS
Earl Grey,
wishing to spare their lordships the pain of unnecessary discussion on a subject on which it was most desirable that discussion should be avoided, rose to ask the noble earl opposite, whether any thing had occurred since yesterday to induce him to delay the meeting of the secret committee on the papers relating to the conduct of her majesty, which had been so often suspended, and which was ordered to sit to-morrow.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had certainly, in consequence of that respectful attention which he thought due to the feelings of the House, and to the important nature of the subject, after the argument which had been heard at the bar, thought it his duty to propose that their lordships should be allowed twenty-four hours to consider whether what was stated in her majesty's petition, or what had been urged in its support, ought to induce them to make any change in the course of their proceeding. For his own part, he had no difficulty, upon the fullest consideration he was capable of giving to the subject, and after reference made to analogous proceedings on other occasions, which, though affording no direct precedent, might be in some measure similar, in declaring it to be his opinion that the course which had been at first adopted by their lordships, in appointing a secret committee, was that which was most fitting, with refer-
2
Earl Grey
said, he felt himself placed, in consequence of the noble lord's persisting in this measure, under the painful necessity of calling their lordships' attention to the grounds on which he proposed to submit to their consideration a motion for abandoning the course they had already adopted. Before, however, he proceeded to state the reasons which he hoped might induce their lordships to rescind the order they had made for the secret committee, he thought some apology must appear due from him for venturing to make such a proposition. It might seem, that, in taking on himself the task of persuading their lordships to abandon that course which they had chosen after mature deliberation, which the able arguments of his noble friend had not been able to prevent them from adopting, which they had repeatedly refused to alter, and which they had persevered in notwithstanding various adjournments, he manifested no little presumption in sup-
3
ex-parte,
4
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ipse pavet; nec se qui sit status, ipse fatctur
Scire ratis rector; nec quid jubeatve, vetetve:
Tanta mali moles, tantoque potentior arte est.
13
14
15
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had heard the speech of the noble earl with great surprise. The beginning of it contained a legal argument against the mode of proceeding adopted by their lordships, in which he said that the present was no party question, but that it ought to be decided by the principles of justice. How much, therefore, was he surprised to hear the noble earl, in the conclusion of his observations, so completely belying his professions, and making one of the most inflammatory party attacks that was ever made within the walls of parliament [Hear, hear!] This attack was general, and he (lord Liverpool) was prepared to repel it. He was prepared to appeal from the judgment of the noble earl, to the country, to parliament, and to posterity, and to be tried by them for the conduct pursued by himself and his colleagues for the last eight years. He was willing that their counsels and acts should be compared with the counsels and acts of the administration with which the noble earl had been connected. He would ask their lordships what now would have been the situation and prospects of the country, if the counsels of the noble earl and of his friends had been followed? He again declared that he was willing to be tried for the general conduct of admi-
16
17
ex parte
18
19
20
ipse dixit
21
22
Lord Erskine
said, he wished to give his opinion on the question at that early period of the debate, because he was the only person on that side of the House who had originally voted for a secret committee. His opinion with respect to the propriety of that vote was not since changed, but he differed from the proceedings of the noble lords opposite in many respects, so far as to render it impossible for him to continue longer on the committee. When the committee was first appointed he certainly felt great reluctance to be nominated as one of its members. Certainly he did not think, that according to the statute of Edward 3rd, there could be any impeachment. The House of Commons might, it was true, impeach; but their lordships were the judges, and would not consent to any proceeding which the law of England would not justify. He looked, however, to probable contingencies; and he thought then as he thought now, that it was not probable the House of Commons would prefer any impeachment for misdemeanor. But what was the state of things at present?—It was impossible when the committee was nominated to foresee the turn which affairs had taken. For the House of Commons, generally, and for many members of it individually, he entertained great respect. But he confessed his surprise at the proceeding they had adopted. He had already stated his opinion on the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy. When he looked at the act of Uniformity, he doubted if any power existed in the Crown to direct that omission. The words in the act were very strong. They stated, "That the names should be altered and changed, and suited to the occasion." It was evidently intended, however, only that the names should be changed, but not that the individuals should be omitted. In the address which had been voted to her majesty by the House of Commons, it was said,—"That this House, fully sensible of the objections which the queen
23
24
The Lord Chancellor
was anxious to state to their lordships the reasons by which he was actuated in the course that he took on the present occasion. His noble and learned friend who had just sat down, had surely forgotten that the question of the omission of the queen's name in the Liturgy was just in the same state as that in which it was when his noble and learned friend so powerfully argued in favour of the appointment of the committee. Adverting to what had been said by the noble mover of his construction of the statute of Edward 3rd, he complained that the noble earl had, although he was sure quite unintentionally, misrepresented his former statement on that subject. He then proceeded to show how far the statute of Edward 3rd, relative to high treason, referred to the case of a queen-consort accused of adultery, and said, that it was only by a forced construction of that act that she could be viewed as guilty of high treason. He declared this to be his opinion, after a careful examination of the text of lord Coke, who could not make out the doctrine which he had laid down, except by twisting the words of an act of parliament into a sense which they did not naturally bear. Such a plan of proceeding was unjust, and ought on no account to be allowed. Lord Coke's way of making adultery in a queen consort high treason was by considering the party with whom it was committed guilty of high treason, by looking upon her as an accomplice with him, and by then stating that in treason all the parties were principals. This way of construing adultery into treason, defective as it was, could only apply when the adulterous intercourse was carried on with a subject of the realm; but how could it be so construed when the adultery was committed with a foreigner abroad, who, owing no allegiance to this country, could not be guilty of high treason, or indeed of any other offence against its laws or institutions? His noble friend had said, that supposing evidence existed to convict the queen of high treason, he should not have thought it requisite to have referred the case in the first instance even to the House of Commons, but would; have considered it the duty of his majesty's confidential advisers to have instituted proceedings at once before the proper tribunal, and to have put her on her trial according to the regular course of law. But this mode of proceeding, even
25
26
27
28
velocipede
29
The Marquis of Lansdowne
commenced by observing, that much as it would pain him to differ on any occasion with his noble friend who had brought forward the present motion—and it would give him more pain to differ from him on this than on any other question—still he must solemnly declare, that, if he could bring himself to think that the House was in a situation in which it could consistently with its own dignity and the principles of justice rightly understood, either close this painful scene for ever, or enter upon it afresh with a better chance of success than that which had attended their late efforts, he would most certainly not give his vote in favour of the motion of his noble friend. But not seeing that there was any chance of effecting either of those purposes, he should not enter into any idle discussions upon them, but should confine himself entirely to the question at present before the House, which was indeed of itself sufficient to occupy their undivided attention. He would therefore ask, whether the mode of proceeding, to which, after repeated adjournments, it was now proposed to adhere, was, in the first place, consistent with the forms of the House; and, in the second place, whether it was calculated, if it was necessary—and if it was not necessary, it certainly was not calculated—to
30
31
ex-parte
32
33
34
The Lord Chancellor
explained. In reply to the noble marquis, he could state that, in 1703, a message had been sent by queen Anne to both Houses of Parliament, on the discovery of a conspiracy to restore the Stuart family. That House had then examined all the papers, with a view to the best steps that could be taken. There was a great distinction between the legislative and judicial powers of that House. In 1720, the Commons had taken steps respecting transactions connected with the South Sea company, and the repayment of money advanced in that speculation. The Lords also had passed a bill of pains and disqualifications, but the Lords had originated that proceeding. The distinction between the legislative and judicial functions of that House was often very nice; but that House could do many things in originating such a proceeding which they could not do in its progress.
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, that he certainly could not agree with his noble friend as to the propriety of withdrawing himself from the committee. It was with great regret that he differed from his noble friends upon this occasion, but he had not arrived at his present conclusions without duly considering the subject, examining it in all its bearings, and looking to all its possible results. He thought no reasonable man could object to the conduct of his majesty's ministers upon this occasion. They had not lost a moment in bringing the subject before the consideration of parliament, and the House had lost no time in taking up the royal charge, and appointing a secret committee for its investigation. He thought it right to pay a decent respect to the persons who had brought forward
35
"——Quæque ipse
dulcissima
"Et quorum pars magna fui,"
36
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, it was with great regret that be felt himself compelled to differ with his noble friends upon this most important question. He could assure their lordships that he felt most anxious that the illustrious person accused should receive a fair trial; but be was anxious also that this House should do its duty to another illustrious person, who had felt it due to his dignity and honour to bring forward this accusation. He agreed with the opinion which had been stated to the House by the learned lord on the woolsack, as to the impossibility of proceeding in this case upon the statute of Edw. 3rd. If the illustrious personage were guilty of high treason, she could only be so in consequence of her participation in that offence, and because there were no accessaries in this offence. The maxim that "Accessorius sequitur naturam sui principalis," was in this case most immediately applicable. The queen had, he observed, sent counsel to the bar to ask that opportunity should be afforded to allow her to send for witnesses before any inquiry was instituted. But he would ask, how it was possible for her majesty, or her counsel to determine what witnesses it might be necessary for them to adduce, until it was known what charges were to be preferred? If witnesses were sent for before the result of the proposed inquiry were communicated to the queen's counsel, they might be subject to the inconvenience of collecting witnesses upon points or charges, which, according to that result, were not at all to be brought forward. Would any man then maintain, that it would be better for the object of the learned counsel to have the delay they required granted now by the House, rather than after the report of the secret committee should be made known to them? It appeared to him, indeed, that it would have been wiser on the part of the queen to require that the report of the committee should be brought up before she was called upon to collect evidence for her defence against any charges which that report might recommend. Such an appeal, he could not help thinking much more advisable than that which had been made to the House. With respect to the motion of his noble friend, he felt himself called upon to vote against it. He had now, for about forty years, had the honour of a seat in that House, during which he had frequently been a member
37
The Marquis of Lansdowne,
in explanation, said, that in alluding to the postponement proposed in the House of Commons, he had never intended to propose or recommend a similar measure to their lordships. He did not intend to say, that secret committees ought not to be appointed in certain cases, but that the present was not one of those cases, since he was quite certain that the question could be disposed of without having recourse to a secret committee.
Lord Belhaven
declared that he could not abstain from expressing his intention to vote for the motion, while he was not at all inclined to oppose inquiry upon this subject. On the contrary, indeed, he was an advocate for inquiry, but it was for such a public and open inquiry as was agreeable to those principles of British justice which he had always been taught to venerate, and not for any mode of inquiry which was inconsistent with those principles, and especially when the party accused so strongly objected to it. The queen, he could readily suppose, might see reasons for this objection, of the propriety of which the House was not competent to decide, and particularly from her knowledge of the machinations employed against her; and therefore, feeling it his duty to yield to her appeal, he would vote for the motion.
Lord Bulkeley
regretted that on this occasion he was called upon to differ from those with whom he usually concurred; but from a reverence for those principles of British jurisprudence which, since he was a boy at school, he had been taught to hold sacred, he felt it his duty to vote for the motion. He could never, indeed, allow himself to assent to the violation of
38
Lord Holland
said, that in giving his vote, as he intended, for the motion of his noble friend, he should make no promise as to what course he might ultimately think it proper to support. He had from the outset disapproved of the course which ministers had taken, from a conviction of the irregularity and inconvenience of their proceedings; and of that irregularity and inconvenience many of the ministers themselves had since become fully sensible. Nay, two of the noble lords who were appointed on the secret committee, had that night stated their intention not to attend that committee from an impression of its irregularity. The reasons stated by those noble lords were no doubt different, but their resolution was quite the same. Those noble lords, whom he was proud to call his friends, had, throughout life, rendered such services to the cause of justice and liberty, that no one was more ready to acknowledge those services than himself, and especially with respect to his noble and learned friend behind him (lord Erskine). He therefore regretted to differ from his noble and learned friend upon this subject on a former occasion. Since that occasion, however, his noble and learned friend had this night observed, that the case under consideration was materially altered, and therefore his opinion had undergone a change. The case, had, indeed, been altered, as appeared from the proceedings elsewhere. He would not refer to the conduct of the other House of Parliament, to which two noble lords on the other side had observed it would be irregular to advert, although each of those noble lords were themselves betrayed into that irregularity. But he would refer to that which was matter of public notoriety, namely, the negotiation which had taken place between two of the king's ministers and the legal advisers of the queen. Their
39
quid est
40
41
lex consuetudo parliamenti
42
43
Si est ea gloria floreat.
44
ex-parte
45
46
47
The Archbishop of Canterbury
said, after what had been stated by two noble lords in the course of the debate, it was necessary that he should declare his feelings on this occasion. The noble mover, who adverted to the list of those appointed to go into this inquiry, objected to the name of the archbishop of Canterbury, because, as the noble lord stated, he was the responsible adviser of the Crown with respect to the alteration of the Liturgy; and another noble lord was of opinion that the archbishop of Canterbury was the constitutional adviser of the Crown on that point. Now, he believed that neither of the noble lords was correct on this question. If they were correct, they would have the goodness to show where their authority lay. Was it in the act of parliament? The only act he was acquainted with on the subject was the act of uniformity. Was their authority to be found there? He must conclude that unless they pointed out the ground on which their statement rested, it was a gratuitous assertion. He would tell the noble lords that he was willing to relinquish his station on the committee in question, if the noble lords could point out such grounds as would be satisfactory to the House, and which would not impeach his integrity as a public or a private man.
Lord Holland
explained, that nothing was farther from his intention than to impeach the integrity of the right reverend prelate. But as that right reverend prelate conveyed the acts of the king as head of the church to the clergy of England, and as there was no act done by the king in that or any other character, for which there was not some ostensible and responsible adviser, he considered the right reverend prelate as responsible for the alteration in the Liturgy.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, the alteration of the Liturgy was the act of the king's confidential servants who had advised it, and who were prepared to justify its legality and its expediency. The act was done in council, and the lords of the council who were present were perhaps strictly responsible; but in the practice since the Revolution, the acts done in council were preceded by advice on the part of the king's confidential servants, who were thus the peculiar objects of responsibility. The archbishop merely acted ministerially, and was obliged to execute the orders in council.
48
Lord Dacre
disclaimed the slightest intention personally to offend the right reverend prelate. In bringing forward the petition of her majesty, he had observed that some of the noble lords who formed the secret committee, had in some way or other already formed an opinion. That the ministers who had laid the bag on the table must have formed an opinion was not denied; but it was doubted whether the right reverend prelate was pledged on the subject, or whether he was the responsible adviser of the omission of the queen's name in the Liturgy. The noble lords on the other side might assume the responsibility, but they could not divest the person who was legally responsible of that character. If the archbishop submitted the alteration to the king, and returned to the council and declared the king's will, he was the king's adviser; and though not removable, was impeachable for bad advice.
The Earl of Liverpool
again explained. The alteration of the Liturgy was made by the declaration of the king in council. It might be a question whether all the lords present at the council were not strictly responsible, but as in reality the declaration was made in all cases by the advice of the committee of the council, generally called the cabinet, they were the persons on whom parliament would fix the responsibility. As for the right reverend prelate, he, in communicating the order to his clergy, had no discretion left him.
Earl Grey
said, the right reverend prelate, in communicating the order in council to his clergy, acted ministerially, and might not be for that act responsible. But in signing it as a privy councillor, he unquestionably made himself responsible; for the parliamentary power of impeachment was held not only to check pernicious advisers, but to deter any persons from executing illegal commands. Though, therefore, the cabinet ministers were the persons more peculiarly responsible, yet no one who had lent himself to the execution by his signature could be exempt from responsibility. In some cases, indeed, it was necessary to address the Crown to learn who were its advisers, as in the case of a negative given to bills, for then no signature appeared; but to acts of the council there were the signatures of the councillors ["Not always," from lord Liverpool, "not in this case"] at least there was an entry in the council books of the lords present.
49
The Earl of Darnley
said, he did not rise to make any remarks, but to state, that as the advice of the ministers to omit the name of the queen from the Liturgy was the cause of the present embarrassment of parliament, if no other lord, better qualified to do it justice, took up the subject, he should call the attention of the House specially to it.
The House divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 102; Majority against the motion, 55.
List of the Minority.
Duke of Somerset
Minto
Grafton
Blesinton
Devonshire
Viscount Anson
Hamilton
Bulkeley
Argyll
Hood
Marq. of Lansdowne
Downe
Downshire
Lord De Clifford
Earl of Essex
Dacre
Jersey
Saye and Sele
Breadalbane
Belhaven
Roseberry
King
Cowper
Holland
Stanhope
Ducie
Hardwicke
Foley
Darlington
Gage
Ilchester
Auckland
Earl Spencer
Yarborough
Grosvenor
Calthorpe
Fortescue
Carrington
Carnarvon
Lilford
Darnley
Alvanley
Rosslyn
Erskine
Romney
Crewe
Grey
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 28, 1820.
EDUCATION OF THE POOR.]
Mr. Brougham
rose. He said, he returned his best thanks for the candour and the kindness of both the hon. gentlemen, in allowing him the precedence; and now, without any further preface, he would at once enter upon the subject he wished to bring before the House. After a very Jong period of time employed upon its consideration, he had at length determined to bring forward a motion, which in his estimation, was second to none in its magnitude or its importance. Parliament had been for some time, indeed, occupied upon what might be vulgarly considered a topic of more importance, a question to which the most intense attention of the nation had been directed; but by the production of the plan which he was about to submit to parliament, he trusted, that
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
nil.
66
l.
67
as, mutatis mutandis,
68
certiorari
certiorari
l.
69
l.
l.
70
71
l.
l.
l.
l.
72
ostuarii,
73
l.
74
75
veto
veto.
76
minus efficientis literatureœ;
77
d.
d.
s.
d.
78
79
80
quorum.
l.
l.
81
82
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
paulo post futnrum
l.
ostiarius,
multum vexata questiu.
83
commendam
l.
84
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
85
l.
86
l.
l.
l.
87
88
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.
89
Lord Castlereagh
said, he had listened with much satisfaction to the perspicuous details given with so much ability by the hon. and learned gentleman. He was quite incapable of giving any opinion at present on the general merits of the proposed plan, but he should best discharge his duty by giving his consent to the bringing in of the bill, reserving to some future occasion the discussion of its principles. From the importance of the subject and the great interests involved in it, he hoped the hon. and learned gentleman would not press the bill during the present session. After the bill should have been brought in, it could be printed, and members would then be prepared for its discussion. He, at least, would give it his best attention.
Mr. Brougham
said, he had no wish to press so important a measure hastily through the House, as, independently of the advantages which would accrue from its discussion within doors, great advantages would also be gained by its discussion out of doors—he meant among the clergy of the establishment, and all who were in any way connected with it. If the sense of the House should appear to be in favour of passing his bill during the present session, he should certainly, speaking individually, be better pleased; but if the House should think that it ought to be delayed to a future occasion, he should cheerfully submit to such delay as to the House might appear most advisable.
Mr. Wilberforce
expressed the obligations which he felt to his hon. and learned friend for the exertions which he had made, not only in establishing the principles, but in explaining the details, on which his bill was founded. He was confident that those exertions would be productive of the greatest benefits to the community, and that too at no very distant period.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
had listened to the hon. and learned gentleman's speech with the utmost attention, and expressed his opinion that the details which were presented in it rendered it more incumbent than ever upon the House to take the state of education throughout the country into their immediate consideration. Some of the plans, however, which the hon. and learned gentleman had proposed were totally inapplicable to Ireland. If he had not himself called the attention of the House, as he had promised
90
Sir J. Newport
also remarked on the deficiency of education, and the necessity of bestowing it on the people of Ireland. He was sorry that the act for numbering the population had not been sooner put into force, because that, by showing the extent of the want, it would have brought the House so much nearer to the accomplishment of that object. He considered that in any measure of this sort as applied to Ireland, it should be distinctly borne in mind that the great majority of the nation were of a different religion from that of the state.
Mr. Brougham
observed, that he had studiously abstained from any mention of Ireland throughout his address to the House, from a consideration of the state of religion in that country; and if the Dissenters in England bore any such proportion to the members of the Established Church, as the Catholics in Ireland did to those of that country, his views of the subject would have materially differed.
Sir James Mackintosh
said, that he had read with great satisfaction the report of the education committee, and had heard with still greater satisfaction the measure which his hon. and learned friend had founded upon it. Having been himself alluded to in the course of the observations which had been made upon this subject, he would assert, that though he might be considered a speculatist, yet he was no visionary on the subject of education. He did not intend to trouble the House with many observations on it at present; but he could not help making one observation which had been repeatedly forced upon his notice during his residence in a distant part of the British empire. He had repeatedly had occasion to remark that morality if not produced, was at least best preserved, amongst those of our soldiers and sailors who were possessed of the power of communicating with their relations in Europe by means of writing. It was a truth so obvious, that there was no need for him to waste words in dilating
91
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.]
Mr. Daly
rose to bring forward his promised motion. He expressed his regret that he was under the necessity of calling the attention of the House to the disturbed state of Ireland. There never was a period when the state of that country required a more prompt and vigorous interposition on the part of government; when the disturbances were so extensive, and the outrages of so violent and dangerous a character. He should abstain from entering into any topics which were likely
92
93
94
95
Mr. D. Brown
said, it was impossible by ordinary means to put down the disturbances that existed, and hence it was, that his hon. friend called upon the House to accede to his proposition for a select committee on the subject. It was well known unlawful oaths were every where administered, especially in the disturbed districts, and that nothing but the presence of the military preserved the public tranquillity.
Mr. Charles Grant
perfectly agreed with the hon. mover in the extreme importance of the subject, not merely because it involved the character of the existing government of Ireland, but much more because it involved the consideration of the principle on which Ireland had been and ought to be governed. He (Mr. Grant) was certainly in a singular situation. He had felt it his duty already to state to parliament that there did not appear to the lord-lieutenant and the government of Ireland, to be any ground for proposing the renewal of the Insurrection act. And now an honourable gentleman rose, and with curious inconsistency complained that the Irish government was not alive to the state of Ireland, and at the same time proposed to enact a law which was, to give that government a discretion that they did not think it necessary to possess! He felt bound to oppose the motion; not merely because it was brought on so late in the session (although that, notwithstanding the explanation of the hon. gentleman, would have been sufficient); not merely because if the House were absolutely to go into a committee, the proposition of the honourable mover was not sufficiently extensive; as it did not include any inquiry into the local and general causes of the disturbances; not merely because he was hostile to the supposition of the hon. gentleman, that only what were called strong measures could be salutary; but because the bill which the hon. gentleman recommended was contrary to that principle on which, in his opinion, the government of Ireland ought to be conducted. Did the House recollect what were the provisions of the Insurrection act? Did they recollect that it forbad every person to be absent from his house from sun-set to sun-rise? Did they recollect that it established a perpetual
96
"O! gently on thy suppliant's head,
Dread Goddess! lay thy chastening hand,
Not in thy Gorgon terrors clad."
97
98
99
100
101
Mr. Dawson
regretted, in common with his hon. friend, the inattention which had been paid to the general state of Ireland by the government, of which the right hon. gentleman formed so prominent a member. A great part of the session had now elapsed, and no notice had been taken of the nightly meetings, the outrages, and the bloodthirsty assassinations which had invaded the quiet of a whole province, and produced the loss of many lives. Had his hon. friend proposed an insurrection act at once, he should not have supported such a motion, because he was, generally speaking, averse to measures of violence rashly or hastily adopted. The evils of the state of Ireland at present originated, in a great degree, from those unavoidable circumstances in which she had been placed for a series of years past. The soldiery, scattered at a great distance from head-quarters, too often plundered the peasantry. This begat reprisals, and the peasantry rose in arms, or secretly avenged their wrongs by assassination. The Insurrection act was passed in 1807, with a view to prevent the necessity of employing the military. The danger now was greater; and yet any measure of this nature was declared by government to be unnecessary. Gentlemen who, like himself, were in the habit of supporting government, expected they should be protected by the government in their turn; and it was of greater importance to them that their dwelling should be protected, their repose undisturbed, and their lives unmenaced, than that any particular set of men should hold the reins
102
Mr. W. Parnell
said that from the statements he had that night heard, he should have imagined that Ireland was in a state of universal disturbance; but the fact was, there had been some disturbance in Gal-way, and they were now called upon for more rigorous measures, after the lenient proceedings of government had had their proper and full effect.
Mr. Wellesley Pole
said, he felt it necessary to point out to his hon. friend, the member for Gal way, why he considered the measure of an Insurrection act perfectly unnecessary. The British House of Commons would always hear with surprise an application from Irish members to coerce their own country, by enactments abhorrent to the constitutional feelings of that House. It was remarkable, that although the Insurrection act had been passed in 1807, as a means of intimidating and keeping the spirit of insubordination in check, it had never been acted on, except in the district alluded to, although frequently applied for by local magistrates in other quarters of that country. The object of government at that period, and he then formed a part of it, was, to conciliate the feelings of the people, whilst they endeavoured to possess themselves of sufficient power to govern that country with tranquillity. Was the House prepared to strengthen the hands of the Irish government beyond even what that government considered necessary for its authority, and the preservation of the public tranquillity? He had been surprised at hearing from his hon. friend, that a whole province of Ireland was now in a state of insurrection. He believed it was no such thing. In fact, they themselves had admitted that, owing to the application of the Peace Preservation bill, the country had been restored to tranquillity. Under these circumstances, he conceived that no case had been made out for such an enactment, and he should therefore vote against the motion.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
maintained the expediency of the proposed inquiry, although it appeared to be resisted by the combined
103
Mr. R. Martin
denied, that in the county of Galway there was any thing like a rebellion. In the baronies where his property was situated, every thing was tranquil, and he claimed their exception from the imputation. He opposed the motion, and recommended his hon. colleague to withdraw it, as the measure was unnecessary in the present situation of the country.
Sir J. Newport
expressed his satisfaction at being able for once to support the conduct of the executive government with regard to Ireland. He begged leave to remind his right hon. friend, that though Mr. Grattan had supported the Insurrection act generally in the then state of the country, he had repeatedly divided the House on that very clause of domiciliary visits to which it was now proposed that the act should be limited.
Mr. Foster
contended for the necessity
104
Lord Castlereagh
said, that no man had a greater respect for the opinion of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down than he had, because from his great local knowledge and experience he might be considered competent to form a correct judgment. He must, however, deny that there was any thing in the present state of Ireland to justify the introduction of such a measure under any modification. If Ireland was really in such a state as had been described by his right hon. friend (Mr. V. Fitzgerald), he could not help thinking that he was rather tardy in not coming forward until now that tranquillity had been restored under the authority of the law of the land. The Insurrection act was not a measure to be adopted upon a precautionary principle; it required the existence of insurrection to justify its introduction. It was, in fact, like the income tax, a measure, which, if adopted at a proper time, and with proper regulations, might be attended with the best effects, but which ought never to be introduced without the existence of an adequate necessity. Ireland was now in a tranquil state; and he thought it would be at once impolitic and uncalled for to select a moment of public quiet to bring into action a measure, the spirit of which was agreed, upon all hands, to be repugnant to the constitution, and which could only be warranted by an adequate state of public disturbance.
General Hart
wished his hon. friend would withdraw his motion, as it would only tend, if carried, to make the Irish people believe they were not looked upon as a portion of the British empire. Conciliation would do every thing for Ire-land; it would promote the union of the two countries; and he was happy to hear
105
The motion was then negatived.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 29, 1820.
FEMALE OFFENDERS WHIPPING BILL.]
Mr. Chetwynd
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of Whipping Female Offenders in any case whatever. The House was aware, that by an act of the year 1817, the system of public whipping of females had been wholly exploded; but he was surprised that the private whipping of females had been by that measure permitted to continue, looking on it as he did as objectionable, or even more objectionable than the other. It might be said, in defence of its continuance, that it was necessary for the sake of example; but, on the other hand, as the infliction of the punishment was private, it was in the power of the gaoler or other superintendant to render it the most excruciating torture possible, or a mere matter of form; and this alone he thought a decided objection to it. With respect to the public whipping of females, he was of opinion that no exhibition could be more revolting to the feelings. The act to which he had alluded only abolished the punishment of the public whipping of females; but if the House would agree with him, they would go much further. His intention was to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal that act, and substitute other provisions for the more effectual prevention of the whipping of females; and the object of it would be to prohibit that practice, not only in the cases already provided for, but in workhouses, houses of correction, lunatic asylums, and other places for the reception of lunatics. If, therefore, the House should be of opinion that it should in no case be permitted, he should humbly move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of whipping female offenders in any case whatever.
106
Leave was given, and the bill was brought in and read a first time.
PARGA.]
Lord John Russell
rose for the purpose of submitting his promised motion relative to the production of a copy of the memorial presented by a native of Parga to the secretary of state. He was perfectly aware, that at the present time of the year, so near the conclusion of the session, and in the present agitated state of the public mind, it was extremely difficult for him to engage that attention which he could wish to circumstances occurring in a distant country, and not at all connected with that one paramount and domestic object which at present entirely occupied the public mind; but at the same time, he felt it his duty to urge this momentous subject, as one well-deserving the attention of parliament; and he thought that they were bound to give to the people of Parga that protection, which was not only a valuable right, and one to be extended, in such a case, of all others, but which could alone be their safeguard from the further continuance of those abuses and that oppression under which they at present laboured. The House would not expect that he should now enter into a detailed view of the question as to the cession of Parga. Would to God that he could enter into it with such effect as to be able to induce the House to commiserate the fate, and to relieve the situation, of a wronged and gallant people! Notwithstanding all the attempts which had been made by an anonymous writer to colour the transactions which had betrayed them, and to gloss over the counsels which had achieved their ruin, he thought the general opinion of mankind would be, that this was a case of as notorious treachery and as grievous injury, as any that had ever yet occurred in the world. And what had been the consequence, as regarded our own reputation? Our enemies always alluded with extreme anxiety to the case of Parga, as an instance of our acquiescence in oppression, and our desertion of the cause of freemen; and they reproached us with this fatal inconsistency—that we, who for ages, and throughout protracted wars, had stood forward as the champions of the rights of nations, were content, when the enemies of the Parguinotes required their submission, and the surrender of their rights, to act in a very different character, and upon principles contrary to those on
107
l.
l.
l.
108
109
Mr. Goulbum
congratulated the House, that after two or three years of misrepresentations, invented with art and circulated with industry, the time was not far distant when the documents to be laid upon the table of parliament would lay the whole case regarding Parga fairly before the country. The House would then be able to judge whether the resignation of this island was, as had been asserted, an act of grievous treachery, or whether, on the contrary, it had not been inevitable, if any regard was to be paid to positive and distinct engagements. The whole of the speech of the noble lord afforded the strongest confirmation that he himself entertained some doubt upon the question. If the case of Parga manifestly and indisputably reflected disgrace on the British government, would the noble lord have thought it necessary to wander about in search of subsidiary matter not really and fairly connected with the point at issue, but relating to the whole government of the Ionian islands? The talents and dexterity of the noble lord would not have been so exerted, had he not been sensible that he must find something or other to bolster up a bad case. The noble lord had alluded to certain anonymous statements recently published regarding Parga but he gave the noble lord credit for being unconnected with other anonymous statements elsewhere printed, which had led to that refutation. He maintained that the British government had not restored Parga to Turkey, without being fully satisfied that the latter had an indisputable right to the island; and he proceeded to prove his assertion by reference to the treaty of Campo Formio, by which it had been first made over to France, and subsequently relinquished to Turkey. The war between France and the Porte broke out in 1798, and the joint fleets of Russia
110
111
bonâ fide
l.
112
l.
l.
113
Sir Robert Wilson
said, his opinion bad always been, that it was impossible, considering the situation of Parga, for us to keep possession of it. That possession must be deemed as offensive to Turkey, as Dover in the hands of the French would be to us, or Calais in our possession to the French. What he complained of and lamented was, that England should have charged itself with the odious responsibility of the cession. When that proceeding, however, was adopted, the most scrupulous care should have been taken to secure to the inhabitants the full value of their property. There was at present every reason to believe that the Parguinotes were dissatisfied; that they did not think they had received the protection which had been promised to them; and that our character had suffered in the eyes of Europe.
Mr. Hume
observed, that, feeling as he did for the condition of a people who had been compelled to remove from their native homes, he hoped the House would excuse him for offering a few observations on the subject. He admitted that Parga stood in need of some protecting power, and had been for a long time dependent on the Venetian republic. The treaty of Tilsit had, however, as he conceived, distinctly conveyed it by name, with the other Ionian islands, to France. It afterwards fell into our hands by conquest and the treaty of 1815. This at least was the general understanding; and the impression of the Parguinotes themselves certainly was, that they were to share in the fate of the other islands. With respect to the officer alluded to by the hon. gentleman opposite to have raised expectations in the minds of the people of Parga which could not fairly be fulfilled, he must say, that he had the pleasure of being acquaint-
114
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
115
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Goulburn
denied that the Parguinotes were not paid the whole sum promised them.
Mr. Hume
said, he rested on the proclamation of the governor of the 19th of June, stating that 113,000
l.
Mr. Goulburn
said, that that circumstance admitted of an explanation.
Lord J. Russell,
in reply, said, that as the inhabitants of Parga had surrendered themselves on the understanding that they should follow the fate of the Ionian isles, he still thought faith had not been kept with them. If the great powers at the congress of Vienna had acted as they professed, on the principle of restitution, he should have been satisfied. Venice would then have been restored, and Parga would have been put under the
||
116
Mr. Maxwell
presented a petition from Benjamin Wills, honorary secretary to the provisional committee for the encouragement of industry, praying that parliament would take some steps to provide the people with proper employment, and thus prevent them from falling into that state of degradation which must inevitably ensue, if they were not able, by their labour, to support themselves.
COTTON-WEAVERS.]
Mr. Maxwell,
in rising to move for a select committee to inquire imto the nature of the distress by which the Cotton Weavers were affected, and to consider whether there was any practicable mode by which assistance could be extended to them, felt it necessary to make a few observations explanatory of his reasons for bringing forward a partial motion. When the whole community were suffering, and the manufacturing districts were plunged in such a state of misery as was now presented—when individuals were unable to procure employment, and found it wholly impossible to maintain themselves—he felt that he should have grossly neglected his duty, if he had not before the close of the session called the serious attention of government to the distress that prevailed. If they could not do away that distress altogether, they might, perhaps, devise some means by which it might be alleviated. The table had been covered with statements, both from the workpeople themselves, and from the magistrates, detailing to that House and to the government, the extent of the misery that prevailed. They admitted that great irritation existed; but they traced that irritation to the severe privations to which the lower classes of the community had unfortunately been too long exposed. He was astonished that ministers, who had extended relief to particular individuals, and even to the throne itself, should have overlooked these frequent calls. The distress which they had endeavoured to avert could not for a moment be placed in competition with that which he had described. When a motion for a committee to consider the state of the manufacturing population was
117
ignis fatuus.
118
119
l.
120
121
Mr. Robinson
observed, that it was tolerably well known he was no advocate for parliamentary reform and he was the less so, because he was unwilling to convert the House into a college of disputants. But his hon. friend seemed disposed, from the variety of subjects to which he had adverted, to render the committee he proposed quite an arena for disputation, and the very first point which he would have this committee discuss was an abstract idea. That a committee might be useful and essential in collecting and arranging facts and information he was ready to admit, but this was, he believed, the first time it was proposed to refer to a committee the discussion of an abstract idea. The hon. member's professed object was, to benefit the cotton manufacturers, but how that was to be done by such taxes as he pro-
122
Mr. Ricardo
said, that he conceived the duty of government to be, to give the greatest possible development to industry. This they could do only by removing the obstacles which had been created. He complained therefore of government on very different grounds from the hon. mover, for his complaint was against the restrictions on trade, and other obstacles of that description, which opposed the development of industry. The recommendations of the hon. mover were inconsistent with the contrast between one class and another. If government interfered, they would do mischief and no good. They had already interfered, and done mischief by the poorlaws. The principles of the hon. mover would likewise violate the sacredness of. property, which constituted the great security of society.
123
Mr. Lockhart
opposed the motion, conceiving that its adoption would only serve to hold out false hopes, which might probably induce the agriculturists and other classes of the people whose distress was quite equal to that of those for whom the hon. mover was an advocate, to make similar applications to that House. He particularly deprecated the hon. member's proposition to tax absentees, for such a tax would most probably urge those to take away their capitals from this country who at present only spent their incomes in (other nations, and the capital once taken away was by no means likely to return. He disagreed with the plans of spade-husbandry, and others, which had been proposed, because they all appeared on a nearer view to be futile. The House at any rate could not grant a committee until some of those plans should be found effectual, by the experience of people out of doors. Besides, if the House granted a committee to the cotton weavers, the agricultural labourers, and almost all others, would have an equally good claim to consideration, and would scarcely fail to urge it. Time alone and patience, which he doubted not the people would show, could cure the difficulties under which they laboured.
Mr. Maxwell,
after a short reply, consented to withdraw his motion until the next session. The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 30, 1820.
METROPOLIS TURNPIKE ROADS BILL.]
Mr. Sumner
presented petitions from certain Trustees of Roads in Kent and Surrey against the Metropolis Roads bill. The hon. member hoped that the bill would be read a second time, printed, and allowed to stand over to next session.
Mr. Davies Gilbert
, in alluding to the matter of the petitions took occasion to offer a few remarks upon the subject of turnpike-roads generally. Every hon. gentleman must be aware of the national importance of a good and perfect system for the regulation and management of roads. When he mentioned that, in the instance now more immediately before the House, an extent of no less than 136,000 acres was appropriated entirely for public roads, they would at once see how highly desirable it was that their construction and arrangement should be con-
124
l
l
Sir M. W. Ridley
wished to know, whether the committee intended to propose any remedy of the grievance which was felt in the renewal of turnpike trusts, even for a limited period. The expense of such a proceeding amounted at present to 112
l
Ordered to lie on the table.
KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING A
Lord Castlereagh
presented the following Message from the King:
"GEORGE R.
"The King acquaints the House of Commons, that a part of the provision made by parliament for certain branches of his majesty's royal family, has ceased in consequence of the demise of his late majesty, and recommends to his faithful
125
G.
R.
Ordered to be considered in a committee on Monday.
IRISH COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.]
On the order of the day for the committal of this bill,
Sir J. Newport
said, he meant to move a clause in this bill, which he conceived of great importance. It was one which would prevent Irish masters in Chancery from sitting in parliament, while they held such office. The duties of a master in chancery in Ireland were such, that if in parliament, either the one or the other must be neglected [Hear!]. The public duties which devolved on a master in chancery, ought not to be neglected to favour the ambitious views of any individual. The right hon. baronet proceeded to quote various authorities, among others, the lord chancellor of Ireland and the master of the rolls, in support of his statement, that the public business of his office required every moment which an Irish master in chancery could by possibility devote to it. One master in chancery had stated, that the fees of his office had increased in the proportion of five and a half to one. But being asked whether there was a proportionate increase of business? he answered "Yes, where I was formerly employed for one hour, I am now employed four or five." The lord chancellor was of opinion, that all the witnesses in matters going before masters in chancery, ought to be examined, if it could be done without injury to public business, by the masters themselves, but this being found impossible, the examination devolved on other persons. He would add another piece of evidence which he held to be conclusive. On the examination of Mr. Ellis himself the following question was put to him:—"Can you state the particular time the duties of your office occupy?" Answer—"The duties of my office require a regular attendance for ten months in the year; and there is to be performed more or less business every day in the year, if attended to." Now then this officer declared that the duties of his office, if attended to,
126
Lord Castlreagh
said, he entirely concurred with the right hon. baronet in his conclusion. If the office of master in chancery was not a judicial office, it yet so nearly pertained to a judicial office, that any time devoted to other avocations, to the injury of the business of suitors, would operate as an infraction of the duty of that office. The grounds on which a master of chancery in England sat in that House were different from those on which an Irish master in chancery could sit there. An English master in chancery might sit in that House without any inconvenience to suitors, and without the neglect of the duties of his office. He had no objection whatever, therefore, to the general principle laid down; but he understood that an election was now pending for the city of Dublin, in which a master in chancery was one of the candidates, and he thought that the clause proposed ought not to operate as an
ex post facto
Sir John Newport
said, that if it was manifest that the duties of a master in chancery were incompatible with his attendance as a member of parliament, that officer ought not to be allowed to hold a seat in that House. Could any man doubt but that by his attendance in that House the duties of his office would be neglected? That officer was bound to attend ten months in the year in Dublin; he had sworn that it was necessary so to attend. Would any member attempt (if he took his seat in that House) to propose an address to the Crown to remove him? He saw no reason why the legislature in this instance should forego giving that protection to the suitors which they were clearly entitled to; he saw no reason why, in compliment to the officer in question, the business of the Court of Chancery should be delayed, or the suitors of that
127
Mr. Shaw
said, that the clause proposed would operate as a great hardship on Mr. Ellis, who was at present a candidate for Dublin. The election would possibly be over before he could receive any information as to the proposed law. The hardship would be not merely on Mr. Ellis, but on the citizens of Dublin. The present contest was one of the most acrimonious and violent that had been remembered for a long time in that city. There was more of party spirit and personal hostility displayed than had been exhibited on any late contest. It would be a great misfortune to the electors if, after closing a contention of that kind, they should be driven to a new contest, which would possibly be carried on in the same way. Mr. Ellis, when he offered himself to the electors, had no notice of the clause now proposed; he thought, therefore, that he ought to be exempted.
Mr. Abercromby
begged to call the attention of the House to the subject upon which they were about to legislate. It had nothing to do with the Dublin election, but was in plain terms whether or no parliament would continue to afford suitors in the Irish Court of Chancery that protection to which the law had entitled them. Nobody had ventured to state that the office of a master in chancery and a member of parliament were compatible. The very gentleman whose case was supposed to be involved in the present consideration had himself given conclusive testimony upon that point. He had declared that the business of his office required his full attendance for ten months in the year. Could any man after such a declaration, and with a consciousness of the importance of the duties of such an office, require an exception to be made in favour of a gentleman who had himself shown the impossibility of making it with any sense of justice? The hon. gentleman opposite had asked the House, on behalf of the citizens of Dublin, not to accede to this clause. If he asked that on behalf of the citizens of Dublin, he (Mr. Abercromby) would ask for the clause on behalf of the whole people of Ireland, who, if it did not pass, would be deprived of
128
ex post facto
Sir M. W. Ridley
could not help remarking upon the observation that this clause, if passed, would be productive of great inconvenience to the citizens of Dublin, by exposing them to a repetition of an election contest. To this he would answer, that there was no necessity whatever of their being so exposed; for if the election was concluded in favour of the gentleman alluded to, he could take his seat, and obviate all the inconveniences by the resignation of his office as master in chancery. To give him the option was no hardship upon him; he Could either retain the seat or the office; he could not expect that he or any other public officer would be permitted to retain a situation the duties of which he could no longer perform.
Mr. Fowell Buxton
begged to know from the noble lord, before he gave his vote, whether, if Mr. Ellis should be elected, the noble lord would advise his majesty to dismiss him from his office, as he had declared that it was incompetent for that officer at once to discharge the duties of his office and to sit in that House?
Mr. Canning
said, he understood his noble friend to say, that the instruction before the House ought not to have the effect of influencing the election now pending. If Mr. Ellis were elected, the effect of the instruction might be to negative the return. His noble friend did not say that a master in chancery should not be incompetent to sit or vote in parliament.
129
Sir J. Newport
said, that the object of the clause was to prevent any person from being capable of sitting or voting in parliament so long as he continued to hold the office of master in chancery.
Mr. Canning
said, that in that case there was no difference of opinion.
Sir J. Newport
said, that the officer in question would not be allowed to sit or vote so long as he continued to hold his office.
Mr. Canning.
—But the election will be good.
Sir George Hill
said, that the effect of the instruction would be, to disqualify a gentleman from sitting in parliament, without any notice having been given to him of such a measure, and without any disqualifying law having previously existed. The object of the instruction, as explained by the right hon. baronet, was, to prevent Mr. Ellis from sitting or voting in that House [Cries of No, no!]. If he were wrong, he could be corrected, but he understood the resolution went to disqualify Mr. Ellis to sit or vote in that House, unless he gave up his office [Hear, hear!]. He would say that this was the first time pending an election of great expectation, that a measure was proposed in parliament to conclude that election. Was it the intention to dismiss Mr. Ellis, and to substitute Mr. Grattan in his place? Mr. Ellis was qualified in all respects to sit in that House. Extraordinary interest was excited at the election. Would the House disqualify an individual who might receive the favour of the citizens of Dublin? He considered such an act an outrage on the constitution, on fairness, and on candour.
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he was at a loss to think how gentlemen could reconcile to any respect for the constitution—to fairness—to candour, or to common sense, the idea of enabling a man to occupy two places, which by his own confession, were absolutely incompatible. It was said that parliament had not given notice to the learned gentleman of the present measure; true, but he had given notice to the parliament that he could not possibly sit in that House without neglecting his duties. The right hon. baronet had said that there was a novelty about the
130
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that he understood there was but one opinion in the House, either as to the incompatibility of the two situations of master of chancery in Ireland and member of parliament, or as to the impropriety of disturbing an election now in progress. All that was desired was, that the individual now a candidate for the city of Dublin should beat liberty, if elected, to resign his office.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
suggested, that the object of the clause would be more precisely marked if the words of
131
Mr. Calcraft
thought that, although the right hon. gentleman's amendment might meet the circumstances of the case immediately in view, it would not provide a sufficient regulation for all future cases, in which the office in question was, to disqualify in the first instance.
Mr. Wynn
also observed, that the pending election would probably have terminated before notice was received in Dublin of the present resolution of the House. It should therefore, be made applicable to future cases.
Colonel Barry
opposed it, because it appeared to him to be levelled at an individual. The right hon. baronet had thought proper, at the present moment, when it was probable the individual alluded to was actually a member of the House, to introduce a clause personally affecting that gentleman. He did not complain of the principle of the clause, but he thought that an
ex-post facto
Sir J. Newport
defended the clause. Mr. Ellis knew that he could not perform the double duties of master in chancery and member of parliament; why, therefore, did he set up for the representation of the city of Dublin? The present clause was forced upon them by his own act.
Mr. Daly
observed, that the bill which had passed this House last year, and was thrown out in the Lords, was without any such clause as that now proposed. This circumstance proved that it was an
ex-post fasto
Dr. Phillimore
thought it would be a gross injustice to the suitors in chancery, if the same individual were allowed to act as master and member of parliament. The duties of a master in
132
Dr. Lushington
said, that Mr. Ellis being a master in chancery, had taken an oath faithfully to perform the duties of his office, to do which, according to his own evidence, it was necessary that he should be in Dublin during ten months in the year. They should not, by allowing Mr. Ellis to retain the two situations, put him under the temptation of neglecting the duty of the one or the other, which no honourable man would wish to be subjected to. Besides, were they to forget the public in this case? A master in chancery had important duties to perform; the management of bankrupts' affairs, &c. which required attendance from day to day; so that every hour he was absent in England was injurious, and might be ruinous to the suitors. If no such bill was before the House, he thought one should have been introduced to protect the chancery suitors of Ireland.
Mr. Nolan
considered the clause an
ex post facto
Mr. R. Martin
meant to vote for the clause, which did not disqualify this gentleman from sitting in the House of Commons, if that were his wish. According to his oath, he could not fulfil the duties of the two situations; and, therefore, it was necessary that one of them should be given up. If a precedent were allowed in this case, the four other masters might also be returned to serve in parliament, and thus the whole business of the court of chancery would be stopped.
Mr. Williams
said, if this clause went to exclude Mr. Ellis from the court of chancery, or from the House of Com-
133
Colonel Barry
observed, that all the arguments had been addressed to the principle of the clause, and nothing had been said as to its being an
ex post facto
l
Sir J. Newport
said, the gentleman alluded to had purchased the office, under a special notification from lord chancellor Ponsonby, who felt the impropriety of the purchase or sale of such situations, that it was intended to alter the system. With respect to the charge alleged against him for introducing this provision now, he could only say, that it had all along been his intention to propose it, whenever the bill arrived at its present stage. If the House felt it necessary to except Mr. Ellis from the operation of the clause, he hoped government would provide for him in some manner, so as to enable him to give up the situation of master in chancery, that the suitors might not be injured by his absence.
Mr. Martin
said, that after Horne Tooke had been elected a member of that House, a bill had been passed which disqualified him.
Mr. Nolan
observed, that none of the great disqualification acts were allowed to operate until the ensuing session of parliament.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, a manifest distinction existed between the present
134
Mr. Wrottesley
said, a seat in parliament was a trust, not an office. It was, therefore, a question between Mr. Ellis and his constituents, because the lord chancellor of Ireland would see that business of Mr. Ellis's office was attended to. If the House took upon it to legislate in the case of every person returned to the House who might not be able to attend, they would be obliged in consistency to exclude many of their members who were generals in the army, and had commands abroad, for instance at the Cape and in India, so that they could not attend at all.
Mr. Baring
said, the learned gentlemen seemed to have forgotten that the office in question was one of permanent duty; whereas the avocations of the army and navy were not so. Officers were frequently enabled to attend to their duties in parliament, without interfering with professional matters; but Mr. Ellis's employment required attention from day to day. With respect to its being a mere question between his constituents and himself, he differed entirely from the learned gentleman. It did not follow, because his constituents were satisfied, that that House should also be satisfied; because there were important duties to be performed by that House which must be neglected if an individual resided in a distant part of the country.
Sir J. Yorke
supported the clause.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the argument of Mr. Wrottesley had not been answered. There was no effectual distinction between a command in the army
135
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
maintained, that the clause proposed by his right hon. friend was not liable to any of the objections which applied to a retrospective or
ex post facto
Lord Castlereagh
said, that he was an advocate for the principle of the clause, upon the ground that attendance in parliament was incompatible with the duties of an office which required almost perpetual attention in Ireland. He was, indeed, an advocate for the clause upon the same ground that the judges were excluded from that House, which was not because they were supposed dependent upon the Crown, but because, from the pressure of their judicial engagements, the two situations were incompatible. Still he thought that this clause should not be retrospective with regard to any masters in chancery which might be elected previous to the passing of the act. But should the gentleman alluded to be returned, it would, of course, be competent to any member of that House to move an address to the throne for his removal from the office which he held in the court of chancery, and upon that address being presented it would be difficult, he thought, for any minister, with that gentleman's own evidence before him, to hesitate about
136
Mr. Abercromby
supported the clause. The observations made on the other side, with regard to officers of the army and navy holding seats in that House, had, in his view, no analogy to the present case; for a seat in parliament was to such an officer but a secondary consideration, while a master in chancery, in becoming a member of that House, was but too likely to make that his primary object, through which, of course, his official business would be neglected.
Sir J. Newport
assured the committee that he had no personal motive whatever on this occasion, as he had the greatest personal respect for Mr. Ellis, and as he had mentioned to a friend of his, then in the House, before the death of Mr. Grattan, that it was his intention to move the insertion of a clause of this nature in the bill under consideration.
Mr. Foster
objected to the proposed attempt to defeat the wishes, and to interfere with the franchises of the people of Dublin. He called upon the committee to recollect the precedent in the case of Home Tooke, where the act excluding persons in holy orders from that House, specially provided for the exception of that gentleman during the existing parliament, on the ground that it should not be retrospective in its operation, although that act was actually brought forward in consequence of Mr. Tooke's election.
Mr. Macdonald
observed, that Mr. Tooke had no option, as he could not divest himself of his orders, and that he had no duty to perform elsewhere, by the neglect of which the public would suffer, while Mr. Ellis was in quite different circumstances, as he had a complete option.
Mr. Foster
remarked, that the object then was, to force Mr. Ellis to give up his office.
Mr. R. Smith
said, that Mr. Ellis had, by his own admission, such official business to discharge as rendered it impossible for him to attend his duty as a member of that House. Therefore, should that gentleman be returned, an address to the Crown ought to be voted for his removal from office, and if no other person would make the motion, he should himself feel it his duty to do so.
Colonel Barry
137
CRIMINAL LAWS.]
Sir J. Mackintosh
, in rising to move the committal of the Privately Stealing in Shops bill, said, he should make no observations in the present state of the measure, but reserve himself for the committee, which, after the admission of the principle by the House, was the proper place for the discussion of any objections which might be made to the several clauses. He hoped that any objections which might be entertained to any part of the bill, would be brought forward in the committee, in order that he might have a convenient opportunity of answering them, and not be postponed to any subsequent stage. Upon this, indeed, he was induced to calculate, as he had so often deferred the progress of the bill, at the request and for the accommodation of those gentlemen who were understood to entertain some doubts upon the subject.
Mr. Chetwynd
, after some observations in favour of the bill, recommended the adoption of a clause, substituting a definite punishment for that which this bill proposed to repeal, namely, confinement for some period not more than two years, or less than six months.
Sir J. Mackintosh
observed, that as this bill had been three times before the House, being twice carried in silence, and once with a majority of two to one in his favour, he could not be expected to offer any thing new upon the subject; but he felt it necessary to repeat, that nothing could be farther from his intention, than to cast the slightest imputation upon the judges, because he felt, from the conduct of those exalted magistrates, that no imputation could fairly attach, nor did he mean to take away from them any discretion but that which they never exercised. From the manner, then, in which the judges generally exercised their discretional power, he could not think it necessary to prescribe the limits recommended by his hon. friend.
Sir J. Yorke
observed, that as the hon. and learned gentleman avowedly took up these measures in imitation of the example of sir Samuel Romilly, he ought to recollect the fate of that gentleman's propositions in the other House, and not to pursue a course on this occasion, which, however creditable to his heart, did not appear creditable to his head.
138
Sir J. Mackintosh
felt persuaded, that the adoption of his hon. friend's amendment would not recommend this bill to a more gracious reception in the other House of Parliament.
LINEN BOUNTIES.]
Mr. Maberly
brought up the report on the linen bounties acts, and moved that the resolutions be read a second time.
Mr. Robinson
argued against the policy of making these bounties permanent. He objected strongly to the second resolution which recommended the imposition of a duty of 28
s.
Sir G. Hill
regretted that this question should have been agitated in the present session.
Mr. Hume
concurred in the view taken by Mr. Robinson, and hoped his hon. friend would withdraw the second resolution. He urged the propriety of allowing the same drawback on ashes used in bleaching in Scotland and England as was allowed in Ireland.
Mr. Foster
said, that the people of Ireland wished that those of England and Scotland should be included in every thing
139
Mr. Huskisson
said, that every principle of justice required that the other parts of the empire should be put on the same footing, as to bounties, with Ireland.
Mr. Ricardo
considered bounties given to Ireland in this way, as in the nature of a tax on the people of this country, and therefore he was generally opposed to such measures.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.]
Dr. Phillimore
brought up the report of the committee on the Marriage Act Amendment bill. Dr. Lushington moved as an amendment, that the report be recommitted. Mr. Warren seconded the amendment. Dr. Dodson and Mr. D. Gilbert spoke in favour of the re-committal, and after a reply to their arguments from Dr. Phillimore, the House divided, when there appeared, For the reception of the Report, 47; Against it, 23: Majority, 24. The report was then received.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 3, 1820.
FOREIGN TRADE.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne
brought up the report of the committee on Foreign Trade. In moving that it be laid on the table, he trusted their lordships would excuse him if he detained them some moments by a few observations which he thought the more necessary to be now made, as he did not mean to make this report the subject of any other motion except that it be printed. He was induced to adopt this course, not only because any bill connected with the financial situation and revenues of the country would come with more advantage to the subject from the other House, but because he thought it better that any measure of this kind should originate with those who possessed the best means of giving it effect
140
141
Lord Ellenborough
expressed a hope that some legislative measure should, if possible, be brought in this session on some of the objects recommended in the report. It was impossible for any member of the committee, who attended in his place, not to feel the duty of urging this. There were two points to the introduction of a measure, to embrace which he thought no objection could be made. They related to an alteration of the mode of levying the duties on timber. The first was a recommendation to levy the duty on timber by the cubic contents of the foot; the second was, to make the duty on timber which had undergone any process of manufacture higher than on timber in the log. In reference to the adoption of those enlightened principles which were recommended by the committee, it was with great satisfaction he could state his conviction that in some important instances their introduction would be attended with no inconvenience. It had, for example, been ascertained by the committee, that British ships were navigated more cheaply than any other vessels in the world, No injury therefore could arise to the shipping interest from any alteration which it might be thought fit to make in favour of foreign trade. Those who had petitioned most earnestly for the continuance of the present system with respect to the duties on timber, would therefore, if not benefited, at least not be injured, by any alteration which the legislature might think fit to make on that subject.
The Report was ordered to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, July 3, 1820.
LIMERICK ELECTION.]
Mr. Wodehouse
142
EAST INDIA COMPANY'S VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Canning
gave notice of his intention on a future day to strike out the clause in the bill relating to the payment of the men. He suggested that any discussion would be more conveniently taken on the third reading.
Mr. Bernal
objected to the bill, as he thought the volunteers to the number of 800 wholly needless.
Mr. Canning
stated the nature of their establishment under the auspices of the East India company, as well as their probable duties in cases of necessity. He also referred to certain pending discussions on the subject, and to the length of time during which the corps had existed.
Mr. Hume
expressed his regret that so strong a disposition prevailed upon all occasions by the civil power to call in the aid of the military. This step had been taken on Friday last within the city of London, when, as far as he could learn, not the slightest necessity existed. This was a most dangerous practice; he hoped that England would not be changed entirely, but that the civil power now, as formerly, would be paramount. On the occasion to which he referred, a legally established body had met for legal purposes, and yet something like an attempt was made to overawe it by the presence of a military force. It was the duty of magistrates upon all occasions, as far as possible, to avoid calling in the aid of the soldiers, and then the civil power would be both obeyed and respected.
Sir W. Curtis
said, that this was the first time he bad heard that any troops had been in the city on Friday last. He had
143
Mr. Hume
added, that troops were stationed in Holborn, half of which was within and half without the limits of the city.
Mr. Alderman Wood
observed, that he felt called upon to set the House and the country right regarding the soldiery in the city. Certain it was that a considerable body of life-guards had been called out on Friday last, and perhaps their horses heads might be in the city, and their tails out of it: one of them, fully armed, had come to Guildhall for orders; and the lord mayor had avowed that the military were summoned by his orders. It was not easy to see any necessity for such a proceeding, since no breach of the peace had been committed or contemplated: the meeting was most unanimous, and nothing was more unlikely than a disturbance.
The bill was then read a second time.
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MAGISTRATES OF CARLISLE.]
Lord Lowther
said, that he held in his hand a printed petition presented on a former day by an hon. gentleman complaining of the conduct of three magistrates of Carlisle: he wished to know what course the hon. gentleman intended to pursue, as the individuals concerned were very reluctant that such unfounded calumnies should go forth without the means of refuting them. His lordship hoped that the subject would not be postponed until the next session.
Mr. James
answered, that early in the next session he designed to bring the subject forward, and that his motion would then be, that the three magistrates who had called in the military under pretence of quelling a riot, when not the slightest disturbance existed, should be called to the bar of the House.
Lord Lowther
regretted that the question was to be postponed, as the accusations were perfectly groundless and unjust.
KING'S MESSAGE—PROVISION FOR
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the King's Message,
Lord Castlereagh
said, that in calling the attention of the committee to the message of his majesty, he was happy to state that the votes, seven in number, which he had to propose, were such as would meet with the unanimous concurrence of the
144
l.
l.
145
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Lord Archibald Hamilton
was extremely surprised that the noble lord had wholly omitted to mention any provision for the queen. He had, more than once, when
146
l.
147
148
Lord Castlereagh
said, he was sure that the surprise of the House would have been much greater than that expressed by the noble lord, if ministers had comedown and proposed a settlement for her majesty, considering the situation in which she at present stood. The noble lord had made three distinct charges against ministers—1st, they were charged with not providing funds sufficient to enable her majesty to enter on her defence; next, with having committed a breach of the law, in granting sums of money not sanctioned by parliament; and, lastly, with having neglected to make a proposition to parliament relative to a provision for her majesty, it having been notified that such a proposition would be submitted to the House. Now, with respect to any practical inconvenience connected with the first point, he could assure the House that every means had been taken to obviate it. Every care had been taken to prevent any personal inconvenience which might be likely to affect her majesty. Provision had been made to meet any particular expense which the queen might incur in consequence of the pending inquiry. That was a point which he could assure the noble lord had neither escaped the king, nor been lost sight of by his ministers. It had been specifically notified to her majesty that every means would be afforded to her
149
150
Lord A. Hamilton
observed, that the noble lord had treated him with much unfairness, and the House with still more. In the first place, every gentleman would do him the justice to acknowledge his having stated in the outset, that if the noble lord meant, in the present session, to move for an allowance to her majesty, he would say nothing more on the subject. The noble lord, however, had told them that her majesty had been provided for until the 5th of July. He would now ask the noble lord how her majesty was to be provided for after that period? and in answer to the triumph of the noble lord, he would observe, that, had he postponed the statement which he had that night
151
Mr. Tierney
said, it was perfectly true, that he did state that he would not agree to any permanent vote for her majesty, until the charges alleged against her were cleared up. When her majesty's name was omitted in the Liturgy, he had declared that if her conduct was such as to justify that measure, he would vote against any grant that should be proposed. He was a little surprised, however, at the course the noble lord was now pursuing, because, if he understood him correctly, he had stated that he would, whenever the provision for the royal family was brought before the House, take some notice of her majesty's situation. It appeared to him that her majesty was treated in the most extraordinary way, no provision of any kind having been made for her. The noble lord had stated very truly, that no member of that House could bring such a question forward of his own motion, but that it must be done by a message from the Crown. He knew that there must be a message on the subject; but he supposed no intention existed to make the necessary provision for her majesty [Lord Castlereagh here intimated across the table that such an intention did exist]. He was very happy to find that a proper sum of money would be allowed
152
l.
l.
l.
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that provision would not only be made for the usual support of her majesty, but that a sum would also be granted to meet any expenses that might arise during the pending investigation. Her majesty was provided for by the vote of that House up to the 5th of July, and it would be time enough for the noble lord to complain when he found ministers disbursing the public money without any legal authority.
Mr. Denman
wished to observe, that this question was brought before the committee, without her majesty's knowledge. She had given no directions whatsoever on the subject; she had no possible doubt that all necessary means for defending her rights and asserting her character would be afforded her from some quarter or other. It was, however, fit that the House should understand that the expenses would necessarily be very considerable. There was, however, another object much nearer to
153
Lord Castlereagh
said, that on the part of the Crown every thing would be done to facilitate her majesty's proceedings; and, with respect to the foreign powers, they would, he conceived, feel it to be a point of character to give her every assistance in their power.
The several resolutions were agreed to.
PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE LATE
Sir J. Newport
wished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether his late majesty had left a will, or, if he had died intestate, in what manner his personal property had been disposed of?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was not prepared to answer the question.
Mr. Tierney
repeated the question, and asked, in case of the non-existence of such a document, what had become of that property?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that he did not know, and it was not his duty to know whether such a paper existed.
Mr. Hume
said, that when he put a similar question to the chancellor of the exchequer upon a former occasion, the right hon. gentleman was certainly understood to have stated distinctly that a will did exist. If his late majesty had died intestate, it was proper that the House should know what had become of the money vested by acts of parliament under commissions, before they proceeded to grant sums of money to any part of the royal family. He trusted that some honourable member would take an early opportunity of making a motion upon the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
ob-
154
Mr. Tierney
thought it very important to ascertain whether his majesty had died intestate, or if any paper amounting to a will had been found, what measures had been taken with respect to the disposition of the personal property of his late majesty.
Mr. Bernal
wished to know from whom he was to receive official information upon this subject, if not from the chancellor of the exchequer.
Mr. Hume
contended, that if his late majesty had died intestate, his property was no longer private but public; and if public, it was the duty of the House to ascertain, especially in the 'present distressed state of the country, in what manner it had been disposed of.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
assured the hon. gentleman, that no part of the personal property of the his late majesty had come under the cognizance of that part of the government connected with the Treasury.
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that as part of the property, which was
primâ facie
Mr. Hume
wished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer whether he would have any objection to state, upon a motion being made, what steps had been taken by ministers to ascertain whether his late majesty had left a will, and what part of his personal property was likely to accrue to the public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was silent.
Mr. Baring
thought that if this subject appeared to be involved in any mystery or intrigue, a strong sensation would be excited in the country. If the exaggerated estimates had gone abroad as to the amount of the property left by his late majesty; that circumstance was itself calculated to excite the public attention, which would probably be increased after the conversation which had taken place upon the subject. If the right hon. gentleman did not wish to give any distinct information, he might at least state some reason which rendered it inconvenient to be more explicit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
re-
155
Mr. Bernal
observed, that information was extracted from the right hon. gentleman, like a bad cork from a bottle of brandy.
KING'S BENCH PROCEEDINGS BILL.]
The House having gone into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Chetwynd
said, it was his intention to propose three additional clauses to this bill. The first of them was, to enable judges to pass sentence upon defendants at Nisi Prius, instead of bringing them up to the court of King's Bench.
The Attorney-General
said, that an objection
in limine
Mr. Chetwynd
observed, that in offences against the revenue not a single instance of a new trial had occurred in the last year.
Mr. G. Bankes
thought that the clause proposed would be more properly made the subject of a specific measure.
The Attorney General
was of opinion, that in the cases which had been pointed at, it might be very important to the parties to possess the right of moving for a new trial. He therefore could not consent to adopt the clause. He explained and justified the increased amount of law charges for the last year, and proceeded to show that the statement recently made by the late member for Colchester receiving briefs and counsel being paid for all prosecutions throughout the country whether they attended them or not was erroneous.
The clause was rejected, and as Mr.
156
THE CORONATION.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee of supply,
Mr. Creevey
rose to make a few observations upon a subject which the right hon. gentleman was going to introduce to their notice—he meant the expense of the ensuing Coronation. As yet there had not been placed upon their table any estimate of the sums of money which would be required for such a ceremony; and till such an estimate was presented to them, he for one, would not grant a single farthing for it. Indeed, it was his opinion, that, under the present circumstances of the country, no coronation ought to take place: for let honorable members consider—and if they did not consider, the public would consider for them—the situation to which that House was at present reduced. A green bag had been submitted as well to its notice as to the notice of the other House of Parliament. The other House had proceeded so far in the investigation of the contents of that bag as to render it extremely probable that a bill would be immediately introduced to expose her majesty the queen to the utmost disgrace and infamy. The House of Commons had, however, refused to enter with similar speed into a similar investigation; and yet, notwithstanding that circumstance, ministers, who knew well that that bag was lying on their table unopened, and that proceedings might arise from the opening of it which could only be terminated in another place—ministers had dared to come down, and to ask for a large grant of money to be expended in a grand gala, a great national jubilee, whilst the queen of the country was labouring under the most heavy and grievous accusations. If the laws of the land had prescribed any particular period, after the demise of one monarch and the accession of another, within which this ceremony of coronation was necessarily to take place, then, however painful the circumstances attending it might be, he should have said, let it take place within that period. But no such limitation existed, and therefore, under existing circumstances, it was most improper that it should be held at the time which was now fixed for it. Indeed, his majesty would be most imprudently advised if he did not postpone it until the conclusion of this investigation If there
157
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that he did not know upon what grounds the hon. member had come forward with so much zeal to attack the coronation, if it were not on the ground of the expense by which it would be attended; and upon that point he was happy to inform him that it would be much less than had been originally expected. With regard to the argument which the hon. member had built upon the unfortunate differences now existing between their majesties, he felt himself compelled to to say, that his majesty's rights were not to be impaired either by the absence or the presence of the queen on this occasion; for the coronation was not a grand gala, or national jubilee, as the hon. member had represented it, but a ceremony whereby the king ratified the compact which existed between himself and his people; and therefore was a ceremony which ought not to be delayed. His majesty's ministers deserved no blame on account of the period at which the coronation was to take place, as it had been fixed at the usual period after the death of the pre-
158
l.
Dr. Lushington
apprehended that at present there were circumstances of so pecular a nature, both with respect to the situation of the queen-consort, and the State of the public finances, that ministers themselves must believe they would best discharge their duty by advising that this ceremony should be delayed. There was, in fact, no necessity for a coronation at all, and he believed it would be found, on referring to the history of this country, that many kings had reigned for a considerable time without having gone through that ceremony. If then, there was no necessity for his majesty's being crowned, it became a question whether or not, at the present moment, it was expedient. His hon. friend had stated, that while the trial of her majesty was going on, it was improper that there should be a public solemnity in which she could take no part. In this opinion he entirely concurred; and he also agreed with his hon. friend in thinking that it would be imprudent to rouse and provoke the feelings of the people of this country, at a time when they would be in a high state of excitation. He would appeal to the noble lord himself whether it was not impolitic to offer this additional excitement to public feeling at a time when the noble lord must know, from the addresses that were presented to her majesty, what the opinion of the people was respecting the treatment which she had received; and when he must also know, if he at all looked forward to futurity, that these feelings would hereafter become stronger than they were at present. But there was still another objec-
159
l.
l.
l.
160
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed his surprise at the observations of the hon. and learned gentleman, as he had allowed the subject to sleep so long unnoticed. The hon and learned gentleman knew of it long ago from the king's proclamation. He had, however, chosen to wait until a considerable expence had been incurred, and when the question was, not so much whether the public money should be paid, but whether the tradesmen who had been employed should be honourably paid? He wished the hon. and learned gentleman to consider, whether or not when the complaint from many parts of the country was of a want of employment, the occurrence of such a great public solemnity as that in contemplation was peculiarly desirable, giving work as it must to many branches of the unoccupied? The hon. and learned gentleman must know that the sum voted from the public purse would form but a small part of the money that would be expended on the occasion. He must know that the expence to which the higher classes of so-
161
Dr. Lushington
said, that what he had stated was, that the distress of the country was occasioned by the extravagance of ministers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
continued. He would say no more on that point. With respect to the coronation of his majesty, he begged to observe that the period when that ceremony should take place, was fixed long before the arrival of the queen. The period having
162
Colonel Davies
was of opinion, that the period fixed for his majesty's coronation was a most inconvenient one. Irritated as the public mind now was, it might be productive not only of disorder and riot, but of bloodshed. Why, then, should his majesty's advisers propose such a proceeding at this moment? It was not indispensably necessary that his majesty should be crowned immediately. His late majesty was not crowned until 13 months after his accession. He thought, therefore, that as there was no other mode of repressing tumult on this occasion than by calling out an extraordinary number of the military, the danger likely to arise had better be avoided by postponing the coronation for the present.
Mr. T. Wilson
said, it was not his intention to prejudge the guilt or innocence of her majesty, but he thought it would be derogatory from the dignity of the crown to refuse the sum proposed to defray the expenses of his majesty's coronation. It was rather odd that those gentlemen who had now objected to this ceremony, had not, on any former occasion, signified their disapprobation of its taking place at the time proposed. Any objection on that head ought to have been made at an earlier period.
Mr. Bennet
said, the hon. gentleman had accused his side of the House for not having taken an earlier opportunity of opposing the coronation at the period proposed. But who was it that proposed that coronation—who was it that directed the erection of the works for it? It was his majesty's ministers, not the opposition, as neither he nor his friends had any opportunity of speaking on the subject until it came fairly before the House. He could not help feeling, that nothing was more likely to excite public indignation, than to find, that while one House was agitating a bill of pains and penalties against her majesty, the other was employed in voting a sum of money to be expended in the pageantry and show of the coronation of the king. Historians had remarked, that in the reign of Henry 8th, the public mind had been much agitated, while proceedings were pending against the queen
163
Mr. Robinson
said, he rose principally to make a few observations, which were drawn from him by the extraordinary and unmeaning rant of the hon. and learned doctor, who had worked himself into a most violent passion, and had belaboured his majesty's ministers most unmercifully; but if there was any foundation for that harangue, the hon. and learned doctor had been lamentably remiss in his duty in not calling them to account long ago. He ought to have objected to the first step taken in preparing for the coronation; he had not however done so, and therefore the learned doctor was wrong in now objecting to the expenses necessary to carry that object into effect. It was objected that so large a sum should be expended in the mere pageantry of a coronation, and that too while a bill of pains and penalties was pending against her majesty. He denied that the coronation was a pageantry. Let the hon. member look to the preamble to the act of king William, and he would find that the coronation was any thing but a parade. The king was bound to take certain oaths, and it would be a fault in ministers to delay his majesty's doing so. The hon. member then read the oath which his majesty was bound to take, "that he was bound to govern the country according to the statutes; that he should administer justice in mercy; that he would maintain the religion of the country as by law established, &c." Would the House, after this, say that the coronation was a matter of choice? He maintained it was matter of law, and could not be dispensed with [Hear, hear!]. This being the case, bow could ministers have justified themselves in advising the postponement of so important a measure? Next came the objection in point of time. He remembered, that six months since, a great objection was, that it was to take place in the dog-days: however this might be, he was sure that Christmas would be found a much more inconvenient period. The public curiosity would naturally be excited on the occasion, and ministers would undergo no small portion of blame, if a period was fixed when the ceremony of
164
Mr. W. Smith
would ask the right hon. gentleman, if he really believed that the king, after he had taken the coronation oath would be more or less bound to reign according to law than he was after he had taken the oath before the privy council? Could it be said that he was at any future period to be absolved from any of his regal functions because he had not taken a coronation oath? As to those splendid ceremonies, of which the chancellor of the exchequer had spoken as calculated to support the dignity of the Crown, he conceived that they were—"more honoured in the breach than in the observance." He appealed to every hon. gentleman, whether it was not his opinion that the feelings of the country were more in favour of economy than of the most splendid public exhibition. He had hitherto purposely abstained from saying any thing on the question of the queen; and if he were now to speak his sentiments, he apprehended they would not please either side of the House. He thought that the propriety or impropriety of having a coronation while proceedings were going on against her majesty, was merely a matter of feeling; but it was a matter that came home to the mind and bosom of every person.
Mr. Baring
concurred with his hon. friends as to the unfitness of the period chosen for the coronation; but with regard to the expense, he could not think that there would be any man in the country whose feelings would be shocked by it. The estimate was certainly far less than he had anticipated. Although it was undoubtedly of extreme importance that the king should be crowned soon after his accession, yet he could not see that a delay of 6, of 12, or of 18 months even, was material. He thought, also, that the ceremony should be performed with great solemnity; but he repeated that he could not see the necessity of being particular as to the precise period of the event. Pending the present proceedings with regard to her majesty, however, the celebration of that solemnity was likely to be not only unpleasant to the feelings of the people, but to have a very injurious effect upon the minds of many. If her majesty were declared innocent, every person would say, notwithstanding that it might be the right of the Crown to determine whether or no she should be
| |
165
Sir M. W. Ridley
hoped, that should the coronation take place, a due regard would be paid to the encouragement of British manufacture. The article of velvet particularly ought to be encouraged on this occasion. It was true that English velvet could not compete with that of Genoa, yet it was equally handsome in appearance. This might appear a trifling consideration, but he hoped it would not be forgotten by his majesty's advisers.
Mr. Tierney
said, that as to the vote to be proposed, he was not aware that he should have any thing to object on that account. He was no enemy, on some occasions, to pageants, and, least of all, to such a pageant as the one in question. But he regretted that it was determined that the coronation should take place upon the 1st of August. He sincerely lamented that his majesty should have been advised to come to such a resolution. After the steps, however, which had been taken, after the official letters that had been addressed to all parties concerned, it was hardly, perhaps, to be expected, that his majesty should stop short in the transaction. He did not, at the same time, think that there were ten gentlemen in the House who would not thank him, if he could devise any means by which the celebration of the coronation could be farther deferred. Now, after the arrival of her majesty in this country, he did own that he had hoped the propriety and necessity of such a postponement would have been felt and acted upon. He should be liable to a great deal of misunderstanding, if he were to state all that he apprehended as likely to result from the coronation so speedily taking place. The general opinion was that her majesty had been oppressed. He did not here mean to say a word as to the opinion of her innocence or guilt; yet it could not be contended for a moment but that this opinion of her being oppressed was the general feeling; and the one which pervaded not only the lower classes, but the higher ranks of so-
166
Mr. Ricardo
thought that if the various articles likely to be consumed at the coronation could be bought cheaper in the foreign than the home market, there could be no objection to their not being home manufacture, seeing that they must be purchased by the produce of our own industry.
l.
167
IRISH COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.]
The report of this bill being brought up, Colonel Barry said, that in order to show there was a second opinion in the House with respect to the case of Mr. Ellis, who was, he believed, ere now, elected for Dublin, he thought it proper to move n additional clause, viz. "That nothing in the act shall extend to prevent any person from sitting or voting in the House of Commons who shall have been elected to serve therein previous to the passing of the act." The question being put, that the clause be brought up, the House divided—Ayes, 42; Noes, 65: Majority against the clause, 23. The report was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, July 4, 1820.
RERORT OF THE SECRET COMMITTEE
The Earl of Harrowby
rose and said, that as chairman of the Secret Committee appointed to examine the Papers referred to the House by his majesty's message, relating to the conduct of the queen, he was commanded to present the Report of the Committee to the House. The noble earl moved that it be read, which being agreed to—
168
The Report was Ordered to be printed.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that in consequence of the report which their lordships had just heard, it was incumbent on him to give notice, that he should tomorrow bring in a bill, founded upon the report, the object of which he should then explain to their lordships. At the same time all facilities would be given to the illustrious personage whose conduct was implicated so much, for the purposes of defence or exculpation in every way. He concluded by moving, that their lordships be summoned for to-morrow.
Earl Grey
would, in the present situation of the proceedings, abstain from saying much that occurred to him upon this most important subject, the difficulty and danger to be apprehended from which was, in his opinion, increased in an immense degree by the report now on the table. When he before objected to the course which the noble lords opposite proposed to pursue, he stated then, and he now repeated, that his only object was to obtain for the parties concerned strict and impartial justice. He had now again to enter his protest against the injustice of a proceeding which did not leave the case of the person accused in an unprejudiced state. The charges now made were not merely brought forward by the ministers of the Crown, but came before their lordships through the medium of a committee of their lordships' House. It was therefore important that their lordships should consider the situation in which they were placed. Though the noble lord had alluded to the introduction of a legislative proceeding, it must be anticipated that their lordships would have to act judicially in the course of the inquiry. They ought, then, to come impartially to that part of their duty. The charge set forth, on the authority of the report, was that of an
169
170
The Earl of Harrowby
thought that the noble earl might have abstained from saying any thing until his noble friend had had the opportunity, to-morrow, of explaining the course of proceeding which he thought should be adopted. He could assure their lordships that he as deeply regretted the necessity of the proceeding, and as anxiously desired to avoid agitating the public mind, as the noble earl or any other person; but he thought it requisite to make one or two observations on what had fallen from the noble earl. He had accused his majesty's government with having committed a great act of injustice by the course which had been pursued. If that course was injustice, their lordships were completely accomplices in it. The arguments of the noble earl and his friends were stated to be unanswerable; but those who were convinced by those unanswerable arguments had not thought fit that the public should know how large their numbers were. As to the inconvenience to the accused person, of which so much had been said, how was it to be avoided? Every regard had been had to the strictest impartiality in laying the proceedings before the committee. But if any member of that House had risen to propose a measure similar to that which was the object of the committee, would their lordships have allowed him to open his mouth? When the call from the accused person for trial had been so strongly made, there was no other mode of proceeding left. Before the call was made, the committee had been appointed, and then their lordships did not think it consistent with propriety or justice to change their course. But it was said, his majesty's ministers were highly blameable for not having themselves instituted a proceeding like that which it was now proposed to institute on the recommendation of the committee. And yet what the noble earl contended ought to have been done before, he now wished to delay; and alleged that to proceed would be dangerous to the tranquillity of the country. He could assure the House for himself, that if there were any part of the conduct of his majesty's ministers to which they could look back with more particular satisfaction than another, he believed it to be that which had been employed in endeavours to avoid, by some compromise, the public discussion of the present sub-
171
The Earl of Carnarvon
could not admit the justice of the noble earl's comparison of the report on the table to the verdict of a grand jury. Before a grand jury found a bill, they heard a complete body of testimony against the accused. He would ask the noble earl whether the committee had examined such witnesses as a grand jury must examine before they sanctioned an accusation? Were the witnesses brought before the committee as they must have been into a grand jury-room? There was another subject, however, on which he thought it necessary to say a few words. He wished to know whether it really was the intention of the noble lord opposite to shorten the duration of the present session, in order to afford an opportunity for the exhibition of a splendid pageant, which would at present be very ill-timed. He was aware that the coronation was an occasion on which oaths were interchanged between the sovereign and his people, and therefore he
172
The Earl of Darnley
was afraid that nothing but mischief could result from the report laid on the table, and sincerely wished that the proceedings had been avoided. He had before alluded to the measure of the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, the injustice of which was so glaring. After her majesty had been prayed for during twenty-five years as princess of Wales, the refusing to pray for her as queen was quite unaccountable. How did it happen that she, who was worthy to be prayed for on the 29th of January, became all at once an unworthy object on the 30th, the very next day? The conduct of ministers in this respect could not be exculpated.
Earl Grey
said, there was one point on which he was most anxious that he should not be misunderstood. The noble earl had stated, that no part of the conduct of his majesty's advisers had given them more satisfaction than that which they had pursued in the present case. He must, however, say, that if those advisers had before them evidence of the queen
173
l.
The Earl of Liverpool
rose merely to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the noble earl. The doctrine advanced by him was, that ministers had finally seen the queen's conduct in a different light from what they had done at the commencement, because they now advised inquiry, whereas they formerly showed a willingness to compromise. Now, he had not the least difficulty in maintaining that, even on the assumption of the possibility of proving every charge against the queen which had been made, his majesty's ministers had done right in offering to agree to an adjustment without a trial. He would say, that had she remained abroad, the evils attending a compromise would not have been so great as those that might be anticipated from instituting proceedings against her; and he entertained this opinion in common with ninety-nine out of a hundred of the nation. Undoubtedly, it might be said, that, if charges existed, they ought to be proved or dispelled. This, as a general maxim, might be correct; but circumstances might be such as to render the application of it
174
The Marquis of Buckingham
said, that the House had already concurred in the propriety of proceeding as his majesty's ministers had recommended, without knowing any of the particulars, but merely having before them the general charges. He concurred in all the vote9 that had been given for adjournment, in order that time might be afforded for adjustment, and he did so with great satisfaction. He wished the question not to be brought forward if it could have been prevented, because he thought it would affect the honour of the Crown, and the peace and tranquillity of the country; but when he found that all attempts at compromise had been unavailing, he as sincerely agreed in the necessity of pursuing the inquiry. The proposed duty had therefore devolved upon the committee, which duty it had now fulfilled; and if he might be allowed to say any thing concerning that committee, he would mention that the report on the table expressed its unanimous opinion on the documents laid before it.
175
Lord Holland
could not allow some of the observations which had fallen from the noble marquis to pass unnoticed. It was with pain that he heard the noble marquis attempt to make the House accomplices in the proceedings of ministers—it was with pain that he saw an endeavour made to throw the responsibility of the inconsistent conduct of ministers on a majority of their lordships; but when the noble marquis went a little farther, and wished to implicate them likewise in the negotiations that had intervened, he went too far. The majority of the House stood acquitted, both of having preferred charges against her majesty, and of having attempted to compromise those charges. The noble earl had stated in loud and lofty language, that he had his reasons for believing, that inquiry, which was not necessary if her majesty had remained out of England, became necessary as soon as she returned; but he had not specified those reasons. He merely gave his opinion without producing any grounds for it; and he had forgotten that her majesty was not only to escape a trial if she remained abroad, but was to receive 50,000
l.
The motion was agreed to.
176
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 4, 1820.
COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE.]
Mr. Hume
said, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, he was actuated by no hostile feeling to his majesty's ministers, who, by granting the accounts for which he had moved, had shown a disposition to admit discussion and to court inquiry. Though his own calculation differed from the official accounts in some respects, he preferred adopting the latter in all cases, to avoid any controversy on that head. The first resolution which he had to submit was merely to pledge the House to a vigilant superintendence of the public expenditure, and to a minute investigation of the mode of collecting the revenue. This, in substance, though not in form, was similar to the resolution proposed by the chancellor of the Exchequer, when he had called on the House to impose three millions of new taxes. He hoped the House would now repeat this pledge, as it was by small savings on the multiplied items of expenditure alone that economy could be effected. He could have only wished that this subject had been brought forward by an hon. baronet, who had proposed similar resolutions in the last session, and from whom they would have come with greater weight. The second resolution was a comparison of the expenses of collection of the revenue at three different times. The account of the expense at the first period was taken from the Reports of the Finance Committee, of which the late Speaker was chairman (1796–7); of the second, from the Report of the Committee, of which the member for Corfe-castle was chairman; and of the third, from the annual accounts presented to the House. The third resolution was a comparison of the nett amount of the revenue at three different periods, taken from the same sources. As the gross receipt of this revenue had been, in 1796, twenty-three millions; in 1810, forty-five millions; and in 1820, fifty five millions, it was to be expected, he thought, that the amount having much increased while the officers and boards of the revenue remained the same, the percentage should have been diminished more than it appeared it had been. The rate per cent-age on the gross receipt in the year 1796 was 5
l.
.s
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
177
l.
l.
l.
l.
178
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
179
l.
l.
l.
180
l.
l.
l.
l
181
l.
l.
l.
Year.
Gross Receipt of Revenue.
Nett Receipt of Revenue.
Amount of Charges of Management.
Rate per Centage on Gross Receipt.
Rate per Centage on Nett Receipt.
£.
£.
£.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
1796
…
23,306,718
20,281,017 for
1,174,525 or
5
0
9 and
6
1
7
1810
…
45,602,601
41,299,023 for
2,591,615 or
5
13
7¾ and
6
5
6
1820
…
55,096,744
49,992,394 for
3,341,823 or
6
1
3¾ and
6
19
0¾
3."That the gross amount of the ordinary revenues of the United Kingdom, in the year ending 5th Jan. 1820, was 60,318,273
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
l
d.
4."That the gross amount of the ordinary revenues of Ireland, in the year
Country.
Customs.
Excise,
Stamps.
Land and Assessed Taxes.
Average of the Total Revenue in each Country.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
In England
9
3
8
3
19
7
2
10
8½
3
15
4
5
17
10
Scotland
16
9
0½
7
4
10
3
17
1
5
19
4
9
6
11
Ireland
16
13
9¼
12
9
11½
8
5
3¾
16
19
10
15
8
11¼
6."That the office of receiver-general of the land and assessed taxes is one of deposit, and for remittance of the taxes from district collections to the Exchequer; and, in the present state of the finances of the country, that service may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service.
7."That there are 65 receivers-general of the land and assessed taxes, in England and Wales; who received an allow-
182
hon. member concluded by moving the following Resolutions:
1. "That with a view of accelerating the period at which relief may be afforded to the country from a part of its burthens, a continued and vigilant superintendence ought to be exercised over the expenditure of the state in all its several departments; and that a minute investigation should be instituted into the mode and expense of management and collection in the several branches of the revenue, in order that every reduction may be made therein, which can be effected without detriment to the public interest.
2. "That the ordinary revenues of Great Britain were collected, in the years 1796, 18l0, and l820, at the following rates:
1820, was 5,221,529
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
5."That the revenues of Great Britain and Ireland were collected in the year ending the 5th Jan. 1819, at the following rate per cent on the gross receipts, viz.
ance of 40,717
l.
l.
l.
8."That it appears by the returns before the House, that ten receivers-general were, since 1790, in arrears at the time of their death, or of leaving their office, to
183
l.
.s
d.
l.
s.
d.
9."That there are 95 distributors of stamps in Great Britain, who received allowances, or poundage, amounting to 85,303
l.
l.
l.
TAX.
Nett Receipts.
Charges of Management.
Rate per Cent on the Nett Receipts.
£.
£.
£.
s.
d.
Of One shilling in the pound
19,353
491
2
17
4¾
Of Sixpence in the pound
10,037
241
3
2
0
Total
29,390
732
"Which charge may be altogether saved, by the reduction of the salaries equal to the amount of the tax, as recommended by the finance committee in 1797.
"The first Resolution being put,
Mr. Lushington
was anxious to occupy as short a portion as possible of the time of the Committee' in stating the grounds of his objection to most of the resolutions of the hon. gentleman. His first resolution was unnecessary, since one to a similar effect had been voted in the last year. The second resolution was unfit to appear on the Journals of the House, in consequence of a material error which affected the calculations of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman had compared the revenue of the last year with that of 1796. Now, in the revenue for 1796, the whole expense of collecting the post-horse duties was omitted; and it was obvious that this omission must have a material effect upon the whole calculations. No results could be accurate which were founded upon a comparison of the revenue in a year of peace with that in a year of war. Besides, upon a more accurate examination of his figures, the hon. gentleman would find that he had a material error in his calculation of the percentage. He had, in fact, taken one line of figures for another, and as this error vitiated the whole calculations, a proposition founded upon them was unfit to appear upon the Journals. To his third resolution he was ready to accede, but he thought it right that it should be accompanied by another resolution which he should submit to the House. With respect to the other resolutions of the hon. gentleman, if he suc
184
10."That in the present state of the finances of the country, the duty of distributor of stamps may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service.
11."That the amount of revenue from the tax on salaries in the year ending 5th January 1820, and the charges of management, were:.
ceeded in showing; that government had paid the most vigilant attention to the means of diminishing the public expenditure, and that in fact a diminution had taken place to a considerable amount in the last year, he thought the House would agree that the hon. gentleman had laid no ground for his motion. The hon. gentleman had complained that no material reductions had followed the reports of the committee; but reforms of the nature alluded to could only be conducted in a gradual manner, and were necessarily the work of time. The expense of collecting the revenue in Scotland and Ireland had been compared with that of collecting it in England; but when the immense amount of the revenue of this-country, compared with that of Scotland and Ireland was considered, it would be seen that those countries afforded no just ground of comparison. The lion, gentleman had objected to' the allowances to receivers general of taxes, and had suggested other means of collecting the revenue, which he thought would be more beneficial to the country; but he (Mr. L.) totally differed from the opinion of the hon. gentleman, and he thought the House would also differ from it, when he stated that out of the immense sum of 330,000,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
185
vour of the present system. As to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, that country bankers might supply the places of receivers general, he would only observe, that it was a special instruction of the committee, that no country-banker should be a receiver, and all the cases of failure which had occurred, arose from the connexion of receivers-general with country banks. It was true that their duties were executed by deputies, but the receivers were the only responsible persons. He would add but one word upon the subject of superannuated allowances. Since the year 1810, in consequence of the abolition of fees, and the substitution of public salaries, superannuated allowances had gradually increased, but he would venture to assert, that this increase was upon the whole beneficial to the public, because persons who had become unfit for their public duties, were replaced by active officers. Upon all the resolutions of the hon. gentleman, excepting the third, he should move the previous question; and in addition thereto, he should move the three following:
"That the gross amount of the ordinary revenues of the united kingdom, in the year ending the 5th Jan. 1819, was 62,230,527
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
d.
"That the gross amount of the ordinary revenues of the united kingdom, in the year ending the 5th Jan. 1818, was 60,450,767
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
"That the expense of managing and collecting the revenues of the united kingdom in the last year, ending 5th Jan. 1820, has been diminished, as compared with the years ending 5th Jan. 1819, and 5th Jan. 1818; that a minute investigation has been instituted into the mode and expense of management in several branches of the revenue, in order that every reduction might be made therein which could be effected without detriment to the public service, and that a continuance of the same vigilance is essential to the best interests of the country"
Sir H. Parnell
maintained that the cir-
186
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. John Smith
thought the first resolution the best. In the present state of the finances of the country, he was persuaded that-no man could quit the House without a wound to his conscience who did not vote for it. He had been very sorry therefore to hear the hon. secretary object to it. In Ireland among other misgovernments, the collection of the revenue was made a job; the consequence of which was, that the charge amounted to 16 per cent on the nett revenue, and 22 per cent on the gross revenue. He was one of those who thought that the whole subject of the revenue and the expenditure of the country ought to come once more under the cognizance of parliament. He had a great respect for the members of the former committees of that House on the subject, but he must say, that in some respects they had strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. The collection of the Customs was especially expensive. He had a friend high in the Custom house, who was well acquainted with all the details, and who had told him that he would be very glad to farm the collection at one-fifth of the present charge. Much was lost to the country by the large balances which were unnecessarily left in the hands of the receivers of the land tax. The great evil was, that the government was a government depending on influence; and that ministers were afraid to retrench lest they should lose their influence. He was persuaded, however, that if they would apply economy as a principle pervading every branch of the state, they would soon obtain more real power and popularity than by the distribution of any places which they now had it in their power to give.
Mr. W. Smith
reprobated the large allowance made to distributors of stamps. He knew one who received 4,000
l.
187
Mr. Tierney
returned his sincere thanks to the hon. mover for having brought his proposition before the House. He had seldom heard a more clear and dispassion-ate statement, or one evincing greater re-search. He felt, however, the same des-pair on the subject as his hon. friend who had just sat down. The manner in which the hon. gentleman's proposition had been received, was very discouraging in this respect; and he was also discouraged by his own experience when he was a young man, and began to work on the subject of re-venue. When such resolutions were i moved as those proposed this evening, it; had been usual to have them printed, and for the Treasury to move counter-resolutions, which being also printed, a day was fixed for the discussion of both. That, however, was not the course pursued. The first of the hon. mover's resolutions was to be negatived, and in lieu of it the hon. secretary of the Treasury moved at once a resolution, that so much had been done in the way of retrenchment, that it was only necessary to persevere. He strongly reprobated the recent practice of referring the consideration of the finances to a committee of persons appointed by the Treasury. He agreed with his hon. friend near him that at bottom all the abuses on this subject were attributable to influence; and that nothing could make an administration more popular, than fairly and firmly to set about correcting it. But he was
188
l.
l.
l.
189
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that there was no unwillingness in the House to attend to a subject which was so materially connected with the public interest. The hon. mover had laid before them a number of comparative statements, which the secretary of the Treasury had answered. The collection of the revenue in different countries had been adverted to; but that was not a fair criterion for the direction of the House. It was observed, that the collection of the revenue in France was more economical, than in Ireland; but as the revenue of France was principally a land revenue, it was evidently more easy to collect it than to gather in the revenue of Ireland, which comprised many different heads. An hon. gentleman seemed to reprehend the office of distributor of stamps and receiver-general of land-tax as being sources of permanent influence, and kept up for that purpose. This he entirely denied. The system had been acted on for many years, and had been found to operate beneficially. The receivers of land-tax, and the distributors of stamps, did not realise so much emolument as was imagined. They had often had reason to repent the frauds which had been practised on them without any blame being attachable to them. The balances in the hands of receivers-general and distributors of stamps were very doubtful. Though the nominal amount might be great, yet the real amount, in consequence of the number of persons employed under them, was often reduced to a very small sum.
190
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visct.
Maberly, W. L.
Anson, hon. G.
Macdonald, J.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Barnard, visct.
Maule, hon. W.
Barrett, S. M.
Monck, J. B.
Beaumont, T. W.
Moore, P.
Benyon, B.
Newport, sir J.
Bernal, R.
O'Grady, S.
Burdett, sir F.
O'Callaghan, J.
Bury, visct.
Osborne, lord F.
Byng, G.
Palmer, C. F.
Bright, H.
Parnell, sir H.
Corbet, P.
Peirse, H.
Calcraft, J.
Powlett, hon. W.
Calcraft, J. H.
Pryse, P.
Calvert, C.
Pym, F.
Campbell, hon. J.
Ramsay, sir A.
Chamberlayne, W.
Ricardo, D.
Carew, R. S.
Robarts, A.
Carter, J.
Robarts, G.
Clifton, visct.
Robinson, sir G.
Coffin, sir I.
Rowley, sir W.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Russell, lord G. W.
Davies, R. H.
Smith, hon. R.
Denison, W. J.
Smith, J.
Denman, T.
Smith, S.
Duncannon, visct.
Smith, A.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Scarlett, J.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Scudamore, R.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Stewart, W.
Grant, J. P.
Stuart, lord J.
Graham, J. R. G.
Sykes, D.
Griffith, J. W.
Tremayne, J. H.
Guise, sir W.
Tulk, C. A.
Heygate, ald.
Tynte, C.
Hamilton, lord A.
Townshend, lord C.
Harbord, hon. E.
Tavistock, marq. of
Heathcote, G. J.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Heron, sir R.
Wynn, C. W.
Hill, lord A.
Whitmore, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Webbe, E.
Honywood, W. P.
Wharton, J.
Jervoice, G. P
Whitbread, S. C.
Langston, J. H.
Williams, T. P.
Littleton, E.
Wilson, sir R.
Lambton, J. G.
Wilson, T.
Latouche, R.
Wyvill, M.
Lemon, sir W.
TELLERS.
Lloyd, sir E.
Hume, J.
Lushington, S.
Smith, W.
Maberly, J.
THE LATE KING'S PRIVATE PROPERTY.]
Mr. Hume
said, that the motion which he was about to introduce to the House was one most worthy of their serious consideration, as it related to the private property left by his late majesty. He then proceeded to explain how the law
191
l.
192
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
193
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed his conviction, that the House would agree with him in thinking that no inquiry should be entered into with respect to the private affairs of the royal family, unless under circumstances of imperious necessity: and as no such reason could be adduced in this case, he trusted the House would see that the hon. member's motion was unnecessary, especially after the explanation which he had to otter. Since the death of the king, a testamentary document had been found among his majesty's papers, and the subject had been referred to the consideration of competent persons, who had not yet made their report. But whatever the decision of those persons might be, there was no question whatever that the property of the late king devolved upon his present majesty. But as to the amount of that property, the hon. mover had been very much misled, for that property comprehended about 90,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that after the explanation which the House had heard, he had no objection to withdraw his motion, declaring that he should not have brought it forward if it were not for the refusal of the noble lord to make any answer to the question which was put to him last night. It would be admitted, however, that the motion would produce a satisfactory result, by doing away with the exaggerated reports which had gone abroad respecting the amount of the private property of the late king.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that be could not feel himself at liberty to answer any questions affecting the private affairs of the Crown, without special authority. It appeared, however, that the hon. mover, as
194
l.
The motion was withdrawn
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, July 5, 1820.
ALIEN BILL.]
Lord Holland
said, he had a petition to present relative to an act of parliament, which, having now ceased, he might without scruple describe as most unconstitutional. There were points contained in this petition to which he wished to direct their lordships' most serious attention. Besides stating broad constitutional grounds against the measure, the petitioners urged particular reasons for not passing the act at the present moment—reasons which showed how often it happens, that when governments deviate from the strict line of constitutional principle, they were very apt to involve themselves in embarrassment and difficulty. He therefore trusted that their lordships would not pass the bill at all if it came before them; but if they did proceed with it, he hoped they would introduce a clause to secure against its operation all persons called as witnesses on either side in the important proceeding upon which they were about to enter. This he should think would be but just and fair at any time or in any case; but how much more so when the proceedings in which their lordships were about to be engaged were of a judicial nature, and had for their object acts alleged to have been committed abroad? The petitioners stated, that the act, if passed would put it in the power of ministers to send out of the kingdom all foreigners who might be able to give evidence, or whom they might suppose to be able to give evidence, in favour of her majesty, and to give protection to all who might now be disposed to give evidence against her, or hereafter be brought forward for that purpose. He thought the particular objection highly important, and the constitutional ground on which the petitioners prayed that the bill might not pass would surely obtain their lordships' most anxious consideration. It was necessary that all ground of suspicion of partiality should be removed. Hostile as he was to the act, he was most desirous that it should be rejected; but if it were entertained by their lordships, he thought
195
PETITION FROM THE QUEEN.]
Lord Dacre
said, he held in his hand a petition from her majesty. Her majesty expressed her surprise at the nature of the document on their lordships table. She also stated, that she had a variety of weighty matters to urge for their lordships consideration, and that it was most important that she should be hoard in this stage by counsel. He should merely remark, that when her majesty stated that it was necessary for her defence that she should be heard at this period, he did not think it would be becoming in their lordships to refuse her prayer. He would add, that he had been assured from a quarter, the authority of which he could not doubt, that to allow her majesty to be now heard by counsel, instead of delaying, would greatly tend to expedite the proceedings in this very lamentable case. He moved that the petition be read. It was as follows:—
The Earl of Liverpool
could see no ground for such an application as that which was now made, merely on a notice for the introduction of a bill. It really appeared to him, that the advice which must in this instance have been given to the illustrious petitioner was of a most extraordinary nature. She applied to be heard in the present stage by counsel; but their lordships were as yet in no stage whatever of the proceeding. A commit-
196
Lord Dacre
was aware that he was placed in a difficult situation when he offered the petition to their lordships; for, as he was not acquainted with the circumstances on which the application was founded, it was not in his power to state particular grounds for inducing their lordships to grant the prayer of the petition. He was, therefore, obliged to confine himself to general reasons, or to suppositions. The noble earl had made it an objection to the application, that her majesty had no regular means of being acquainted with their lordships' proceedings. Now, though no regular communication had been made, was it not a sufficient ground for presenting a petition, when an individual of high station, like her majesty, heard of such a step being intended as the bill of which the noble earl had given notice? If her majesty thought it necessary to make some statements which she believed it would be important to her interests should now be heard, would their lordships refuse her prayer? He had stated that he was not acquainted with the reasons of her majesty's application; but he would put a case hypothetically. He I would suspose—but he begged to be understood that he had no information whatever on the subject—that her majesty wished to submit to their lordships, by counsel, reasons why the proceeding against her should not be by bill The noble lord had argued that the period for considering her majesty's application would be when the bill was on the table.; but if the ground of the application was what he supposed, the proper time would then be passed. Her majesty might have strong grounds for preferring a judicial to a legislative proceeding. Considering,
197
Lord Ellenborough
could not admit that the situation or rank of the petitioner afforded any reason for their lordships departing from their usual course. Whether a petition came from a princess, or from one of the lowest subjects in the kingdom, their lordships were bound to act according to the principles of equal justice. He therefore thought that the House would best perform its duty by refusing to extend any facility in the present case, which they would not be inclined to grant to another person under similar circumstances. He would vote against the petition for this reason—that it asked that which, if prayed for by any other individual in the country, would not be granted.
Earl Grey
admitted that the question under consideration was one of some difficulty, but he reminded their lordships that that difficulty arose out of the extraordinary course of proceeding which they had thought fit to sanction on this unhappy occasion. In the sentiment expressed by the noble lord who spoke last, that it was the duty of that House to administer impartial. and equal justice to all persons, whether high or low, he most sincerely concurred; but at the same time he must observe, that the present was a case so peculiar in its circumstances, that ordinary rules did not apply to it. Her majesty was arraigned by a committee appointed by their lordships on charges unheard of in modern times. He must ask, then, whether the particular circumstances of such a case did not require particular attention on the part of their lordships? At the same time he was far from proposing that an undue advantage should be extended to her majesty. All that he desired was, that she should not come before them under any disadvantage from the course of proceeding they had adopted. And here let him ask, in what situation her majesty stood? Their lordships were not informed of the particular object of the bill which the noble earl was about to introduce; but he would suppose that it wight be a bill for the dissolution of the
198
199
The Lord Chancellor
declared, that he entered on this question, as he would on every other connected with the present proceedings, with an impartiality which could not be affected by any thing that might have occurred in the late investigation. He had heard a great deal on that and former occasions of objection to the inquiry by a secret committee. On this subject it was not his intention to say a word more than this—that he did not think their lordships could have acted rightly without adopting that measure, and that ministers would have violated their duty had they not proposed it. With regard to the present question, he would be glad to know where, in the history of parliament, it was to be found that counsel were ever admitted to be heard against a measure of some kind or other not yet submitted to their lordships, but which some noble lord was expected to propose. Would their lordships consider for a moment what would be the consequence of such a practice? He did not go the length of saying that a bill must on every
200
The Marquis of Lansdowne
maintained, that all the inconvenience which had been felt, and the threatened injustice which was now complained of, had arisen from the extraordinary course of proceeding proposed by the ministers of the Crown, and acceded to by their lordships. Every word uttered by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, against the agreeing to the prayer of this petition, applied with much greater force to a proceeding already adopted, namely, the hearing of counsel on a former occasion, in consequence of an application from her majesty. For what was the nature of that application, and what was its tendency? The noble and learned lord had maintained, that the present petition had a tendency to intercept the course of their proceedings. Now, if there ever was an
201
202
Lord Redesdale
apprehended that there was a great difference between the circumstances in which the last application had been received, and those which attended the present. In the former case, there was a proceeding before the House which her majesty prayed might be abandoned—in the present, there was none. But what was the prayer of the petition? It was that the queen might be heard by counsel, to state certain facts necessary for her future defence. It was not for her present defence that she was to make these statements, nor did they relate to any proceeding on a specific charge. If, then, their lordships should agree to hear counsel on an application so indefinite, how could their lordships limit their arguments? They might go on to any length—they might talk of every thing or any
203
Lord Holland
said, that the noble and learned lord who had just sat down had quite mistaken the objects of the petition. They were twofold. The petition prayed, first, that her majesty might be heard by counsel against certain allegations in a report before their lordships; and secondly, that she might be allowed to communicate certain weighty matters connected with her future defence. He admitted that this was an extraordinary proceeding, and that a compliance with the petition would be a departure from the usual forms of their lordships' House; but when this was stated was it to be forgotten that their forms had recently, in this case, been violated? The noble earl opposite had said, that the report on the table could not properly be known beyond the walls of the House; but was this an answer to her majesty, who, having been informed of its nature, prayed to be heard by her counsel against its allegations? He knew that, strictly speaking, nothing could be known or taken notice of out of parliament which took place within it; but was this rule always or even generally, observed? When an impeachment was brought against any noble lord before the other House of Parliament, the party was allowed, on application, to be heard in his defence; and it was never pleaded, in bar of his being so heard, that he must necessarily be ignorant of the existence of the charge. There was here a charge against her majesty in the report of a secret committee. If the House were to follow the strict rule in one case, they ought to do it in all; and he would engage to show precedent for granting the prayer of this petition, if the noble lords opposite would show him a charge of criminality on the report of a secret committee. The whole course of proceeding in this case, was of an anomalous and unprecedented nature; and when rules were violated to the prejudice of her majesty, it was not asking too much to require the same indulgence for her defence. A noble lord had said, that justice should be administered with an
204
205
206
The Marquis of Buckingham
concurred with his noble friend, that the House had placed itself in a situation of some difficulty, by agreeing, in the former instance, to hear counsel at the bar. But there was this difference between the present case, and that in which the petition was assented to; that then there was a proceeding pending, whereas now there was none. In the former instance their lordships had appointed a secret committee, they had suspended the sitting of that committee, and in the interval her majesty had applied to be heard by counsel, against the proceeding. It was possible that their lordships might, after the arguments of counsel, have prevented the meeting of the secret committee, and voted that they should proceed no further. But what was their situation now? The committee had made their report, and the noble earl had given notice of a bill founded on that report: in the interval there was no proceeding. Suppose, then, that the counsel were permitted to plead, on what proceeding could the House divide, after having heard the arguments? They would not determine that the noble lord should not bring in his bill. What then could they do the moment after counsel had withdrawn, which they could not have done without hearing one word of the argument? Her majesty did not pray to be heard against the proceeding. There was none before the House. When the proceeding was instituted, then was the time to make any application connected with her defence, and God forbid that he, or any one, should object to grant any thing, which might be necessary to her defence, or, if possible her justification.
The Earl of Darnley
contended, that the report of the committee was a proceeding of the most serious nature, on which her majesty had a right to present a petition. The situation in which they stood was one in which they had no analogy to guide them, and they were placed in that situation by a series of measures which appeared to him objectionable in many respects. But how did they stand at present? After referring the case of the queen to a secret committee, her majesty had petitioned to be heard by counsel. He knew nothing of the facts; he wished much that it was
207
Lord Dacre
again stated the two objects of the petition, namely, first, to repel the charge in the report; and, 2dly, to state certain weighty matters necessary for the future defence of her majesty. Thinking that her majesty's counsel ought now to be heard in support of these points, he would move that they be now called in.
The question was put and negatived.
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY.]
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that in rising to propose the bill founded on the report of the secret committee, he thought it unnecessary to enter into any statements for the purpose of impressing on their lordships the importance of the measure. The preamble of the bill spoke for itself; and it would undoubtedly be for those who would be employed officially in conducting the prosecution to prove at their lordships' bar the truth of the allegations contained in that bill. Under these circumstances, he should most deeply regret if, in this stage of the proceeding, any thing should take place in that House to create more prejudice in the public mind, or in the minds of their lordships, than must unavoidably arise from the nature of the accusation. With respect to the course of proceeding which had been adopted, he certainly did not feel disposed to revive former discussions; but he must say, after having consulted his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, and after having given the best consideration to the question, that if he had now to retrace the steps he had taken, he knew not how he could move in any other course than that which had been decided on. He knew it had been thrown out that the course of impeachment was open to their lordships. He had then stated what difficulties he conceived to lie in the way of such a proceeding; and, without going over his argument again, it appeared to him to be a matter of grave doubt whether a constitutional impeachment could lie, if he might use the expression, on account of the commission of a crime not recognised by the common law of this country. He thought he said enough to justify government in adopting the course
208
209
ipse dixit
210
211
212
COPY OF THE BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY.
"An Act to deprive her Majesty Queen Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, of the Title, Prerogatives, Rights, Privileges and Exemptions, of Queen-Consort of this Realm, and to dissolve the Marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth.
"Whereas, in the year 1814, her majesty, Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, then Princess of Wales, and now Queen Consort of this realm, being at Milan, in Italy, engaged in her service, in a menial situation, one Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, a foreigner of low station, who had before served in a similar capacity:
"And whereas, after the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, had so entered the service of her Royal Highness the said Princess of Wales, a most unbecoming and disgusting intimacy commenced between her Royal Highness and the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami;
"And whereas her Royal Highness not only advanced the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, to a high situation in her Royal Highness's household, and received him into her service, and that in high and confidential si-tuations about her Royal Highness's person, but bestowed upon him other great and extraordinary marks of favour and distinction, obtained for him Orders of Knighthood and Titles of Honour, and conferred upon him a pretended Order of Knighthood, which her Royal Highness had taken upon herself to institute without any just or lawful authority:
213
"And whereas her said Royal Highness, whilst the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, was in her said service, farther unmindful of her exalted rank and station, and of her duty to your Majesty, and wholly regardless of her own honour and character, conducted herself towards the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, and in other respects, both in public and private, in the various places and countries which her Royal Highness visited, with indecent and offensive familiarity and freedom, and carried on a licentious, disgraceful, and adulterous intercourse with the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergami, which continued for a lung period of time during her Royal Highness's residence abroad, by which conduct of her said Royal Highness, great scandal and dishonour have been brought upon your Majesty's family and this kingdom.
"Therefore, to manifest our deep sense of such scandalous, disgraceful and vicious conduct on the part of her said Majesty, by which she has violated the duty she owed to your Majesty, and has rendered herself unworthy of the exalted rank and station of Queen Consort of this Realm, and to evince our just regard for the dignity of the Crown and the honour of this nation, we, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in parliament assembled, do hereby entreat your Majesty that it may be enacted;
"And be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that her said Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, from and after the passing of this Act, shall be and is hereby deprived of the title of Queen, and of all the prerogatives, rights, privileges, and exemptions appertaining to her as Queen Consort of this Realm; and that her said Majesty shall, from and after the passing of this Act, for ever be dis-
214
After the bill had been read a first time, the Earl of Liverpool moved, that copies should be sent to her majesty, and her majesty's attorney general, and also to the king's attorney-general, which was agreed to.
Earl Grey
observed, that the more he considered the objections against the mode in which they were proceeding, the more he was confirmed in those objections. The bill, he thought, instead of stating generally the criminality imputed to her majesty, should specify the particulars of time and place, in order that she might be enabled to meet the allegations. The preamble, however, did no such thing, and therefore was wanting in that certainty of description which her defence required to be stated. He therefore wished to know, whether the noble earl intended to adopt any other mode of proceeding subsequently, with a view to supply that defect, he wished also to ask, whether any course was in contemplation for supplying her majesty with the names of the witnesses about to be produced against her?
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the second reading of the bill would be the proper time to enter into the discussion. He had no difficulty however in stating, that the specification in the preamble was as particular as any other to which they could refer, and was in all respects sufficient to guide her majesty's defence. With regard to the names of the witnesses, it was unprecedented in the history of parliamentary proceedings to furnish them, while a bill of Pains and Penalties was depending. It was unusual in all proceedings, exept in trials for high treason; but as her majesty had claims to the utmost indulgence, sufficient lime would be allowed her to select her evidence, and this would do away the only plausible ground that existed for demanding a list of the witnesses.
Lord Dacre
215
The Earl of Liverpool
suggested that the noble lord might obtain his object, without resorting to a course which was contrary to the whole analogy of their proceedings, and promised that if a petition was presented to-morrow, the bill being in progress he would not then object to it.
Lord Dacre
assented, and did not press the motion.
Earl Grey
thought, that whatever course was taken under the present proceeding, it must be attended with great disadvantage to her majesty. The commencement of a prosecution, grounded upon evidence which could not be met for a considerable time after the evidence had produced its impression, was unfavourable to the end of justice. It would be more conducive to that end if the whole could be postponed until there was an opportunity for proceeding with the accusation and defence together. In all Divorce bills the accused party had the advantage of the knowledge to be derived from previous proceedings. The noble earl had alluded to the management of the case at the bar; but he wished to know by what authority, or at whose direction, any person could appear at that bar to conduct the prosecution?
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the attorney-general might be called upon by the authority of the House either to appear himself, or to provide some person to conduct it.
Earl Grey
observed, that from the noble lord's statement it would appear as if the House itself had assumed the character of a prosecutor in a case which it was about to try.
The Earl of Liverpool
stated, that the House had actually appointed counsel in other cases, and there could be no doubt that they would see justice done between the parties.
Earl Grey
said, he was aware that the House had appointed counsel in other cases, in that for instance of the Berkeley case, but here was a case of prosecution for which he had not heard any precedent. He was as far as the noble lord from suspecting the justice of the House; but, it was not only necessary that they should be just, but that they should appear above suspicion.
The Lord Chancellor
defended the pro-
216
Lord Holland
remarked, that the attorney-general was a member of another House, and might therefore be objected to as the manager of a prosecution in the House of Lords, upon which he would have to pronounce hereafter in the House of Commons.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that though the order was given to the attorney-general, he would not be obliged to appear personally, but might send some other person, as had occurred in many cases.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, July 5, 1820.
PETITION FROM NORWICH FOR TWO GENERAL GAOL DELIVERIES.]
Sir James Mackintosh
presented a petition from Robert Hawkes and Edward Taylor, sheriffs of Norwich, complaining that the assizes for the city were only held once a-year. The grievance of which the petitioners complained was a very serious one. The House was aware that, under the present regulations, the assizes for Norwich were only held once a-year, and that the spring assizes for the county did not extend to the city. The city of Norwich had, therefore, the same grievance to complain of as the four northern counties, which had already been under the consideration of the House. The spring assizes for the county of Norfolk were held at Thetford, and the summer assizes in the city of Norwich. One individual, committed on the 11th Sept. 1819, was confined ten months in prison previous to trial; two were committed on the 30th Sept. 1819; one on the 6th Oct. 1819; two on the 15th Jan., and one on the 3rd Feb. 1820. The petitioners expressed their hope that the House would take the subject into their serious consideration, in order that they might enjoy the same right possessed by nearly the whole of the counties of England. The hon. member trusted that the wisdom of parliament would devise some means of redressing this great grievance.
Mr. Harbord
thought that the grievance complained of could not be expressed in too strong language, and objected parti-
217
Mr. Colborne
did not deny the existence of the grievance complained of, but thought it might be easily remedied. The Norwich sessions might be empowered to try those prisoners who had been confined for any length of time; or the prisoners might be removed to the town of Thetford, there to undergo their trial. He saw no reason why a short bill should not be introduced to this effect.
Sir J. Mackintosh
objected to the two remedies proposed by the hon. member: to the first, because he thought it would be an act of injustice; and to the second, because an unnecessary expense would be incurred.
Ordered to lie on the table.
STEAM ENGINES COMMITTEE.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
brought up the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the possibility of Steam Engines consuming their own smoke. He said that the object of the inquiry had been completely answered, and he trusted that, ere long, the metropolis would be freed from the nuisance to which it had been long subject. He intended in the next session to introduce a bill, to declare the law upon the subject, and to prevent those nuisances from being longer continued.
PETITION OF HUGH CAMPBELL RESPECTING CELTIC LITERATURE.]
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he held in his hand a petition of rather a singular nature. It was one from Mr. Hugh Campbell, a student at law, complaining of the conduct of the Highland Society of London. The petitioner, it appeared, had been inspired by a laudable zeal for the literature
218
Ordered to lie on the table.
SCOTS MALT DUTY.]
Lord A. Hamilton
having risen to make his motion respecting the Tax on Malt in Scotland,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he should inform the noble lord what he intended to do, that the noble lord might know how far his motion was rendered unnecessary. He should propose a temporary allowance of 6
d.
Lord A. Hamilton
said, that this concession was so inferior to what the people of Scotland considered as due to them, that he should persist in his motion. The grounds on which he objected to the tax lately imposed on Scots malt were three. I, That it had been the practice for more than a century to impose on Scots malt only half the duty that was imposed on malt in England; 2, that a less tax had been generally imposed on beer or big than on barley malt; and 3, that the tax was passed at an improper time and in an unfair manner—in the last week of the last session, when scarcely any Scots members were present, or knew of the bill. The effect of the increased duty had been such in Scotland, that the distilleries could no longer work except at a loss. The fact was, very few of the great distilleries had worked during the last twelve months, and those only were satisfied with the duty as it at present stood who found means of defrauding the revenue. It seemed probable, indeed, that this in-crease of duty on Scots malt had originated in some mistake, for a letter
219
s.
d.
s.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said the practice with respect to the imposition of the duty on malt had not been entirely uniform; for in 1713, six years after the Union, 6
d.
s.
s.
220
Mr. Fergusson
could not agree that there should be no deviation from the old proportion of the duties in the two countries, though he wished the duty to be somewhat lower in Scotland than in England.
Lord A. Hamilton
said, that the only point on which he meant to divide the House was this, that the existing duties were too heavy.
Sir J. Marjoribanks
complained that the act imposing an additional duty on malt made in Scotland, was passed at a late period of the last session quite unexpectedly, when a great part of the Scotch members had left town. He professed his determination to vote for the resolution.
Mr. Kennedy
said, that if the agriculture of Scotland had improved, it was owing to a very spirited expenditure of capital in that country, and not to any cause connected with the taxes. Formerly, much encouragement was given to the establishment of small legal distilleries. The act for that purpose passed parliament four or five years ago, and produced the most beneficial effects. But since the act of July last, that encouragement was entirely taken away, and the consequence was that the revenue was very much diminished by the number of smugglers. He put it to the right hon. gentleman, whether it would not be for the benefit of the country, even with a view to revenue, to allow the occupiers of land to distil the corn grown within their own lands.
Mr. Boswell
said, that from the variableness of the climate in Scotland, it frequently happened that a great part of the corn was damaged before it could be got in, and was rendered unfit for consumption in any way except in the way of distillation. But when the duty on all kinds of grain was the same, it acted to
221
On the first and second resolution, the previous question was carried without a division; but on the third resolution the House divided, Ayes, 43; Noes, 53.
GRANTHAM ELECTION.]
On the motion of Mr. Wynn, the short-hand writer on the Grantham election committee was called to the bar, and read the minutes of the evidence he had taken this day relative to the service upon sir W. Manners of the warrant of the Speaker requiring his attendance. A witness had deposed, that he had repeatedly endeavoured to serve the warrant upon sir W. Manners, but in vain, and at last had been obliged to throw it over the gate of his residence, near Grantham.—Sir It. Heron moved that sir W. Manners be taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms.—Mr. Tennyson moved as an amendment, that sir W. Manners be ordered to attend the House on Monday—Dr. Phillimore thought it impossible for any person who had attended to the evidence to doubt that there had been an intention to evade the orders of the House, or that the witnesses had kept purposely away. Mr. Wynn was also of opinion, that due notice had been served upon the witnesses, and that the House was bound to vindicate its authority. The original motion was agreed to.—Sir It. Heron then moved that R. A. Jarvis be also taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms.—Sir J. Mackintosh said that the present was a most flagrant contempt of the authority of the House, and he should support the motion, in order to teach all parties, either directly or indirectly concerned, that the commands of no person were a sufficient excuse for such a defiance of their orders—The motion was agreed to; and Hugh Manners and W. Atter were also ordered to attend.
IRISH TITHES BILL.]
Sir H. Parnell
rose, to call the attention of the House to a subject which materially concerned the agriculturists of Ireland; namely, the present system of collecting the tithes. As an instance of the practical inconvenience and injustice of the present system, he held in his hand a receipt for 3
l.
s.
222
s.
d.
l.
s.
s.
d.
Sir J. Newport
agreed that this would be a conciliatory measure, and tend to allay much of the discontent which existed in consequence of the system adopted in the collection oftythes. It would do away with much of the jealousy which existed towards the clergy of the established church, and would set at rest that which was growing up of late in Ireland; namely, the setting up claims to make articles titheable which had not been hitherto so. This measure had the approbation of the clergy.
Lord Castlereagh
had no objection to the bill being brought in and printed, but he wished it to be fully understood, that it was not a bill interfering with the general commutation of tithes, but a counterpart of a bill which passed the House in 1817, but which was thrown out in another House.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
bore testimony to the oppression practised by tithe proctors in Ireland, and to the general approbation of the clergy of the measure proposed.
Mr. Lockhart
explained the object of the bill which he had supported in 1817,
223
Mr. C. Grant
said, in the present stage of the proceeding he should certainly not oppose it. He should, however, reserve to himself the privilege of examining its provisions carefully in a more advanced stage.
Mr. Newman
observed, that the bill of 1817 seemed not to be looked on by the church, generally speaking, with alarm, as might be proved from its not having been opposed by the bishops. It was solely rejected on the ground of its being brought forward so late in the session.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
THE LATE KING'S OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Supply,
Lord Castlereagh
stated, that when he yesterday submitted to the House a resolution founded upon the king's message, relative to a provision being made by parliament for the other branches of the royal family, he had stated the general nature of the resolutions which he should this evening have the honour to propose to their notice. This would render it unnecessary for him to do any thing more than repeat the general principles upon which it was founded. The House were already aware that upon the demise of the queen a reduction of nearly 180,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
224
l.
l.
l.
l.
225
l.
l.
Mr. Bankes
observed, that if the House consented to grant these sums in their present shape, they would establish a precedent which would lead them an indefinite length in the way of example on every demise of the Crown. Though unwilling to object to the whole of the resolutions, he could not bring himself to vote for them as they stood at present, for many reasons:—first of all, because he found that a proper scale of compensation had not been adopted in the provision proposed, a person of 35 years of age being often placed in the same situation as a person of 65 years, who had spent half his life in his majesty's service: secondly, because many of the individuals to whom he alluded were not retiring on half pay, but were receiving their full salaries and allowances when they were performing no services, and were thus adding an additional and unexpected burden to those which already pressed upon the country: thirdly, because they were able to discharge other offices, and thus might be provided for in another manner. Indeed, he could not help observing that until the present time no one had ever beard of these charges on the privy purse.
226
Mr. Hume
said, the noble lord had Stated that there was no precedent for continuing the salaries and pensions to the servants of the king after the death of their illustrious master; and yet he had called upon the House to imitate the precedent of 1819, which he had defended by three others, and from which it appeared that it was usual to continue such salaries to the servants of a deceased queen. He also called upon the House to imitate it: for they would recollect that a committee had then sat and had recommended the scale of pensions which the House had afterwards adopted. If the noble lord would look to one of the documents then presented to the House, he would see that the committee had stated, that there were two classes of servants to be rewarded. In the first class no individual was admitted who had not been in the service of her majesty for 8 years at least. The salaries of the servants in this class amounted to 5,721
l.
l.
227
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. W. Smith
was extremely happy to hear that it was not the intention of ministers to grant any pensions to the great officers of state, as he had long thought that the great chamberlains, &c. about the court might be well content with the dignity which they enjoyed, without debasing it by receiving a-salary. Among the names of those who had received pensions out of the privy purse, he found those of Sir W. Herschel and Miss Herschel, for400
l.
228
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that, with a limited pension-list, however much it was to be regretted, it was still evident that circumstances would arise which rendered an application to the liberality of parliament absolutely necessary. He thought the circumstances of the present case fully justified him in appealing to it, notwithstanding the objection by which he had been met, that if this precedent were established, others would be defended upon it He could not see into futurity; but as the present circumstances were so very extraordinary, he thought it would be still more extraordinary if similar circumstances should again occur. In proposing the present pensions, they had by no means continued the late salaries, because the persons who held them had along with them board wages, and many other emoluments. The pages of the back stairs were particularly entitled to the pensions which it was proposed to grant, as they had been employed about the person of his late majesty till his demise, and, to their honour be it spoken, no anecdotes derogatory to his dignity or
229
Mr. Williams
enforced Mr. Hume's view of the proposed grants, thinking that according to the precedent referred to by the noble lord, they ought to be reduced at least one-fifth.
Mr. Huskisson
stated, that according to the recommendation of a committee upon the subject, there was a compensation granted to the queen's servants in lieu of perquisites, in addition to the vote alluded to by the hon member for Aberdeen, and therefore that hon. member's comparison was erroneous. With regard to Mr. West, he was enabled to say not only that the allowance from the lord chamberlain's department was continued to that illustrious artist to the end of his life, but to add, that Mr. West received 1,000
l.
l.
THE QUEEN.]
Lord Castlereagh
230
Sir J. Newport
asked, whether it was the intention of the noble lord to keep the order which was fixed for Friday in abeyance, until the lords should pronounce their decision upon the subject? If such were the noble lord's intention, it would be a very uncommon course of proceeding.
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that the proceeding instituted by the lords might never be brought in any legislative way before that House, and, therefore, he proposed only that the order for considering his majesty's message should be delayed, but that the House should by no means abandon its right of inquiry upon the subject.
Sir M. W. Ridley
hoped the House would not agree to the course proposed by the noble lord. If no other member would take the sense of the House upon the subject, he should feel it his duty to do so.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, July 6, 1820.
PETITION FROM HER MAJESTY TO BE
Lord Dacre
presented the following petition from her Majesty:—
"CAROLINE REGINA:
"The Queen has heard, with inexpressible astonishment, that a bill, conveying charges, and intended to degrade her and to dissolve her marriage with the King, has been brought by the first minister of the King into the House of Lords, where her Majesty has no counsel or other officer to assert her rights. The only alleged foundation for the bill is the report of a secret committee, proceeding solely on papers submitted to them, and before whom no single witness was examined. The Queen has been further informed, that her counsel last night were refused a hearing at the bar of the House of Lords, at that stage of the proceeding when it was most material that they should be heard, and that a list of the witnesses, whose names are known to her accusers, is to be refused to her. Under such circumstances, the Queen doubts, whether any other course is left to her, but to protest in the most solemn manner against the whole of the proceeding; but she is anxious to make one more effort to obtain justice, and therefore desires that her counsel may be admitted to state her claims at the bar of the House of Lords."
231
Lord Dacre
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that it was a matter of infinite importance that the practice of their lordships' House should be regulated by strict and invariable principles. The petition did not explain on what points her majesty wished to be heard by counsel. The ordinary course was, for counsel to be heard upon the second reading of a bill, and when the evidence to be brought forward was explained; but he believed this was the first time that ever it was proposed that counsel should address their lordships upon circumstances not specified, and when there was no evidence before them. If counsel were to he heard, he thought that they must be required to explain what were the points to which their address was intended to apply. If they were not so limited, their address might apply to matters of fact which could have no concern with the defence. The question was not, therefore, whether counsel should be called in, but whether they should not be confined by an instruction of the House if they were called in.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, the proper course would be, either immediately to agree to instruct the counsel, or otherwise to order them to be called in, and asked on what points they meant to address the House. If they meant to argue that the preamble of the bill was not sufficiently detailed, that would be an intelligible ground; if they meant to contend that a list of witnesses ought to be furnished to her majesty, that would be an intelligible ground; if they meant to propose to expedite the proceedings, or to delay them, all these would be intelligible grounds: but he could not consent to their being called in without some limitation. The hearing counsel at all at the present stage was quite unprecedented. If therefore their lordships, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, agreed to hear them, it must be after calling on them to fix precisely the points on which they were to address the House. As the noble baron had moved that they be called, he should therefore move that they be asked what points they meant to urge.
The motion was agreed to, and the counsel were called to the bar.
The Lord Chancellor
then stated, that he was desired by the House to ask upon what points the counsel intended to address their lordships, and, after they
232
Mr. Brougham
observed, that he was commanded by her majesty to appear at their lordships bar, in consequence of the proceeding instituted against her, and that he had several points to urge in behalf of his royal client. Her majesty had last night been served by the gentleman usher of the black rod with a copy of a bill, presented to their lordships, which contained charges of the gravest nature, and her majesty could not suffer the shortest interval to elapse without stating her objections to the whole proceeding thus instituted by bill. Their lordships, he hoped, would also suffer him to add his regret that the request made by her majesty yesterday to be heard against this proceeding was not complied with. It was also the wish of her majesty's counsel to object to the course of proceeding on account of the relative situation in which their lordships and her majesty stood with respect to proceedings which it might still be necessary to adopt. They were also directed to address some observations to their lordships, touching the mode of proceeding, and to the time; touching any delay, also, which might be proposed, as to whether that delay should take place at the present, or be interposed in some subsequent period of the proceeding. It was also their wish to declare certain matters on the part of her majesty, which they thought calculated to have an important effect on the proceedings before their lordships; and he had to add, that the present was the stage of the proceedings in which it was proper for them to state to their lordships those matters to which he had thus generally adverted. They begged further to observe, that it was matter of very serious detriment to her majesty that their lordships should have rejected the prayer of her petition of yesterday, and refused to hear her counsel before the bill to which her petition of this day referred had been brought in and read a first time. This appeared to her majesty the more extraordinary when the ground of that refusal was considered. It was said that a report on which a bill was to be founded, had been made in a certain place; but that of the existence of any such proceeding her majesty could have no knowledge. Her majesty and her counsel were held to be quite ignorant of this proceeding, though every body in the metropolis but themselves
233
The counsel was ordered to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellor
thought it quite impossible for their lordships to permit counsel to address them in the way proposed. It was his most anxious desire that strict justice should be done, in this as in every other case; but if certain matters were to be stated at the bar, to show why this proceeding could not be adopted, they must either be matters of fact or matters of law; if matters of fact, as the circumstances of the evidence were not yet known, they might be irrelevant; and if they were points of law, they might have nothing to do with the defence which was to be made against the bill.
Earl Grey
was sensible of the necessity of adhering to precedent and analogy in their lordships proceedings, but it ought to be recollected, that this was a case for which there was no precedent, and he hoped that it would never form a precedent for any future one. If they were to be guided by precedent, it was impossible for them to find any. Their lordships object ought to be to do substantial justice. The learned lord proposed, in the first place, to limit the hearing of the counsel to the mode of proceeding on the bill; but it should be recollected that the petition objected to proceeding by bill at
234
The Earl of Liverpool
did not understand what possible limit there could be to the statement of counsel, if they were allowed to proceed in the way they proposed. To allow them to speak on matters not connected with the defence would be to allow them to speak on every possible subject. He thought the course proposed by his learned friend afforded as great a latitude as could be allowed.
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that after a bill of this description was read a first time, the nature of the evidence on which it was founded must be explained before any noble lord could propose its second reading. Every person who was interested in opposing it would then be entitled to be heard against it; but if counsel were allowed to be heard now in the way proposed, such a proceeding would be neither more nor less than a surrender of all their lordships functions. He therefore put the motion, that the counsel be called in, and instructed to confine their argument to the mode of the proceeding on the bill, and to the time of such proceeding.
The Marquis of Lansdown
observed, that the real question was, not whether their lordships should hear counsel on the mode of proceeding with regard to the bill, but whether they would hear arguments to induce them to abandon the bill altogether, in order to adopt some other course.
Earl Grosvenor
regretted that counsel had not been heard before the bill was introduced. That certainly was the time at which their lordships ought to have taken the objection into consideration. He, however, thought that the hearing should now be granted.
The Earl of Lauderdale
could not conceive how their lordships could be asked to hear counsel against the proceeding by bill at this period. When they came to the second reading, counsel might very properly be heard on that point; and if it
235
The Lord Chancellor
, as a peer of parliament, gave it as his opinion that counsel could be heard on nothing but the mode of' proceeding to be had on the bill, and the time at which the proceedings should take place. When, however, he stated that their lordships ought so to confine the counsel, it was to be understood that he meant the limitation to be without prejudice to any argument which might be urged against the course adopted by bill. Surely, according to every parliamentary principle, their lordships must reject any attempt to tell them what they ought to do in this stage.
Lord Holland
reminded their lordships, that the great point on which her majesty's counsel desired to be heard, was to show that the proceeding by bill was a hardship to his client. If he understood what was likely to be done in the progress of the bill, all the witnesses for the prosecution would be heard at a stage long before any defence could be made. If this was so, the question of proceeding by bill had best be discussed now, because, if there were any hardship in the case, that hardship would occur before the counsel could have an opportunity of stating any thing against it.
Earl Grey
again insisted on the propriety of hearing counsel now against going on with the bill. When they came to the second reading, if it should be shown that the course adopted was wrong, time and labour would be lost, as well as evil done. If counsel were to be heard against the bill at all, this was, on every principle of justice and propriety, the proper time for hearing them. Undoubtedly their lordships could not suffer counsel to obtrude themselves, and to dictate the course of proceedings to be adopted by the House; but that did not prevent their lordships from seriously weighing the reasons which might now be offered against the bill.
The Lord Chancellor
repeated the reasons on which he thought the counsel ought not to be heard. Were he in a situation to consult his feelings as a man, he would not object to the application which had been made; but, in his situation as a peer of the realm he was bound
236
Mr. Brougham
, her Majesty's Attorney General, then proceeded to address their lordships to the following effect:—His learned friend and himself were totally ignorant of what had occurred in their absence, and therefore their lordships would naturally suppose that they were at a loss to comprehend the exact points to which as they had been told, their argument was to be limited, and the manner in which they were to be tied down in entering upon the important task which they were then called upon to perform. In making the effort which he was then making, with all good faith to comprehend the command which their lordships had just imposed upon him, he should trust to the indulgence of their lordships for his pardon, if, in the discharge of his duty, he happened to misinterpret the order which they had issued, and he therefore begged of their lordships, if he was guilty of any such misinterpretation, to impute it to accident, or rather to misfortune, that he had not caught in its right sense their lordships meaning, and not to any intention on his part (which before God he disclaimed) of offering any observation to their lordships which should in the slightest degree disobey the instructions which they had given him. He gathered from what had been intimated to him, that those instructions commanded him to confine whatever he had himself to urge, or whatever her majesty had commanded him to urge on her behalf, to the manner of proceeding with respect to or upon the bill which had been served upon her majesty last night by the ordinary officer of their lordships; and assuming it to be right to proceed by bill—
The Lord Chancellor.
—" By
this
Mr. Brougham.
—By this bill? He would take it so; because by that admission their lordships would decide two points in his favour:—first of all, they would determine that the proceedings by bill (to which many heavy and grievous objections might be made, if permission
237
238
239
240
241
242
intra prœsidia?
The Lord Chancellor
here interrupted Mr. Brougham by observing to their lordships, that he thought the learned counsel was transgressing the rules of the House in alluding to what their lordships might be supposed to have done or left undone. He was likewise of opinion, that, in pursuing that line of argument, the learned counsel had not complied with the instructions which had been notified to him as the commands of their lordships. If their lordships thought fit to allow such a-latitude of argument, they certainly had the power to do so; bur, as a peer of parliament, he must say, that he would not sit upon the woolsack to listen to it.
Mr. Brougham
then continued.—He would persist in making the attempt to
243
The Lord Chancellor.
—Their lordships were just, and had made their present order for the purpose of continuing so.
Mr. Brougham.
—As he was not allowed to proceed in the course which he had intended, he should now proceed to show the immediate connexion which existed, between the topics on which he had just been speaking and the point of time to which he had been limited by their lordships. His argument was to prove, that this bill ought to be sent out of doors immediately, and that it could not lie 24 hours upon the table without producing great and imminent danger to the safety of his client. Indeed; he would assert that, unless that bill was discarded by their lordships, no justice could be done to his illustrious client. The line of argument which he was then adopting was perfectly consistent with the instructions of their lordships; for, the more clearly he could show the bill itself to be pregnant with mischief and danger, the more did his argument apply to the time in which this proceeding was to be carried on. As he had been instructed to confine his argument as to the time, he could not help observing, that the light in which he had endeavoured to put this question was one which had struck upon his mind most forcibly; and he therefore felt himself bound to present it to their lordships until he was silenced by their authority. All that he had now to add was, that her majesty desired no delay; that she was most anxious to have the evidence who were to substantiate, or rather to endeavour to substantiate, those foul and false charges against her honour, called without delay to their lordships' bar. He ought perhaps to apologize for applying such language to the 'preamble of a bill which their lordships had allowed to be read a first time; but still his sense of duty informed him that he ought to be allowed to say that those charges were foul, false, and most malignant, since they originated from a report, which, having
244
de die in diem.
245
l.
The Bishop of Exeter.
—My lords, I move that the counsel be ordered to withdraw. [Counsel having withdrawn] I ask the House, whether the counsel has or has not attended to the directions of the House?
Lord Holland
said, that he had never heard a more extraordinary appeal. The counsel had been directed to confine themselves to certain limits, and they proceeded accordingly; but in the midst of the speech a reverend lord had thought fit to rise in his place, and ask, as a matter of information, whether the counsel were obeying the direction of the House? If the reverend lord had formed any opinion
246
Mr. Brougham
, having again taken his station at the bar, proceeded:—In adverting to the question of time, he had called upon the House to proceed without delay, and one answer he had anticipated was, that the supporters of the bill would say that they were not yet prepared with their evidence. To this he was endeavouring to reply when he had been interrupted: he was attempting to show that the confidential servants of the Crown were placed in this dilemma—either that they were satisfied that there was some ground, some colour for the accusation, which might be a sufficient reason for not proceeding immediately; or, on the other hand, that they were not ready to go on, because they had been taken by surprise, because the bill had been forced upon them, and because they themselves, utterly disbelieving every tittle of charge against the queen, could not be prepared with testimony to support the preamble. He had ventured humbly, and out of respect to the ministers of the Crown, to assert, that if they had believed, he did not say any material part of the allegations, but any part, however insignificant, they never would have pursued that line of conduct which was now notorious; they never would have consented that her majesty should remain abroad unmolested, without any measure of degradation or divorce, exposing the dignity and honour of the Crown, and the morals of the country where she resided—the first to be lowered, and the last to be contaminated. They had offered her a splendid, a royal revenue; she was to live where she chose, to be announced at foreign courts as the lawful and rightful queen of England; and, above all, the ministers of the Crown
247
248
Mr. Denman
immediately followed on the same side. In submitting to their lordships those prayers not contained in her majesty's petition, he said, he was placed in a singularly difficult situation between the instructions he had that morning received from his royal client and the directions of the House. It would immediately occur to every man, that when a charge of this weighty nature had received the sanction of a bill—when that bill, which had been once read, imported not only degradation from rank, but the dissolution of an existing marriage—considerations of a very different kind must have thronged into the mind of the party accused from any questions as to the mere mode and time of such a proceeding. He would not conceal from their lordships that he and his learned friend had received from their illustrious-client one especially delegated duty, namely, to press upon the House the absolute necessity, if justice were to be done, that this most extraordinary, most anomalous, and most unprecedented proceeding should be brought to the spcedi-
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that some delay would be requisite to make the necessary arrangements for proceeding with the bill. The regular interval between the first and second reading of bills of this kind was a fortnight. He wished that as little delay as possible, consistent with the interests of justice, and the usual course of their lordships proceedings, should intervene in the present case; but some time must be required for making the necessary arrangements, for securing a numerous attendance of their lordships, and the presence of the learned judges. He would propose to fix Monday next as the day on which he would be able to state to their lordships when he thought it would be convenient to read the bill a second time.
Lord Holland
could not help making an observation or two on what had fallen from the noble earl. After he had submitted certain papers to their lordships—after he had moved for a committee to examine these papers—after that committee had finished their labours and made their report, and after the noble earl, in consequence of that report, had brought in a bill, which had been read a first time, the illustrious individual whose interests and character were affected by these proceedings applied for an immediate trial,
256
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he would allow that this was a bill of pains and penalties conveying with it the consequences of a divorce. It was not a bill of divorce; for a bill of divorce was an application of one person to be relieved on account of adultery from the matrimonial ties con-traded with another. This was not a bill for the relief of one individual from another, but for the relief of the state, which was supposed to be aggrieved by the acts of
257
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that although he was not prepared to accede to the request of her majesty, that their lordships would proceed in 24 hours with the trial, yet he was convinced that their lordships ought not to let more than 24 hours pass without considering when they were to proceed. The interests of justice, and the requests of her majesty, demanded of them, that they should not allow four days to intervene without considering when and how they were to begin the trial. He could scarcely believe that the noble earl, in possession of all the facts, and accustomed, as he must be, to reflect deeply on the measure before the House—having moved for a secret committee, and having submitted papers to them on which they had reported—having had the good fortune to obtain the concurrence of their lordships in all the various changes of proceeding, should now be unable to point out the course which he meant to pursue, and should ask four days' delay to consider of it. He thought 24 hours quite sufficient for preparation.
The Earl of Carnarvon
contended, that the noble earl ought to give his notice for to-morrow. How would the illustrious person accused feel, if, after bringing forward such charges as were contained in the bill on the table, ministers, by asking delay, declared that they were unprepared to carry their projects into effect? If they had any reasons for delay they should be connected with great and important interests. Nothing secret, nothing that could not be revealed, should prevent the immediate commencement and steady ter-
258
Earl Grey
sincerely wished that the observations of his noble friend would receive from ministers that attention which they deserved, and that, under the present painful circumstances, the coronation would be deferred. In saying this, he was sure he uttered the wish of every feeling man in the country. With regard to the point immediately before them, he concurred with his noble friends in raising his voice in support of the proposition against delay. Considering that the noble earl must have been long in possession of all the facts and circumstances, and considering the intervals of delay that had already occurred, it was not too much to expect that he should be prepared to state immediately his views and proposed mode of proceeding. If it was unreasonable to expect that be should immediately do it, surely to-morrow was the most distant day to which he ought to postpone his notice. The necessary arrangements could only be, of three sorts—either for the production of witnesses, or for obtaining a full attendance of their lordships, or securing the presence of judicial advice. Now, which of those arrangements rendered delay necessary? With respect to the production of witnesses, the evidence which they could give must have been months ago collected. It was impossible therefore, to conceive why the noble earl, if be had done his duty, should not be ready within twenty-four hours to state bow he meant to proceed with regard to it. The arrangements for securing a full at-
259
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that it could make no difference ultimately, whether he stated his plan to-morrow or on Monday; for, with regard to the judges, they would not all go on the circuits, and the presence of those who were going could be as little commanded in the one case as in the other. The presence of all the judges of course, would not be necessary.
The Earl of Darnley
deprecated all delay, and could not avoid lifting his feeble voice, in accordance with what had been so well said by the noble lords who had spoken on his side of the House. On many accounts he wished the ceremony of the coronation to be postponed, and on none more than the agitated state of the public mind.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 6, 1820.
MOTION RESPECTING THE MILAN
Sir Ronald Fergusson
rose to bring forward his motion respecting the Milan Commission. It was with unfeigned regret that he felt himself bound in public duty, conscious as he was of his own inadequacy for the task, to bring this question under consideration. Undoubtedly, the subject was of a most delicate and painful nature, and, in its result, of the utmost importance to the peace and safety of the country. If his majesty's ministers had pursued a proper course either by not erasing her majesty's name from the Liturgy, or by retracing their steps when they saw the mischievous consequences of their conduct, the ferment which now agitated the public mind would have been avoided. The noble
260
261
espionnage,
l.
l.
262
Lord Castlereagh
felt it to be his duty, under the circumstances in which the House was at present placed, to oppose the motion. It would, he conceived, be a waste of their time, if he were led, in consequence of what had fallen from the gallant general, to enter into an explanation of the course of conduct that his majesty's ministers had been induced to take in consequence of the important subject which had recently occupied their consideration. Had the gallant general, he would ask, seen any thing in the general conduct of ministers that rendered it necessary to bring this question under discussion? Or had he perceived any part of their proceedings that appeared to justify the casting the least imputation on them, as the authors of this painful investigation? He conceived that the gallant general had not; and therefore he would simply apply himself to the motion now before the House. The objection he took to it did not arise from any indisposition on the part of ministers to give the fullest information on the subject when the proper time arrived; for, whatever might be the gallant general's opinion of ministers— whatever cause might have induced him
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
Mr. Creevey
, not withstanding he might incur the displeasure of the noble lord, and notwithstanding the protest and the warning the noble lord had given to the House, would maintain that the proposition of his gallant friend was a perfectly just one, and the time precisely that in which the motion ought to have been made. His gallant friend had not precipitated his motion; he had delayed it till a certain proceeding had taken place in the other House of Parliament. So anomalous a course was, perhaps, never pursued upon any former occasion. The queen of this country was criminally proceeded against; and how? By the introduction of a bill in which she was called by the most infamous and scandalous names. Neither her majesty nor that House had any information on the subject; and, under these circumstances, his gallant friend said, what he conceived to be most proper. "Let me see the foundation of this measure; if you make a charge of this nature, let me see your infernal Milan commission, or whatever commission it may be, on whose statement it is founded." It was quite a novelty, a thing hitherto unknown to the constitution of this country, for the king to authorize a commission to hunt a subject with lawyers, attornies, and spies, assisted by the emperor of Austria, through every part of Europe. This indeed was quite a novel system. It was dangerous when any responsible servant of the Crown was placed at the head of such a proceeding; it was much more dangerous when a person like Mr. Leach—he begged his pardon, he should have said sir John Leach—who was not a responsible servant of the Crown, organized a system of es-pionnage against any individual of this country; but it was still worse when a person, placed in the situation of that gentleman, inflamed the feelings of particular persons by stating to them things of a doubtful nature, but which were calculated strongly to excite their passions. They had a right, he contended, to have this vice-chancellor before them. He would maintain that he was a disturber of the public peace of this country. [Hear, hear! and order.] He would show how he was a disturber of the public peace.
270
271
272
KING'S MESSAGE—PAPERS RELATING
Lord Castlereagh
rose, pursuant to notice, to postpone the order of the day for taking his majesty's Message into consideration. Before he proceeded to that question, he wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had recently addressed the House. He knew not how far the order of the House would suffer an individual to go when he was determined to transgress the bounds of decency. But certainly, in this case, the hon. member had uttered sentiments which would not be suffered where the feelings of private individuals were concerned, and which never should have been used in speaking of the character of the sovereign [Hear, hear!]. He protested solemnly, in the face of the House and of the country, against the speech which the hon. member had made that night. No individual was warranted in making such assertions—no individual at all acquainted with the fact would have applied such epithets to the feelings and the mind of the sovereign. Though placed under the most trying circumstances in which a monarch ever was or ever could be placed, his majesty had never betrayed the slightest symptom of a vindictive spirit [Hear!]. In every part of this unfortunate transaction he had evinced a feeling completely the reverse. Whatever his sense of injury might be, or whatever personal feeling might have been elicited by these transactions, his majesty had shown the most perfect forbearance with respect to every measure that ministers had adopted for the peace and safety of the country [Hear, hear!]. If they had gone on with this inquiry, it was from a sense of the justice of the cause, and in consequence of the manner in which the queen had conducted herself. A vindictive or passionate feeling had never been manifested by his majesty; and, instead of censuring his conduct, the honourable member and the country ought to offer him their heartfelt thanks for the efforts he had allowed ministers to make for the
273
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, it was not his intention to bring into discussion the delicate points connected with this question. He did not view this as a personal question, but a question to be decided as between the public and her majesty. He thought the House had acted in a judicious manner in agreeing to the resolutions which had been passed, and he regretted that those resolutions had not been attended with effect. But if he had possessed the information which ministers appeared now to have possessed, and to the extent of the charges
274
Lord Castlereagh
explained. If the measure now instituted failed in the lords, there was no idea of founding criminal proceedings in that House. He had only
275
Mr. Bennet
began by expressing his surprise that none of his majesty's ministers had attempted to answer his hon. friend, (Mr. Creevey); for though some unguarded expressions might have fallen from him, yet many of his observations had been much to the purpose, and would have a stinging effect out of doors. Ministers were bound to stand up and to justify their master. The noble lord had said, in express terms, that the king of England had lent himself to an accommodation respecting indecency and adultery. No sovereign had ever been so publicly degraded. He did not believe that ministers themselves had ever believed the charges in the green bag, because, if they had believed them, they could not have given such advice as had been given. The queen of England, charged with adultery, was not only to be addressed by both Houses of Parliament, but she was to be acknowledged in certain courts near which she might choose to reside. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), after seeing all the charges in the green bag, had in a most manly speech, a speech which did him the greatest credit, professed his respect and his affection for her majesty. The right hon. gentleman, after having seen the charge, had used the remarkable expressions, that his attention, affection, and respect, remained the same as they had been. He could therefore produce the right hon. gentleman as an authority opposed to his colleagues, for he at least dissented. If, in the opinion of the other ministers, she was black with guilt, in the right hon. gentleman's opinion she was white as snow. What was the feeling of the country upon this subject at the present moment? From every part one sentiment (whether just or not, he knew not) of respect for her majesty, and of conviction that she was innocent, was heard. This was the natural result of the mode of proceeding adopted against her majesty. The noble lord had come down to that House and proposed the most hateful of measures—a green bag, to be investigated by a secret committee; and had, in some degree, explained how it was to be composed. The queen's legal advisers were to be excluded; of course the attorney and solicitor-general must also have been excluded. The committee, then, must
276
277
278
Lord Castlereagh
rose to order. He really must submit to the House whether it was decent or parliamentary to impute to the king acts which could only be considered as done by his servants.
The Speaker
said, he felt this to be a very difficult question. It was evident it was impossible on this occasion to exclude what was excluded on every other occasion. But where the introduction was neccessary, still greater caution ought to be used. It was highly improper to impute direct influence to the king in either House of Parliament, but he was aware that the same thing could be conveyed by putting it hypothetically. He did not suppose that any thing of that kind was intended; but in the warmth of debate, when any thing of that nature might be inadvertently introduced, the hon. member would see in what situation he (the Speaker) and the House were, if he did not use greater caution and restraint than on any other occasion, and carefully avoid whatever might excite strong feelings on this head.
Mr. Bennet
said, he had certainly wished to allude to the king
bonâ fide,
279
Mr. Tierney
said, he had, on the last time on which he had occasion to speak
280
281
Mr. Williams Wynn
said, that on the immediate subject of debate now before the House he was inclined to agree with Mr. Tierney, and though it was of little importance which way it was disposed of, he thought that on the whole it would be better to drop the motion for resuming the debate than to adjourn it to a future day. That debate was on the proposition for referring the papers contained in the green bag to a secret committee; but whatever course it might be expedient hereafter to adopt, it was clear that the appointment of a secret committee would be absurd, after all the matter to be examined, had been made public by the proceedings in the other House. With respect to the proceedings themselves on this momentous and perilous question, he had already
282
283
violer"
284
285
Mr. Keck
said, that he had been more pleased with the observations of Mr. Tierney, than with any speech which he had heard upon the very distressing subject before the House. Whenever the main question might be brought forward, he should feel it his duty to dismiss even the remembrance of general imputation from his mind. He should look for proof, and for proof only; and nothing short of the most damning proof should induce him to give credit to the stories which were in circulation.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that as the House was not in a situation to see its way as to the whole extent of the proceedings, he had thought it more convenient to postpone the order to the 15th August, than to discharge it altogether, or to move an address to the Crown. He should be extremely sorry, however, that there should be any difference of opinion in the House upon a mere matter of form.
EXCESS OF SPIRITS BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on these acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that from the time of the Union, Irish spirits had been imported into this country without an)' obstruction in the state in which they were manufactured, but that in the acts under consideration, a clause was introduced, imposing a prohibition of the import of any raw spirits into this country, unless received into the stock of a rectifier. By this clause it was complained, that the Irish distillers were subjected to a very great grievance, and upon that representation being made to his majesty's government, the case had been fully considered. The result of that consideration was a conviction, that in common justice, the clause ought to be repealed. He moved that the chairman be directed to move for leave to bring in the bill for the repeal of the said clause.
286
Mr. Bright
said, that if the facility for the import of Irish spirits were afforded, which the proposition was calculated to produce, it would be impossible to prevent that part of the English coast with which he was immediately connected, as well as the coast of North Wales, from being deluged with that article. He maintained, that the clause referred to did not involve any violation of the act of Union, as a fair review of the system of the countervailing duties would fully manifest. The fact was, that the Irish spirit generally imported into this country required rectification before it was fit for use, and therefore it was no grievance to let the clause stand as it did. At least it was no grievance to the people of England, who might be disposed to consume such spirits. But he begged the House to consider the consequences likely to follow from making such ardent spirits cheap in this country.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
was surprised how-such a clause as that to which the motion referred happened to be smuggled into the act before the committee. This clause was evidently devised to interfere with the free and fair trade of Ireland, and to prevent the Irish distillers from coming into competition with those of Ireland. That it was cunningly contrived with that view, there could be no doubt. While he bore testimony to the candour of the chancellor of the Exchequer towards Ireland on this occasion, he begged to differ from him as to his construction of the act of Union. Spirits formed a distinct manufacture in Ireland, and were as free from the regulation of the English excise as its linen manufacture. The spirits distilled in Ireland were recognised by several laws of the legislature of that country, previous to the Union, as a distinct manufacture, and the principle of these laws ought to be respected by the imperial parliament. It was not any reason for placing Irish spirits under the control of the English excise, that they were of greater strength than the spirits distilled in this country. But as the terms of the clause referred to in the motion mentioned raw spirits he was prepared to argue, that it did not correctly speaking, extend to Irish spirits. For the Irish spirits, as he was enabled to show, was not a raw, but a complete spirit. It was indeed, much more a complete spirit than rum, and yet the produce of the colonies was treated with more liberality than the spirits of Ireland, for it was not required that the for-
287
Mr. W. Dundas
expressed his concurrence in the motion; but he could not help requesting his right hon. friend to remember that he was chancellor of the Exchequer for Scotland as well as for Ireland, and to reflect that if the Irish distilleries were allowed the free import of their spirits into England, it was but common justice that the same privilege should be granted to the poor distiller of Scotland.
Mr. Marryat
said, it was impossible, if
288
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the board of excise had suggested to him that this measure might affect the security of the revenue; but he was bound not to let any consideration of revenue interfere with the due execution of the act of Union, and if any of the clauses of that act were of doubtful meaning, the House was equally bound, in justice and liberality, to explain them in the sense most favourable to Ireland.
Sir J. Newport
deprecated the language of an hon. member, in so loosely casting an imputation upon the conduct of the Irish and Scotch distillers. The hon. member had not a particle of evidence to sustain the charge, that the spirit of Ireland was not as fairly manufactured as that of England. But the fact was, that the Irish spirit was of a much superior manufacture, or it would not have had so much sale in competition with the spirit manufactured in England. The Irish distillery was under the special protection of the Union. But such was the superior quality of Irish spirit, that a great quantity of it was imported into this country before the Union, as might be seen upon reference especially to the imports of 1797. The import of this article had, however, considerably increased since the Union, and nothing could prevent that increase, if
289
Lord Castlereagh
said, that previous to the Union this subject had come under Mr. Pitt's consideration, and he had received several representations, stating that the effect of it would be, that a large portion of the trade and capital of the distilleries would he transferred from England to Ireland. He replied, as a statesman of enlightened views ought, that it was a matter of indifference to him to what part of the empire the capital was transferred. On that principle, the union was framed, and he thought they had no right to consult the question of revenue at the expense of the first principles of the Union.
Mr. W. Smith
acknowledged, that Ireland was a country to which England owed a debt of fearful magnitude for many ages of misgovernment, but this he thought was a bad mode of payment. He could not agree, that because some of the manufactures of Ireland had been destroyed, we were therefore to destroy some of the manufactures of England also. His hon. friend, whom he was glad to see in his place (Mr. J. Foster) had often contended, that the House had no right to interfere with the internal regulations of Ireland; he should like to know if that principle were now to be maintained. He strongly objected to the late period of the session at which this matter was brought on; and he also thought that as the excise had found sufficient reason for the mention of the obnoxious clause, the House ought to be acquainted with those reasons, now that it was about to be rescinded. It was not correct to speak of the rectifiers as the rivals of the Irish distillery; it would have been more consistent so to denominate the malt distillers, and on their behalf he must protest against this measure, except as an experiment. They had no objection to the importation of Irish spirits, if they were put on the same
290
Mr. John Foster
, as he had been called upon in so pointed a manner, would only observe, that he had not said what the hon. member had imputed to him, and he would tell him why it was impossible he should have said so. At that time the English parliament was the parliament of Ireland, and he never could have been guilty of the absurdity of asserting, that they could not legislate for the whole of the empire. He put it to the hon. gentleman whether he could consider it as the part of a good member of parliament to be setting the manufacturers of one part of the country against those of another part, as if they had separate interests. He hoped never to see a national question so treated again.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
LOTTERY BILL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in moving the order of the clay for the third reading of the Lottery bill, said, that in consequence of the communications which had taken place between an hon. friend of his and the hon. member for Aberdeen, he had consented to withdraw what were considered the objectionable clauses in the bill.
Mr. Hume
expressed his satisfaction at the decision of the right hon. gentleman and pointed out some passages in the 33d and 38th clauses of the bill, which also required amendment. He also protested against the use of black letter in bills, which sometimes rendered it extremely difficult to ascertain their precise contents. In consequence of its having been alleged that the secretary of the lottery had some share in the contract, and might therefore favour one lottery office keeper or another, he wished to bring up two clauses, prohibiting the secretary, or any of the commissioners, from having any interest, direct or indirect, with the contract for the lottery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that such an enactment would be wholly unnecessary. The secretary was
291
Sir M. W. Ridley
declared it to be his opinion, that a greater fraud had never been practised on the public, than that which had taken place in the last lottery. The amount of the prizes was stated to be 130,000
l.
l.
The bill was then read a third lime.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, July 7, 1820.
POSTPONEMENT OF THE CORONATION.]
Mr. Beaumont
rose to give notice of an address to his majesty, praying that the Royal Coronation might be suspended until the termination of the proceedings now pending against her Majesty.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that the motion of which the hon. member had just given notice, was unnecessary, because his majesty had already signified his intention, that the ceremony of the coronation shall not take place on the day originally named, nor was any other day fixed for that purpose. He wished to be distinctly understood, that the postponement of the coronation was not in consequence of any proceedings respecting her majesty.
The notice was withdrawn.
SIR WILLIAM MANNERS.]
The Speaker informed the House, that the messenger dispatched to arrest sir W. Manners, and another person of the name of Jervis, had gone down to the country to execute the warrant, but failed in his endeavours. The Speaker then suggested the propriety of having the messenger examined at the bar.
The messenger, Mr. Wright, informed the House, that he set off at one on Thursday morning, and arrived at Buckminster by half past four yesterday afternoon; that he went to the house of sir W. Manners, and was informed that he was not at home, and had left Buckminster the preceding evening at six; that it was not known whither he was gone, nor when he would return; the servant said, he was steward
292
Sir Robert Heron
said, the House would recollect the report received on Wednesday last from the chairman of the Grantham election committee. In that report evidence was disclosed, satisfactorily showing that notice had been duly served on the individuals who refused to give their attendance. The notes of the short-hand writer had been read, and fully bore out the evidence so disclosed. He thought, therefore, that the subsequent conduct of the individuals alluded to could be regarded in no other light than as a gross violation and contempt of the authority of that House, and as an obstruction to the discharge of those duties which the House had imposed on its committee. As such, however averse he might generally be to measures of rigour, he thought that in furtherance of justice, and to provide against future obstructions of the same kind, the House was bound to animadvert severely upon it. He should therefore now move, "1. That it appears to this House, that sir W. Manners, bart. has absconded, in order to avoid being taken into custody, pursuant to an order of this House.—2. That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased immediately to issue his Royal Proclamation, with such reward as his majesty shall think proper, for discovering, apprehending, and detaining the said sir William Manners."—Similar resolutions with regard to Mr. Jervis were put and carried.
ALIEN BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Bernal
rose to enter his protest against the renewal of this measure. Doubtful as its policy was at any time, a strong case ought indeed to be made out, in order to show that it was expedient in the fifth or sixth year of a general peace. The first bill of this kind which parliament had ever sanctioned was the 33rd of the late king. That bill was passed in order to guard the country against the innovating principles and doctrines of the French
293
Lord A. Hamilton
said, he wished to know whether it was to be considered as a permanent part of the system of laws of the country? It had been continued from year to year, almost as a matter of course, advantage being taken of the comparative indifference with which the House looked at what professed to be a temporary measure. In the same manner the act for the seizure of arms in Ireland had been continued for ten years by five distinct renewals. This Alien law also had been now continued five or six years since the peace, and was to be continued for two years longer, at the end of which time it was likely to be just as necessary as as it was now, for not a single argument had been now adduced in favour of it.
Colonel Davies
said, it was now, as had been observed by his hon. friend, about twenty-seven years since parliament had first been asked for an extension of those powers that had been previously deemed sufficient for the welfare of the country and the safety of the constitution. When this odious measure was first heard of within the walls of that House, France was in a state of actual revolution—its monarch dethroned—its religion abjured,
294
295
The Hon. J. W. Ward
said, that though it was unpleasant to continue a debate in which no arguments had been offered but on one side, the bill was, in his opinion, so discreditable to the ministers, so discreditable to the House, and so discreditable to the country, that he could not help saying a few words against it; and the more so, because he thought it was only by the earnestness, zeal, and perseverance of the opposition to it, that the country could ever be delivered from this measure, and that they had thus far to congratulate themselves, that it was on account of that opposition that they had not a perpetual instead of a two years Alien bill. It was a bill to deprive foreigners of that degree of favour, protection and countenance which they enjoyed in this country, he would not say in ancient times, for that might admit of dispute, but without question in that time of our history to which every man looked back with most satisfaction, and which might be most conveniently taken as an example. He really could not understand after all that had been said on the subject, on what reasons were offered to them, this bill, which might affect the interests, and which affected so directly the character of the country. Was it for the protection of our own government, or was it for the protection of foreign governments? When it was last proposed to them, four years ago, they were told that Europe was still over-run with Jacobins, some Republicans, some Napoleonists, all michievous in the extreme; they were told to look at the Netherlands, where, till an Alien bill had been introduced, the work of sedition had been carried on by wholesale, by these pestilent enemies of all established authority. After that, what had happened? In that very year, many of those exiles were recalled to France; and, in the next year, the king of France, the head of that government which we were professing to protect by that bill, said his wish was, to forgive and forget, and suffered almost all the others of these exiles to return to their country. The consequence was, that the Netherlands
296
297
298
Mr. Bathurst
argued against the observations of the hon. member who had just spoken, contending, that experience and practice were opposed to the speculation and conjecture of that hon. member, when he maintained that English Jacobins, or by whatever other name those might be called who desired the overthrow of the government, had no disposition to seek assistance from congenial spirits in other nations; for it must be recollected, that when the enemies of our government were most anxious for the attainment of their object, they made an appeal for assistance to the National Assembly of France. But, if gentlemen would look to the general conduct, or rather to the uniform system of the disaffected of this country, they would find them resort to every quarter of the world where any symptom of a similar spirit appeared. It was, indeed, notorious, that every movement of insurrection or disaffection to established governments thoughout Europe, served as a motive, an example, and an encouragement to those who had the same views in this country. Could any one doubt, that if any disaffected persons in any nation
299
Mr. Maxwell
said, that having supported this bill on a former occasion, he thought it necessary to explain the reasons for which he was induced to oppose it on the third reading. On the former occasion, the queen had not arrived in this country, or, at least, no measures affecting her honour and character were fore this House, nor had those, en-
300
On the question, that the bill be read a second time, the House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 63: Majority, 50.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visct.
Maule, hon. W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Marjoribanks, S.
Benyon, B.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Bernal, R.
Ossulston, lord
Birch, Jos.
O'Callaghan, J.
Bury, visct.
Ord, W.
Browne, Dom.
Palmer, C. F.
Beaumont, T. P.
Powlett, hon. W.
Calcraft, J. H.
Price, R.
Cavendish, Henry
Parnell, sir H.
Colborne, N. R.
Parnell, Wm.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Ricardo, D.
Duncannon, visct.
Ridley, sir M.
Denison, W. J.
Rice, T. S.
Ebrington, visc.
Robarts, A.
Ellice, Ed.
Robarts, G.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Ramsay, sir A.
Folkestone, visc.
Sefton, earl of
Fleming, John
Scudamore, R.
Graham, J. R. G.
Smith, hon. R.
Grant, J. P.
Smith, Wm.
Gordon, Robert
Sykes, D.
Gaskell, B.
Townshend, lord C.
Hughes, W. L.
Tavistock, marq. of
Hobhouse, J. C.
Western, C.
Heron, sir R.
Ward, hon. J. W.
Hume, J.
Williams, W.
Harbord, hon. E.
Wellesley, R.
Heathcote, sir G.
Whitmore, W.
Lambton, J. G.
Wilberforce, W.
Milbank, Mark
TELLERS.
Maxwell, J.
Davies, R. H.
Monck, J. B.
Wilson, sir R.
UNION DUTIES BILL.]
This bill being recommitted,
Mr. Hume
expressed his surprise and regret that sir H. Parnell had not succeeded in obtaining the appointment of the committee for which he had moved some time ago, as had that motion been agreed to, ample evidence would have been adduced to show that every impedi-
301
Sir H. Parnell
argued forcibly against the bill, the purport of which was, a general and indiscriminate renewal of all the duties upon all manufactures transmitted from one country to the other. When these duties were originally laid, they were for the avowed purpose of introducing and establishing manufactures in Ireland, and this, however erroneous it might be deemed, was a distinct and general object; but the right hon. gentleman, in proposing the further continuance of these duties said, he did so, in order to protect capital that was vested in their manufactures. This was certainly a very different motion from that which originally gave rise to those taxes. But the right hon. gentleman has not stated any distinct case to show where the capital was so invested as to require this protection, and this should be done before the continuance of such duties was agreed to. For where duties of this nature were not necessary for the protection of Ireland, they must operate as direct taxation upon that country. From the representation of the deputies of the Irish manufacturers who had communicated with the right hon. gentleman, it appeared that they could have no desire to continue the taxes, or what were called protecting duties, upon plated ware or pottery, for as these articles consumed in Ireland (there being no manufacture of them), were imported into Ireland from this country, the duty referred to only served to impose an additional tax upon the Irish consumers. Therefore it was desirable that pottery and plated ware should be wholly omitted from the schedule annexed to this bill. But there were other articles in this schedule to which he must request the attention of the committee, and upon the necessity of excepting which he could offer various arguments if time were allowed for due consideration. From the thin state of the committee he did not deem it proper to enter into the subject at any length, but he felt it his duty to state as briefly as
302
303
MILITARY IN THE CITY.]
The Lord Mayor
, in rising to offer an explanation on a subject to which the attention of the House had been called by the hon. member for Aberdeen, regretted that the hon. member was not present to hear his justification. He could assure the House that nothing had been farther from his mind than to call in the military for the purpose of overawing the livery or his fellow-citizens. His sole object in taking the precaution for which he had been blamed by some persons, was to preserve and protect the citizens of London; and for this purpose the military had been placed in the neighbourhood of the city—not within it, as had been erroneously stated. He had thought it prudent, on this occasion, to post soldiers in places contiguous to the city, lest any evil-disposed spirits should think fit to renew such outrages as had been committed in the mayoralty of alderman Wood, when shops were broken open, arms were stolen, and acts of violence and bloodshed were committed. With this example before him, he had
304
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 10, 1820.
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES
The Earl of Liverpool
rose to call their lordships' attention to the order of the day made with reference to the bill he had introduced on the report of the secret committee. When this subject was under discussion on a former occasion, it was thought that the illustrious person against whom the proceedings were instituted, and her counsel, were desirous of considerable delay; but, in consequence of the report of the secret committee, and the bill which he had laid on the table, an application of a different nature had been made by the queen's counsel; namely, that their lordships should proceed forthwith with the inquiry. He by no means meant to complain of this as inconsistent, because he was perfectly sensible, that the different circumstances in which the case was then placed might give just ground for a change of opinion as to the time of proceeding. It must be obvious, however, that this change must, in some degree, affect those before whom the proceedings were to take place. But he did not make this observation with the view of casting any weight on that objection. On the contrary, he said that the call for an immediate inquiry having been made, their lordships were bound to answer it as far as it was practicable for them to do, consistently with the administration of substantial justice. This was a case in which they must put out of question every motive of mere convenience. On the last day on which this subject was under discussion, he had thrown out for their lordships consideration, whether they would think proper to
305
306
Earl Grey
did not oppose the motion made by the noble earl, but observed that, if there was to be any delay, he thought it would be much better that it should take place before the proceedings commenced than during their progress. He was ignorant as to what course the illustrious person against whom these proceedings were directed might wish to adopt; and, in the present state of the information before their lordships, it was difficult to suggest any thing on the subject. He thought, however, that some arrangement might be made with her majesty, so as to have the delay previously to the inquiry, instead of making it interpose, as it otherwise might do, to allow time for the preparation of the defence. How this was to be brought about he did not know, but he thought it might be accomplished by communicating to her
307
The Earl of Liverpool
assured the noble lord, that, from the inquiries he had made, he had found it was not possible for their lordships, with a due regard to the administration of justice, to call for the attendance of any of the learned judges before the 17th of August. He perfectly agreed with the noble earl, that it would be very desirable to obtain a delay before the commencement of the proceedings, rather than at any other time, if an arrangement for that purpose could be made suitable to the convenience of all parties. The noble earl thought that this object might be facilitated by communicating the charges and a list of the witnesses. As to the charges, he conceived that they were already sufficiently made known. They were as fully detailed in this bill as ever they had been in any other of the kind. With regard to the other and more important point, the communication of the names of the witnesses, he had given it his most serious consideration, and he was perfectly satisfied that no claim whatever could in justice be made to such a communication. It would be dangerous to make such a precedent, for it would tend to the establishment of one of the most inconvenient principles that could be adopted in proceedings of a similar kind,
308
Lord Holland
desired the standing order, No. 47, which regulates proceedings of inquiry before their lordships, and directs that defendants may be heard by counsel, &c., should be read. He had no hesitation in saying, that if the date of this order, as it stood in the order-book, was correct, it was imperative on their lordships to grant to her majesty the substance of the depositions or charges against her. He had no wish to call upon their lordships to do any more in this case than what substantial justice required, and therefore he did not rest much on this ground; he would indeed candidly confess, that he had some doubt of the accuracy of the date: it was the 3rd of April, 1623. It appeared that proceedings were then instituted in that House against the lord-treasurer Middlesex. A report from a committee, at the head of which was the archbishop of Canterbury, had been made on the 2nd of April, stating that, in the course of their inquiry, reflections had been found to attach on the honour of the lord-treasurer. On the 5th a committee was appointed in the Commons to inquire into the conduct of the lord-treasurer Middlesex. If this order were entered on the Journals on the 3rd of April (the period specified), no doubt whatever could exist but that it was done for the purpose of granting to the lord-treasurer a communication of those charges that had been made against him in a secret committee, and with respect to which the other House had given him no information. A conference took place between the two Houses, and at that conference an accusation was preferred against the lord-treasurer. That accusation, and a report of the proceedings at that conference, were referred to a committee of their lordships, and they almost unanimously caused articles of impeachment to be drawn up against the lord-treasurer. The manner in which the business seemed to be conducted was this:—There was, on the part of the plaintiff and defendant, a certain report drawn up by the House, and witnesses were sworn at the bar to give evidence on the subject. On the 3rd of April, an inquiry took place as to whether the information required by the lord-treasurer should be granted to him or not. On that occasion, they did not arrive at any decision. On the 3rd of
309
310
311
The Earl of Liverpool
said, it would be better if the noble lord, instead of introducing this point incidentally, would make a distinct motion on the subject. Unless that were done, the House could not, he conceived, deal with the question. If any noble lord was anxious to introduce the subject to the House, he might do so by offering a distinct proposition with respect to it. For his own part, he had heard nothing that tended in the slightest degree to shake the opinion he had formed on this question. The noble lord, in support of his view of the case, had referred to an old standing order of that House; and he had very candidly observed, that he knew not how far it would apply to their lordships' present proceedings. But he believed, if they examined their Journals, they would find entries considerably later, and connected with analogous cases, where copies of depositions and papers of the nature of those that had been referred to the secret committee, were actually refused to the parties concerned, who had applied for them. In the case of bishop Atterbury divers papers were laid before the House of Commons in support of the charge against that individual. Copies of those papers were afterwards sent to the Lords. The bishop petitioned the House, praying to have sufficient time allowed him, before the second reading of the bill, to inspect those papers by his counsel or soli-
312
Lord Ellenborough
said, if he had not misunderstood the noble lord (Holland), the argument which he used on this occasion was at variance with that which he had formerly advanced. The argument adduced against the secret committee was, that the consequence of laying those papers and depositions before such a body, without the examination of witnesses, would be to prejudice their minds in a considerable degree, and thus to render them unfit to act judicially on the subject. This, as far as his recollection served, was the objection against the secret committee; and that objection the noble lord now proposed to extend to the whole House, by placing under the eye of every peer those papers which, in the-former case, he considered as likely to-
313
Lord Holland
did not deny that the noble lord had stated very fairly the view which he had on a former occasion taken of the formation of a secret committee. He then said, it would be very unsatisfactory to the public, and therefore most unwise, to call for an opinion from fifteen peers, with respect to papers submitted to them, since they would be afterwards called to decide finally on the question in a judicial capacity. Now, in what he had observed this evening, there was nothing that could justly be termed inconsistent with that opinion. There certainly was
314
ex parte
Lord Erskine.
—My lords; much as I always desire to hear my noble friend on the right, I am not sure I should have given way to him, if I had not expected it would have been more to the matter now before us. He says that we have two characters, that of hereditary counsellors, and legislators also, and that if looking at the evidence secretly in the former character, disqualified us for sitting in judgment on it afterwards, no such parliamentary jurisdiction should have ever existed; but to that it can be only answered (and I am delivering no opinion on the point), that if looking at the evidence secretly, affects the judgment, as it is impossible to change the nature of
315
316
The Lord Chancellor
declared, that he looked at this case with a feeling of the most perfect impartiality, and he wished to God that it was attended to with the same calmness both in that House and out of it. In that House, he was persuaded, it would be so regarded; but out of that House it was quite shocking to see how much it had been neglected. With respect to what his noble and learned friend had said, it appeared that there was no one case whatever, except that of high treason, which he could state as having the smallest analogy to the present;
317
318
The several motions were then put and agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, July 10, 1820.
SIR WILLIAM MANNERS.]
Sir Robert Heron
informed the House that he understood sir William Manners had surrendered himself, and was then in the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. The two individuals also, H. Manners, esq. and W. Atter, who had been ordered to attend were then in attendance. Knowing, as he did, that the evidence of the two latter was no longer wanting before the Grantham committee, and remembering the lenity which the House seemed disposed to exercise in their case, as having acted without an independent will of their own, he should conclude with moving, that the order for their attendance be discharged. The House would recollect, that A. Jarvis, another person who had refused to attend the notice of the committee, was on Saturday last committed to Newgate. He believed that he should shortly have to present a petition in his behalf. With regard to sir W. Manners, it was not his intention to submit any motion.
Mr. Wynn
was of opinion that, considering the view which the House originally took of the situation in which the individuals who were the subject of this motion stood, there was equal ground for at present exercising the same lenity.
Mr. Wynn
thought there was but one course to pursue, and that the House was clearly bound to act as it had done in the case of Jarvis. He therefore moved, "That sir William Manners, baronet, having absconded, in order to avoid being taken into custody pursuant to the Order of this House, be for his said offence com-
319
Sir James Graham
said, that he understood sir W. Manners had left his home before the order was made for taking him into custody. By the evidence of the messenger it appeared, that before the House debated upon that order, sir W. Manners had gone from his usual place of residence at Buckminster, and could not justly therefore be said to have absconded. He trusted, as some misconception seemed to have prevailed, that the House would not deem it necessary to adopt the motion, and should move that the order for his attendance be discharged.
Dr. Phillimore
was persuaded, that if the hon. baronet were apprised of the resolutions to which the House had already come upon this subject, and the course which it had hitherto pursued, he would not have brought forward his amendment. It appeared in evidence, that sir W. Manners had set at defiance the order of the House, and had actually barricadoed his doors for the purpose of preventing its execution. He must remind the House likewise, that they had already punished one person for similar conduct, and that person the servant of sir W. Manners. Could they with any propriety liberate the master, after they had sent to prison an individual dependent upon him, and who, from his station in life, could hardly be so well acquainted with the nature of the offence he had committed. He felt assured they would deal out equal justice, and should only observe in addition, that it was not on a report of the committee that they were proceeding, but that the House had satisfied itself by an examination at the bar.
Mr. Tennyson
said, that on a former occasion he had interfered in favour of sir W. Manners, conceiving that as he had been selected as nominee in the committee for his son, it might fairly be expected of him as an incidental duty. He unfeignedly agreed in what had fallen from the hon. baronet who had moved an amendment, for the absconding certainly did not appear in the evidence on the Journals. The House should also know, that though it had been applied to on behalf of the sitting member to enforce the attendance of sir W. Manners and others as material witnesses, yet they had not been examined, though in attendance the whole of that day, which had brought the pro-
320
The Speaker
spoke to order. It was subversive, he said, of the authority of the House that a person called upon as a witness by a warrant of the House, should take upon himself to refuse obedience to that warrant, on the consideration whether or not he was a material witness; and therefore it was disorderly to urge as an excuse the circumstance stated by the hon. member. Also, if observations were permitted on the manner in which an election commitee executed its duty, it could not be foreseen how far interference with committees might be carried.
Mr. Tennyson
said, he should be the last person in the House who would undervalue the warrant of the Speaker, and would ever be found among the first to maintain its due authority and dignity; and if he had been permitted to proceed, he was persuaded he should not have been called to order, and that, as it appeared to him, in a manner which seemed to imply some reproach—he might almost venture to say reproof, which he did not feel he deserved, merely wishing to discharge his duty. As to what he had said respecting the witnesses not being called, he had referred merely to the counsel and parties interested for the sitting member, and not to the conduct of the committee; and he had wished to observe also, not for the purpose of defence, but with a view to the mitigation of punishment, that if he might reason by analogy to the practice of courts of law, where a party could not apply with effect to the court against a witness who refused to attend on a subpoena, unless he accompanied his application by an affidavit that the person who refused to attend was a material witness.
The Speaker
again spoke to order, and said that the hon. member had much misunderstood the observations which he had felt himself called upon to make: nothing was farther from his wish or intention than to convey the slightest reproof to the hon. member, and he regretted that he should have thought so; but he had a strong impression that the subject matter of the hon. gentleman's speech was disorderly, as conveying the idea that a difference should be made by a person to whom a warrant was issued, in the obedience which he might pay to it by the consideration whether it was or was not necessary that he should attend.
321
OPHTHALMIC INSTITUTION.]
Mr. Bennet
Sir T. Acland
said, he could bear testimony to the merits of sir W. Adams. It was worthy of attention, that many persons who had received pensions for life on account of blindness, had been since cured by sir W. Adams.
Lord Palmerston
said, he had felt confident when the subject was before under discussion, that Mr. Bennet would do as he had done, state simply and plainly what he had seen. The question as to the manner of granting the pensions was before the Chelsea board.
Mr. Barham
observed, that sir William Adams had failed only in those cases in which the subjects had been pronounced incurable by other oculists; but even in such cases that eminent oculist had afforded relief.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, he had felt it his duty from what he knew of the melancholy disease which gave rise to this institution, as well as from what he had heard of the distinguished individual under whose superintendence it was placed, to visit that institution, and he was at once astonished and gratified by the result of his observation; for he found that several gallant men who had bled in the service of their country, and who had, in the opinion of other surgeons, been totally bereaved of sight, were quite recovered, while the worst cases were considerably ameliorated. Having witnessed such cases, he could not forbear from making the statements which upon a former occa-
322
The motion was agreed to.
HENRY D'ESTERRE, ESQ. RECORDER
On the motion that Henry D'Esterre, esq. be brought to the bar in order to be discharged agreeably to his petition,
Sir J. Mackintosh
rose, not with a view to oppose the motion, but in order to suggest the condition in which this unfortunate individual was placed by his own conduct. He did not mean to interpose between this individual and the proposed lenity of the House. This individual admitted that he was guilty of prevarication on oath, and as he was a member of a liberal profession, it would be for those who composed that profession, to consider whether it were fitting that he should be allowed any longer to belong to such a profession. But without desiring to aggravate the suffering which the reflections of his own mind must inflict upon this individual, he must observe upon that which was material to the public. This indivi-
323
Mr. Dawson
said, he was one of the members of the committee before which the prisoner had been guilty of gross prevarication; and without desiring to interfere with the rights of the corporation of* Limerick, he could not help saying that such a person should not be allowed to remain in any judicial station.
Mr. Daly
said, that he presented the petition, as that petition was couched in language respectful to the House; but he had no desire whatever that the petitioner should continue to occupy a judicial office.
Sir J. Mackintosh
expressed a doubt whether the prisoner should be released without some assurance that he would be removed from the office of recorder of Limerick.
Mr. Daly
said, that as the office which the prisoner occupied was subject to annual election, and as that election must be sanctioned by the lord lieutenant, there could be no reason to apprehend the reappointment of the petitioner after the decision of that House.
Mr. Grant
remarked, that there could be no doubt whatever of the attention of the lord lieutenant to the decision of that House.
Mr. Bankes
observed, that the conduct of the prisoner was, according to his own confession, so grossly disgraceful, that it would be obviously indecent to allow his continuance in a judicial or any other office of trust or consequence.
Mr. Daly
thought the prisoner should resign the office which he held.
Mr. Grant,
understanding the office which the prisoner held was one of annual election, and that such election would take place in September, subject to the approbation of the lord lieutenant; had no hesitation in stating that this approbation would not be granted to the election of the prisoner after what had transpired in that House.
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that after what his right hon. friend had stated, and as the election for the office which the prisoner held would take place at no distant period, he thought there could be no objection to the motion.
324
ALIEN BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Alien Bill,
Sir James Mackintosh
rose, not to oppose the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair, nor yet to enter into any discussion on the general merits of the bill then before the House. He had expressed his opinions upon that question so frequently upon former occasions, that he felt himself perfectly justified in not repeating them at present. He had another motive, of a much more powerful
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
Lord Castlereagh
said, as he understood the hon. and learned gentleman to have commenced his speech by saying, that he would not enter into any discussion of the general merits of this bill, he should certainly imitate his example, and apply himself more to the consideration of the clauses which the hon. and learned gentleman had proposed than to the general observations into which he had digressed, notwithstanding his promise at the commencement of his speech. And here he could not help remarking, that it was easy for any hon. and learned gentleman to assume that nothing had been said on his (lord Castlereagh's) side of the House in support of the measure which was now before it; and if such an assumption were afterwards to be insisted on as a truth, it would be a convenient mode of arguing, and a cheap method of acquiring a victory. If, however, such a mode of arguing were to be held satisfactory, and if assertion were to be deemed equal to truth, he might meet the assertions of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite with others of his own, and might say, that the arguments formerly urged in defence of this bill had not only been satisfactory to his (lord Castlereagh's) mind, but also to those of former Houses of Parliament. It was from knowing how convincing those arguments had appeared to those who had sat in former parliaments, and also from knowing how widely those arguments had been discussed, and how generally approved by all who had attended to them, that he had deemed it unnecessary to inflict a repetition of them upon the House on present occasion, especially as no arguments had been advanced by the opponents of the measure, which had not been a thousand times advanced, and as often refuted; and therefore, if he had abstained
332
333
334
Mr. Scarlett
felt considerable surprise at the very extraordinary speech which he had just heard from the noble lord. For, what was the argument of it? That the power given to ministers by this bill was so odious, that it was a gross libel and a wicked calumny upon them to suppose that they could ever employ it. Why, if this argument were to be allowed for a moment, the ministers might in a short time ask for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act upon a similar principle. They might address parliament to the following effect—"For God's sake suspend the Habeas Corpus act—for God's sake give up your right to a trial by jury—for God's sake repeal all your most valuable laws. The power we shall gain by such measures will be so odious and abominable, that it will be a libel upon us to suppose that we shall abuse it, and therefore you will be in quite as good a condition as you are at present." But could any thing be more ridiculous than this line of argument? He, for one, thought not. The noble lord had misrepresented the arguments of his hon. and learned friend. His hon. and learned friend had not proposed these clauses for the purpose of insinuating any calumnies against his majesty's ministers; on the contrary, he had distinctly stated that his object was, to repel such calumnies. He (Mr. S.) could not believe that the noble lord would make any improper use of the powers conferred by this bill; yet it was extremely possible
335
336
Mr. Wellesley Pole
said, he should not trouble the House at any length upon the merits of this question, but he could not forbear making some observations upon what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down. That hon. and learned gentleman had intimated that a suspicion existed in the country that the ministers did not intend to act with the utmost justice and delicacy towards her majesty. The hon. and learned gentleman who had proposed these clauses, and whose talents, eloquence, and candour, he admired upon all occasions, had however stated, that no such suspicion existed in his mind. The hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down asserted in round terms that a proof of the suspicions which the public entertained of his majesty's ministers was to be found in the outrageous violence which had been exhibited at Dover towards certain individuals who landed there, because it was supposed that they came for the purpose of giving evidence on the approaching important state proceeding. Did the hon. and learned gentleman call that act the expression of public opinion? It was the act of a rabble. He (Mr. W. P.) readily allowed that the rabble were hostile to the present administration. He hoped they always would be so. It was a proof that the present administration had acted with energy, and had successfully supported the dignity of the Crown and the interests of the country. But, on account of this abominable and scandalous outrage which the hon. and learned gentleman chose to consider the expression of public opinion, the House of Commons were called upon to throw a slur on government, in the face of the public and the world, by indicating such a suspicion of government as to withhold from them the powers with which they had formerly been entrusted. He wholly subscribed to the declaration of his noble friend, that if his majesty's ministers were found attempting, what — not the hon. and learned gentleman himself, but, according to him, the public suspected they would attempt—if they not only did not take no means to prevent persons from coming forward to give evidence for her majesty in the pending proceeding, but if they did not give
337
Mr. Scarlett
said he had no intention of disavowing it.
Mr. Wellesley Pole
observed, that he had a right then to consider the hon. and learned gentleman as avowing it.
Mr. Scarlett
allowed that his meaning had the tendency supposed by the right hon. gentleman, but trusted that he was incapable of using some of the words imputed to him. He had called the right hon. gentleman's colleagues weak, vacillating, and incapable of administering the affairs of the country in the present crisis. Their acts and measures fully justified his having so characterised them, and he would so characterise them still. He said this without intending personal disrespect to any of the individuals of whom the administration was composed: but as a member of parliament, he was entitled boldly to declare his opinion of their conduct as a body.
Mr. Wellesley Pole
was proceeding to make some further remarks on what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman, when
The Speaker
interfered, and reminded the right hon. gentleman of the great inconvenience that might arise, were the rules of the House to permit any hon. member to refer to particular expressions used in former debates.
Mr. Wellesley Pole
replied, that he should always bow to the chair with that respect which was due to it when it was
338
339
Mr. Scarlett
rose to explain. With respect to the conduct of the populace at Dover, he had not intended to adduce it as the expression of the public feeling, he had merely mentioned it as having been first alluded to by the noble lord, with whom he would unite in condemning it as highly reprehensible and improper. What he had observed was, that a great many persons out of doors might entertain suspicions of the intentions of government, which certainly were not entertained by himself. He no more considered the sentiments of such persons to express the public opinion, than he considered the votes of that House to express the public opinion.
Mr. Wellesley Pole
said, he understood the hon. and learned gentleman to say, that what passed at Dover was a manifestation of public opinion.
Mr. Abercromby
declared, that if an opinion were to be formed of the talents, judgment, and discretion of the administration from the speech of the right hon. gentleman, those who opposed the administration could not wish that question should be put on a better issue. It appeared to him that his hon. and learned friend's proposition deserved to be received by the House of Commons with a far different temper than had been displayed by the right hon. gentleman. The object of the clauses proposed by his hon. and learned friend was, to secure to foreigners on coming to this country, ignorant as they must be of the nature of the constitution, of the feelings of the people, of the securities on which they were to depend, not only for their case and comfort, but for their personal safety while in the country, such a certainty of being protected as would place them beyond all fear and doubt on that head. If the members of the House of Commons, satisfied with the knowledge of the British constitution, felt assured that there would be no danger attendant on the arrival of those witnesses, who would undertake to aver that similar feelings prevailed in the bosoms of men coming from a far distant country, to a nation which they looked upon with prejudices, to a people of which they entertained strange notions? That House might know that the power entrusted by the bill to government would not be abused; but how could that knowledge be conveyed to foreigners? On the recent landing of some foreigners the people of the place where they landed, with
340
Mr. R. Martin
said, with respect to the general question of continuing the Alien act, I vote for that proposition for those reasons that have been so ably urged by the noble lord. Now, as to the third resolution, which is supposed necessary to protect the witnesses of her majesty, I am compelled to give to that resolution not only my negative, but my hearty reprobation; and I do this more from motives of regard to the queen than of justice to the government. The object is not to prevent any foreigner in the interest of the queen from being sent away, for I am bold in this assertion, that her majesty the queen's defence will depend on those witnesses that are to be brought into the country through the exertions of the noble lord, and not on any now liable to the provisions of this act. Is there one man so lost to truth as to say, he doubts the assurance given, that my noble friend will exert every power, direct and indirect, to procure the presence of every person deemed necessary to the queen's defence. Again, is there a man who will not allow, that without such assistance it would be difficult at least for her majesty to be prepared for her trial. As the queen's friend (if I may be so bold), I do protest against this resolution, because' it would surrender the effectual pledge already given, and substitute an idle, in-
341
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that in the few observations which he was about to submit, he should confine himself to that clause which had been chiefly discussed, and which he considered by far the most important of the three —he meant that which was intended to afford protection to the foreign witnesses for and against the queen. It was not his intention to attempt to follow the right hon. gentleman opposite through the various points
342
primâ facie
343
344
Mr. Canning
said, he found himself in a situation of considerable difficulty; for if it was the privilege of a member, on moving a clause, to conclude the debate by a reply, as in the case of a motion, then he was precluded by the practice of the House from offering any observations in answer to those of his hon. and learned friend. As his hon. and learned friend's proposition was in the shape of an amendment, and not of an original motion, it appeared to him (Mr. Canning) that what his han. and learned friend had just said could not be deemed a reply.
Sir J. Mackintosh
begged to consult the Chair on the subject, and to be informed whether the moving of an instruction to a committee entitled the mover to the privilege of a reply.
The Speaker
said, the original question before the House was, "that the Speaker do leave the chair;" and therefore, unless that motion were withdrawn, the proposed instruction must be considered an amendment.
Mr. Canning
said, he only desired to set himself right with the House on this point; and to show his hon. and learned friend that he had no wish to take advantage of the right which the forms of the House allowed him, he should wait till the first of the motions had passed.
The Speaker
said, that the question which he must first put was, "that the original words stand part of the motion;" and if, on that question, the House determined that he should leave the chair, the right hon. gentleman would have no opportunity of speaking on the question.
Mr. Canning
observed, that as that was the case he would proceed, with the intention, however, of limiting his remarks within a very small compass. His hon. and learned friend had abstained from answering that which was transcendantly the most important part of his noble friend's speech—namely, that the proposed clause, was to prevent an abuse of such a nature that if his majesty's present ministers were supposed capable of permitting it, they were unworthy to remain for a single hour in that capacity, and ought not merely to be restrained, but to be driven with scorn and indignation from their offices. His hon. and learned friend had said, that he had drawn this clause
345
346
347
Sir J. Mackintosh,
in moving the third resolution, begged to make one or two observations, in answer to what had fallen from his right hon. friend First, it was remarkable how strictly his right hon. friend applied the proposed resolutions as personal to himself and his colleagues. He seemed to consider himself and his friends as the permanent immovable administration of the country, and that everything proposed was directed against them. Every measure which was brought forward, in opposition to their views or feelings, his right hon. friend appeared to consider as affecting them in a personal manner. Every measure which might even be thought to affect the hon. and right hon. gentlemen, however remotely, his right hon. friend seemed to think a personal affront, and a very ungentlemanly proceeding. The possible abuse of power generally seemed to be totally lost sight of. Among other things, his right hon. friend regretted that the subject respecting the queen should have been introduced into this question. From that discussion, however, he (sir J. Mackintosh)
348
349
350
Mr. Canning
said, that his hon. and learned friend, in alluding to the administration of king William, and to the ministers under whom the law of habeas corpus was enacted, had asked, whether they might not have met the great measures which had been alluded to in the same way as his hon. and learned friend's propositions had been met? whether the same arguments would not have been equally applicable in either case? He would answer no. But in the case of any measure directed virtually against a pending proceeding, and upon which the arguments (though not perhaps on the part of the mover himself, yet certainly on the part of those who supported him) were derived from the assumed character of the existing administration—for his own part, he could not think, that, in such a case, it was so monstrous for ministers to suppose (nor did he perceive how they could be accused of
351
352
Mr. Scarlett
confessed that he really did not know what expression of his had warranted the construction which the right hon. gentleman had put upon his words. He might be allowed to say that he had himself a little stake in the property, and could not therefore be indifferent to the welfare of the government of the country; but no man was ever less sanguine than himself in expecting, or thought any thing less likely to happen, than the dissolution of the present administration; for he thought they would not dissolve until the country did; and that the country would be dissolved by them; and no doubt had he but many persons would support them until it came to that crisis. He denied that any paramount necessity had been imposed upon ministers to adopt that course of proceeding on account of the mere circumstance of the queen's return, which the right hon. gentleman himself had so feelingly lamented, or to put the parties in that state which the whole country so deeply deplored. It was in this view that he had characterised the present as a weak administration. What other epithet could justly be applied to them? He contended, that the moment his majesty's ministers had admitted that great question to be one capable of negotiation, they had themselves given the lie to those who had maintained that a paramount necessity existed for following the course that had previously been taken. If any gentleman was of opinion that he, in the warmth of debate had shown any prejudice or party feeling on the subject, he wished to set himself right. He could assure the House, that he entertained no such feeling. He wished to see justice impartially done. He could not help stating, that he felt compassion, strong compassion for the situation of her majesty, but he also entertained a strong feeling, for the peace and tranquillity of the country, which he conceived were endangered by the proposed investigation.
Mr. Denman
observed, that when he entered the House, he had no idea that the resolutions now before the House were to be proposed. But he could not help stating the reasons urged in support of that clause, formed a strong ground against the existence of such a bill, and unless the
353
The Attorney-General
knew not what information the hon. and learned member possessed, upon what authority it was
354
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, it appeared as if the ministers thought they were for ever to be continued as such; or, at all events, during the proceeding against her majesty. But whether that might be the case or not, of one thing, at all events, he was sure, that in conferring such a power on his majesty's ministers, they were con-
355
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he merely rose to disavow all personal suspicion of the ministers, while he begged leave explicitly to avow a constitutional jealousy of the power now vested in them.
BARRACK AGREEMENT.]
On the motion for bringing up the report of this agreement,
Mr. Calcraft
begged to call the attention of the House to a subject which came to his knowledge on Saturday. He understood it was intended to build barracks in the Regent's Park for 437 men of the Life-guards, in lieu of the barracks in King-street, Portman-square. That fit barracks should, if necessary, be built, he had no objection; nor had he any that the Regent's Park should be the spot selected. But he thought the terms upon which those barracks were to be erected rather novel. The expense of erecting them was to be defrayed by annuity. The reason for this was, that the sum paid for the buildings now occupied by the soldiers was 5,400
l
l
l
l
l
356
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he considered there was a good reason for accepting of the contract before them. If the regiment in question were to have been removed from London, it might perhaps have been argued, that so large a sum should not have been expended for their accommodation But if any garrison whatever were to be kept in London, the Horse-guards surely ought to be preferred, their good conduct being justly admired and praised. It was about eight years ago since a proposition for building a barrack for that regiment in the Regent's Park had been made; the estimate of the expense amounted to 120,000
l
l
l
l
Sir J. Newport
strongly condemned a proposition of this sort having been introduced at the close of a session. He condemned the mode proposed as changing altogether the principle upon which the country had heretofore acted with respect to barracks. The right hon. gentleman had said, that if the House should not approve of paying an annuity of 5,400
l
l
Mr. Williams
did not see any reason why this regiment should have been quartered at London. If ministers would look at Croydon, they would find barracks there, built at great expense, almost entirely empty. He saw no reason for going to the enormous expense for the erection of new barracks.
Mr. Ellice
intreated of the House to reflect on the consequences which might follow the barrack system—they might
357
Lord Palmerston
said, that instead of asking to raise a sum of 70,000
l
l
Mr. Gordon
reprobated the grant, as one which must ratify an usurped privilege on the part of ministers, as well as sanction a most suspicious transaction. He objected to the principle laid down by the noble lord, as repugnant to that of our ancestors, who thought the best security they had for their liberties consisted in their maintaining closely the connexion between the citizen and soldier, and not treating the interests of one as separated from those of the others.
Lord Binning
was surprised at the nature of the objection. Had his right hon. friend been compelled to ask a vote for a large sum of money, there would have been a colour for the opposition offered. Here it was proposed to effect a considerable object, by most convenient advances, from time to time, on a fair estimate, and finally the public would reap the advantage by having acquired a specific property in the buildings thus erected.
After some farther conversation, the House divided; Ayes, 48;Noes, 34;
358
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, July 11, 1820.
PETITION FROM THE QUEEN FOR A
Lord Auckland
said he had a petition to present from her Majesty, which prayed that she might be furnished with a list of the witnesses which it was intended to adduce against her. He now moved that the petition be read, and intended to propose that it should be taken into consideration on Friday next, the day on which the motion of a noble and learned lord which had the same object, was to be made. The petition was read by the clerk as follows:
The Earl of Lauderdale
suggested the propriety of appointing a committee to search for precedents, not only with respect to the giving of lists of witnesses in analogous cases, but with respect to the whole proceedings.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had no objection to the appointment of a committee, but as it would be essential to have a report respecting any precedents for the communication of a list of witnesses, before Friday, when the question was to be discussed, he thought it desirable that the committee should be confined to that point, at least, in the first instance.
Lord Holland
would willingly concur in the proposition of his noble friend to search for precedents; but if they were to look for what had been done on bills of attainder and bills of pains and penalties, he thought it necessary, to enable their lordships to form a just opinion of the precedent, and to give satisfaction to the public, that the whole of the proceedings on such bills should be reported. Perhaps, as a member of that House, he might have reason to feel some humiliation from the report of a committee appointed with such powers; but he was anxious that substantial justice should be done. He must object to a mere report
359
The Earl of Lauderdale
wished the power of the committee to be as extensive as could be practically advantageous to the object in view.
Lord Holland
said, he objected to it. Their lordships ought to know the whole proceedings relative to the precedent, to enable them to form an opinion respecting it. Bills of pains and penalties were in their nature exceptions from the ordinary exercise of the judicial functions of the House. On such proceedings their lord-ships might find themselves pressed by expediency to make rules for the occasion; for that reason he could not see how their lordships could be bound by a rule so made, without knowing the grounds on which it had been adopted. It would be most unjust to extract from such cases a particular part of a proceeding, and report it as a precedent by which the House ought to be guided in the present inquiry. Suppose, for instance, their lordships should be told by their committee, that bishop Atterbury had been refused copies of certain documents for which he applied; what respect would be due to such a precedent? The real fact was, that that rev. prelate stood in the situation of having the whole mass of the evidence intended to be adduced at the time of his application before him. The charge had gone through the Commons before it came to that House, and of course he was acquainted with all the particulars when he applied for papers which had been laid before a secret committee. The principle of the refusal was, that those papers which had been referred to their lordships' committee were not likely to be used against him, as he was to be tried on the charges from the other House. He did not know that it was necessary to have an examination of the Journals at all; but if the search was to take place, the whole proceedings relative to any precedent referred to, must be reported. Their lordships would not do justice to themselves, if the report was not such as to give every individual peer the opportunity of judging of the appli-
360
Earl Bathurst
would agree to a motion to search for precedents for the purpose of ascertaining if it had been the custom to grant lists of witnesses in cases of bills of pains and penalties, and, he would add, of impeachment.
Lord Holland
again objected to the motion. He thought, if their lordships searched for precedents on one point they should search for them on all. To search for precedents in one case of an anomalous proceeding, and to be guided by those precedents, without taking into view the irregularity of the whole proceeding, might be doing an act of injustice. When their lordships, therefore, departed so much from the rules of their own House in cases of judicial proceeding, and from the forms of common law, as they did by the bill before the House, they ought to be guided not by precedent or form, but by the rules of justice. The moment they proceeded by a bill of pains and penalties they departed from all the analogies of law in the case of the prosecution, and therefore ought not be guided by them in that of the defence. Their lordships well knew that if it was not regular to grant lists of witnesses in proceedings by a bill of pains and penalties, so neither was it regular to proceed by the report of a secret committee. It was therefore, contrary to justice to look to forms when they professed to be guided by no other compass than what seemed reasonable, right, and honourable to their own minds. He would say that so little was parliament guided by regard to precedents in bills of pains and penalties, that no three cases would be found to follow the same rules. He would repeat, that from the moment their lordships proceeded by bill they deserted precedent, and should afterwards be regulated by what was agreeable to justice, and not be fettered by what was conformable to usage. The noble earl at the head of the Treasury had candidly observed, that the question was, whether her majesty should be allowed a list of the witnesses in the first instance, or whether after the evidence of the charge had been heard, an interval should he allowed her for making her de-
361
Lord Auckland
declared, that his vote on Friday should be guided by a wish to see substantial justice done. The House had hitherto proceeded in an unprecedented manner; and if the granting of the list of witnesses was to be refused on the ground of precedent, he wished their lordships had been equally alive to the consideration of established form when they appointed their secret committee. If their lordships were to disregard rule on the side of the prosecution, they should take care that substantial justice was done without regard to form in granting facilities for defence. He was against the motion, unless it was made to include an inquiry into all the proceedings relative to bills of pains and penalties, as well as into the point of granting or refusing a list of witnesses.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 11, 1820.
GRANTHAM ELECTION.]
Colonel Wodehouse
informed the House, that the Grantham borough election committee had determined, that James Hughes, esq. was not duly elected. That the last election for the said borough, so far as relates to the said James Hughes, esq, is a void election. He further informed the House, that the committee had come to the following resolutions:"1. That it appears to this committee, that, at the last election for the borough of Grantham, James Huges, esq, by sundry acts of treating, did act in violation of the statute of the 7th of William 3rd, cap. 4, whereby he is incapacitated to serve in parliament upon such election. 2. That a practice has subsisted for several elections, in the borough of Grantham, of paying sums of money to the out-voters, under colour of indemnifying them for loss of time; and the committee are of opinion, that the said practice is highly illegal, subversive of the
362
OPHTHALMIC INSTITUTION.]
Mr. Bennet
said, there had been a misrepresentation in the Morning Chronicle with regard to what had passed the day before in that House, on the subject of the Ophthalmic hospital. A long speech had been made for his hon. friend the member for Cork, in which his hon. friend was represented as referring to what had fallen from him. Now, of the whole matter thus imputed to his hon. friend not above three sentences had been uttered by him, and these were incorrectly stated. He himself had not said that his former opinion was erroneous; and all he did say was that three medical persons had dissented from the opinion of sir W. Adams. He certainly had recently visited the hospital, and found only 69 patients. Three only were dissatisfied with their treatment; but it was, as he understood, without reason.
COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE MORNING HERALD."]
Mr. R. Martin
said, he was sorry to trouble the House with any thing that referred personally to himself. On a former occasion he had brought under their notice a breach of privilege with which his name was connected in "The Morning Herald" newspaper. At that time he had refrained from making a complaint, and merely mentioned the subject by way of admonition. He had afterwards seen the gentleman, who avowed that he was the person who reported his speech on that occasion. Indeed, the gentleman, when he spoke with him, talked of his situation and condition very unreservedly. But he (Mr. M.) was not prepared to put the matter to issue on the principle of a trial by battle. The gentleman used the following expression;—"In future, Mr. Martin, you shall have no cause of complaint; we shall lay down the pen when you speak." What he said then was, that he should be very much obliged to him not to report his speeches at all, if they were to be done in the way he complained of. In the same paper of this day the reporter had made him utter sentiments which it would not become any man to use who was not a fit subject for a certain receptacle. In consequence
363
THE QUEEN'S COUNSEL.]
Mr. Brougham
said, he wished to bring under the consideration of the House, a matter immediately falling within the scope and intent of two of its standing orders. With a view of protecting themselves against great abuse, every member of that House had been prohibited, by those standing orders, from attending as counsel at the bar of the House of Lords; The first standing order referred to common law proceedings, and the other to judicial proceedings by bill. These rules were laid down at a period when it was necessary to raise their privileges to a high ground, and the practice had been during the last century, ever since the year 1710, for members of that House to attend without let or hindrance, in their profestional capacity in the House of Lords. This, however, had not been the case with respect to bills; and for the best reason—because those bills had been or must come before them as members of parliament. Still, if the principle were extended to all cases whatever, great inconvenience must arise—an inconvenience that must be obvious from the mere etiquette of the profession. Another purpose for which the standing order was framed was to guard against an improper influence with respect to private bills exercised in the other House by the members of that; and he certainly had no wish to open the door wider than it now stood for the admission of such bills. His proposition now was, that the case he had to submit furnished fair ground for an exception to the rule. It was on behalf of her majesty's law officers that he made his appeal;
364
Lord Castlereagh
thought the House ought not to be called on to decide upon such a motion
instanter.
Mr. Brougham
said, he was sorry that it should be viewed in that light; he had himself deemed it a matter of course, and had not anticipated any objection. The consequence of not acceding to his application would be, that no member of that House would hereafter appear in cases of appeal or writs of error at the bar of the other House, as, in duty to his client, he should feel himself compelled to enforce the standing order upon every occasion.
Mr. Wynn
said, there were two standing orders—one passed in 1666, and the other in 1669—relating to this question. The first provided, that no member of the House of Commons, and who was of the long robe, should act as counsel before the Lords; the second reserved to the House the power of granting exemption. The present case seemed to present sufficient ground for exercising this power, provided an entry was made on the Journals of the special circumstances attending it. He agreed, however, with the noble lord, that it would be better to give some notice.
Mr. Brougham
said, if it could not be regarded as a matter of course, he would give notice for to-morrow.
Sir F. Burdett
said, they ought to take care that they did not surrender their just rights by a partial proceeding. He under-
365
EDUCATION OF THE POOR BILL.]
Mr. Brougham
brought in his bill, "for better providing the means of Education for his Majesty's Subjects," which was read a first time.
Mr. Brougham,
in rising to move, that it be read a second time to-morrow, said, he wished to notice, and to allay an alarm which, he understood, his bill had excited amongst two very numerous and highly respectable classes of his majesty's subjects—the Protestant Dissenters and the Roman Catholics. The House would hardly believe the extent to which this alarm had gone, especially when they recollected the observations with which he had introduced the plan. It was supposed, in consequence of the system being connected with the Protestant ecclesiastical establishment, that it was intended to compel children of various denominations to attend Protestant worship. This feeling had operated so powerfully, that some members of these two respectable bodies had addressed queries to him on the subject. It was asked by one party, whether it was not true (a point, he begged leave to observe, directly contradicted by the report) that it was intended to compel Roman Catholics to send their children to Protestant schools and Protestant worship? and certain dissenters seemed to consider this as a bill introduced for the purpose of "rooting out the last remains of religious liberty in this country." With respect to the Test act, as it affected dissenters, he would offer no observations on this occasion. But he thought the expression "to root out the last remains of religious liberty in this country," was exceedingly strong, when the dissenters were allowed, by an annual indemnity act, to get rid of the sacramental test. He would, however, tell those individuals, and if any of them happened to be present, he hoped they would recollect the declaration, that there was not a man in the House, nor in the country, more decidedly adverse to any thing harsh or intolerant than he was. Nor was
366
Mr. W. Smith
said, he had no doubt that what his learned friend had stated with respect to the feeling of the Roman Catholics was true. But, if it were not for his learned friend's declaration, he should have conceived it impossible, looking to the feeling which pervaded the House, that the Roman Catholics could have adopted such a monstrous idea as that Protestant schools were to be established, and that they would be obliged to send their children to those schools. His learned friend had neither said nor insinuated any such thing, but the very reverse. With respect, however, to the Protestant dissenters, he was well aware that much alarm prevailed amongst them as to the general structure and bearing of the bill. But that alarm had not, as far as he knew, induced them to go so far as to use the expression which his learned friend had quoted, or any thing like it. He knew
367
The motion was then agreed to.
MOTION RESPECTING SIR MANASSEH
Lord J. Russell
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for an address to the Crown, praying his majesty to shorten the term of the imprisonment awarded to sir Manasseh Lopez. Some persons erroneously supposed that he wished to do away with the punishment altogether; but these individuals did not recollect that sir Manasseh had already paid a fine of 10,000
l
368
369
l
l
Mr. Wynn
felt that it was extremely unpleasant to oppose a motion of this description, and to endeavour to thwart the disposition of lenity which the House might feel towards any particular offender. Every gentleman must wish to show mercy and forbearance, as far as justice would permit; but the case in point was not one in which consistently with their duty, with the forms of parliament, and with propriety, they could interfere. Cases might exist, in which the House might in justice be called on to advise the Crown to interpose, and to exercise its prerogative of mercy, in the same way as they might offer advice with respect to any other prerogative; for the House had a right to
370
371
Mr. W. Peel
supported the motion, and urged, that the same measure of mercy should be granted to Mr. Swann, who had been lately re-elected to that House, in a manner that was equally honourable to his constituents and to himself. There had also been a serious calamity in the family of Mr. Swann, since his imprisonment commenced, which formed an additional claim to the generous consideration of the House. If some remission of his sentence were extended to Mr. Swann, it would, under such circumstances, be a most seasonable and acceptable indulgence.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he was not quite sure, but he believed that this was the first time that a question like the present had been brought before that House. He believed that this was the first case in which that House was called upon to interfere with the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy; and what had taken place in the course of the debate, seemed to show to what consequence the adoption of such a motion was likely to lead. The motion was no doubt honourable to the feelings of the noble lord, but the precedent was peculiarly to be deprecated, which the acquiescence of the House in such a motion was calculated to establish. It would better become the House to leave the prerogative of mercy where it was fixed by the constitution, and not to press a proposition of this nature. Whether the law should have its execution was the peculiar prerogative of the Crown, and the responsible servants of the Crown could not be justified in recommending the interposition of the royal mercy upon the mere suggestion of that House (he spoke it with perfect respect) any more than upon the application of the humblest individual in the land. Although feelings must always be excited corresponding to the circumstances of particular cases (and particularly ill health was calculated to excite commiseration), could they conceive a place where such feelings could be less properly expressed than in that House? The noble lord had not meant to make his motion of general application, but to limit it to this particular case; yet that case at once brought forth another. If an inter-
372
Sir T. Acland
felt desirous of establishing an inference that, whatever became of the motion, the Crown, in consequence of its having been made, would feel more at liberty to extend mercy respecting a sentence occasioned by the interposition of that House. It was that circumstance that distinguished this case from all others, and exempted the interference of the House from the character of strange anomaly which would belong to their conduct if they interfered with the royal mercy in general cases. In the present case the House had made itself the prosecutor—as far, at least, as the judgment went; and he hoped that the punishment would go far to prevent practices that tended to corrupt the country in the exercise of its best rights. He could not therefore understand why the House could not interfere as any other prosecutor might, for mercy. Another consideration, if not for taking away the crime, at least for
373
Mr. Gurney
hoped that both the cases mentioned on this occasion would be attended to. Mr Swann's case was infinitely the strongest; he had been convicted only upon two counts out of twenty-three in the indictment against him, and that too in consequence of his not having pressed for the payment of a 20
l
25
l
Sir J. Yorke
concurred with the noble secretary for foreign affairs. The case of Mr. Swann was certainly the hardest.
Mr. Money
said, that Mr. Swann had two children at death's door, upon whom he was incapacitated, by his imprisonment, from bestowing his attention at so awful a time. He would support the motion.
Mr. Burrell
observed, that sir M. Lopez was overwhelmed with domestic affliction, which, with his confinement, had made a deep impression on his health and constitution, and had brought him near to the
374
Mr. Abercromby
declared, that if the noble lord now found the way for mercy more easy, he had no wish to say any thing further; but that, if the question should come to a division, he should feel bound to vote against it. He wished the matter to be left with the Crown, and its responsible advisers. The grounds on which the motion was brought forward were not sufficient. A plea had been set up, that the offence was common. He did not agree in the propriety of it; but if it had weight, it should have been considered before the House proceeded to call upon the courts of justice to pronounce judgment. It was too much to say that that House, after having prosecuted, should turn round and say sentence should not be executed. He could not view any argument used on this question but as an impeachment of the sentence. It seemed to him, that it would be an act of extreme impropriety in the House to interpose, because no fact had been offered which was not known before. There was, besides, this material consideration—there was, on such prosecutions, nothing of willingness, either in the Crown or the judges, to proceed. It was generally conceived, that prosecutions ordered by that House were cases in which there was obvious reluctance in other quarters to proceed against the offence. If such were the general character of the cases, it could not be favourable to the interests of justice for the House to thwart the opinion of the judges in affairs submitted to them by the House. The whole argument resolved itself into a complaint of the severity of the sentence. He wished the House to remember the time when, in cases of libel, the punishment of imprisonment was inflicted for years upon years to a frightful amount; and yet no word of interference had been attempted in the House. He begged pardon, one member had ventured a word. The late Mr. Whitbread, of whom he could never think but with reverence and esteem, had incidentally mentioned one. of those cases, and well did he recollect the exclamation of all against
375
Mr. Brownlow
disapproved of interfering with the prerogatives of the Crown. Though he felt how much pity was due to the case, he would oppose the motion; but be hoped the circumstances mentioned on this occasion would have their effect elsewhere.
Mr. Canning
hoped that, when it was considered that this motion, if it failed, must become an impediment in the consideration of the case elsewhere, and if it was carried, must be fertile in occasioning questions of a similar nature, in that House, which was the most unfit place in the world for such discussions, the noble lord would be convinced of the propriety of withdrawing his motion. If there had existed any where an impression that an impediment arose from any prejudice supposed to exist in the House, that impression must be removed by the discussion that had now taken place, and the noble lord might believe that his motion had thus had sufficient effect. The removal of what was supposed to operate the other way be earnestly hoped would satisfy the noble lord, without pressing his motion to a division, which could not be beneficial.
Mr. Grenfell
concurred with the right hon. gentleman opposite; and as there appeared to be an understanding, that due consideration would be given to the case of sir M. Lopez in the proper quarter, he hoped his noble friend would be induced to withdraw his motion. He also trusted that the case of Mr. Swann would be taken into consideration at the same time with that now before them.
Lord J. Russell
said, if he understood the statement of the noble lord, this case was already under consideration [No, no]. Well, then, he must understand that whether his motion had been brought forward or not, there were at present no impediments in the way of taking the case under the consideration of the Crown. He was satisfied with this declaration, He stated at the commencement of his observations, that there were some obstacles and difficulties in the way of a fair consideration of this case by the Crown; but as the noble lord had assured him that those difficulties would be removed, he was ready to admit that the case would be much better taken into consideration in the
376
The Motion was withdrawn.
MOTION RESPECTING SOUTH AMERICA.]
Dr. Lushington
said, it would be in the recollection of the House that he had given notice of a motion for the production of copies of any official communications relative to a negotiation between the French government and that of Buenos Ayres for the establishment of a Bourbon dynasty in South America. It appeared to him to be of very considerable importance, that those documents should be laid upon the table of the House. The documents alluded to respected a correspondence which had taken place thirteen months ago. Since he had given his notice, he had had time for reflection on the subject, and he was fully satisfied in his own mind that it was his duty not to postpone his motion, late as the period of the session was. If he could suppose that his motion would embarrass negotiations with foreign powers, he should be extremely sorry, however strong his political bias might be, to agitate any question that might prove detrimental to his country. The subject to which he alluded was an extraodinary production, originating with the secretary for foreign affairs in the French government, in May 1849. At the conclusion of the session of parliament, we had been assured from the throne, that the most amicable relations were maintained with foreign powers. Yet at that very time was one foreign government devising a plan of the most insidious and unwarrantable nature, which if it would not subvert, would materially injure our commercial prosperity. At the very time when we were assured of the continuance of amicable relations with foreign powers was the secretary for foreign affairs in
377
378
379
380
381
382
Lord Casllereagh
objected to the motion, on the ground that the information alluded to by the learned gentleman had not reached government in such a shape that it could be laid on the table; and ob-
383
384
385
Sir James Mackintosh
was sure that honourable gentlemen would be disposed to concur with him in thinking it a matter of profound regret, that a subject of such immense importance should have only been able to command so thin an attendance of members, and so languid an interest, as it seemed likely to excite. He did not know what might be the exact cause of so unfortunate a difference in the opinions of members of that House upon
386
387
388
389
390
Mr. Canning
opposed the motion as quite unusual under the circumstances of the case. It was for papers which in fact were already in the possession of both sides of the House; but as yet it could not be said whether the information stated in them was or was not correct, and this he thought sufficient to show that it could not be acceded to. His hon. and learned friend seemed to impute to his majesty's ministers a total want of all that sensibility to the national honour for which he gave himself and his hon. friend, the mover, credit. On the hypothesis of the validity of the document in question, government might be disposed to feel as strongly as the hon. mover and his hon. and learned friend; but although it might be perfectly harmless, or even beneficial.
391
392
Sir J. Mackintosh,
in explanation, complained that his right hon. friend had strangely misrepresented him. In the first place, in speaking of aid from military force, he had distinctly said, that the Spanish people had delivered themselves with little aid from regular military force of their own; it was far from his intention in that expression to allude to the British army, of whom he had always spoken as
393
Mr. Ellice
implored government to bestow its most anxious attention on the British interests in South America. At that moment an interposition in behalf of our trade might be attended with the utmost advantage. The magnitude of that trade at present was very great; in fact, from Mexico to Cape Horn, all were supplied with British manufactures by British traders, and not only was that trade very great, but there was a new branch opened between the west coast of America and England direct, which he had no doubt would, if the East India restrictions were done away with, arrive at a very great height. He derived great consolation from the earnest tone assumed by the noble lord, and by the right hon. gentleman; and he was sure that the States of America would require protection in any negotiation with Spain, for maintaining the freedom they had acquired. If any improvement was to be expected in the trade of this country; if relief was to be looked for in any quarter for our desponding manufacturers, it must principally be by extending our commerce with South America.
Dr. Lushington
replied, and said, he was-not, under all the circumstances, inclined to press his motion, and would therefore, with the permission of the House, withdraw it.
The motion was withdrawn.
394
EAST INDIA COMPANY'S VOLUNTEERS
On the motion that this bill be read a third time,
Mr. Creevey
said, he had hoped that the bill would have been removed altogether from the table. He contended, that the measure was a part of the military system ministers were establishing throughout the country. The embodying an army by the East-India company was one of the last acts towards a military despotism he had expected. Ministers were now repeating what they had done 25 years ago, with this difference; that then an army was embodied to fight the French; now, it was marshalled to subdue a distressed population. It had been said, that the disaffected had brought these military measures upon themselves; but such an assertion was both indiscreet and unjust, since parliament itself had been the great instrument of oppression. The real nostrum to cure discontent was economy and a removal of the burden of taxation; yet instead of doing so, the East-India company, itself a grievance to the mercantile interest, by monopolizing the trade to China, was made to raise a force to support the government, which supported them. It would be much more becoming in the company to reduce their expenses, and look forward to the day when their charter would not be renewed. He would move, "that the bill be read a third time on this day six months."
Mr. Money
said, it was not now the time to enter into the question whether the East India Company was a grievance or not; it was sufficient for him that it existed under the sanction of parliament. The force in question was not of a new description, but was composed of men who were under the obligation of self-interest to unite the character of good citizens and good soldiers. It was a measure to enable the Company to protect the immense property in their warehouses, and at times to afford their aid to the civil power.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that though it was the fashion to insist that the people were inflamed by demagogues, he would contend that they had never entertained any such designs as to warrant ministers in adopting measures like that before the House. At this moment the standing army was 92,000 men, while Cromwell had been able to keep down a disaffected population with not more than one-third of the force. New barracks were constructing in all di-
395
Mr. Williams
supported the bill, because he conceived volunteer or militia regiments the most constitutional force that could be used for the preservation of the public peace. He was adverse to a large standing army, and therefore it was that he supported the measure.
The question that the bill be read a third time, was put and agreed to.
STATE OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY.]
On the report of the Appropriation bill being brought up,
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. gentleman opposite. A number of fine trees which had long stood an ornament in St. Margaret's Church yard, had been recently cut down, and he was informed that they were cut down for a reason disgraceful to the dean and chapter of Westminster; they were cut down, if he were rightly informed, for the purpose of creating a space intended to be let at a high price to persons who might be anxious to view the coronation. Those trees had stood for many years an ornament to the venerable fabric which they shaded; and as to the fabric itself, on looking into the interior of Westminster Abbey—on viewing the state of those monuments, which were an ornament of the age, and an evidence at once of the gratitude of the country, and of the high heroic and patriot virtues which called that gratitude forth—it was, he said, most painful to see the disgraceful manner in which those monuments, as well as the interior entire building, were neglected.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
could not say whether the act was done by the dean and chapter or by parish vestry. As to cutting down the trees, he apprehended the same had been done on former coronations.
Sir J. Newport
said, the dean and chapter had all the advantages, whilst the public were obliged to meet the expences of Westminster Abbey. He considered the neglect of that fine edifice as most scandalous and disgraceful, and a fit subject for the reprobation of that House. If on any occasion an application should be made to parliament for the repairs of Westminster
396
Mr. Bankes
said, that the cutting down of those trees for a sordid purpose, reflected any thing but honour on the reverend body. He would not vote in future, for any money for the repairs of Westminster Abbey; and he thought the House should resist any such vote if it should be proposed.
Mr. W. Smith
said, it was shameful to see the manner in which the inspection of the interior of this edifice was, as it were, let out by two-pences; no one felt more disgust at such conduct than he did; but the dean and chapter could not be expected to lay out, as the public had done, 41,000
l
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that early in the next session he would bring under the consideration of the House, the state of Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, July 12, 1820.
GRANTHAM ELECTION—It. A. JERVIS
R. A. Jervis
was brought to the bar, where he received the following Reprimand from Mr. Speaker, and was ordered to be discharged out of custody:
397
GRANTHAM ELECTION.]
Dr. Phillimore
teste
398
Mr. Abercromby
would not pronounce any decisive opinion upon this resolution, beyond saying, that as the case stood, he thought it clear it ought not to be put without serious consideration. If the law as it now stood was decisive on the point, the resolution was unnecessary. If the law were doubtful, surely they did not mean to set it right by a mere declaratory resolution.
Dr. Phittimore
observed, he had not said the law was doubtful, for it was quite clear money could not be legally given in the manner it had been given at this election.
Mr. Wynn
said, he could see nothing doubtful in the proposition. The bill, which was before the House some time ago, did not relate to loss of time, but to travelling expenses. Even the payment of those expenses was, in his opinion, illegal. The giving meat or drink upon the road was evidently an offence against the Treating act, and ought to render the election void. The only question here was, whether the pains of bribery were incurred, or whether it was a minor offence? If, as there was reason to believe, a mistake was prevalent on this subject, it ought to beset right by a declaration of the House—a course which had been repeatedly followed on similar occasions. If the practice of giving money for loss of time were tolerated, it would be much better to repeal at once all the statutes against bribery at elections.
Mr. Wrottesley
thought the present course objectionable. It was not so clear to him that remuneration for loss of time in going to vote was so decidedly against the law as the hon. gentleman thought. At all events, he had strong objections to this mode of settling the law by a declaratory resolution.
Mr. W. Smith
said, the case was so clear that he had at first thought the resolution unnecessary, but the doubts which he had heard raised convinced him of the necessity of it.
Mr. Lockhart
thought the resolution was
399
Mr. Warren
agreed with the views taken by the hon. member who spoke last. The House ought to take care that every resolution which it passed should be binding on its committees. By a declared opinion, such as that which they were invited to come to, they would appear as if attempting to make law, and to control the effects of an act of parliament. He thought the proposition, to say the least of it, crude and ill-digested.
Mr. Wynn
explained. He had said, that every payment of money to an elector for loss of time was distinctly illegal. It was not only an offence against the statute, but against the law of parliament, as frequently laid down in the resolutions of that House, and which he would maintain it was the duty of the House to lay down, without waiting for the concurrence of any other authority.
Dr. Phillimore
said, he had brought forward the resolution as the organ of the committee in the absence of the chairman. An inveterate practice had been proved to subsist in the borough of Grantham, of giving 7
l
l
400
The House divided; Ayes, 66; Noes, 60: Majority for the Resolution, 6.
THE QUEEN'S COUNSEL.]
Mr. Brougham
said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move that he and his learned friend should have leave given them, as her majesty's attorney and solicitor-general, being members of that House, to appear in her behalf at the bar of the House of Lords. The learned gentleman moved, "That leave be given to her majesty's attorney and solictor general, members of this House, to plead as counsel at the bar of the House of Lords against the bill now pending in that House concerning her majesty, under the particular circumstances of the case; and that the said leave be not, in time coming, drawn into a precedent." The learned gentleman observed, that he had introduced the latter part of the motion, because the House would recollect, that their order was more especially directed against private bills than appeals, and he thought it was proper that the salvo should be co-extensive with their standing order.
Lord Castlereagh
said, the case of the queen was so peculiar, it was of such transcendent importance, that if there were two honourable members in that House to whose legal care her majesty wished to intrust her interests in the House of Lords, it was quite sufficient to state that fact to induce the House to dispense with the standing order, and to grant the necessary leave. But he conceived the same privilege should be conceded to the other side, if gentlemen, members of that House, were called on to exercise their talents in support of this important bill. In that case it would be proper that the individuals thus selected should exercise their functions in that House with the same reserve, and with the same understanding, that the gentlemen opposite would exercise their's; namely, that they should discuss the question professionally, and not interfere by
401
Mr. Wynn
said, it was necessary that a special permission should be granted to members of that House to appear at the bar of the House of Lords, if they acted in conformity with the standing order. It appeared, on reference to the earliest period to which their Journals reached, that it had been the constant practice to allow no member of the House of Commons to attend at the bar of the House of Lords without the special leave of this House. So early as the year 1694 several cases of this kind occurred. In one of these the Speaker stated, as a ground for this permission, that, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, the same principle had been acted on, and he had himself been permitted to appear before the Lords. The extreme inconvenience of extending this system was, however, evident; and therefore the House ought to be cautious in granting such permission. It was highly desirable that members should come to the discussion of bills In that House with minds completely unbiassed; and when they had acted as counsel in the other House, whether for or against a bill, they could not be supposed to be wholly unprejudiced. It was on this ground that the resolution of 1666 was entered into; which resolution he took to be strictly declaratory of the law of parliament on the subject. It was a matter worthy of the consideration of the House, whether it would not be proper that this standing order, which only extended to bills coming to that House from the House of Lords—bills which had not originated in the House of Commons—should be made to apply to all bills whatsoever. The inconvenience that might result from the existing state of the order was obvious, since members of the House of Commons might be retained to act as counsel on a bill, when it came before the House of Lords, with a view to obtaining their previous assistance in the Commons. The possibility of such a circumstance ought to be guarded against. Permission to ap-
402
Lord Castlereagh
did not think that any distinction could be drawn between the case of the king's attorney and solicitor-general and that of the attorney and solicitor-general of her majesty. The king's attorney and solicitor-general were officers appointed to act in great public prosecutions, and had a right, as officers of the Crown, to exercise their legal functions in
403
Mr. Wynn
expressed his apprehension, that notwithstanding the concluding provision of the noble lord's motion, the adoption of it was but too likely to be drawn into precedent in other cases in which the Crown might feel an interest in supporting any measure in the House of Lords, while in the former motion no such apprehension could be entertained, as no such case was likely to recur, and this formed another marked distinction between the two motions.
Mr. Williams
remarked, that the noble lord had not coupled with his motion any statement that the king's attorney and solicitor-generals should not vote upon the bill of pains and penalties in that House, if such a bill were brought down from the other House of parliament.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that he had stated at the outset that such was the distinct understanding.
Mr. Brougham
would not oppose this motion, although he was at a loss to conceive upon what ground it was proposed. It was observed by the noble lord, that the attorney and solicitor-general were counsel for the public as well as for the Crown. But every member of the House of Lords was, as well as every one of the judges, of counsel for the public, while it must be allowed that the Crown had quite enough of representation in that House in the great officers of state. Where, then, was the necessity for calling in the aid of the king's attorney and solicitor-generals?
The motion was agreed to. A similar motion with regard to Dr. Lushington, was also made and agreed to.
404
AUDIT OFFICE.]
Mr. Bennet
rose for move for the production of the minutes of the evidence taken before the finance committee of last session, upon the conduct of the Audit Office. The committee, he said, had taken no notice of the question of fees, a subject which had been minutely investigated in the report of the committee in 1810. The right hon. gentleman had produced a bill, in which certainly some fees were abolished, that is to say, two fees; one of 2
l
s.
l
s.
l
l
l
Mr. Davies Gilbert
said, that there was certainly some part of the evidence which the committee had held back, and they had done so, because they felt that the production of this evidence would have a tendency to affect private feelings, and expose private differences without producing any beneficial result to the public. With respect to the establishment of the Audit-office, a very large mass of accounts was now in progress, and would be brought forward at no very
405
ALIEN BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Hobhouse
said:—Sir; I feel more than usual reluctance in offering myself to the attention of the House on this occasion. I observe that this great question is treated with a neglect and indifference for which I am at a loss to account, Even the noble lord, the father of this measure, seems to have left it to its fate—[here lord Castlereagh entered] I am glad to see that the noble secretary has thought it worth his while just to comedown and attend upon his own offspring, although he will not deign to protect it. No, Sir, he will offer no excuses, no pretexts, for prolonging this odious, this unconstitutional enactment. Thrice has he been called upon by some of the most distinguished members of this House, to give some reasons for continuing this bill; but he has been called upon in vain; and like another considerable character, not in real but dramatic life, he will give no reasons "on compulsion"—no, "not if reasons were as plenty as blackberries." Sir; I have not the vanity to hope that I shall extort from him that which he has refused to others much more likely to make his lordship speak; but although lam well aware of my own incompetency, and although I know the almost proverbial folly of "arguing with the master of twenty legions," still a sense of duty induces me not to withhold from the House my sentiments upon a question so materially affecting the rights, and, what is more, the character of the English nation. Sir, it seems resolved, on the other side of the House, that we shall accept this proposition, as if it were self evident. Let me beg the House to remark how entirely the friends of the measure have abstained from any thing like a new argument, although there is nothing which assimilates present circumstances to those which] formed the excuse of former alien bills. We have had just three speeches on this bead—one from the noble secretary of state
406
407
of
408
409
410
"Thee, Saviour, thee, a nation's vows confess
And, never satisfied with seeing, bless.
Swift, unbespoken pomps thy steps proclaim,
And stammering babes are taught to bless thy name."
411
412
413
"——Britannos hospitibus feros."
414
415
416
"Hᔣcest in gremio victos quae sola recepit.'
Mr. C. Smith
supported the bill.
Mr. Monck
strongly condemned the bill. He considered it to grow out of a mysterious and undefined attempt to hunt down the liberal minded men—the whigs of the continent—who
were
417
Sir R. Wilson
said, he had heard no arguments to make him view the bill in a more favourable light than he formerly did. He was glad the clauses which had been proposed had been rejected, as he thought it better the bill should pass with all its obnoxiousness about it. Of one thing he was certain, that whilst it continued to be the law of the land, the millions of the continent would consider this country as at war with their liberties.
List of the Minority.
Barrett, S. M.
La Touche, Robt.
Barham, Jos. F.
Monck, J. B.
Benett, John
Newport, Sir John.
Colburne, N. R.
Palmer, C. F.
Duncannon, viscount
Prittie, Hon. F. A.
Fitzgerald, Lord W.
Rice,T. S.
Fitzgerald, Rt. Hon. M.
Smith, Robert
Graham, J. R. G.
Smith, Wm.
Grant, J. P.
Western, C. C.
Hill, Lord A.
Williams, Wm.
Hume, Jos.
TELLERS.
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Lennard, T. B.
Wilson, Sir R.
SALE OF SPIRITS BILL.]
The House went into a committee on this bill.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
complained of the regulation respecting the importation of Irish spirits as being most injurious to the Irish distillers, and a palpable infraction of the Articles of Union.
Mr. D. Brown
agreed with his right hon. friend, that the act of Union was in this instance violated. He complained of the conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer as amounting to a breach of national faith: the clause which he had first introduced carried the appearance of benefit to Ireland, but the hope that had been raised for a moment was about to be extinguished.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
maintained, that in the whole of this question he had acted for the public at large, and without regard to any particular interests. He held it to be material to prevent, as far as possible, the consumption of spirits of an extraordinary strength, and such was his object in this bill. In Ire-
418
Sir J. Newport,
after stating the claims of the Irish distillers, maintained that the law, as it existed in 1817, ought to be preserved, and as Ireland must submit to the disadvantages arising out of the act of union, she was entitled to its benefits also. He expressed a full conviction that justice would be done to Ireland, though the members of that country did not exceed one hundred.
Mr. C. Hutchinson
concurred with his right hon. friend in thinking that justice would be done to Ireland, but was of opinion that the chancellor of the exchequer did not understand the question. Ireland had, according to the act of Union, a right to import the spirit without any alteration or reduction into the English market, and therefore he could not see the necessity for any investigation by a committee.
Lord Castlereagh
concurred with the opinion expressed by the hon. gentleman. There ought to be but one feeling, to do what was right and just, and he hoped his countrymen would never form themselves into a body, in opposition to the interests of Great Britain. No arrangement could be expected to be permanent which was contrary to the rights of either party. It appeared to him that his right hon. friend's clause was either nugatory, or worse than nugatory; and he submitted to him, that it would be more advantageous to confine-the measure at present to what the law confessedly was, and to let that law take its course till their meeting after the adjournment.
Mr. Shaw
spoke against the clause, and insisted on the right of Ireland to the benefit of the clause adopted in 1817.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
consented that the bill should pass without this proviso.
Mr. W. Smith
thought that the letter of the act of Union might operate against its spirit in this instance, and quoted the authority of Mr. Pitt in support of the con-
419
Mr. Huskisson
contended, that the footing on which the matter would now rest was very fair,
viz.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, the discussion on this question had not originated with the people of Ireland, who had only come, after a long period, to claim a remedy against an infraction of the act of Union. If a measure equivalent to this clause, violating in spirit, though not in letter, the article of Union to which he alluded, should be brought forward at any future time, he should feel himself perfectly at liberty to protest against it. He hoped the explanation of the noble lord was distinctly understood; and that the chancellor of the Exchequer would not introduce any measure to contravene the concession that had been made.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the fair and candid statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer.
The clause was negatived, and the House resumed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, July 13, 1820.
MARRIAGE-ACT AMENDMENT BILL.]
Lord Ellenborough
rose to move the second reading of this bill. He strongly impressed on their lordships the necessity of carrying through this measure, and hoped that their own judgment and feeling would supply whatever might be wanting in his argument in its support. The Marriage act, which it was proposed to amend, he admitted was a law of great advantage to the morals of the country; but the amendment proposed to be made by the present bill originated in no speculative theories, but in a practical view of the defects of the law. His lordship quoted several cases of great hardship which had occurred under the act by the dissolution of marriages contracted during the minority of one or both the parties after they had lived as husband and wife for twenty or thirty years. In one case a marriage had been dissolved, though made
420
421
l
l
The Lord Chancellor
would have been deterred from opposing this bill, considering the virtuous principles on which the noble lord had rested its defence, were he not convinced that its tendency was, to injure those principles the noble lord wished to support. That there might have been, since 1754 when the Marriage act was passed, in consequence of mistakes of parties, many very unfortunate cases of marriage, was a proposition which he did not mean to controvert. These cases he sincerely regretted; and if this bill were intended for the relief of persons suffering under them, it would be a measure worthy of their lordships' serious consideration. Relief had been given with respect to marriages in chapels which were not consecrated before the Marriage act. That was a case in which an amendment of the act was necessary, because those marriages were universally believed to be legal, and
communis error facit jus.
422
The Earl of Westmoreland
supplicated the learned lord to allow the bill to go to a second reading, as, in the committee, alterations might be made, which might remove the objectionable parts. If in the committee it was found that the objections could not be removed, and that no remedy could be afforded, the country must submit to the evils of the law, as it now stood; but even taking all the learned lord's objections to be well founded, the attempt to obviate them should at least be made. The present bill was an amendment of the Marriage act. It went upon the principle, that there should be a limitation to the time of instituting suits under the Marriage act; and he knew not why there should be a limitation in all cases of property, and none in the case of marriage. Sixty years was the limitation with respect to property, but even sixty years possession did not give a man a title to his own wife.
Lord Redesdale
opposed the bill. It would, he said, take away rights already vested, and extensively affect the property of families. If any alteration was to be made in the Marriage act, it
423
Lord Calthorpe
lamented that the learned lord on the woolsack should have felt it his duty to oppose the bill in this stage, as so many reasons had been urged in support of it. Their lordships were often called upon to administer impartial justice, and to protect the faith and sanctity of domestic life, which could not be done as the law now stood. If it was their duty at any time to examine the Marriage act with a view to amend its provisions or to supply its defects, the call became more pressing on the present occasion, when their attention was called to the awful task of administering justice on the subject between the highest individuals of the realm. Their lordships ought to consider whether they would be answerable any longer for a state of the law which inflicted more injustice and hardships on certain parties than could be conceived—which rendered that relation that ought of all others to be stable, permanent, and respected, liable to be annulled and destroyed without the allegation of a fault—and which was as repugnant to common sense as it was to common humanity.
The Earl of Limerick
supported the bill, and regretted that the learned lord on the woolsack would not allow it to go into a committee.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he could not prevent the bill going into a committee, but he could not think he should be doing his duty if he did not vote against it.
The House then divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 26: Majority in favour of a second reading, 6.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 13, 1820.
TEST ACT.]
Mr. W. Smith
said, he had to present a petition from a respect-
424
425
Lord Nugent,
in seconding the motion, observed, that the principle of exclusion from office, on account of a difference in religious opinion, had always appeared to him an anomaly in a free constitution and an enlightened age. He himself had a petition from that respectable body the Roman Catholics of England; and in declining to present it this session, he was influenced only by a consideration of the awful and immediate importance of that question which now engaged the public mind. He must, however, be permitted to say of it, that it contained a most satisfactory answer to the often-renewed charge of a divided allegiance.
Ordered to lie on the table.
BARRACK AGREEMENT BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Caleraft
said, he would oppose the bill in every stage. Though the money to be voted for this object was trifling, yet in the present state of the country every 1,000
l
data
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
agreed with the hon. gentleman, that in the present situation of the country, any expenses which could be avoided ought not
426
l
Lord Nugent
said, it was no matter where the barracks were to be built, for how much or for how little money; he objected to building any new barracks. He objected to them for the precise reasons for which the noble secretary at war had recommended them. He thought it highly unconstitutional to destroy the connection between the citizen and the soldier; he thought it essential to our liberties, as well as consonant to our constitution, that "a circulation of feelings and interests, according to the constitutional language of Judge Blackstone, should be kept up between the army and the people, between the citizen and the soldier." Without this connection no country's liberties were safe while it kept up a standing army. He was not ashamed to avow these opinions, although they might be out of fashion in that House. They had been the feelings and opinions of the greatest men who had distinguished this country—of sir G. Savile and lord Chatham. They were the opinions of one whose writings, genius, eloquence, and public spirit cast a lustre over the period in which he lived—he meant sir William Jones. He wished the public opinions of that great man, enforced as they were by his virtuous life and his profound learning, were engraved in letters of gold in that House. The noble secretary at war had thought it desirable that a corporate spirit should be encouraged by means of barracks in the army. But this spirit he thought most dangerous in time of peace. It proceeded from the worst principles; it led to the worst events. It led to a military government. The military governments of the continent were all crumbling around us, and we ought, therefore, to apply the adage to ourselves. The only military government that remained undisturbed was the Turkish government, and it continued so because it was fortunate enough to shut out civilization and intellect. Where civilization
427
d.
per diem
428
The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 40.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Anson, sir G.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Bright, H.
Heathcote, sir G.
Bernal, Ralph
Lemon, sir W.
Boughey, sir John F.
Monck, J. B.
Barrett, S. M.
Newport, sir J.
Bennet, John
Newman, R. W.
Calcraft, J. H.
Ord, Wm.
Colborne, N. R.
Powlett, hon. W.
Calvert, C.
Palmer, C. F.
Coffin, sir Isaac
Philips, G. jun.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Robarts, George
Duncannon, visc.
Rowley, sir W.
Davies, T. H.
Stuart, lord J.
Ellice, E.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Fergusson, sir R.
Taylor, M. A.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Wharton, John
Graham, J. R. G.
Wilson, Thomas
Graham, Sandford
Grant, J. P.
TELLERS
Glenorchy, lord
Calcraft, John
Hamilton, lord A.
Nugent, lord
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, July 14, 1820.
THE QUEEN—MOTION FOR A LIST OF
Lord Erskine
rose and said:—My lords; having already given my opinion to your lordships upon the important subject now appointed for final consideration, and, at the same time, my reasons for entertaining it, I shall now detain you but for a very short time. I introduced it before on the sudden, in consequence only of what had immediately before been suggested by a noble friend not now present (earl Grey), whose opinions are always worthy of the greatest attention, and which stand in the highest place with me; but there being then no question before the House, I gave the notice which now brings us together; and it is not my wish that your lordships should depend upon any argument of mine, but that it should rather serve as an introduction, to draw out the sentiments of others to prepare you for a just decision.
429
de die in diem
430
431
Vestigia nulla re-trorsum.
432
433
434
435
436
"Why has not man a microscopic eye?
For one plain reason, man is not a fly."
437
438
439
440
d
d
The Resolutions being read,
The Lord Chancellor
rose. He assured their lordships that never in the whole course of his life did he engage in a duty which upon many accounts was to him so painful and embarrassing. Disagreeable, however, as the duty was, he was bound by what he owed to their lordships, by what he owed to the constitution, and by the reverence which he entertained for the due administration of justice, to obey the dictates of that duty, no matter what consequences his conduct might tend to bring about. He was very unwilling to advert to all that had passed with respect to this matter—he would consider the attempt to establish an analogy between this case and one of high treason, as abandoned—and all arguments which might be incidentally put forward with a view to revive this point, he would consider as having gone for nothing. Even the report which had been just made to their lordships, he would not advert to, because, whatever might be the effect of the inquiries of the committee after precedents, he was never of opinion, that in order to direct the course of the administration of justice in the present times, we should refer to those
441
"The poor beetle that we tread upon,
In corporal sufferance feels a pang as great
As when a giant dies!"
442
443
444
viva voce
ex-parte
445
The Marquis of Lansdown
considered the decision of this question important, not merely as it respected the illustrious personage implicated in the proceeding. The impression with which he had entered the House had been most materially strengthened by the speech of his noble and learned friend, which was one of the most convincing, calm, and dispassionate he had ever heard within the walls of parliament. He felt no inconsiderable degree of satisfaction, that the motion now brought forward had been announced by his noble and learned friend (after an incidental conversation, and not a debate as the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had intimated) before any application had been made on the part of the queen; and he hoped to be able to convince the House, that, in justice to her majesty, as well as in justice to the accusing party represented by the noble lords opposite (to whom he did not attribute any wish contrary to the administration of the purest justice), and in opposition to
446
447
pro re nata
448
449
450
The Earl of Liverpool
said, there were few questions on which he could be more anxious to deliver his sentiments than on that now before the House; because he knew little of himself, and of his own feelings and disposition in a matter of this character and magnitude, if he could allow himself for a moment to doubt on which side the balance ought to preponderate. If, in the appeal of her majesty, or in the speech of the noble and learned lord, any well-founded claim of substantial justice had been made out, he hoped he should have been among the first to give it his consent. He was, however, ready to discuss the question on the general grounds taken by the noble marquis. He agreed that bills of pains and penalties were contrary to the regular course of law; and that the House ought not to be guided in such cases by any precedents, excepting as far as those precedents might be supported by the principles of substantial justice. On a former occasion, he had made this admission to the fullest extent that could he required; he had allowed that no precedents were to be found; but supposing they were all the other way, supposing they universally supported the grant of a list of witnesses, he put it to
451
452
453
454
455
Lord Holland
said, the conclusion of the noble earl's speech was directly at variance with the principles with which it sat out. The noble earl had just stated his wish that the House should adhere to the
456
457
458
de jure,
de facto
459
460
461
ex-parte
462
Lord Ellenborough
allowed that the present was a novel proceeding; but said, he could not sit still and listen to the rules that had been laid down for the government of the proceedings of their lordships'
463
464
alias.
465
Lord Holland
could not understand what the noble lord meant by talking, as he had done, about popular effect and popular clamour. If the noble lord alluded either to him or to his noble and learned friend who had brought forward the motion, he flung back the imputation with scorn, and would tell the noble lord that it was a most unparliamentary proceeding to attribute improper motives to any noble lord. If, however, the noble lord alluded to the illustrious individual whose case was before their lordships, he would then tell the noble lord that he did not envy the feelings nor admire the charity of that individual who could impute motives which he could not know, and which it was impossible for him to prove, to a party labouring under such heavy charges as the illustrious personage in question.
Lord Ellenborough,
in explanation, said, that from the respect which the noble lord knew he felt both for him and for his noble and learned friend, he must have been aware that he (lord Ellenborough) could not intend to impute to either of them any design of exciting popular clamour. Neither had he any intention to impute any such motive to her majesty. What he alluded to was the mischievous spirit that pervaded every part of the metropolis; and the efforts made to influence the public mind. It was impossible for a man to walk along the streets, or to take up a newspaper, without witnessing the dangerous extent to which that spirit was carried.
Lord Holland
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation afforded by the noble lord.
The Marquis of Bute
felt too anxious as to the result of this motion to give a silent vote upon it. The appearance of the times was fearful, and he prayed to God such times might never come again. Amazing anxiety existed abroad, and there was little less within doors. If the case was different from other cases of divorce, how then could their lordships
466
Lord Belhaven
said, he could not give his vote on this occasion without making a few observations. They were about to pass a law, which would deprive her majesty of rights, which she would otherwise possess. In such a case it was their lordships' duty to afford her majesty every opportunity of conducting her defence. Her majesty asked no more than that which, according to the laws of one part of the British dominions, was allowed to every subject, and to which she was entitled. He could not help expressing his surprise, at hearing certain noble lords opposite, and who owed so much to the people, raise their voices against what they called "popular clamour;" to hear them exclaim, the people meant to trample on them, to direct them, and so on. He remembered the
467
"When Europe bowed beneath the yoke,
And Austria bent and Prussia broke,
And the firm Russian's purpose brave,
Was barter'd by a timorous slave."
The Earl of Carnarvon
felt it necessary to make a few observations on this very important question. It was urged on the other side, that there were many difficulties interfering against the present motion. He did not wish to refer to the strange bill now in his hands, and upon which they had proceeded so far without any one of their lordships (save the secret committee), knowing the grounds of the measure, or the contents of the fatal bag upon which it was founded. The preamble of the bill contained, at least, what was considered the front, if not the sum of the offending. And a part of that preamble was such nonsense, as to be scarcely worth repeating. It commenced by stating, that, "Whereas in the year 1814, her majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, then princess of Wales, and now queen consort of this realm, being at Milan, in Italy, engaged in her service, in a menial situation, one Bartolomo Pergami, a foreigner of low station, who had before served in a similar capacity." Where, he would ask, was the charge of criminality in this? The preamble went on to state, "And whereas the said Bartolomo Pergami, or Bergami, had so entered the service of her royal highness the said princess of Wales, a most unbecoming and disgusting intimacy commenced between her royal highness and the said Bartolomo Bergami, and that she had not only advanced him to a high situation in her royal highness's household, and received him into her service, and that in high and confidential situations about her royal highness's own person, but bestowed upon him other great and extraordinary marks of favour and distinction, obtained for him orders of knighthood and titles of honour, and conferred upon him a pretended order of knighthood, which her royal highness had
468
469
470
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that there was no precedent which could guide any of their lordships on this occasion. The analogy which might be derived from other cases did not apply to the mode of proceeding now proposed. He should limit what he had to say to the grounds on which his noble friend had proposed this motion. He opposed the motion, on the ground that to accede to it would be to defeat the ends of justice. And here he would ask, whether his noble friend had called upon them to give such a list of witnesses as was mentioned in the act of William? He had done no such thing, but had reserved to the House and to the accusers the power of bringing forward new witnesses. What justice would this do either to the accused or the accusing party? Of what advantage would it be to give in a list of witnesses to the accused party, if other witnesses might afterwards be added to them? Did it not allow the accuser the power (although of course he imputed no such intention to them) of giving in a false list, and of sending the accused to look after those who were either nonentities, or had nothing to do in the cause, whilst they were keeping those whom they actually intended to call as witnesses secure in the back ground? On the other hand, did it not give to the accused party the opportunity of tampering with or intimidating the accuser's witnesses? He was sure it did not require much persuasion after recent experience, to convince their lordships of the necessity of protecting their witnesses. Who could say that the description of these witnesses would not meet the public eye, and if they did, who could answer for the consequences. He did not hesitate to say, that the national character had been disgraced by the treatment which some of the witnesses had already received; and he had little doubt that, if the names of the other witnesses were known, they would be equally maltreated.
Lord Erskine
replied. If it was once proved to him that his motion would have the effect of hindering the progress of justice, he would that moment withdraw it.—He was, however, far from being convinced by any thing which occurred to-night that it would have any such effect, and was therefore determined to press its adoption
471
472
The House then divided:—For the motion, 28; Against it, 78: Majority against the motion, 50.
List of the Minority.
Duke of Grafton
Besborough
Bedford
Darnley
Portland
Rosslyn
Hamilton
Viscount Clifton
Argyll
Downe
Marq. of Lansdown
Lord Saye and Sele
Bute
Ducie
Downshire
Belhaven
Earl of Thanet
King
Jersey
Holland
Cowper
Foley
Hardwicke
Auckland
Grosvenor
Yarborough
Carnarvon
Erskine.
The question being put upon the Resolutions, the House divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 78: Majority, 50.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, July 14, 1820.
PETITION OF OLIVE WILMOT.]
Mr. P. Moore
presented a petition from Olive Serres Wilmot. The petitioner stated herself to be the legtimate daughter of the late duke of Cumberland; she asserted that she possessed a document to prove the solemnization of a marriage between her mother (who was Julia Wilmot, the
473
THE JEWS.]—
Mr. Hothouse
said, he should, in the next session, bring before the attention of the House, the situation of a class of his majesty's subjects which might, and ought to be ameliorated. They had last night heard mention of the situation of the Catholics and Dissenters; he should shortly call their attention to the situation of the Jews, who now laboured under disabilities which would be hardly believed to exist in such an age as this, and especially in London, and other cities of the empire.
BARRACK AGREEMENT BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Calcraft
said, he had learned that one reason for the great expense with which the building of these barracks was to be attended was, that a wall was to be built inclosing a large tract of ground. He wished to know how many acres were to be thus inclosed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
allowed that the building of a boundary wall formed a considerable item in the estimate. He did not know the quantity of ground inclosed, but he believed it was eight acres.
Mr. Calcraft
thought it was most improvident to spend a large sum in building a wall round eight acres of land for the accommodation of 400 men. He should divide the committee on the main clause.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the wall was to be built round a piece of ground for the exercise of the troops. The barracks in question were not like those in Hyde Park, near a place where they could exercise their horses, as the whole of the Regent's Park was laid out in inclosures or plantations.
Mr. C. Calvert
thought this pretence for building a high wall round eight acres of ground was absurd. There were near
474
Mr. Wilson
said, that if new barracks were to be built, they certainly ought to be built with the utmost economy. In the present case the wall seemed to him to be superfluous, and he was of opinion that the whole contract betrayed great mismanagement. If the money had been raised at the present market rate of interest, the country would have been burdened with an annuity of only 3,000
l
l
Sir H. Parnell
said, it was trifling with the House and with the country to propose a vote of this kind at a moment when economy was so loudly demanded in every department of the state.
The committee then divided:—For the motion, 50; Against it, 33; Majority, 17.
IRISH DISTILLERY ACTS.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Irish Distillery acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose to state to the committee his plan for regulating in future the process of distillation in Ireland. The plan would consist of three parts, and with regard to each of them he should submit a resolution on the groundwork of a distinct legislative measure. The first would relate to large stills, of a capacity to contain 100 gallons; the second to smaller stills, not working above 2,000 gallons in the year; and the third to the more effectual prevention of illicit distillation. The right hon. gentleman particularly observed, with respect to the last measure, that it would enable persons to seize unlicensed stills, and, having done so, they must apply to the grand jury of the county, who were to make a presentment for their remuneration, which would be subject to the revision of the judges. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That the chairman be directed to ask leave to bring in a bill to provide for the more effectually collecting and securing the duties on spirits distilled in Ireland, in stills exceeding 100 gallons."
Sir J. Newport
was of opinion that the system of warehousing, which appeared to be connected with one of the bills, was in
475
Mr. Chichester
said, a number of Irish members had waited with great anxiety to know what measure the right hon. gentleman intended to propose with respect to small stills. Their expectations were, however, disappointed, since it appeared that small stills were not to be allowed within twenty miles of the greater stills, and also that the small distiller was to be restricted to the distillation of 2,000 gallons yearly. The manufacture of spirits, to that extent would not pay the distiller the fair interest on his capital. There was another objectionable point in this new plan. It appeared that the instrument to prevent fraud with reference to the strength of spirits, was to be applied to small stills only, while the owners of those of large capacity were allowed to do as they pleased. The effect of this would be to deter men of small capital from entering into a pursuit where they were likely to be met by such powerful competition.
Mr. Hutchinson
hoped that the suggestions which were thrown out by different members for Ireland, on this very important subject, would be weighed and properly appreciated by the chancellor of the exchequer. That right hon. gentleman was undertaking a very difficult task—the task of regulating the spirit trade between the two countries. If he could assist the revenue, and at the same time satisfy the distiller, he should rejoice very much at his success. Any regulation by which
476
General Hart
did not think the present measure would be useful. The quantity of spirits which the small distiller would be allowed to manufacture would produce so small a profit, that few individuals would embark in the trade. With respect to the still-fine system, it placed the country in a situation almost as bad as if it were invaded by a foreign enemy. Persons had been appointed to the situation of collecting officers of the worst character. On a former occasion he had stated the case of a person who had been wounded by one of the individuals to whom he had alluded, but who had afterwards been pardoned, although condemned in a public court of justice.
Mr. Grant
was surprised that the gallant general should have made these conservations at so late a period of the session, particularly as a petition had been presented on the subject, and a bill was afterwards proposed which had been suffered to drop. He was not ready at that moment to enter on any debate respecting the conduct of the excise-officers, but he should be obliged to the gallant general if he would restate the circumstances relative to a person being wounded.
General Hart
said, that three persons, who were in the pursuit of individuals engaged in illicit distillation, had overtaken a man in a pass, with a wall on one side and a river on the other. The man surrendered to their command, and yet one of the officers shot him through the body. This officer, he should observe, had been previously tried and convicted of an assault.
Mr. Grant
remarked, that the case referred to by the gallant general was that of an officer, who, having been found guilty of an assault, had suffered the proper punishment. He was afterwards tried under lord Ellenborough's act, with another person, for wounding a man, and he was capitally convicted. His case was afterwards considered, and, on the recom-
477
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Saturday, July 15, 1820.
THE QUEEN'S PLATE.]
Dr. Lushington
said, he regretted extremely the absence of the noble secretary of state (lord Castlereagh); but he was, nevertheless, obliged in his absence to bring under the notice of the House a subject which he should rather have wished had fallen into other and abler hands. It became his duty, however, in consequence of the absence of her majesty's solicitor-general, private notice having been given to the noble lord to whom he had alluded, that such a motion would this evening be made—to submit the subject, which was one of considerable importance to the judgment of the House. The circumstances out of which the motion he was about to make arose were as follows. In 1808, his late majesty was pleased to order a service of plate to be made, which he afterwards bestowed on her present majesty, who was then princess of Wales. She continued to use it from 1808 to 1814, as her own private and personal property. On proceeding to the continent, in 1814, her majesty placed it under the charge of Mr. Mash, of the chamberlain's office. On her return to this country she caused application to be made for the restoration of the plate, which then became necessary for her use and convenience, and he greatly regretted to state that the lord chamberlain was pleased to authorize this answer—"that the plate could not be returned to her majesty, because it was the property of the Crown, as would be made to appear from official documents." Her majesty naturally felt herself greatly aggrieved by the treatment she had received from government; but little did she expect that, in a case where her comfort and convenience were concerned, nice points of etiquette would have been raised, for the purpose of de-
478
479
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, if he had received the same notice of the learned gentleman's intended motion as had been given to his noble friend, he would have sought for information on the subject, and would doubtless have been prepared to give an explanation. He was, however, ready to state all the information which he at present possessed. It was unquestionably true that a service of plate was presented by his late majesty to the princess of Wales for her use, which service was placed in the apartments occupied by her in Kensington-palace; but that plate, having been paid for out of the civil-list revenue, could not be considered as the queen's private property, but as the public property of the Crown. He had, he conceived, some reason to complain of the course adopted by the learned gentleman, who had evidently taken the House by surprise. He thought it was extremely unfair to take advantage of the absence of one hon. member, in order to call on another to enter into an explanation, and also to enter into an engagement with respect to a transaction which the latter was not aware would have been brought before the House. He should therefore suggest, that the motion should be merely considered as a, notice for Monday.
Dr. Lushington
said, that as the right hon. gentleman had stated that on Monday an opportunity for explanation would offer itself, he acceded to his proposition, and on that day would repeat the motion which he had just made, and which he now begged leave to withdraw.
The motion was then withdrawn.
PETITION OF MR. MILLS—BOROUGH
Mr. Bright
presented a petition from an individual who signed himself "James Mills, a British Freeholder." The petition was brought up and read. It commenced by complaining of the burdens imposed on the people, and of the enormous expenditure of the late reign, amounting to 2,300,000,000
l
480
Mr. Hobhouse
rose to second the motion that the petition should be brought up. At the present moment the statements contained in it should, he thought, be especially noticed, when there was lying on their table a list of those members who were supposed to be returned by corrupt influence to that House. This was the more necessary, because the House of Lords were now about to give judgment on one of the most important measures that was ever submitted to the legislature —he meant the bill of Pains and Penalties. The House ought to take care, if that bill were brought down to them from the Lords, that it was not again submitted, in effect, though not in reality, to the same individuals, in the persons of those whom they had caused to be returned, by whom it had already been decided in the other House. If, as was stated in a petition which he had recently presented, 198 members were, in one way or other, returned by the influence of the House of Lords, what would the country think, should the bill of Pains and Penalties pass their lordships' House, when it was submitted to those whose elections were secured by such influence? People would be of opinion that the measure merely went through the same hands a second time.
Mr. Robinson
entertained great doubts as to the propriety of receiving such a petition. No person was less willing than himself to interfere with the right of petitioning, but there were statements in the paper, the truth of which he could nut ad-
481
Mr. W. Dundas
felt it necessary to declare, as his name was mentioned amongst those who were said to be unduly elected, that he was returned to sit in that House in the most fair and uncorrupt manner.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow,
whose name was also mentioned, said, he owed it to the borough for which he was elected to declare that the town of Guildford was not a proprietary borough, in which the election was carried by the influence of any peer or peers. An assertion to the contrary was false and unfounded. He and his colleague were requested to come forward by a large body of the respectable electors. He repeated that the borough of Guildford was not governed by the influence of peers.
Mr. Bright
said, he was totally ignorant and uninformed of the facts contained in the petition. He knew nothing of either of the boroughs alluded to by the members opposite, and, in presenting the petition, he thought the only thing he was bound to show was, that it was of such a nature as ought to be received by the House. The petitioner complained of an illegal practice, that of peers returning members to sit in the House of Commons. It was not necessary for him to state this as a positive and ascertained fact. It was enough for him to assert that there was a
primâ facie
482
Mr. Luskington
put it to the Speaker, as a point of order, whether, under the existing regulations of the House, the petition could be received? The petition stated that a number of members were not legally returned. Was it not, then, an election petition? And, if so,
483
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had very recently presented a petition of a similar description, which was laid on the table. It did not indeed contain the names of the individuals who were unduly elected, but it recited the names of the peers who exerted their influence to send members to that House, and the places where that influence was made use of. Therefore it was, in some degree, opposed to the order to which the secretary for the Treasury had referred, but that circumstance did not operate against its being received. With respect to the list contained in this petition, he knew nothing about it. But what had been said ought not, he conceived, to prevent it from being laid on the table. Statements contained in other petitions, on different subjects, were occasionally untrue, but that did not cause their rejection. The interference of peers ought to be guarded against; this, he believed, was provided for by the statute of Westminster. If it were not to be discouraged, what was the meaning of the declaration in the Bill of Bights that "elections should be free?" Was it that they should not be free? that elections were to be influenced by peers, whose power, arising from their great property, was notorious? How would it appear to the country, at the present juncture, if this petition were refused? Even the present parliament might wish to stand well with the country, and the rejecting such a petition was not the best mode of effecting that object. The petitioner did not recommend resistance. He merely said, the necessary inference was, that their acts could not be considered fair and constitutional laws, as the members who passed them were not duly elected. If he had stated an intention to resist, he might be punished for it. The House ought, even in its magnanimity, to suffer the petition to lie on the table. If there were any insult in it, that was another thing; but, for his own part, he could not perceive any.
Mr. Lockhart
doubted very much whether this was not an election petition. It stated that a number of members were unduly elected, and it called on the
484
The Speaker
wished to state the circumstances relative to the petition which had just been referred to by an hon. member (Mr. Hobhouse). He was the more anxious to do this, because he was personally concerned in the transaction. The petition, on being presented, was brought up to the table, read short, and ordered to be printed. He was subsequently applied to, by one of the officers of the House, to know whether a list of peers, who were said to nominate members to that House, and which was affixed to the petition, should also be printed? He answered, that no motion having been made relative to that list, it was in the breast of the House to give or refuse an order for printing it, on application being made to them; and therefore he could give no opinion whether it should be printed or not. The petition was printed but the list was left out, and in that state it at present stood. It would be found that the petition was not all that was contained in the parchment laid on their table. There was also a list of peers who were said to interfere in the return of members of parliament, which, not having been read to the House, and, in fact; not being in possession of the House, he could not exercise any discretion, one way or the other, with respect to its being printed.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, on looking to the petition, as printed, he found that the list
485
The petition was rejected.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 17. 1820
IONIAN ISLANDS.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
rose to move for the production of certain papers relative to some recent transactions in Parga, and the general administration of affairs in the Ionian islands by Sir T. Maitland. Although there was no reason to believe his motion would be opposed, the House would permit him to enter a little into the subject, with a view of showing the justice and propriety by which general Maitland's conduct had been marked. It would not indeed be difficult to show that he had rendered a service, and an essential service, to his country. It might be curious to trace the misrepresentations which had been circulated with reference to his government to their origin. At first those misrepresentations related only to the provisions of the treaties concerning Parga. The censure did not extend to the present high commissioner; but pamphlets had been since published, some with and some without names; and a review also had appeared, which, affecting to blame those pamphlets, gave additional force to the calumnies the contained. For the character of the officer in question he might well be supposed to feel great esteem, and no small regard for his person; and therefore he trusted their lordships would excuse his taking this opportunity of vindicating that character from unjust aspersions. The statements which he alluded to branched into a variety of accusations; the first of which was, that he had neglected his duty in making an improvident bargain for the people of Parga; secondly, that he had expended large sums of money; thirdly, that he had adopted a system of impolitic and oppressive taxation, by which an insurrection had been produced; and, lastly, that he had assumed an exorbitant power, which he exercised oppressively. Now, with regard to the provision in the treaty of Paris, as it respected Parga, he wished those who formed such decided opinions on the subject had adverted to it with a little mote care. The
486
l
l
l
487
488
Earl Bathurst
remarked, that the whole administration of sir T. Maitland was deserving of the highest credit: a most important and delicate trust had been committed to him—a trust of a peculiar nature, and in the discharge of which he could derive no benefit from past experience. This, however, he had executed with the utmost temper, ability, and moderation. There was no governor in the, various colonies and dependencies of Great Britain who had acted in a more upright, honourable, assiduous, and prudent manner. He now wished to offer a few words as to the conduct of his majesty's government, which had likewise been much misrepresented. Whenever the subject should be fairly examined, it would appear that the British government had never exercised its protection more liberally or more scrupulously. The whole error of those who censured our proceedings in that quarter, arose from an idea that we had any option to exercise.
489
The motion was agreed to.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.]
Lord Ellenborough
490
The Lord Chancellor
said, that from the respect which he entertained for his noble friend, he could easily conceive that the bill might, after it had gone through a committee, prove much less injurious to the morals and religion of the country than it now appeared to him calculated to be in all its clauses. He must at the same time say not-content to the motion for going into a committee.
Lord Redesdale
observed, that if the bill was to have a retrospective operation, nothing should induce him to vote for it. It would go to overturn numberless settlements, to revive suits which had been decided, to set aside wills and revoke administrations. As the bill now stood, its retrospective effect would extend over a period of seventy years, and marriages solemnized during that period might by possibility be made null and void.
The Earl of Liverpool
agreed with what had fallen from the noble lord, but at the same time thought that the Marriage act required alteration. To him it appeared that the simplest law was the best, and he should rather be for granting more facility than for interposing any obstruction in contracting marriage. Every new regulation, however, should be prospective only; and although there might be past cases in which hardships must be sustained, it could not be said that there was any injustice in leaving parties to the provisions of the old law.
Lord Holland
also thought that the law required alteration, and that the proper course was to go into the committee. Those who held that the bill should be retrospective would likewise have the opportunity of submitting a proposition with that view. His own conviction was, that as the law now stood, it was as bad as it could be.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that one of the most objectionable clauses he had ever seen in any bill was that which provided, that because the bans had been irregular, it should be left to the judge to decide whether it was a
bona fide
491
The Earl of Westmorland
thought, that if the act had not a retrospective operation, no good would follow from it.
CRIMINAL LAW.]
The Marquis of Lansdown,
on moving the order of the day for the third reading of the Privately Stealing bill, said, that there were three bills before the House in the same stage, for the amendment of the criminal laws of the country He had selected the one just read by the clerk as the first for their lordships' consideration, as he was apprehensive that it would meet the most serious opposition. With that apprehension on his mind, he should state the grounds by which he felt that the bill was recommended to their support. It was but justice to their lordships to say, that he was persuaded there was not a member of the House who would wish to continue in their full severity any part of the penal laws which were not attended with beneficial effects. They were now to consider the propriety of repealing a bill which had remained for a considerable time a dead letter on the Statute Book, and which, instead of assisting, prejudiced the course of justice, by deterring prosecutors from taking that part which they ought in order to bring criminals to account. He knew of no test by which they could judge of the efficacy of penal laws, except the experiment, whether, on the whole, they had contributed to repress crime, and whether they had met with the concurrent feeling of the community? Looking, therefore, at the present measure in this view, he was confident when he asserted that the law ought to be repealed—that, owing to its severity, it had been hardly executed during the last 60 or 70 years, nay, even as far back as it was possible to collect facts with any certainty—that its severity had so far armed judges, prosecutors, and juries against it, as to render it almost impossible to obtain a conviction under it. In the great-
492
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the noble marquis had misunderstood him, if he supposed that it was his intention to oppose that bill in particular. At the sametime he considered it a matter of regret, that those bills were not brought forward when the House might have the advantage of the presence of the twelve judges, especially as they were said to have interposed mercy in so many cases against the verdicts of juries. In the former instances in which these bills were discussed, they
493
l
494
Lord Redesdale
objected to the repeal of the punishment of death in the case of persons committing certain offences, being disguised by night. He stated that in the part of the country where he resided, he was obliged, conjointly with some of his neighbours, to keep up a police of six men at the expense of 200
l
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, it would be remembered that deer-stealing would remain punishable for the first offence by fine, for the second offence by tranportation. Now the question was, whether the fact of persons blackening their faces was a circumstance of sufficient importance to warrant the punishment of death?
Lord Redesdale
said, his supposition was, that in all cases these offenders would go with their faces blackened.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that if it was known that courts would be in the habit of applying a higher punishment to deer-stealing when committed by persons thus disguised, as, for instance, that they would fine simple deer-stealers 10
l
l
Lord Redesdale
said, the noble marquis pre-supposed that the offenders were detected. Now he was of opinion, that the class of persons he had mentioned did not care much for transportation.
Lord Holland
said, the noble baron seemed to have an extraordinary apprehension of these black-faced gentry, but it was to be hoped that his apprehensions as to their increase would be found groundless. When on a former occasion. a bill was introduced into another House to take away the capital punishment which attached to persons calling themselves Egyptians, the member for Kent rose to protest against it in behalf of his county, which he foretold would be inundated with gipsies. The noble lords near him could now tell the House whether Kent
495
The Lord Chancellor
said, he should wish the noble marquis to consent to the postponement of the third reading of this bill till to-morrow, as there were, in his mind, so many objections to it, that it could not be discussed without occupying much of their lordships' time.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he would, in the mean time, to save trouble, point out the objections which he had to some of the enactments. Among the offences from which the bill took away the punishment of death, were those to which capital punishment was affixed by the 9th Geo. 1, chap. 22, viz. the killing, maiming, or wounding of cattle, or the cutting down of trees in orchards or plantations. It did undoubtedly seem a hardship that so heavy a punishment as that of death should be affixed to the cutting down a single tree, or the killing or wounding a cow. But it was a necessary consequence of general descriptions, that all cases were included. It was impossible, by the means of language, to frame laws which should apply to all cases, without the exercise of the discretion of the judge. In the case of burglary, for instance—if a person passing Ludgate-hill broke a pane of glass and drew out a ribband, that was burglary. This would be thought too hard a case for the application of capital punishment, yet this offence was made punishable by death under the words of the same law, which was necessary to prevent the breaking into a house in the dead of night, finding the family, standing over them with pistols, and rifling the dwelling. It was impossible, of course, to administer such a law, without the interposition of mercy and discretion. Now, in the case before the House, if the bill passed in its present state, a person might root up or cut down whole acres of plantations, or destroy the whole of the stock of cattle of a farmer, without being subject to capital punishment. Persons would thus be let loose to do mischief far beyond the limits of many capital crimes. He could not, therefore, without hearing his objections removed, consent to this part of the bill. As to the clause which took away the punishment of death from bankruptcy offences, he had no objection to it. In the experience of forty years in the court of Chancery, he had only
496
The third reading of the bill was fixed for to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, July 17. 1820
CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Mr. Plunkett
said, he held two petitions in his hand, relative to the claims of his Roman Catholic fellow subjects, which he did not mean at present to lay before the House. He would not expatiate on the subject to which those petitions related, but would rather apply himself to explain why he did not now intend to bring them forward. One of those petitions was from the Ro-
497
BARRACK AGREEMENT BILL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Mr. Calcraft
felt himself compelled to renew his opposition to this measure. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that, unless this bargain was completed, the Horse-Guards would be without barracks. This he denied; because they might still occupy the barracks which they previously had. The right hon. gentleman had thrown the blame of this proceeding on the contractor, who was
498
The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended
the contract, as an eligible one for the public.
Mr. Wilson
contended, that 5,400
l.
Mr. Leonard
was bound to oppose a measure which would, for many years, cost the country 5,400
l
The question being put, "That the report be now received," the House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 74.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Denison, Wm.
Allen, John H.
Duncannon, visc.
Anson, hon. G.
Dundas, C.
Aubrey, sir John
Ebrington, viscount
Barrett, S. M.
Evans, Wm.
Bernal, Ralph
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Bright, H.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Buxton, Fowell
Fleming, John
Boughton, W. R.
Glenorchy, lord
Bennet, John
Graham, J. R. G.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Haldimand, Wm.
Calvert, C.
Hamilton, lord A.
Campbell, hon. J.
Heathcote, G. J.
Clifford, Aug.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Concannon, lord
Hughes, W. L.
Davies, T. H.
Hume, Jos.
499
Hutchinson, C. H.
Robinson, sir G.
Langston, J. H.
Rowley, sir W.
Lemon, sir W.
Rumbold, C.
Lushington, Dr.
Russell, lord W.
Lennard, T. B.
Russell, R. G.
Lockhart, J. J.
Smith, Robt.
Martin, John
Scudamore, R.
Maxwell, J.
Sefton, earl of
Monck, J. B.
Titchfield, marq.
Moore, Peter
Townshend, lord C.
Mostyn, sir T.
Taylor, M. A.
Nugent, lord
Western, C. C.
Ord, Wm.
Wells, J.
Ossulston, visc.
Whitbread, W. H.
Parnell, sir H.
Whitbread, Sam.
Pares, Thos.
Williams, W.
Peirse, Henry
Wood, M.
Powlett, hon. W.
Wynn, sir W.W.
Price, Rt.
Wilson, sir R.
Prittie, hon. F. A.
TELLERS.
Pryse, P.
Calcraft, J.
Robarts, Abr.
Wilson, T.
Robarts, G.
CITY PETITION—THE QUEEN.]
Mr. Sheriff Rothwell
appeared at the bar, and presented the petition relative to the proceedings against the queen, which had this day been agreed to by the lord-mayor, aldermen, and commoners of the city of London, in common-council assembled.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, the petition was agreed to by a very large majority of the common-council. Indeed, scarcely ten hands had been held up against it.
MOTION RESPECTING THE QUEEN'S PLATE.]
Dr. Lushington
said:—I rise, in pursuance of the notice which I gave to the House on Saturday, to move an
500
501
502
bonâfide
bonâfide
503
femme couverte,
504
Lord Castlereagh
regretted very much that he should have been absent on Saturday when the hon. and learned gentleman first made this motion; but still more did he lament both the mode in which it had been brought forward, and the course which the hon. and learned gentleman had thought fit to adopt in his absence. He certainly had received a letter from the queen's solicitor-general, communicating the intention to bring this motion on; but he would leave it to the judgment of the House to decide whether it was customary to submit a motion to parliament on a subject so immediately connected with the interior economy of the royal family, without having previously exhausted every other reasonable means of attaining the object in view, and whether such a course was likely to produce the desired effect. He would not impute any improper motives to the hon. and learned gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman had been pleased to give him credit for entertaining proper feelings and sentiments on the subject, and he was disposed to render to the hon. and learned gentleman the same justice; but, with every disposition to view the hon. and learned gentleman's conduct fairly and liberally,
505
506
507
l
508
509
510
"Mr. Mash presents his compliments, and sends an inventory of the king's plate, and requests the same may be immediately packed up for the purpose of being kept in the Jewel-office, until her royal high-ness's return from the continent.'
"Sir William Gell is commanded by the princess of Wales to direct that her royal highness's plate, in the care of the lord chamberlain s department, shall be delivered to Mr. Hooper, her agent, for the purpose of being sent to her as quick as possible, as she has at present an absolute necessity for its use. Dated at Geneva, September 28th, 1814."
"That the lord chamberlain had no authority to allow any part thereof to be removed, as required by sir William Gell's order."
511
512
Lord Archibald Hamilton,
although he was by no means satisfied with all the points of the noble lord's answer, he was ready to admit that in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord upon the subject of this plate, the motion of his hon. and learned friend must fall to the ground. If he understood the noble lord right, he contended that his late majesty had not the power of alienating this Crown plate. If so, of course the queen could put in no claim of property for herself to plate so situated. He was perfectly convinced, however, that if her majesty had not supposed herself invested with the right of possessing this plate, she would never have put in the claim she had done respecting it. Her majesty had evidently all along thought the property to be hers, and provided for her own use. She had ordered it to be packed up; she had subsequently sent for it because she was impressed with that conviction. This opinion it now doubtless appeared was an error. If it were true that the late king never did order this plate for her majesty as a present, then, of course, there was an end to the claim which her majesty believed she had in this property. There were one or two observations, however, which he felt himself under the necessity of making in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord. The noble lord had arraigned the conduct of the hon. and learned member who had introduced this subject very severely, and, he might say, unwarrantably, as coming forward with a complaint of an unusual kind, and unfit for parliamentary investigation, and the noble
513
514
Mr. R. Martin
opposed the motion.
Mr. Hutchinson
regretted that a subject like this, which had no connection with the merits of the great case, should be brought forward in the present agitated state of the public feeling. On the question of her majesty's innocence, he wished to be understood as having formed no opinion. He gave great credit to his noble friend for the candour of his avowal, that after the statement of the noble lord, the motion ought not to be persevered in; or, in other words, that the noble lord had made out a complete case. That frank avowal did his noble friend great credit. A more complete answer, or a more incontrovertible case than that of the noble lord, he (Mr. H.) had certainly never heard; at the same time he thought that the decorous manner in which the hon. and learned gentleman had that evening argued the question on his side, was very much to his honour. It would be presumptuous of him to use such language in speaking of the hon. and learned gentleman, did we not live in times in which, in the most grave assemblies, the most indecorous and improper behaviour and arguments were witnessed. From persons so misconducting themselves, the hon. and learned gentleman had honourably distinguished himself. Still, however, he could not help regretting the language which, according to those channels of information, by which what occurred there was so accurately conveyed to the public, had been
515
unjust
516
"enfans perdus;"
517
Lord A. Hamilton,
in explanation, observed, that his hon. friend had interpreted rather too largely what had fallen from him. What he had said was, that he understood from the statement of the noble lord opposite, that the king neither had given nor could give any plate under the circumstances in which the plate in question was placed. But he coupled with that declaration a statement, that it appeared to him that the inference from the reasoning used by the noble lord was, that the king could on no occasion make a present of plate; from which inference he totally dissented.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
declared, that he had never entered the House with more painful feelings than on that evening, impressed as he was with the conviction, that if the case which had been stated by the hon. and learned gentleman on Saturday were borne out by the fact, those who had advised his majesty on the occasion had rendered themselves deeply responsible for such advice. It was therefore a great relief to him, it must have been a great relief to the House, and even to the hon. and learned gentleman himself, to hear the satisfactory explanation of the noble lord. He hoped this circumstance would be a lesson to the public and to the House, and that they would guard against the attempts which were constantly making to delude and deceive, and to create a false impression on this subject. He felt called upon to acknowledge that,
518
Mr. Huskisson
said, that it was not competent to the Crown to dispose of any property in the custody of the lord chamberlain, as the property of the Crown, without the sanction of its responsible advisers. If his majesty had been advised by the board of Treasury to dispose of any plate deposited in the Jewel-office, a warrant signed by the Crown and countersigned by the Treasury, would be the only legal instrument for the conveyance of that plate. But in the transaction under consideration, that had not been the case. He (Mr. Huskisson) happened to be in the Treasury in 1808, when orders were given to fit up apartments in Kensington-palace for her majesty, then princess of Wales. Application was made in the usual way to the lord chamberlain, for furniture and other requisites for those apartments, and as a part of those requisities, for a suitable service of plate. The latter part of the application had occasioned a considerable discussion between the lord Chamberlain and the Treasury. He (Mr. Huskisson) had suggested to the lords of the Treasury that it might be desirable, with a view to a diminution of the expense, to ascertain whether there might not be in the possession of the lord chamberlain plate not used. An inquiry was accordingly made, and it was ascertained that the lord chamberlain had in his possession, as property of the Crown, plate which hid not been used since the time of king William. That plate was remodelled, and appropriated to the purpose required. To suppose for a moment that it was a personal present from his late majesty to the princess of Wales was a supposition wholly unsupported by facts. When the plate was delivered, in 1808, an entry (as described by his noble friend) was made by the lord chamberlain, that it was his
519
Dr. Lushington
was persuaded that, after the various observations which had been levelled at him in the course of the present discussion, the House would have the candour and kindness to indulge him for a few minutes. He could assure them, that he would not occupy their attention by any answer to the noble lord's personal remarks on him, or on the exercise of his humble talents. His character, as a legal adviser of her majesty, had been wholly unsought for by him. However, as notwithstanding his humble abilities, her majesty had been pleased to honour him with her selection, he would endeavour to discharge, whatever share might fall upon him, of the duties of her majesty's legal advisers, with fidelity and zeal. The manner in which he had brought forward his motion on Saturday, had not been accurately described by the noble lord. The facts were these; and he thought that he owed it to his own character to state them. On Friday he, for the first time, became acquainted with the circumstances connected with the plate. It was then settled between her majesty's solicitor-general and himself, that he (her majesty's solicitor-general) should make a motion on the subject on Saturday. It was not until late on Saturday that he (Dr. Lushington) was apprised by his hon. and learned friend that he was compelled to leave town, and that the task must therefore fall on his (Dr.
520
521
522
523
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that the communication from the hon. and learned gentleman of his intention to make his motion on Saturday, although dated on Friday, did not reach his office until Saturday, and him personally until Saturday evening. He was at a loss to con-
524
Mr. Hutchinson
was sure that the hon. and learned gentleman did not mean to put words into his mouth which he had never uttered; but he (Mr. Hutchinson) had distinctly stated, and he begged not to be misunderstood, that he had not formed any opinion on the merits of the great question. He was in the recollection of the House, if he had said of her majesty any thing which could justify the term of "fastidious opinions," which the hon. and learned gentleman had imputed to him by name—or at least as member for Cork. The whole of his argument had been confined to disapprobation of the advice under which the present motion had been made. He was convinced that her majesty supposed she had a right to the plate in question, but he decidedly disapproved of advice which tended to injure her majesty by the injudicious and imprudent agitation of the present question. It was totally unfounded to assert that he had said any thing to asperse the queen.
The motion was then put, and negatived.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, July 18, 1820.
CRIMINAL LAW.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that so far as he had been able to make himself master of the subject, the effect of the repeal of these statutes would be, that where the offences referred to were misdemeanors at common law, they might be so prosecuted, and where there were any previous statutes affecting them, those statutes would come into force. He repeated his objections to the repeal of the provisions of the 9th Geo. 1st, c. 22 (the
525
The Lord Chancellor
repeated his objection also in this case, to the taking away the punishment of death from certain offences enumerated in the 9th Geo. 1st, c. 22, such as cutting down trees, killing cattle, and cutting through the banks of rivers, or sea banks; for though the cutting down one tree, or the destroying one head of cattle might not be an offence which it would be fitting to visit with the punishment of death, yet the destroying a whole forest, or killing all the cattle on a farm to the ruin of the occupier, were offences of serious magnitude, and it should be observed, that in general maxims of law, the smaller crime could only be classed with the greater in the same genus of offence (if he might so express himself), leaving it to the discretion of judges to make the distinction in the punishment. He thought the better way would be to strike out these and some other parts of the bill, and to let that branch of the subject stand over till next session, when they might have the opinion of the judges as to the expediency of repealing these enactments.
The Marquis of Lansdoven
was willing to agree to the course proposed by the noble and learned lord with reference to this bill. He could not, however, quit the subject for the present without observing, that the number of convictions (so far as they had been ascertained) for the offences respecting which the learned lord objected to taking away the penalty of death, did not tend to show that the continuance of that punishment was at all efficacious. It appeared that there had been 25 commitments for these offences on the northern circuit, but only two
526
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that the great defect in our criminal legislation was the want of a secondary punishment, that might be substituted for the terror of death, and for which purpose transportation, as now managed, was of little or no avail. Several years ago, when transportation meant either to be transported to the worst and most noxious climate in the world, that of Africa, or to the British colonies in North America, where the parties transported became indented servants, and were in fact treated worse than the negro slaves, this punishment served to excite some degree of terror. Now, however, the system was entirely changed, and the colonial office was besieged with applications without end (many more than could be complied with), from persons wishing to have liberty to settle in the delightful country and under the fine climate of New South Wales. It was in vain, therefore, to talk of transportation as a punishment carrying with it any species of terror; the fact was, that to a number of offenders, who had become well known as notorious characters in this metropolis, transportation to New South Wales was precisely what they wished for. The terror, therefore, of the punishment of transportation for life just amounted to nothing at all, with reference to the class of offenders to whom, in general, it was to be applied. He highly respected the talents of the hon. and learned gentleman
527
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, that all offenders in such cases knew even now, that when convictions could be obtained under the act, transportation was practically the punishment to which they had to look; so that the nominal penalty of death did not operate as a prevention of crime.
The Lord Chancellor
admitted, that where it was possible, the punishment of death should be dispensed with, but maintained the necessity of providing a better regulation of secondary punishment than mere transportation. He further added, that it was his intention to bring in a bill next session, containing the clauses now rejected, with a view to obtain the opinion of the judges upon them.
Lord Redesdale
said, that the great obstacle to prosecutions was not the severity of the punishment that followed, but the expense of conducting them, and suggested the propriety of having such ex-pences paid in certain cases by the public.
Earl Bathurst
doubted whether transportation could ever be made a good secondary punishment. His majesty's ministers had already sent out a commission to New South Wales, in order to inquire whether some regulation might not be made in that colony, with a view to increase the punishment against great offenders, and to mitigate it towards those of smaller criminality. As it stood at present, it was far from operating as a punishment in many instances. Another objection to transportation was the great expence to which it put the country; and one of the objects with which the commission was charged, was that of estimating the expence of any system which they might think proper to recommend, the estimate of course to be laid before parliament when the subject should happen to be brought under their consideration.
The Marquis of Lansdown
thought that the more the punishment of death was confined to cases in which violence was added to the crime, the less frequent would be the instances in which violence would take place.
528
STATE OF THE NAVY.]
The Earl of Darnley
said, he had submitted a motion some time ago to their lordships, in consequence of a disaster which had taken place during the late American war, and which appeared to him to have arisen in a great measure out of the inadequacy of our force. His attention to that subject was, he believed, attended with some good effects, and it was his wish to have brought the general administration of the navy more fully under the consideration of parliament in the present session, if the public mind had not been unfortunately too much occupied with another subject. He had moved for a return of all ships of the line ready for service, or ordered to be built, and of ships or frigates of two decks not carrying less than twenty-four-pouoders; and he found by the return, that the present amount was 57, and the amount of those ordered to be built 17. He had, however, to observe, that the few frigates ordered to be built were of too light a description to answer the purpose for which it might be necessary to use them in the event of a war, and that the Admiralty appeared to him not to have adopted a proper degree of efficiency and economy in their arrangements. It was his intention to have called upon the House to sanction a proposition recommending retrenchment in every branch of the public expenditure. He regretted to find that the naval estimate for the present year was greater than the last, instead of being less, as it ought to be, when once it was put in a state of efficiency. It was absolutely impossible that the country could go on with an increasing expenditure and diminishing income. He hoped, therefore, that ministers would not think it enough to lop off an unnecessary clerk in this or in that department, but that they would put their shoulders to the wheel, and try what could be done by the adoption of a general and compulsory system of retrenchment. The great department of the navy was that in which above all others profuseness might be admitted with least disadvantage; but as he could show that even in that some saving might be made without injury to the public service, it followed
a fortiori
529
Lord Melville
agreed with the noble lord, that as the navy increased in efficiency, the expense ought to diminish, and he hoped their lordships would find this to be the case in every succeeding year. It was not, after all, the number, but the durability of the ships, that should be considered; and the House would do well to recollect, that other powers built ships for temporary purposes, but the ships of the British navy were intended to go through a course of service which other navies never contemplated. It was certainly the duty of government to have ships ready to go to war; but their lordships had observed in the committee on foreign trade, that towards the conclusion of the late war, government was compelled to resort to the use of materials which introduced a more rapid decay among the ships than ever was known before. But care was now taken to prevent that in future. The noble lord had stated, that the ships now building were not of a proper class; but he ought to recollect, that we must build after the manner of those countries with whom it was possible that we might be engaged. Looking to America, it would appear that they only built large ships of 80 guns. As to the second class, the object of government was to repair those which were likely to be durable. The same observation applied to frigates of 40 guns. It was true that the United States built frigates as large as 60 gun ships, but the common size was 40 guns, and those of the different powers of Europe were of the same description. Great-Britain had some 60 gun frigates building; but her object was to have numbers as well as force, so as to be able to spread over as large a surface as possible to the annoyance of the enemy.
The Earl of Darnley
expressed himself satisfied at the candid and satisfactory manner in which the noble lord had made his statement, and particularly at the prospect he had held out of decreasing expense in the general administration of the navy.
ALIEN BILL.]
Lord Sidmouth,
on moving the second reading of this bill, said, it was not his intention to enter at any length into an explanation of the principle of the bill, nor did he conceive that it would be necessary for him to discuss with minuteness the motives upon which he should submit that the second reading
530
531
The Earl of Darnley
said, that he, for one, was not bound by the argument which was implied by the observation of the noble viscount—that those who had supported the bill formerly could not consistently oppose its renewal on the present occasion. Had he been present when this bill was passed in 1818 he should certainly have signed the protest against it which he found recorded on the Journals; for he considered it as impolitic and unconstitutional an act as had ever been framed. After six years of profound peace, and when no reasonable ground whatever could be alleged for the necessity of the measure, he conceived that nothing could be more disgraceful to the country than suffering such an act as this to exist. Was it possible to believe that the safety of this great nation could be affected by either allowing or prohibiting a few foreigners to reside in it? He could not help remarking, that a great part of the noble lord's argument was derived from his own feelings and disposition; but, at the same time that he was willing to give the noble lord every credit which his warmest friends could give him for mildness and moderation and discretion, he would not consent to arm him with such powers as this bill imparted.
Lord Holland
felt it absolutely necessary to offer a few words, by way of protest, against the renewal of this bill. Having so frequently on former occasions stated to the House, and recorded his opinion on their lordships' Journals, that bills of this-sort were cruel, unjust, and impolitic, he could not help now making a few remarks on the manner in which this measure was introduced, although he felt the irksomenoss of addressing the House under circumstances which rendered it extremely difficult to obtain an attentive hearing, both on account of the late period of the session, and the interest and importance of other subjects which engrossed the attention of parliament and of the public. With regard to that subject to which attention seemed at present to be exclusively directed, he would say, that their lordships and the other House of Parliament stood in a situation similar to that described by a Mr. Eden, who
532
533
534
535
536
537
The Earl of Liverpool
thought that the only question for the consideration of the House was, whether the same reasons which had applied to the enactment of the law in question did not now call for its continuance during the additional period proposed? Unwilling, however, as he was, at that hour, to enter into the discussion of general principles, he felt it impossible to leave unnoticed the observa-
538
539
Lord Holland,
in explanation, said, he did not speak of the conduct of the Austrian government with respect to its own subjects; but he did say, and he would repeat it, that not merely from the examination of history—not merely from the consideration of modern events, but from his own personal observation—for he was
540
The Earl of Carnarvon
contended, that there was nothing in the state of Europe, and nothing in the affairs of this country, that went to justify a bill which he would call oppressive and tyrannical.
Lord Calthorpe
said, that whilst he would be willing to support government in meeting every dangerous emergency, he could not agree to a measure which he did not think called for by circumstances, and which, to strangers, ignorant of the language and manners of the country, was peculiarly severe.
The House then divided: Contents, 17; Non-Contents, 7. The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, July 18, 1820.
COURT OF CHANCERY.]
Mr. Calcraft
rose to make his promised motion relative to the disposal of brokerage paid for the stock transactions of the accountant-general of the court of Chancery. He observed, that the duties of the accountant-general were paid for not only by salary, but by a division of the brokerage (paid on stock transactions) with the broker usually employed by the court. Whether the sum thus received were great or small, he considered the practice an objectionable one. The accountant-general ought not to be remunerated in that mixed manner; he should be paid directly by salary.
541
Mr. Courtenay
did not intend to make any opposition to a motion of this sort, which, so far as it could be complied with, was almost a motion of course; but he wished to show how utterly impossible it was to comply with the motion, in the terms in which it was now conceived. By the act of the 12th of George 1st, which created the office of accountant-general, that individual was directed to perform, from time to time, all those operations respecting the funds of the suitors of the court of Chancery that might be deemed necessary. It was unquestionably a part of his duty to make all sales that wore directed to be made by the court; and it was obvious that, in the exercise of that duty, he was obliged to observe the strictest accuracy and attention. It was necessary that lie should proceed with entire accuracy; for the east mistake might occasion the transfer or the payment of a considerable sum of money to a wrong person, by which great confusion would be created. These were the sort of duties that officer had to perform, and he received, in remuneration, a salary of 1,500
l.
542
Mr. Abercromby
thought there could be no difficulty in procuring the return called for. The present accountant-general could make a return as far as his experience went; and, as the same broker had been employed for many years past,
543
Mr. Calcraft
said, he founded his motion on information contained in the report relative to the office connected with the court of Chancery, and not on any private feeling. If he could not get such a return as that which he had moved for, he must, of course, be satisfied with whatever return the court was able to make. He was restrained, by motives of delicacy, from bringing forward this motion during the life of the late accountant-general, and he thought it was rather hard, when motives of that description had operated on his mind, to be told, as an answer to his motion, that the present accountant-general had been only six months in office.
The motion was agreed to.
BARRACK AGREEMENT BILL.]
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Lockhart
said, on the first introduction of this bill into the House, he was inclined to consider it favourably. But, comparing the calculations of the hon. member for London with the statements of the right hon. gentleman, and considering the expense of building a wall, including eight acres of land, as injuriously and unnecessarily enhancing the cost, he could not give the measure his support, but must strenuously oppose it. He had, however, various other reasons for opposing this bill. In the present dense state of the population, when the activity of the public mind was increased through the medium of the press, and when the extension of education had opened inlets to general knowledge, and the pressure of taxation had created discontent, he thought it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the metropolis, that an armed force of some kind should
544
nisi dignus vindice nodus.
545
The House divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 45. The bill was then read a third time and passed.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN TRADE.]
Mr. Wallace
brought up the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the state of our foreign trade. The hon. gentleman, in moving that the report be laid on the table, hoped the House would suffer him to make a few observations. He meant briefly to state the extent to which the committee had gone, and the objects to which they had chiefly directed their attention. Gentlemen would recollect that, in the former part of the session, many petitions were received from commercial districts, particularly one from a large and respectable body of merchants of the city of London, which had been presented by an hon. member (Mr. Baring), who usually sat on the other side of the House; and who, he was assured, would have been this day in his place, had he not been detained in the country by a very severe domestic calamity. Those petitions stated the general commercial distress which prevailed, without pointing out any immediate remedy for that distress. And, indeed, considering the state of our connexion with foreign countries, and the nature of the commercial system which had so long prevailed, it would be vain, he feared, to expect any immediate
546
547
548
Ordered to lie on the table.
SIR WILLIAM MANNERS.]
Mr. Tennyson
rose to offer an humble petition from an individual who had recently fallen under the displeasure of the House, and had for some days been suffering the punishment which it had inflicted upon him. The petitioner was sir William Manners. The House would recollect, that on the 5th
549
550
Mr. Tennyson,
on moving that the petition should he on the table, stated, that he had a certificate in his hand from the medical gentleman in attendance, which he would read, that the House might be apprised of what was to be expected from
551
The Marquis of Titchfield
thought the House would desire to hear the evidence of the medical gentleman alluded to, and therefore moved that Mr. William Hutchiuson Box, the surgeon of Newgate, be called in.
Mr. Box,
surgeon of Newgate, was called in, and stated, that he had seen sir W. Manners this morning; that he was in a high state of mental irritation; that he had lost the use of his lower extremities, and of one of his arms, by a paralytic affection; and that he does not think he could be brought to the bar without great risk, on account of the general state of excitement and mental irritation under which he labours.
The Marquis of Titchfield
thought that after what had been stated to the House, it would not hesitate to take the only course which occurred to him as proper to adopt. He deemed it unnecessary to trouble the House by enlarging upon the grounds which had been so fully urged, persuaded that the feelings they must have excited were in unison with his own. He should, therefore, move that sir W. Manners be discharged from Newgate on paying his fees.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, July 19th, 1820.
CITY PETITION.]
Lord Erskine
called the attention of the House to a petition from the corporation of London, observing, that he did not wish to give any opinion upon the subject matter of the petition; his opinions were to be known from his vote and conduct in parliament. The House had been in the habit of giving such a latitude to the receipt of petitions, that it became very difficult for any peer of parliament to say what petition, worded respectfully, they would not receive; and he would find it still more difficult to determine what might be the opinion of the House, when the petition tendered was not from any individual, but from the corporation of London. He did not, therefore, feel himself authorized to refuse, as a peer of parliament, to present this petition.
The petition was read, and lord Erskine moved that it do lie on the table.
552
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was for their lordships to determine, after hearing the allegations in the petition, whether such a petition should lie upon the table.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that the petitioners assumed to themselves to know that the bill of Pains and Penalties originated in the secret committee; now he, who was a member of that committee knew of no such thing. The bill of Pains and Penalties did not originate in the secret committee, that committee having no knowledge whatever of it, but was brought forward by his majesty's ministers upon their own responsibility.
The question was put that the petition do lie upon the table, and negatived.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that according to the established practice of parliament another motion now became necessary, and he therefore moved that the petition be rejected.
The Duke of Hamilton
urged the House not to go the length of rejecting the petition, as no greater objection could be made against it than might have been stated against many other petitions, which the House had received.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the city of London had no more right to interfere in the judicial proceedings of that House, than any other city or town. If they were to allow of such an interposition from one quarter, they must expect it from every other, and in that case, it would be infinitely better for the public that their lordships should altogether surrender their judicial functions.
Lord Redesdale
thought the expressions used in the petition, with reference to the secret committee and the bill of Pains and Penalties sufficient cause for its rejection.
Lord Holland
said, that the learned lord had almost convinced him, contrary to his previous opinion, that the petition ought not to be rejected, as if the House were to make a practice of appointing secret committees, he should think it perfectly proper that such a practice should be complained of on behalf of the people at the bar of the House; nor did he see any objection to the expressions used respecting the bill of Pains and Penalties. But there was one allegation in the petition, which was decisive with him that it could not be received, and that was, the assertion, that the whole of the evidence referred to the secret committee, consisted of the depositions taken before the
553
The petition was then rejected.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.]
On the motion for the recommitment of this bill,
Lord Redesdale
observed, that the bill, as now altered, bore hardly any resemblance to what it was before, and he really thought it infinitely more objectionable than it was in its original state. The act already in force had provided that marriages contracted under certain circumstances should be null and void; but this bill would render them only voidable upon suit instituted. It proceeded altogether upon a new ground; namely, that the former act did not make such marriages void; and it enacted, that all such marriages should be good, notwithstanding any provisions of the existing law. It was, in effect, a total repeal of the former act. Even marriages celebrated in the Fleet, which was one description of marriages adverted to in that act, would be now made good and binding. Then again, by this bill neither party was to be at liberty to institute any suit, but parents and guardians alone. Those, therefore, who had neither parents nor guardians, must have their marriages rendered valid, whatever might have been the circumstances under which they took place. There was another clause, relative to the succession to dignities, which was at utter variance with its proviso. When this happened, according to lord Coke, the proviso must be regarded as foolish; but the enactment was altogether at variance with a solemn resolution of that House, as to succeeding to dignities. He would move as an amendment, that the bill be recommitted on this day six months.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that there was hardly one word of the bill, in its unamended state, to be found in the present. He wished, if possible, to avoid any objections to the recommitment; but, after what had taken place, he must entreat their lordships not to proceed further with so important a measure at this period of the session. He could assure the noble lord (Ellenborough), that he was so oppressed with the weight of other matters that
554
555
Lord Ellenborough
regretted that his noble and learned friend who had just sat down, and for whose profound talents and knowledge of the law, displayed throughout the whole course of his long and useful life, he entertained the highest deference and respect, should have expressed himself so decidedly against the present frame of the bill, or should not have reserved the benefit of his important observations for the opportunity of a committee, in which they might have been heard with so much effect. While he lamented that that noble and learned lord would not allow the bill to go into a committee, he must say, that he was not less surprised at the course that had been taken by another noble and learned lord who had
556
The Earl of Westmoreland
said:—The proposition is for the committal of the bill to amend the act of 26 Geo. 2nd. The objections that have been made have been generally to the provisions of the bill; it has been admitted that some remedy is required for the existing grievances, and it is proposed to recommit the bill to remove the objections to it, with the aid and assistance of the noble and learned lords, in the hope, by their great ability, some remedy may be found; but if unhappily after such consideration, that which is complained of cannot be amended, that the country must still suffer under such a system, at least we may have the satisfaction of having done our duty in the endeavour.—Before I proceed to consider the measure itself, I shall attempt to make some excuses for myself and the noble lord who proposed the reading of this bill for the very distressing situation in which we are placed in supporting a measure of a legal nature disapproved by the two learned lords, and stated to shake the property and the settlements of the country. The first protection under which I shall shelter myself is the authority of the
557
558
559
560
ex-post-facto
561
ex post facto
l
562
vinculo
The Earl of Carnarvon
would not op-
563
mala fide
bona fide
ipso facto
Lord Erskine
said:—My lords: It appears to me that we are in the same situation now as when we consented to the principle of the bill by reading it a second time, and committing it; and that the motion of the noble and learned lord is to reverse that proceeding; and were it not that he had begun by stating that he intended to oppose the recommitment, I could not have collected such an intention from his speech, which consisted principally of objections to the framing of the amendment, all of which might be obviated in the committee, if suffered to proceed, so as to carry the bill, the principle of which had already been adopted by the House, into safe and clear execution.
564
565
566
Lord Calthorpe
said, he should support the bill, as the principle was triumphant over every thing that had been adduced against it.
The Earl of Liverpool
denied that the House, because it had approved the principle of the bill, was bound to consent to
567
ex post facto
Lord Holland
said, that the noble earl would, as he understood him, prefer the introduction of two bills—one prospective, and one retrospective. Now, he would not deny that the one course would, probably, be as good as the other; but there was an old proverb, that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush. If he could hope that the noble earl would follow up his argument by moving an instruction to the committee to divide the bill into two parts, lie would offer no objection to the course which that noble earl had indicated. As far as he understood the practice of the House, the alterations which the bill had suffered in the first committee could form no objec-
568
Lord Redesdale
said, he had told the noble lord, from the first, that he was not favourable to the bill. When it was read a second time, he had said that to any retrospective clause he should be decidedly averse, and that he thought the only remedy for the inconveniences of the existing law would be to cause all marriages to be performed by bans.
Lord Holland
could not see upon what principle the consideration of the subject in question was to be adjourned
sine die,
The House divided: Contents, 13;
569
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, July 20, 1820.
IRISH COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.]
The House being in a committee on the Irish Chancery bill,
Lord Redesdale
rose to move an amendment in the clause which enacts that no master of chancery in Ireland shall be qualified, after the 1st of August next, to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons. He did not mean to quarrel with the principle of this enactment, but they all knew under what circumstances this clause had been introduced. He should move, as an amendment on the words "is or shall be," to omit the words "is or."
The Earl of Limerick
said, that the noble and learned lord did not attempt to controvert the principle on which the clause was founded, and it might therefore be fairly asked, why was it to be abandoned in the case of a learned gentleman (Mr. Ellis), in whose favour alone the amendment was suggested? It was remarkable that, in this case, the learned gentleman had disqualified himself, and, in an examination upon oath before the commissioners of inquiry, had represented that the duties imposed upon him by his office were numerous and important. It was also the custom in Ireland to associate masters in chancery with the court of delegates; and in truth they exercised a variety of functions, which, if attended to, would furnish active employment during ten months of the year. Now if the learned gentleman was desirous of signalizing himself in parliament, he had only to throw up the laborious office which he at present held. For his own part, he was much averse to the practice of law-officers engaging in pursuits of ambition in the other House of Parliament. This was too general in Ireland before the Union, and the consequence was, that high legal offices were too frequently the reward of subserviency and corruption. Fortunately, the system had been changed, and those offices were now filled by a set of men who were lawyers, and who were competent to discharge their duties with honour to themselves, and advantage to the country; but as often as judicial duties were mixed up with the pursuits of a politician, instances would occur in
570
The Earl of Enniskillen
thought it unfair to make any new parliamentary regulation of this kind apply to a gentleman who was already elected. He disliked all
ex post facto
Lord Holland
said, he had hardly ever met with a clause in any bill which so many reasons united to recommend. By the law, if not the custom, of parliament, masters in chancery were prohibited from sitting in either House, and a resolution to this effect had been passed in the reign of Charles 1st. In fact, still stronger reasons applied to the exclusion of Irish masters in chancery than to the exclusion of masters in chancery in this country. It might be somewhat irregular in him to notice it; but their lordships ought not to forget that, by leaving out this clause, they would risk the loss of the bill altogether. Some deference was due to the other House in a matter affecting its constitution and independence. It appeared to him that the gentleman in question could not be a good member of parliament, unless the people of Ireland were deprived of that diligent and effective discharge of his judicial functions for which he had hitherto been remarkable. The mode in which he came into parliament, by canvassing a great city, did not, he apprehended, accord well with the purity of the judicial character. It had been said that this was an
ex post facto
ex post facto
571
ex post facto
The Earl of Liverpool
wished to state the grounds upon which he should give his support to the amendment. He should not enter into the question whether this was, technically speaking, an
ex post facto
572
The Earl of Enniskillen
observed, that the gentleman alluded to was specially excepted by name, from the operation of the bill in the other House.
The Earl of Lauderdale
agreed that a very strong case of necessity should be made out; but as to the person's buying the office, that could make no difference in the determination of their lordships. It was pretty certain that the individual would never have bought the office unless he felt himself tolerably sure that he was capable of filling it; and he would try that question by the evidence of the gentleman himself. He had said that the business of an Irish master in Chancery would detain him in Dublin for ten months in every year. There was no difficulty, therefore, in supposing that, at the time of the purchase, he was aware of the duties, and thought himself qualified to perform them. Why was it now a hardship, then, that he should be required to yield the situation, seeing that, upon his own showing, the performance of its duties, and his attendance in England as a member of parliament, were incompatible and impossible? But it might be asked, why had not parliament made some legislative provision for this state of things before? To this the answer was, that parliament had never dreamt of the possibility of its happening, and never could have supposed that one man could discharge the duties of both situations.
573
Lord Holland
begged to observe, in explanation, that he had never said that a person's judicial integrity might be affected by his sitting in parliament; but he would say this—that the mode of getting returned for populous places was not that which was advantageous for the preservation, at any rate, of an appearance of judicial purity.
The Lord Chancellor
was almost afraid to trouble their lordships upon this subject; because, for whatever he might say on behalf of legal integrity and merit, their lordships perhaps would not, standing in the way he did before them, give him credit. But this he would say, that the descendants of those who had held high judicial situations in the country and whose posterity had seats in that House, had greatly distinguished themselves in their debates by a display of talents and eloquence which did honour both to parliament and themselves. He was not less sanguine of the future merits of the posterity those unfortunate individuals might leave who were the subjects of the present bill [A laugh]. He had had occasion, more than once since he had held the office of lord-chancellor, to express a wish that those masters whom he had appointed should not sit in parliament. But what would be the effects of such a clause as this? It would apply, upon the principle of incompatibility which had been so much relied on, not merely to the case of masters in Chancery, but, by virtue of it, they must turn out of the House of Commons his majesty's attorney and solicitor-general, all the king's sergeants, and a variety of others. It was really strange that he had never heard of this inconvenience, even from his noble and learned friends opposite, until the result of a particular election had been foreseen. Upon the point of incompatibility of duties, he would instance a very striking case, which might go the length of proving the fallaciousness of the argument—he meant that of one who had been a member of the other House, and an attendant upon this House, and would have been an ornament to any—sir Samuel Romilly. Every one knew the great variety of his professional avocations, and yet he was returned as representative for one of the most populous cities of the empire. But the same principle would go farther; for it would exclude from the House of Commons officers in the navy and army. His lordship concluded by protesting against the clause.
574
Lord Kenyon
said, he should oppose the clause.
The committee divided upon lord Redesdale's amendment; Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 10.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 24, 1820.
PETITION FROM THE QUEEN.]
Lord Erskine
said;—My Lords; I have just received from Dr. Lushington, who has leave from the House of Commons to appear at the bar of this House as one of the counsel for the queen, a petition from her majesty, which I have been requested to present, and which I do most willingly, because it contains a just and reasonable request. I will read it to your lordships myself before I ask you to accept it. "The Queen laments, my lords, that this House has deemed it proper to refuse her application for a list of witnesses to be examined in support of the bill of Degradation and Dissolution of Marriage, thus leaving her majestyand her legal advisers in total ignorance of the times and places to which the charges may relate, or the persons by whose testimony the allegations on the bill are intended to be supported." This is only preface; she does not call upon your lordships to reconsider this decision, but contents herself with lamenting it, and comes with a new request. This is just my own situation—I exercised my privilege as a peer, and did, as I thought and still think, a duty to my country, by asking your lordships a few days ago to give the list of witnesses as requested; but your lordships having refused it, I must not now put my individual opinion against the judgment of the House, but I have a right to express that I most deeply lament it. Her majesty then goes on to ask that a specification of the places in which the criminal acts are charged to have been committed, be forthwith delivered; for if this be denied, it will be impossible to be prepared to meet the accusation, &c.
R.
575
576
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the motion was, he confessed, one which he did not expect. It called on their lordships to allow her majesty to stand in a different situation from that in which she had necessarily been placed by the course of these proceedings, and in which, consistently with the ordinary administration of justice, she must continue. He should have been extremely glad if the learned lord, instead of dealing in general assertion, would have shown in what instance, during the course of his professional life, he recollected an application of this nature to have been made. Their lordships, by their resolution refusing to grant a list of the witnesses, had shown what they considered to be the general principle; and if he knew any thing of the law of parliament, the usage of parliament declared what that law was. Their lordships had
577
578
Lord Holland
said, he could not contend with the learned lord who had just spoken on legal subjects, but he thought that some of his positions were highly objectionable. The learned lord said, that the course now pursued accorded with all the analogies of common law, under which no such indulgence would be granted; and that, according to the ordinary course of parliamentary proceedings in that House, it must also be refused. But the learned lord would allow him to remark, that in the course of his speech he did not state that the bill of Pains and Penalties on their lordships' table was, in its shape, frame, or circumstances, by any means so precise as an indictment; and therefore, when the learned lord said that no such application was made in cases of indictment, he would answer that no such application was necessary, because the indictment on the face of it stated many circumstances that were not to be found in the bill before their lordships. In the instance of high treason, it was impossible to put into an indictment for that crime that which was contained in this bill: it was impossible to spread it over a period of six years. The learned lord knew very well that a treason committed three years ago, and left unquestioned for that time, was no longer treason in law, and could not be made the subject of an accusation. With respect to proceedings in parliament, the learned lord would find it extremely difficult to quote any thing like the present. Their lordships had had bills of pains and penalties before them; but when the learned lord stated this, did he, or could he, point out any bill in that House, in the course of which the person accused had not, either
de fucto
de jure,
579
580
581
The Earl of Liverpool
concurred with the noble lord in thinking that no correct analogy could be drawn between the present measure and the proceedings of courts below. Neither was this measure similar to any former case in which a bill of pains and penalties had been passed. The bill had been introduced in consequence of the report of a secret committee; but he had introduced it, not as a member of that committee, but as a member of the executive government. Upon that the queen had petitioned their lordships to proceed forthwith with the investigation. This petition had been considered, and the House had decided, that,
582
583
Lord King
was of opinion, that if substantial justice was the object which the House had to keep in its contemplation, its ends might possibly be disappointed by refusing this application. It
584
Earl Bathurst
declared his perfect readiness to meet every reasonable application; but if the time and place were to be specified at which adultery was charged, the inquiry before their lordships must be of a very limited description. Suppose evidence to be given of a material character, but not corresponding to the alleged time and place, would their lordships think it right to strike out such evidence? This was not even done in other proceedings of divorce; and with regard to what had been said about the queen's conduct at Milan, that referred only to a single place, and to a particular period of the time to which the whole charge referred. The 17th August had been fixed to the supposed satisfaction of all parties; their lordships had not deemed it right to furnish a list of the witnesses, and they were now desired to inform the queen of the places at which the alleged improprieties had occurred. If her majesty meant to defend her case on the 17th August, this application was perfectly absurd; because she could make no use of the indulgence by a period so early. If the prayer of the petition were good for any thing, it ought to be accompanied by an objection to so early a commencement of the proceedings.
Lord Erskine
:—My lords, as I hare no motion now to make, but that her majesty's counsel be called in, I should not have troubled you with any further observations, except that I feel myself bound to answer the questions of my noble and learned friend on the woolsack, which I
585
586
The House divided: For the motion, 12; Against it, 37: Majority, 25.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, July 24, 1820.
COMPLAINT OF A LIBEL UPON THE
Mr. Wetherell
rose to call the attention of the House to a paragraph in "Flindell's Western Luminary," reflecting severely on the conduct and character of her majesty. He thought it his duty to take this step, because it was impossible for the House to pretend to be ignorant of the nature of the bill which had recently been introduced in another place, or of the severe punishment which, if it were passed into law, it would inflict upon her majesty. The paragraph to which he alluded was one of the most gross attempts he had ever witnessed to pervert the course of justice, as it declared, in the most offensive terms, that the queen was actually guilty of the charges which had been preferred against her. It was true that the proceeding pending elsewhere was not in strictness a judicial proceeding; but it could not be denied that it was an act of one branch of the legislature connected with a most solemn and extraordinary judicial inquiry. Being such, it might also be brought before them, and therefore the House was, as far as regarded it, to all intents and purposes a court of law. Now, if a paragraph had appeared in any publication, reflecting upon the lowest and most subordinate subject in the realm, in the same manner that this shameless paragraph did reflect upon the most exalted subject in it, the lower courts would deem it their duty, supposing that the honour and character of the individual thus assailed were to be on trial before them, to punish the author of such paragraph for wickedly, attempting to bias the minds of the jury, and to destroy the freedom and impartiality of justice. Would, then, that House, acting as the high court of parliament, fail to exercise those judicial duties which its situation entailed upon it, and which every other court would feel itself imperiously called upon to exercise under similar circumstances? Would they allow those insinuations, which would be severely punished if made against the meanest individual in the country whilst
587
Mr. Tierney
asked the learned member whether he could not lay the paragraph in question upon the table that evening, and give notice for to-morrow.
Mr. Wetherell
said, he was not prepared to take this step; as he had not a copy of the paper in his possession.
Dr. Lushington
suggested that the paper could be procured either in the course of that evening or of to-morrow.
Mr. Wetherell then gave notice of the motion for to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, July 25, 1820.
THE QUEEN.]
The Earl of Shaftesbury laid on the table the report of the committee appointed to inquire into precedents relative to the enforcement of the attendance of peers during great and solemn occasions.
The report was read by the clerk as follows:
"The committee have met, searched the Journals, and found the precedents annexed to this report; and the committee are of opinion, that, if the House think fit, the following resolutions should be agreed to:—
"1. Resolved, That no lord do absent himself, on pain of incurring a fine of 100
l
l
588
The resolutions were agreed to.
589
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 25, 1820.
COMPLAINT OF A LIBEL UPON THE
Mr. Wetherell
wished that the important subject which he now rose to submit to the House had been placed in abler hands, as it was one that deserved the utmost attention which they could possibly give to it. As the House was already acquainted with the object of his motion, he should commence the observations which he had to make in support of it, by stating that it appeared to him that an individual, whose guilt or innocence was to be ascertained by the passing or the rejection of a bill of pains and penalties, was entitled to the same protection from the high court of parliament, during the investigation of his case, as would be extended to him by the other courts of the country were he to be brought to trial at their bar. Now, he was of opinion, that nobody would dispute, that pending a criminal, or even a civil proceeding in any of the courts of common law, a publication directly or indirectly tending to obstruct that proceeding, was itself, by the common law of England, a criminal offence. He had only to refer to what had occurred within their own recollection, as a proof of this assertion. It happened, however, that the motion which he had to make on this subject had in it this novelty—that no case had as yet occurred, in which, pending an inquiry, on which a bill of pains and penalties, or a bill of attainder, was to be founded, this question had been decided—he meant the question, "whether it was or was not the duty of parliament to take under its protection the person against whom the imputation of guilt was made, and, by so doing, to secure to itself full enjoyment of its own privileges?" Feeling, therefore, as he did, the novelty of the present question, it was not extraordinary that he should entertain some distrust and diffidence regarding the measure to be pursued with the paper which he now held in his hand, and the conductor of which, he was inclined to state, had been guilty of a breach of privilege. Now, when he said this, he felt that it was not for him to recommend the institution of a new precedent, if any doubt existed, regarding its being a breach of privilege. But still he must say, that it was his decided opinion, after giving the matter the best attention, that the paper did contain
590
in esse
591
sub judice
592
v.
593
ipso facto
594
The paper was accordingly laid upon the table.
The Speaker
then asked Mr. Wetherell, whether he meant to complain of the paper as guilty of a breach of privilege, or to move that the attorney-general be directed to prosecute the editor of it for the passage reflecting on the queen?
Mr. Wetherell
replied, that he should first move that it be taken notice of as a
595
Mr. Wetherell
wished the whole of the article, of which that paragraph formed a part, to be likewise read, in order that the House might judge better of its malignity from knowing the context.
Sir M. Cholmeley
seconded the motion. He said, that the slanders which were disseminated by means of the licentious press of the country were certainly such as went to deprive the two Houses of any thing like freedom of judgment. If the press were to form the judgment of the country on this important question, it might happen that the judgment of the two Houses of Parliament might not be satisfactory to it, and in that case the most dreadful consequences might be anticipated. He therefore gladly seconded this motion, and trusted that the effect of it would be not only to deter the editor of the paper complained of from pursuing a similar conduct, but to put down the efforts of the licentious press throughout the country.
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that nothing could be more painful to a well regulated mind than to observe the extreme length to which the press had gone in discussions on this subject. Instead of presenting the country to the view of foreign nations, as a well organized state, obedient and amenable to the laws, which had been its character in all former times, it had presented it to their view as an angry and disturbed community, most adverse to good order, and remote from
596
597
598
"This is what a true Commons House would have done; but when that House, for the main part, is composed of venal boroughmongers, grasping placemen, greedy adventurers, and aspiring title-hunters, or the representatives of such worthies,—a body, in short, containing a far greater portion of public criminals than public guardians—what can be expected from it, but just what we have seen it so readily perform?"
"We have very little hopes that the Divorce bill will be rejected in such a parliament as the present, because we know, and have seen, that they are sufficiently profligate and servile to act against the clearest testimony of innocence and right.
599
"The earth has groaned under the curse of monarchical governments much too long. Civilization has struggled against it almost in vain; and Nature herself seemed almost to despair of shaking it off. But the monarchical form of government is like every other vice—it will destroy itself in the course of time, even if no opposition be made to it."
600
Dr. Lushington
said, that he felt it his duty to state, why he had not come before the House with some specific complaint regarding this atrocious paragraph. The paper in question had been put into his hand some days ago by an hon. friend, who had directed his attention to it—and he had also received information of it from other quarters. On reading it, it excited such indignation in his mind, that he determined to give it his most particular attention. But when he considered that the paper in question was in all probability an obscure country paper, with little or no circulation, and that it would be nothing to repress its malice unless that of a part of the metropolitan press was also checked, it appeared to him to be inconsistent with the dignity of the queen to take any notice of this "Western Luminary." He recollected also, that when his noble friend, the member for Aylesbury, had brought the Morning Post and the Courier before the notice of the House (the first for stating that the queen ought to suffer, it mattered little whether as a criminal or a martyr; and the latter for inserting calumnies against
601
602
603
The Attorney General
wished to say a few words, as some misconduct or neglect of duty on his part appeared to be imputed. He thought it a little singular that the hon. and learned mover, should have selected from the numerous libels with which the press had teemed, that which he had brought under the consideration of the House; as it was one so recently published that no opportunity had been given to the law officers of the Crown even to consider whether they should commence proceedings against it. If the hon. and learned gentleman thought this so gross a libel that no time was to be lost in bringing it before the House, he was surprised that the hon. and learned gentleman had overlooked not only the publications from which his noble friend had read extracts, but various other publications, which for the last three or four weeks, had been indulging in the grossest reflections on the conduct both of that and of the other House of Parliament. With respect, however, to the main question before the House, it ought to be recollected, that no
ex officio
604
605
606
607
Mr. Tierney
declared his determination to reserve his further opinions on the great question respecting her majesty, until it should come regularly before the House. He would therefore confine himself strictly to the motion. He confessed that he could not well understand how his hon. and learned friend could make the libel in question a breach of the privileges of the House. At least, the argument by which his hon. and learned friend had endeavoured to do so, appeared to him to be too refined. Because the House of Commons knew that the House of Lords had entertained a bill which respected her majesty, and because that bill was a parliamentary proceeding, and because the House of Commons was a branch of parliament, therefore the libel in question was a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. Now, it should be remembered, that what that House knew of the proceedings in the House of Lords, was not by a communication from that House, but merely from an examination of the Lords' Journals. The bill might never come to the House of Commons. If the publication in question was really a breach of privilege, it ought to be taken notice of by the House of Lords rather than by the House of Commons. The next question was, whether, if it was declared to be a breach of privilege, the attorney-general should be instructed to prosecute Now, to such a proceeding, he conceived there were many objections. It was odious to send a man to trial with the weight of the opinion of the House of Commons against him. But even if prosecution by the attorney-general were the fit course, it was for the House of Lords to pursue it, and not the House of Commons. Under all the circumstances of the case, he strongly recommended to his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his motion.
Lord A. Hamilton
denied that when he or the hon. and learned gentleman said any thing in that House, in disparagement of the conduct of ministers towards her majesty, it was with the view of inflaming any one either in or out of doors. What they did was merely to recapitulate that conduct. If such a recapitulation had the effect of inflaming, it was attributable to the conduct itself, and not to him. It appeared to him that the attorney-general had been unfortunate in his illustration res-
608
l
Mr. Maxwell
deprecated the conduct pursued by ministers towards the queen; but however improper that might have been, he could not allow such libels as those that had been lately circulated, to continue to be so circulated any longer with impunity.
Mr. Wetherell
said, that as the noble lord and the hon. and learned gentleman had both intimated that the publication in question would become the subject of prosecution, his object was answered, and he felt great satisfaction that it was so. The House might therefore dispose of his motion as they thought fit. He could not help observing, that the noble lord had not commented on his con-
609
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—PETITION
Mr. Alderman Wood
presented a petition from Birmingham, complaining of the evils resulting from the state of the representation. The petition reprobated the constitution of parliament. It condemned all attempts made by individuals to possess themselves of boroughs or towns in their own right as acts of treason to the state, and contended that the offenders in the cases alluded to had been inadequately punished in proportion to the enormity of their offence in violating the purity of election. The petition was signed by George Edmonds.
The petition was read and laid upon the table. Mr. Alderman Wood moved that it be printed.
Mr. R. Smith
rose to compliment the House upon the patience with which it had listened to such a compilation of falsehood and nonsense. He had stopped to hear it read through, although it was so extremely prolix, that he might be in perfect possession of its very extraordinary contents. Now that he was aware of them, he certainly should consider himself extremely culpable if he did not oppose the printing of such trash at a very considerable expense to the public; more particularly as there appeared to be less necessity for any delicacy, as the petition and remonstrance was only signed by an individual, and that individual had not so signed it as the representative of a corporate body.
610
Mr. Alderman Wood
had been informed, on receiving the petition, that it contained the sentiments of a numerous meeting of respectable householders at Birmingham, although it had only been signed by their chairman. It was rather strange, he thought, in the hon. member who opposed the printing of the petition, that he should have waited in the House purposely to possess himself of the information or sentiments it contained, and after having enjoyed such a treat he should have the cruelty to deny a similar indulgence to such gentlemen as were absent. He would not withdraw his motion; there were many reasons why he thought he should press it.
Mr. Gurney
admitted that the petition did not claim any respect from the House as a sensible composition; but he was afraid, in refusing to permit it to be printed, silly as it was, that such a refusal might hereafter be drawn into a precedent on a motion for printing a much more sensible petition. He should therefore prefer that the House should, as it had suffered the petition, after it was aware of its contents, to be laid on the table, suffer it to be printed, as was usual whenever an application of this nature was made, lest the refusal should be drawn into a precedent, to the prejudice of a more serious case.
Mr. R. Smith
considered it sufficient that the House should be open to receive and listen to the suggestions of collective bodies or individuals, some of whom, as in the present instance, might be justly considered reprehensible as having trifled with the time and patience of the House; but when it was gravely proposed by the worthy alderman to print such offensive nonsense, he felt it a duty imposed on him to oppose it as a public evil, as well as an insult to the House.
Mr. Lushington
considered the petition had already, in being suffered to lie on the table, received more attention than it merited. It would be an intolerant evil if such trash were permitted to be printed as a matter of course.
Mr. Alderman Wood
wished to withdraw the motion, as he confessed he had no doubt, from the state of the House, it would be negatived.
Mr. R. Smith
said, he should not consent to its being withdrawn; it was more advisable that the opinion of the House should be given on the merits of the petition in a more marked way by a decided negative.
611
The question for printing the petition was then put and negatived.
LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.]
Mr. Tennyson
said, that the Landlords and Tenants' bill, which he had had the honour to introduce, having now received the royal assent, he wished to give notice, before the House separated, that, conformably to an intention which he had before intimated, and to what he found to be a prevalent feeling on the subject, he should, early in the next session, move for leave to bring in a bill for further and more generally amending the laws which affect the relation of landlord and tenant, and especially for providing a more summary and accessible, and a less expensive remedy for recovering the possession, when unlawfully detained, of small tenements held at a rent not exceeding 20
l
l
On the following day, both Houses adjourned, the Lords till the 15th, and the Commons till the 21st, of August.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, August 17th, 1820.
At twenty minutes before ten, the Lord-Chancellor entered the House. The Bishop of Llandaff immediately read prayers. Chief Justice Abbott, Chief Justice Dallas, Justices Holroyd and Best, and the Barons Richards and Garrow took their seats on the woolsack. At ten the House was called over by Mr. Cooper. Sundry peers were excused from attendance on account of indisposition, age, &c. The Lord-Chancellor, stated, that he had received a letter from the duke of Sussex, in which he submitted to their lordships whether on account of the ties of consanguinity which existed between him and the parties who were so intimately connected with the bill, it might not be proper to permit him to be absent upon the present painful occasion.—The Duke of York said, that if any person, on a variety of grounds, had stronger claims than an-
612
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES
The Earl of Liverpool now moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill intitled, "An Act to deprive Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, of the title, prerogatives, rights, privileges, and exemptions of Queen-Consort of this Realm, "and to dissolve the Marriage between" His Majesty, and the said Caroline "Amelia Elizabeth."
The Duke of Leinster
rose, and said:—My Lords; I do not intend to intrude any observations of mine upon the attention of your lordships at present. But I think it my duty to take the speediest course of putting an end, if possible, to this unfortunate proceeding. I therefore move, that the order of the day for the second reading of the bill of Pains and Penalties against Her Majesty be rescinded.
Upon this motion, their lordships divided, and the numbers were:—Contents, 41: Not-Contents, 206; Majority, 165.
List of the Minority.
Duke of Leinster
Viscount Anson
Somerset
Lord Duncan
Bedford
Bolingbroke
Argyle
Downe
Hamilton
Torrington
St. Alban's
Hood
Marq. of Downshire
Kenyon
Earl of Essex
King
Darnley
Saye & Sele
Jersey
Gwydir
Albemarle
Clifden
Suffolk
Auckland
Besborough
Dundas
Stanhope
Dacre
Fortescue
Belhaven
Carnarvon
Sondes
Grosvenor
Ducie
Thanet
Holland
Cowper
Hawke
Ilchester
Foley.
Oxford
613
The Earl of Liverpool then moved, that counsel be called in.
The Earl of Carnarvon
rose to state his motives for the course he intended to take upon the present occasion. He thought it due to their lordships and the country, that he should fully enter into the reasons which induced him to oppose the present proceeding. He objected to it, because he felt that it was inconsistent with the public interest; and also because he felt it was inconsistent with their lordships honour, which he conceived would be tarnished if this bill were suffered to proceed one step farther. He felt such strong objections to a bill of this kind, that he was now ready to state, that he could hardly conceive any cause sufficiently forcible to induce him to vote for such a proceeding. But if any case existed in which he could bring his mind to support a bill of Pains and Penalties, it must be one of absolute necessity. Was there, he would ask, one of their lordships, or was there a man throughout the whole country, who conceived that the investigation of these charges, under all the circumstances, was called for by the necessity of the case? Did their lordships believe that the country would be threatened with danger, if those charges had never been instituted? For his own part, he conceived that they did not entertain such an opinion; but on the contrary, every individual who had maturely weighed the subject was, he had no doubt, impressed with the idea that danger was rather to be apprehended from the course they were pursuing. He could not conceive any benefit that could be derived from the further proceeding with this measure, but he could see many difficulties and dangers that were likely to arise from it. Bills of Pains and Penalties had all the effect of
ex-post-facto
614
*
*
615
616
617
Earl Grey
said, that during the whole course of his political life, he had never
618
ex-post facto
619
l
620
621
622
623
624
The Lord Chancellor
felt some anxiety to explain his notion of the law on this subject. The noble earl had stated his propositions with great clearness, but nothing the noble earl had offered had shaken the opinion he formerly expressed. He would now distinctly avow that he had adopted his reasoning on this subject from reasoning deduced from the text-writers, and he had always felt a very considerable doubt whether they were correct in pushing the doctrine of constructive treason to the extent they had done. The words of the statute of Edward were—"If any man shall violate the wife of our eldest son, he shall be deemed guilty of treason; and if she consent to that violation, she shall be deemed guilty of treason also." Before he proceeded farther he wished to say, that the duty he was called on to perform was more painful to him than any ever imposed on him in the course of his life; but, when called on to give his opinion on a point of law, he would do so, however painful the task might be. The statute said—if the wife consented to the adultery, it would be, on her part, high treason; and then came the question, whether, under any possible exposition of the words of the act, it could be said that a man who violated the wife of the king's eldest son committed no crime, but that the female did? Yet this position must be maintained, if the noble earl's construction of the law were correct; because a foreigner, owing no allegiance to the Crown of this realm, did not, by the act of adultery, commit an offence against the state. To constitute criminality in the woman, it was necessary that the man, who was the
625
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that nothing could be more fair or candid, than the whole statement of the noble earl. Although he differed from him on particular points, he felt not the slightest objection to any one of the general principles he had laid down. Every party concerned in this business would have full and ample justice done to them—a sentiment which he thought most properly introduced by the noble earl in the course of his speech. He hoped, if this question was brought to their lordships' bar in the manner now intended, that every peer in the House would consider it as a judicial proceeding, and treat it in that light alone. On other points a political bias might sometimes influence the decisions of individuals; but the present was a question on which no political bias should be suffered to influence the mind of any man. No individual, whether privately or politically connected with him, would hurt his feelings if he voted against him on this occasion. In doing so, that individual would only discharge his duty as a peer and a man, by pursuing the course his conscience pointed out to him. The objections made by the noble earl (Carnarvon) appeared to him extremely ill-timed. The proper period for offering them would have been before the adjournment of their lordships, and previously to their having fixed the second reading of the bill for the 17th of August; because, if it were thought necessary to get rid of this measure altogether, that necessity should have been stated at the earliest possible period. The present was not a time to review the conduct of his majesty's government. This important question he would, how-
626
Earl Grey
said, in explanation, that his observation was, that it was originally a matter of consideration for his majesty's government, whether they would or would not bring those charges forward; but, having laid them before their lordships, it was impossible for them not to enter on the investigation.
The Earl of Liverpool
was perfectly satisfied with the noble earl's explanation. His opinion was, that when ministers, from a sense of duty, determined to bring this question forward, no results could be produced satisfactory either to the illustrious individual, or in unison with the peace of the country, except by proceeding with the present inquiry. That being the view which ministers took of the subject, the bill of pains and penalties had
627
628
629
ex post facto
The Marquis of Lansdowne
wished to state the reasons why he voted against the motion of the duke of Leinster. He could not go the length of some noble lords in that House, and of many individuals out of doors, who were of opinion that, under no circumstances, ought a bill of pains and penalties to be introduced to parliament. With the deepest sense of all the inconveniences and difficulties that were attached to such a proceeding, he yet felt that the House should not part with a power which, when judiciously applied, might effect the salvation of the state. There was but one ground upon which the House ought for a moment to have entertained the bill now before them; there was but one ground upon which he had been induced for a moment to allow that bill to remain upon the table: that ground was the allegation of those who, upon their responsibility, introduced the bill, that there were no other means of considering a crime which they, the promoters of the bill, declared to have been committed, and the punishment of which was essential to the safety of the country. Disapproving of all the preli-
630
631
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that after I the vote which the House had originally come to, he could scarcely hope to offer any thing which would have the effect of changing their opinion; but, for himself, he would cheerfully adopt any course which would be likely to put an end to the present strange and most anomalous proceeding. It had been said, that this was not a time, after a charge was distinctly made, to alter the mode of proceeding; but he did not see that any more distinct charge was before the House now than had been presented in the commencement of the business; and it should be recollected, that, upon every part of the process of a bill, upon every succeeding stage, parliament had reserved to itself the privilege of consideration. There was one circumstance, however, upon which he must confess himself at a loss. His noble friend (earl Grey) had said, that he would not vote for a bill of pains and penalties, except upon a charge of direct adultery. Now, he would take upon himself to say, that no such thing as a direct charge of adultery was to be found from the beginning to the end of the present bill. His lordship concluded by declaring his readiness to wave his former suggestion, and to concur in any proposal which might put an end to the present course—a course which promised nothing but pure and unqualified evil.
Earl Grey
, in explanation, conceived that, although the crime of adultery was not stated in so many words, yet it was most distinctly charged under the general terms of the bill.
The question for taking, forthwith, the opinion of the judges, was then put and carried. The judges accordingly retired; and, during their absence,
The Earl of Liverpool
proposed that the House should agree upon some plan which might at all events, after another day, supersede the necessity of calling Over the names of the members—a proceeding which occupied, unnecessarily, nearly three quarters of an hour. The mode suggested by his lordship, and upon which some desultory conversation took place, was that every peer, on coming into the House, should write his name, with the hour of his arrival, in a book kept in the anti-chamber for that purpose. Members to be deemed absent whose names should not appear. After a lapse of about twenty minutes the Judges returned to the House, when
632
The Lord Chief Justice Abbott
delivered their united opinion to the following effect:—"The judges have conferred together upon the question proposed to them by the House, Whether, if a foreigner, owing no allegiance to the Crown of England, violates, in a foreign country, the wife of the king's eldest son, and she consents thereto, she commits high treason, within the meaning of the act of the 25th of Edward 3rd? And we are of opinion that such an individual, under such circumstances, does not commit high treason, within the meaning of that act." This opinion, his lordship continued, was grounded upon the language of that statute of Edward 3rd, which declared it to be treason for any man to violate the wife of the king, the wife of the king's eldest son, &c.; the judges holding that, unless there were a man who could be legally charged with such a violation—the charge being that he did the act against his allegiance—it could not be said that treason had been committed. An act done by a foreigner, therefore, owing no allegiance to the Crown, could not amount to that crime.
It was then ordered, that the counsel be called in.
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, that before the counsel were called in, there was one circumstance which he did not think should be passed over in silence. He understood that among the counsel who were to appear before them, there were no less than five members of the other House of Parliament. It appeared by the votes of the other House, that those learned gentlemen were permitted to attend at their lordships bar. He by no means wished to oppose that step. On the contrary, he had no doubt there were good and sufficient reasons for allowing those gentlemen to appear. There were certainly strong reasons why the queen should not be deprived of the legal assistance of particular persons, nor the Crown of the assistance of the attorney and solicitor-general; but still he thought the privilege was not to be allowed with-a protest against its being drawn into general practice, if any general practice could be founded on that anomalous proceeding. Because, as it was possible that measures of a judicial character might hereafter be taken in the other House of Parliament, he was anxious that, to the many necessary and unavoidable anomalies which were inseparable from this pro-
633
The motion, that counsel be called in, was then put and carried. Counsel were accordingly called in; and the King's Advocate, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Dr. Adams, and Mr. Parke appearing as counsel in support of the Bill; and Mr. Brougham Attorney General for the Queen, Mr. Denman Solicitor General for the Queen, Dr. Lushington, Mr. John Williams, Mr. Tindal, and Mr. Wilde appearing as Counsel on behalf of her Majesty,
The Duke of Hamilton
requested to know by what authority the attorney-general stood in that place?—on whose part he appeared?—and by whom he had been instructed to appear?
The Attorney General
said, he attended in consequence of an order of their lordships, which had been served upon him by the gentleman usher of the Black Rod—an order by which it was declared that the House would allow counsel to be heard before the second reading of the bill. In obedience to that order, he had considered it his duty either to appear personally, or to depute some other counsel to appear, in support of the bill, and to produce the evidence which was to be laid before the House.
The Duke of Hamilton
begged to repeat his second question: by whom had the attorney-general been instructed to appear upon the present occasion? He wished to know from whom that gentleman's instructions had proceeded.
The Attorney General
, as he had already taken the liberty to state to the House, had considered himself bound to appear by the order of their lordships, or to depute other counsel in his stead. In consequence of that order, by which he was required to produce witnesses in support of the bill, he had taken that which appeared to him to be the course immediately open—he had applied for information to those sources from which he thought it most likely to be obtained. He had understood that information upon the subject had been communicated to the secretary of state, and had accordingly applied to that department.
The Duke of Hamilton
said, he was certainly anxious to know who was the prosecutor upon the present occasion;
634
Lord Holland
said, that the attorney-general had stated, that he attended there, in consequence of the instructions which he had received from the House itself.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he understood that the attorney-general appeared in consequence of an order received from the House. He had taken those steps which to him seemed best for the purpose of obtaining information. He had applied for information to the secretary of state, and with such information as had been obtained, he now appeared for the purpose of opening the case.
Mr. Brougham
then addressed their lordships to the following effect:—My lords, I have the honour to attend at your lordships bar on behalf of her majesty the queen. I am anxious not to incur the most distant risk of interrupting this court, or of interposing between what any of your lordships may deem fit to say; and I certainly wish to be stopped the moment I appear to be interrupting your lordships. My learned friend, the attorney-general, does not appear to know very exactly in what capacity he attends here. He has said, that a notification has been served upon him by order of your lordships, but in what capacity he attends at your lordships bar, does not very distinctly appear. Whatever uncertainty, however, may exist in the mind of his majesty's attorney-general, or however equivocal the capacity in which he attends here, I and my learned friends have the honour of attending at your lordships bar, distinctly and clearly on behalf of the Queen. The last time I had the honour of standing in this place and in this capacity, your lordships deemed it proper to delay hearing, till a subsequent stage of the proceedings, the arguments which I humbly ventured to tender to your lordships' consideration against the principle of the bill. By the order of your lordships, made on the 6th of July, her Majesty's counsel were informed, that in the observations which they were then permitted to make, they would be confined to the mode of proceeding upon the bill which had been read a first time, and to the time or times of proceeding thereupon. Your lordships will recollect, that I then ventured, not indeed to complain, but to express my extreme regret, that your lordships did not think fit to
635
636
Counsel being here ordered to withdraw, they, as is usual, retired a few paces, and then returned to the bar.
The Earl of Liverpool
said the regular course would be to call upon his majesty's attorney-general to open the case by producing evidence at their lordships' bar, and then to call upon the counsel on the part of Her Majesty, to answer the case by endeavouring to repel the evidence, and over and above all to object, if they thought fit, to the principle of the bill. This would be the regular course of proceeding; but if he understood the application of the counsel, it was to be heard
637
The Lord Chancellor
said, that unless some noble lord made a motion, the attorney-general must of course proceed. According to the modern course of proceeding, it was not usual to discuss the principle of the bill before the evidence was gone into. The reason of this was obvious, because if the facts were not proved, there would be no occasion to go into the principle at all.
Lord Kenyon
said, that many noble lords thought as he did, that even if all the facts alleged against Her Majesty were proved, this bill ought not to pass, the House would have great reason to congratulate itself, if any arguments could be brought forward which would avert these painful disclosures. He repeated, that to whatever extent the allegations might be proved, the bill ought not to pass. Upon these grounds, he trusted their lordships would be ready to hear the arguments of the very able counsel who were now attending at their bar on behalf of Her Majesty, and he should move, therefore, that the counsel be allowed to proceed.
The Earl of Liverpool
conceived that their lordships had already decided this question. They had come to a resolution to refer a certain question to the judges, with a view, if any real difficulty presented itself, of pursuing some other course. They had heard the opinion of those learned persons, and, according to that opinion, the House might regularly proceed with the present bill. The whole of this question, therefore, resolved itself into one of convenience, and they had only to decide, whether the present time would be more or less convenient than after the evidence was gone through, for hearing arguments directed against the principle of the measure. The ordinary proceeding undoubtedly was, to hear the attorney-general open his case and adduce his evidence; after which it would be competent to counsel on the other side to urge any objection against the form or the substance of the measure.
The Marquis of Lansdowne
agreed with
638
The question was then carried without a division, and it was communicated to Her Majesty's counsel, that they were at liberty to urge their objections to the principle of the bill, either at that time, or after the evidence was concluded.
The Earl of Lauderdale
was still of opinion, that this resolution of their lordships' was open to many objections. Evidence might be adduced in the progress of the inquiry on which the Queen's counsel might have to found material arguments against the principle of the measure. They would, notwithstanding, by the terms of this resolution, be precluded from so doing, if they urged any objections of that nature at present. This appeared to him to be a complete deviation from the ordinary and established mode of proceeding.
Earl Grey
thought the course to be pursued might be fairly left to the discretion of the learned counsel.
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that this was an instance of the court making a bargain with counsel as to the manner in which they should conduct their cause; and this, he believed, was without any precedent in a judicial inquiry.
The Lord Chancellor having called upon Her Majesty's counsel to make their option,
Mr. Brougham
said:—I;have, in the first place, to apologise to your lord-
639
privilegia;
Privilegium odiosum.
640
ex-post-facto
quasi
641
*
*
642
643
*
*
644
nunc pro tunc,
645
646
647
rectus in curia.
v.
648
649
650
651
The Lord Chancellor
, as soon as Mr. Brougham had retired from the bar, said, that the House, which admitted but two counsel to be heard, would hear the other counsel now.
Mr. Denman
, at that late hour of the day, when the understood period for the termination of business had arrived, after an anxious attendance, and in his present state of health, trusted that their lordships would extend to him their indulgence by granting him time till to-morrow.
The Earl of Liverpool
was roost ready to comply with the request of the learned counsel, and suggested the propriety of an adjournment.
The Lord Chancellor
added, that the House would proceed to-morrow, and that only two counsel would be heard for or against the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, August. 18, 1820.
The counsel for and against the Bill of Pains and Penalties having been called in,
Mr. Denman
, her majesty's Solicitor-general, then addressed their lordships. He commenced his address to the House by thanking their lordships for the indulgence which had on the preceding day been extended to him. It now became his duty, the learned counsel said, to state to the House the objections he had to urge against the bill which was before them; and it would require no argument of his to convince their lordships, that the
652
653
654
655
656
[Here the learned gentleman's argument was interrupted by the entrance of the Queen. The House rose to receive Her Majesty, who, attended by lady Ann Hamilton, took her seat within the bar, and immediately in front of her counsel.]
Mr. Denman
continued.—It was for these reasons that he protested against the principle of the bill, which he could only view as an enumeration of doubtful circumstances proceeding upon an
ex-parte
657
beau
658
659
660
l.
661
662
663
664
665
666
ex parte
667
668
fiat justitia, ruat cœlum.
669
670
l.
671
672
673
674
The Attorney General
then addressed their lordships. He could not, he said, refrain from observing, after his learned friends had addressed their lordships with so much ability in this stage of the proceeding, that he thought they could have he reason to regret the election they had made subsequently to the objection which was taken yesterday; because (undoubtedly, in consequence of the license with which their lordships bad indulged them upon the present occasion) they had had all the advantage which they possibly could have obtained in this stage of the proceeding, by statements of facts, which, although they were all introduced into this part of the case as facts, he must contend were not yet founded on the evidence before their lordships; by assumptions, gratuitously made; and by calumnies—(an expression by which he
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
ex post facto
686
ex post facto
ex post facto
687
688
689
The Solicitor General
followed on the same side. He began by saying, that he had also to trouble their lordships on that which had been properly characterised as a most important and most momentous question. He confessed that he participated in the feelings which had been expressed by the attorney-general respecting the conduct pursued by the learned gentlemen on the other side. He had understood that they came to their lordships bar calmly and temperately to discuss a grave, dry, legal, constitutional question: such he conceived to have been the question proposed by the House to the counsel on both sides. But his learned friends, deviating from this course and indulging in personal invective, had accused the individuals who had instituted this proceeding of the most corrupt conduct, and had charged the persons who assisted in collecting the evidence, with subornation of perjury, and the most horrible violation of justice, in attempting to make out a case against the high personage accused. The learned gentlemen, by
690
691
ex post facto
ex post facto
692
693
694
695
nunc pro tunc.
696
697
698
Mr. Brougham
proceeded to reply.—I confess, my lords, that after having given the utmost attention to the arguments which have been urged by my learned friends who appear as counsel against her majesty, I feel myself hardly called upon in the discharge of my duty to my royal client to avail myself of the usual privilege of reply. At all events I purpose to confine myself to a very few topics among those which have been urged by my learned friends. With this view, and with the full intention of keeping a promise which is more frequently made than observed, I purpose, without further preface, to solicit your lordships' attention to several of those topics. First of all, suffer me to observe, that a general and somewhat vague charge has been adduced of our having deviated from the point stated to be in issue before the House, namely, the principle of the bill. It has been said that I have gone into arguments which belong to another stage of the proceedings, and that I have entered into a great mass of collateral matter in no way relevant to the matter in issue. I think my learned friend would not have brought forward this charge, if he had adverted to the manner in which I submitted my arguments to your lordships' notice. Suffer me to remind your lordships, that I set out with stating that this was a legislative proceeding. The question was, whether a new law should be made by parliament, and in making objections to that new law, every argument was relevant which had a tendency to arrest the course of the legislature? We stand in a very different situation from that in which we should have been placed, if we had had to meet articles of impeachment, or to defend in a proceeding by
699
700
701
702
703
704
prima impressionis.
usque ad nauseam,
eo nomine?
705
706
707
proprio marte.
lacqueys de place.
708
709
Lord King
said it was his intention to propose a resolution to their lordships to this effect, viz., "that it is not necessary either for the public safety, or the security of the government, that the bill intituled, "An Act to deprive Her Majesty of the Title, Prerogatives, Rights, & c. of Queen Consort, should pass into a law."
Earl Grey
said, that the impression made upon his mind by the arguments used by the learned counsel was very strong against proceeding with the bill. He therefore wished that time should be given to their lordships to consider what ought to be done upon this proposition, and hoped his noble friend would postpone his motion till to-morrow, when their lordships would all Come better prepared for the discussion. If he were now forced to come to a decision, he so strongly felt the inconvenience of the course in which they were engaged, that he should certainly be disposed to adopt some other mode than a bill of Pains and Penalties.
710
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, August 19, 1820.
In pursuance of the notice he had given yesterday,
Lord King
rose. He said, that the counsel on both sides having yesterday closed their arguments, this, it appeared to him, was the only opportunity that remained for a member of their lordships' House to endeavour by some means or other to avert those evils and difficulties, which he, in common with many of their lordships, and with the great body of the public, felt most strongly to be intimately connected with the course they were pursuing—evils and difficulties, the peculiar nature of which it was not necessary for him to state. Nothing which he had heard in the course of the argument submitted to their lordships by the learned counsel who appeared in support of this measure, had tended in the smallest degree to shake the full conviction which he previously entertained, that bills of pains and penalties ought only to be resorted to on great public occasions, when the safety of the state was involved, when the stability of the government was endangered, and when, from their adoption, some extraordinary benefit was likely to be derived. He would ask, as had been most properly asked by a noble lord (Carnarvon) on the preceding day, whether any individual, either in that House or out of it, entertained a serious apprehension that mischief would ensue if this bill were not proceeded with? Not one of their lordships had said that he entertained any degree of fear on that head; and no person whatsoever would, he believed, be found, to declare that he entertained a rational fear of danger if the progress of the measure were stopped. The dread of danger to the royal succession was the only circumstance that could justify this bill; and the circumstances of the case must preclude any such apprehension.
711
712
713
ex post facto
714
715
ex post facto
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he rose at that early hour, as he was anxious to state the reasons which induced him to differ entirely from the noble lord, and why he should propose, as an amendment, that the counsel be directed to be called in. In stating the arguments which he had to offer on this subject he would endeavour to abstain from any observation of an inflammatory nature, for he was extremely desirous to treat this question in every stage of it, even in the present, as a purely
716
717
de jure,
718
contra bonos mores,
719
questio omissa;
ex post facto
720
721
Earl Grey
rose to set the noble earl right. He had certainly said, that if the noble lords opposite were in possession of proofs against her majesty such as they declared that they had, and that no considerations of public expediency operated in a contrary direction, they ought, whether the Queen were at home or abroad, to have made up their minds to proceed. He had mentioned both propositions— the decisive nature of the evidence, and the question of public expediency—which might militate against its production. Ministers ought to have acted promptly in the first instance, either by bringing forward the charges, or by dropping them altogether.
The Earl of Liverpool
had not so understood the opinion to be qualified; but in its present shape it much more met with his concurrence. Taking it for granted that what the noble earl now stated was correct, the noble earl would not dispute that he had followed it up by saying, that the accusation having been made, he did not see how it was possible to do otherwise than bring it to the test of proof. The noble earl asked, where was the difference between her majesty's being
722
sine qua non
723
724
725
Earl Grey
began by complimenting the noble earl who had just set down on his most fair and candid statement, and at the same time most powerful and eloquent appeal to the judgment and feelings of the House. He rose under all the impressions which a speech of such effect must naturally produce, and consequently with a disposition, before he entered upon topics where he wa3 unfortunately obliged to differ, to take advantage of those on which he could express his concurrence. He should set out, therefore, with stating, that if this bill were to pass into a law, and were ultimately to be considered the fit mode of proceeding on this great and unfortunate question, he agreed with the noble earl in thinking that the clause relating to the divorce was by far the least important part of it; he was also ready to receive the assurance that it was not deemed a main object in the illustrious quarter to which reference had been made. He thought, likewise, that if in consequence of the clear proof of the charges, it were necessary to proceed to the degradation of the Queen, the clause of divorce would follow, not as a measure of release to the King, but as a measure which the public interest made necessary to preserve the character and dignity of the throne. He could not reconcile it with any principle of propriety or justice, that if the Queen were degraded for such crimes, she should be left the wife of the king of Great Britain. He no less agreed with the noble earl (and he was anxious to state his concurrence) in the regret he had expressed, at the mention of topics by the counsel at the bar, who doubtless had felt the most painful necessity of introducing them. The object, no doubt, was, that they might operate favourably for their client; but, giving them full credit for their motives (as from his knowledge of them he was bound to do), he could not help thinking that they had been governed by a mistaken discretion, and that they would not only have better consulted their own feelings, but the advantage of the case they advocated, if they had abstained. To the illustrious person the object of their remarks he must pay that tribute which even the counsel could not withhold, and which the noble earl had repeated—a tribute to the high and meritorious services he had performed for the public, and which established an undoubted claim to the affection and confidence of the people.
726
727
728
729
730
731
a mensa el thoro:
732
733
The Earl of Liverpool
explained. He doubted whether a sentence of the House would have that effect, except it were followed by some special act of parliament.
Earl Grey
, in continuation, said, that the noble earl had enumerated a variety of cases in which degradation had been decreed by that House; and that their abridgment was almost enough for the case of his (earl Grey's) argument. His lordship had referred to the case of lord Strangford expressly to show, as he understood it, that upon an occasion when the House of Lords wished to inflict degradation, the House of Lords in Ireland found it necessary to resort to a bill of pains and penalties, and not to an impeachment. But he thought he could show the noble earl, that they had other reasons for that course, and did not think that a sentence of degradation could only be effected by a bill of pains and penalties. In that particular case, their lordships would recollect that the offence charged was committed by him in the House of Lords, in his capacity of a peer of parliament. Now he did not know, in such an instance, how evidence could well be given before the House of Commons: such offence having been committed by him as a peer of parliament, and in the exercise of his parliamentary duties, it was fair to suppose that an argument might arise' in the House of Commons upon the inquiry, the
734
735
736
737
ex parte
738
739
Lord Calthorpe
was speaking against the motion for calling in counsel. He begged their lordships to reflect how responsible parliament was for allowing a person of her Majesty's high rank to go abroad. By this step they removed the influence of public opinion, which was a great check on female conduct; and their lordships, by acquiescing in her leaving the country, submitted to the necessity of proving such charges as the present by the testimony of foreigners. He did not consider this a bar to all proceedings, for, after the report which the secret committee had submitted to the House, he thought the moral welfare of the state imperiously called for an inquiry; but he thought it advisable, that some expedient should be adopted that would put a stop to this particular bill, and at the same time pledge the House to pursue any other course of proceeding that the circumstances of the case might demand. Another point was, the difficulty that might arise from the other House of parliament rejecting the bill in its present
740
List of the Minority on the first Divison.
Duke of Glocester
Marq. Lansdown
Somerset
Downshire
Grafton
Earl of Derby
St. Alban's
Suffolk
Bedford
Denbigh
Devonshire
Thanet
Portland
Essex
Hamilton
Albemarle
Argyll
Jersey
Leinster.
Oxford
741
Cowper
Duncan
Stanhope
Clifden
Fitzwilliam
Downe
Hardwicke
Lord Dacre
Darlington
Save &c Sele
Ilchester
King
Waldegrave
Sondes
Grosvenor
Holland
Fortescue
Ducie
Carnarvon
Hawke
Rosslyn
Foley
Romney
Sherborne
Grey
Kenyon
Minto
Auckland
Breadalbane
Dundas
Rosebery
Yarborough
Besborough
Calthorpe
Darnley
Gwydir
Blesinton
Alvanley
Visc. Bolingbroke
Erskine
Torrington
Prudhoe
Hood
Belhaven
Anson
On the second division, upon earl Grey's amendment, the earl of Guilford voted for it; lord Calthorpe voted against it.
OPENING OF THE CHARGES.
The Counsel for and against the Bill were then called in; and the Attorney General was informed by the Lord Chancellor that he might proceed to open his case.
Mr. Attorney-General
addressed their lordships as follows:—My lords; In obedience to your lordships' order, I now attend at your bar to fulfil the duty which your commands have cast upon me, of stating to your lordships the circumstances to be adduced in evidence in support of the charges contained in the preamble of the bill now under your lordships consideration. A duty, my lords, more painful or more anxious I believe was never cast upon any individual than that which I have now to perform. I have, my lords, to state to your lordships the circumstances which are to be adduced in evidence at your lordships bar, in support of the serious and heavy charges which are made in the preamble to the bill now under your lordships' consideration against the highest subject of this country—charges which not only reflect the greatest scandal and dishonour upon the individual against whom they are made, but also reflect great dishonour upon the country itself—the highest individual a subject in the country is charged with one of the most serious offences both against the laws of God and of man—that of an adulterous intercourse,
742
743
Mr. Brougham
. Persuasion, not compulsion.
Mr. Attorney General
. I am sure that my learned friends do not desire to embarrass me; I know them too well: but observations made in a tone of voice to be heard are apt to embarrass one. But appearing before so public an assembly, and with the public expectation, and with the consciousness of my inability to do justice to the trust your lordships have cast upon me, I am sure I shall receive your lordships' indulgence for that embarrassment which no man, even of stronger nerves and greater power than myself, would be able to counteract.
Mr. Brougham
. My lords; I am sure I did not mean to embarrass my learned friend: I am the last man to do it: but I am sure your lordships will permit—[Order, order!] In every court it is allowed.— [Order, order!]
Lord Chancellor.
Go on.
Mr. Attorney General.
I am sure my learned friend will not believe that I alluded to him with any idea that he meant to embarrass me. I was stating, that in the year 1814 her majesty left this country for the purpose of travelling on the continent, and of visiting other countries that she had a desire to visit. She went, in the first instance, to her native country, Brunswick, and from thence, after a short interval, proceeded to Italy, and arrived at Milan I think about the 9th of October 1814. My lords; her majesty, when she quitted this country, quitted it with attendants, and with persons about her princely person—she being at that time Princess of Wales—suitable to her rank, and moving in that exalted station which one would naturally expect would be the case with persons whom she selected for her immediate attendants. She was accompanied, as might naturally be expected from an English princess, by very distinguished females of the country in which she enjoyed that high rank. Her establishment at that time consisted of two ladies of great rank—lady Charlotte Lindsay and lady Elizabeth Forbes, who
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
Lord Gwydir.
—My lords, I must beg leave to set the learned counsel right, by stating, that it was not Mr. Drummond Burrell who accompanied her majesty.
Mr. Attorney General.
—My lords; I mean Mr. William Burrell. I am sure your lordships will believe that I am betrayed into the error by carelessness, but that I did not mean the slightest reflection upon the noble lord, or upon the gentleman whose name I mentioned. My lords, I am stating to your lordships the facts—I mean not the slightest reflection upon any of those gentlemen whose names I have mentioned; but that Mr. William Burrell was the only English gentleman who had replaced those gentlemen I have stated to your lordships, and that he accompanied her majesty on that tour from Milan to Venice. I am not imputing to Mr. William Burrell—far from it—the slightest suspicion. I have no doubt he was ignorant of that which was taking place in her majesty's family. I undoubtedly did not state that Mr. Burrell was cognizant of the facts I have stated. I am sure your lordships will excuse me in the difficult task I have to perform, and will excuse the error into which I fell. I was about to state to your lordships a fact which took place at Venice. My lords, at Venice, upon one occasion, when after her majesty had dined, and her attendants had withdrawn from the table, and she was left in the room with Bergami, who had been waiting upon that occasion, and was still, as I have stated to your lordships, in the situation of courier, it was observed, not by one of
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
Lord Chancellor.
—My lords, the hour has arrived at which your lordships proposed to adjourn.
A Peer.
—Has the Attorney-general nearly concluded?
Mr. Attorney General.
—I should state to your lordships, that I have not got through one half of the disgusting narrative I must state to your lordships.
Ordered, that the further consideration, and second reading of the said bill, be adjourned to Monday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, August 21, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the said bill, counsel were called in, and
Mr. Attorney General
resumed his speech, as follows:—
775
776
777
778
Lord Chancellor.
—What is the date of this?
Mr. Attorney-General.
—The 12th of April, my lord. She was at Utica on the 8th of April, in the year 1816. Savona is in Africa, near Tunis. I may have mistaken the name: it is either pronounced Savoan or Savona. I have it Savona. She visited that place on the 12th of April, 1816. I was stating to your lord-
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
vice versâ,
791
Lord Chancellor
—What is the date of that?
Mr. Attorney General.
—In the early part of 1817; January or February 1817.
Earl Grosvenor.
—What is the date of the carnival?
Mr. Attorney General.
—The latter end
792
793
794
Mr. Brougham.
—Will you favour me with the date of that?
Mr. Attorney-General.
—About July 1817. Your lordships will have it proved
795
796
Lord Chancellor.
—Have the goodness to mention the date of each particular transaction. It will be a great relief to the House.
Mr. Attorney-General.
—I do not know whether it is the wish of your lordships that I should specify each particular fact which I have stated as I have gone along.
Lord Chancellor.
—Go on, do not go back.
Mr. Attorney-General
—My lords, her arrival at D' Este was on the 11th of April 1817, at Ruffinelli about the 29th of June in that year, and at the Villa Brande within a few days of her arrival at Ruffinelli, which would be early in the year 1817. She was at the same place in April, and in May; she was at the Barona, January 1817; she quitted that residence, on the 27th of February for her tour into Germany by the Tyrol, and she returned to the same place for a short time in the following month of April, and went from there to Rome, and afterwards to Ruffi-nelli in the month of June, and continued there till the July of that year, and from thence went to Pesaro, where she arrived about the 9th of August 1817. At Pesaro, as I have stated to your lordships, her majesty resided from that period until her departure for this country, except for a short time, when she visited France, and occasionally other places.
797
Lord Dundas.
—At what period was it that her majesty went to reside at Pesaro, and when did she leave it? for it may be of considerable importance to state that.
Mr. Attorney-General.
—My lords, the fact to which I called your lordships attention of her majesty going to Pesaro was in the month of August 1817. My lords, I have abstained in this case from going through a variety of particulars, many of which will be produced in evidence. You will hear detailed what was the course of her majesty's conduct at the Villa d'Este. When she resided on the banks of the Lago di Como, it will be proved she was constantly in the habit of going out alone with Bergami in a sort of carriage which was so constructed as to be only large enough for one person to sit down in, find consequently one must sit upon the lap of the other. In this carriage it will be proved that she used to go out with Bergami, sitting in his lap, he having his arms round her neck for the purpose of driving. There also she is seen with him, as it will be proved before your lordships in evidence, upon the lake in a canoe, and upon one occasion bathing with Bergami in an open situation in the river Brescia. Upon other occasions they are seen by various persons during her majesty's residence at Como in most indecent situations, kissing each other; and many other familiarities will be proved to have taken place during her residence at Como by various witnesses, which I am sure your lordships will think it better for me to abstain from detailing. I shall therefore content myself with only calling your lordships attention to the circumstances generally, as showing the familiar intercourse that subsisted between her and Bergami.—My lords, upon the return of her majesty from the East, she brought in her train a man who, from the accounts given of him by the witnesses, appears to have been of the most brutal and depraved habits—a person called by the name of Mahomet, who at the Villa d'Este, as will be proved to your lordships, exhibited the greatest indecencies at various times in the presence of her majesty and Bergami. They were present at the time those exhibitions took place—exhibitions, my lords, which are too disgusting for me to do more than allude to; and it is with the greatest pain that I am compelled at all to advert to them; but the evidence of so
798
799
800
801
802
803
A considerable pause now ensued.
Lord Erskine
observed, that it might be expedient to come immediately to an understanding, with regard to the situation of the witnesses, after they should have delivered their testimony. It might be material to the ends of justice that they should be placed in a station of security, and be forthcoming, if, on a subsequent occasion, their presence should be found necessary.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that in accordance with the usual course of their proceedings, the witnesses might be questioned before their departure from the House as to where they were about to go. He agreed that they ought to be kept within call, and remain in attendance till the end of the cause; and therefore now moved, "That the witnseses do attend from day to day till further orders."
Lord King
expressed a wish that the House should distinctly understand in what situation the witnesses would be placed, and that it should be known whether, on their coming to that bar, they would be liable upon the evidence which they gave to an indictment for perjury. Their lordships were now proceeding in a legislative capacity, but the King's attorney-general was employed to conduct the case brought under their consideration. This, it appeared, was done upon an order of the House itself. Undoubtedly their lordships might commit a witness for falsehood or prevarication, for the term of their own sitting; but as it was not improbable that they might have to revise parts of this proceeding, it was desirable to learn whether the witnesses would be in the same predicament as in a court of record.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if the noble lord's question were put to his experience, he could make no answer; but on general principles he would state his opinion, that the witnesses might be prosecuted at law for perjury.
Lord King
observed, that his doubt arose from the circumstance of their now sitting, not in their judicial, but in a legislative capacity.
The Earl of Liverpool
remarked, that in his apprehension what might be done
804
Lord King
was of opinion that this was a question of law, not of parliamentary privilege; but it might be doubted whether a prosecution could be commenced without the special order of the House.
Then Teodoro Majoochi
was called in.
Mr. Brougham
asked, whether he appeared by any order of the House, or at the instance of the party promoting the present bill? He wished to ascertain this point, because upon the answer which he received would depend his right to introduce an interpreter on the part of her majesty.
The Lord Chancellor
thought there could be no objection to inquiring of the interpreter himself by whom he had been engaged to offer himself to the House in that capacity.
Mr. Brougham
then addressed the marchese Spineto, and asked, in whose employment he appeared there as an interpreter?—I received my instructions from Mr. Planta and Mr. Maule.
Mr. Brougham.
—Do you mean Mr, Planta of the foreign office, and Mr. Maule, solicitor to the Treasury?—I do.
Mr. Brougham.
—That, then, is quite. a sufficient reason for my desiring to have a second interpreter sworn. Though it may not, strictly speaking, be necessary at this moment, it may be more convenient to swear him immediately.
Mr. Brougham
then stated, that the witness now called appearing by the name to come from Italy, and whom he therefore assumed to be a Catholic, was now about to be sworn at their lordships bar; now was therefore the time for him to urge any objection to the taking the oath. He desired, therefore, that he might be
805
Interpreter.
The witness was then examined as follows: by
Mr. Solicitor General,
Of what country are you a native? Of Pisterlango.
Is that in Italy? Yes; 12 miles distant from Lodi.
Do you know a person of the name of Per-gami? Yes.
When did you first know him? In the service of marshal Pino.
At what time did you first know him? It was in the years 1813 and 1814 when I entered into the service of general Pino. I knew him because he was in the same service, in the same suite.
Mr. Brougham.
—Do you understand English? Nothing.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—In what situation was Pergami serving under general Pino? As valet de chambre.
806
At what time did you see him; what Year? In 1814.
About what time in that Year? Before Christmas.
Where was it you then saw him the first time? In a room.
Where? In Naples.
In whose house? In the house of her royal highness the princess of Wales.
In what situation was Pergami at that time? Courier, and, it was said, also equerry.
Recollect, as nearly as you can, the precise time when you entered into the service? In the beginning of 1815, after Christmas holidays.
Answer, with as much accuracy as you are able, how long it was after the time you had first seen Pergami at Naples? I recollect so much, that before Christmas holidays Pergami told me that he would have made me a present.
You have told us, that at the commencement of the year you entered into the service of the princess; you have also told us you saw Pergami at Naples before that time: How long was it before you entered into the service of the princess that you first saw Pergami at Naples? A fortnight after, fifteen or twenty days after.
In what situation in the princess's service did you enter? Servant, livery servant, or lacquey.
By a Lord.
Mr. Solicitor General.
When you entered the service, did Pergami dine with the rest of the servants? There were two fables.
807
808
809
810
811
Mr. Brougham
here observed, that he trusted the solicitor-general would take care that no other witnesses remained
812
The Solicitor General
could have no possible objection to the removal and separation of witnesses. He was not aware that any witness for the bill was present, except the one under examination.
The Lord Chancellor
said the rule of course embraced all the witnesses, both for and against, always of course excepting those whose duty it was to remain present.
The Solicitor General
said, that his only wish was, to have the practice respecting witnesses observed here as in other courts. He wished it to be strictly general. He put it, therefore, not alone in point of strict practice, but in candour to his learned friend (Mr. Brougham), to take care that his witnesses should be excluded.
Mr. Brougham
replied, most undoubtedly; he had no other wish than that the exclusion should be strictly general. All whom he knew he intended to call, he wished should be out of the House; of course he could not mean that the prohibition should extend to any of those whose duty it was to remain. There might be one or two whose duty it was to remain, that he might have hereafter to call.
The Solicitor General
commented on the expression used by his learned friend, "all whom he knew he intended to call," He submitted to his candour whether all should not remain out that there appeared the smallest probability of his calling.
Mr. Brougham
ssured his learned friend that he did not mean to speak equivocally; he meant to deal fairly and candidly, and his learned friend might safely leave the matter to his candour, as he had appealed to it. Of course it was quite impossible for him to know, at this moment, what witnesses it might be necessary for him to call. He could not tell, until his learned friend's case was closed, whether he should call any witnesses or not. If he only heard such witnesses as the present called, he certainly should not call any. [A laugh.] He again assured his learned friend that he meant to exclude his witnesses until the time arrived for their examination.
Mr. Solicitor-General.
—You described, that the two apartments were separated from each other by a wall, and that there was a
813
Did any one sleep in that small apartment? The brother of Pergami.
Which brother? Louis Pergami.
Did the princess breakfast alone, or whom did she breakfast with during the time they were staying at this Boromean house? Sometimes she breakfasted with Pergami.
Did any other person breakfast with them? I have never seen any.
Did you wait upon them at breakfast? Sometimes I did; sometimes I did not.
When you did not, who did wait? Either Louis Pergami or a man of the name of Camera.
Who was Camera? The courier.
How long did the princess remain at Milan in the whole at that time? Between forty-five and fifty days.
During the time that she remained at Milan, did she take a tour to Venice? She did.
Before she went to Venice, had lady Charlotte Campbell joined her from Genoa? She had not.
Did lady Charlotte Campbell go from Genoa to Milan with her daughters? She did.
Did lady Charlotte Campbell go from Genoa to Milan with the princess? Yes.
In the same carriage at the same time, or did she follow her immediately afterwards? I do not remember.
How long did lady Charlotte Campbell remain at Milan? Four, five, or six days before her R. H. set out for Venice.
Did lady Charlotte go away accompanied by her two daughters? She took her two daughters with her, because her daughters were no more seen.
Had the princess then any English lady of honour left in her suite? I had not seen any.
Did any other person come; do you know a person of the name of the countess of Oldi?
Yes, I do know her.
How soon did she enter into the service of the princess after lady Charlotte Campbell went away? Two or three days after.
Was the countess Oldi any relation to Pergami? It was reported, it was said, that she was his sister.
Was that known in the house at first, or was it kept secret? It was secret, it was not known.
Did you know that the countess Oldi was sister to Pergami? I knew it.
Was it generally known at first in the house? After they saw her in the house, they began to say that she was the sister of Pergami.
How soon was that after she came? When they saw her at table, and when the whole of the family began to see her.
814
Where did you go to at Venice? The Gran Brettagna.
How long did you continue at that inn? Three or four days.
What other house did you go to from that? A house next by, belonging to a private individual.
Can you tell us the relative situation of the bed-rooms of the. princess and Pergami at that private house? I remember it.
Were they near to each other? One was here, and the other was here, next one another; there was only a great saloon between them; they were divided by the great salood.
Did the doors of both bed-rooms open into that saloon? They opened into the same saloon.
Did you see the princess either at Milan or at Venice walk out with Pergami? Both at Milan, and also at Venice.
In what manner did she walk with him, side by side, or did she lean upon his arm? Walking arm in arm.
Was this both at Milan and at Venice? Yes, it was at Milan and at Venice I saw that.
Was it in the day-time or in the evening? By night.
At what hour? Half past nine or ten, between nine and ten.
You have already stated that Pergami dined at the table you have described; did he at any time dine with the princess at her table? I have seen him.
When did you first observe that he dined with her royal highness? At Genoa.
Did he continue to dine with her after the first time he had dined with her at Genoa regularly? Always, as far as I recollect.
Where did she usually sit at the table when he dined with her royal highness? Her royal highness sat at the top of the table, he was sometimes on her right, and sometimes on her left, and sometimes opposite.
You have said that the first time he dined, with the princess was at Genoa; was the princess at Genoa more than once? I do not remember that.
You have told us that you went from Genoa, to Milan; did you go to Genoa at any subsequent time for the purpose of embarking on board a vessel?
Mr. Brougham
objected to this question. He could not think their lordships would permit his learned friend to make his own witness contradict himself. If the answer were given in one way, it. might contradict the preceding answer given by the witness. He must object to this way of pursuing an examination. If was, in fact, to put leading questions.
The Solicitor General
disclaimed any intention of putting what could with propriety be called a leading question.
The Lord Chancellor.
What is the question you mean to put?
815
The Solicitor General.
I shall put it in this way, my lord—whether the witness after he left Genoa ever returned there to embark for Venice?
Lord Erskine
said, that though he thought a counsel might put one question to a witness which would have the effect of contradicting a preceding answer given by that witness, yet that such a question ought not, nor need not, be put in a leading shape.
816
817
818
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Where was this? If I do not mistake, I believe it to have been at the Caza Villani.
Where did the princess go to from Syracuse? To Catania.
Can you describe the relative situation of the rooms of the princess and of Pergami at Catania? I can.
Were they near to each other, or distant? In a kind of court or yard a little smaller than this room, this house.
Was there any thing else except that court interposed between the bed-room of the princess and the bed-room of Pergami? There was nothing else but this court or yard.
Could any other person, after they were in bed, get into that court?. No, because there was a door which was locked.
Do you remember whether Pergami was taken ill at all at Genoa? I remember it.
State whether it was necessary that his bed should be warmed? It was.
Did you warm the bed yourself? I did.
Did you see the princess upon that occasion? I did.
Was the princess in the room before you went in, or did she come in afterwards? I was already in the room when her royal highness came.
How was Pergami sitting? Upon a bench or stool while I was making the bed.
Was any direction given to you as to the mode of warming of the bed? I received an order.
From whom? Her royal highness.
What did she tell you? To warm the bed; to make it neat, clean, and nice, or comfortable.
Did Pergami take any medicine upon that occasion? He did.
Who mixed the medicine for him? I do not remember.
How long did the princess remain in the room? During the time that the bed was warmed.
Was Pergami, at the time when he was silting on the side of the bed, entirely dressed, or partly undressed? He was not dressed; he was dressed in part.
Can you state to what extent he was dressed; what part of his dress he had on and what part of his dress he had off? He had this morning gown on, but I do not remember what other things he had on.
How long did the princess live at Catania? About a month and a half, I cannot remember the lime precisely.
To what place did she next go? To Augusta.
819
Did she go by land or by sea? By land.
Do you remember the situations of the bedrooms of the princess and Pergami at Augusta? I remember.
Can you describe them? There was a small yard or court into which led both the rooms of her royal highness and Pergami; from the room of one you would pass into the yard, and also the other.
After they were in bed, could any person get into that court? No, until they got up in the morning.
At Augusta did you embark on board any Vessel? We embarked on board a polacre.
Was that an Italian vessel? It was said that it was a Neapolitan polacre.
Where did you go in this vessel from Augusta? To Tunis in Barbary.
At Catania or Augusta, one of the two, did Pergami receive any title? It was at Catania
Was he ever called excellency? I remember his being called so.
Was that at Catania? At Catania he was called his excellency.
Did he wear any decoration? An order of the knighthood of Malta.
Do you know whether while he was in Sicily he received any other title? This I do not remember.
Do you know whether at any time he was ever called baron? I remember he was called a baron of the Franchina.
Did he receive that title first in Sicily? Yes he did.
Do you recollect where Pergami slept on board the vessel, the polacre? He slept in the cabin where they dined.
Was the princess's cabin adjoining to that cabin where they dined? It was near.
Did any other person sleep in that room where they dined? I do not recollect.
When the princess arrived at Tunis, where did she reside? At the English consul's.
Did she reside there during the whole time she was at Tunis, or did she change her abode? She changed her lodgings.
Where did she go to afterwards? The palace of the bey.
Do you remember the relative situation of the bed-rooms of the princess, and of Pergami, in the palace of the bey? I remember it.
Were the rooms near each other? They were a little distance.
What separated them? There was after the room of Pergami a little room, a small passage or corridor, then a large passage, in which there was nobody, and that large room led into the bed-room of the princess.
Did any body sleep in the small intermediate bed-room? No, because the small room was neither a bed-room, nor any other room, but a mere room of passage.
Did the rest of the suite sleep in that part of the building, or a different part of it? All in another part.
Did the princess go afterwards in that
820
Where did the princess's suite lodge at Scala Nuova, in what kind of building? They did not stop at Scala Nuova, but went to see the grotto of the Seven Sleeping Men.
How far is that from Scala Nuova? Half a day's journey.
Do you remember a place where there was a barrack? Yes, a cafle turque.
Where was that? A little before going to the grotto of the Seven Sleeping Men.
Did the suite of the princess take up their residence in that caffe or barrack during the night? Yes, they did.
Do you remember a vestibule and a small church surrounded by a wall near that spot? I remember it very well, or too well.
Where did the princess sleep the first night upon her arriving at that place? Under the caffé, or within the caffé, under things all made of boughs of trees
Do you remember while they were at that place, being sent for by Pergami, or the princess, to that vestibule inclosed in the wall which as been mentioned? I do.
Was the princess there at that time? She was.
Was Pergami also there? He also was present.
Was there any other person present? No one else.
Was it surrounded by a wall? It was surrounded by a wall.
Was the princess's travelling bed taken there? I carried it myself.
By whose direction? Both Pergami and her royal highness.
Did Pergami and her royal highness remain there together? Yes.
Had you prepared the dinner in any other place? I had carried it into the coffee house, and her royal highness and Pergami ordered me to carry the dinner within this place, surrounded by a wall.
Did they dine there by themselves? They were alone.
Where was the princess sitting? Sitting on the bed.
Where was Pergami sitting? On the ground, at the feet of her royal highness.
Did you wait upon them? I did.
After dinner was over, did they remain there? Yes.
Was any other person with them? There was no other person present.
Did the bed remain there? It did.
How long did they remain together in that place? An hour, or an hour and an half.
Where did they go to from Ephesus? To Scala Nuova.
Did they embark again on board the polacre? They did.
Where did they land? At St. Jean d'Acre.
Do you remember going from St. Jean d'Acre to a place called Aum? Yes, under the tent.
821
At AUM did all the servants of the princess's suite remain in the day-time under tents? They were under the tents.
Were they in the habit of travelling by day or by night? In the time of night.
And they went to sleep in the day-time? Yes, they slept during the day.
Under tents, in the manner you have described? Yes.
Do you remember the tent under which the princess slept? I do.
Was that among the other tents, or at a distance from them? It was at the distance of six or seven paces from the rest of the tents; there were three or four paces distance between them.
What, to the best of your recollection, was the distance between the tents occupied by the rest of the suite and that tent set a part for the princess? Five or six paces.
Under the princess's tent was there a bed? There was.
Was that the ordinary travelling bed of the princess? There was a little small travelling bed that her royal highness had ordered to be placed there, and there was a Turkish sofa.
Did this tent consist of one circle or of two? There were two tents one into another, a double circle.
You have told us there were a bed and a sofa in the inner tent, did you see the princess there and any person with her? There was Pergami.
In the inner tent where the bed and the sofa were? Yes, and sometimes the little child.
Were the bed and the sofa placed within the inner tent? They were within the interior lent.
Was that inner tent of a circular form? Both were in a circular form.
What distance was there between the inner circle and the outer one, as nearly as you can recollect? The length of my two arms.
Were Pergami and the princess there during the time that was allotted for sleep? During the time of rest.
Were the inner lent and the outer tent both closed? The inner tent was shut up by them, and the outer tent he might either close or leave it open as he chose.
When you say that the inner tent was shut up by them, by whom do you mean? Bartolomeo Pergami, because the tent was closed from the inside.
Did they remain there during the whole time that was allotted for sleep? Yes, they did.
Do you remember going from Aum to Ragusa? No.
Do you remember going from Aum to Jerusalem? Yes.
Did you slop between Aum and Jerusalem? Yes.
Did they encamp again in the same manner? They raised the same tents in the same way.
822
Did the princess and Pergami again sleep under the same tent? Under the same tent.
How many days were spent on this journey in which they were travelling with tents? About two days, or two days and a half.
After the return from Jerusalem, where did the princess again embark? At Jaffa.
On board the same vessel? Yes, the same vessel.
On the voyage to St. Jean d'Acre, had the princess slept below in the cabin? Yes.
Do you remember on her embarking at Jaffa, on her voyage home, any tent being raised on the deck? I do.
What beds were placed under that tent? A sofa.
Was there a bed besides a sofa? A travelling bed.
Of the princess's? A travelling bed of the princess's.
Did the princess sleep under that tent generally on the voyage from Jaffa home? She slept always under that tent during the whole voyage from Jaffa till the time she landed.
Did any body sleep under the same tent? Barlolomco Pergami. That was on the deck? Yes, on the deck. Did this take place every night? Every night.
Were they shut in; were the sides of the tent drawn in, so as to shut them entirely in? When they went to sleep the whole was enclosed, shut up.
Did they use a lanthorn or a lamp for the purpose of going to bed? They had a light. You have said there was a light used, what was usually done with that light? Sometimes, after I had made the beds, Bartolomso Pergami told me to take away the light, and I took it away; sometimes Pergami himself gave me the light out of the tent, by thrusting his hand between the lower extremity and the deck.
Where those beds regularly prepared every night? Every night.
Do you remember whether the princess bathed on board this vessel? I remember it. Where was the bath prepared? In the cabin of her royal highness.
Who assisted her at the bath? The first time I carried the water into the bath, and then Pergami came down and put his hand into the bath to see the temperature of the water; then he went up stairs and handed her royal highness down, after which the door was shut, and Pergami and her royal highness remained alone in the cabin.
Do you remember whether this bathing took place more than once? I remember that it has been move than once.
Do you remember, at any time, when the princess and Pergami were below in the room for the purpose of taking a bath, being called to supply any additional water? I do remember, two pails, one of hot and the other of cold water.
Do you remember who took that water in?
823
Do you know whether, at the time when you took the water in this way, the princess was actually in the bath or not? I cannot know.
Where was the cabin that you slept in situated, with reference to the tent you have described on the deck; was it under it, or how? I slept in the dining-room, on a sofa.
Was that, or not, under the tent? It was immediately under the tent, below deck.
Did you ever, on any occasion at night, while the princess and Pergami were in the tent, hear any motion over you? I have heard a noise.
What did that noise resemble; what did it appear to you to be? The creaking of a bench.
Where did the princess land? At Capo d'Anza, in the pope's dominions.
Where did she go to from Capo d'Anza? I do not know, because I did not follow her.
Who went ashore at Capo d'Anza? The princess, the sister of Pergami, countess Oldi, Hownam, the Turk, the Moor, a man called Camera.
Who was the Turk; how was he called? One was called Salem, and another Soliman; but I think the turk was Soliman, and the other Salem.
Do you know a person of the name of Mahomet? Mahomet.
Where did he embark on board the vessel? At Jaffa.
Did Pergami go on shore at Terracina? He did.
Was that before the princess landed? Before.
For what purpose did he go? For the purpose of getting leave to land without performing quarantine.
Do you remember the princess and Pergami taking leave of each other at the time he landed at Terracina? I remember it too well.
What passed between them? I saw him, al the time of taking leave, kiss her royal highness.
Where were Pergami and the princess at that time? They were in the cabin where they dined.
Where did you again join the Princess? At the Villa d'Este.
How long did the princess and Pergami remain at the Villa d'Este before they again left it? About a month, I think.
How long did the princess and Pergami remain at the Villa d'Este before they again left it? I performed the Quarantine at Genoa forty days, and I arrived thirty-seven days after her royal highness had arrived, and I remained there one month.
What time was it that you got to the Villa d'Este? I do not remember.
Did the princess and Pergami, after you arrived at the Villa d'Este, go to a place called the Barona? They did.
824
How soon did they undertake that journey after your arrival at the Ville d'Este? A month.
Whose house was the Barona? I do not remember.
Do you know a place called the Villa Pergami? This I remember.
To whom docs that house belong? To Pergami now; he has bought it now.
Are the Villa Pergami and the Barona the same place? It is the same place. Before it was called Barona, and now they have changed the name, and it is called the Villa Pergami;
Do you know when Pergami became first possessed of that place? I remember that it was about the lime that they were in the house Villani; bull think that it was while they were in the Villa Villani that he bought this house.
Was this Villa Pergami, not the house but the estate about it, of considerable extent? There is land about it, and a species of rough house where they make cheese for the farmers; a farm-house.
How long did the Princess and Pergami remain in the Villa Pergami on that visit? About the lime of six weeks, a month and a half; afterwards they took the road to Bavaria.
Was that during the carnival? It was during the carnival.
Do you recollect the relative situations of the bed-rooms of the princess and Pergami at the Villa Pergami? I do remember.
Were they near to each other? They opened both on the same landing-place.
By crossing that landing-place was there a free communication between the one and the other? Yes, the landing-place was about a yard in length.
Was that separated from the other bedrooms of the house? From all the rest of the house.
Do you remember while the princess was at the Villa Pergami, any dances or balls being given there? I do remember.
Did that occur frequently? I remember twice.
How far was this from Milan? Two miles? What description of persons attended at those balls? Country people, peasants.
Did any of the nobility of Milan visit her during the time that the princess was living there? I do not remember it. Yes, at one time Bellcgardc went to pay his respects to her royal highness; then after that Saurau, his successor.
Was Saurau his successor? Yes, after Bellcgardc went away, Saurau came.
Did you accompany the princess on her journey into Bavaria, and into Germany? I did.
Do you remember how the apartments of the princess and Pergami were arranged in that journey, at the different inns through which they passed? I remember in Bavaria. At what place? At an inn, the Golden Stag at Munich.
825
How were they arranged at that place? The dining room separated the bed-room of her royal highness from that of Pergami.
Do you remember in the course of that journey, or any other journeys, the rooms being arranged by the master of the house before the princess arrived, and being afterwards changed? I remember it.
Do you remember, upon any occasion, in those journeys, the rooms being arranged for the respective parties before the arrival of the princess? I do remember.
Do you remember after such arrangements had been made upon the arrival of the princess and of Pergami any change in the arrangement being made? I do remember.
Can you slate whether that happened more than once, and at what places? I remember it to have happened in Bavaria.
At what place in Bavaria? At the Golden Stag at Munich.
By whose order was the change made? Her royal highness and Pergami.
How were the apartments originally arranged; were those of the princess and Pergami near or distant from each other? Distant.
Was the change afterwards made to the relative situation yon have before described? They were changed, and then Pergami said, this is the room where her royal highness is to sleep, and this is the room where I shall sleep.
You have stated the conversation which took place about the rooms in which Pergami was the speaker; was her royal highness present at the time? She was present.
Adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, August 21, 1820.
THE QUEEN—ADJOURNMENT OF THE
Lord Castlereagh
rose to move that the House at its rising should adjourn to that day four weeks. His object in moving such an adjournment was, that the House should be enabled to provide for the proper course, in whatever state the proceedings of the Bill before the House of Lords might be at the time. So that in the event of any interruption to the proceeding, by giving time to her majesty to call evidence from abroad, an ulterior adjournment might then take place, or that time might be given for the fullest attendance by a call of the House.
Mr. Tierney
said, if he understood the noble lord, the arrangement was, that nothing should take place at the period when the proposed adjournment should end, but to fix a convenient period for a call of the House.
Lord Francis Osborne
said, his objections to the bill now in progress
826
Mr. Hobhouse
rose to second the amendment. He had that day come down to the House under the full impression of moving a similar amendment to that proposed by the noble lord, if no member more competent to the task undertook that duty. He was most anxious to take the first opportunity of entering his protest against that monstrous measure of iniquity which was now in progress in another place, to the disgrace of the House of Lords, and the degradation of the monarchy. If he had no other objection to the measure, the preparations he had witnessed that day—preparations got up by the ministers for the purpose of hedging themselves in their alarming course—would alone have compelled him to call upon them to desist. Never, he believed, had this country witnessed such a sight as had been presented to him that evening on coming down to perform his duty as an English member of parliament; never since the days of Oliver Cromwell had a similar spectacle been exhibited. What was the world to think of a measure that could not even be generated without an assemblage of military guards; and that could not be carried on without filling with troops every apartment in the neighbourhood of parliament, and every avenue leading to either House? Indeed
827
Mr. Tierney
could not agree to the amendment recommending a prorogation of Parliament, after the proceedings that had already taken place in the Lords. It would be most unjust to her majesty, after what had passed, to stop short, and deprive her of the means of defence. When he said that, he begged it to be understood, as not lending himself in any degree in support of the form of proceeding. To that, no man could feel a stronger objection than himself. In acceding to the motion of adjournment, he felt he was giving no pledge to the course he should pursue, whether to receive the bill, or to suggest another mode, or that he was surrendering an iota of the privileges of that House.
Mr. Western
expressed his decided aversion to the erection of that House into a court of justice. In every view of the subject, such a course was attended with difficulty and danger. He assured the House, that from one end of the country to the other, there could not be found an impartial person who did not regret the prosecution that was now going on. Not an individual could be met who did not regret, nay even condemn, the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy. He never yet heard a single ground on which that fatal act could be defended. The people were loud in the expression of their abhorrence
828
Lord A. Hamilton
observed, that he felt as fully as any member the unfortunate predicament in which the House was placed. He felt as fully as his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) the conflicting difficulties and dangers that on every side surrounded the question, but he also was convinced that these difficulties and dangers were much more likely to be increased by a continuance of the present course, than by at once putting a termination to it. It was with that conviction that he should give his support to the amendment. To justify his own consistency hereafter, he took that opportunity of declaring, that whenever or in whatever shape the proceeding came before them, his vote should never be regulated by the consideration of the guilt or innocence of the accused. He felt, then, as he from the first moment declared, that his insuperable objection to the prosecution of the Queen, whose life, not for the last six, but for 26 years, has been a life of unparalleled persecution, arose from his full conviction of her being precluded from the possibility of having justice extended to her, on the consideration of her guilt or innocence. In considering the guilt or innocence of that unhappy woman, there must be taken into consideration so many shades, such a variety of discriminations, such palliations, that he ever must contend, that those who originated the prosecution, were disqualified by their very own acts towards her, from proceeding against her. When he reflected on the manner in which she was forsaken, abandoned, and insulted at home—persecuted and vilified abroad—he felt he should not be acting with justice towards her, if he did not protest against a trial, instituted under such circumstances, and conducted by such accusers. That was not the proper time to cast imputations on his majesty's ministers: but he could not help saying to them, that they could with a very ill grace, accuse others of inconsistency, who had themselves given such frequent proofs of
829
Lord Castlereagh
was of opinion that nothing ought to drag the House, under the present circumstances, into any thing like a discussion of the great question at issue. On a subject so extensive, so important in all its bearings, and requiring so much calmness and time, the House ought not to be forced into an immediate deliberation. He was not aware of any existing circumstance which should lead the House to depart from the course they thought best at the period of their last se-
830
831
832
833
Lord A. Hamilton
in explanation, stated, that what he had said was, that being bound to vote on the present occasion, he, after deliberating on the difficulties which pressed on both sides of the question, would give his reluctant vote for the amendment. The noble lord had talked of him as being the friend of the Queen. He wished to be understood as the friend of the country, and in that capacity he was anxious to put a stop to the present proceedings.
Mr. Wilberforce
would not have troubled the House with any observations on the present occasion, had it not been for what had fallen from a noble lord, who had alluded to the motion which he (Mr. Wilberforce) had some time ago made on the subject of her majesty, but which had not experienced the success that he expected. But for that he should have contented himself with silently acquiescing in the motion for the adjournment, it being distinctly understood, that in doing so, no hon. member pledged himself to any opinion on the bill of pains and penalties, if it should come down to that House. The noble lord had stated in that House what would he studiously and industriously repeated elsewhere; that he (Mr. W.) had been anxious in making the motion to which he had alluded, to fortify ministers. He declared, from the bottom of his soul, that nothing could be more sincere than his desire on that occasion to put an end to the necessity of any further proceeding. He had no intention to fortify ministers.
Lord A. Hamilton
observed, that what he had said was, that the hon. member's motion had that effect—not that the hon. member had that intention.
Mr. Wilberforce
said, that when a proposition such as that which the noble lord had advanced, was accompanied with a guard, the proposition generally appeared elsewhere, but without the guard. That was generally dropt. It would, in all probability, be stated elsewhere, that the noble lord had said, not that such was the effect, but that such had been the object of his motion. He had frequently been subjected to the most detestable calumny so originating. He was obliged to the noble lord, however, for the explanation. As to the amendment proposed by the noble lord on that occasion, to address the King to restore her majesty's name to the Liturgy, he had not made such a proposition to the House, because he knew he
834
835
Mr. Brougham
observed, that perhaps this was a question on which he ought not to say any thing, but, with the permission of the House, he begged to offer a few words. No man who had attended to the course of the proceedings in that House would accuse him of having shown any anxiety to press this subject on, or any disinclination to allow of any interval which might afford a chance of doing justice, without any further parliamentary investigation to the high parties implicated. On the contrary, from the moment the message from the Crown was presented to the House, he had intreated parliament to pause before it was too late.
836
837
Lord F. Osborne consented to withdraw his amendment, and the House adjourned to the 18th of September.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, August 22nd, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act," &c.; and for counsel to be heard for and against the same; the counsel were accordingly called in.
Then
Teodoro Majoochi
Mr.Solicitor General
You were mentioning yesterday, that you went with the Queen on the journey to Bavaria into Germany, did you go to Carlsruhe? I did.
Did you go also to Nuremburg, Vienna, and Treiste? I did.
Without asking you particularly as to the situation of the bed-rooms of Pergami and the princess, at each of the places at which they slept during that journey; to the best of your recollection were those rooms generally contiguous to each other, or having a direct communication with each other, or were they at a distance?
The Interpreter stated, the phrase used by the witness in his answer, may have a double meaning,—more near than far—or, more generally near than far.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Explain what you mean by the expressions you have just made use of whether they were usually near or usually at a distance? Nearer than far, more near than far.
Did they usually communicate with each other? Yes, they did.
Were they generally separated from the rooms occupied by the rest of the suite? They were.
Who generally selected the apartments
838
Did Pergami travel on that journey in the same carriage with the princess? In the journey to Bavaria, and to Genoa.
When you say that Pergami travelled in the same carriage with the princess, in the journey to Bavaria, do you mean also in the journey through Germany? I meant so.
Was it your business to prepare the carriages, and the things that were put into them? It was my duty,
Do you know in what particular part of the carriage Pergami usually sat during the journey? I do not remember.
Do you remember at any time in examining the carriage finding any bottle in it? I found one bottle.
Was that usually in the carriage on the journey, when the princess and Pergami travelled together? It was.
Will you explain the construction of the bottle, as far as relates to the opening, or mouth of it, was it large or small? About three or four inches in diameter.
Do you know from what you found from time to time in that bottle, for what purpose it was used in the carriage? It was for Pergami making water.
Do you remember being at the convent of Benedictines at St. Alessio? I do remember it.
Do you remember seeing the princess at breakfast there? I do remember it.
Did the princess breakfast alone, or did Pergami breakfast with her? She breakfasted with Pergami.
Do you remember upon that occasion anything being done by Pergami to the princess? I do not remember.
Will you mention at what place it was you quitted the service of the princess? At Pesaro.
In the whole, how long had you been in the service, as near as you can recollect? Nearly three years.
After you left the service of the princess at Pesaro, where did you go? To Milan
Into whose service did you afterwards enter? The marchese Erba Odcscalchi.
How long did you remain in Italy after you left the service of the princess at Pesaro? I do not remember.
As nearly as you can tell, stale how long you remained in. Italy after you left the princess? Four or five months; precisely I do not remember.
Do you remember at any time going with the princess to Pavia? I do.
At what inn did you lodge at that place? I do not remember the name of the inn; but it is an inn on the right hand of entering Pavia.
Do you remember, at any time when the princess was at Naples Pergami being out on horseback, and the princess asking for him one evening? I remember it too well.
839
The interpreter was asked;—does the Italian word used by the witness mean very well, as well as too well? It means very well. I have translated it too well, because it was observed by the learned attorney general of her majesty yesterday, that it meant "too"; I should, upon my oath, translate it very well.
Mr. Brougham
stated that he had been misunderstood.
Mr. Solicitor General.
During the absence of Pergami on horseback, in the manner you have described, did the princess ask for him? She did.
Mr. Brougham
submitted whether this question could be put as against Pergami, without evidence of the conduct of the Queen to bring them together.
Mr. Solicitor General.
After it was communicated by you to Pergami that the princess wanted him, where did Pergami go to?
The counsel were informed, that the question might he put.
Mr. Solicitor General.
After you had communicated to Pergami that the princess had asked for him during his absence, what did he do, where did he go to? Into his own room.
840
Mr. Brougham
submitted, that the princess and Mahomet should be first brought together, and then a question asked, What passed while they were together? in order to prevent the witness misconceiving the question, and forgetting the reservation.
Interpreter.
Mr. Solicitor General.
Was the trick, or whatever you allude to, one that he was in the habit of making?
Mr. Brougham
submitted, that this question ought to be put with a guard; only those parts of his habit which were brought home to the knowledge of her majesty being receivable in evidence.
841
Mr. Solicitor General.
Describe what this Giuoco was, to which you allude, before the princess.
[The witness snapped his fingers and bent his body, bending out his knees.]
Interpreter.
Mr. Solicitor General.
Was any thing done by Mahomet, upon that occasion, with any part of his dress? He made use of the linen of his large pantaloons.
Interpreter.
Mr. Solicitor General.
Describe with accuracy what was done with the pantaloons or trowsers; how were the trowsers prepared? He made them strike forward; go backwards and forwards.
Cross-examined by Mr.
Brougham.
You have told us that you left general Pino's service; was not it on account of killing a horse, or something of that kind? No.
You never killed a horse at all? Never, never, oh never.
You never told any one that you had? Never, never.
What wages had you in general Pino's service? Fifty pence.
842
Interpreter.
Per day? Yes.
Did you not find that enough, and leave the service on that account? I left the service at Mantua; during the blockade of Mantua I left the service of general Pino.
At the second table of the Queen's house at Naples, the table of the gentlemen, did not sir William Cell's servant sit also? I do not remember.
Do you remember another English servant of Mr. Craven, another of the gentlemen of her royal highness's suite, dining at that table? I do not remember that.
Had either of these two English gentlemen English servants at all in her royal highness's family? They had.
English servants? Yes; I believe they were English, because they always spoke English.
Were they livery servants, or servants out of livery? During every day they did not wear livery, but during a grand dinner, I saw them come home with livery uniforms.
Interpreter.
Was it the duty of the ordinary livery servants of the household to wait upon her royal highness? At table, yes.
Was it their duty to wait upon her royal highness also at breakfast in the morning? No.
Was it not the duty of the upper servants, including the couriers, so to wait upon her royal highness? Yes, it was.
Do you know Hieronimus? Very well.
Do you know Camera also? Yes.
Were they couriers? They were couriers, because they wore the livery of couriers and rode.
In the princess's house at Naples, where did William Austin sleep? I do not remember.
Will you swear that he did not sleep in the next room to her royal highness? This I cannot remember.
What was the room next the room in which her royal highness slept? I have seen no other.
Where did Dr. Holland, her royal highness's physician sleep? I do not remember.
Will you swear there was no passage by which her royal highness could enter Pergami's room, when he was confined with his illness, except going through the room where you slept? I have seen that passage; other passages I have not seen.
Will you swear there was no other passage? There was a great saloon, after which came the room of her royal highness, after which there was a little corridor, and so you passed into the cabinet; I have seen no other passage.
Will you swear there was no other passage? I cannot swear; I have seen no other than this, and I cannot say that there was any other but this.
Will you swear that there was no other way by which any person going into Pergami's
843
Will you swear that if a person wish to go from the princess's room to Pergami's room, he or she could not go any other way than through the cabinet in which you slept? There was another passage to go into the room of Pergami.
Without passing through the cabinet where you slept? Yes.
Where did Hieronimus sleep in this house? I do not remember.
Where did Camera sleep? Camera was not then in the service at Naples.
Where did sir W. Gell's servants sleep? I do not remember.
And you do not remember where Mr. Craven's servants slept neither, I take for granted? I do not remember.
Where did Demont sleep; the maid? I do not know.
Where did the other maids sleep? I do not know where the other members of the family slept.
Was it not a very severe accident which Pergami met with, from the kick of the horse? It was so severe that he could no longer go on horseback.
Was it not so much more severe than that, that he was confined to his apartment? I cannot say that, because I cannot have any knowledge of the illness.
Had you not so much knowledge of the illness that you were taken for the purpose of attending him in the illness, and made to sleep now for the first time in the cabinet next him? Yes; Pergami told me to put my bed to wait upon him.
You have said that he could not ride; did he go out walking during the accident? I cannot know whether he could walk.
Did you see him walk out every day as usual out of his room and into the streets? I do not remember.
Will you swear that during his illness you ever saw him walk out once? I do not remember to have seen him go out walking.
Did you ever go into his room during the time of his illness? I waited upon him.
In waiting upon him did you frequently go into his room? Often.
Did you find him there walking up and down the room? This I do not remember.
Was he attended by any medical man? I I do not remember.
Did you not see her royal highness the princess of Wales go into the room of Hieronimus to ask after his health when he had had an accident which confined him? I do not remember.
Have you not seen her royal highness go into the room of sir W. Gell also, when he was confined with illness to his room? I do not remember.
844
Was it not the constant practice of her royal highness to go herself into the chamber of any of her suite who might happen to be ill, in order to see after their health and their treatment during that illness? I do not remember.
You never happened to be ill yourself at Naples? No.
Did her royal highness make any difference whatsoever in the attentions she paid between the upper servants, the gentlemen or ladies of her household, and the lowest of her attendants, during their confinement by sickness?
The Solicitor General
submitted, that Mr. Brougham was assuming, as the bases of his questions, facts which did not appear at present to exist, which he conceived to be irregular, even in cross-examination.
Mr. Btoughtam.
Were all the parts high and low, of her royal highness's suite, with the exception of Pergami, always in perfect health during the time they were at Naples? I do not remember.
845
[The witness made an answer, upon which the interpreter stated, that it was apparent the witness did not understand the question.]
Mr. Brougham
desired, that that which he had stated might be translated.
"non mi ricordo,"
"non mi ricordo?"
Non so.
Mr. Brougham.
You gave us an account yesterday of having knocked one night at Pergami's door at Genoa so loud that he must have heard you, and that he gave no answer? I did.
846
The Solicitor General
objected to the question, as assuming there was a person of the name of Ompteda, and secondly, that he was a friend of the witness; and also assuming that there was a gang of which the friend of the witness was a party.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he had put the question in that form to save time, but would put it with more minuteness. Did not somebody that night come and attack a window of the house? Yes, some thieves.
Mr. Brougham
stated to their lordships, in excuse for sir W. Gell having been present, that he had excepted those persons who were in official attendance, and that sir W. Gell was in official attendance upon her Majesty, but that he had now withdrawn, and would not in future be present.
Mr. Denman
stated, that lord Llandaff was ordered to attend as a witness for her majesty; that he had applied to the Attorney General for his consent for his lordship to be present; that as that consent might not be sufficient, he now begged to apply to the House for permission for lord Landaff to be present.
The Attorney General
requested to be informed, whether the rule was intended to apply to those who were professionally engaged on either side, or whether it would be necessary to hand in to their lordships, a list of those gentlemen necessarily attendant on
847
[The examination of the witness then proceeded.]
Mr. Brougham.
After the robbers had attacked or threatened the house, and you had fired upon them in the way you have described, was not the whole house alarmed by what had taken place? I immediately ran to knock at the door, and then in going down stairs I found that all the people had collected, or were coming down stairs.
Interpreter.
Mr. Brougham.
Where were you when Pergami did what you call, come out? I knocked at the door, received no answer, and went down stairs, and then all the family was coming out; and then I saw Pergami come out in about a quarter of an hour afterwards.
Mr. Solicitor General
objected to this question, as an incorrect statement of the answer.
Mr. Brougham.
How soon after you fired the piece did you see Pergami, and the rest of the household come out? I fired, ran to the room of Pergami, knocked, and received no
848
Interpreter.
Mr. Brougham.
Will you swear that you ever in your life, saw Victorine sleep in any
849
850
851
852
853
854
Mr. Brougham
to the Marchese.—Give us in Italian, the very words the witness said? He answered "sempre," and in the same breath, he added, "le piu parti," and that as far as I can collect it is, for the most part I was more sick than well.
Interpreter.
855
856
857
858
Mr. Brougham.
You saw them yourself? Yes.
859
Mr. Brougham.
Did you ever write a letter to Bartolomeo Pergami, or Schiavini, or Vassali, after leaving her royal highness's service? Never: because for my misfortune I know very little to write.
860
861
862
Mr. Brougham.
Did you ever see the baron Ompteda? I do not remember that name.
863
864
Interpreter.
Mr. Brougham.
Had you made money, and saved a little fortune in her royal highness's service? I had put by seven hundred livres.
865
866
867
Mr. Brougham.
Did you ever before go, at your father's desire, any where to speak to colonel Brown, or colonel any body else? Never, before my father spoke to me, I never vent to any place.
868
869
The Solicitor General
objected to the question, as assuming that the witness was at an hotel, which he had not stated.
Mr. Brougham.
—Is it an inn at which you lodge? I do not know whether it be an inn.
[Counsel were directed to withdraw.]
The House adjourned at five o'clock.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, Aug. 23, 1820.
Immediately after prayers,
The Earl of Darlington
rose, to call their lordships attention to a subject connected with the important business before them. In order to assist them in accomplishing the object they all had in view, which was the doing of ample justice, it was necessary they should have the means of forming a correct judgment on the evidence. It was therefore desirable that their lordships should have before them printed copies of the evidence taken from day to day. However difficult it might be to obtain this evidence, he thought it indispensable; for it might be necessary for their lordships to ask questions on many points, and he believed few possessed memories capable of retaining the great mass of evidence detailed before them for a length of time. For his part, he felt himself totally unable to keep the evidence in his mind, so as to avail himself, after a period, of it by recollection. The evidence given by the witness in support of the bill, on the first day, had made, he confessed, a very strong impression on his mind; but the cross-examina-
870
The Earl of Lauderdale
suggested the propriety of their lordships having before them plans of the places alluded to in the evidence. It would facilitate the investigation very much if the different parties would agree on a plan; or, if that could not be done, each might give in a plan.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that, however desirable it would be for their lordships to have on the table, every morning, printed copies of the proceedings of the preceding day, it would be necessary, before their lordships came to any resolution on the subject, to consider what steps mast be taken for accomplishing such a purpose. Unless they departed from their rule, that whatever was printed for the use of the House must be held to be correct on the responsibility of the clerk, he did not see how the printing could take place. With respect to the publications to which the noble lord had referred, it was easy to understand how persons who might obtain admission there, could, by retiring every half-hour in succession, be enabled to give an account of the proceedings. After all the experience lie had had in matters
871
The Earl of Darlington,
in consequence of the objections to his motion, withdrew it. And the House being called over, the counsel were called in.
Then
Teodoro Majoochi
Do you recollect a German baron visiting the princess of Wales at Naples? I do not recollect.
Do you recollect a German baron visiting the princess of Wales at Genoa afterwards, on her way from Naples to Milan? I do not recollect.
Did any German baron visit the princess of Wales at the Villa Villani, during her residence there? There was a baron whom I think to be Russian, who twice paid his visits, but I do not know what name he had, and this is the same which was mentioned to me also yesterday.
Was the name of that person Ompteda or Omteda, or any name sounding like that? Precisely I cannot recollect the name by which he was called, for it was an extraordinary name, or unusual name.
Are you sure it was not baron Pampdor? I do not recollect.
Do you recollect that baron, whatever his name was, at the Villa Villani more than once? Once I remember; more I do not remember.
Had he not a servant with him, who used to live with the other servants of the house? I remember he had a servant, but whether he lived with the servants of her royal highness, I do not recollect.
Was there not a room in the house of her royal highness at the Villa Villani, which was called the baron's room, giving it the extravagant name whatever he had? I do not remember this.
Do you recollect a thunder storm upon the lake, in which her royal highness's party of pleasure was exceedingly wet? I do not remember this.
You have said that in the house at Naples, the rest of the suite of her royal highness except Pergami slept in another part of the house from her royal highness? I do not remember whether the other family slept separate or distant.
Do you now mean to say that the rest of the family of the suite, excepting Pergami, did not sleep at a distant and separate part of the house? I remember the position of the bedrooms of her royal highness and Pergami, but those of the family I do not recollect.
Then you do not recollect now, and you
872
Was not this question put to you the day before yesterday, "Did the other people of the suite sleep in that part of the house, or at a distance?" I remember the position where her royal highness slept.
Answer the question put to you, was not the following question put to you the day before yesterday, "Did the other people of the suite sleep in that part of the house, or at a distance?" Yes, it is true.
Did you not give to that question the following answer: "They were separated?" I said they were separated, but I meant that they were so situated that they could not communicate together; I meant to say, that they could not communicate together.
Did you mean by that, that there was no passage, no way by which a person could go from the room of her royal highness to the rooms of those others of the suite.
The Solicitor General
on reference to the Minutes stated, that the former answer of the witness was, that they were separated.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that the Italian word used by the witness was "lontano," which meant "far off."
The Solicitor General
objected to any interposition to alter the Minutes after they had been taken down by the short-hand-writer, and acquiesced as a correct translation.
873
The Solicitor General
objected to the question, as assuming that some person gave him money at Vienna.
Mr. Brougham.
—Who gave you money at Vienna before you left it? My father paid the journey; nobody gave me money: my father paid me my journey, and I remember that nobody gave me money.
"non so;"
"piu no;"
"non mi ricordo;"
Mr. Cohen
being directed by their lordships to state whether he agreed in the interpretation given by the marchese di Spineto, stated that he did.
The Earl of Rosebery
said, that it was most essential that the House should understand what the meaning of
non mi ricordo
Lord Longford
begged that the last answer given by the witness should be repeated to him by the interpreter, from the short-hand writer's notes.
874
The Marquis of Lansdown
thought the better course would be for their lordships to leave the questions as they stood upon the cross-examination; and afterwards, when the regular time came for their scrutiny, to put such questions as they pleased.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that the usual practice was, for the counsel to proceed in their examination, cross-examination, and re-examination, before their lordships interposed.
The Lord Chancellor.
—Mr. Brougham, proceed with your cross-examination.
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords, I have done with the witness. I have no farther questions to ask of him. In a common case I should certainly be satisfied with this examination. In this case I have certainly no reason to desire to ask him a single question further.
Re-examined by
Mr. Solicitor General.
Did your father conduct you from Germany to Milan, for the purpose of your being examined as a witness with respect to the con-duct of the princess of Wales?
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question as leading.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Upon your arrival at Milan, to which place you say you were conducted by your father, were you examined as to your knowledge of the conduct of the princess of Wales during the time that you were in her royal highness's service? I was.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—You have stated that after this examination you returned to
875
Mr. Brougham
submitted, that if the rules of courts of justice were to be adhered to, as he understood they were to be in this case, the reexamination could only apply to points which arose out of the cross-examination, and his learned friend was proceeding into new matter. He made this observation merely for sake of regularity.
The Solicitor General
said, that he was as anxious to preserve regularity as his learned friend, and maintained that he was quite regular, as he was proceeding to interrogate the witness with respect to his movements since his arrival in this country, the cross-examination having applied to the witness's journey, as well as to what happened to him in London.
Mr. Brougham
denied that he had put a single question with regard to the witness's journey to Holland, however he might have interrogated him as to his motions while resident in this country.
The Solicitor General
argued, that his learned friend had put several questions to the witness with respect to what happened to him upon his journey, how he went from Vienna to Milan, how he went back, what became of him upon his arrival in London, palpably with a view to cast a doubt upon the character of his testimony, and to induce an inference, that he was delivering his evidence from some overruling, improper motive. He apprehended, therefore, that, to repel such an inference, he was entitled to examine the witness with regard to all his motions, from the time he left Milan up to the hour of his appearance at the bar. If it were otherwise, especially where the character of the witness was questioned, it would be in the power of a counsel to take up the evidence by piecemeal, to present garbled statements, and to give a false colouring to all the motives, circumstances and conduct of the witness. But the course for which he contended, was not only accord-
876
Mr. Brougham
here offered himself to the attention of the House, and meeting some interruption from a cry of "Order,"
The Lord Chancellor
said, "Mr. Brougham, you have the right of reply."
Mr. Brougham
expressed a hope that he would be allowed to exercise that right in the usual way of courts of justice, where an advocate was not interrupted by any cries of approbation or disapprobation from the judges. He repeated that he made his objection to the course of examination which his learned friend was pursuing, merely with a view to preserve regularity. It was his original-intention to have gone into every particular connected with the journey and movements of the witness, but from what had transpired this morning and yesterday, he felt such a proceeding unnecessary. If he had put any question to the witness which could warrant the course of re-examination proposed by his learned friend, it would be easy to point it out; and unless that could be done, he maintained that the question to which he had just objected was inadmissible. But if he did not forget himself as much as other persons appeared to have done in the course of this examination, he had never put any such question. He had not indeed said one word as to the witness's journey unless as to that from Vienna to Milan and back again. He had put no question as to the witness's journey from Vienna to London, or even as to his trip into Holland. Under these circumstances, he thought his learned friend could not consistently prosecute his proposed inquiry. Indeed, if his learned friend were allowed to do so, he saw nothing to prevent him from going back before the witness's journey from Vienna to Milan, as well as to other points which had not been touched in the cross-examination; nay, into the birth, parentage, and education of the witness. His motive for pressing this objection was, to guard against any irregularity in those proceedings.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that whatever difference there might be with respect to the rules of evidence in parliamentary proceedings, and the rules of evidence acted upon in courts below, he was influenced by a conviction that the nearer and closer their lordships kept to
877
The question was proposed to the witness? Yes.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—To the best of your recollection, how long did you remain there? Twenty or twenty-five days; I do not precisely recollect.
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Do you remember where the sleeping-place was; whether above or below the deck?
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Was mademoiselle Brunette on board during the voyage? Yes.
878
The Marquis of Buckingham
said, it would be quite impossible for their lordships to understand the nature of the evidence given, with accuracy, unless they
879
The Lord Chancellor.
—The better way would be, for the counsel on each side to agree upon one plan for the information of your lordships. And if they do concur in delivering in such a plan, let it have no denomination of rooms; but let the apartments be marked 1, 2, 3, or 4. The plan should be produced to-morrow morning.
The Solicitor General
stated, that the counsel in support of the bill were in possession of some plans, but that they were subject to the objection referred to by their lordships; but that copies should be prepared according to the intimation now made by their lordships.
Mr. Brougham
said, that he felt great difficulty indeed in acceding to the production of a plan in this stage of the proceeding. When their lordships recollected that these plans must necessarily embrace descriptions of ships, palaces, houses, inns, and other places, in so many countries of Europe, they must at once be struck with the difficulty of compliance. The plans, even with the numerical arrangement, might lead to serious injustice. He must, indeed, be an uncommon framer of a plan, who could so arrange it as that it would not at once furnish the witnesses with the relative position of all the rooms they had to describe, and at once enable them to reconcile their evidence to the actual description. He begged to apprize their lordships that he meant to regulate his evidence principally, or at least a great deal upon the description of the houses given by the witnesses on the other side. Now, how could he do this with effect, if he were obliged, at the outset, to produce a full plan? The publication of the evidence, morning after morning, was not calculated to promote the justice of the case; but from the circumstance of so many of the witnesses being foreigners, the language of that publication was not understood by them, and consequently full information of what was passing was not received in such a quarter. But any man, whether he understood English or not, if he had eyes, must understand a plan. While the publication went on, and the language was not understood, the witnesses were nothing the wiser, but a plan at once put them in possession of all. There was an end at once, then to
"non mi ricordo;"
880
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he had not cross-examined as to the conduct of the witness while in the service of her royal highness, but that he was ready to admit he was considered as a good servant, particularly a good travelling servant, during the whole time he was in her royal highness's service, and therefore submitted that the reading of this paper was inapplicable and incorrect.
The Solicitor General
submitted, that the course of the cross-examination had been to impute misconduct to the witness; that certain questions had intimated that he was to he considered as a member of a gang which attacked the house of her royal highness; that he afterwards applied to her royal highness to be taken into her service again, but that his services were refused.
Mr. Brougham
was heard in reply, and further stated, that it was not brought home to the knowledge of her royal highness, being written by Schiavini, who was not proved to be connected with her royal highness.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that there were two questions:—First, whether this was authenticated to be the act of the illustrious personage implicated in the inquiry:—Secondly, whether, if so authenticated, it could be received in evidence; that upon the latter question he did not understand there was any doubt in the minds of the learned judges, and there was none in his own; but that he did entertain a doubt whether it must not be proved that the person who put that seal had some authority to do so, before it could be read,
881
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Do you remember Schiavini? I do.
Mr. Brougham
objected to the translation, as implying that it was a certificate of good character, whereas the contents were not at present before their lordships.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that if it was written by any person shown to have been authorised by her royal highness then it would be permitted to be read.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Can you say whether Schiavini had the general management and superintendance of the servants of the household? I do not know who commanded, for Pergami commanded, Schiavini commanded, both commanded; it was impossible for me to know which of the two commanded, who was the superior commander; Pergami came and commanded, Schiavini came and commanded; all commanded.
di Spineto.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Who, at the time when you left the service, had the immediate superinlendance of the servants? This I do not remember.
Mr. Brougham
objected to this question as irrelevant; for the proof of the application to Schiavini, or even of this paper having been written by that person as
major domo
The Lord Chancellor
intimated, that applications to Schiavini, unless the evidence should be carried farther, would be useless; that the counsel who offered it must at all events prove that Schiavini was in the habit of giving similar testimonials to other servants.
Examined by the
Lords.
Lord Auckland.
—You state, that in the voyage from the East to Terracina, there were tents put on the deck of the vessel: what sort of weather had you? I do not remember.
882
Lord Ellenborough.
—How was her royal highness dressed when she passed through the cabinet to Pergami's room at Naples? I do not remember.
Earl Grey.
—Did you see her royal highness distinctly on that occasion? Yes.
Interpreter.
Earl Grey.
—Did you pretend to be asleep? Yes, I feigned to be asleep.
Lord Darnley.
—You state that Pergami was in the habit of dining with her royal highness, having commenced at Genoa, and con-
883
Marquis of Buckingham.
—You have stated, that when on board the polacre you saw Pergami hand down the princess to the place prepared for the bath? I did.
Earl of Carnarvon.
—You have mentioned a tent having been erected upon the deck of the polacre; was that a double tent? I do not remember whether there was one or two, but I know well there was this tent where her royal highness was.
884
Marquis of Buckingham.
—At what time of the day was this bath taken on board the polacre, morning or evening? About noon; somewhat before dinner.
Lord Falmouth.
—You have stated, that at the Villa Villani you remember the princess to have given a blue silk gown to Pergami? Yes, a blue silk gown.
Earl of Oxford.
—You have said, that you saw the princess and Pergami in the cabinet on board the polacre, but that you did not see the princess when you brought in the water; when was it you saw the princess in the cabinet? When the bath was ready he went up stairs, took her royal highness, brought her down into the room, and shut the door.
Lord Duncan.
—To a question put, "Do you know whether, at the time you took the water, the princess was actually in the bath, or not?" you have stated, "That you cannot know." To another question, "Whether the female attendants were upon the deck?" you have answered, "That you did not see them." Can you swear that none of her female attendants were at that moment in the bath-room with the princess? Yes, I can swear to having seen nobody go into the bath-room of her royal highness.
Earl Grey.
—Could you, in the position in which you stood at the door of the bath-room, see every body that was in that room? When it was open I could, but when it was shut I could not.
885
Lord Auckland.
—Did you remain in the outer room during the whole time that the princess and Pergami were in the inner room? At the door with the two pails of water.
Lord Chancellor.
—You have stated (vide p. 26 of the printed Minutes), being asked where the bath was prepared, that it was prepared in the cabinet of her royal highness; you were asked who assisted at the bath, and you said, "the first time I carried the water into the bath, and then Bartolomeo Pergami came down and put his hand into the bath to see the temperature of the water, then he went up stairs and handed her royal highness down, after which the door was shut, and Bartolomeo Pergami and her royal highness remained alone in the cabin," was there any person in the room in which the bath was when Pergami went up stairs to bring the princess down? There was nobody, I saw nobody.
Earl Grosvenor.
—Was there any other door by which persons could go into the room where the bath was placed? I had not seen any other door.
Lord Chancellor.
—If there was any other door into the room where the bath was prepared, must you have seen it? If there had been another door I must have seen it; but I have seen no other door.
Lord Auckland.
—Did you see the princess and Pergami quit the bath-room? No, but I have seen Pergami come out of the room to go on deck; to call the maid to come down and dress her royal highness, and I have heard, with my own ears, when he said, "mademoiselle Demont, come down to dress her royal highness."
Marquis of Huntly.
—Was Pergami, on retiring from the bath-room, dressed in the same
886
Earl Grey.
—Did you remain with the warm water at the door of the bath-room, when Pergami went to call the maid to dress the princess? I remained there till he told me to go away.
Lord Anson.
—In page 26 of the printed evidence, there is this question' "Do you re-member at any time when the princess and Pergami were below in the room for the purpose of taking a bath, being called to supply any additional water," to which you answer, "I do remember, two pails, one of hot and the other of cold water;" upon receiving those orders, did you go any where to gel that water, in order to have it ready at the time that Pergami might call for it? No, I went no where, because there was a sailor who gave me the water at the door of the dining-room.
Lord Darnley.
—You stated, that a tent was placed on the deck of the polacre; what was the nature of that tent; was it that commonly called tent, or merely an awning? It was a tent which was spread on the deck by the means of a rope, and then in the evening it was closed as a pavilion, as a closed tent, it was closed all round; in the evening this tent was let down and was closed all round; and they said, "Stop it well, stop it all round, see that there be no hole, no opening."
887
Earl Grosvenor.
—By whom were yon recommended to the service of her royal highness? By Bartolomeo Pergami; that I remember.
Earl Grey.
—Do you know that the princess was in the bath before Pergami left the bathroom to call mademoiselle Demont? This I cannot know, whether she was in the bath, because I did not see into the bath-room.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—You have stated, that when you were at Home you asked for your discharge, but did not obtain it; and that afterwards at Pesaro you asked for your discharge, and did obtain it. What was your motive for wishing to be discharged from her royal highness's service? Because her royal highness was surrounded by bad people.
Earl of Carnarvon.
—How was her royal highness dressed when she went into the bath-room with Pergami? As far as this goes I do not remember.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—You have stated, in answer to a question put to you just now, that you asked to quit, and actually did quit her royal highness's service at Pesaro, because you conceived a bad opinion of the persons about her royal highness; if that was your motive, what was your motive for making the application afterwards, which you have stated you did make, to be restored to her royal highness's service. Had you then altered your opinion of the persons by whom her royal highness was surrounded? I applied to Schiavini, in a kind of conversation, whether it might be possible to enter again into the service of her royal highness thus, in a playful way.
Lord Falmouth.
—You have stated, in page 26, in answer to this question, "Do you know, whether, at the time you took the water in this way the princess was actually in the bath or not?" "I cannot know." You have just now said, that when you took in the two pails of water that Pergami received into the bathroom, if there had been anybody there besides Pergami you must have seen them; how is it that you reconcile this apparent inconsistency, that, when you could not see whether the princess was in the bath or not, you could sec whether there was any other person in the room besides Fergami?
888
Some discussion arising whether there was a contradiction in the evidence, the question was withdrawn.
Lord De Dunstanville.
—You have said that in the journey from St. Jean d'Acre to Jerusalem you and Carlo or Carlino sometimes slept between the outer and the inner tent. Can you recollect how often you so slept? I remember twice.
889
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Was this conversation you had with Camera at Milan, before you went to Vienna, or subsequent to your return? Before I went to Vienna.
The witness was directed to withdraw.
Gaelano Palurzo
Mr. Denman.
—What religion are you of? A Roman Catholic.
The witness was sworn.
Examined by
Mr. Attorney General,
What countryman are you? A native of Naples.
What is your occupation? Captain of a merchant vessel.
Are you part owner of the vessel which you command? I am.
What share? One fourth.
In the month of April 1810, were you mate of a ship then commanded by a person of the name of Gargiulo? I was.
What was the size of that vessel? Above three hundred tons.
Do you remember the princess of Wales coming on board that ship at Augusta in Sicily? I do.
To what place did the vessel sail from Augusta with the princess on board? Directly to Girgenti: at Girgenti we had not sufficient water for the ship, and we sailed to Tunis.
Do you remember the names of the persons who accompanied her royal highness on that occasion? Almost all.
Mention the names of those whom you recollect? A certain Bartolomeo Pergami, a count Schiavini, a certain William Austin, a certain Camera, Teodoro, Carlino, a cook named Francis.
Any females? Yes.
Who? The countess Oldi, I believe, but I do not remember quite well; the dame d'honneur, two chambermaids, one of whom was called Dumont, the other was called Brunette, and a little child, called Victorine.
890
When you first sailed from Augusta to Tunis, do you know the situation of the cabins appropriated for the princess's and the countess Old's sleeping rooms? The real cabin of the ship was divided into two; on the right hand there was the bed of her royal highness on the left, that of the countess.
Outside those cabins, was there the dining cabin? There was.
Do you know where, at that time, Pergami's cabin was? I do.
Where was it? In the first cabin, on the right hand, immediately after the dining-room.
Interpreter.
The question was proposed to the witness.
The whole size of the ship almost was divided into three parts, not quite equal; the two lateral parts were divided into small cabins; one of those small cabins, that properly which was most near to the poop, and was near to the dining-room, was that appropriated to Pergami.
Did the dining-room extend the whole breadth of the ship?
Mr. Denman objected to the question as leading, and submitted that the witness should be directed to describe the situations of the rooms.
The Attorney General was heard in support of the question.
The Attorney General was informed by their lordships that he might put the question, did the dining-room, or did it not, extend the whole breadth of the ship? or that it might be preferable to ask. How much of the breadth of the ship did the dining-room occupy?
The question as thus modelled was proposed.
The whole breadth.
After you left Tunis, did Pergami continue to sleep in the cabin in which he had slept upon his voyage to that place, or did he sleep in any other part of the vessel?
Mr. Denman objected to this question, as assuming that they did leave Tunis.
Mr. Attorney General.
—After you had been at Tunis did you sail from thence to any other place? We sailed for Malta.
Interpreter.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Was the right hand side of the dining cabin nearer or farther from the princess's room than the left hand
891
892
Mr. Attorney General.
—Do you know where Pergami reposed during the time these tents were erected? I positively cannot know where they slept, because I left them and went to dinner.
Interpreter.
893
Mr. Dentnan
again interposed. Their lordships, he said, knew that, in a court of justice, if, instead of taking the statement from an interpreter, they examined the witness himself, and he answered that he did not know some particular point, but that he guessed or imagined some circumstance relative to which a question might be asked, the counsel appearing in such a case would not do his duty to his client if he did not instantaneously interpose, and prevent the witness from proceeding. In any court whatever, he conceived the same course should be followed, and that the counsel, when a circumstance of that nature occurred, was bound to bid the witness shut his mouth. Here, when a word was interpreted "I imagine" it was absolutely necessary for him to interpose to prevent the whole of the answer being received.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, the interpreter could not be stopped in giving his answer, until it appeared from so much of his interpretation as he had made, that he was then about to state imagination, and that it now appearing what the witness was about to state, was the witness's imagination and not his knowledge, that he could not give that in evidence.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Did you ever see Pergami reposing under any other tent? No.
894
Interpreter!
Mr. Attorney General.
—Do you know by whose directions the tent has been closed on those occasions? Sometimes the count Schiavini, or Camera, but always one of the suite of her royal highness.
895
896
Cross-examined by Mr.
Denman,
Who of the household had those orders you have last named? Pergami, Austin, the count Schiavini, the doctor, Camera, and the two English officers who were in the service of her royal highness.
Had not every one who had been at Jerusalem with her royal highness those orders? Not all; hut only those seven persons whom I have mentioned.
You say you are a Neapolitan by birth, where do you live now when you are at home? I am fixed at Messina, because I live with my father, who is established at Messina.
Interpreter.
What is your father? Gian Battista Paturzo.
What business or trade? First pilot in the royal navy of Naples, with the rank of an officer.
You are not married yourself, arc you? I am not.
Have you always borne the same name? Yes, certainly; I never changed my name.
Was your name well known on board the ship you have been speaking of? Yes, certainly; by all the crew who knew me to be the pilot.
Of how many did the crew consist? The crew consisted of two-and-twenty in the whole.
They were all constantly employed in managing the ship? The crew was employed both in the service of the ship and the service of the princess, as I was employed myself.
Have you seen any of them lately; within this week? I have seen the captain.
What is his name? Vincenzo Gargiulo.
Have you seen no other of the crew during-this week? I have not.
Have you seen any of them within this half year? About two months ago; but during the last six months, as Messina is a thoroughfare, I have seen some of the sailors on board other vessels.
Who was the man whom you have seen within the last two months? Francesco da Campora.
Where did you see him? At Messina.
Was the little gun you spoke of upon the deck? On the deck, we could not carry it in our pocket.
The bench near the mainmast was on the-deck also? The bench was upon deck, because it forms the trap-door.
The crew had access to all parts of the deck at all times?? As soon as the tent was closed, nobody could pass through the place occupied by the tent, but in all the other parts of the ship they might go on deck I mean.
Were you ever at Milan? Now in my way here.
897
You came from Messina to England by Milan? I came from Messina by sea to Naples, from Naples by land to Milan, Paris, Dieppe, from Dieppe I crossed the sea to Brighton; and from Brighton by land to London.
Was that the first time you were at Milan? Yes.
Who first applied to you to come here? For this business, the English vice consul at Messina.
When was it? Towards the 23rd and 24th, or 25th of the last month, July.
Was that the first time you were desired to give evidence upon this subject? Yes.
Did you go to the consul, or did the consul come to 3'ou? The consul sent for me; because he had been charged by the minister at Naples.
What are you to have for coming here? For what I have lost, it will be very little indeed.
How much is it you are to have? For coming here, I must receive, as a compensation for the ship and the trade I have been obliged to give up to come here, eight hundred dollars a month.
Interpreter.
s.
d.
s.
d.,
s.
d.
Mr. Denman.
—Did you pay your own travelling expenses? I have paid nothing, because I came accompanied by a courier. I have been obliged to come, because the minister applied to the consul, and the consul told me, that if I would not go, I should be made to go, by means of the government; and as the business was to say the truth, I was not willing to come to such extremities.
898
899
Mr. Brougham
stated, that not being aware of the attendance of this witness, he trusted their lordships would not feel him precluded from putting further questions to him as well as to the former witness at a future time, in case of receiving information which might render it material to do so.
900
Re-examined by
Mr. Attorney-General.
Have you left your ship at Messina? Yes, certainly.
What is the size of your ship? Two hundred and sixty-nine tons.
Is 800 dollars per month more than an adequate compensation for your coming here, in consequence of your ship and yourself being unemployed during the time? I want to know whether it is meant to apply to a compensation for myself, or for the ship.
Is that more than an adequate compensation for the ship being unemployed during the time you are here? This 800 dollars per month is not so much for the mere hiring of the ship, for I and the other men of the same kind do not reckon so much upon the hiring of the ship merely as a carrier of goods, but from what we can derive from our own trading, because we load the ship, together with some other merchants, at our own account, and we may lose a great deal, but we may gain a great deal.
Taking those circumstances into consideration, is the sum you have stipulated for, more than an adequate compensation in your judgment? I cannot tell, if my speculation would succeed, I could gain a great deal more; but if my speculation should fail, I could lose more.
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl Grey.
—Where is your ship now? I have left her at Messina.
901
Marquis of Lansdown.
—At the time at which you state that you were desired by the captain to go away on some pretence or another, where were you sent away, to another part of the deck, or below? According to what he commanded me to do.
902
Earl of Rosebery.
—Had your ship much motion at that time? During summer there is only light air, and then it is followed by calms; and there is hardly any tide to make any motion; and when they were sitting there, it was calm; the ship did not move.
[The witness drew a plan of the ship.]
Interpreter.
[The plan was handed in to their lordships.]
(
See next page.
Witness.
Then when the tent was so placed, was there any possibility of getting into the dining-room except through the tent? There was another place which I have marked a little higher up under the archway, because that led into the middle of the cabins.
In the position you have described her royal highness and Pergami upon the bench under which was the pump, were there any other persons capable of seeing their position? Yes, why not; because it was a time that other people were taking the fresh air in the cool of the evening, other people might see if they chose to look.
903
Lord Auckland.
—Can you recollect in what part of the ship during this voyage, Teodore Majoochi slept? Yes.
Lord Ellenborough.
—DidTheodoreMajoochi sleep habitually in the hold, or between decks? To assert that would be telling an untruth, which I will not tell.
904
[The witness drew a plan of the original situation of the apartments in the ship, which was handed to their lordships.]
Besides this, which I have now given to their lordships, the only alteration made was,
905
Was Pergami's bed taken out every night on the voyage from Jaffa? As to this I cannot tell what happened below in the apartment of the princess, because there I had nothing to do, and I do not know what happened in that place, except that when we put into a harbour, where the princess landed, either with the whole or a part of her suite, during the day I, with the crew, went to clean the apartments, and thus I was enabled to see that the bed of the princess was there, because I went to have the room cleaned.
Did other persons sleep where Majoochi usually slept? Yes, that is where Majoochi had his bed.
Did Camera sleep in the same place? No, Camera slept in the cabin.
How many tents were there in the journey to Jerusalem? I do not know; many, several; as many as were sufficient for so many as we were.
Lord Chancellor.
—Do you know where the female attendants slept in the voyage from Jaffa? The women had the small cabin which I have marked down, the other was assigned to the countess Oldi, but I never went below, and saw whether they actually slept there.
Lord Belhaven.
—Did you ever see the lantern, or light, put out from under the tent, after the princess had retired from the tent, to any person to take it away? The light, yes; sometimes this light was given from under the tent, and sometimes it was carried down below, by the communication below.
Mr. Denman
expressed his unwillingness to interpose by way of objection to a question from their lordships, but submitted, that the question was not in the form in which questions were usually put by counsel.
906
Earl of Darnley.
—Do you know whether during the same voyage, the princess took her clothes off during the night, or whether she did not? We must distinguish betwixt knowing and seeing; what I know and what I have seen; I have seen sometimes in the morning the princess open a little of the tent, and I saw her having a while gown on, a dressing gown, or some gown or other, and she opened the tent just to take a morsel of air in the morning before the sun rose. Mr. Cohen was asked whether that was the whole of the answer, and he stated that it was.
Lord Ellenborough.
—Have you ever seen Pergami look out of the tent about the same time? No; because towards the sea where the princess opened, the princess opened just as little as to put out her upper parts, her neck or shoulders.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—From your knowledge of the situation of the dining-room relative to the tent, could a person in that dining-room hear what passed in the tent when the tent was shut up? Yes, a person might hear well, provided they were words pronounced with their natural force.
[The witness, and also the counsel were directed to withdraw.]
The Lord Chancellor
said, that before the House separated, he wished to state, that he had not failed to apply to the highest sources of information, on the point, how far prosecutions might be supported against witnesses examined in the course of this proceeding. He under stood, most unquestionably, that such
907
Ordered, That the further consideration and second reading of the said bill be deferred till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, August 24, 1820
The order of the day being read for the Further consideration and second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty, counsel were called in.
Then
Vincenzo Gargiulo
Mr. Williams
(one of her majesty's counsel) said:—My lords; before this witness is examined, I certainly do not wish to revive discussion upon any subject upon which your lordships may be supposed to have decided, but I wish to understand distinctly from your lordships, whether or not a question is decided which I am desirous to submit—a point which I believe has not been under your lordships consideration, still less in any degree argued before your lordships.
908
v.
The Lord Chancellor.
—I do not apprehend there can be any doubt in point of law with respect to what you now state. You may take it as conceded, that a man cannot be sworn in any particular form, if he does not believe in the being of a God or a future state—if he does not believe in the being of a God or a future
909
Mr. Williams.
—I distinctly admit, that any sort of belief of that description cannot be inquired into—I allow that is no question to be made—it is decided that the question cannot be put. Mr. Justice Buller refused to permit a person to be asked whether he believed in the Gospels, when he stated that he believed in the being of a God, and that he conceived he was responsible to that God. What I was about to submit to your lordships is this, that we have a right to inquire from this particular witness, supposing him to be a Roman Catholic, whether or not, according to the form of swearing in his own particular country, and according to the form of law which there obtains, there are not certain ceremonies observed which he deems to be material towards the obligation of an oath, and the omission of which ceremonies in his particular case, would be as fatal as swearing a Gentoo on the Gospels, or swearing a Mahometan upon the Gospels, whereas the evidence of each of those witnesses would be admissible only upon the ground that their faith is pledged by the administration of the particular form of oath which each of them deems most solemn and most binding, and upon this I found the inquiry we were about to institute of this witness, and what I am submitting to your lordships upon that subject is, that it is competent for us to inquire upon this preliminary question, I mean upon the
voir dire,
"most
most
voir dire.
Mr. Brougham.
—Perhapsyour lordships
910
v.
most,"
v.
v.
911
voir dire,
"most
Lord Chancellor.
—The Counsel will be so good as to inform the House, what is the question they wish to put to the witness.
Mr. Williams.,
—I am desirous to learn from him, first, whether he has ever been examined as a witness in his own country?
Lord Chancellor.
—That does not signify.
Mr. Williams.
—Als, whether he has seen a witness examined, and then whether there are certain ceremonies observed at the time of administering the oath?
Lord Chancellor.
—If it is not inconvenient to you, confine yourself at present to the proposal of one question.
Mr. Williams.
—It shortly comes to this, whether there are not certain ceremonies observed in the country to which he belongs, which he deems to be binding upon his conscience.
Lord Chancellor.
—My lords; I state it as the opinion I have received from the Judges, and the opinion I entertain myself, that the witness may be asked whether he considers the oath he has now taken to be an oath binding upon his conscience, and that the question now proposed to be put to the witness ought not to be put.
Mr. Brougham.
—We do not put that question: we do not deny that it may to a certain degree be binding.
Lord Erskine.
—My lords; I beg to express my concurrence in the opinion which has been delivered by the noble and learned lord. I am of opinion that it is not competent to the learned counsel to show whether there are other forms used in the country to which the witness
912
Mr. Brougham.
—I only wish it to be understood what is the point we have raised. Our objection is not that he is not bound by it, but that if there be another way which would bind him more, that should be preferred.
Earl Grey
proposed to have it put to the witness, whether any other form of oath would be more binding on his conscience.
Lord Redesdale
said, that if the mode in which the oath had been administered to the witness was wrong, then all the
913
Earl Grey
proposed to refer it to the Judges whether the witness might not be asked, if there was any other mode of swearing which he thought more binding on his conscience?
Lord Chancellor.
—I understand your lordships wish this question to be proposed to the Judges.—"If a witness produced in the Courts below, without objecting to it, takes the oath according to the usual form, can he be asked whether he considers the oath he has taken as binding upon his conscience; and can he be also asked, whether there are other modes of swearing more binding on his conscience than the oath he has taken?" I remember a case before Mr. Justice Gould—a person of some peculiar way of thinking in Scotland was called as a witness, I apprehend either at Newcastle or Northumberland; the man objected to be sworn in the usual manner, and gave a very singular reason. Mr. Justice Gould asked him what was the reason he objected to take an oath; he said he had taken an oath that he would take no oath—the learned judge was of opinion that as he had once taken an oath he must take an oath again; but on the man afterwards saying that the manner in which he pledged his conscience was by holding up his hand, he was pledged to his evidence in that manner.
The Earl of Liverpool.
—My lords, I do not wish to give any opinion upon the point of law, particularly as it is about to be referred to the learned Judges. I would only observe, that the cases which have been referred to appear to have been all cases where the witness had made the objection himself. It does not appear, from any thing which has been stated, to have been usual for the court to interpose and put questions to the witness.
The question was handed to the Lord Chief Justice, and the learned Judges withdrew with it. During the absence of the Judges
The Earl of Darnley
observed, that their lordships had, a day or two before, made an order to exclude any persons from being present at the proceedings, who might afterwards be required to give evidence. He thought it highly desirable that some similar rule should be adopted, to prevent communication out of doors between those who had been examined
914
The Earl of Liverpool
replied, that it was impossible to prevent persons in the situation of the witnesses from getting together. Such persons naturally associated with one another; all that the House could do in the case was, to direct the parties to take care that the agents on each side should give strong injunctions to the witnesses, in the circumstances described by the noble lord, not to hold any conversation together.
The Earl of Winchelsea
thought it advisable, for the purpose of enabling the House to understand the relative situations of the apartments and doors on board the ship, that a correct sketch should be taken, and laid before the House. Such a step would tend very much to shorten the proceedings.
After sometime the learned Judges returned.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott.
—My lords, the judges have considered the questions proposed to them by your lordships, and they have taken the liberty to detain your lordships while they sent for books, in order that they might consult the authorities referred to in the course of the argument before your lordships. My lords, the judges are of opinion,
915
The Witness was examined by the
Solicitor-General
Were you master of the polacre called the Industry? Yes.
Are you also the owner of that vessel? Yes, I am also the owner; but she is now no longer called The Industry, but is called Abramo, because I have turned her into a Brigantine.
Was that vessel engaged for the purpose of conveying the princess of Wales and her suite on the voyage from Augusta to Tunis, and afterwards to Greece? This polacre was hired at Messina, where she was fitted out, and at Augusta her royal highness embarked for Tunis and Greece.
Before her royal highness embarked on board the vessel at Augusta, had the arrangement of the cabins been made by you? Yes, the distribution of the cabins was made at Messina.
Before the princess embarked on board the vessel for the voyage at Augusta, did she, attended by Pergami, come on board the vessel? She came at Augusta.
916
Did she view the arrangement of the cabins which had been made by you? She did; nay, she ordered the door in the dining-room to be closed.
Before that door was closed, how many doors led from the body of the vessel into the dining room? Two, one to the right and another to the left.
Which of the two doors was it that she directed to be closed? The door that was on the left.
Do you mean on the left, as you look towards the prow of the vessel? On the left when from the poop you look to the prow.
In what way was that door closed, was it merely locked or was it closed up, so as not to be opened during the voyage? It was nailed up.
Was there any cabin contiguous to the dining room on that side of the vessel where the door was nailed up? There was the line of the cabins that ran towards the prow, which formed the line on the left hand of the ship.
Can you tell after the suite embarked on board the vessel, who it was that occupied that cabin nearest the door which had been so closed? The two maids, Mile. Demont and Mlle. Brunette.
Can you tell us who occupied the cabin on the opposite side next to the door that was left open? Pergami.
After the door had been closed, in the manner you have described, was there any mode of going into the dining-room from the body of the vessel, except through that door that was near the cabin of Pergami? There was the ladder that came from the deck into the dining-room, and there was the door which led near to Pergami's room.
Did the ladder which came from the deck go directly down into the dining-room, or was there a door at the foot of it shutting the steps from the dining-room? The ladder came directly into the dining-room, but at the top there was a hatchway, which, when it was desired to be shut up or closed, might be closed to stop the communication.
Then when that hatchway was closed, was there any other communication except through the door by the cabin of Pergami? There was no other.
Beyond the dining-room, towards the stern of the vessel, how many cabins were there? There was another room divided into two apartments; on the right hand was the bed of the princess, on the left the bed of the dame d'honneur.
What kind of bed was it that the princess occupied, was it a single bed, or was it a doable bed? Two sofas joined together, that would make together six palms and a half; it was about the breadth of six feet and a half.
Did Pergami continue to occupy the cabin so assigned to him for the voyage, or did he afterwards change his sleeping apartment? A few nights he slept in his own cabin, then
917
Where was the sofa on which Pergami slept in the dining-room, after he had thus changed, situate? On the right hand.
Was it so situated, that a person lying in the bed occupied by the princess would be seen by a person lying in the bed occupied by Pergami, or was it not? If the door of the room of the princess had been open they would have seen each other.
Do you know the length of an English foot? I do.
About how many English feet, not speaking with perfect accuracy, were they from each other? Ten or twelve feet.
Did any person sleep in the dining-room, or within and beyond the dining-room to wards the stern, except Pergami, the princess, and the countess of Oldi? No, Pergami slept in the dining-room; her royal highness slept in the room is the stern on the right hand, and the dame d'honneur slept in the stern in the room on the left hand.
Did this occupation of beds continue during a great part of the voyage.
Mr. Williams objected to the question as leading.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—How long, to the best of your recollection, did that occupation of the beds continue? Till June; the princess came on board towards the end of March, and it continued till June; then at the departure from Constantinople, the air became warmer, and the princess preferred to sleep on deck under a tent; but after her departure from Jaffa, where seven horses with two asses were brought on board, she always slept on board on the deck under the tent.
Mr. Solccitor General.
—Have the goodness to repeat in Italian what the answer was.
Interpreter.
Mr. Cohen.
—My only objection was, that "unito" would mean joined.
918
Mr. Solicitor General.
—How long did Pergami continue to sleep in this manner? Until they landed at the Porto d'Anza in the pope's dominions, thirty miles beyond Terracina.
Interpreter.
919
Mr. Williams
objected to the question as leading.
The Solicitor General
submitted this was not a leading question, but expressed his willingness to alter it.
920
Mr. Williams
objected to the question, stating that the witness was not to state his opinions, but the facts, from which their lordships were to form their own opinion.
921
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Do you know what that was intended to represent? He wanted to play some apish tricks to make her royal highness laugh, as well as all others who saw him.
922
923
Mr. Williams
objected to these questions on the original examination.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Where is your vessel at present? My ship at present is on her way from Puglia to Naples; my interest did not allow me to come here, for my ship was loaded on my account, and I had given orders that she should be unloaded at Reggio.
Cross-examined by Mr.
Williams.
When did you leave the ship of which you have been last speaking to come here? I have left oft' sailing, and I have given myself to trade, so that my ship was loaded on my own account; I had an interest in half the cargo of my ship; that very ship which carried her royal highness is now commanded by Giacomo Pettotuzzi.
If you are rightly understood, you are now the owner or part owner of the vessel, and not the captain? I am the owner of the ship and the cargo I have left when I came here, one half of that cargo was my own.
You are understood to have said, that a certain person whom you have named is captain of that vessel now? Giacomo Pettotuzzi is the captain whom I had appointed.
From what place was it that you came to England, as you did not come from your ship? I was at Naples.
Is that the place to which you belong; is that your town? Naples is my native country, but I dwell in the Piana di Sorento.
Who was it that applied to you to come to this country? The minister sent a messenger to find me, because my commercial affairs are at Naples.
Did you see the minister? I did.
Name him? Sir William A'Court, the English ambassador at Naples.
Have you made any bargain with any person as to the sum you are to have? Yes, I have.
Have you made this agreement with the minister? During the five days that I have been at Naples, endeavouring not to come, I have told all my circumstances to the minister; but the minister being convinced of my situation, has appointed to me a thousand dollars a month; but I have already lost four thousand, because the cargo that I have sent
924
Do you understand English? No.
How often have you been in England before, if ever? Eighteen months before; I was once before in England with my ship.
Were you ever before that in England? No.
Only once then? Once before this; this is the second time.
Have you received any money in advance, or is this sum you speak of in expectancy? I have received one month.
In advance? I received it at Milan.
I understand you to say that you no longer go with the vessel, but that you have a captain on board that vessel; how is it that the captain could not go with the vessel without you? The captain navigates the ship without me, but he receives the order from me, and as soon as I am absent he cannot receive such an order, and acts according to his pleasure.
If you are understood right, you left the vessel actually performing a voyage? I left my ship which had sailed from Manfredonia to go to Reggio, where she was going to discharge her cargo; after having arrived here I have learned that my captain has sold the cargo at less per bushel than was the price, at five carlini less per bushel than was the price.
Interpreter.
Do you mean to say, that if you did not come to England it would have made any difference as to the sale of that cargo? Yes, that for one reason; a second reason, if I had not set out for England I would have continued my commercial affairs, for I have left my country just at the time of the harvest; and I advanced money to Manfredonia to buy corn, and by this time, if I had not come here, I would have gained as much as to compensate mc for the loss of 8,000 dollars which I made in the year 1818.
Explain, if you can, how your coming to England makes any difference as to the profit or loss of that voyage? Yes; I had ordered the captain to sell the cargo at not less than twenty-four carlini per bushel; the captain having arrived at Reggio, and hearing that I had gone away, has taken upon himself to sell at twenty-one carlini, and since my arrival here I have heard that the price of corn was raised to twenty-six carlini, and now I am told it has reached nearly to thirty.
Do you mean to state that your being here affects the price of corn in Italy? [A murmur through the House.]
Mr. Williams
was not aware that this question was irregular.
925
The Lord Chancellor.
—There is no objection to the learned counsel's question.
Mr. Williams
observed, that it was usual for silence to be observed in those courts with which he was familiar—in those courts where the judges presided; their lordships would therefore excuse him if he did not quite understand the interruption.
The Marquis of Downshire
was of opinion, that every indulgence and facility should be extended to the learned gentlemen who were engaged in this investigation. It was on this occasion the duty of the House to act with the utmost impartiality. Every part of the proceedings now pending before their lordships should be marked with the greatest possible attention; and it was of essential importance to the interests of justice that the evidence on both sides should be given with the utmost clearness.
The Earl of Liverpool
certainly thought, that, when any question struck noble lords to be objectionable, the objection should be openly made, instead of manifesting any expression of feeling. A contrary course made that sort of impression on those who were not accustomed to their lordships' proceedings which created embarrassment. He was sure that no intention existed, on the part of any noble lord, to produce such an effect. But he conceived that their lordships ought to have a proper command over themselves, and that an entire silence should be maintained, except where a just reason for interruption could be shown; and, in that case, the reason should be stated. He made this observation, without alluding to any particular examination or cross-examination, but applied it to the whole of these proceedings.
926
Mr. Cohen
said, that he agreed in this interpretation.
Marchese di Spineto
—That the subject was of such a nature, that it cannot be talked about; that is the meaning in which Mr. Cohen and I agree.
Mr. Williams.
—Did any body tell you not to speak to Paturzo about what Paturzo said here yesterday? No, I have told Paturzo myself by my own act, without being prompted by any body, not to talk about it.
927
928
Re-examined by
Mr. Solicitor-General.
You have stated the sum which you have received, and are to receive, as a compensation for your time and trouble and loss in coming here; according to the best judgment you can form, is that more or less than a fair compensation for such loss? According to the success of my trade this year it is not sufficient, what I have for what I lose.
It was proposed as an arrangement, that when the re-examination of the counsel had closed, each of their lordships should put all the questions he had to propose, before any other lord put any question, and that he should not afterwards put any question unless under special circumstances, and under the leave of the House.
It was assented to, that their lordships should each in their turn put the questions they proposed, as far as they were prepared to do so, but that they should not be obliged to ask permission afterwards to put other questions; it being understood however, that their lordships should not put further questions, unless any thing arose out of the further examination to occasion it.
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl Grey.
—What were you paid by the princess of Wales for the time your ship was
929
Lord Ellenborough.
—Was Pergami's bed ever prepared [for him in the dining-cabin from the time the ship left Jaffa, till the time she arrived at Capo d' Anza? Never; once I remember that it was bad weather, and they were obliged to come down below, and they went into the cabins.
Earl of Rosebery.
—You have stated, that in blowing weather the light was put down the ladder; do you know who took the light upon that occasion? Theodore or Carlino; Theodore who has also been here, or Carlino.
Lord Auckland.
—You have stated, that you received 750 dollars for the use of your ship, was that sum meant to cover all the expenses of navigation? I have got a great deal to say upon this particular point.
930
Marquis of Lansdown.
—Having stated that you were disappointed in the profits you expected, from having her royal highness the princess of Wales on board your ship, did you, in consequence of that disappointment, make any application for compensation, either to her royal highness or any person acting for her? To her royal highness I did not make any application, because she dismissed me, and granted me a certificate of good service; and this was on account of Pergami, because they wished that I should have carried them to Venice at the departure from Rhodes; the princess commanded, for the princess always commanded what Pergami commanded, that they wished to go to Venice. In sailing, after leaving the island of Candia, the wind was continually from the North; remaining in that state we were going to have no more water, the water was going to be at an end, for I had forty-four people and nine horses; I told her, that as the water was near at an end, it was necessary that we should land; they did not wish to go to Morea, they did not wish to return to Candia, therefore they were obliged to go to Sicily; arriving in Sicily, they then passed across the Strait of Sicily and went to Naples, and from Naples to Capo d'Anza; Pergmai, on landing, because he had promised me 6,000 dollars, as a present by the means of the consul at Tunis, told me there was no present for me, because I would not take them to Venice; then when I came here last year, I gave a memorial to my ambassador count de Ludolph, and I stated that as I believed myself to have served the British government, because I had had the honour of having the English flag, I expected the present which I had not received; and on account of this memorial which I gave to count de Ludolph the English government have known that I was Vincenzo Gargiulo of Naples.
931
Earl of Oxford.
—In consequence of the memorial presented to your ambassador, have you received any compensation? I have received nothing; nay, my minister and the colonel to whom I have mentioned it, told me that they knew nothing, and that I might go to London, and then might see upon this particular.
What colonel do you mean? Colonel Brown.
Earl of Donoughmore.
—You have said that at times when the princess and Pergami were together upon the deck you have thought it
932
Mr. Williams
begged to suggest to their lordships whether this question was not in an objectionable form.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Give in that certificate to which you have referred as written by her royal highness.
[The Witness delivered in the same.]
Lord Chancellor.
—From whom did you receive that paper? From the princess of Wales at the Villa d'Este, when I went to her from Genoa.
The Certificate was read as follows:
"Son AltesseRoyal, La Princesse de Gallcs Assur par ce Document ecrit de sa propre main que Elle a été contente des Service du Capitain Vincenzo Garguilo qui commendais la Pollaca nomé l'Industrie pendant son voyage.
"Caroline Princess de Galles."
"A La Villa d'Este,
"Ce 17 d'Octobre 1816."
Earl of Lauderdale.
—You have stated that you saw the princess and Pergami under the tent, and that after you saw them in that situation Schiavini received orders to let down the tent; did that happen when the Princess was leaning on the bed on which Pergami was lying, and when you ordered your mate to withdraw? Yes, but this circumstance has happened more than once; it did not happen that once only.
Mr. Brougham
said, he had an humble application to make to their lordships, in
933
The Earl of Liverpool
wished in such a case that the House should be chiefly governed by the opinion of the learned lord on the woolsack, and that of the learned gentlemen at the bar; but he would suggest, whether, if this course was acceded to, which was breaking in upon established rules, counsel ought not, in the first instance, to state not only the particular question, but the object of the examination.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that it became a very important question for their lordships consideration, whether the cross-examination was to be permitted to be taken piece-meal.
Mr. Brougham
admitted that the application was out of the strict and ordinary course of proceeding, but pledged himself, that if it was granted he should not ask that witness any other question until he had opened his case; that he should be content with putting three or four questions to that witness, if permitted, at the present time.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that, with that pledge, their lordships would not refuse the application that had been made; that the counsel might suggest his question, and their lordships would propose it.
Teodoro Majoochi
934
935
The Solicitor-General
stated, that apprehending it was the intention of Mr. Brougham to obtain answers from the witness with a view to contradicting him, he submitted it was necessary the name of the particular party and the place should be mentioned in the question.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he did not admit that this was the rule, but submitted, that as the witness might not have known the name of the person to whom he said it, if the witness swore that he did not say so to any person, he should be at liberty hereafter to
936
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that it had been ruled in the Court of King's-bench, that counsel ought in the first instance to name the person referred to, for that a person might sincerely state, that he never had had such conversation; but that if put in mind of having been with a particular individual at a particular time, he might immediately recollect the conversation, and his former answer might be no slur upon that testimony.
Interpreter.
937
Examined by the
Lords.
Lord Ellenborough.
—When you spoke of her royal highness as a Buona Donna, and a prudent woman, did you allude to her royal highness's moral conduct as a woman, or to her behaviour towards you as a mistress? When there was discourse respecting the princess of Wales, I always said she was Buona Donna; for if I had said she was Cattiva Donna, they would have fixed a quarrel upon me.
The witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that in putting the questions which he had proposed to the witness, he had not done so under the slightest suspicion that any person had offered him a place under government, but with another view, which might be perceived.
Francesco Birollo
938
939
940
Ordered, That the further consideration and second reading of the said Bill be adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, August 25, 1820.
The Lord Chancellor took his seat, and prayers were read about a quarter before 10 o'clock.
Lord Ellenborough
wished to draw their lordships' attention to certain observations which had appeared in a paper of yesterday (The Times), in which an imputation was cast on the character of a noble lord now absent, his wish being to state what perhaps that noble lord himself would already have stated had he had the opportunity of being present; and which would show that the imputation was unfounded, and at the same time that there was no inconsistency in the evidence given by the witness Majoochi. Their lordships would recollect that Majoochi stated that he went first from Milan to Vienna in 1817, in the service of the marquis Odescalchi; that he remained some time at Vienna, and went back to Milan; and that he was in the service of the marquis six or seven months before he entered into the service of the British embassy. If the dates were compared, it would be found that this brought him down to the month of March, 1818. Now he (lord E.) knew that lord Stewart landed in England in July, 1817, and he knew that he had business of his own which detained him in, England and Ireland till February, 1818. Up to that period he had seen
941
The Order of the day for the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty, being read, and counsel being called in,
Mr. Brougham
said:—Will your lordships permit me to state, that a very unfounded impression has gone abroad through the public prints respecting the re-examination of Theodore Majoochi, yesterday? It has been most incorrectly imputed to me, that I had re-examined that witness on the existence of a letter which I never saw, the fact being that I applied to your lordships for that permission, on depositions of most respectable persons.
The Attorney General
said, that his learned friend had with reason complained of the imputations thrown upon him. He knew not whether their lordships had read the daily papers; if they had, they would see with what justice he (the Attorney-general) had to complain of the imputa-
942
The Earl of Lauderdale
did not know what had been stated in the papers, but he knew there were other publications of a very improper nature. In one of them, entitled "a Peep at the Peers," it was among other things of which he had reason to complain, stated, that he and his family received 36,000
l.
The Lord Chancellor
adverted to the necessity of preventing a repetition of certain irregularities which had occurred during the last two days. As to the complaints against the conduct of the daily journals, it was difficult to say what course ought to be pursued. It was better to leave the subject for future consideration, when it might be specifically considered. As to the publication entitled "a Peep at the Peers" alluded to by his noble friend, he must say, that though he wished his noble friend had the 36,000
l.
Francesco Birollo
943
Dr. Lushingtan
objected to the question as leading, that it was too general, and ought to be made more pointed, that it was a summing up of the whole.
Mr. Parke
was heard in support of the question.
The Lord Chancellor
stated that there was not the least doubt that the question was proper.
The question was proposed to the witness.
They were arm in arm.
Have you seen that more than once? Yes, many times.
Did you ever see them together in the kitchen at the Villa d'Este? I have.
What did they do when they were together in the kitchen? Sometimes they came there, ordered something to be prepared, a napkin was spread, and something was laid to eat.
Were they alone at that time, or was any other person with them? Sometimes they were alone; sometimes there was with them the dame d'honneur.
Was that the countess Oldi? No Oldi, but the sister of Pergami.
When they were in the kitchen eating, in what way did they eat? She cut some pieces, stuck a fork into it, and ate herself, and then took another piece, and said, "Here it is, you eat also."
Did you ever see the princess and Pergami on the lake together? I have.
Was any person with them, or were they by themselves? Sometimes they were alone; for he rowed, and she was with him in a small canoe.
Do you recollect a person of the name of Mahomet? I do.
Do you know of any exhibitions made by Mahomet in the presence of the princess? I do.
What sort of dress had Mahomet on, was it European or Turkish? A Turkish dress.
Describe what Mahomet did in the pre-
944
Did he do any thing with his trowsers in the course of those gesticulations? He made a kind of roll to represent something, I do not know how to call it decently.
Did you observe the princess on that occasion? She was looking, and laughed.
What did he do with this roll when he had made it? He took it in his hand and made gesticulations; I cannot say what he meant to represent.
What do you mean by "non posso dire?" I cannot say what he had in his head to represent by that, what he meant to represent. Did that take place before the princess more than once? Once I have seen it in the kitchen, another time he was in the court and she was at a window.
Were you with the princess at Turin? I was. Were you at an inn there? We were. Do you recollect the princess going to court any day? I do.
Do you recollect whether on that morning you were in Pergami's bed-room? I do.
At what time of the morning was it? About nine, or half-past nine.
Had the princess got up at that time? I do not know.
For what purpose did you go into Pergami's bed room? I went to carry a ruff to the dame d'honneur, to put round her neck, and a pair of gloves.
Did the door of the chamber of the dame d'honneur open into that of Pergami? We entered into the room of Pergami, and then on the right there was the door of the room of the dame d'honneur.
Did you observe the state of Pergami's bed, whether it appeared to have been slept in-or not? At the moment I was coming out from the room of the dame d'honneur, I saw Pergami coming out from the room of the princess, open the curtains of his bed, I saw that it was made, and he scolded me.
Was Pergami dressed when he came out of the princess's room, or half dressed: what clothes had he on? No, he had a morning gown of silk striped, he had his drawers, his stockings, and slippers.
Do you recollect, when you were at Barona, any balls being given by the princess? I do.
What description of persons were at those balls? People from the neighbourhood, no gentlemen, people of the low and middle rank.
Cross-examined by Mr.
Brougham.
When did you come to this country? When they brought me here.
When did they bring you here? About nine or ten days ago.
Where were you before that? I was with my master.
945
Who was he? The marquis Incisa.
Where did he live? In Piedmont.
How long had you been with him? I am still with him; I have been with him nearly three years.
When were you examined first, in this business? About two or three and twenty months ago.
At Milan? Yes, at Milan.
Who examined you there? An advocate called Vimercati.
Who was by, besides Vimercati? There were three or four gentlemen writing there.
Have you ever seen them since? I have seen one.
When? Before I came here.
Did you go to Vimercati at Milan, or did any body take you there? They sent for me, saying that they wanted to speak to me, and I went.
Was it at that time that you agreed to come over here? Yes.
Have you ever seen them since? No, because I went into Piedmont: but I have been twice at the advocate Vimercati's; the first time, as I have said, there were three, and Vimercati four; and the second time there was only the advocate Vimercati, and the gentleman whom I knew.
What is the name of this gentleman whom you knew? Colonel Brown.
Was it colonel Brown that sent for you from Piedmont? Yes.
How do you know colonel Brown? Because I saw him at the advocate Vimercati's, and the servant of colonel Brown lives near me.
Do you mean near you at Milan or at Piedmont? At Milan, next door at Milan.
What wages had you with the marquis Incisa? One livre of Milan per day; eating, drinking, every thing comfortable, and plenty of perquisites, which are a good many, and indeed there are many perquisites.
Interpreter.
What wages had you with the princess? Every three months I got ten napoleons, that is to say, ten twenty francs.
Had you your keep there? Yes.
And every thing comfortable? Nothing else but eating and drinking, all the rest I was to supply myself.
Does the marquis give you clothes? Not through obligation or agreement, but as presents.
There were no presents in the princess's household, were there? I never received any presents except when we returned from the voyage; for instance, I received a present when he was made a baron, he gave me two dollars.
Were not you cook with the princess? Yes.
Had you no perquisites as cook, did you make nothing of being cook there besides
946
Did the baron Pergami pay you? Yes.
Did not the baron overlook the accounts of the house? Yes.
Was not he very exact? I do not know that, the accounts were so many.
On board the ship, was it your business to be on the deck or below cooking? On deck on the foremast.
Do you mean that the kitchen was upon the deck? Yes.
Where did the princess's maids sleep on board the ship? I do not know that.
Where did Mr. Hieronimus sleep? That I know, because sometimes I went into his cabin to have a glass, his room was in a corner.
Where did Mr. Hownam sleep? I know he was in one of the cabins; there were so many cabins, right and left, I do not know precisely which, but I know he was in one of them.
Where did captain Flynn sleep? I saw. them go into their rooms, one on one side and one on the other, but I do not know precisely the rooms, I was always on deck.
What have you had for coming here? Nothing at all but the trouble.
Do you expect nothing? I hope to go soon home to find my master.
Is nobody to give you your livre a day during the time you are absent from your master? There is my daughter, I do not know whether he pays her still, I have received no letters, and I do not know whether she still receives money.
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl of Liverpool.
—When you said in a former answer Pergami's bed appeared to be made, did you mean that it appeared as if it had not been slept in? I did.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—Do you remember to have seen Mahomet perform in the same motions which you have stated that yon have seen him perform twice in the presence of her royal highness, before other members of the family when her royal highness was not present? Yes; he played the same tricks before us many times.
Duke of Hamilton.
—How did you know it to be the princess's room out of which you saw Pergami come? Because when I was ordered to carry the breakfast, I went with the people to carry it, and I saw her royal highness come out from the same room all combed and dressed.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—When Pergami came out of the princess's room and scolded you, can you state what Pergami said? "You scoundrel, what are you doing here? Who has opened the door?" I said I had found it open, and he said, "Go away."
947
Lord Falmouth.
—You have stated that Pergami looked over your accounts; had you ever any quarrel about those accounts with Pergami? Yes, I have had some disputes.
Earl Grosvenor.
—At what time in the morning were the beds usually made for the family at Turin? I did not go to make the beds.
Earl of Darlington.
—Do you recollect the king or queen coming to her royal highness the princess to the inn at Turin? I do.
Earl Grey.
—Were you in the service of general Pino when Theodore Majoochi left it? No.
Earl of Morton.
—Is it usual in Italy to make up the bed in a different form for the day and for the night? There may be a manner, but I know in my house the bed is made in the morning; but I never made a bed
Lord Auckland.
—You have stated that you knew the princess's bed-chamber from having seen her royal highness leave it dressed, and with her hair dressed, does that remark apply to the morning that her royal highness went to court, or to any other day? On that same day she went to court.
948
Lord Ellenborough.
—At what hour did her royal highness come to see you when you were confined, in consequence of that hurt? The hour I do not know, I know she came to me, and I was half asleep, and Pergami told me, "Mind, it is the princess who has come to see you."
Earl of Belmore.
—Was it by night or by day that the princess came into your chamber? By day.
Earl of Carnarvon.
—Did the princess come into your room alone, or was Pergami with her when she came? They came together.
Samuel George Pechell,
949
Mr. Brougham.
—Is it in your own handwriting? It is; it is from the log of the ship.
The witness referred to his memorandum, and said,
On the 7th of December.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Did you in Sicily receive her royal highness on board your ship? At Messina.
950
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl of Oxford.
— It appears that you refused to allow the princess to sit at your table then, because she refused not to admit Pergami; supposing a lad who waited at my table or any other person's table, should have the good fortune to be made a midshipman in his majesty's service, and afterwards become of rank, either as a lieutenant or a captain, would you after wards refuse to sit down with that person?
951
The question being objected to, the same was waived.
Thomas Briggs,
You are a captain in his majesty's navy? I am.
Did you in the year 1815 command a ship of war of his majesty called the Leviathan? I did.
Were you at Genoa in the course of that Year? I was.
In what part of it? In November 1815.
Was your ship ordered to Genoa for the purpose of receiving on board her royal highness and her suite, and to convey her to Sicily? She was.
Did her royal highness and her suite embark on board of the Leviathan at Genoa? She did.
Can you state by whom she wa9 accompanied when she came to embark? By her suite.
Do you remember of whom that suite consisted? I do.
Be good enough to mention them? Her royal highness, Pergami, Mr. Hownam, I think count Schiavini, and two or three other foreigners—Montechelli I remember the name of, but I do not remember the names of the servants that accompanied the suite.
Was there Madame Oldi? There was Madame Oldi, and there were two servant maids.
Do you remember her royal highness coming down to embark? I do.
Do you remember who came with her in the carriage? The countess Oldi, Pergami, a small child, and I think there was another person, but I am not quite confident; I remember these three perfectly.
Did her royal highness dine at your table? Always, while she was on board.
Did Pergami dine with her? Always.
What disposition had you made of the cabins for the accommodation of her royal highness previous to her royal highness embarking on board your ship? I had made such arrangement as I thought would accommodate her royal highness and the whole of her suite.
With respect to the apartments which you had appropriated for her royal highness and her suite to sleep in, where did you assign a cabin for her royal highness? The after apartments of the Leviathan were divided into two cabins, which I intended for her royal highness; the one as the sleeping room, and the other as a sort of drawing-room; before that, there were two other small cabins in a line, which I intended for her royal high-ness's suite, the countess of Oldi, and the two maids before her; and I meant to put the men any where, some below in the wardroom, and some in my cabin, as was most conveni-
952
Was that disposition altered by her royal highneis? It was.
Look at that plan? [A plan was shown to the witness.]
Mr. Denman stated that he should have objected to that with another witness, but did not object in the present instance but rather wished it should be done.
Mr. Attorney General withdrew the plan.
Mr. Attorney General.
—You say that you appointed a cabin for Madame Oldi and the female servants; was that immediately adjoining the cabin intended for her royal highness? It was.
953
Cross-examined by Mr.
Denman.
In the course of the conversations you had both with captain Pechell and her royal highness, did you not perceive there had been some little dispute between them, as to the former voyage? I had seen captain Pechell before I had waited on her royal highness: he came to me as the senior officer, to report himself, and he then told me the line of conduct he meant to adopt with regard to her royal highness.
Did you not discover, from the conversation of both, that there had been some difference about the stowing of her royal highness's luggage, or something of that kind? On her royal highness's part I did: she repeatedly complained of captain Pechell not having accommodated her so well as I had done.
Did it fall to your knowledge to know where the countess of Oldi slept on board the Leviathan? It did.
It was in a room adjoining to that of her royal highness, was not it? It was.
And there was a door opening immediately from the one into the other? There was.
Countess Oldi's room and the princess's di-
954
And both opened into the dining-room? They both opened into the dining-room.
Each directly by several doors? Each directly by two doors.
Was not the cabin you had provided for the maids occupied by them? It was.
And that also opened into the dining-room? And that also opened into the dining-room; all the cabins opened into the dining-room.
Re-examined by
Mr. Attorney General.
The Clorinde was a frigate, and the Leviathan was a ship of the line? Yes; one a-line-of-battle ship and the other a frigate.
So that there was more accommodation on board of the Leviathan than could be given on board the Clorinde? Certainly.
Examined by the
Lords.
Lord Ellenborough.
—Was the sleeping place you reserved for yourself in the dining-room closed, or had it merely your cot? It was closed at night and opened in the day.
Lord Hood.
—Did you observe any improper conduct take place on hoard your ship I between Pergami and the princess of Wales? No.
Earl Grey.
—Did you not frequently receive, during the night, reports from officers who were on duty in the ship? I did.
Earl of Rosebery.
—After the change of rooms you have spoken of, in going to that occupied by Pergami, was it absolutely necessary to pass through one of her royal highness's apartments? No.
955
Lord Duncan.
—Were not those officers who came to you at night for orders, obliged to pass through the dining-room before they could get to your cabin? They must come into the dining-room, but not pass through it, because the moment they were over the threshold of the door, they were in my cabin.
Marquis of Buckingham.
—Did the screen which constituted your sleeping place include the door at which the sentry is placed? It included the door in part, but not altogether.
Lord Colville.
—Was the door a regular door on hinges? Yes.
Earl of Liverpool.
—Was there a light gener-
956
Lord Colville
—Did any person sleep in the dining-room during the time her royal highness was on board the Leviathan? Yes.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—What answer did her majesty give you when you stated the message with which captain Pechell charged you? What I have before mentioned; alter making the remark about his being as good
957
The Attorney-General objected to this question.
Mr. Denman
was heard in support of the question, and submitted, that it might be material to show that there was a subject of disagreement between her royal highness and captain Pechell, which might be a motive for her conduct.
958
Mr. Denman
having had an opportunity of conferring with his learned colleagues, declined giving their lordships further trouble upon this point.
Pietro Cucki
Earl of Liverpool,
—What do you mean by agent? I am acting instead of the owner.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Do you know an inn at Trieste called the Black Eagle? I do.
959
Mr. Williams objected to the question.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Where did you yourself remain in the morning, before you went into the dining-room? In my own room, which was at the end of the dining-room.
960
961
Williams.
962
963
The Solicitor General
objected to the form of the question.
964
Mr. Williams.
—Then it is not true that the door opened into the dining-room?
The Solicitor General
objected to this, as an inference from the evidence, and not in its form a question.
Mr. Williams
stated, that he was desirous of showing that that statement of the witness to-day, as to the situation of the rooms, varied from the deposition he had formerly made; the form of the question put by the Solicitor General having assumed the position of the rooms to be different from that which the witness had stated.
The Solicitor General
stated, in answer, that the form of the question put by him was occasioned by a mistake in his reading the paper before him.
Mr. Williams.
—Then is it to be taken as a fact, that the door of Pergami did not open into the dining-room, but into the bed-room of his sister, the countess of Oldi? Yes.
965
Mr. Solicitor General.
Mr. Williams
stated, that he had not asked any question as to the witness having received any money, and submitted that the Tact being stated by the witness not in direct answer to the question, did not entitle the Solicitor General to re-examine upon it.
The question was proposed.
At Boulogne.
How long have you been absent altogether from Trieste? I cannot say, I do not know.
State as nearly as you can recollect? I have left Trieste since the 28th of June.
Do you lose any thing by not being at Trieste? I undergo much loss.
According to the best of your judgment, is that loss more or less than the eight napoleons and eleven francs you have mentioned? I derive more profit in my house.
Explain what you mean by a law suit?
Mr. Williams
stated that he had abandoned all idea of his intending to refer to the present proceeding, and understood the witness to refer to proceedings in respect of the inn.
966
Examined by the
Lords.
Marquis of Buckingham.
—Do you know whether during the princess's residence at the inn in question the countess Oldi's bed appeared to have been slept in every night? Nobody can sleep in there, because the bed was too small.
A Peer.
—You have stated that there were two beds in the princess's room at Trieste, were there two beds in that room before the princess arrived? There were, but they were not so near one another as they were placed after the arrival of the princess.
Earl of Liverpool.
—You have stated that the door was all covered with canvas, and yet you have stated that there was a key-hole, through which you could look; explain how that key-hole was placed, whether the canvas was cut as well as the door, so as to leave an opening for the key.
Mr. Williams
submitted to their lordships, whether this question was in a correct form.
Earl of Liverpool.
—You have said that the canvas covered the whole door, did the canvas
967
[The witness produced a key.]
Interpreter.
Lord Kingston.
—Was there any door under the canvas? Yes.
Earl Grey.
—In what manner was the painted canvas placed on the door, did it hang loose over the door or was it fixed to it? It was fixed with nails.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—State whether you made use of the secret door which you have been describing whenever you wished to pass and repass from your room in the course of the day, or was it only on some particular occasion? When I was obliged to serve something in stated hours, I always looked through the key-hole, in order that I might be ready to serve.
968
Earl Grosvenor.
—Was the rest of the room under the same sort of canvas as the door? No; only my door that led into the dining-room.
Earl of Darlington.
—What do you suppose to have been the thickness of the door? Not so much as an inch; not the thickness of my thumb.
The following question and answer were read over to the witness:
"Are yon still agent, or by whatever name you go, of the Grand Hotel at Trieste? I am after taking the inn which is called the Black Eagle; but if I do not gain the law suit, I shall continue to be in the Grand Hotel."
Lord Chancellor.
—When you stated that, what did you mean? Because I have given a memorial to get this inn, by means of some protection; and I do not know whether I shall succeed, or whether some other innkeeper will have it.
The following questions and answers were read over to the witness:
"You have received no money? Yes; I did not wish to have any, but he has given mc some.
"You did not wish for any money? I did not; he told me, take this, and gave me eight golden Napoleons and eleven francs.
"You are understood to have said that you did not wish for any money? I did not wish for any money."
Earl of Roseberry.
—You have declared, that in coming here to give evidence upon this cause you suffer loss; why do you say you did not wish for any money? Because I had money with me; because I had by me nearly 100 sequins, which I can show.
Lord Ellenborough,
—When you passed from your own room into the dining-room, by the door you call secret, did you push that door from you, or draw it towards you? When I open it I open it towards the dining-room; when I shut it, I draw it towards my room.
Was the secret door painted? Painted.
Was the colour the same? Yes.
Was it painted at the same time? Yes
Earl of Limerick.
—Did the secret door reach
969
[The witness was directed to withdraw.]
George William Goltermann,
Then
Meidge Barbara Kress
Are you the wife of Peter Kress? I am. Where do you live? At Carlsruhe. Are you a Protestant, a Lutheran? I am a Lutheran.
How long have you been married? Three years.
Before your marriage,, did you live at the post inn, at Carlsruhe? Yes, I did.
How long did you live there? One year and three quarters.
Did you leave that inn in consequence of your marriage? Yes, that was the reason.
Do you remember the princess of Wales coming to that inn? Yes, I do.
Do you remember a person coming with her royal highness called Pergami? Yes, I do.
About how long ago was it that the princess came to the inn at Carlsruhe? It might perhaps be about three years.
Do you remember in what room in the house the princess of Wales slept? Yes, I do.
What was the room assigned to the princess of Wales; do you recollect the number? Yes, it was No. 10.
What room adjoined No. 10? It was No. 11.
How was No. 11 used; was it a sleeping-room or an eating-room? It was a dining-room.
What room adjoined No. 11 the dining-room? No 12.
What was No. 12; was it a bed-room or an eating-room? A bed-room.
Who had that bed-room? Pergami.
Was there a door opening from No. 10 to No. 11? There was
970
Was there also a door from No. 11 into No. 12? Yes, a double one; there were two doors which both could be shut.
What sort of a bed was placed in No. 12? A broad bed.
Was that bed in No. 12 before the princess of Wales arrived, or was it placed there after her arrival, and in consequence of that arrival? There was another there before, but I had been ordered to put a broad bed; I had been obliged to put this broad bed in before the princess of Wales arrived.
Had the courier of the princess of Wales arrived before that bed was placed? The courier had arrived, and then I placed this broad bed to which I allude.
Was it your duty to attend to the bedrooms; were you the chambermaid of the inn? Yes, I was the maid of the rooms, chambermaid.
Do you recollect how long the princess remained at this inn? I cannot say exactly as to the time, but according to my recollection it was about a week, say eight days.
Do you remember on any evening during the princess's stay at that inn, having occasion to go to No. 12, to carry some water there? Yes, I do.
About what time of the evening was it, according to your recollection? I cannot remember; but to the best of my memory it was between seven and eight o'clock; the minutes I cannot tell exactly.
Do you recollect where the princess and Pergami had dined on that day? No, I cannot remember that.
Upon your carrying the water into No. 12, did you see any persons in that room? Yes, I did.
Who were they? Pergami and the princess. Where was Pergami when you went into the room? Pergami was in bed.
Where was the princess? She had sat on the bed.
Do you mean she was sitting on the bed? Yes, on the bed.
Could you see whether Pergami had his clothes on or off? I could not see that; but I had seen as much in the moment I entered as that the arm was white
Where did you see Pergami's arm? When I entered I had seen that Pergami had his arm round the neck of the princess, and when I entered the princess let the arm fall. Was that arm of Pergami, which you saw round the princess white, as you have described it? Yes, as much as I had seen.
Can you describe, whether that white was his shirt, or any other dress that he had on? No, I cannot tell that; in the moment I had not observed that.
What did the princess do, on your coming into the room? The princess had jumped up, and was alarmed at the moment.
Did she jump up on your coming into the room and discovering them in that situation? Yes, she had then jumped up.
971
The Attorney-general asked the interpreter, whether the words meant that she had jumped up before the witness came into the room, or that she then jumped up.
Interpreter.
The interpreter was desired to repeat the German words used by the witness.
The interpreter stated them to be, "Sie ist in die hÖhe."
By a Lord to the Interpreter.
What is the English of that taken all together? Hohe is Height, which will make, she is in the height, which otherwise means, in the language of this person, that she got up, or jumped up.
That she had got up? Yes, that she had jumped up, or got up.
Mr. Attorney General.
—When you came into the room, was the princess sitting upon the bed? Yes.
Mr. Attorney General.
—What did the princess do upon your coming into the room? The princess was frightened.
Interpreter.
By a Lord to the Interpreter.
Interpreter.
Interpreter.
Interpreter.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Did the princess get up, or jump up in your presence? Yes, when I had entered the princess had got up, and I had retired.
The Attorney General
stated, that if the examination was now to be broken off, he trusted that their lordships would not suffer any other witness to be called until that examination was resumed.
972
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, August, 26, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty, and counsel being called in, Charles Kersten was sworn, as interpreter on behalf of her majesty.
Then
Meidge Barbara Kress
You have stated yesterday, that when you entered the room, No. 12, on one evening, you saw the princess sitting on Pergami's bed, what happened after you saw the princess sitting on Pergami's bed? Am I asked the same evening still.
What did you see, when you observed the princess was sitting on Pergami's bed? I have seen the princess sit on the bed, and afterwards I withdrew.
Before you withdrew, what did the princess do; did the princess continue siting, or what else occurred? I saw that the princess jumped up; I withdrew, I was frightened.
You are understood to say, that you then withdrew? Yes.
Did you make up the bed in No. 12, Pergami's room? Yes.
Did you at any time, when you were making up the bed, discover any thing upon the bed? On the bed do you mean?
On or in the bed? In the bed I have found a cloak.
Was that a cloak appearing to belong to at female? Probably; because behind it had a kind of hood.
What did you with that cloak? I took it out and unfolded it.
At what time of the day was it you found this cloak in the bed? It was in the morning when I made the bed.
Describe a little more particularly the cloak—what it was made of? It was of silk, the colour grey.
Did you afterwards see any one wearing that cloak? A servant took it out of my hand.
Did you see any person wearing that cloak afterwards? [
Through the interpretation of Mr. Kersten.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Was it a cloak of a similar description to that you had seen upon the bed, that you saw the princess wearing? [
Through the interpretation of Mr. Gollermann.
973
Mr. Kersten.
—The word she uses is a word that cannot be expressed in English, unless by asking her what she means by it; she says, when once I made the bed I saw that the sheets were wüste. Now she says "Wüste," she may mean by "Wüste" in disorder, that is generally understood by this word; it is an adjective. "Wüste," in its proper meaning, is the English word "Waste." "Eine Wüste" means a desert.
Mr. Goltermann.
—She is rather at a loss to explain it.
Mr. Kersten.
—She says, it had stains.
Mr. Goltermann.
—She was at first at a loss to express it, but afterwards she said it had stains.
Through the interpretation of Mr. Goltermann.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he had but few questions at present to put on cross-examination, but that he should reserve the bulk of his cross-examination to a future time, after inquiry had been made.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he wished to put some questions, in order to lead to those inquiries.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he apprehended it was to follow from being refused a list of the witnesses that, after the witnesses were examined at first, they were
974
Mr. Denman
begged to call their lordships attention to what had passed since the commencement of this inquiry, in regard to another witness.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he was ready to admit cross-examining by piecemeal, in general cases, would not be regular, but begged to submit to their lordships the peculiar nature of their present position; that they had at first afforded to them no knowledge of the present situations or residences of any of the witnesses that were to be called against her majesty; that they had, in the second place, no intimation given to them of either the time with a convenient certainty, or the place with a convenient particularity, at which the alleged acts were said to have taken place, and that this peculiarity of their situation might well be deemed justly to authorise this other peculiarity, that instead of being called upon to cross-examine at once, and as it were,
unico contextu,
975
Mr. Brougham
stated, that with respect to the circumstantial evidence, he should go no further than his lordship had suggested; namely, as to the certainty of time and place, leaving all the circumstances to a future examination; and that he proposed to go into the description of the person, her residence, and circumstances of that nature, leaving further questions on that point to the result of future inquiry; that if any of his questions appeared to go beyond that which their lordships were pleased to permit, he trusted he should not be considered as intending to trench upon their lordships rule.
The counsel was informed that he might proceed.
Cross-examined by Mr.
Brougham.
How long were you chambermaid at the inn? [
Through the interpretation of Mr. Kersten.
Were you married at that time? No, I was not.
You were not married till you left the inn? I married after having left the inn.
What were you before you were chambermaid at the inn? I served likewise before.
In what place were you before that? I was at a village called Beyertam.
What service were you in before you were in the inn as chambermaid? I have been with the Geises just before; I was just before at my father's, before I went to the inn, for a quarter of a year.
Were you in any other family as a servant before that? Yes.
What family? At Beyertam, at several families.
Name one of those families? Marwey.
Who or what is Marwey? He is a landlord of an inn.
Were you chambermaid in his house? Yes.
How long? Haifa year.
Where did Marwey live? He lives at Beyertam; the name of the place is Beyertam.
Where were you before you were in his family? At a servant's of the grand duke of Baden.
How long? Six years.
How old are you now? Past twenty-five.
Were you a servant anywhere before that time? No, I came to that place just on leaving the school, on leaving my father's house; on leaving school I was going to say, that I was in another place for half-a-year.
What was that place? At Carlsruhe.
What was the name of the family? Schuabel.
What is Schuabel? A landlord.
Were you chambermaid in his inn? Cellar maid.
What is the office of a cellar maid in an inn? I have cleaned the rooms in the inn.
976
Mr. Goltermann.
—I have cleaned the room where the master and mistress were, I have cleaned the public room in the inn.
Through the interpretation of' Mr. Kersten.
Mr. Goltermann.
—Besides the public room of the inn.
Mr. Goltermann.
—When I was with him.
Through Mr. Kersten.
977
Mr. Goltermann.
—The same quarter of the year.
Through Mr. Kersten.
Mr. Goltermann.
—Of which each makes five florins, she says.
Through Mr. Kersten.
Mr. Goltermann.
—The witness adds, "then I said I would let it come to that point." Did he give you any thing? [
Through Mr.
978
Kersten.
The Earl of Lauderdale
objected to the line of cross-examination taken by the learned counsel. The reason that had been given to their lordships, to induce them to allow a cross-examination, at present, was, that no previous list of witnesses had been afforded to her majesty, who had not, therefore, any means of knowing the situations which the witnesses had filled, or their places of residence. Their lordships, in consequence, permitted a cross-examination, on the ground that those points should be explained; but when they did so, he supposed they meant that this permission should strictly apply to that species of information to which he had alluded. But the learned counsel had gone beyond that. He was asking questions that went to impeach the credit of the wituess—a course which was so destructive of all justice, that he did not think their lordships intended to tolerate it. If those questions went to assail the credit of the witness (and he would maintain that much of what their lordships had heard had directly that effect), they could not be vindicated, as being asked with a view to get at the place of residence and the situation of the individual, but which must be presumed to have a very different object. If this course were allowed, let their lordships observe the example they would set to those persons who might cross-examine in future. He contended that the veracity or consistency of the witness was not a matter that should be then gone into, because it gave an advantage to the accusing party. It afforded the prosecutor, in summing up, an advantage that he would not otherwise have. He ought not to be allowed to know that which would enable him to shape his summing up differently from what he otherwise would do Was it fair or right that the person accused should now conduct the cross-examination with a view to get out facts to impeach the credit of the witness hereafter, not on account of any information that he had received, but in consequence of facts elicited by a cross-examination, that
979
The Lord Chancellor
thought, most unquestionably, that this cross-examination had gone far beyond the limits to which it ought to have been confined. Although their lordships would not interfere to prevent the learned counsel from obtaining a knowledge of who the witness was, what was her situation in life, where she now lived, where she previously resided, and what occupation she formerly followed; yet, if he proceeded to extract information from her by which her credibility might be impeached hereafter, it would be the most irregular and the most dangerous thing in the world to suffer him to go on As far as the cross-examination went in the first instance to obtain a knowledge of the witness's situation in life, &c, their lordships would not stop it; but that end being effected, they could not allow the cross-examination to proceed farther. In what situation did the House stand? They must stop this antecedent cross-examination—because, if they did not, if they let it proceed, they could not, with any degree of regularity, ask a single question at a future time. If the cross-examination was not concluded, and the re-examination began, then they had a right to ask questions. But the present course would deprive them of that opportunity. How then would they be situated, if the witness were called up to answer the questions of counsel on a future day, their lordships being precluded from doing so? The proceeding was bad for both parties; it was peculiarly unfavourable to the illustrious person accused, because, as had been said by the noble earl, it put it in the power of the counsel for the prosecution to sum up differently from what he otherwise would have done. It went farther—it gave him an opportunity of knowing what witnesses to call, in order to bolster up the case, if he were inclined to do so. He thought that, so far as questions were put for the purpose of learning who and what the witness was, they were allowable; but it appeared to him that the learned counsel had pushed the cross-examination a great deal too far.
980
Lord Sidmouth
thought that the necessity of any cross-examination to these points, upon the ground that no list of witnesses had been furnished, was a plea which could not be maintained. If a list of witnesses had been granted, it would have contained only a statement of the name, occupation, and place of residence of each witness. The three first questions, put by the attorney-general, furnished that information, and he saw no necessity, therefore, for any cross-examination upon those points.
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that it was entirely in the option of the learned counsel to enter immediately upon the full cross-examination.
Mr. Brougham
said, he perfectly understood that he was at liberty to enter into the full cross-examination now; but he had felt it necessary to defer it, for reasons which he had already statad to their lordships. At the same time their lordships would perhaps allow him to state what the question was which he meant to put. He wished to ask, with a view of identifying the person of the witness, and therein strictly confining himself to the limit laid down by their lordships, whether her brother had promised her nothing?
Mr. Brougham
begged to know, whether he might ask the witness, where she was now.
The counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Duke of Hamilton
said, he could not help viewing this question in a very different light from the noble viscount who had just spoken. If a list of the witnesses had been granted two months ago, her majesty's counsel would then have had such opportunities of inquiring not only into the residence but the character of the witnesses, as might have rendered a delay of the cross-examination unecessary. He would make no observations upon the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned lord. The course might be contrary to the practice of the courts below; but it appeared to him that, by the rule prescribed, the counsel would be precluded from going into those inquiries which were most essential to their client's defence.
981
Lord Sidmouth
repeated, that the plea of necessity for this cross-examination, on the ground that no list of witnesses had been furnished, could not be maintained. The names, occupations, and places of residence were all the information that would have been given in such a list, and this information had been furnished by the answers to the three first questions of the attorney-general.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, the whole question was, whether the witnesses were to be sifted twice upon points connected with character. If there were to be two cross-examinations, it was fit that the first should be confined to name, residence, and occupation, and such facts as came out in the direct examination.
The Lord Chancellor
could not agree with what had fallen from the noble viscount (Sidmouth), that the questions put by the attorney-general bad quite the same effect as if a list of witnesses had been allowed. If a list of witnesses had been granted six weeks ago, such inquiries might have been made as to render all examination as to residence and occupation unnecessary. He knew no way of proceeding so as to do justice on both sides, but to impress upon the counsel as respectfully as he was able, that this House was endeavouring to do justice. It was difficult to limit specifically the questions which might be put by counsel, but he trusted they would be such as to come
bonâ fide
bonâ fide
982
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, he agreed entirely with the learned lord, as to the line of examination which he had just marked out. By pursuing this course her majesty would be placed precisely in the same situation as if the trial had been for high treason, and a list of witnesses had been furnished. He did not complain of her majesty's counsel for endeavouring to get the completest information they could for their client's advantage, but it was the duty of the House to stop them when they proceeded irregularly. He was of opinion that the House ought to have stopped them long ago. He must say their lordships had fallen into great error in the course of these proceedings, and had it not been for the deference which he felt to higher authorities, he should have interposed long ago. He thought it extremely improper, in the examination of that man Majoochi.
Earl Grey
rose to order. He submitted to their lordships, whether the proceedings ought to be interrupted by such a discussion as the noble lord was now entering into?
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, he would pursue that point no further; but he had other and still stronger reasons to show that the House was in error. He maintained that he was strictly in order, and he should be happy to hear his noble friend convince him that he was not in order. The learned lord on the woolsack had said, that the House had got intoerror, yet nobody had called the learned lord to order. It was admitted that their lordships had fallen into irregularities, in which they did not mean to persevere for the future. The facility of this House might possibly have occasioned great irregularities and great injustice out of doors. He agreed entirely in what had fallen from the noble viscount (Sidmouth). In ordinary cases the cross-examination followed the examination in chief; and why should it not in this? It was alleged, that a list of witnesses had not been granted, but the noble viscount had shown that all the information which would have been given in such a list was supplied by the examination in chief The maxim of
"nunc pro tunc,"
Lord Erskine
said, that his noble friend had expressed his acquiescence in the argument of the noble viscount, and also
983
Earl Grey
observed, that after the general approbation with which their lordships had received the observations which had fallen from the learned lord on the woolsack, it remained only to ascertain their lordships' pleasure with respect to the last question put by the counsel at the bar. Cries of "Go on! go on!"
Mr. Brougham
professed himself not to understand the decision of their lordships.
Mr. Brougham
begged to propose a question upon the footing of the permission extending to the names and residences of the witnesses, namely—What is your place of residence?
Mr. Brougham.
—Where do you now live? At Carlsruhe.
The Attorney General.
—Allow me, my lords, to make a single observation on the course now about to be adopted. I understood your lordships to have distinctly stated, at the outset of the proceeding, in case my learned friends, who are counsel for her majesty, shall offer to your lordships sufficient grounds for having this witness, or any other in the same circumstances, only cross-examined in part, that they should be at liberty so to do, but not to exceed some reasonable
984
Lord Erskine.
—Why does not the interpreter give the witness's answer?
The Lord Chancellor.
—Because the House objects to the question.
Earl of Liverpool.
—Does the attorney general object to the question?
The Attorney General.
—I; do object to it, my lord. This is perhaps the most important, question that has yet occurred. Unless my learned friends now cross-examine the witness, how are we to proceed? Am I to lay the whole of the evidence in support of the bill before your lordships, and that before there is any cross-examination on the other side? Why, my lords, such a proceeding was never heard of in any other court of justice. Is the cross-examination to proceed in this manner, by piecemeal? If it be, I shall be shut out from offering any explanation as to circumstances disclosed by the witness that may be even necessary; and it will be impossible for your lordships to place those who are to support the bill in the situation in which they ought to be placed. Why, my lords, until the whole of the cross-examination and the re-examination be closed, there can be no summing up by counsel. They now cross-examine in part—again they cross-examine in another part, and when or where is this to end? Let them either now proceed in the cross-examination of the witness, or defer it till the whole of the evidence in chief be closed; but they should not have the election they are requiring. They are placed in no difficulties on the other side, but what your lordships have agreed to relieve them from. Your lordships rules are founded in justice, but while
985
Mr. Brougham.
—I shall confine myself to the simple question before your lordships, and shall not presume to dispute the rule you have laid down. The only question I have now to contend for is, shall or shall not my question be put and answered? The question before your lordships, and the only question which must be first disposed of according to the practice of all other courts is, whether I am at liberty to ask this witness where she now lives? The Attorney General objects to this, and his ground of objection is, that I ought now to put not only this, but all the other questions which I have to put. His argument is not directed against this question, but that I do not put all the questions in my power to ask. But I will not argue this before your lordships. I am not called upon to do so. Your lordships have put me to my election, and I have made it, and within the narrow limits chalked out to me I shall proceed to the cross-examination of the witnesses. I do not argue against the rule as laid down by your lordships, but I am quite sure your lordships could not think of laying down any rule that would bind me one way now, and another way in a few minutes. You cannot all of a sudden change your rules: I cannot for a moment imagine you would do any thing so monstrous. My question now is, where does this witness now live in England? In a case of high treason we could have all this in the list of witnesses; we could have had "Meidge Barbara Kress, spinster, or married woman, formerly of Carlsruhe, now of such a place in such a parish in Middlesex"—if your lordships object to that, I waive the question.
The Lord Chancellor
felt great difficulty on this point, not on account of the importance of the present question, but as to the consequences likely to result from permitting such a mode of procedure. With reference to a former opinion, if he
986
Lord Grenville,
before proceeding farther in this case of such extreme importance, thought it absolutely necessary that their lordships should take into their serious consideration the question that had now arisen. On this most important and anxious inquiry they should look with caution to the question of the cross-examination of witnesses; and if any rule had been suddenly or hastily laid down, they should revise and amend it as soon as possible. The difficulties arising out of their present situation were innumerable. When they had examined all the
987
Lord Redesdale
was anxious that any rule which their lordships might adopt on this occasion should not become a precedent, and a part of the future law and usage of parliament. He conceived that it should not be considered as a precedent in cases of impeachment or in bills
988
989
Lord Erskine.
—My lords; when I said a few words to your lordships some minutes ago, I anxiously wished to have been silent; I was afraid, and still feel the same painful impression, that in imputing the present difficulties to the rejection of my motion for communicating the times and places which ought to have been charged in the preamble of the bill, together with a list of the witnesses by which any criminal acts were intended to be established, I should seem to be setting up my own opinion against a judgment of the House; but in consequence of the proposed motion of my noble friend under the gallery, I feel that I am called upon to trouble your lordships once again. My noble and learned friend on the cross-bench, has said, that we ought strictly to observe the rules of parliament, applicable alike to impeachments and bills of this description; but let me ask whether in either of those modes of proceeding there ever was such a case as the present? Was any person ever before accused of a course of criminal conduct for six years together, in places, too, beyond the seas, without knowing from specific allegations, according to the rules of all courts, and the most obvious principles of justice, at what times she was to stand upon her defence? Was any person ever so charged with such numerous offences without any specification of place, though the accused had, during the whole period, been in constant motion by land and sea, from one extremity of Europe to the other?—Did this or any thing approaching it, ever happen before?—There was the less justification for this total departure from all the analogies of trial, since I did not ask to bind the House by the statute of king William, but only asked the names of the witnesses then in their power, and whom they then intended to call, without prejudice to the examination of others that might be legally admissible, from circumstances in the defence; and now,
990
991
The Earl of Liverpool.
—I understand the wish of the noble baron opposite to be, to take this day to consider some measure by which many difficulties may be avoided in our future proceedings. To this I do not object; but I wish before the motion is made, to say a few words in reply to the noble lord who spoke last, as well as to the noble lord (Grenville) under him. I cannot, I confess, consider that the difficulties attending this proceeding are so great, or so insurmountable, as they have been represented to be. I do not see any difficulties which are not likely to occur in cases of impeachment, in bills of pains and penalties, and in all other judicial proceedings which may come under the consideration of your lordships. The motion alluded to, respecting the list of witnesses, would, if granted in this case, have been inconsistent with the ends of justice. In the lower courts the accuser is one party, the defendant is another: the course of proceeding is definite. The instances in which the court may interfere are clearly marked out. But what is the case here? After the accuser and defendant have stated their case, there exists in your lordships an unlimited power to examine not only in chief, as the counsel on one side do, but also to cross-examine every witness. In short, you possess every power of inquiry known to our courts of justice. But this is not all: for it is competent for the members of this House to call back a witness whom they may think material. And even on any point of the case where the counsel on either side have omitted to examine the witnesses upon, it is in the power of this House to call the witness again and examine him or her to any of the facts. He was quite at a loss, in any view of the question, to see how any of the difficulties of this case would have been removed, had a list of the witnesses, which it was intended to call in support of the bill, been previously granted. The point immediately before their lordships, was the first on which any difficulty had occurred. In every former case, the counsel against the bill had been in the practice of cross-examining the witness fully; he had then been re-examined by the counsel for the bill, and, lastly, examined by their lordships. Such appeared to be the regular course of proceeding; but he by no means intended to say, that, according to what had already
992
Lord Grenville
entirely agreed with the noble earl, that the difficulty arose from the peculiar nature of the case itself. On this important subject, of the period at which the cross-examination of the witnesses should take place, whether partially or wholly after the examination in chief, that had hitherto proceeded upon an understanding, which, however, he now felt it necessary should be converted into a fixed and definite rule, from which their lordships should not hereafter be called upon to depart. He would not, at that time, state what practice he thought it best to adopt. What appeared to him to be the most desirable course was, that their lordships should turn their minds to the serious consideration of the subject,
993
The Marquis of Lansdown
was also of opinion, that an opportunity ought to be afforded to their lordships fully to consider this, which was a point of the last importance; and that, when once the rule should have been laid down, that in the whole course of the proceedings it should not be departed from. He thought this the more especially necessary with reference to the right of his majesty's attorney-general to sum up the whole of the case, or only parts, as he might think fit, if their lordships should determine, which they had not yet determined, that the cross-examination might take place at various periods. The fullest consideration and attention was due from their lordships to so important a part of the proceedings connected with the great question before them. The discussion in which their lord-
994
Lord Grenville
perfectly concurred with his noble friend in the object which he had in view. It was certainly expedient that the counsel should be required to state if they proposed any, and if any, what departure from the ordinary practice of cross-examination immediately following the direct examination. Their lordships would, of course, hear both sides; and he was sure they would do so with an earnest desire and determination to adopt that course which they should conscientiously conclude to be the most consonant to the interests of justice.
Lord Ellenborough,
before the question of adjournment was put, requested that their lordships might have an opportunity of hearing the counsel upon that point, one on each side.
The Earl of Liverpool
agreed with the noble lord, provided the counsel were prepared to argue the question.
Lord Ellenborough
apprehended it was the duty of the counsel on both sides to be prepared to argue at once any point that might occur.
995
Mr. Brougham.
—I trust your lordships will give me leave to say a few words with respect to the great embarrassment in which I feel myself on this subject. I am asked to state, and to support that statement by reasons, if I propose any departure from the usual course, which, in my opinion, and with reference to the present proceeding, may be desirable, with a view to promote the ends of public justice. My lords, I know, that in ordinary cases I am bound, by my professional duty, to be ready at all times to address the Court in which I may have the honour to plead. I know, that in ordinary cases I am never allowed to complain of being taken unawares, and of thereby being prevented from making whatever suggestions may appear to me to he favourable to the cause of my client. I know, that the ends of justice can be attained on any controverted point only by allowing each party to be heard by their counsel, and by then leaving the Court to decide on the merits of the case. But, my lords, although, in ordinary proceedings, in proceedings where there are rules and precedents either known or analogous, I should not be allowed to complain if I were taken unawares by a requisition to state my objections to the usual course pursued, yet I most humbly, and with the greatest confidence in your lordships' justice, suggest that, with reference to the interests of my client (those interests which I am bound especially to attend to), it is very hard (to say no more) to be called on to point out at once what, in my opinion, ought to be the general course of proceeding, in an inquiry which has no precedent, which has no parallel, which is utterly new, and respecting which, therefore, I can have no guide. My lords, I may be allowed to add, that I am only one of six counsel in this case. I am the leader undoubtedly, and on my shoulders must fall the responsibility consequent on such a station;—a responsibility from which I have never for a moment shrunk. But, my lords, it is indeed a fearful responsibility which I am called upon to assume, when I am required to state at once the result of all our six opinions on a point as delicate and diffi-
996
The Earl of Liverpool.
—I am extremely sorry to interrupt the learned counsel, but all the House wish to know is, whether he wishes for time to argue this, or is ready to argue it now. My own opinion is, that it is impossible to refuse the learned counsel the time for that if he wishes it; but I think we should be misspending our time by hearing half the argument to-day and half on Monday.
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords, I was only running over the difficulties that struck my mind, without the intention of arguing them, but only praying your lordships to observe how manifest and how important all those questions are—all of which I must dispose of before I could be heard to make the suggestion. I only therefore wish to say, that I desire delay for the purpose of consulting my colleagues.
Lord Chancellor.
—It is not too much for the counsel to ask for delay, when the House itself has asked for forty-eight hours to consider.
Adjourned to Monday.
997
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, August 28, 1820.
The House being called over,
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that before the motion for counsel being called in was acceded to, he rose to express his satisfaction at the decision their lordships had come to on Saturday. Had the other course been adopted—had that House agreed to any resolution by which it was left open to the suggestions of counsel to tell their lordships what it would be proper and expedient in them to pursue, he should have pronounced it as wholly unprecedented in the usage and practice of parliament. To leave it to counsel to suggest to that House what they, the counsel, thought should be the conduct of that House, would be not only an unprecedented proceeding, but an actual surrender of their most essential privileges. Did their lordships mean to say, that five members of the House of Commons, acting with others, as counsel at that bar of the Lords, were to prescribe the form and manner of their proceedings? Let their lordships but consider the meaning of the rule which was laid down as to the examination of the evidence, and they would see that the whole of the difficulty arose from a misunderstanding of that rule. That rule was founded on the practice of the courts of law, where, subsequently to the examination in chief, the cross-examination of the witness was immediately proceeded upon; but if, in the subsequent course of the case, any facts were discovered which were material to the ends of justice, and to the developement of which the re-production of the witnesses was necessary, it was then their lordships would, of course, take into their consideration such an application. A rule so plain it was difficult to misunderstand; and the fact was, that up to Saturday last there was no deviation from it. Let, then, the course be steadily persevered in; let the cross-examination of the evidence be continued conformably to the usage of the courts of law; and let that House, if subsequently the ends of justice require the re-production of the witness, be ready to attend, and to consider the grounds of such an application.
Lord Manners
trusted their lordships would feel most sensibly the danger of any deviation from the accustomed rules of evidence and examination, which were so strictly observed in courts of justice,
998
999
Lord Erskine
observed, that such alterations of opinion as were manifested, seemed to him to prove that noble lords forgot the truth, that "man who is born of a woman had but a short time to live." Last Saturday they agreed to adjourn, for the purpose of considering the limitation or the extent of a rule, and to hear the arguments of counsel as to that rule; to-day his noble friends congratulated the House on the adjournment of Saturday, although, in the same breath, they say, that there was no difficulty whatever in the case. Surely then, if there was no difficulty, the adjournment was unnecessary; and if at one o'clock on Saturday there was no difficulty, it did not require forty-eight hours to deliberate where no deliberation was required. Why did not his noble friends state then that full conviction they now entertained? Why then decide on the necessity of time for the deliberation the nature of a proposition on which there was no doubt? For his part, when he declared that he felt disappointed in the rejection of his motion for the list of witnesses, and that every hour and every measure since taken, induced him more firmly to continue in that opinion, he was still not so arrogantly disposed as to set up his judgment against the collective judgment of that House. But, though then disappointed, he would even now state what, under present circumstances, ought to be the conduct of their lordships. It was impossible in his mind, to follow the course laid down by his noble and learned friend.
1000
1001
1002
The Earl of Liverpool
contended, that the privilege applied for by her majesty's counsel was not only contrary to the practice of their lordships own House, but to the universal usage of all inferior courts of law. In the discussions which had taken place previous to the introduction of the bill, he had declared, that although he felt it to be the duty of the authors of the measure to refuse a list of the witnesses to be examined in support of it, he was yet perfectly ready to grant any reasonable interval of time to enable her majesty to bring over her own witnesses and make her defence. That was a concession which he both then and now considered to be of infinitely greater advantage than the furnishing a list of witnesses; because, in the latter case, her majesty would come to her defence without knowing before-hand one word of what the witnesses against her had to say; but according to the course which he had suggested, she would come with the knowledge of all that had been said against her, and having the benefit of the delay of the proceedings to procure evidence to rebut it, if it were possible. Therefore, if there were any disadvantages attendant on the mode of proceedings adopted—and that there were disadvantages he did not pretend to deny—he contended they were infinitely more than compensated by the advantages arising from the privilege that had been proposed on that side of the House.—He now came to the question immediately under consideration, and with respect to a matter of fact connected therewith, he thought a noble lord had not been quite correct in his statement. He had talked of an interval in the proceedings, as if something had occurred in the House which gave her majesty's counsel an option as to the time of cross-examining the witnesses. Nothing of the kind had been said in the House according to his understanding of the matter. He was sure he had not said any thing of that nature; but this he had said, that if any special reason could be made out by her majesty's counsel for calling a witness a second time to the bar, he thought their lordships would be disposed to grant all the indulgence in their power, and to afford a greater latitude than could be allowed in a common case. Up to Saturday every thing had gone on regularly; the witnesses had been examined, cross-examined, re-examined by the counsel, and, what was the most
1003
1004
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that after what had fallen from his noble friend on the cross-bench (lord Lauderdale), and after the desire which was generally felt on Saturday, that counsel should be called in, he was anxious to state distinctly the view which he entertained of the question. It was not desired to call in counsel for the purpose of inviting him to suggest or to dictate to their lordships the precise mode of proceeding which they ought to follow; but it was, that if their lordships were about to adopt a rule deviating from the ordinary course, then that counsel should be heard, to instruct their lordships with respect to that deviation. Their lordships could not wish to act unjustly; had they even adopted the rule without hearing counsel, and should a special cause arise to convince them that it ought to be departed from, they would do so even after making the rule. With reference to what had fallen from the noble earl (Liverpool), he re-
1005
1006
Lord Ellenborough
thought, that if the course taken by the House on Saturday was followed up, a most fatal precedent would be established, a precedent which would at any time give counsel an opportunity of interposing a delay of twenty-
1007
The Lord Chancellor
said, that in considering the present question, he should not make any observations on questions which the House had already discussed—he meant the refusal of a list of witnesses, and of a specification of times and places. With all the respect which he entertained for the noble lords who differed from him on those points, he should still, if called on, give the same vote as formerly, because he was convinced in his conscience that that list would not have obviated one-fortieth part of the present difficulties-He congratulated their lordships that they had paused on Saturday, for he was sure that a more mischievous precedent could not be laid down than the course which they were then pursuing, though he must confess that at first he thought it was the
1008
1009
1010
Earl Grey
hoped, after what he had heard, that his noble friend on the cross-bench (lord Lauderdale) would no longer say that this was not a case of great difficulty; for, notwithstanding all the time which had been occupied, and all that had been said in the course of the discussion, he had not yet heard a satisfactory solution of it. It had been said by the learned lord on the woolsack, that this was a difficulty which the House should not hesitate to look at, and to grapple with; and that in obviating it, they should take that course which would be the least deviation from established rules. To this principle he most readily agreed. Their lordships, however, should recollect, that they were sitting on a new case—a proceeding involving not only facts, but considerations of policy, that placed them under the necesssity either of adopting a course that would violate the established rules of justice, or of doing fundamental injustice to the party accused. It was in this view of the difficulties with which the case was beset, that he thought it might be better not to proceed further in the present course, but to send the case back to be tried by those other rules from which he was sorry they had ever departed. He believed, indeed, that, according to the ordinary rules of courts of justice, the liberty now claimed would be allowed to
1011
1012
1013
1014
Lord Grenville
observed, that the House appeared to him to have already adopted two courses diametrically opposite to each other. Being one of those who were present in consequence of their lordships' order, it was painful to him to express such an opinion on the nature of their proceeding. He did not think, however, that their future course ought to be regulated by any understanding or engagement implied in the minds of individual peers. Their rules ought to be distinctly expressed, and not left as matter of opinion or belief. In his view their proceeding on Saturday last was in manifest contradiction to the principle which they had originally laid down. Counsel had been allowed to renew and complete a cross-examination after a re-examination had taken place; and if they were now to state that new circumstances had arisen into which it was most important farther to inquire, he was sure that in every court of justice, upon a statement so made, such an application would be acceded to, and the Queen be allowed to defend herself against a charge of this nature by the amplest and most unlimited means of adducing new facts in opposition to the evidence. At all events, justice should be done, and no rule could be proper for their adoption which would in effect go to the exclusion of important evidence. The question now was, after the course which they had pursued on Saturday, not whether they would enlarge, but whether they would limit, the powers of counsel. He was not in his place when the last question was put by the learned counsel, but he believed it to have been perfectly regular, and in the usual course of a cross-examination. The House had in-
1015
unâ voce
The Earl of Liverpool
conceived that the noble earl (Grey) had not correctly stated the understanding of the House on Saturday. It was true that their lordships had promised advantages to her majesty's counsel equivalent to a list of witnesses and a specification of charges. They were to be at liberty to recall the witnesses, and to examine them as to new facts, but not to suspend a cross-examination after it had actually begun. No disposition had been indicated to depart from the rule as originally laid down.
Earl Grey
observed, that he was not present when the rule alluded to was adopted, but he had a distinct recollection that their lordships had undertaken to afford to the Queen every advantage in some way which she could have derived from a specification of the charges. This was his impression, and he had understood, whilst the first witness, Theodore Majoochi, was under examination, that counsel were to make their election of then finishing their cross-examination, or of afterwards resuming it. Counsel must otherwise, in a case circumstanced like the present, be placed under the disadvantage of examining witnesses of whom they knew nothing, and of drawing from an adverse what they might possibly prove by friendly and willing evidence.
1016
Mr. Brougham
addressed their lordships. He begged leave to state the very great difficulty he felt, on the part of her majesty, when called upon to address their lordships on this point. He should feel it much easier to object to the course prescribed by their lordships than to point out any other course. First of all, their lordships would suffer him to remind them that the difficulty was none of their (the counsels') making. If any difficulties, be they numerous or be they few; if any obstacles, be they less or be they greater in their nature, presented themselves to their lordships, none of them were his. The party patronizing this bill had indeed urged, that it was more for his interest to proceed by this bill; they (her Majesty's counsel) on their part and on her part had objected. Although it seemed good to the wisdom and justice of their lordships to reject the course pointed out by her majesty's counsel, and to adopt that pointed out on the other side, if a difficulty had now arisen, her majesty's counsel might say that it had arisen from rejecting their
1017
1018
venue
venue
1019
nisi prius
1020
in initialibus,
1021
1022
instanter
1023
1024
1025
1026
ex gratia,
1027
Mr. Denman.
—Nothing, my lords, could tempt me to trespass upon your lordships attention, after the able argument you have just heard, but my deep sense of the extreme importance of that question which your lordships indulgence—I will so call it—upon this subject, has submitted to the consideration of her majesty's counsel—a compliment for which, personally, I will take leave, in the name of my learned friends and myself, to express our high gratitude for the confidence which that kindness implies, while, at the same time, I protest, as counsel for the illustrious accused, against a course which must make her legitimate defenders parties to the injustice of which she complains, and deprive her, in the result of that inquiry, of the effectual means of defending herself against all the modes that might be practised against her, in the course of this long, harassing, and overwhelming investigation. My lords; there is no security for her majesty the Queen—there is no security for the meanest subject in the realm—there is no security for any one of this august assembly, who now sit as judges upon the first of their fellow subjects, but may hereafter stand accused at a bar of criminal justice, without that important right which now, on the behalf of the Queen, we are endeavouring to vindicate from limitations and restrictions, which reduce it to a mockery and a name.
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
The Attorney General
said, that from the speeches of his learned friends,—any one ignorant of the nature of the question before their lordships, would suppose their lordships had under consideration the adoption of some rule in the present case, which was at variance with the practice hitherto adopted in all judicial proceedings, and in direct opposition to the known laws of the land. On the contrary, the real question was, not whether their lordships would depart from such a rule? but whether they would adhere to the established practice of ages, relaxing the rule in the present case, with a view to the benefit of the party accused? His learned friends had introduced many topics which bore no reference to the subject before the House; they had complained of the generality of the charges, and the refusal of the names of the witnesses, as grounds for requiring farther indulgence; but the topics on which they seized were calculated rather for declamatory display than for argument, and consequently could have no influence on their lordships' determination. He begged to remind his learned friends, that there was no indictable offence in which it was essential that time and place should be distinctly specified; for it was competent to the prosecutor to prove the fact, though committed at any time or place different from that which was originally stated. With respect to the demand for a list of the witnesses, the only criminal charge in which an accused party could claim that privilege was the charge of high treason; and he had
1035
1036
1037
The Solicitor General
next addressed their lordships, for the purpose of supporting the allegations contained in the bill. He trusted that the House would permit him first to advert to some of the assertions of his learned friend the attorney general for the Queen. His colleague, as well as himself, had been charged by that learned gentleman as acting parties in the present proceedings. Had those charges been fated merely to meet the ear
1038
1039
1040
Mr. Brougham.
—No such thing, I expressly limited it to civil cases, but said that an indictment gives a man an equal advantage.
The Solicitor General
continued. He thought that the learned counsel was more completely mistaken upon that point, than even if he had contended for the practice in criminal proceedings. In the presence of almost all the law in the land, he denied that there was any such rule; but the learned counsel on the other side introduced every thing, founded or unfounded, for the purpose of making out, if possible, something like a plausible case before the House. After these misstatements by the Queen's attorney-general, in which, however, he was not supported by his learned coadjutor, their lordships would know what reliance in future to place upon statements so broadly made, when upon investigation they turned out to be so utterly unsupported. It was said, that the other side could not cross-examine, Why not? To put the case of Saturday, why could not that witness be cross-examined? She swore that the Queen was present at all the times of which she spoke; and could not the counsel consult their illustrious client, and obtain all the information necessary for cross-examination? Cross-examination,
1041
1042
The Lord Chancellor.
—You cannot allude to what has been stated in the House.
The Solicitor General
apologised. He might perhaps say that it had been; suggested, that if the cross-examination were delayed until all the accusing witnesses had been heard, the counsel in support of the bill would have a right to insist that they should not be compelled to cross-examine the evidence for the Queen until after the lapse of a reasonable time. Thus the proceeding might be eternal and interminable, it was impossible to see where it could end. He did not urge these inconveniences so much in answer to the arguments on the other side, as to show the wisdom of the rule now prevailing, and from which he hoped the House would not depart. It could not be infringed without infinite danger and positive mischief—without breaking in upon the rules and principles by which truth can be alone elucidated and investigated. He laid no stress on the observation, that counsel in favour of the bill could not sum up the evidence until the case had been gone through. Besides the course recommended was unjust to the witnesses themselves: much of a cross-examination depended upon small facts and apparently insignificant expressions, which could not be recollected, explained, or reconciled, after the interval of months, or even weeks. As the object of this proceeding was the investigation of truth, he might be allowed to add, that the recommendation would be injurious even to the Queen; the witness would thus have an opportunity of deliberating upon the evidence he should give, and of preparing himself for cross-examination; and to avoid this, all courts of law required that the cross-examination should immediately follow the examination in chief. Besides, a witness under cross-examination might hesitate, and prove the untruth of what he had stated; but if he were allowed to tell his story straight forward, and was followed by other witnesses to the same fact, it might amount to confirmation that could not after wards be shaken.—After recapitulating
1043
Mr. Brougham
commenced his reply by stating, thatlittle had been offered on the other side requiring an answer. He could not, however, allow their lordships to separate without setting himself right with regard to a misquotation (undesigned of course) which he was supposed to have made from their lordships' journals. It was easy to misstate a case, and easier to assert, that a case had been misstated. The counsel on the other side were very sharp men; but it would be well for them to be accurate as well as sharp, when they impeached the accuracy of other folks. The attorney-general had fallen into an error, though he was aided and accompanied by the solicitor-general who generally spoke with great contempt of every body but himself—and their lordships. He (Mr. Brougham) made this exception, because the solicitor-general had been pleased to bestow his high commendation upon their lordships: though not lawyers, in the excess of his approbation he had admitted, that their lordships had put some questions to the witnesses in a form sufficiently judicious. (Order, order.) He was merely repeating what had been said by his learned friend, who had not been interrupted while expressing his approbation: it was a tribute from one who filled the high office of the king's solicitor-general—it was of considerable value, and he (Mr. Brougham) trusted it had been received
1044
1045
The Attorney General
said, that the inaccuracy of which he complained was, that in the particular list of times and places given in, his learned friend said it was five months, whereas it was six years.
Mr. Brougham
answered, that if time were of any consequence to his argument, he could show that the attorney-general was here again in erroc, for the specification allowed to the duchess extended from January, 1685, to August, 1691; and if the same course had been adopted with regard to her majesty, she would at this moment have stood in a very different situation. So much for the attorney-ge-
1046
Proprio marte
1047
1048
toties quoties
The Earl of Liverpool
1049
Lord Erskine
recommended the House to pause even now in the course they were pursuing, beset as they were with difficulties, and as the only means of getting into the right course, to postpone the further proceeding till the Queen should be ready with her defence, and in the mean time to grant her majesty a list of witnesses, and a specification of times and places. He would make a motion to that effect to-morrow morning.
Adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, August 29, 1820.
The House having been called over,
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that when he made the motion yesterday that counsel should be called in, it was with the view of hearing what might be said on either side on the subject of the instruction he had moved respecting the course of proceeding. He had then observed, that he should not think himself bound by any opinion he had given on the subject of his motion, if, upon the statement of the counsel, it should appear necessary for the due administration of justice, that an alteration should be made with respect to the cross-examinations. He still conceived, however, that the course recommended by his motion was that which was most convenient for their lordships' proceedings; and also, as far as he was capable of forming an opinion on the case of her majesty, the most advantageous for her interests. But the counsel for the Queen had not thought so, and in their argument at the bar had pressed for a contrary course; namely, that they should have leave, af-
1050
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that according to their lordships' standing orders, when a motion was once submitted to their consideration, it could not be withdrawn without the consent of the whole House. It was therefore sufficient that one peer should object, and he declared that he would not consent to the withdrawing of the motion.
Earl Grey
was aware that his noble
1051
The Earl of Liverpool
admitted that the noble earl was perfectly correct in his reference to the orders of the House. He certainly had a right to oppose the withdrawing the motion; but the difficulty could be easily got over, by his proposing the motion he had now suggested as an amendment on his motion of yesterday.
Lord Erskine
was happy to see ministers at last coming forward to amend their own awkward work. As ministers were thus disposed to amend their own motion, and to correct their own ill-judged proceedings, nothing could give him more pleasure than to withdraw the motion he had proposed, if he should be given to understand that the counsel for the defence were to be permitted to have the advantages to which they were justly entitled.
The Earl of Harrow by
said, that to remove any objection as to the amendment being proposed by his noble friend, he would move it himself.—The noble lord accordingly moved the resolution stated by the earl of Liverpool as an amendment on the motion made by that noble lord yesterday.
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that the question was now put into a shape which called for their lordships' attention; for it came before them in the shape of a motion made by the first lord of the Treasury, and amended by the president of the council. It was singular enough that this proposition should come from the noble earl opposite, who had contended so strenuously for a different course; but if the motion were to be agreed to, and the counsel for the Queen permitted to suspend the cross-examination of a witness, and resume it at pleasure, he should be glad to know at what time the examinations by the House were to take place. The proper time would be at the close of the cross-examination; but how was that to be done, if the counsel for the Queen, after having cross-examined a witness, were to say he was not sure but that he would have occasion to call up that witness again? He had a right to ask the noble lords what their view of the
1052
The Earl of Liverpool
felt himself called upon to say a few words, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord, and he could not but complain of the tone in which that noble lord had just spoken with respect to the motion under their lordships' consideration. When he made
1053
1054
Lord Erskine
said, that if, when the counsel were called in, they declared themselves satisfied with the mode of proceedings now to be offered to them, he would be silent for ever; but if they said that they were not satisfied, then he would move an adjournment of the House. He wished that counsel should be called in, and that it should be ascertained from them what they required of their lordships. The House did not seem to be fully aware of what the counsel asked. They asked, that evidence should not go forth to poison the public mind without the best antidote they could give at the same time-that they should proceed as far in the cross-examination as they were enabled by their limited knowledge of the witness, and that the bane and antidote should go together. God forbid, that this House should refuse a request so just and so moderate! The noble lord wished distinctly to know if their lordships meant that the counsel for the Queen should, after the adjournment, call the witnesses again and cross-examine them.
The Earl of Liverpool
, had no objection to the counsel for the Crown putting what questions they pleased to the witnesses after the examination-in-chief. He was also willing that, on stating that they wished to call any witness again, they should have leave to subject that witness to a second or renewed examination at any time they might think fit. The only condition he wished to impose was, that the attorney and solicitor-general should not be called upon to close the case in support of the bill until the counsel for the defence had finished all their cross-examinations.
Lord Erskine
was happy to hear this-explanation given. He was glad to see-
1055
The Earl of Donoughmore
felt himself bound to state, that the opinion given to the counsel for the Queen was, to take the whole cross-examination at the time, or defer the whole to their defence. There were now three questions before the House: 1st, the examination of the Lords; 2nd, the postponement of the cross-examination; and 3rd, the time of summing up. He would take the last first, as it scarcely required a word, since it was impossible to close the case until the evidence was finished on both sides. As to the examination by their lordships, from which much good had already arisen, he contended there was nothing in the nature of these proceedings, nothing in law, to prevent it. Was there, he asked, any case made out by the counsel at the bar to show that their lordships should not put questions? On the contrary, all parties agreed that such examination was productive of great advantage. In what court had it ever been said that the judges of the court had not a right to examine the witnesses? On the whole, he conceived that the House ought at once to come to a right understanding. Their lordships had no objection to the cross-examination proceeding when the examination in chief was ended, or to its being postponed to a subsequent period; and that the counsel for the Queen should have the privilege and full right either of cross-examining the witnesses immediately on the close of the direct examination, or of postponing it entirely. This was not granted as an indulgence, it was a matter of right.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that undoubtedly, the difficulties attending either course were considerable, but they appeared to him to press just as heavily on the counsel for the bill, as on the counsel on the other side. The counsel for the bill had to contend with a cross-examination spreading over a series of years, and had as little
1056
1057
Earl Bathurst
was of opinion that it would be most advisable to recur to the proposition originally made, which was, to allow counsel to pursue their cross-examination to any extent, with a liberty to call the witnesses back, and to continue it as far as they might desire.
Lord Ellenborough
wished to know what extent would be deemed sufficient, as it might otherwise run to an interminable length.
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that there might be a limit as to times and places; but if the questions went to the discredit of a witness, he did not see that counsel could be precluded from pursuing their cross-examination.
The Lord-Chancellor
thought it his duty to state the view which he now entertained upon this question. If in the course of yesterday's proceedings he had given any opinion which he had since seen reason to alter, he should hold himself under a sacred obligation to acknowledge that he had so altered it. Further reflection, however, had only served to convince him, that the ends of justice never could be obtained, if their lordships yielded to the' proposition now before them. He must be allowed at the same time to say, that he had never expressed any thought so inconsistent with the ordinary course of justice, as that counsel ought to be stopped in the course of their examinations. He never had approved of such a proceeding, but thought, on the contrary, they should be at liberty to carry on their first cross-examination to any extent which in their discretion they might think fit. But he was just as well satisfied of the necessity of exercising some sound and wholesome control over the practice of calling witnesses back, and subjecting them to a renewed cross-examination. They were bound to exercise what the law called a sound discretion in administering justice; and he could not admit the propriety of renewing a cross-examination, unless it was intimated by the counsel claiming such a liberty, that new facts or circumstances had been discovered, or unless it were intended to supply an accidental omission. Counsel might also apply for it in the first instance, if they conceived that any material purpose might be answered by postponing their cross-examination till some further testimony was produced on the other side. This they could only be expected to do in the exercise of a sound discretion due both to
1058
The Earl of Harrow by
expressed his conviction, that if any thing could inspire
1059
1060
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that if the amendment which had been pro- posed by the noble president of the council were brought to the vote, he should certainly vote for it, although with a deep sense of the great inconveniences attending the whole course of proceeding—a sense which had certainly been much fortified by what had fallen from the noble and learned lord on the woolsack—and with an undiminished preference for that other course which he had before declared it to be in his opinion most desira-
1061
1062
The Earl of Lauderdale
wished to be informed of the present state of the question before the House.
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that the amendment before the House was, to omit all the words in the original motion after
1063
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he had a proposition to make which he thought it impossible the House should reject. Their lordships had heard the various arguments which had been urged on the subject, and in opposition to each other, by the noble president of the council and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, the latter of whom had distinctly declared, that to agree to the proposition made by the former would be very much to impede, if not wholly to defeat the ends of justice. Their lordships might have the benefit of the advice of the learned judges; and, under all the circumstances of the case, he submitted to their lordships that they would neglect their duty if they did not avail themselves of it. He proposed therefore that the judges should be asked, "if in a court of law a rule were to be made by which a counsel should be left at liberty to cross-examine a witness immediately after the direct examination to whatever extent he might think proper, with the liberty of calling that witness back and cross-examining him again, what effect such a rule would have on the administration of justice" [No, no]? He thought this proposition ought not to be met with clamour. He thought the House ought to know what effect the judges considered the adoption of such a rule of law would have in the courts below. He knew very well, that if he required the judges to state what effect such a rule would have there (the House of Lords), the proposition would be inadmissible; but he considered it to be quite competent to him to ask them what effect the rule would have in the courts below.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he must object to this proposition. In the first place, he thought the learned judges would be rather embarrassed to say what effect an entire new rule of law would have on the courts below. In the second place it was not practicable so to assimilate the proceedings before their lordships
1064
Lord Redesdale
was of opinion that the question which his noble friend proposed to put to the judges, could not be productive of any beneficial answer. He was so persuaded, however, that the amendment, of the noble president of the council would be highly inconvenient, that he could not assent to it. Instead of tending to the discovery of the truth, the mode of examination which the adoption of that amendment would sanction, must tend to the very reverse. It would put the whole of the evidence into the power of the counsel, to manage as he pleased. In his opinion, the cross-examination ought to proceed immediately after the direct examination, although he willingly admitted, that if a sufficient reason were alleged for the proceeding, a witness might be subsequently examined. The proposition before their lordships would, if adopted, enable the counsel to garble the evidence, than which nothing could be more injurious to the ends of public justice.—The effect also would be, that the evidence would be in the utmost confusion, and their lordships would find it impossible clearly and intelligibly to connect the parts. They would not have in their recollection, after the second cross-examination, what had occurred in the first. Although the words "under the especial circumstances of the case," were well intended to guard the proposed rule from being drawn into a precedent; he did not think they would have that effect. Former rules so guarded were, nevertheless, now, cited as precedents. In the duke of Norfolk's case, when the duke attempted to obtain a di-
1065
The House divided—Contents (for lord Harrowby's amendment), 121; Not-
1066
Lord Ershine
expressed his satisfaction at the vote which had just been given, as it relieved her majesty's counsel from many of the difficulties which would otherwise fetter them in the discharge of their duty. In fact, the state in which the matter stood before that decision was confusion worse confounded. Having, however, got thus far, the period was perhaps arrived, when every remaining difficulty might be set aside. The noble earl opposite had, yesterday, said, that the refusal of a list of witnesses, in the first instance, was productive of advantage to her majesty, more than equivalent to any disadvantage arising from a publication of the evidence. Supposing this to be true, it only showed them, that the effect of committing an error was, their being obliged to make concessions, which might otherwise be avoided. [The noble lord spoke in so low a tone, as to be at intervals inaudible below the bar]. The vote to which the House had come, only convinced him more and more of the necessity of still doing what the House, in his opinion, ought to have done at first —allow her majesty a list of witnesses, and a specification of the times when, and the places where, the alleged acts of criminality were said to have been committed. He meant, therefore, to move, that the House should now adjourn for such a time as should enable her majesty's counsel to make the necessary inquiries in order to prepare for her defence. And in order to ascertain what time would be necessary, he should propose, that counsel be heard at the bar on the subject. He could not conceive what objection existed against a motion of this kind. The witnesses were all here, and he took it for granted under adequate protection. It was seen, that the names and evidence of the witnesses already examined had gone forth to the public, and yet no violence or insult was offered to them. What disadvantage, what danger, then, could arise from furnishing her majesty with the names of the remaining witnesses? If her majesty did receive a list of witnesses, she ought also to know what they were to prove against her, he did not mean to detail, but generally what each witness was to be called on to substantiate, and specifying also the times and places. This, he repeated, would only be doing what ought, in his opinion, to have been done at first. Then
1067
de die in diem
The Earl of Lauderdale
wished to ask his noble friend, whether he meant this as a revival of his former motion, on the same subject, which had been negatived? He asked this, as he conceived it to be very different. This motion would go to preclude the counsel for the bill from calling any new witnesses.
Lord Erskine
said, he meant it as a revival of his motion. When a question arose, as to the Crown calling new witnesses, their lordships would, he conceived, be governed by the ordinary practice of the courts of justice. By the vote which had been given, that had been gained which otherwise would have been lost. But the motion he was about to make was at the same time more favourable, and more just towards her majesty.
The clerk here read at the desire of lord Lauderdale, the former motion of lord Erskine from the Journals.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that his object in having the motion read, was, to show that it differed in its character from that which his noble friend had just made —that the latter was more extravagant and more strong than that which their lordships had negatived. After alluding to the consistency of his noble friend, in voting for the amendment of lord Harrowby, and then in proposing that the
1068
Lord Erskine
said, that nothing was more easy than to give the noble lord a satisfactory answer. In the morning, when he came to the House, the noble earl (Liverpool) interfered,and proposed to give to counsel that mode of examination which the House had before refused ["no, no"].
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that the House had not before come to any determination on the subject.
Lord Erskine
continued—Be it so. He understood that the House appeared inclined to give that which before they appeared disinclined to give. He therefore postponed his motion until he saw to what determination the House was likely to come on the other subject. Surely he could not refuse voting for what he conceived to be good, because there was something which he conceived was better and ought to be granted. He waited until he saw what was the opinion of the House, and his noble friend, who had risen to thrust him out of the possession of the House, now complained that he had not brought forward his motion soon enough. He did not mean that the counsel for the Crown should be bound by the act of William, but he wished that the Crown should, after the cross-examination, not call whom they pleased, but that they should call such evidence as would be legal in a court of law. He would give them the option of calling such witnesses as they thought necessary, under the advice and opinion of the learned judges. Their lordships frequently said, that they wished to assimilate this proceeding, as nearly as possible, to a proceeding in a-court of justice, and with that view it was, that he now proposed an adjournment, in order that the case might, when it again came, proceed without interruption.
Earl Bathurst
said, that the motion already agreed upon by their lordships gave the accused an advantage which, under all the circumstances, he thought it was-desirable should be given; but it was-quite a different thing to adopt such a motion as that now proposed by the noble
1069
1070
1071
Lord Holland
said, that it had been his fixed intention to take no part whatever in this troublesome, tedious, and lie would add, disgusting business, in which their lordships had been pleased to involve themselves; but the noble earl who had just spoken, and his noble friend on the cross-bench, had introduced topics and matter so extraneous to that immediately before them, that, notwithstanding his previous intention, he could not refrain from occupying the attention of the House on the present occasion. He should have thought, indeed, that the consistency or inconsistency of any noble lord as to the particular mode of proceeding to be adopted in hearing evidence in this disgusting case, could have afforded no opportunity to a minister of the Crown to have risen in his place in parliament, and pleaded against the best law which it was the blessing of this country to enjoy. It was still natural, perhaps, that some individuals should see a connexion between two subjects which to him seemed so distinct and immeasurably distant from each other. It was natural, perhaps, that this distinction should be altogether over looked by members of that party in the J state, who, for the last forty years, saw nothing in the public feelings of the country that was not fraught with treason to their power, and Chat treason always of a more malignant dye than any which had ever preceded it. Those who had entertained this opinion of the events of the last forty years did right now, in attempting to fix the imputation of inconsistency on him to whose powerful professional exertions, combined with that most glorious act of their provident ancestors, he (lord Holland), and many other men who fearlessly thought with him upon public
1072
1073
1074
The Earl of Limerick
was of opinion, that the permission already granted the counsel against the bill, of cross-examining at their own time and discretion, gave them every opportunity of acquiring information which they could desire respecting the witnesses for the bill. He thought, therefore, the learned lord's motion unnecessary. The time, in fact, between the first production of a witness, and the cross-examination, as he understood it was to be permitted, would give ever)' opportunity which could be required for scrutinizing the characters of the witnesses.
Lord Calthorpe
thought the motion of the noble and learned lord the only one calculated to extricate the House from the dilemma in which it was placed by the proceeding that had already taken place; otherwise, he feared, their lordships' proceedings would be in their duration interminable. Any alternative which could extricate them from such a situation, he thought it desirable to adopt. Any thing which could rescue them from such an investigation as that in which they were about to embark, in a manner that afforded no prospect of the termination of their proceedings, he was most anxious to see adopted by their lordships. With that view he should certainly vote for the learned lord's motion, as better than that which had been adopted.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that as far as he was able he should try and give effect to their lordships' instructions in the proceedings in this case, whatever his own opinion happened to be upon any one of those instructions. He still appre-
1075
Lord Erskine
, in explanation, entreated that their lordships would even now pause before they went further into this proceeding. If they still determined to go on, he should, in the progress of the business devote whatever experience he had in judicial proceedings to guide him through their lordships forms.
The House then divided upon lord Erskine's motion, when the numbers were—Contents, 61; Not-contents, 164: majority against the motion, 103.
List of the Minority and Majority on the Earl of Harrowby's Motion.
Those marked with an asterisk voted in favour of lord Erskine's motion to adjourn.
CONTENTS.
Duke of
*
*
Wellington
Coventry
Northumberland
*
Balcarras
Dorset
Rosebery
*
*
*
*
*
Stanhope
Bedford
Pomfret
*
Harrington
Beaufort
Warwick
*
Buckinghamshire
*
*
*
Marq of
*
*
Queensberry
*
Bath
*
Cornwallis
Delawar
Headfort
Bathurst
Anglesea
Harrowby
*
*
Huntley
*
Earl of
*
*
Huntingdon
Liverpool
*
Kingston
*
Longford
*
Mayo
Cardigan
Donoughmore
1076
*
St. David's
Ross
Worcester
*
Lord
*
Nelson
Zouch
Mulgrave
Audley
Harewood
Howard
*
*
Verulam
*
Morley
Middleton
Beauchamp
*
*
Grantham
Westmorland
*
*
*
*
*
Courtown
*
Clare
Walsingham
Cassilis
Berwick
*
*
Aboyne
Grenville
Visc. Lake
*
*
*
Melville
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Abp. of York
Gambier
Bp. of Cork
Hopetoun
Oxford
Combermere
Glocester
Hill
Peterborough
Prudhoe
Chester
Hutchinson
NOT-CONTENTS.
Duke of York
*
Clarence
Ashburnham
Richmond
Portsmouth
Rutland
Egremont
Newcastle
Harcourt
Montrose
Chatham
Athol
Romney
Marq of Conyngham
Mount. Edge-combe
Sligo
Winchester
*
Ely
Digby
Camden
Mansfield
Exeter
Caledon
Thomond
Mountcashel
Stafford
Craven
Lothian
Chichester
Tweedale
Limerick
Northampton
Powis
Donegall
Gosford
Earl of Pembroke
Manvers
Denbigh
Orford
Stamford
Lonsdale
Winchilsea
Cathcart
Shaftesbury
Whitworth
Abingdon
Brownlow
*
St. Germain's
Rochford
Bradford
Home
Morton
Kellie
Moray
Dartmouth
Galloway
Aylesford
Glasgow
Macclesfield
Lauderdale
1077
Visc. Exmouth
Rodney
Sidmouth
Somers
Curzon
Montagu
Sydney
Suffield
Hampden
Kenyon
*
Amherst
Bp of Tuam
Douglas
Canterbury
Selsea
Landaff
Rous
Ely
*
Exeter
Rolle
Bangor
Bayning
St. Asaph's
Northwick
London
St. Helens
Lord De Clifford
Redesdale
Clinton
*
Forbes
Arden
Saltoun
Sheffield
Gray
Manners
Colville
Harris
Napier
Eldon Chan.
Scarsdale
*
Dynevor
Counsel were accordingly called in, and informed, "That under the special circumstances of the case, the House consented to the counsel for the Queen proceeding in their cross-examination in the manner they proposed; namely, that they may be at liberty to cross-examine witnesses immediately after the examination in chief, to such extent as they may think proper, with liberty to call back the witnesses at a future time, for such further cross-examinationas they may desire."
Then
Meidge Barbara Kress
Where do you live now? In a private house.
Where? I cannot say this.
How far is it from this place? I came in a coach; I do not know how far it is.
On which side of the river is it? We came over a bridge.
Who lives in the house with you? Only the people of the house.
Where does your brother live? He is with me.
In the same house? Yes.
Has he given you any money? No.
Did he never give you any money? No, at no time, my brother did not.
Did your brother at no time ever promise to give you any at a future time? Not my brother, he cannot promise to me any thing.
Why cannot your brother promise to you any thing? How could he promise to me any thing.
Do you mean that he has no money of his own? Only that which he took from home.
What trade is he? A potter.
Is he a workman, or has he a manufactory of his own? He is a master potter.
What is your father? My father was a Serjeant in the army; he is dead.
1078
Is your mother alive? No; I have a father-in-law now.
What is your father in-law? He is a master weaver, but he no longer carries on his business, because he is too old.
Did any person give you any money before you came over here? No; except the gentleman in Carlsruhe, those ducats.
Did no body promise to give you any money afterwards? No.
Did nobody promise to give you any money after you should come back to Carlsruhe from England? Nobody promised me any thing.
Will you swear upon the oath you have taken, that no person promised to give you any advantage of any sort after you came back from England? Nobody has promised me any thing, but they said I should have the damagement when I came over.
Mr. Goltermann.
—"Compensation for the time I had lost."
Through Mr. Kersten.
Mr. Goltermann.
—"That I should lose my. place by it, and I must receive some compensation for it."
Through Mr. Kersten.
Mr. Goltermann.
—That she does not know whether he is minister in the country, or ambassador.
Mr. Brougham.
—Do you mean that you do not know whether he is one of the duke's own ministers, or a minister at the duke's court? [
Through Mr. Kersten.
Mr. Goltermann.
—He lodged in the inn.
1079
1080
Mr.
Brougham
Goltermann.
Goltermann.
Did you never see her before she came here? Mr.
Goltermann.
You never saw her till the other day? Mr.
Goltermann.
Have you ever seen her since out of Court? Mr.
Goltermann.
Mr. Brougham
to the
Witness.
By Mr. Kersten.
Mr. Goltermann.
—"And then I retired up stairs."
Mr. Kerslen.
—She repeated that she went down stairs.
Through Mr. Kersten.
1081
1082
Mr. Kersten.
—Entschadigung means compensation, belohnung means recompence.
1083
Mr. Kertten.
—Glashuit is a manufactory of glass, where glass is fabricated or made.
1084
Mr. Goltermann.
—She says, "I have never had any thought about this: I never thought that I should be asked about it."
Mr. Goltermann.
—She says, "how do you mean, whether any body has asked me."
Through Mr. Kersten.
1085
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl of Mansfield.
—When the courier came forward, and ordered a broader bed, did he give any reason for ordering that broader bed?
Mr. Brougham
requested leave to submit, through the House, that what the courier said could not be received as evidence.
The question was withdrawn.
When you made the bed in the morning, and observed the stain, had the bed the appearance that two persons had slept in it? No, the cushions or pillows lay one upon the other, so far as I recollect.
Earl of Limerick.
—You have said that you went to make the bed when they had left it, or just as they had left it, what do you mean by they? When I made the bed there was nobody in the room, I had seen nobody when I made the bed.
Lord Hood.
—Had you any conversation with any person respecting your observation
1086
The question being objected to was withdrawn.
How long 'after the princess left the inn were those questions asked you? As soon as they were away, then I made the room, and Monsieur de Grimm asked me about it.
What did Grimm ask you? He asked me into his room, and about it, and then I was unwilling to say it, but he asked me again, and then I said it.
What were you asked? He asked me, have you never seen any thing.
The Earl of Lauderdale
prefaced his examination of the witness, by observing, that since the examination had begun, he had not availed himself in any question that he had put, of the knowledge he had acquired as a member of the secret committee. He regretted much the rancour of feeling which possessed the public mind on the present occasion, and which existed to a degree that he had never witnessed on any former occasion.
Mr. Goltermann.
—She adds to that, "when the room was not open, I have placed it before the door."
1087
The following questions were put at the request of Mr. Brougham:
About what time of the day was it that you generally took the water to the room and found it locked? Never by day, only in the evening: except when they asked for it in the morning, then I carried it.
Do you mean to say that you found the door locked twice, or often? I did not observe it so exactly; twice or several times.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Then
Giuseppe Bianche
Mr. Denman
objected to the evidence being given through the interpretation of the marchese di Spineto, not on the ground that he had not interpreted truly, but that he was informed he had seen the witness before, and had interpreted the examination taken out of court by the attorney on the part of the prosecution; he conceived, therefore, that the rehearsal of the evidence which had taken place before, might in some degree affect the mode in which the evidence might be given now.
The Earl of Liverpool
could see nothing in the objection. The marchese di Spineto had been retained as interpreter for the government, and if the attorney had employed him out of the House, it was no reason why his very useful and satisfactory services should now be dispensed with. The interpreter of the other side would be present to assist, should any occasion arise; and it was certain that the House would lose a great deal if any other individual than the marchese were employed between the witness and the House.
Counsel were directed to proceed with the examination.
Examined by Mr. Parke through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
What countryman are you? I am an Italian Swiss, that part of Switzerland that belongs to the kingdom of Italy.
Of what part of Italy are you a native? In the department of Tessin and in the town of Faido.
Where do you reside? In Venice.
What is your employment when you are at home? The guard or the door-keeper of the inn Grande Bretagne.
How long have you been in that employment? Fourteen years.
Do you remember at any time seeing the princess of Wales at Venice? I have seen her twice.
When was the first time that you saw her royal highness, in what year? About five years ago.
Was she at the inn the Grande Bretagne?
1088
She was for three days, and then she passed to a house adjoining.
What persons were with the princess at that time? She had a chamberlain, a second chamberlain, three couriers, and I think two more domestics.
Do you remember who were the couriers? One was the Brunswick courier, another was a Bartholomew Pergami, and the third was Theodore Majoochi.
When the princess was at the other house, had you occasion to go there sometimes? I had, every day.
What was your employment, for what purpose did you go there? Because it always happened that I should carry something.
Do you recollect a jeweller being in that house one day? I do.
Did the princess purchase any thing from him? She bought a Venetian chain; a chain made in Venice, which is called a manina of gold.
Was that during dinner-time, or before or after dinner? The jeweller came at the end of the dinner, when all the company were going to get up from dinner.
Did you see Pergami in the room at that time? He was always behind the chair of her royal highness to change her plate, in the dress of a courier.
Did you see the princess and Pergami together, after the rest of the company had left the room, on that day? I did.
What passed between them when you saw them together? She, after having got up, took the chain from her own neck and put it round the neck of the courier; the courier afterwards took it off from his own' neck, and put it round her neck; and then he took her by the hand, and accompanied her into the room where they went to drink coffee.
Did they go out of the room together? Yes, together; but Pergami afterwards left the room to go to dinner.
Did you observe any thing more pass between them than what you have mentioned? I did not.
After the chain had been put the second time upon the princess's neck, did they go immediately, or did they stop a little longer in the room? They went immediately away.
Did you see Pergami at Venice the second time the princess was there? The second time I did, when she came to Venice from Trieste, three or four days, and lodged there.
Had Pergami any decorations, any orders, the second time you saw him at Venice? He had a string of orders jewelled, or ornamented with jewels.
Had he any title? I heard him called by all baron Pergami.
When you saw the princess and Pergami go out of the room the first time they were at Venice, in what manner did they go out, or in what manner did they conduct themselves
1089
Did you see the princess and Pergami the second time they were at Venice? I have seen them come in and go out every day.
How many days did you see them? Four days.
Did you see them on the canals at Venice? They went twice a day on the canal.
Were they alone in the boat, or were other persons with them? There was always somebody with them, except twice, when they went out alone.
When you saw them going out of the house together, were they walking together, or were they separate from each other? They were always arm in arm; then he also gave her his hand to step into the gondola.
Mr. Cohen.
—He adds the words "as I did."
Through the marchese di Spineto.
Denman.
1090
1091
Re-examined by Mr.
Parke.
Did you see Majoochi at any time, between
1092
Mr. Denman objected to the question, as not arising out of his cross-examination;
Where had you the conversation you speak of with Majoochi? What conversation?
Where you reminded him of having met him at Venice? Walking below.
Was that since you came to England? Yes.
The witness was directed to withdraw.
Ordered, that the further consideration and second reading of the said bill be adjourned till to-morrow morning ten o'clock.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, August 30, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty, &c, counsel were called in.
Then
Paolo Raggazoni
Are you a native of Italy? I am.
In what part of Italy do you reside? At Biango.
Is that in the territory of Varese? It is.
What are you by business? A mason.
Were you ever employed as a mason to do business at the Villa d'Este? I was.
Had you any persons employed under you, or were you a mere workman? I was a master mason.
How many men had you employed under you? 20, 25, 30, 8, 12, according to the work.
During any part of the time you were employed doing work at the Villa d'Este, were the princess of Wales and Pergami residing there? No; when I went to the Villa d'Este they were at Bordo Vico.
Was that at the Villa Villani? Yes.
Did they afterwards come to the Villa d'Este while you were working there? They came.
Did you ever see the princess and Pergami, upon the lake at the Villa d'Este? I have seen them.
Was there any canoe there? There was.
Did you ever see them together in that canoe? I have.
Alone, or with other people? Alone.
Once, or more than once, or several times? More than once, more than twice.
Did you ever see them together in the garden? I have.
Have you ever seen them alone in the garden? Alone.
Once, or more than once, or several times? I have seen them more than once; but once I have seen the princess sitting in a chair with
1093
After you had seen, in the manner you have described, the princess in the chair and the baron pushing or pulling that chair, did you afterwards see any body else in that chair? I have not; I have only seen them alone.
At the time when you saw the baron pushing the chair in the manner you have described, was there any body else with them, or were they, the baron and the princess, alone? The baron and the princess were alone.
Did you see the baron get into the chair? I did; the baron and the princess made the chair get forward.
You have stated that at the time when the princess was in the chair, the baron pushed or drew the chair; at the time when you saw the baron in the chair, who pushed or drew the chair? The princess pushed the chair.
Arc you to be understood that they were at that time alone? Alone, yes; Verona came and brought the chair and went away, and then the princess and the baron remained alone.
Have you at different times seen the princess and Pergami walking in the garden? I have seen them several times walking in the garden.
Have you seen them alone walking in the garden? Yes, alone.
In what manner have you observed them walking, were they separate or together? Arm in arm walking.
Have you seen that frequently or only seldom? More than once, more than three limes, I have seen it.
Do you recollect, at any time, being at work in a grotto in the garden? I do.
What work were you doing in that grotto? I was making a cornice to a round room.
Was there a room adjoining to that? Behind there was.
While you were at work, in the manner you have described, did you hear any body in that adjoining room? Yes, I heard somebody enter.
After you had heard somebody enter in the manner you have described, what did you hear? I heard somebody come in, and I put myself under the scaffold to see who it was, and I saw Pergami and the princess come; there were two figures, the figure of Adam on the right and the figure of Eve on the left, and Adam had the leaf of a fig below the navel, then they looked at those figures of Adam and Eve, and they laughed together.
You have told us that Adam had a fig leaf, was there any fig-leaf to Eve? Yes.
Can you state how they were fastened on? They were fastened with a little bough; they put the leaf aside and looked at what was underneath; by "ramino," I mean a wire that went all round the figure; and that the princess and Pergami put aside this fig-leaf to see what was underneath.
Where were you yourself during the whole
1094
Are you to be understood that those two figures were in the room next to that in which you were at work? They were behind the room where I was at work, by ten or twelve yards.
What kind of communication was there between the place where you were at work and the place where those two figures of Adam and Eve were standing? Here was the room of Adam and Eve, then followed a small corridor at the bottom; there were two doors, one to the right and another to the left, and in the middle there was a pilaster; and I placed myself behind the pilaster to look; and behind there was the round room where I was at work.
Did you place yourself there in consequence of your hearing somebody in the room where the figures were? I did.
When they removed the leaf in the manner you have described, what did they do? They talked together, and looked sometimes at one, sometimes at another, between themselves, laughing.
Do you remember an entertainment that was given at the Villa d'Este on St. Bartholomew's day? I do.
At what hour of the night or the morning did you go home to go to bed to a place called II Paese? Sometimes I went to bed atone o'clock, sometimes at half-past one.
The question refers to the night on which this entertainment was given; do you remember going through the garden for the purpose of going to a place called II Paese? Yes, I remember one evening I was going to II Paese to sleep.
Is that place you have mentioned part of the Villa d'Este"? Yes, it is; immediately after the Villa d'Este there is a garden, after which there is a park, at the end of which there is II Paese, and there is wood on both sides.
Do you know a person called Domenico Brusa? I do; we have been together.
Do you know one Eurico Bai? I do not.
Upon the night which has been mentioned, when you were going to the place you have described, who was with you? Domenico Brusa.
As nearly as you can recollect, what hour was it you passed through the garden of the Villa d'Este with Domenico Brusa? About one or half-past one.
Interpreter.
Do you reckon by the Italian or the French hour? The Italian hour.
Interpreter.
1095
Mr. Solicitor General to the Marchese.
—Will you translate into English time the time?
Interpreter.
To the Witness.
Were they alone? They were alone.
Did you ever attend at the theatre at the Villa d'Este? I have been there.
Did you ever see the princess and Pergami act together upon that theatre? I have.
Have you seen that more than once? Only once.
Do you recollect what part was played by the princess? The princess was performing the character of a sick woman, and the baron went to visit her.
In what character did the baron go to visit her? He went to feel her hand, and to perform the part of a doctor.
The Solicitor General stated, that there was some doubt whether in Lombardy they calculated by the Italian method, and that it was very desirable to know, whether the hour to which the witness referred was half past nine or half past one; he therefore requested permission to put a question upon that point.
When you say it was about one or half-past one that you saw Pergami and the princess sitting in the manner you have described, according to the best of your recollection, how long was it after sun-set? The sun had been setting for an hour and a half.
Mr. Cohen,
—My lords, I was born in Lombardy myself, and I know this is the mode of reckoning.
Cross-examined by Dr.
Lushinglon.
Have you ever been examined before? No; I have been examined at Milan.
When was that? In the year 1818.
By whom? The advocate Vimercati.
Was any one else present? There was.
Who? I do not know.
Do you know colonel Brown? I do not.
How came you to go to Milan to be examined? The government sent for me to go to Milan to be examined, and I went.
What government? The government of Milan sent for me that I should appear before the police.
Did they send an officer of Justice to you, or how? They sent Restelli, a courier.
Who is Restelli? A courier.
Had you known Restelli before? I had.
Where? At the Villa d'Este.
Did he formerly live with the princess of Wales? He did
Was he in her service as a courier? Yes;
1096
What passed between you and Restelli when he came to you? He told me that I must go to Milan, by an order of government. Was that all he told you? He told me that I must go to Milan, because the government wanted me; I said I could not go, and he answered that I must go, because government wanted me.
Was that the whole, did he say nothing else to you? No.
How long was he with you? A little. How long, as nearly as you can recollect? He came once to ask me.
How long, as nearly as you can recollect, was he with you? No time at all, he came to tell me, that I was obliged to go to Milan, and then went away immediately in a chaise. Did he tell you what you were to go to Milan for? He did not, he told me nothing.
When you went to Milan, for what purpose did you go? I went to tell the truth, because he told me, you must go because you have been living with the princess at Como, and therefore you must go, and tell what you know.
Then he did tell you you were to be examined respecting the princess of Wales? Yes; he told me nothing to say, but merely, you have been there at work, and therefore the government want to see you, and you must go to be spoken to by the government.
Had you ever before that time spoken to any body respecting the circumstances you have now stated? No, I can swear this that never any body came for this purpose.
Had you ever before that time, spoken to any body respecting the circumstances you have now stated? No.
How many workmen have you employed at the Villa d'Este? 10, 12, 14; when the baron told me, "I want more masons," I sent for more, and I had 18 or 20; when he was not so pressing I sent them away.
Were all those persons sent to Milan to be examined? No, not one of them.
When you were examined at Milan, was what you said taken down in writing? It was taken in writing.
Did you sign it? I did. Were you sworn? Yes, I took an oath at Milan.
Who swore you? The advocate Vimercati. In what form? He told me, "Are you ready to swear upon the truth," and I said, "Yes, the truth."
Were you sworn upon the gospels, or in what manner? He told me. you are then ready to come and swear to the truth, I said yes, I am ready to come and swear to the truth.
Were you sworn upon the cross at that time? Yes, I took the oath upon the cross; I took the cross which I carry about me, and I kissed it myself before Vimercati.
Who was present besides Vimercati at that
1097
Were they Englishmen? I believe that they were Englishmen.
Have you ever since that time seen the deposition you signed? Yes, I signed my name, I gave it in, and then I went away.
Have you ever seen the deposition you signed since that time that you signed it? No, I have not seen it since.
Have you been ever examined since that time? No.
Has no one spoken to you about the evidence you were to give since you have been in England? No.
What did you receive for going to Milan to be examined? I have received nothing, not even this, which means not even a pin, not even a drop of water; I took my horse, I mounted my horse, and I went.
Were you then told that you were to be sent to England? Yes, they told me that they were going to send me to England.
When was that? Now, when the government sent for me.
When you were examined at Milan, did they then tell you you were to be sent to England? No, they told me that I should be obliged to go and swear before a tribunal.
What did you say in answer to that? I said yes, I was ready whenever they ordered, because I was going to tell the truth.
Are all the bills paid for the work you did at the Villa d'Este? They have not been all paid, but there is a little still owing to me from the chief mason.
Is any thing owing to you from the princess of Wales? No, nothing.
From whom did you receive the money for your bills for the princess's work? The chief mason, the head mason paid me, gave me money, I was working, and then whenever I wanted money the chief mason gave it to me; I had nothing to do with the princess.
Who first directed you to come to England? The government, who told me to come to England, for I did not wish to come, for I am a married man, and my wife is with child, and I have an old father, and I did not wish to come, and the government told me I must come, and it would be a business of a month or six weeks.
Did you come by yourself, or with any one else? We have been together, but I know no one, for I am alone.
Did you come with a courier? I did.
From Milan? From Milan.
What was the name of the courier? Restelli.
Do you not know the names of any of the other persons who came with you? No, they attended to their business, and I attended to mine, because I did not wish to come, and was even crying.
Do not you know the names of any one of
1098
Have you continued to live with them since you have been in England? I have.
Where? I do not know, it is a place just by; I do not know what it is, for I never have been in this place before; if I knew the place I would tell you.
Is it close by? It is near.
Was Brusa with you yesterday? No.
From the time that you signed your deposition at Milan, have you had any conversation as to these facts, till to-day, with any person whatever? I have been speaking with nobody.
You have never spoken with any one, except at Milan, from the time the circumstances you have stated took place? I never said any thing to any person; I never have opened my mouth with any person, and as I never have appeared before in a tribunal of justice, I said to the curate of my country, that I did not wish to come, and he told me that I might go.
Have you been employed by the princess of Wales to make a monument? No, I was told by the architect Ratta to come and work at the princess's; so I went and worked there for two years.
How many times have you seen Restelli since the year 1816? Never; I never have seen him since he came to speak to me.
Re-examined by
Mr. Solicitor General.
You have told us that Restelli came to you, in order that you might go to Milan; who was it that came with you as courier to this country? From Milan to Holland, Restelli; and from Holland here, English people.
Look at this gentleman (Mr. Bourchier); were any questions asked you in the place near this court, as to the circumstances to which you have now deposed?
Mr. Brougham objected to this line of examination.
The counsel were informed, that the answer of the witness on cross-examination may be read to him, and that he may be called upon to explain it.
The short-hand writer of the House being directed to read the answer of the witness referred to, stated, that conceiving the examination of this witness to have been closed, he had sent out the notes to be copied.
The Solicitor-General applied to their lordships, that the witness might stand by until the examination of the next witness; and that in the meantime he should have no communication with any other person.
Mr. Brougham acceded to this proposal.
Their lordships directed that his further examination should be postponed for the present. The witness was directed to withdraw.
1099
Then
Gerolamo Mejani
Are you a native of Italy? I am:
Of what profession are you? A writer.
Were you at any time in the service of the princess of Wales? I was.
For what length of time? About two months.
Was that at the Villa d'Estc? At the Villa d'Este.
In what capacity were you employed by the princess of Wales? As a director or superintendant of her gardens.
In what year was it you commenced your employment? At the end of the year 1816, and in the beginning of the year 1817.
Do you know a person of the name of Pergami? I do.
Did you know Pergami before he was in the service of the princess? I did, at Monza.
In what circumstances was he when you knew him? He was an excise officer, that is to say, he belonged to an Excise office, and went to put the Excise mark upon the casks of wine under the order of the officer.
In what circumstances was he as to money? When I have known him he was a poor man.
How long was that before you saw Pergami in the princess's service? I have seen Pergami in the service of the princess at the Villa d'Este, but I do not know at what time he went into her service.
How long is it that you knew him in the employment you have stated before you saw him in the princess's service? I had known him between two and three years, but I am not precise as to the length of time.
When you were at Villa d'Este, had you opportunities of seeing the princess and Pergami together? I had.
Did you see them often together? Often, every day I saw them.
What was their conduct towards each other when you have seen them? They behaved towards each other with the utmost friendship, as if they were married.
When they were walking together, did they walk separate from each other or arm in arm? Arm in arm.
Did you ever sec them together in a canoe? Yes, I have seen them several times, at different times.
Were they alone in the canoe or was some person with them? Alone, he and her royal highness together.
Did you ever see them together riding in a carriage? I have.
Did you ever see them together in a carriage called a padovanello? I have.
Describe in what manner they sat in the padovanello? Pergami was sitting in the back part, and the princess on his knee.
Was anybody else in the carriage? No one else.
1100
Did you ever see Pergami and the princess in the kitchen together? Several times.
What were they doing in the kitchen? They were eating on the table there, where the cook was used to eat.
When you saw them, were they eating from one plate or two? Sometimes from one plate, sometimes from two.
Do you know the gate leading from the little garden into the great garden"? I do.
Do you remember seeing the princess and Pergami together near that gate? Yes.
How far were you off from them when you saw them together? Twenty or thirty paces; I have not reckoned them;
Did you observe them do any think to each other? I have seen them once kiss.
Was that on the month? I was behind, and I have not made this observation.
Was that on the mouth? They made a motion (imitating it); whether they kissed on the mouth or not I do not know.
Was it on the mouth or the cheek? I was behind, and I have not been able to see whether he kissed her on the mouth or on the cheek.
Have you heard the princess and Pergami conversing together, talking to each other? Yes, I have seen them several times, they always were talking to one another.
In what way did they talk to each other? They sometimes spoke French, which I could not understand, except that once I heard a word, which was "mon cœur," (my heart).
Cross-examined by Mr.
Tindal.
When were you first applied to upon this subject? I want to know whether it is meant when I was examined or spoken to; but at Milan I was spoken to.
When did any person first apply to you before you went to Milan? They sent me a person whom I do not know, he told me that they wanted me at Milan upon this subject, but I do not know the person.
When was that? In February, 1818, eighteen months ago; February or January, I do not know exactly which.
Had you mentioned to anybody before that what you knew upon the subject? Nothing; I did no longer think of it.
Where were you living at the time that person applied to you? At Monza:
How far is that from Milan? Ten miles.
What situation in life were you in at that time? A writer.
What do you mean by a writer? I kept account books.
Whom did you keep accounts for? For all the affairs belonging to the park, for the prince Beauharnois, the viceroy of Italy.
Did the person who applied to you, come more than once? Once only;
Did you go immediately to Milan? No, because I had something to write and to do, and I made him wait a day:
Did he tell you what you were to do when
1101
Had not you the curiosity to ask what it was about? I asked, but he would not tell me.
Why did you go then, not knowing any thing about the matter? He told me when I was at Milan, for then I asked him for what motive, and he told me for this, and this.
Then you went to Milan without knowing what you were going for? They had told me, that the advocate Vimercati wanted to speak to me, but they did not tell me the motive till I reached Milan.
Did you know Vimercati before? I have heard his name mentioned, for he was a friend to a friend of mine, advocate Marochi; but I never had known him.
Whom did you see when you got to Milan? Nobody.
What persons did you see or go before on this subject when you got to Milan? When I reached Milan they told me the hour at which I ought to call at the House of Vimercati; there was this Vimercati, two or three other persons whom I did not know, and two other Milanese, whom I did not know.
Were those two or three persons whom you did not know English? They told me they were Englishmen, but I did not know them.
Did you hear the names of them? No, then I did not; afterwards I heard their names.
Was the name of one of them colonel Brown? I heard it afterwards, but then I did not know him.
Was the name of one of the others Mr. Powell? I never heard of him but after five or six months, but at that time I did not know him.
Do you now know that one of the persons you saw there was Mr. Powell? I have known him here.
How long did you remain at Milan? Two days.
Was that the only time you went there upon this business? The only one.
Were you examined on each of those days, or only on one? On the last day they examined me.
Was your examination taken down in writing? Yes; they made me even sign it.
Did you also swear to it? They had made me to swear to come before any tribunal, and if I had known any such thing I should not have signed it.
Did you take that oath upon the cross? No; they only told the that here we must come and tell the truth, and that we must say the truth, neither more nor less, only what I have seen with my eyes, without lies.
What did you receive for your journey to Milan, and staying there two days? They paid my expenses and gave me twenty francs, and I was obliged to add a franc of my own out of my own pocket
1102
When did yon leave Italy for the purpose of coming here? On the 29th of June.
Who came with you? We were twelve; the names of them all I do not know; I know them by sight.
Was Theodore Majoochi one of them? No; his wife alone.
Do you mean that the wife came with you, or with Theodore Majoochi? Yes, the wife came with us.
Who first told you that you were to come to England? A certain Restelli came to tell me so.
Who is Restelli? Restelli was a man in the service of the princess.
Was he in the service of the princess when he came to you? No he was no longer in her service.
Do you know in whose service he was at that time? I do not know.
Do you know why Restelli quitted the princess's service? I know nothing of that.
Did you know him while he was in her service? I have known him in the service of the princess, and I have also known him before, when I was at court.
Recollect yourself; do you not know that he was dismissed from the princess's service for stealing corn?
Mr. Parke objected to the question.
The counsel were directed to proceed.
The question was put to the witness.
I know nothing of this.
Who spoke to you to come to England besides Restelli? Colonel Brown.
Did Restelli take you to colonel Brown? Restelli came to tell me so on the 15th of June, but on the 27th a letter came which obliged me to go to Milan.
What agreement did Restelli or any other person make with you for your coming here?
Mr. Parke objected to the question.
Mr. Tindal.
—What agreement was made by you with Restelli for your coming over to England?
Mr. Tindal.
—Was any agreement made between you and Restelli for your coming over here? No agreement.
1103
Re-examined by Mr.
Parke.
What size is the lake of Como, what length and what breadth? The length begins from Como, and goes straight forward, the breadth is a mile, or a mile and a half.
Do you know about how many miles the length is? Beginning from Como to Cevennes is nearly sixty miles they say, but I have not measured them.
The witness was directed to withdraw.
Then
Paolo Raggazoni
"Have you been ever examined since that time? No.
"Has no one spoken to you about the evidence you were to give since you have been in England? No.
"From the time that you signed your de-
1104
"You have never spoken with any one, except at Milan, from the time the circumstances you have stated took place? I never said any thing to any person; I have never opened my mouth with any person: and as I never have appeared before any tribunal of justice, I said to the curate of my country, that I did not wish to come, and he told me that I might go."
Lord Chancellor.
—Do you mean to say, that you never have been examined in England previously to your appearance here this morning? There was somebody who took me into a room, and asked me, whether it was true that I had said so, and I said "Yes."
Earl of Liverpool.
—About how many days ago? It was last week; I do not know the day, but it was last week.
The following question was put at the request of Mr. Brougham.
Had the gentleman who took you into that room a paper in his hand? Yes, he had a paper in his hand; and he was reading from this paper; and put me the question, and asked me whether it was so; and I said "yes," when I knew it was true.
The following question and answer were read over to the witness.
"Have you ever been examined since that time? No."
Earl Grey.
—You have stated that you have signed a deposition at Milan: you have also stated that you have not since been examined: what do you mean by stating that you had not been since examined? I was thinking that you were asking me whether I had been examined at Milan before I came to England, and I was not examined there.
Paolo Oggioni
1105
1106
Cross-examined by Mr.
Wilde.
When did you leave the princess's service? In the year 1817.
Were you discharged for drunkenness? No.
Did you go away of your own accord? When she set out to go to Rome, I was left behind, with other six servants.
Do you mean that you were discharged at that time? I was; but my discharge was when she set out, till a further order, and this further order never came.
Did you receive any pay from the princess after that? No, I did not.
What service did you next enter into? In the house of a priest; I went into the service of a priest, but I do not remember his name.
Where did he live? He was the minister of the great hospital at Milan.
Where did he live? He dwelt in Milan.
How long did you live in his service? A year.
1107
Living a year in his service, do you mean that you do not know his name? I do not remember the name.
When did you enter into that person's service? When I left the princess.
How soon after the princess left to go to Home? After six months.
Do you mean that you were out of service for six months after you left the princess's service? Now I remember the name of the priest is called Borbona.
Do you mean that you were out of service six months? I was.
Where did you live during that time? At my house.
Where? At Lodi.
How did you support yourself during that time? From my house.
How did you support yourself during that time? Economically, with my money.
Are you a married man, or were you a married man at that time? I was.
Have you any family? One child.
Do you mean that you have saved money enough to live without work for six months, and to support your family? I do.
Are your wife and child over in England with you? They are not.
Where are they? At Lodi.
In what capacity were you with the person you have mentioned? A footman and cook.
How long did you continue in that service? Almost a year.
What was your next service? The viceprefect of Monza.
Where were you when you were first aplied to to give information upon this subject? I was with the architect Albigi.
Where does he live? At Milan.
Who applied to you? I was applied to by the police.
Had you ever mentioned any of the circumstances you have stated to-day, before that application? I had not.
Are you quite sure that that application was made to you before you had said any thing to any body upon that subject? I never said any thing, except when I was sent for, when I knew nothing of this.
Were you examined at Milan? I was.
How often? Once.
Was your examination put into writing? It was.
Have you seen that examination since? I have not.
Have you ever been examined since, either at Milan or in England? I have been examined also in England.
Had the person who examined you any paper to examine you from? He did write, but I do not know what paper he had; he wrote down what I said.
The question is, whether the person who examined you read a paper? He did.
Who applied to you to come to England? The government at Milan.
Were you at that time in your place with the architect? I was.
1108
Have you given up your place? They have taken me to bring me here, and so I was obliged to give it up.
Do you know a person named Restelli? I do.
Have you had any communication with him since you left the princess's service? I have not.
Do you know Majoochi? I know him here.
How long have you been here? I do not remember how long I have been here; I do not remember how many days.
Have you seen Majoochi every day since you have been here? I have.
And Restelli? No.
You have been describing some dances of Mahomet; who were present when those dances were performed? The princess and the baron.
Were you present? I was.
Was any body else? There were many others, but I paid no attention to who they were.
Re-examined by
Mr. Attorney General.
You have been asked, whether the person who examined you in England had a paper in his hand, and whether he read it; did he read it aloud to you, or was he reading it to himself? He read it to himself.
You have said that you do not know how long you have been in England; have you been in England more than once? Yes.
Do you remember how long ago it is, the first time that you came here? I do not remember the day, I have it not in my mind.
Where did you come to when you first came to England? To the inn.
Do you know the name of the inn where you landed the first time you came? I do not know, because it was in the night.
Did any thing happen there the first time you came?
Mr. Denman
said, that for the sake of their lordships, and in order to save time, he objected to this question. It was unconnected with the case. If their lordships thought the question ought to be put as to what passed on witness's arrival in England, he would not object to it.
The Attorney General
observed, that it was for their lordships to decide whether he ought to ask the question. Witness was asked the period of his arrival in England, no doubt with a view to some particular object, not to waste their lordships time, and he conceived he had a right to re-examine on the same point.
Mr. Denman
said, that he had no objection to any inquiry relative to witness's second arrival in this country, but if this question was to be urged as a precedent, to be referred to for particular purposes, he objected to it. It was not decent to put it; but decent, or indecent, he contended that it was wholly irregular, as it had nothing to do with the
1109
The Attorney General
contended that he had a right to put the question. The witness had been asked how long he had been in England, and where he now was, with a view to show that the witnesses were living together; he therefore had a right to show why that was now the case.
Mr. Denman
said, that his learned friend's statement took him completely out of court. He was sure their lordships would not now try that collateral question, namely, what circumstances operated upon the witness's mind to induce him to join the other witnesses? This might produce an injurious impression towards his client. The attorney-general, who was there only to see justice done to all parties, ought not to put the question; at all events, he begged it might not be put until their lordships had formed their judgment on it.
of
Examined by the
Lords.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—On the occasion on which you have described Mahomet to have used certain gesticulations in the presence of
1110
Earl of Liverpool.
—When you state that her royal highness did not send for Mahomet on the occasion of his using certain gesticulations, do you mean that her royal highness did not send you for Mahomet, or that you know that her royal highness did not send for Mahomet at all? I never saw any person sent to fetch him, and I do not know whether any person was sent to fetch him; I know that she came when he was dancing.
Lord Combermere.
—Did any thing particular happen to you upon your first arrival at Dover? Yes, much.
Mr. Denman
objected to this question. He submitted, that unless the circumstance alluded to could be stated to have happened in the presence of her royal highness, or could, in some way or other, be connected with her agents, their lordships could not, according to the received rules of evidence which governed the inferior courts, allow the question to be put. Their lordships, he conceived, must at once see the propriety and necessity of objecting to a question of this nature.
Mr. Brougham
said, their lordships had always been ready to give a certain liberty to counsel in objecting to questions that appeared irregular; and. if they looked to former trials in that House—he spoke particularly of regular trials—they would find that the party prosecuted had been allowed so to object, by the indulgence of their lodships.
The Earl of Lauderdale
conceived, that the decision on the propriety of the question must depend on what followed it. For instance, something was said about the receipt of money; and then the witness was asked, whe-
1111
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that the noble lord who put the question might give reasons for asking it, and it would then be for the House to decide whether it should be put or not. But, at present, it was so general, that the House knew not how to apply it.
Earl Grey
—No foundation having been given for this question, I conceive the learned lord on the woolsack has very properly stated that it cannot be put. This point has already been decided on the re-examination: and though I am ready to contend for the fullest latitude of examination by your lordships, I think you will find it a matter of sound discretion to pause before you allow a question to be put, which the House, on the decision of the judges, has already decided cannot be regularly put.
The question was withdrawn.
Lord Falmouth.
—You have mentioned balls given by the princess; who asked the company to those balls, did the princess, or were the servants allowed to ask their friends? I do not know who invited the company; they came, but I do not know who invited them, because I attended to my work.
Lord De Dunstanville.
—Did you consider the motions of Mahomet as the customary motions of Mahomet in his dances? Yes, he always made this gesture, as a custom he had in his dances.
Earl of Darnley.
—You have stated that at the exhibitions of Mahomet many persons were present; were women present as well as
men?
Louisa Demont
Mr. Williams.
—You do not understand English, do you? Tres peu.
In French, through the Marchese di Spineto.
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
The Duke of Hamilton
said, he interposed with great reluctance, because he thought the interpreter not quite competent to the task he had undertaken; he should be wanting to himself and to his country in a case of so much importance if he did not say, that the mode of interpretation as it had been conducted since this witness was called had not been satisfactory to him.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the marquis di Spineto had shown himself an excellent Italian, but he did not seem quite so perfect in the French language. He was not aware that any material mistake had been made by him, but the interpreter had certainly appeared embarrassed sometimes, and it might be better if a gentleman could be procured more conversant with French.
The Solicitor-General
said, that from the inquiries they had made, they had reason to think the marquis perfectly competent to discharge the duty he had undertaken. He and the interpreter on the other side had only differed regarding a single expression.
The Earl of Harrowby
admitted, that the interpreter did not seem sufficiently acquainted with the idiom of the French language, although he was not aware that he had made
1122
Earl Grey
agreed, that no unfaithful translation had been given by the interpreter, and that his task was an arduous one, recollecting the liability of confusing three languages, two of them not his own. He had performed his duty in his native tongue in the most satisfactory manner.
Mr. Brougham
said, that he and his friends had no complaint to make against any part of the interpretation hitherto. The French of the marquis di Spineto was certainly not so good as his Italian, but at least for this day he had no objection to its being continued, and to-morrow another interpreter could be procured.
1123
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Did her royal highness say any thing more upon that subject? Her royal highness only said, that she wished to take that, because it was far from Genoa and the English.
1124
1125
1126
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Ordered, that the farther consideration and second reading of the said bill be adjourned to to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, August 31, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to deprive Her Majesty, &c.," counsel were called in.
George Pinario was sworn as interpreter, at the desire of the counsel in support of the Bill, and Edgar Garston, at the desire of the counsel on behalf of the Queen. Then Lo
uisa Demont
Did the princess, while she was residing at the Villa Viliani, make any tour to any place? To Monte St. Gothard.
Do you remember at what place in that tour she first stopped? At the Boromean Isles.
Did the princess sleep at the Boromean Isles? Yes.
On the day on which she slept at the Boromean Isles, where did she dine? I do not recollect.
Do you remember whether you dined at any inn on the road? I think they stopped at an inn at Varise, but I am not perfectly sure.
Had you ever been before at the Boromean Isles with the princess? Yes.
Did the princess sleep at the Boromean Isles upon the first occasion? Yes.
Do you remember the apartment in which the princess slept on the first occasion, when she visited the Boromean Isles? Yes.
Was that on the journey which the princess made from Lausanne to Milan, upon her first arrival at Milan? Yes.
What apartment was it that was prepared for her royal highness, and in which she slept on the first occasion on which she visited the Boromean Isles? The most elegant apartment that could be found in the Boromean Isles.
Is that the inn, or is it the palace Boromeo? It is the Boromean palace.
When her royal highness visited the Boromean Isles upon the second occasion to sleep, what apartment had been prepared for her? I do not remember the apartment that had been prepared for the princess.
Do you remember in what apartment the princess slept? Yes.
1127
Did you upon the second occasion sec the apartment in which the princess slept the first time? Yes.
In what apartment did the princess sleep the second time? In an apartment remote from the former apartment.
Do you know where Pergami slept? Near the apartment of her royal highness.
Was the apartment, in which her royal highness slept at the Borornean Isles, prepared for her before her arrival or afterwards? As far as I can remember, it was prepared after her arrival.
What kind of an apartment was it in which her royal highness slept? A large room.
Do you remember whether there was any communication between that apartment and the room in which Pergami slept? I do not recollect.
Do you remember her royal highness go-mg to Bellinzona? Yes.
Did she dine at an inn at Bellinzona? Yes.
Where did Pergami dine? I saw Pergami sitting at table with her royal highness.
At the time that you saw Pergami sitting at the table with her royal highness at Bellinzona, how was he dressed? He was in his courier dress; he was dressed like a courier.
Did he, upon that journey, act as a courier? He was not riding on horse-back, but in the carriage; I do not remember whether he was courier, but he was dressed like a courier.
In what carriage was he riding? In an open carriage.
Was that the carriage in which her royal highness was riding, or a different carriage? It was another carriage,
Did her royal highness dine more than once at Bellinzona upon that journey? I believe not.
Did her royal highness return from that journey to the Villa Villani? Yes.
In what month, as nearly as you can re-collect did her royal highness go from the Villa Villani to the Villa d'Este? As far as I can recollect, the beginning of September.
On the journey to which you have been asked, did her royal highness stop and sleep at Lugano? Yes. upon our return.
Do you recollect the disposition of the apartments, the bed-rooms of her royal highness and of Pergami, at the Villa d'Este upon your first arrival at the Villa d'Este? Yes.
Describe first of all the situation of the apartment of her royal highness, through what rooms or passages you passed to gel to it? One entered into a dark anti-room, and after that into a small corridor or passage, then there were two rooms, and after the two rooms the sleeping-room.
Did the two rooms you have described as being before the bed-room, communicate with each other? They did communicate the one with the other.
Did the second of those rooms communicate with the bed-room? Yes.
1128
Are you to be understood, that in going through the bed-room you passed through those two anti-rooms into the bed-room? Yes.
Describe now the situation of Pergami's-bed-room? The sleeping-room of Pergami communicated with the same dark anti-room which I mentioned before.
By that do you mean the first room which you mentioned? Yes, the first room.
Besides the communication between this dark anti-room and the bed-room of Pergami, was there any other communication between the bed-room of Pergami and any other place? Yes.
With what place? With the sleeping-room-of her royal highness.
What was there between the bed-room of! her royal highness and the sleeping-room of Pergami? A small very narrow cabinet.
Did any body sleep in that small cabinet? I never saw any body in it.
When the door that opened upon the dark room you have first mentioned from Pergami's room was closed, could any person get into Pergami's bed- room, except through that cabinet? I never saw any other.
Do you remember whether there was any other way into the bed-room of Pergami, when the door that opened upon the dark room was closed, except through the cabinet? I never saw any other passage.
At what hour did the princess usually go to bed at that time; the first time? Sometimes at eleven o'clock, sometimes at midnight.
Who used to go with the princess to the bedroom? Sometimes, when I was in the bedroom with her royal highness, there was only Pergami besides; sometimes, when I was alone in the princess's bed-room before her royal highness came, Pergami accompanied her royal highness into it.
Through which way did they come? Through the two rooms that I have described.
When Pergami had so accompanied her royal highness into her bed-room which way did he go, or did he remain there? He did not remain long; sometimes he passed through the two rooms already described, and sometimes through the door of the little passage; the cabinet served as a passage.
To the room of Pergami? The chamber of Pergami.
By a Lord to the Interpreter.
Mr. Solicitor-General to the Witness.
—Did you remain in the room for the purpose of undressing her royal highness? Before her royal highness entered, or afterwards.
1129
The Solicitor General
stated that the ques-had not been rightly interpreted.
Mr. Garston
stated that the translation had been given to the witness "within."
1130
1131
1132
Mr. Garston.
—I have heard but not seen them do any thing.
1133
1134
1135
Mr. Garston.
—The expression was, "as she was at night after I had undressed her."
Mr. Garston.
—The reply to that question was, "I know nothing about it."
Mr. Garston.
—Not a small cloak, but a cloak of silk.
1136
Mr. Garston.
—The witness said, "I do not know how long."
Mr. Pinario.
—She repeats, "I do not recollect the time."
1137
Mr. Garston
stated that the other interpreter had used the word "Gorge" in putting the question, and that that means the neck rather than the bosom; that it is sometimes used to imply it, but not generally.
1138
1139
1140
Interpreter.—
Mr. Garston.
—She was speaking in the presence of Pergami, and consequently it seems, therefore, that it applied rather to the position of the shirt than to the person.
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
The Solicitor General
stated that he had no farther questions to ask this witness.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he was unwilling to press upon the witness, after the fatigue of so long an examination in chief; but feeling at the same time that inconvenience might result from the division of the cross-examination, he desired to leave the matter entirely in the hands of their lordships.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, Sept. 1, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration of the bill, intituled "An act to deprive her majesty," &c, counsel were called in.
Then
Louisa Demont
You are understood to have stated, that you have been in England thirteen months? Yes.
Have you been out of England during those thirteen months? No.
You are understood to have stated, that you do not understand English? I understand English a little, but I cannot speak it with ease.
Have you had any lessons in English? Yes.
How long have you taken lessons in English? Four or five months nearly; I do not recollect exactly.
Was that up to the present time, or some time back? I have been these two last months without taking any lessons.
Have you not spoken English at all? Sometimes.
1158
Did you understand the questions that were put to you yesterday before they were translated? Yes, I can understand English better than I can speak it, because I cannot speak to make myself understood easily.
Though you could not explain yourself, you understood the questions without explanation? I did not understand them all, but I understood one which Mr. Solicitor General put to me yesterday.
Do you mean to represent, that of the numerous questions which were put by Mr. Solicitor General, you understood only one before they were translated? I understood some of them, but not all; besides I did not understand so perfectly as to be able to answer.
But you did understand most of the questions?.
It was objected, that the witness had not said she understood most of the questions.
Had you understood most of the questions, aye or no? I understood some of them.
Did you understand the greater number or not? I understood some of those which were the shortest, some of them.
Since you have been in England, have you always borne the same name, Louisa Demont? No, I have had another name.
Be so good as to state what that other name is? I took the name of the place where I was born, Colombier.
Did you take a title as well; were you called countess Columbier? No.
Nor were ever so called, were you? I was called so but once.
By once, do you mean one time? I mean by only one person.
By once, you mean one person do you? I only recollect one person that called me countess.
Was that frequently? I only heard it once.
Where were you living at that time when the person called you countess? In Frith-street.
Frith-street, Sobo-square? Yes.
Before that time you had lived in Oxford-street, had not you? Yes.
How long did you live there? About three months, as far as I can recollect; I do not know precisely.
During the time that you lived there, nobody called you countess, did they? I do not recollect that any body called me countess; I do not recollect it at all.
Will you swear that they did not? I will not swear to it, but I cannot recollect that any body called me countess.
Will you swear you did not pass in the house by the title of countess? It was Mr. Krouse who placed me in that house, I do not know by what title he announced me, or described me.
Do you mean to swear you were not called, not behind your back, but in your presence, by the title of countess, while you were living
1159
Was it not something new to you to be called countess? I do not recollect that I was so called there; I recollect my being called so in Frith-street, but not in Oxford-street, or elsewhere.
Was not it something new to you to be called a countess? I was not called countess.
Then you will swear that in that street of which you have been speaking, Oxford-street, you were not called countess in your presence—to your face? I will not swear it, but I do not recollect it.
What name did you pass by before; how were you called before you went to Oxford-street? Colombier.
How long have you been called Colombier? Since I have arrived in England, beginning at Dover.
Have you not answered, when in Oxford-street, to the title of countess Colombier to a person or persons addressing you? I do not recollect that.
Will you swear you did not? I cannot swear it, but I cannot recollect it.
As you say you cannot recollect whether you were called countess there, or not; was it not a matter of some novelty to you to be called countess at ail? I never was called countess except this one time, that I recollect, in Frith-street.
You are understood to have stated yesterday, or the day before, that you accompanied the princess to Naples? Yes.
Do you now recollect whether the princess went to the opera the first or the second night of being at Naples? The second night after her arrival at Naples the princess told me that she was going to the opera.
Then it was the second night? It was the second night.
You are understood to have stated, that there were two beds in the apartment of the princess at Naples, a larger and a smaller bed? Yes.
The smaller bed you are understood to say was the travelling bed of the princess, was that so or not? As far as I recollect, it was the travelling bed of her royal highness.
The smaller one of which you have spoken? The smaller one.
If you are rightly understood, you have said, that upon the morning after the princess was at the opera, you perceived that the larger bed had the appearance as if two persons had slept in it, was that so? I said that the bed looked as if two persons had slept in it.
What did you mean by saying in a previous part of your examination, that you had observed the large bed, that it had been occupied, but that you could speak no more about
The counsel were informed, that they had a right to repeat what the witness had said, and then to ask the witness to it; but that if
1160
When you were first examined upon the subject, and when you were desired to describe more particularly, did you not state you could not well recollect whether two persons had slept in it?
Then the following extracts were read from the Minutes:
"Did you observe the larger bed, what appearance that had? I did.
"What observation did you make upon the large bed? I observed it had been occupied.
"Can you inform their lordships more particularly of the state of it? I cannot.
"Was it much or little deranged or tumbled? Not much.
"You have staled what was the condition of the small travelling bed on the second night after the princess's arrival at Naples; what was the state of that bed on the subsequent nights during her residence at Naples? made no observation upon it afterwards, "State what was the appearance, on the second night, of the great bed, whether it had the appearance of one person having slept in it or more? More than one person."
Mr. Williams.
—When you were asked two or three questions before, and then to describe more particularly the appearances of the bed, did you not understand that to apply to persons sleeping in it? I understood that I was asked to say in what condition the bed was, whether it was much deranged.
Had sir William Gell and Mr. Keppel Craven
their servants sleeping in the house at Naples at that time? I saw their servants in the day-time, but I do not know whether they slept in the same house.
Both sir W. Gell and Mr. Keppel Craven
had however men-servants at that time? Each of them had one servant.
1161
1162
1163
Garslon.
Mr. Garston.
—She now adds, "I saw many costumes, but I do not recollect seeing one of Victory."
1164
1165
Garston.]
Through Mr. Pinario.
Mr. Garston.
—She now speaks of the word "robe" instead of "jupe;" she now says, I must be mistaken, for it was the same jupe of which I spoke before.
1166
1167
1168
Garston.
Mr. Brougham
desired that the examination might proceed through the interpretation of Mr. Garston.
Mr. Pinario
was directed to attend to the-examination, and to interpose in case of any
1169
1170
Mr. Solicitor General
objected to the question.
Lord Erskine.
—You are not asked whether you know it to be yours, but whether you believe it to be yours? I cannot say positively that it is not my hand-writing, but I do not believe it is.
Mr. Williams.
—How much of that paper that has been before you so long, was submitted to your eye during the time you have
1171
Mr. Williams.
—Do you now see the line and a half that is before you? Yes.
Donoughmore
The Lord Chancellor
said, with respect to
1172
Earl Grey
did not think it was necessary to mark the paper in this manner, since it was stated, on their lordships' minutes, that the letter exhibited to the witness was doubled down lengthwise, so as to show the first half of every line.
The Lord Chancellor
said he had overlooked that circumstance.
Mr. Williams.
—Was it not in the month of November 1817, that you quitted the service of the princess? Yes.
1173
1174
1175
The Attorney General
stated, that he had not interposed when the counsel against the bill had asked as to particular expressions used by the witness, but that now that he was proceeding to read a long letter, he felt it necessary to submit, that the regular course was for him to produce it, and put it into the hand of the witness, and to ask whether it is her hand-writing or not; and that he had no right, without having so done, to read the contents of a letter, which was assumed to exist.
Mr. Williams
submitted, that he had been perfectly in order. In cross-examinations there were two modes which an advocate had a right to take, with a view to try the veracity of a witness. First, as
1176
nisi prius
1177
nisi prius,
v.
pro aris et focis;
1178
nisi prius,
Mr. Brougham
only begged to state, from his own recollection, that in the case to which Mr. Williams had referred, the rule was decided to be that which his learned friend had stated by Mr. Justice Bayley. He (Mr. Brougham) was putting a writing into the hands of the witness, and asking him to deny or to acknowledge his own hand-writing—nothing more. He proved it, and then Mr. Scarlett objected to his examining to the contents or the writing of that letter, upon which Mr. Justice Bayley held that he had a right to examine the witness from such letter, holding it in his hand, without showing it to that witness. The learned judge so ruled, for this obvious reason-that if he (Mr. Brougham) did show it to the other, there must be an end, at once, of all possibility of his trying the witness's credit.
The Attorney General
would dismiss the two cases which had been cited with this observation—that counsel who quoted cases from memory always did so according to their own impressions of the law upon the subject: those in question had been cited by his learned friends in their own favour. He should not remark upon the declaration which had been used by his learned friend, Mr. Williams. "It is mine and your lordships' duty" (continued the learned gentleman) "to look upon this question according to those rules by which your lordships will conceive yourselves to be bound;" he meant the rules of evidence applying to other courts of justice. Whether the question was one that was material or immaterial, if he felt
1179
nisi prius,
1180
Lord Erskine
said, it appeared to him that the more preferable course would be for the queen's counsel to go directly to work. They should produce the letter— they should ask the witness whether or no it was her hand-writing; and then if she doubted or denied it, that would be no matter, because others need not doubt about it. It would be easy to examine others as to her hand-writing; and then it would be seen how far that which was written in the letter might be in contradiction, or otherwise, to what she had deposed at the bar. There might be, as he apprehended, danger in the other course. Counsel might hold the letter in their hands, and say to witness, "Did you not write this, or something like this?" and she might reply, "I wrote to this or that effect;" so that there would be nothing like a definite answer, and infinite time would be consumed. Therefore such a course, instead of arriving at the desired object by a direct and speedy method, would be as circuitous as for himself to go round by Hampstead and Highgate to his own house.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that whatever his own opinion might be upon this question, it was one which he thought it would be most advisable to refer to the learned judges. They might be asked, what would be the rule of evidence, in the courts below, applicable to a case similar to the present. He by no means concurred in the view which had been taken of it by the noble lord who had just spoken. When he (the lord chancellor) had the honour of attending courts of law, he al-
1181
vivá voce,
1182
The Earl of Donoughmore
thought, that there could be no doubt, if the witness had confessed this paper to be her handwriting, that the cross-examination upon the strength of it was quite regular. But his doubt upon the subject was this—that it should have been proved. Counsel were making the same use of this unauthen-ticated paper as if it had been already regularly proved. If the witness had declared it was her hand-writing, then they might have been allowed to use it for the purposes of cross-examination; but he doubted, under present circumstances, whether they had a right to make any use of it whatever. What, he would ask, had the whole of the cross-examination tended to? To discredit the witness, if he might use the term, by anticipation. Having shown her that letter, it should be proved; but that could not be done at the present moment, because they could not interrupt her testimony. The witness then, as far as these letters went, must leave the bar, an uncontradicted witness: and the fact being so, she ought to have the benefit of: it. Instead of this, here had been a cross-examination of nearly two hours, and he protested against a proceeding like that upon which their lordships were called upon to interfere being allowed to produce any discredit of the witness in this stage. A very extraordinary objection had been made to the attorney-general, that because he did not interfere before, as he might have done, he ought not to interfere now; so that, because that which was irregular had been allowed to go on for an hour or two, it ought to be permitted to continue.
The Earl of Lauderdale
had a doubt whether their lordships could put the proposed question: supposing the signature or subscription were shown and proved,
non constat
The Earl of Liverpool
thought, that another question had arisen in the course of the examination. The question was, whether parties were entitled to examine upon certain expressions? But previously to the ascertaining of this, there was
1183
Lord Redesdale
thought, that if- the witness admitted the letter to be her hand-writing, the examination might be proceeded in. If not, he thought it ought not to be allowed.
Lord Erskine
was of opinion, that they might show the witness a small part of the letter, in order to give her an opportunity of ascertaining whether it was of her writing or not.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott
.—My lords; the Judges have conferred upon the questions propounded to them by your lordships: the first question was in these words, "Whether, in "the courts below, a party on cross-examination would be allowed to represent, in the
1184
The Earl of Liverpool
, after a consi-
1185
Mr. Brougham
expressed a hope that their lordships would hear him before they came to any resolution upon this subject.
The Earl of Donoughmore
conceived the subject to be of so much importance, that he should be guilty of a dereliction of his duty, if he did not fairly state his own impressions respecting it. He should be glad also to hear the opinions of other noble lords, although he himself saw but one way of getting out of their difficulty. The opinion of the judges went to affect the whole of that day's proceeding, and if they were not to persevere in an irregular course, neither ought what had been irregular to remain upon their Journals. He thought, too, that it would be unjust to allow the evidence upon an examination which had been erroneously pursued, to go forth to the public. This might serve the purposes of the defence, by casting general discredit as soon as possible on a witness's testimony, but it was for their lordships to prevent any improper influence over the administration of justice. He should therefore in the mean time move, that after communication was made to counsel of the opinion delivered by the judges, they should also be informed that the whole evidence with regard to the letters would be expunged from the minutes of the House.
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that they could not strike all this evidence out of their minutes without in the first place hearing counsel against it.
Lord Erskine
stated, that the examination had not been objected to till it had proceeded a very considerable length. If the whole evidence taken under it were struck out, their lordships must, in consistency, go back, and strike out many other pieces of evidence. They were probably not aware how far this would carry them, or that it might lead to the necessity of revising the whole of their minutes, and to infinite debate upon what parts ought or ought not to be expunged. In any case, however, the counsel ought to be heard if their lordships entertained the present question.
The Marquis of Lansdown
observed, that he understood the usual practice to
1186
de novo,
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if the question of striking out this evidence from their minutes was to be debated, it ought to be debated with a full statement before them of the whole matter, and in that case it would be proper to adjourn till the next day. It certainly appeared to him to be a most important and serious question.
Lord Grenville
was of opinion that they ought not to proceed upon the motion till some application was made on the part of counsel for that purpose, nor until after it was shown, question by question, and article by article, to what parts the objection was applied.
The Earl of Donoughmore
observed, that he was not responsible for the order of their lordships' proceedings; he was but a simple peer amongst many. He objected to an examination appearing and going forth which the judges had pronounced to be irregular. That opinion of the judges ought, in his view, to be construed as looking backward as well as forward, and as affecting the whole of that day's examination. If, however, this was contrary to the general impression of their lordships, he was willing to withdraw his motion.
1187
Mr. Williams.
—Is that your hand-writing? (a letter being put into the hand of the witness.) Yes.
Mr. Attorney General
objected to any question being put as to the contents of the letters, and submitted that the written instruments must be produced, and must speak for themselves.
Mr. Williams
remarked, that the attorney-general's objection was certainly a short one, but if he understood it rightly, a more important question, as affecting the administration of justice, never yet arose from the beginning of the law to this time. No man was more disposed than himself to bow with humility to great legal authorities, but in that high court, and in a cause of such high importance, he should be ashamed of himself, if he did not fairly, candidly, and manfully, state his own opinion to their lordships. The rule in question was one of practice rather than of written authority; if there had been any authority in the books respecting it, that authority should have been produced. But in the absence of all recorded reference or citation on the subject, he should assume that none was to be found. If the rule were as the attor-
1188
incunabula
l.
1189
Mr. Brougham
said, that the question now depending was of the utmost importance as it applied to the evidence which might be settled or unsettled by it. It was of great importance to the cause immediately before them, to their proceedings on all other occasions, and involved a rule of practice that might affect the administration of justice, not only in the highest courts, but before the lowest tribunals. The great rule of evidence, as laid down and recognised, he took to be this—that without any previous examination, the letters or written statements of either party on the record may be given in evidence, because by putting or suffering himself to be put on the record, he let in the adversary to produce all the declarations or statements which during his life he had ever made. Suppose he gave a witness under cross-examination no knowledge of the existence of a written document contradicting his testimony most materially, in what situation would the witness be placed.
Non constat
1190
The Attorney General
said, that the whole point lay in a very narrow compass. Unquestionably the letters of a party in a cause were evidence against him; but no declaration in writing by a witness could be received in evidence to contradict him without being read. In cross-examination all that was wanted was, the negative by the witness, and then the contradiction must be supplied: but it must be supplied in the regular way, and according to established rule. Where a witness was contradicted by parole, the witness to contradict him must be produced and cross-examined by the adverse party, and the same rule applied to documentary evidence: that also must be produced and read, that the nature of its contents might be properly judged of. This was the fallacy of the argument on the other side; for if they asked questions regarding letters, those letters must be produced at the proper period. In the case before baron Wood, it was merely decided, that matter collateral to the issue could not be introduced; but here the letter itself was put into the hands of the witness, and the consequence was, that if it were to answer any purpose, it must be read in due course. It had been contended, that this was doing injustice to the witness, who ought to be allowed an opportunity of explanation; but if that were required, it could be afforded at any time by recalling the witness. The written declaration of a witness, like every other written paper, must speak for itself: no examination of its contents was ever allowed by parole, and if he did not cite authorities upon this point, it was because the rule was too well known and too often acted upon, to need such support.
Lord Erskine
observed, that if questions founded on the letters were put to the witness, no further use could be made of them then, but they must be produced in the proper stage of the case hereafter. He begged leave to say, however, that whatever might be the rules of courts of law where the case of the accused followed immediately that of the accuser,
1191
Lord Chief Justice Abbott.
—My lords; the, judges have conferred upon the questions last proposed to them by your lordships: the first partofyour lordships question is in these words, "Whether, when a witness is cross-examined, and upon the production of a letter to the witness under cross-examination, the witness admits that he wrote that letter, the witness can be examined in the courts below whether he did or did not in such letter make statements, such as the counsel shall, by questions addressed to the witness, inquire are or are not made therein; or whether the letter itself must be read as the evidence, to manifest that such statements are or are not contained in the letter?" My lords; in answer to this part of your lordships question, I am to inform your lord ships, that the judges are of opinion, in the case propounded, the counsel cannot by questions addressed to the witness, inquire whether or no such statements are contained in the letter, but that the letter itself must be read to manifest whether such statements are or are not contain-
1192
Mr. Brougham
, before he made his election
1193
The Lord Chancellor
told tire counsel for the Queen, that they must make their choice whether they would have them read now, for the greater convenience of cross-examination, or would produce them in a subsequent stage of the business. In both cases they must be considered as the evidence for and of the Queen. He would look more particularly at the duchess of Kingston's case.
Mr. Brougham
added, that Mr. Williams had one or two other questions to put to the witness before he examined her on the contents of the letters.
Mr. Williams.
—You have been thirteen months in England? Yes.
1194
Mr. Brougham
tendered the letters in evidence. The Solicitor General desired their lordships might be informed, whether the counsel against the Bill meant to put questions upon the letters after they should have been read. Mr. Williams, of counsel for the Queen, stated that he should put a question upon them. An observation being made on the above statement, it was explained to be the intention of the counsel for the Queen not to put a single question merely
pro formá,
boná fide
Ordered, that the further consideration and second reading of the said Bill be adjourned to to-morrow.
1195
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, September 2, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the Further consideration of the second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to deprive her Majesty, &c." and Counsel being called in,
The Lord Chancellor
, by leave of the House, stated, in their presence, that a reference having been made by the learned counsel for her majesty, at the close of yesterday's proceedings, to the trial of the duchess of Kingston, where it was stated, that a letter had been presented to a witness (Judith Phillips) on cross-examination, and having been acknowledged by her to be her hand-writing, had been afterwards read in evidence, not as part of the defendant's case; his lordship had since referred to the printed trial, and had compared the statement contained in that with the Journals of their lordships' House; and his lordship read at length the proceedings touching the same, both as they appeared in the printed trial and upon the Journals of the House; after which, the counsel were informed that, in the opinion of the House, the proceedings touching the said letter, as set forth in the printed trial, did not appear to establish, or destroy, or affect the opinion delivered by the learned judges to the House yesterday; and that, according to the proceedings as they appeared upon the Journals of the House, there was no statement whatever there, to show that the letter was ever read: therefore, the House was of opinion, in the present case, to adhere to the rule as laid down yesterday.
Lord Erskine
said—My lords, it does not appear to me that what has been read from the duchess of Kingston's case goes at all to oppose the opinion delivered by the learned judges yesterday; and if it had, I should have thought it entitled to no regard. I am now approaching fast to be one of the oldest members of the profession of the law, and I have no hesitation in declaring to your lordships, that the opinion delivered by the judges so entirely corresponds with all the principles that I collected at the bar, and from the whole practice of the courts in my time, that if any judge had held a contrary opinion, which it had become my duty to resist, I would have tendered a bill of exceptions, and can have no doubt that it would have been supported upon a writ of error, by an unanimous judgment of this House.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he was clearly of opinion, that the law, as laid down by the learned judges yesterday, had been most correctly stated. He re-
1196
Lord Redesdale
also expressed himself thoroughly satisfied with the decision of the judges. That the letter had not been allowed to be read in the case of the duchess of Kingston, was evident; because, after Mr. Wallace had been heard, no entry appeared in the Journals of its having been read.
The Lord Chancellor
then informed the counsel against the bill, that they might proceed with their cross-examination; adhering to the rule which their lordships had laid down yesterday.
Mr. Brougham
said, he presumed with respect to reading the letters of the witness in that stage of the proceeding?
The Lord Chancellor
replied in the affirmative. If the learned counsel proposed to read them in the present stage of the proceeding, they must be prefaced by a statement, according to the rule laid down yesterday.
Mr. Brougham
begged to ask whether his lordship did not think, in the case of the duchess of Kingston, that Mr. Wallace intended the letter to be read as part of the proceedings when he read it?
The Lord Chancellor
said, that he thought the letter might be meant to be so read at the time, but as far as they could judge from what they saw on the Journals, an objection being taken, Mr. Wallace (whose knowledge of the law, and especially of the law of evidence, was as great, perhaps, as that of any man who ever lived), seeing what sort of an objection that would be in the result, thought, in the exercise of his discretion and judgment, that it would be better to put the letter in his pocket, and say no more about it.
Then Louisa Demont
was again called in, and further cross-examined as follows by Mr. Williams, through the interpretation of Mr. Garston.
1197
1198
Mr. Powell
was the gentleman that examined you in Italy? Yes.
Mr. Williams.
—Did Mr. Powell examine you at any time in England? No.
1199
Mr. Brougham
here interposed, and begged that the witness might be ordered to withdraw. After she had retired, he put it to their lordships whether the disclosures already made ought not to vitiate the whole of the witness's evidence. It appeared that she had been brought before a magistrate, and there sworn, through the activity and zeal of the attorney on the other side; and this, after the proceedings in the case had been commenced before their lordships. It was for their lordships consideration whether they were not called upon to interfere in consequence of the influence which had been exercised over the witness, and of the most outrageous proceeding which she had described.
Mr. Williams
followed in support of the objection. He observed, that if the evidence of a witness, situated as Demont was, were received, very considerable danger would probably arise from the precedent. Every witness came into court to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But here a party came forward, whose conscience was already pledged to an
ex-parte
1200
The Lord Chancellor
was of opinion that the objection taken by the learned counsel did not affect the competency of the witness to give evidence. If the circumstance alluded to affected the credit of the witness, it would be open to observation when the whole case was understood; but to stop the cross-examination now, would be acting against the resolution to which their lordships had come. In ordinary cases he was quite clear that observations of the nature made by the learned counsel could only be urged after the re-examination, as affecting the credit of the witness's testimony.
Mr. Williams.
—Then you are understood to say, that, with the exception to which you have alluded, the swearing and the examination at Milan, you have not been examined at all upon this subject till you came here? No.
Mr. Williams
stated, that, with the permission of the House, he proposed now to read two letters; that three had been proved, but that, of course, it was at the option of the counsel whether they would read the whole, and that, on reading the third, it did not occur to him to be necessary to put any questions upon cross-examination.
Mr. Williams
answered "Certainly."
Mr. Brougham
proposed, that the letters should be read first in French by one interpreter, and then the translation read by the other; the interpreter who had read the letter holding it in his hand, and stating whether he agreed in the interpretation.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he had no desire that any person not connected with the proceedings before the House, should be introduced by the reading of the letter; and consequently that he had no objection to the name being omitted in the reading or in the copy of the letter, as it might appear upon their lordships minutes.
1201
Then Mr. Garston,
the interpreter, produced a paper, and was asked,
Mr. Brougham to Mr. Garslon.
—Have you compared that in your hand with the original? I have.
Mr. Williams.
—Who is the count to whom you allude in the letter first read? The count Schiavini.
*
1202
Mr. Williams
objected to a statement of any conversation with Mr. Pergami in the absence of the princess.
1203
Mr. Pergami
came into my chamber and said, that her royal highness wished to dismiss my sister also on account of me. I was very sorry for that, for my sister not having any fortune at home could not live at home. I begged Mr. Pergami to speak to the princess, in order that she might keep my sister: he promised to do it, and at the same time advised me to write a letter to her royal highness because she was much offended against me, and to recommend my sister to her, and to ask her pardon. I wrote the letter at Pe-saro.—The following morning, when I parted with my sister, she recommended to me when I wrole to her to write to her nothing which could prejudice or hurt her; I promised that I would, on the contrary, do every thing in my power in order that she might keep her place; I wrote also to her royal highness the letter which has been seen from Rimini. I wrote to my sister several other times, and always in those same letters I spoke much of her royal highness, because I knew that they would be intercepted.—About the same time in which I wrote that letter, I had formed the idea of quitting Switzerland and coming into England, at the time that I received information that if I could set off, and have letters of recommendation, I should be placed here as a governess; at the same time being afraid that her royal highness would dismiss my sister, I wrote to my sister, and I dare not write freely for fear the letter should be seen: I said to my sister what has been read in the letter, only to let her know, that if she were dismissed, I would find the means of placing her here, and that I would pay her journey; at the same time, I knew that since I had left the princess, she had always said that she was afraid I should speak against her, and as I knew that the princess would read the letter also, I wished that she might be convinced that I would not speak against her even if I came into England. I have often had questions put to me in private conversations, and I have always avoided saying what took place in the house. This is the reason why I wrote that letter to my sister.
1204
1205
1206
1207
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question, slating, that there was no proof of the former letter having been intercepted.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Did you afterwards see that second letter? I saw it a long time afterwards.
1208
By a Lord.
Mr. Williams
objected to the question.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—At the time when this letter was produced to you the following morning by her royal highness, was any person in the room with her royal highness? There were several other persons.
1209
Mr. Williams
objected to the question.
1210
Mr. Garston.
— The words were, "Je vis que Pon fermait la porte."
Mr. Garston.
—The words are, "I heard that the key was turned."
1211
Mr. Solicitor General.
—In what situation in her royal highness's household was monsieur Schiavini? A little time he was master of the ceremonies.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl of Limerick.
—On your examination in chief you were asked whether you could describe the situation in which you found the large bed at Naples after the second night of your arrival there; you have said that you could not, but on the cross-examination of the learned counsel on the succeeding day, on being questioned as to the situation of that bed, you said you could describe it; what was the state of that large bed on the morning after the second night of your arrival at Naples? I said that I could not describe it, because I might have had to make use of terms which were not decent.
1212
Earl Grey.
—On the night at Scharnitz, when you were ordered to take your bed and leave the room where the princess slept, where did you pass the remainder of the night? In a room where there were the countess Oldi and my sister.
la Capitate dc I'Europe."
1213
une haute protection
l'ecrivenr,
dans la capitale de I'Europe."
Earl Grey.
—You have now heard the letter read, is not the assertion that the princess's enemies acted with bitterness, and that she was surrounded by spies, founded upon the fact that you have just stated, and not upon what the princess had told you? It was upon what the princess had said to me, that she was surrounded by spies and enemies.
1214
Marquis of Buckingham.
—Had you any reason to believe that the princess was in fact surrounded by spies? I never saw any spies in the house, that I knew as such.
1215
Earl of Derby.
—You have stated, that the reason of writing in that mysterious manner, which has been alluded to, was for fear of these letters being intercepted? Yes.
1216
Earl of Liverpool.
—You said that you think the bath was in the dining-room, was there not more than one occasion on which the princess used the bath? The princess bathed on more than one occasion.
Lord Ellenborough.
—By whom did you suppose that the letter you wrote to your sister would be first read? I believed that my letter might be read by Mr. Pergami or by the princess.
1217
Marquis of Lansdown.
—Did you ever receive a letter from your sister containing the mark which you had agreed should be communicated through your future correspondence? I have only received a letter from my sister, but I do not recollect whether there was any such mark—the letter which I mentioned before, which had been taken up at the post.
1218
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Was it the information contained in that anonymous letter which induced you to think of coming to England as a governess? I had already had thoughts of it before.
1219
Lord Falmouth.
—If there had been any wet linen in the bath-room on board the polacre, which the princess had used, would it have been your business to have taken it away? Either my business or my sister's,
1220
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Were you sincere in those parts of your letter which speak the praises of the princess? In speaking of the personal qualities, how she was good and patient, I was sincere.
Earl of Darnley.
—You have said more than once, that at the time you wrote that letter you were much attached to herroyal highness, when did that attachment cease? This attachment ceased when I heard that herroyal highness had said several things of me in the house of her royal highness; that several things had been said of me in the house of her royal highness.
Earl of Morton.
—On board the polacre, on the return from Jaffa, there was a communication between the tent and the dining-room, was that communication open or closed during the night? The communication descended into the dining-cabin.
1221
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, September 4, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to deprive her majesty, &c.," the Counsel were called in.
Then
George Pinario
Edgar Garston
Have you compared that with the original which you read on Saturday [A paper being
Collombier,le
Fevrier
Chère et bonne Mariette;
Quoique tu n'ayes pas dit quatre mots pour moi dans ta derniere lettre, je t'aime pourtant trop pour n'pas te le pardonner, et c'est avec un vrai plaisir que je te reponds. Je suis enchantée, ma bonne sœur, que tu sois toujours parfaitement heureuse; quoique je ne doive en avoir aucune doute, connoisant si bien I'extreme douceur de son altesse royale, et de tous ceux avec qui tu peux avoir à faire. Tachez de te conserver toujours cette precieuse bienveillance, en continuant toujours le même genre de vie qui te l'a acquise. Que l'experience ne te soit pas inutile! aye toujours devant les yeux les chagrins qui naissent de I'etouderie et de l'inconsequence; tu en as vu dernierement des preuves assez fortes.
Tu desires, sans doute, bien de savoir quel est ma situation dans notre petit pays. Je t'assure, ma chère, que j'y ai été recue d'une manière dont tu ne te ferois jamais d'idée. J'ai été fetée, recherchée, accueillie partout avec le plus grand empressement à Lausanne, à Morger, et à Cassonay. J'ai passé un mois entier dans cette dernier ville, où l'on m'a procuré tous les amusemens possibles. Tu sais combien je desirois d'aller en traineau. Eh, bien! tous les jours nous y faisions des parties; au nouvel an nous avons eu un charmant bal masqueé. Dans la semaine qui a suivi, deux autres parés, les plus jolis qu'on aye jamais vu dans cette ville, et une infinité d'autres soirées dansantes données par ma connoisance pour moi; enfin, tous les jours c'était de nouvelles fêtes et de nouvelles invitations. Concois-tu qu'au milieu de ces nombreux plaisirs j'étois triste et silencieuse; chacun me plaisantoit sur mon indifference; moi qui étoit, disoit-on, si gaie avant mon départ, je n'étois pas réconnoisable; et cependant je ne pouvois malgré mes efforts me surmonter. Ne devines-tu, ma bonne, quel éloit le sujet de ma tristesse profonde. Helas! ce n'étoit que le regret et la douleur d'avoir quitté S. A. R. et de savoir qu'elle a méconnu mon caractere, et qu'elle m'a taxée d'ingratitude. Oh Dieu! je payerois la moitie de mon sang, qu'elle pût lire dans mon cœur; elle pourroit se convaincre du respect infini, de l'attachement sans bornes, et de la parfaite reconnois-
1222
shown to the witnesses]? [By each.] We have.
Have you compared it together? We have.
Is this a correct copy? It is.
Have you compared this with the original letter to the princess of Wales [Another paper being shown to the witnesses]? We have.
Have you agreed in the translations of those two letters [Two papers being shown to the witnesses]? We have.
The copies of the letters, and the translations of the same, were delivered in, and are as follow:
Collumbier
th Feb.
Dear and good Mariette,
Although you have not said four words in your last letter, yet I love you too well not to pardon you for it, and it is with real pleasure that I reply to you. I am enchanted, my good sister, that you are perfectly happy; but I ought not to doubt it, so well as I know the extreme goodness of her royal highness, and of all those with whom you may have any thing to do. Endeavour to preserve always such valuable kindness, by continuing the same way of life which has procured it for you. May experience not be useless to you! and keep always before your eyes the trouble which arises from folly and inconsistency; you have lately had sufficient proofs of that.
You will no doubt be very desirous of knowing what is my situation in our little country. I assure you, my dear, I have been received in such a manner as you could have no idea of; I have been fetée
*
*
† Aller en traineau.
1223
Mariette, tu ne saurois croire le bruit qu'a fait mon petit Journal; on se l'est, pour ainsi dire, arraché; tout le monde l'a lu. Madame Gaulisa prie de lui permettre de la porter à Lausanne; tons les Anglais qui y étoient dans ce moment ont voulu le voir. J'en ai été enchantée, car tu sais que j'y parlois beaucoup de la meilleure et de la plus aimable princesse du monde. J'y racontois trés en detail tous les traits de sensibilité, de generosité, qu'elle avoit donné; la maniére dont elle avoit éte recue, applaudie, cherie, dans tous les lieux que nous avions parcourus. Tu sais que lorsqu'il s'agit de parler de cette auguste princesse je ne taris point, par conséquent mon Journal est encore embelli et se sent de l'erfusion de mon cœur; mon désir le plus grand ayant toujours été, pour que S. A. R. fût reconnue pour ce qu'elle est vraiment, et que pleine justice lui fût rendue. Je t'assure que quoiqu'eloignée, je n'en ai pas moins ce desir, et que j'y travaillerai toujours avec zêle, et autant que ma faible capacité pourra me le permettre. Comme tu juges bien, ce ne sera point pour m'en faire un merite, puisqu'elle ignorera toujours, et qu'elle me soupconne même d'ingratitude, mais ce sera uniquement pour contenter mon cœur, qui trouveroit une douce satisfaction dans cette charmante reussité.
1224
You cannot think, Mariette, what a noise my little Journal has made. It has been, if I may use the expression, snatched at; every one has read it. Madame Gaulisa begged me to let her carry it to Lausanné; all the English who were there at that time wished to see it; I have been delighted at it, for you know I spoke in it a great deal of the best and most amiable princess in the world. I related much in detail all the traits of sensibility and of generosity which she had shown—the manner in which she had been received, applauded, cherished, in all the places we had visited. You know, that when this august princess is my subject I am inexhaustible, consequently my Journal is embellished with and breathes the effusion of my heart; my greatest desire having always been, that the princess should appear to be what she really is, and that full justice should be rendered to her. I assure you, that although distant, it is not less my desire, and that I shall always endeavour with zeal that such may be the case, and as far as my poor capacity will allow As you may well judge, it is not to make a merit of it, since she will always be ignorant of it, and even suspects me of ingratitude, but it will only be to content my heart, which would find a sweet satisfaction in this charming success.
1225
Mais voilà t-il pas que j'oubliois de te confier une chose qui te surprendra autunt que je Pai été moi-même. Le 24 du mois passé, elant à goûter chez la tante Clere, on vint me dire qu'un inconnu demandoit à me remettre une lettre, ne la voulant absolument pas confier à personne. Je descendis, et le fis monter dans ma chambre. Juge de mon etonnement aprés l'avoir decachété; l'on m'y proposoit de partir pour Londres, sous le faux pretexte d'être gouvernante. L'on m'y promettoit une haute protection, et une fortune fort brillante en peu de tems. Elle étoit sans signature; pour me garantir de la verité, l'on m'offroit de tirer chez le banquier autant d'argent que j'en voudrois. Concois-tu rien de si singulier! Quelques traits echappés à la plume de l'ecriveur, m'ont fait aisément decouvrir la fourberie, et je n'ai pas hesité de donner ma reponse dans des termes qui auront bien fait comprendre que je n'étoit tout à fait dupe. Je n'ai malgré tous mes efforts tirer aucun eclaircissement du porteur; il agissoit avec le plus grand mystére. Tu vois, ma chéve, avee quelle promptitude les ennemis de noire gencreuse bienfactrice agissent toujours. Il faut qu'il y ait toujours des espions auprés d'elle, car pas plutût j'ai été partie de Pesaro, qu'on l'a su, avec toutes les circonstances, dans la capitale de l'Europe. L'on s'imaginoit trouver en moi une personne vindicative, et fort ambitieuse; mais, Dieu merci, je suis exempt de ces deux défauts; et l'argent acquis au depend de son répos et de son devoir, ne me tentera jamais lors même que je serois dans la derniére extremité.
Le hon Dieu n'abandonne personne, encore moins ceux qui font ce que lai est agreeable.
Bonne Renommée vaut mieux que ceinture dorée.
Puisque, ma chere sœur, je suis sur le tapis d'argent, il faut pourtant que je te donne un avis. Economise autant que tu le pourras, retranche toutes les choses qui te scront superflues; si tu savois le regret que j'ai de ne pas en avoir fait autant! il me semble bien que je n'ai fait aucune dépense extravagante, mais j'aurois pu me priver de bien de choses qui m'etoient presque inutiles. Tu sais que le monde est ici comme partout ailleurs; on s'imagine que la princesse de Galles jette tout son argent par les fenêtres, et on me croit revenue avec une fortune considerable; par un espêce d'amour propre, et pour vanter encore plus sa gencrosité, je ne cherche à detromper personne: par conséquent quoique j'ai grand besoin d'argent, je n'en ai encore rien osé demander ê mon tuteur: je sais me moderer, et je ne fais aucune depense. J'ai bien le tems de reflechir et de penser que si j'avois toujours agi de même, je ne me trouverois point dans la situation où je suis; l'on doit s'economiser autant que possible pour lorsqu'on ne peut plus gagner. Profites de la lecon que je viens de te donner, et assure toi qu'elle te sera trés
1226
But I had almost forgotten to confide to you a thing which will surprise you as much as it has me. The 24th of last month I was taking some refreshment at my aunt Clara's, when I was informed an unknown person desired to deliver me a letter, and that he would trust it to no one else. I went down stairs, and desired him to come up into my room. Judge of my astonishment when I broke the seal; a proposal was made to me to set off for London, under the false pretence of being a governess. I was promised a high protection, and a most brilliant fortune in a short time. The letter was without signature; but, to assure me of the truth of it, I was informed I might draw at the banker's for as much money as I wished. Can you conceive any thing so singular? Some lines, escaped from the pen of the writer, enabled me easily to discover the cheat, and I did not hesitate to reply in such, terms as must have convinced him I was not quite a dupe Notwithstanding all my efforts, I could draw no eclaircissement from the bearer; he acted with the greatest mystery. You see, my dear, with what promptitude the enemies of our generous benefactress always act. There must always be spies about her, for no sooner had I left Pesaro then it was known, with all its circumstances, in the capital of Europe. They thought to find in me a person revengeful and very ambitious; but, thank God, I am exempt from both those failings; and money acquired at the expense of repose and duty, will never tempt me, though I should be at the last extremity.
The Almighty abandons no one, much less those who do that which is agreeable to him.
A good reputation is better than a golden girdle.
Since I have introduced the subject of money, my dear sister, I must give you some advice. Economise as much as possible, retrench every superfluity; did you but know the regret I feel in not having done so! I do not think I ever was guilty of extravagance, but I have not deprived myself of many things which were almost useless to me. You know that every one here, as elsewhere, fancies the princess of Wales throws her money out of the window, and I am supposed to have returned with a considerable fortune; from a species of self-love, and to extol still more her generosity, I do not try to undeceive any one; consequently, though I have great need of money, I have not yet dared to ask my guardian for any: I know how to be moderate, and run into no expense. I have time to reflect, and to think that if I had always acted in the same way, I should not be in the situation in which I am; every one should economise as much as possible against the time when one can no longer gain any thing. Profit by the lesson I have just given you, and be assured it will be salutary to you, for I speak from experience. You will know Mr. Le
1227
Mais, ma chere Mariette, j'en appercois que j'ai presque fini ma lettre sans te parler de nos chers parens. Notre bonne mére est passablement bien, son oppression et ses maux d'estomac la tourmentent encore quelquefois, mais cen'estrien en comparaison de ce qu'elle a souffert cet été. Ton pere est fort bien. Henriette est toujours charmante; je lui donne tous les jours de lecons d'ecriture et de lecture; elle coud tres bien, et repasse de même; elle m'a deja repassé plusieurs fraises et quelques robes, dont j'ai été bien contente. Son desir de voyager est toujours le même; fais, je te prie, tout ce que tu pourras pour la placer; je suis convaincue qu'elle ne te donnera aucun chagrin ni aucun mécontentement; elle a encore changé à son avantage; elle est gaie et toujours de bonne humeur, douce, complaisante, enfin, d'un caractére à se faire aimer partout où elle ira, car elle a un cœur excellent, et elle sait se contenter de tout ce qui se prescnte. Marguerite est tout à fait aimable, d'une jolie figure, et d'une telle gaieté qu'on seroit à demi mort qu'elle vous feroit rire. Louise est aussi bien
*
Je suis depuis le mois de Janvier à Collombier, dans ma chambre favorite, où l'on a fait quelque réparations; par exemple, une fort bonne cheminée, et un petit cabinet, oil je couche. Je vais fort souvent faire des petites courses dans nos environs, et je reçois fort souvent des visites, ce que me donne un peu de distraction. Il me semble que je t'endens me dire—et que pénse-tu, ma chere Louise, de faire? Ne te maries-tu point? Que fait Monsr.—? Mot pour mot, je te dirai, que je me sens toujours plus de repugnance pour le manage; que Monsr.
*
1228
*
But, my dear Mariette, I perceive I have almost finished my letter without speaking of our dear relations: our good mother is tolerably well, though her asthma and pains in her bowels torment her sometimes, but nothing compared to what she has suffered this summer. Your father is very well. Henrietta is always charming; I give her every day lessons in writing and reading; she sews very well, and irons as well; she has already ironed several frills for me, and some gowns, with, which I am very well satisfied. Her desire of travelling is the same; pray try to get her a situation; I am convinced she will give you no cause to regret it. She is much altered for the better; she is gay, and always in good humour; mild, obliging, in short, of a character to make herself beloved wherever she goes, for she has an excellent heart, and knows how to be contented in all situations. Margaret is entirely amiable, of a pretty figure, and so lively, that she makes one half dead with laughing: Louisa is also very genteel. I assure you, dear Mariette, they are all changed very much for the better, and I am quite contented with them.
I have been, since the month of January, in my favourite chamber at Collombier, where some repairs have been done; for example, a very good chimney, and a small cabinet, wherein I sleep. I often make little excursions in our environs, and frequently receive visits, which afford me some amusement. I think I hear you say, well dear Louisa, what do you mean to do? Won't you, marry? What does Mons.—do? I will tell you, word for word; I every day feel more and more repugnance to marriage. Mr.—has done all in his power to induce
*
1229
Chere sœur, si tu l'oses mets moi aux pieds de S. A. R. en la suppliant d'agréer mes tres humbles respects. Ne manque pas, je te supplie, lorsqu'elle te parlera de moi, de tâcher de la convaincre que mon repentir de lui avoir deplû est toujours le même; que je la conjure de me rendre sa bienveillance. Sache moi à dire, si S. A. R. est toujours si outrée contre moi, et s'il n'y a pas d'apparence d'un enlier pardon; mais dis moi toujours la verité. Tâche aussi, je te prie, Mariette, de persuader à S. A. R. que je lui suis, et serai toujours si entierement devouée, qu'aucun sacrifice ne me coutera cher pour elle, et qu'elle pourroit même disposer de ma vie, qui lui sera en tous tems consacrée. Dis aussi a monsieur le baron, que je suis trés sensible a son souvenir, et que je le supplie d'agreéer l'assurance de ma plus parfaite
1230
Dear sister, if you dare, place me at the feet of her royal highness beseeching her to accept my humble respects. Do not fail, I entreat you, when she speaks to you of me, to endeavour to convince her that my repentance for having displeased her is still the same; that I conjure her to restore me to her favour. Tell me if her royal highness is still so very angry with mc, and if there is not any appearance of a full pardon; but tell me always the truth. Try also, I pray you, Mariette, to persuade her royal highness that I am and always shall be so entirely devoted to her, that no sacrifice I could make for her would appear too great, and that she might even dispose of my life, which shall for ever be consecrated to her. Tell the baron also, that I am very sensible of his remembrance, and beg him to accept the
1231
Chere Mariette, si je voulois te dire tous ceux qui t'envoyent saluer, il me faudroit au moins deux autres pages, car chacun s'interesse beaucoup à toi, et l'on ne cesse de faire des voœux pour la continuation de ton bonheur. Tu t'imagine pourtant que les plus sincéres se font chez nous.
Tu dirais à Monš Hieronimus que John est fort bien, et que Monš S. est tres content de lui sur tous les rapports; l'on a point payé la pension; dis à Monš Hieronimus, que je le prie d'envoyer d'abord, à la reception de cette lettre, un ordre à Monš'.—pour les six Mois de sa pension, et de s'addresser à moi; mais qu'il ne tarde pas, car j'ai besoin d'argent. Il me semble que tu ne ferais pas mal en même tems d'envoyer les deux Napoleons, et pour finir 25, si tu le peux. C'est moi qui t'envoye la robe à la place des dentilles; je pense que tu l'aurois garnie de mousseline. Fais mes complimens a Monš. Hier. et dis lui que la premiere fois que j'écrirai, je lui ferai plus de details de sons fils, parceque j'éspere avoiŕ plus de place. J'aimerois bien savoir de quelle maniere on fait l'enere avec celte poudre qu'il m'a donnée, et ce qu'il a fait de ce deux tableaux que je lui avois remis à la Villa d'Este. Adieu, chere et bonne sœur; nous t'embrassons tous de tout notre cœur. Une reponse d'abord s'il te plait.
Ta Sceur, LOUISE DE MONT.
(Address)—A Mademoiselle, Mademoiselle Mariette Bron, à Pesaro.
Altesse Royale;
C'est à genoux que j'ecris à ma genercuse bienfaitrice, la suppliant de pardonner mon hardiesse; mais je ne puis resister un presentement. D'ailleurs je suis convaincue, que si son altesse royale connoissoit l'affreuse situation dans laquelle je suis, elle ne seroit point offensée de ma temerité. La force d'esprit me manque pour supporter mon malheur; j'en suis accablée, et je suis plus que persuadée que je succomberai; je me sens d'une faiblesse affreuse, une inquietude mortelle me consume intérieurement, et ne me laisse pas un moment de tranquillité. Une foule de reflexions sur les bontés passées de son altesse royale, et sur mon apparente ingratitude, m'accablent. Que son altesse royale daigne prendre pitié de moi; qu'elle daigne me rendre sa precieuse bienviellance que je viens malheureusement de perdre par le plus funeste imprudence; que jereçoive cette douce conviction avant que demourir de douleur, elle pourra seule me rendre à la vie.
J'ose encore conjurer, supplier la compas-
1232
Dear Mariette, if I were to tell yon all those who send you salutations, I should want two more pages, for every one is much interested for you, and they never cease to put up vows for your continued happiness. You are sensible, however, that the most sincere are made by us at home.
You will tell Mr. Hieronimus that John is quite well, and that Mr. Simonin is very well pleased with him in all respects; his board is not paid for, and tell Mr. H. on the receipt of this letter I beg he will immediately send an order to Mr. Demolin for the six months board, and address it to me; he must not delay, for I have need of money. You will not, I think, do wrong, to send me at the same time the two Napoleons to make up twenty-five, if you can. It is I who send you the gown instead of the lace; I think you should trim it with muslin. Make my compliments to Mr. Hieronimus, and tell him the first time I write again, I will give him more particulars respecting his son, because I hope to have more room. I should wish much to know how ink is made with that powder which he gave me, and what he has done with the two pictures I delivered to him at the Villa d'Este. Adieu, dear and good sister; we embrace you cordially. A reply at once, if you please.
Your Sister, 8th
Feb.
LOUISA DE. MONT.
Miss Mariette Bron, at Pesaro.
Royal Richness;
It is on my knees that I write to my generous benefactress, beseeching her to pardon my boldness; but I cannot resist a foreboding. Resides, I am convinced that if her royal highness knew the frightful state into which I am plunged, she would not be offended at my temerity. My spirits cannot support my misfortune; lam overwhelmed by it, and I am more than persuaded, that I shall sink under it; I feel a dreadful weakness—a mortal inquietude consumes me internally, and does not leave me one moment of tranquillity. A crowd of reflections on the past goodness of her royal highness, and on my apparent ingratitude, overwhelm me. May her royal highness deign to take pity on me; may she deign to restore to me her precious favour, which I have just unhappily lost by the most melancholy imprudence. May I receive that sweet assurance before I die of grief: it alone can restore me to life.
I dare again to conjure, to supplicate the-
1233
Je me permets encore de recommander à la bienveillance et à la protection de S. A. R. ma sœur Mariette, de même que celle qui est en Suisse. S. A. R. a daigné me faire entendre, que peut-être elle pouroit venir prendre ma place; cette esperance adoucit beaucoup mes peines. Ce seroit encore un acte de bienfaisance, car mes sœurs n'ont qu'une fortune trés mediocre, et ce n'est pas dans notre pauvre petit pays où on peut en acquérir. Je suis persuadée que S. A. R. n'auroit jamais lieu de se repentir de sa grande bonté, et de son extréme complaisance envers une jeune fille qui a toujours su gagner l'esiime et I'amitié de tous ceux qui l'ont connue personellement. Je ne saurois assez rémercier S. A. R. et monsieur le baron, de la bonté qu'ils ont eu d'envoyer Ferdinand pour m'accompagner; il a pour moi toutes les attentions et les soins imaginables. Je ne sais de quelle maniére reconnoitre tant de bienfaits; mais je vais tacher par ma conduite future de les meriter, et de regagner l'opinion favorable dont S. A. R. avoit daigné m'honorer dans mes jours fortunés.
C'est avec les sentimens de la plus parfaite soumission et du plus entier dévouement que J'ai l'honneur d'etre, de S. A. R. la plus obeisante servaute,
LOUISE DE MOST.
Rimini, le 16 Novembre, 1817.
Then
Luigi Galdini
Of what country are you a native? Blevio.
Is that on the lake of Como? It is.
Of what trade are you? A mason.
Did you work at the Villa d'Este at any time? I did.
For how long did you work at the Villa d'Este? About fifteen days, a little more or a little less
During that time were you employed upon
1234
compassion and the clemency of her royal highness, that she will grant me the extreme favour of destroying those two fatal letters; to know that they are in the hands of her royal highness, and that they will constantly bear testimony against my past conduct, places me in the extremity of distress; the aversion which I have merited on the part of her royal highness, instead of diminishing, would be increased by reading them. I allow myself to assure her royal highness, that it is only the granting of these two favours which can restore me to life, and give me back that repose which I have lost. My fault, it is true, is very great and irreparable; but love is blind; how many faults has he not caused even the greatest men to commit. I dare to flatter myself this is a further reason why her royal highness should condescend to grant me the two favours which I take the liberty of asking of her.
I also presume to recommend to the favour and protection of her royal highness my sister Mariette, as well as the one who is in Switzerland. Her royal highness has condescended to give me to understand, that perhaps she might be allowed to supply my place; the hope of this greatly alleviates my distress. It would be also an act of beneficence; for my sisters have only very limited fortunes, and in our small poor country they are not to be acquired. I am certain her royal highness would never have cause to repent her great goodness and extreme kindness towards a young girl who has always succeeded in gaining the esteem and friendship of all to whom she has been personally known. I cannot sufficiently thank her royal highness and the baron for their kindness in sending Ferdinand to accompany me; he has paid me all the attention, and taken all the care of me imaginable. I know not how to acknowledge so many benefits, but I will endeavour by my future conduct to merit them, and to regain the favourable opinion which her royal highness had vouchsafed to entertain for me during the days of my happiness.
It is with sentiments of the most entire submission and the most perfect devotedness that I have the honour to be, her royal highncss's most obedient servant,
LOUISA DE MONT.
Rimini, the 16th Nov. 1817.
the house of Guggiaro? I built the house of Guggiaro.
Who was Guggiaro? His christian name is Santino, and he was agent at the Villa d'Este.
Was he the agent of the princess? Yes.
Do you recollect a morning when you were employed in making a cornice? I do not remember the day, but I remember that I was working at the cornice.
Was Guggiaro at this house, at that time when you began in the morning? Guggiaro told me the night before, to get ready all the materials to work, such as the plaster of Paris,
1235
Was Guggiaro at the house in the morning? He was at the Villa; I waited at the place till nine o'clock, waiting for the materials which he had promised to send me, and he did not send those materials; and as I had fifteen or twenty men, I set out to go to the Villa d'Este to look after the agent, in order that I might obtain the materials.
What distance was the fattore's house from the Villa d'Este? Guggiaro dwells in the house of her royal highness.
How far is the house which you were making from the Villa d'Este? Three gun shots, 450 paces about.
When you got to the Villa d'Este, did you enquire for the fattore? I did, I went into the kitchen of the fattore.
Did you go into any other place to look for him? I did.
Did you go up stairs? I did. Were you in a large room when you got up stairs? I went into a room, but it was not a great room, it was a room.
How long did you wait there? For a moment; I opened the door and looked, and saw a good many doors, and I was rather out of humour, for I had lost a great deal of money on account of so many men being upon my back that day, and without work, therefore I opened the door and shut it again.
When you opened a door whom did you see.? I saw the baron and the princess who were both sitting.
Whom do you mean by the baron? Baron Pergami.
On what were the baron and the princess sitting? They were sitting both together, the baron had his right arm round the neck of the princess.
What were they sitting upon? Whether it was a sofa, whether it was an easy chair, whether it was a small bed I do not answer, because I was there only a moment, I was confused.
How was the princess dressed as to her bosom? She was uncovered so [passing his hand across his breast.]
In what position was the princess, can you describe that? She was sitting.
Was any one else in the room besides the baron and the princess? I saw no one else.
When you opened the door, what did the baron do? He took away his arm from the neck of the princess, got up and told me, what do you want from here you dog.
Interpreter.
What did you say to the baron? I told him, you must excuse me signor baron; I came here to look after the fattore, for I have got so many men, and I want the materials to make the men work.
Did the baron make any reply to that? He told me that that was not the apartment of the factor.
1236
Did you ever see after that, the princess and Pergami together at any time? I saw them another time.
Where were they when you saw them together? They were coming down the stairs, arm in arm.
Did you see them do any thing to each other at that time? I saw them descending, and standing just for a moment on the stairs, for I was crossing.
Did you see them at any other time, except that which you have last described? I saw them three or four times on the back of an ass; for they were passing in front of a house which I was building on account of the factor.
Was Pergami himself walking or was he riding? He was on foot.
Was he near the princess? He was.
How did Pergami hold his hand? Once behind the back, another time on the thigh; because she was sitting on the ass.
You have said Pergami's hand was behind the back; whose back? Behind the back of the princess; he was supporting her on the back of the ass.
Was any other person with them at the time? They were on the public road; they were going up and down the walk; by day it was a public walk.
Cross-examined by Mr.
Tindal.
Whom did you first inform of what you knew upon this subject? The first time I mentioned it to the son of the factor on the same day.
Did you go to Milan to give this information? I did.
Who applied to you to take you there? A man of the name of Tagliabue.
Do you recollect at what time that was? I remember it, for Tagliabue took me there with him.
When was it? In the year 1817 or 1818; thereabouts.
Did you go with him there? I did, with some others.
Whom did you see, when you got there? I went to the house of the advocate Vimercati.
What did he do; did he examine you? He did.
Was any one else present besides Vimercati? There were three more persons.
Do you know who they were? They told me that one was a colonel, that another was an advocate, and a third I do not know.
Was he an English advocate? He was so they said.
Was the colonel, colonel Brown? Yes.
How long did you stay at Milan? Four days and a half.
Were you under examination all that time, or the greater part of it? I was examined on the third day, because there were others before me; whether it was the third or fourth day I do not know.
1237
What did you receive for going to Milan? I received ten livres per day to pay my expenses.
Do you mean to swear that you did not receive more for going to Milan? I do.
When were you applied to, to come to England? Last winter, towards the end of March or the beginning of April.
Do you mean the March or April of this year 1820? Yes.
Who applied to you? The same Tagliahue who called upon me with the letter of the advocate Vimercati.
Did you see Vimercati again before you came to England? I did.
Did you make any agreement with Vimercati as to your coming to England? I made an agreement that he should give me ten livres per day.
Was that besides your expenses? They are for the expenses for living.
Who paid your expenses in coming over to England? Our courier gave us our ten livres every day.
Who pays your expenses here? I do not know that.
Where are you staying? I am out at a little distance from this place, but I do not know where it is.
Are there several of the other witnesses with you? I see a good many of them, I see witnesses, I see strangers, I see people, there are many.
Have you seen Theodore Majoochi among them? Yes, in London.
Do you know him? I have known him since my arrival here; I had never seen him.
You have seen a good deal of him since that, have not you? No, he was in one lodging, I was in another, and I have known him since that arrival in England.
Had the room, in which you saw the princess and Pergami, several doors? I went in by one door, there were some other doors, but that was the first time I went into the room.
Do you recollect what time of the day it was that you saw them? The hour was between half-past nine or ten and eleven, but I do not know precisely, for I cannot keep that in my mind.
Were the other workmen employed about in their work at that time? They were at the building of Santini, waiting that I should go
Do you recollect at what part of the year this was, how long ago it was? It was in the year when they gave that great feast, it was the year 1816 or 1817.
What part of the year was it—not the exact day? Towards the latter end of September or the beginning of October.
Re-examined by Mr.
Parke;
You say, that when you were travelling here you received ten livres a day from the courier for your expenses, have you received that sum
1238
You say there are many witnesses in the place where you now are; at what place did you land when you first came to England?
Mr. Tindal
objected to this question, as not arising out of his cross-examination.
Mr. Parke
, in support of the question, staled, that it was put in order to do away an inference arising from the circumstance of the witnesses being together.
Mr. Brougham
said, he had no objection to the question, but he submitted to their lordships, that there would be no end to the inquiry, if all these unnecessary details were entered into.
Mr. Parke
waved the question.
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl of Liverpool.
—You have said, that when you opened the door you saw the princess and Pergami sitting, with Pergami's arm round the princess's neck, and that her breasts were uncovered so; do you mean by that that the breasts were bare? I saw it so, and, as far as I saw, I saw it uncovered.
Lord Chancellor.
—How far did you see the breasts uncovered? I did not stay to look; I saw it, and made my escape; I saw it in the twinkling of an eye, and it was uncovered as far as here; I saw the breasts (he veduto le mammelle); I saw the breasts.
A Peer.
—Had Pergami his hand upon the princess's breasts? They were so [The witness put his hand round the neck of the Interpreter so as to reach the breast.]
Duke of Hamilton.
—How was the princess dressed at that time? I cannot say; I say what I saw; I was surprised, and went away.
1239
The Marquis of Downshire
rose to observe, that the interpreter had joined in the laugh which the answer of the witness had elicited from some of their lordships. He could not help thinking that such conduct was extremely indecorous, and ought not to pass without some animadversion from their lord-shins.
The Earl of Liverpool
thought the conduct to which the noble marquis alluded was altogether involuntary, and occasioned by the peculiar manner in which the witness had given his testimony. If the interpreter had not controlled the feeling which the circumstances were calculated to excite, some of their lordships had also been unable to restrain themselves, and he thought, therefore, that it would be a little too hard to visit the conduct of the interpreter with any degree of severity.
The Lord Chancellor
thought that demeanour of this sort was highly indecorous, and intimated that opinion to the interpreter
Alessandro Finetli
1240
1241
Mr. Brougham
interposed. He begged to remind his learned friend that they had no
cuts
Lord Chancellor.
—What do you mean by the word "embrace?" She was doing so with her hands [making a motionj.
Mr. Attorney General.
—In what direction were their faces at that time—towards each other? One opposite the other (Puna contro paltra).
1242
Mr. Wilde
stated, that he had no questions to propose to the witness.
Domenico Brusa
1243
Mr. Denman
objected to the question as leading.
Mr. Parke.
—Was there any and what other door in the room you have mentioned, besides that leading into the room in which you were working? There was another door.
Mr. Denman
objected to the question, it not appearing who had told the witness that it was Pergami's, or on what ground he supposed it to be Pergami's.
1244
Mr. Denman
stated, that he had no question to propose.
Antonio Bianchi
1245
Mr. Denman
objected to the question, and submitted that the question ought to be put, what their appearance was.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Were their clothes wet? At the top they seemed wet, but I cannot tell whether they were dry or not, for I did not touch them.
Mr. Denman
stated, that he had no question to put.
Examined by the
Lords.
Duke of Hamilton.
—How many feet is a braccio? A braccio is the same with which they measure cloth, linen, every thing. [Showing the length of his arm. The witness measured before him about three quarters of a yard.]
Giovanni Lucini
1246
1247
Cross-examined by Mr.
Denman.
Did you not say at Milan before you came here, that you knew nothing about it? I do not understand the question.
Did you not say at Milan, that you knew nothing upon the subject, but wished for a journey to London? To me they have told nothing; I have been examined at Milan.
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl
Grey.
Is it not a carriage with one scat only? With one seat only.
Can two people sit side by side in that seat? They cannot.
Is it not the custom for the man who drives to drive with any other person in the carriage sitting on his knees, and holding the reins and the whip on the sides? Certainly, when there are two it is necessary that one must sit behind, and the other upon him.
Lord Ellenborough.
—Have you frequently seen two persons in a padovanello? Yes, I have seen others.
Carlo Rancatti
Mr. Denman
objected to the question, and submitted that the fact should be stated, but not the observations which the witness had made upon their conduct.
1248
1249
Williams.
Francesco Cassina
1250
Denman.
Giuseppe Restelli
1251
1252
Mr. Denman
objected to this answer standing upon the minutes, the princess not being there.
Denman.
Interpreter.
The Witness proceeded.
1253
The Solicitor General
objected to the question.
Mr. Denman.
—Do you understand English? No.
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl of Liverpool.
—You state that you have a pension from the Italian government; on what occasion had you that pension given you, and on what account? I have received it on account of having been seven or eight years in the service with prince Eugene, who was then viceroy of Italy.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—At the time you turned to the carriage in which the princess and Pergami were, to ask which road they wished you should take, did you get any directions from them upon the subject? Yes, we entered the town on the right hand, to go to take up count Cassio, to bring him to Caprila.
Giuseppe Galli
1259
1260
Interpreter.
Williams.
1261
Lords.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Was it in the month of December that they dined the first time, or the second time, at the inn? Between the first time and the second time that she dined at the inn, there was a difference of about three weeks.
The Lord Chancellor
requested leave to draw the attention of the House to the matter which had been reserved for consideration on Friday last; namely, whether any alterations were necessary to be made in the minutes of that day relative to the questions which had been put upon the contents of certain letters at that time not regularly in proof, and previous to the questions afterwards put to the learned judges upon that day; and his lordship further acquainted the House, that he had been furnished with the following statement of the minutes relative to the above matter, as they now stood upon the minute book, viz.—that nothing appears in the minutes of Friday last, upon the subject of the letters examined to, previous to the objection afterwards taken, and the opinion given by the learned judges on that day, except what
1262
Giuseppe Dell' Orto
1263
Tindal.
Giuseppe Guggiari
1264
Wilde.
1265
Parke.
Lords.
Earl Grosvenor.
—How do you know that the princess and Pergami locked themselves into that room? We saw it with our own eyes, for we were there; and we saw them take themselves from the table, and go into the room, and shut themselves in.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Were you in the pantry when you heard the lock turned? I was not.
1266
Earl of Belmore.
—You are understood to say, that when Pergami kissed the princess in the boat, there were several other boatmen along with you? There were.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—Have you at any time had any conversation with any of the boatmen that were in the boat at the time you saw the circumstance you have just alluded to? No.
Duke of Hamilton.
—Was any body in the corridor with you when you heard the door of the room locked, as you have stated? There was either my brother or this John Capella.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, September 5, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to deprive her Majesty, &c", counsel were called in.
Then
Giuseppe Sacchi
Of what country are you? Of Villen-chino.
Were you ever in the service of the princess of Wales? I was.
When did you enter into her service? On the? th of November 1316.
1267
Where was the princess then residing? At the Villa d'Este, on the lake of Como.
How long did you continue in her service? Precisely a year.
What was your situation in her royal highness's service when you first entered it? Courier.
Did you remain in that situation, or did you afterwards fill any other in the princess's service? I was for some months in the same employment of courier, and afterwards I was removed to the office of equerry.
How long did you remain at the Villa d'Este? About six weeks.
Do you know Pergami? I do.
Was he at the Villa d'Este when you entered the princess's service? He was.
Soon after you entered the service of the princess, were you sent by her with any dispatch to the duchess of Parma? I was.
Did you bring back any answer to the princess? I brought another dispatch.
Where was the princess when you brought back the dispatch? At dinner.
Was any one sitting by her at dinner? Pergami.
To whom did you deliver the dispatch? To her royal highness the princess of Wales.
What did she do with it? She read it, and then threw it on the table.
Did any one take it up? Pergami took it up at the time that her royal highness turned herself to me, to inquire after some further information; he took it up and read it, or pretended to read it, without asking permission.
Do you recollect after that being sent to Milan with a letter? I was sent at the beginning of the month of December with a dispatch to the governor Saurau.
Did you receive any directions on your going to Milan, as to bringing back an answer? I was desired by Pergami to make the utmost speed, and bring an answer back during the same night.
Did you return to the Villa d'Este on that night, or on the following morning? I returned immediately after midnight.
Upon your return, where did you go? I dismounted from my horse, I went into the kitchen, where I found a footman, whom I asked where Mr. Pergami was.
In consequence of the answer, where did you go? I mounted the stairs, and went into the anti-room of the apartment of Pergami.
What did you do on going into the anti-room? I found a servant of Pergami asleep; and I went towards Pergami's bed-room, finding the door open, I went in, and saw the bed of Pergami tumbled, but there was nobody in it.
What did you do upon that? I went away, and in going away I heard, a noise on the opposite side; and at the same time I heard "Who is there," then I knew that it was the voice of Pergami, to whom I answered, that it was the courier returned from Milan; Pergami told me that there was no such necessity to give him this answer.
1268
How was Pergami dressed at that time? In his dressing gown.
Did you perceive what he had on under his dressing gown? I saw only about his breast, which was unbuttoned or untied; and I saw nothing else but his shirt.
In what place was it that you saw Pergami? I saw him in a room where there was a door opposite to the door of his room.
Did you see where Pergami came from? I could not see it on account of the darkness.
Where did that door lead to, which you hare mentioned, which was opposite Pergami's room? It led into more rooms.
Who occupied those rooms? No one.
Do you know what room was beyond those rooms; do you know where the princess slept? I do not.
Do you know where the princess's bed-room was? I do not.
Whilst you were at the Villa d'Este have you ever seen the princess and Pergami together? Several times.
Where have you seen them together? I have seen them walking through the court and the garden.
How were they walking together? Arm in arm.
Whilst you were at the Villa d'Este, do you recollect carrying any letter to general Pino? I do.
Did you bring back any answer from general Pino? I brought a verbal answer.
To whom did you deliver that verbal answer; did you deliver it to the princess? I did.
Where was the princess when you delivered that answer? In her own antichamber.
Whereabouts was that antichamber? Immediately after mounting the stairs, by turning on the left, there was a corridor, and by turning again on the left hand through this corridor, after a few paces, there was on the left the antichamber of her royal highness.
Was that antichamber of her royal highness near the place where you saw Pergami, or where was it? It was near the place where I saw Pergami.
Do you mean when you saw Pergami at night, on your return from Milan? I do.
How near? On the same corridor there was, on the right, and more particularly opposite to the door of her royal highness, a door which led into a room, which room led into another, where I saw Pergami.
You say that the princess used to walk arm in arm with Pergami; what expressions did she use in addressing him? Familiar expressions, confidential.
What were they, do you recollect? I have heard her call him sometimes by the expression, "mon ange," "mon amour," "mom coeur,"—my angel—my love—my life.
Do you remember the princess going to Turin? I do.
Did you go with her? I did.
Where did they go to at Turin, to what inn? To the inn, The Universe.
1269
Did you go before the princess to Turin? I went before her the last stage.
Did you make any arrangement of the rooms at that inn, for the accommodation of the princess and her suite? Yes; it was arranged between me and the innkeeper, to give to her royal highness the best apartment, and to the dame d'honneur, and also to the femme de chambre; and to the gentlemen I allotted another apartment quite separate from the rest.
Did that arrangement continue, or was it altered? At the arrival of the princess and Pergami I showed to them the distribution I had made, but it did not meet with the approbation of her royal highness, or of Pergami, and the apartment which I had destined for the gentlemen, was dedicated to her royal Highness, to the dame d'honneur, to signor Pergami, and to the femme de chambre.
How near was the chamber of Pergami upon this alteration to that of the princess? Between the room of her royal highness, and that of Pergami there was the room where the countess Oldi slept,
Was there any communication from Pergami's room, through the chamber of the countess Oldi, with that of the princess? There was a mutual communication.
How long did they remain at Turin? About six days, I do not know exactly.
Do you remember going with the princess and Pergami to the Barona? I do.
Whilst they were at the Barona, were any balls given there by the princess? Many balls.
What description of persons attended those balls? At the beginning, besides the persons in the suite of her royal highness, there came also some people of distinction; but in these balls were introduced people of all ranks, and both sexes, and even a very low condition; and as between some of the suite of her royal highness and these low women there was some freedom, thus those people of distinction were no longer seen.
What sort of freedom, what do you mean by freedom? Those persons took those women out from the ball-room, and made them go out at their pleasure and will, (alcune persone) some persons, (prendevano queste donne) took these women (e le face-vano sortire dalla sala di hallo) and made them go out from the ball-room, (a loro pia-cere) according to their pleasure, (e volonta) and will.
Did the princess know this?
Mr. Dewnan
objected to the question.
1270
Mr. Brougham
(to the Interpreter.) Is there any other word in Italian but vergini and verginelli for maids and little maids? No, maids and virgins are expressed by the same word, vergini or verginelli.
Mr. Attorney-General.
—You have said that the princess stated, that she was about to make a present to some of those girls; did you learn from her to which of those girls this present was intended to be made? No.
1271
1272
Mr. Denman
objected to the question.
The Attorney General
was heard in support of the question.
Mr. Denman
was heard in reply.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Do you know whether that was the princess's bed-room into which that door opened? I cannot say it with certainty.
1273
1274
1275
Brougham.
1276
1277
The Attorney General
objected to the question, as assuming that the witness had come over in the service of a Spanish family, and that the witness had not so stated.
Mr. Brougham.
—Is it true, or not true, that you came over to this country in the service of a Spanish family? It is not true.
The Attorney General
objected to this question. The witness had not said that he used a double entendre, and his learned friend had no right to ask any question as to what passed in the witness's mind.
Mr. Brougham
said, his learned friend had
1278
1279
1280
Mr. Brougham
contended, that the limits of a cross-examination were much more extensive than an examination in chief. He had a right to put the question in the way he bad done. He had a right to ask the witness if he had represented so and so, without stating whether it was-in a written instrument or in a conversation. And further, the only time in which the opposite counsel could take an exception, was, if the witness had said it was in writing. He trusted their lordships would not adopt a course, the consequences of which would be, to prevent all the benefits of a cross-examination.
Mr. Denman.
—In all the books of law that I have seen—in all the trials that I have read, and in all the practice that I have known, I never knew such an interposition as that of the attorney-general. To furnish a witness with an excuse for not answering a question, which only put his credit to the test in a legitimate way, if permitted, must prevent the detection of every conspiracy. I dare the attorney-general to state a single case, to quote a single instance, in which this has been permitted. It may screen a witness from the detection of his frauds and perjuries; it may, for the moment, prevent his being proved totally disqualified to give evidence. It can be of no other use, nor used for any other purpose, than to prevent the eliciting of truth. What! shall we not put a witness, whom we know to be infamous, to the severest examination, without declaring to him the means we have of proving him so? It is a little too much, to be told that a letter written on a former occasion, which directly contradicts the evidence he now gives, must be produced,
1281
double entendre
The Attorney General
complained warmly of the term of "perjured witness" applied to the individual under examination.
Mr. Denman
owned that it was improper, and begged leave to retract it.
Mr. Brougham.
—It was used purely hypothetically.
The Attorney General
resumed—The opposite counsel had no right to do cir-cuitously what they could not do directly —they admitted that their object was, to get the witness
to
Mr. Brougham.
—I admitted no such thing [Order, order!].
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords, we have a right to correct any misrepresentation or misconception of our words. The privilege of explanation belongs to us [Order, order!].
Mr. Brougham,
with peculiar energy— My lords, I have a right to do so [cries of Order, order!].
Mr. Brougham,
with increased energy—"I have a right to do so" [renewed cries of Order, order! with much murmuring among the lords].
Mr. Brougham,
with considerable elevation of tone and vehemence of manner—"I have a right to do so."[Here the cries of Order, order! became still louder, and the counsel were desired to withdraw.]
Lord Redesdale
thought the counsel had no right to interrupt each other. When one had done, the other had a right to interfere and explain; but to allow interference and explanations in the middle of an argument would introduce the greatest disorder. Such interruption
1282
The Lord Chancellor
said, that he had it in command from the House to state to the counsel, that they must not interrupt each other while speaking, but reserve any corrections or explanations they had to make till their opponent had finished.
The Attorney General
resumed. He was as anxious, he declared, as any man to avoid misrepresentation; but he contended, that he was correct in his argument as to the tendency of the doctrine laid down by his learned friends; for that doctrine, if acted upon, might lead to the admission of illegal evidence; as any evidence founded upon a written document could not be received while the best evidence, namely, the written document itself, was forthcoming. His opinion, indeed, on this subject was sustained by the recent decision of the House itself; and if this decision were allowed to be evaded, their lordships might be again in the situation in which they were placed previous to that decision, by having illegal evidence inserted upon their minutes. The learned gentleman concluded with pressing his objection to a question so likely to lead to illegal evidence as that referred to, stating, that if the question were only, whether the witness had made any parole representations to the effect mentioned, it would be quite unobjectionable, while his friends would still be at liberty to adduce any written representation which they might have in their possession, in contradiction to the depositions of the witness.
The Lord Chancellor
thought, that the former decision of the judges, as to the production of letters, did not amount to a decision of the propriety of putting the present question; and, with the leave of the House, he would put a question to the judges, which he should the rather do, as nothing was more important than that the House should be fully acquainted with the mode of its proceeding. He meant no unfounded compliment to Mr. Williams, but be must say that, the other day, he had extremely well argued this point: considering, however, the present as additional argument to what was then offered, he was most desirous to refer to the Judges this Question—
"Whether, according to the established practice in the courts below, counsel cross-examining are entitled, if the counsel on the
1283
Lord Kenyon
thought it right to take this opportunity of making a motion, without giving any notice. It was desirable that that House and the country should be informed whether every due facility, in pecuniary supplies as well as in other respects, were afforded to the Queen for the preparation of her defence. The House had heard with satisfaction, from the noble head of the administration, that means had been taken, on the part of his majesty's government, to enable the Queen's advocates to collect any evidence which they might deem it desirable to adduce. But still, for the complete satisfaction of the House and the country, he felt it necessary to move for copies of all communications which had taken place between the Queen or her advisers and his majesty's government since the arrival of her Majesty in this country in June last; and also for an account of all sums of money advanced by government for the use of her Majesty within that period.
The Earl of Liverpool
complained of the irregularity of making a motion of this nature, without previous notice, which was agreeable to the practice of the House, or that kind of communication to himself or his colleagues, which was the usual courtesy of noble lords. But this motion was the more to be deprecated, as it referred to circumstances to give publicity to which would be contrary to common decency. Besides, no complaint was made, nor could he suppose that any dissatisfaction was felt, on the part of her majesty's advisers, as to the conduct of the king's government, in affording every facility necessary for her majesty's defence, in the means of collecting evidence, or in the advance of unlimited pecuniary supplies. Upon what ground, then, should such a motion be pressed? While on his own part and that of his colleagues, he could have no personal objection to let all that had passed on this subject go forth to the public, yet as there was no necessity whatever for such a motion, he hoped the House would not assent to it, without due consideration. If the noble lord meant
1284
Lord Holland
thought, that when the noble earl said that unlimited sums of money were advanced, it was the duty of their lordships to inquire from what source such sums were drawn, and who were to be accountable for them?
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that when he mentioned unlimited sums, he meant it to be understood that these sums were advanced under proper securities.
Lord Kenyon
expressed his surprise to hear any noble lord ascribe to him any disposition to propose a proceeding contrary to common decency, and he was the more surprised at such an imputation, considering the quarter from whence it came. With respect to the motion he had submitted, he had made a previous communication of his purpose to some of the noble earl's colleagues, and that he supposed a sufficient intimation to the government; and as to his bringing it forward without any previous notice to the House, that was owing to the circumstances of the case; for understanding, since he came into the House, that the evidence on the part of the advocates for the bill would close this day, he considered it of the greatest importance, that an immediate opportunity should be taken of satisfying their lordships and the public, that every means and facility were afforded to her majesty, that could be deemed necessary for the preparation of her defence. But, understanding that the case on the part of the prosecution would not close so soon as he was led to expect, and being quite unwilling to take any noble lord by surprise, he should, with leave of the House, withdraw his motion, and give notice of it for to-morrow.
After a short time, the learned Judges returned.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott.
—My lords, the judges have conferred upon the question proposed to them by your lordships, "Whether, according to the established practice in the courts below, counsel cross-examining are in-titled, the counsel on the other side objecting to it, to ask a witness whether he has made representations of any particular nature, not specifying in the question whether his question refers to representations in writing or in words."
1285
1286
Mr. Brougham
inquired, whether he was to understand, before he had asked, whether the witness made any representations, he was to ask whether it was in writing.
Earl Grey
observed, that if counsel went to particulars, it must first be ascertained whether the representation had been parole or written. Might not a general question be put as to the fact of any representation whatever having been made, without going into any details, until it should be understood from the answer to that question how the matter stood?
The Earl of Liverpool
had no objection to such a general question; but he had understood the learned judges to state, that the question, as submitted to them, could not be asked generally, but must be divided into two; that it must be first asked, whether any representation had been made in writing? and that, if an answer were given in the affirmative, then the inquiry must cease; but that, if the answer was in the negative, the witness might then be asked if he had made any parole representation? and, if he answered in the affirmative, that the particulars of such parole representation might be inquired into.
Earl Grey
observed, that the witnesses had been over and over again asked if any promises had been made to them? To such questions no objection had been made, until it was ascertained whether those promises had been made in writing or not. It appeared to him that the present question came within the principle on which the questions respecting supposed promises proceeded; and that a general question might be put, in the first instance, avoiding details.
Lord Erskine
remarked, that a counsel had a right to ask a witness whether any promise had been made to him. If the
1287
The Lord Chancellor
confirmed the statement of his noble and learned friend. Such was invariably the practice when he attended in the courts below.
Mr. Brougham
begged to know, whether lie might be at liberty to alter his question, and to put it, "Did you ever make any representation in writing concerning your real or supposed ingratitude towards so generous a mistress as her royal highness?"
The Earl of Donoughmore
observed, that on all former occasions, when a question had been referred by their lordships to the judges, the opinion of the judges had been declared to the counsel at the bar as the opinion of the court. He was not aware why there should be any departure from that practice in the present instance. He did not want the question before their lordships to be settled by any kind of accommodation, he wanted it to be settled according to law. What he proposed, therefore, was, that the subject should be submitted to the reconsideration of the judges.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if, from the imperfect and insufficient character of the question that had already been submitted to the judges, they had found it impossible to give to that question a direct answer, it might be advisable to amend the question before it was again referred to them.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he earnestly begged to withdraw the question, to save the necessity for farther discussion.
The Witness was again called in.
Mr. Brougham.
—Did you ever say to any person that your conduct towards her royal highness was liable to the charge of ingratitude with respect to a generous benefactress? Never.
1288
1289
Mr, Attorney General.
1290
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Do you know whose seal is annexed to it? I do.
Mr. Brougham.
—My learned friend has not yet brought home the paper to her royal highness. I object as much for the sake of regularity as any thing else to its being read. The paper was received from Schianivi,
non constat
non constat
non constat
Mr. Attorney General.
—You say that was given to you by Schiavini? I repeat it.
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question.
1291
The Attorney General
submitted, that he was now in a condition to read the certificate, connecting this evidence with that given on a former day.
Mr. Brougham
objected to its being read, and stated the seal was not capable of being deciphered, and that there was no proof it was put by her royal highness.
Mr. Brougham
objected to the relation of any conversation between the witness and a third person, unless the rule was to be laid down, that because a particular person was at one time his (Mr. B.'s) banker, he must be therefore connected with all such persons said.
The Attorney General
meant not to argue on any hypothesis. He was aware that he had no right to put such a question in an examination in chief, but when in a cross-examination questions were asked relative to a conversation, he contended that he had a right to inquire as to the whole of that conversation.
The Lord Chancellor
desired that the evidence relative to the conversation alluded to should be read.
1292
Then the Witness was asked,
Mr. Attorney General.
—Upon what occasion was it that you told Marrietti you were a witness against the Queen? On the occasion that he came to pay me a visit at my lodgings, about two months ago.
Mr. Brougham
insisted that the witness had said nothing in his cross-examination leading to such an explanation as he was about to give. It was not because A. B. had told Marrietti something, that it was to be made evidence against the Queen. Marrietti might have been dumb, for any thing that the witness had stated in his cross-examination.
Mr. Denman
further enforced this objection, contending, that the answer formerly given by the witness required no further explanation, which formed the only reason for allowing more questions to be put on re-examination.
The Attorney General
fully allowed that all questions on re-examination must arise out of something said on the cross-examination: for
1293
Mr. Attorney General.
—Did any conversation pass between you and Marrietti, at the time to which you have referred, relative to your being a witness on the subject of the Queen? Marrietti came to me in the morning, and told me that Mr. Brougham, the brother of the counsel of her majesty, had called upon him, and as Marrietti had received some favours from those two brothers——
Mr. Brougham.
—See, my lords, to what your permission leads. [Order.] Do any of the judges refuse to allow me to speak? [Some confusion.]
Lord Exmouth
said, that he had called to order, as he had a right to do, when the counsel had interrupted the witness.
Earl Grey
begged to inform the noble viscount that counsel were at full liberty to interpose if a witness stated what was not legal evidence. Counsel would ill discharge their duty as advocates, if they did not interpose, and their lordships their duty as judges if they did not allow that interposition.
Lord Exmouth
said, that the counsel had interrupted the witness in the very middle of an answer.
Earl Grey
repeated that such was the constant and regular course.
Mr. Attorney General.
—What induced you to make the statement to Marrietti, that you were a witness against the Queen? Marrietti, when he came to pay me a visit, had already been told by somebody that I was a witness against the Queen, and he asked me whether it was true, what he had heard, that I was a witness against her majesty; I answered in the affirmative; he then told me—
Mr. Denman
objected to this answer, submitting that the question put by Marrietti having been stated, and the witness having stated the answer which he gave to that question, no further account of the conversation which passed could be given in evidence.
The Attorney General
answered, that a counsel who in cross-examination put a question regarding a conversation, knew, that he
1294
nisi prius
Mr. Brougham
enforced the inconveniences that must necessarily arise if a door were thus opened to conversations of any kind, and with any persons. The primary issue regarded the Queen, and there was a collateral issue on the credibility of the witness, but neither of them could be affected by the dialogue between the witness and Marrietti. Suppose the witness had conversed with De Mont respecting the Queen, would the House think of inquiring into all that had passed between them?
Mr. Attorney General.
—Whatdid Marrietti tell you, upon your saying that you were a witness against the Queen?
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Did Marrietti, upon your saying you were a witness against the Queen, say any thing to you upon that subject.
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question,
Mr. Attorney General.
—Before you stated to Marrietti that you were a witness upon this subject, had he said any thing more than you have already stated? No.
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question. What Marrietti said could not touch the Queen, unless agency was first established.
The Lord Chancellor
consulted with the judges, and after a short inverval, his lordship stated, that the judges wished to have that part of the short-hand writer's notes which included the cross-examination relative to this point.
Adjourned till to-morrow.
1295
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, September, 6, 1820.
The House having been called over,
Lord Kenyon
made the motion of which he had given notice yesterday. He thought that, considering the agitated state of the public mind, the fullest explanation ought to be given on this most important topic. He then moved for "Copies of all Communications which have taken place between his Majesty's government, and her Majesty's legal advisers, touching pecuniary supplies; together with an Account of all Sums of Money furnished from the Treasury for her Majesty's use, since her arrival in June last."
Lord King
disliked the motion, because it only went to disclose the expenses which had been incurred on one side. He thought it right that the whole transaction should be known to the House in all its particulars. It was evident, from the testimony of several of the witnesses at the bar that large sums of money had been paid or promised on this occasion. It was, important that the House should know on what authority those sums had been promised or paid, and from what funds they had been taken, or were yet to be drawn. It would be satisfactory also to know, if any estimate had been made before hand. He alluded to the case of Warren Hastings, wherein such an estimate had been given, though the eventual expense far exceeded it. No doubt the money spent and to be expended on the present occasion, would be a sum of great magnitude and it would be well for their lordships to be informed of it. The object of the motion proposed was chiefly to secure the furnishing of proper means to the Queen for her defence. No question but that in appearance, her majesty would be most amply supplied; but would those means be all furnished? Government would, perhaps, give directions to ministers and ambassadors on the continent to give all facilities to the Queen's agents, and advance the necessary means. But upon application to those ministers, it might turn out that there was a
double entendre
The Earl of Liverpool
had no difficulty in agreeing to the motion of the noble
1296
The Earl of Darnley
then observed, that as an account of the pecuniary advances to the queen, with a view to enable her majesty to prepare for her defence, was to be laid before the House, he thought it also desirable that the House should be informed of all the expenses which had been incurred from the outset of this unfortunate business. He should therefore move for "An Account of all Sums of Money expended in the Inquiry relative to her Majesty the Queen since the time of her leaving England, in 1814."
The Earl of Essex
observed, that he should vote for the motion, but if the noble earl opposite would give a pledge, that at a future period he would lay before the House the whole of the expenses incurred in this business, including that of the Milan commission from its first establishment, he would advise his noble friend to withdraw his motion.
The Earl of Liverpool
, in the fullest and most explicit manner, said, he would do so when the business was concluded, adding, that it would be inexpedient to make such a communication at present.
The Earl of Darnley withdrew his motion.
The order of the day being read for the farther consideration and second reading of the bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty; and for hearing counsel for and against the same,
Counsel were accordingly called in.
The Lord Chancellor
recapitulated what had taken place yesterday at the close of the proceedings, and the question which had been raised on the examination then in progress. He had considered the subject, and would move, that the following Questions be proposed to the learned Judges:
1297
The Questions were delivered to the Lord Chief Justice, and the learned Judges requested leave to withdraw.
1298
During the absence of the learned Judges,
Mr. Brougham
said:—Perhaps your lordships will allow me to perform a very painful duty; but one I owe to the profession, and I may say to the court. My lords, I am unwilling at all times to complain of any use or even any abuse, if it is kept within ordinary limits, of the press; but as a minister of this court, in which I have the honour to practise, I think there are some bounds which ought to be prescribed, and which I humbly submit to your lordships, for the purpose, not of punishment, but of warning and hint for the future; and I am sure there will be on all sides of the bar a most ample disposition to concur in the propriety of this proceeding. My lords, in giving the evidence which passed yesterday, one of the morning papers of this day has made the following most gross, and I will add, flagitious mis-statement—flagitious, because no man who heard it could think that any thing like what was said, is what was here given, and the motive and purpose of altering it is equally apparent. The question asked was—"Did any conversation take place between the witness and Marrielti, relative to his being a witness against the Queen?"—The pretended answer—"When he told Marrietti that he was going as a witness against the princess, Marrietti told him that Mr. Brougham, brother to her royal highness's counsel, had said he would bestow favours on those who would not go, "charging that honourable relation of mine with tampering with witnesses, and imputing an offence to him which must, my lords, if you have privileges, suspend this inquiry, until you shall have called that person to the bar, or at least his agent Mr. Marrietti, and have dealt with him, as a person 'deserves to be dealt with who dares to tamper with the witnesses before your lordships bar. My lords, there was nothing like this said; it was only said, that that person had been with Mr. Marrietti that morning, and had desired him to go—I do not believe even that was said—but that he had been with the witness, and as he, Mr. Marrietti considered himself to be under some obligations to me, then he was going to say something else, obviously that he then came to ask what Sacchi had to say upon the subject. I put it to any man who hears this read, whether a more gross, more scandalous, or more flagitious misstatement ever was made of a proceeding in
1299
The Attorney General
said, that his learned friend had gone much further than he was warranted; for his observations went to charge him with having held some communication relative to Marrietti with his majcsty's government. He never heard, however, of the facts till they came
1300
The Earl of Liverpool
felt it material that he should state how the matter of fact stood. It was perfectly true, that the learned counsel did, with great courtesy, about three evenings ago, send him such letter and representation; and he (the earl of Liverpool) took the liberty of stating to the learned counsel immediately, that there was not the smallest foundation whatever for what had been said about any liability of M. Marrietti's being sent out of England; and informing him that he might assure M. Marrietti, the son, that he had full protection of the government, for any thing which he might do in this case. He had felt it his duty to communicate the point to another person in office, in order to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the fact; and to M. Marrietti, the father, the proceeding he had taken, in order that he might be aware of the circumstances in which he was placed, if any such thing (which he did not believe) had been really said. But he thought it also his duty now to state, that he never had any communication, personal or direct, with the attorney-general on the subject; if he had any knowledge of the fact, it must have been through other channels.
Lord Melville
said, that it having been stated, that the lords of the Admiralty had sent for two officers of the navy, in order to put questions to them, he should wish to state what was the real case, and with what view any proceeding of the kind had taken place. It did so happen, that with a view of bringing forward evidence, as to the residence of persons in different parts of the world, the professional gentlemen retained in support of this bill, had from time to time made applications to the Admiralty, to know where certain individuals
1301
Lord Erskine
said, he was satisfied the counsel meant no insinuation as to the fact which had been so satisfactorily explained. The learned counsel had, with a very natural feeling, consented to withdraw his objection to the question, which had been put on account of the insinuation made against himself. He (lord E.) however, could not consent that the rules of evidence should be departed from on account of that insinuation.
The Lord Chancellor.
—It certainly does appear, from the short-hand writer's notes, that the publication which has been complained of, is by no means consistent with the evidence which was given. My lords, with respect to representations and misrepresentations which are found in the public prints, I trust your lordships will excuse me if I take the liberty of saying, that if you throw aside your privileges with reference to such publications, you must insist on their being minutely correct. My lords, what it may be fit hereafter to do, with respect to some publica-
1302
Mr. Justice Richardson
—
Mr. Justice Best.
—
1303
1304
1305
1306
Mr. Baron Garrow
—
Mr. Justice Burrough
—
Mr. Justice Holroyd
—
1307
Mr. Baron Graham
—
Lord Chief Baron Richards
—
Lord Chief Justice Dallas
—
Lord Chief Justice Abbott
—
1308
The Lord Chancellor.
—My lords; the question on which the difficulty arose yesterday was this, "Upon your saying you were a witness, did Marrietti make any observation upon the subject of your being a witness?" Her majesty's attorney-general objected to that question: the attorney-general was heard in support of the question, and then the counsel were directed to withdraw. My lords, several
1309
1310
Lord Erskine
said, he had no difficulty in concurring with the recommendation of the noble and learned lord as to the propriety of adopting the opinion stated by the majority of the judges, and rejecting the dissenting opinion of one of them. They had fallen into the present difficulty by using a term which could not be found in the notes of the short-hand writer, the witness having never used the word "conversation;" and he would ask' how it was possible that any thing which Marrietti might have said afterwards could affect the motive by which the witness had been previously influenced.
Lord Redesdale
acknowledged that he felt himself in an awkward situation, differing, as he did, from the opinion of the majority [of the judges. The principle on which it appeared to him that their lordships ought to act was clearly laid down in the books as well as in practice. That principle was, that witnesses should state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In the present instance, it was manifest, that they had not the whole truth before them until an answer was given to the disputed question. The witness himself was proceeding to state something further, when, he was stopped. It had been admitted, that if the witness had held a conversation with one of the parties, the whole of the con-
1311
Giuseppe Sacchi
tumulto
Mr. Brougham
here submitted to their lordships whether the question could be put consistently with the decision that their lordships had already arrived at. If this question was not evidence, for the sake of regularity and the rules of evidence, let it be rejected. He felt how a counsel was exposed to the imputation of wishing to conceal a truth—that a witness might disclose in his answer, when
1312
Mr. Brougham
said, he had made the objection after the first three words used by the witness. The remainder of his answer showed how necessary it was, that he should have interposed at that moment, for it disclosed not only that the witness was giving in evidence what Mr. Powell told him, but also what lord Liverpool wrote to Mr. Powell.
The Lord Chancellor
said,. "that Mr. Brougham was right to take his objection whenever it best suited him, but that their lordships could not shut out the answer given by the witness.
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl Grosvenor.
—You have described yourself as having been an officer in the army of Italy, do you receive any half-pay in consequence of having served in the army? I have no pay.
The Attorney General
begged leave to submit, through the House, how far the custom and usage of servants could be received in evidence upon this occasion.
1313
Lord Kingston.
—You have stated in your cross-examination that you were not offered any money to induce you to come here to give your evidence; have you been offered any money by any person, or has any body endeavoured to persuade you not to give your evidence here since you arrived in England? No one has ever made me a promise of money, and no one has ever endeavoured to dissuade me from coming, because I never have communicated this thing to any body.
Marquis of Buckingham.
—How long have you been acquainted with Marrietti? Since my arrival in London.
1314
The Marquis of Buckingham
informed Mr. Brougham, that if there was any other question which he wished to put as to this interview, he would willingly put it.
Mr. Brougham
said, there was not. He had no reason to be dissatisfied with the answers already obtained, though others might be.
Earl Grey.
—Had you ever gone by the name of Milam before you came to England? I took this name in Paris.
1315
tumulto
1316
Earl of Darlington.
—What was the cause of your being discharged from the service of her royal highness?—It was in consequence of a difference which I had with the confectioner.
Huntley.
Viscount Falmouth.
—You are understood to have stated, that the princess was present during the balls mentioned by. you, as given by her royal highness at the Barona, how long was she usually present at those balls? As her royal highness had her own apartment contiguous to the ball-room where she had her own party, so she came from the room and came into the ball-room, where she staid three or four minutes, and returned into her own room.
1317
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Do you speak and understand the French language? I do.
1318
Earl of Balcarras.
—At the time you withdrew the curtain did her royal highness sit on the right or left of Pergami? Her royal highness was sitting on the right hand of Pergami.
Earl of Rosslyn.
—When you opened the curtains did you ask for orders? No, because they were asleep.
Lord Calthorpe.
—Did you ask to see the princess after Schiavini gave you your discharge? I asked to see the princess after I had received my certificate, the evening before I went away.
*
*
1319
The lard-Chancellor
acquainted the counsel on both sides, that a witness, whose attendance was required on the part of the Queen, was abroad, and indisposed, and suggested, for the consideration of the counel, whether they would consent that the witness should be examined by commission.
Robert Hare
Cross-examined by Mr.
Brougham.
Do you know the hand-writing of his majesty the King? I have seen it.
Do you know his hand-writing when you see it? I think I should know it.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Have you ever seen the King write? Never.
1320
Mr. Brougham.
—Did his majesty, when prince of Wales, keep money at your house? He did.
Were you cashier at that time? I was.
Did you pay his drafts? He did not draw himself.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The paper spoken to by the Witness was read as follows:
Pesaro, li
bro
S. A. R. la Principessa di Galles certifica a chiunque, che il Sig
r
r
CAROLINA,
Principessa di Galles.
Pesaro, 5th November
H. R. H. the Princess of Wales certifies to whomsoever, that Mr. Joseph Sacchi, native of Como, and during a year in the service of H. R. H. at first as courier and afterwards as equerry, is endowed of the best be haviour, and has served her with all assiduity, zeal, and fidelity: It is also certified, that the above-mentioned Mr. Sacchi has been dismissed merely for motives of economy, and for the preference alone which older servants in her service ought to have.
CAROLINE,
Princess of Wales.
The Attorney General
proposed to give in evidence the certificate produced by Majoochi, referring to the evidence in pages 361 and 362; and it appearing on the further evidence that Schiavini (in whose hand-writing it was proved to be) was marshal of the palace, and that he had in several instances given certificates to the servants,
Mr. Brougham
objected to the same being given in evidence.
The Attorney General
then stated to the House, that certain persons resident at Lugano, who were intended to be produced as witnesses, had set out in order
1321
Mr. Brougham
, in resisting the application, said, that the only analogy to guide the House was to be found in the proceedings of courts below: there, such a motion as that the remainder of a trial should be postponed when it had been half gone through, because a material witness was absent, had never yet been heard of. Motions of the kind were invariably made before the trial commenced, and then the party must swear to the importance of the testimony, to his inability to procure the attendance of the witness, and his expectation that in a short time he might be procured, was generally added in the affidavit. As, however, by the forms of the House, affidavits could not be admitted, he presumed that it would be required those points should be established at the bar. He was ready' to assume therefore that the attorney-general was prepared to do so, and he should oppose the present application on very obvious grounds. The prosecution had been commenced (and he only used the word prosecution for shortness, as, for aught he knew, this was nothing more than an amicable suit, and most of all unlike a prosecution), and the prosecutor had had full time to prepare himself: for months and years he had known
1322
instanter
1323
Mr. Denman
, before he followed on the same side, wished to know at what time these supposed witnesses were at Beauvais?
The Attorney General
replied, on the 27th of July.
Mr. Denman.
—On the 27th of July these witnesses rerurned from Beauvais, because they had heard rumours of what had passed at Dover. He requested their lordships to ask themselves, whether if any of the witnesses for the defence had been alarmed by reports that the Alien bill would be put in force against them, or that the English ambassadors at foreign courts—active agents against the Queen—were using their utmost efforts to bring them into trouble, the)' would think it a sufficient ground for delaying the progress of the defence; more especially when it had been commenced at the time chosen by the counsel for her majesty, and when, therefore, they came plighted to pursue it to a conclusion. Yet such, in truth, was the request on the other side regarding witnesses who were to be here four or five days hence, and who might have been here four or five days ago, if ordinary diligence had been used by the agent who had them in his charge. Where was this to stop? Was the attorney-general to be permitted thus to supply defects in every instance where he had completely failed in establishing the facts he had
1324
The Attorney General
commenced his reply by complaining of the unfair opportunities taken by the other side of deviating from the real question for the sake of making declamatory addresses, and offering insinuations against the witnesses already produced. He had also some reason to complain of the manner in which the present application had been treated. It had been said, that the object was to mend and patch up the case of the supporters of the bill; but, after having
1325
procès verbal
The Lord-Chancellor
thought, that the House would find infinite difficulty in arriving at a decision; but, in his opinion, the question would not be fairly raised until proof had been given at the bar of the cause of the detention of the witnesses, their materiality, and other circumstances of alike nature. It would be very dangerous for the House to proceed to a decision upon any case mere-
1326
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Liverpool
did not rise to offer any opinion, but merely to state a few points for the attention of the House. He admitted that the special grounds ought to be established at the bar, and he took it to be quite clear, in the first place, that, until the case of the Attorney-General was closed, it was competent to him to bring forward any evidence with which he might be furnished. If this application had never been made, the Attorney-General would have been entitled to call on the other side to finish their cross-examinations before he concluded his case. If the Queen's counsel replied that they had not the means of doing so without an adjournment, then the case of the supporters of the bill would be still open, and, without any request of this kind, they might call and examine the Luganian witnesses. If, on the other hand, the Queen's counsel required no time for cross-examination, then, of course, it would remain for the other side to submit to the House what course it would be proper to adopt. The facts to be proved by these new witnesses had been opened to the House by the Attorney-General.
Lord Erskine
felt it his duty to oppose, in the first instance, such an outrage upon public justice, as that of interposing a delay in the middle of a case, for the purpose of producing fresh witnesses. No such instance had ever been heard of in any court of justice. Indeed, so decidedly averse were the courts to interpose delays in the course of justice, that in the instance of the assassination of
1327
The Earl of Liverpool
proposed postponing the further debate until to-morrow.
The Earl of Carnarvon
observed, that the attorney-general ought first to be asked whether he was prepared with evidence to support his application.
The Counsel were again called in.
Lord Chancellor.
—Mr. Attorney-General, do you propose, and are you prepared, to enter into any proof of the circumstances on which you found this application?
Mr. Attorney General.
—My lords, I think I shall be able to lay before the House such proof as would be received in a court of justice.
Mr. Brougham.
—We submit to your lordships that as my learned friend is not even ready to say that he can prove this—
Lord Chancellor.
—The question was put by the House to the attorney-general, and no other person is authorized to interpose. Are you now prepared to enter into any proof of the circumstances on which you found this application?
1328
Mr. Attorney-General.
—I will state to your lordships what documents I have, and what I shall be able to prove before your lordships. I hold in my hand the original
procès verbal
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Your lordships are aware, that in an application to a court of justice to put off a trial, on account of circumstances that have come to the knowledge of the party making that application, the evidence by which that application is supported, is of a very different character and description from that which it is necessary to introduce into a court of justice in the conduct of the cause. All that is necessary on the occasions to which I refer is, in the first instance that a party shall make an affidavit, that he believes the witnesses to be material, and that he is informed and believes that these witnesses will arrive at the time indicated in the affidavit. He is also to explain, not by the positive oath of an eye-witness, but from the information and belief of the party making the affidavit, that such and such facts have occurred which have had the effect of preventing the arrival of the witnesses; and I undertake to say, that if an affidavit were transmitted to this country, sworn before a notary in a foreign country, stating that such and such circumstances had occurred preventing the arrival of a
1329
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords; I have no thing to trouble your lordships with, except to state—
Lord Chancellor.
—The question the House wish to put is, whether you would be prepared to go on with the cross-examination which is reserved to you, if they closed their case now?
Mr. Brougham.
—Your lordships will see, that the resolution I have come to, in conjunction with my learned colleagues, must be hypothetical—it must always be on a consideration of what case may be made out; and if these witnesses are be-
1330
Adjourned till to-morrow,
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, September 7, 1820.
The House having been called over, and the order of the day read, for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty, the counsel were called in.
Mr. Attorney General
—My lords; I think it right that I should state to your lordships, that within the last half hour I have received dispatches from Milan, and from which I find that longer delay than I had anticipated yesterday must take place before the arrival of the witnesses to whom I alluded. I think I ought, in justice to myself as well as to your lordships, to state that fact; and under those circumstances to withdraw the application which I made yesterday.
Lord Chancellor.
—My lords; it cannot but give your lordships pleasure, that this application should be withdrawn. The House, however, will permit me to say, that I think the attorney-general having in a general way stated in the opening of his case, the transactions to which that application alluded, he would not have done his duty to this House, under the state of the information which he had yesterday, if he had not submitted that application to your lordships consideration.
Mr. Brougham.
—Then, my lords, considering my learned friend as saying, that this is his case, unless something which I shall do in the way of deferring my further cross-examination should induce him to call other witnesses—taking that to be
1331
Tcodoro Majoochi
1332
1333
Mr. Brougham
complained of this interference. He was not to be interrupted in this way. Their lordships must be aware that he was obliged to pay the greatest attention to the course of the cross-examination, and yet a noble lord thought fit to object to a term he had used, and thus prevent him from proceeding. He desired to know whether their lordships allowed him to put the question.
Lord Exmouth
moved, that the counsel do withdraw; which being ordered, his lordship said he was not the noble peer who had said, that the witness had not used the word "funeral," though the learned counsel directed his looks to him. He would maintain, however, that he or any other peer had a right to interpose to correct a question which I might appear improper, without any counsel checking them or staring them in the face. He came there to sit as judge, and to vote on his honour and his oath, and was not to be lectured by any counsel whatever.
The Marquis of Lansdown
thought, that the proper course of proceeding, when any noble peer wished to interpose, was, first to move that the counsel withdraw. This, he thought, should have been done, if it was wished to ascertain whether the witness meant that people were going to see the king, or the king's funeral.
Lord Redesdale
observed, that in his opinion, noble peers had been several times insulted by the remarks of counsel in the course of the present proceedings.
1334
1335
Mr. Brougham
appealed to their lordships. Was it meant to be said that he could not, upon cross-examination, ask this question? Was it meant to be contended that it was an irregular question?
Non constat,
1336
Mr. Brougham.
—Do you mean to represent that you never had any conversation with Mr. Powell on the subject of the Queen? On what do you mean; I do not understand what you say.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he proposed to
1337
Attorney General,
1338
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl of Rosebery.
—Did you go alone to Vienna, or in company with any other person? Alone, alone, alone.
1339
Earl Grey.
—How could you keep that account, when, as you have stated, you can neither read nor write? The book of the post teaches all, shows all expenses.
The following Extract was read from the printed Minutes, page 141.
"How long were you in England at that period, when you lived with Mr. Hyatt at Gloucester? This I cannot remember, because I have not the book in which I have marked the time.
"About how long were you in Mr. Hyatt's service? This is the same answer, because I have not the book in which I put down how long I was there."
How do you explain that? Non in cui he marcato, but, di marcare.
Interpreter.
Do you mean to say, that you have not the book in which you put this down, or that you kept no book in which you entered such things? I said I had no book of any sort to mark upon, for I do not know how to read or write.
The interpreter was asked, what he conceived to be the literal meaning of the words "quanto mi recordo," which had been frequently used? to which he answered, "according to the best of my recollection."
The interpreter was asked, whether "I came in a sack, and went away in a trunk," was not an Italian proverb? to which he answered that it was.
The Witness, and also the Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he would take that opportunity, before the summing up of the counsel, to call the attention of the noble earl opposite, and of the House, to a letter which had that morning appeared in all the public journals. The letter was dated "Milan, Aug. 21, 1820," and purported to be from M. Marrietti to his son. One of the learned counsel at the bar had commented yesterday upon the extraordinary contents of that letter, and had also mentioned the communication which he had upon it with the noble earl opposite. He (the marquis) had not, however, seen this letter until he read it in one of the morning papers. Now that it had gone before the public, and would, no doubt, be copied
1340
1341
1342
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had not the smallest hesitation in giving the noble marquis the explanation he desired, as far as it was in his power at the present moment to give it; and, so far from being surprised at the question, he felt thoroughly obliged to the noble marquis for putting it, and thereby enabling him to give the explanation which he was now about to offer. He begged in the first place to assure the noble lord, in the fullest and most positive manner, that he was wholly and utterly ignorant of there being such a person in this country as the younger Marrietti. He certainly did know that there was a respectable banker of that name in Milan; but he was utterly ignorant of there being any relative of his here, and his noble friend (lord Sidmouth) was just as ignorant as he was of that circumstance; so that it was clearly impossible for either of them to have had the most remote notion of applying the provisions of the Alien hill against a person, of whose residence here they were utterly ignorant. He could also assure the House, that they were as ignorant of even the sound of the name of the other person alluded to in the letter as any noble lord who now for the first time heard it. After clearing away by this explanation, which showed the utter impossibility of either his own or his noble colleague's intention to apply the Alien bill to M. Marrietti, of whose existence they were wholly ignorant, he would proceed to answer the more immediate question of the noble marquis. Before he did this, however, he begged to state, that at the moment when Mr. Brougham had apprised him of this letter, he authorised him to take the first and earliest opportunity of apprising the younger Marrietti, that he might live here with perfect impunity, as long as he liked, from the operation of the Alien act; that he might at once remove from his mind any impression of apprehension from the operation of that law. With respect to what happened at Milan, it was quite clear he was in no condition at the present moment to give a full explanation; for he could have no knowledge of what the occurrence had been which gave rise to this letter. As to colonel Brown, he had no
1343
The Marquis of Lansdown
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation given.
Lord Holland
said, he could not help hoping that in the course of the investigation the conduct of colonel Brown would
1344
1345
The Counsel were again called in.
The Attorney General.
—Am I to understand that the Queen's attorney-general does not contemplate any further cross-examination at any time?
Mr. Brougham.
—At no time.
SUMMING UP.
Mr. Solicitor General
—
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
versus
1351
1352
1353
1354
nan mi ricordos"
1355
non mi recordos
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
"mon cceur,"
"mon ami,"
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
the bill,
1374
je paime mieux comme ga.
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdale
rose to propose that the counsellor her majesty should be asked, whether it was now their intention to open the case for the defence, or to ask the delay which had been agreed to.
The Earl of Lonsdale
said, that in this stage of the proceedings he conceived it was not improper to remind a noble earl (Liverpool) of the observations he had made on a former occasion, respecting one of the provisions of this Bill, and
1384
The Earl of Liverpool
rose to address their lordships in consequence of the observations of the noble earl. Before he spoke to that subject, in order that no unguarded expression of his might convey an idea which he did not intend, he begged to say that it was his decided feeling, and he trusted the feeling of every noble lord who heard him, that no opinion whatever should be formed of the evidence, until the whole defence should be before them. Their minds ought to be kept free from impression respecting it, if possible they ought only to listen, to weigh, and to consider; their minds ought to be kept entirely free upon the evidence before them until the defence should be closed. Having stated thus much, he would say, in reference to what had been said by the noble earl, that it was utterly impossible that any alteration should be made in the bill, until the whole case was closed, until the question of the second reading was disposed of, and the bill should be committed. What he had stated, on the discussion of the motion of a noble baron, was stated in consequence of imputations thrown out respecting the provision alluded to in the bill, and insinuations made, not only in that House, but elsewhere, that Divorce was the object of the bill. He had disclaimed that that had been the object of the bill; he had then stated the object of the bill to be public justice; he had then stated the object of the bill to be to uphold the honour of the country, and not to relieve the illustrious individual at the head of the state. He had then stated, that it might be made a separate proposi-
1385
Earl Grey
agreed with what the noble earl had stated respecting the propriety of preserving their judgments unbiassed till they could come to a full decision, when the whole case should be closed. When he therefore stated any thing hypothetically, he hoped he would hot be understood as prejudging on the one side or the other. A more unseasonable proposition than that suggested by the noble lord, who first spoke, he had never heard. No answer that the noble earl (Liverpool) could have given could have had the effect of warranting such a proposition. It seemed to him to be a proposition to restrain the counsel at the bar within certain limits in their defence. The clause alluded to in the Bill could be considered only when the whole case was closed, and the Bill came under consideration in a committee. Now, it was impossible that any alteration whatever could be proposed or made. The defence was, therefore, to be directed against the whole of the bill, as it stood at present. It was not only a bill of Pains and Penalties, but a bill of Divorce. That was the state of the bill now before their lordships; and to that extent it was the duty of the counsel to direct the evidence for the defence. He agreed with the explanation of the noble lord; for it was only the same statement, somewhat more at length, which he had given on the former occasion referred to; and he (earl Grey) had at the time acquitted him of any such object as that alluded to. He was very glad to hear from the noble earl now what he had-been persuaded of at first—that personal relief was not the object
1386
The Earl of Lonsdale,
in explanation, denied that he had made any proposal to limit the proceedings of counsel.
Earl Grey
said, that he understood the noble earl to suggest that the counsel should confine themselves to the clauses inflicting Pain and Penalty, to the exclusion of the clause of Divorce.
The Earl of Liverpool
considered the question, though put before the counsel were called in, as not intended to affect their mode of proceeding.
Earl Grey
said, he was sorry if he had misrepresented the noble lord, but he thought that if ever he had heard any thing plainly, the distinction was taken between
1387
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, he had great satisfaction in agreeing with his noble friend. He had not risen, however, merely to express his satisfaction, but his astonishment, at the suggestion of the noble lord on the other side. He meant no disrespect; he believed the noble lord bad consulted with no one upon the subject; but this was a most momentous consideration, and he would express freely what he thought in every stage of it. The question now was, the proof of the preamble to the bill; that was, had the illustrious person done what was deserving of a bill of Pains and Penalties, be their amount great or small? Whether the whole or a part of the bill should be passed was not the question at present. They had only one half of the evidence before them. If the illustrious person should not remain Queen—(they had been told a great deal of the public feeling)—what would be the public feeling, if one degraded from the rank of Queen should remain the King's wife? He desired, as a juror, to be enabled to form his opinion on the whole of the issue.
The Counsel were again called in.
Lord Chancellor.
—Mr. Brougham, I apprehend it to be the wish of the House to ask you how you propose to proceed? Whether you propose to proceed to state the defence now, or to take the delay agreed to be allowed?
Mr. Brougham
said, that surrounded as he was with peculiar and rising difficulties, and threatened to be met with a new bill—[Cries of "Order, order!"].
The Lord Chancellor.
—A question has been put to you by the House, and their lordships require an answer.
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords, I understood that counsel were now at the bar.
The Lord Chancellor.
—Counsel were ordered to withdraw, Mr. Brougham, and if they cannot appreciate that courtesy with which the House is accustomed to treat them, by not requiring that they should leave the House, the regulation must, for the future, be enforced. You are asked a question, and you are to confine yourself to the answering that question.
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords, I am called upon to give an answer to a very serious and momentous question, and it was quite
1388
The Lord Chancellor.
—You should appeal to the justice of the House, and not to its compassion. The House is not accustomed to be addressed in this way.
Mr. Brougham.
—Then I shall put myself on my right. I thought it most respectful to appeal to your compassion, and for no other purpose did I use the expression: however, as you will have the less respectful language, I must adopt it. I ask from you justice then, that as I have had no means of preparation, while my opponents have had opportunities for months before, you will allow me till 12 o'clock to-morrow, which is all the favour I ask.
The Lord Chancellor.
—The House wish to know if you will commence your case to-morrow, with a view to go through it, or if you intend to apply for delay?
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords, if I may be permitted to say so, I feel myself in the situation of a counsel, and have a right to change my plan as circumstances may suggest. I appeal to such of your lordships as know any thing of Nisi Prius cases, whether it be not customary for I counsel to wait the effect of their defence, before they determine whether they will produce evidence or not. No counsel before was ever so placed on the rack. Permission has always been given the counsel to answer the case made on the other side; and if he finds that he has not made the impression intended, he then asks leave to call evidence. I have not received—I do not say the commands—but the permission of her majesty to ask for any delay at all. Standing in the peculiar situation in which her majesty now stands, having so horrible a prospect before her, and finding it attempted to prove charges of such a character, by evidence of such a description as this, she must feel extremely unwilling to let the case remain so, with all the weight of the Opening, and all the observation of my learned friend who last addressed you. In justice only, if not in compassion, your lordships must see that it is impossible to postpone the right of defence in such circumstances for two or three months. There is only one other alternative. If, indeed, my mouth is to be stopped—if I am not allowed to
1389
instanter
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellor
hoped that he had not been guilty of the injustice, as well as presumptuousness, of giving from the chair any hint of what might be the decision of the House. He meant simply to ask, what the counsel for the Queen proposed; and, when that was known, it would remain for their lordships to determine. He did not mean to call upon the counsel at this moment to make their election, unless they preferred it; they might defer their answer until to-morrow morning.
The Earl of Liverpool,
before he moved the adjournment, wished the counsel to be informed, that the question would be put to them to-morrow morning at 12 o'clock.
Mr. Brougham
begged to be allowed to state, that he had a most anxious duty to discharge: all that he and his friends had hitherto done was mere trifling, mere nibbling at the corners of the case, compared with what he had yet to go through.—Suppose (he continued) it should be your lordships pleasure, at twelve to-morrow, that I should proceed—gracious God! am I to go on at a moment's warning? Am I, in a case like this, not to have a single hour for reflection and consulta-
1390
The Lord Chancellor
said, that House did not require the counsel for the Queen to proceed to-morrow, but to state how they wished to proceed; they need not begin until they were fully prepared.
Earl Grey
said, that the application of the counsel was to know whether he would be permitted to make his statement, reserving to himself the right of not determining, until the end of it, whether he should apply for further time to produce his witnesses.
The Lord Chancellor
remarked, that the question so stated had many bearings, was of infinite importance, and could not be properly discussed in the time yet remaining for the business of the day. It was not to be understood that counsel would be obliged to proceed to-morrow, at twelve; for, if further delay was necessary, God forbid it should not be granted!
Lord Erskine
thought it the best course that counsel should attend to-morrow morning, when the question of to-day might be repeated to them. He was sure that they might rely with confidence on the House, and that no such injustice would be done, as to compel them to proceed without all due preparation. They had most anxious and onerous duties cast upon them, and every indulgence ought to be extended to them.
Mr. Brougham
entreated the House not to adjourn for one day unnecessarily, as, if it was now decided that he should proceed, he could be just as well prepared to-morrow, as on Saturday. He could not, however, be prepared to-morrow,
1391
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that it followed, as a consequence, that if counsel could be ready by twelve to-morrow, they could be prepared by Saturday. The House ought to act according to its own notions of what was right, and of what would keep it right. The point stated by the noble earl (Grey) he, for one, considered of infinite importance, and the House ought to allow itself an opportunity for maturely considering it. Certain he was, that the true way for the House to maintain its high character, as a judicial tribunal, was, to act with caution and circumspection in its decisions. He moved that counsel be called in at twelve o'clock to-morrow.
The motion was agreed to. On the question that the House do adjourn,
The Earl of Dononghmore
rose, for the purpose of preventing any misapprehension on the part of the counsel, who had evidently shown that they had laboured under a mistake; or of the public, which might, by the same cause, be led to a wrong conclusion. The counsel had spoken as if something was endeavoured to be forced upon them by the House as a hardship; but nothing could be more unjust than such a supposition, and it ought not to go forth to the world. Nothing had been said from the woolsack which could be construed into a wish that the counsel should arrive at an immediate determination: on the contrary, what had been stated amounted to this—that, on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case, peculiar indulgence ought to be shown; and all the House wished to know was, when the counsel proposed to proceed. Not a word had been uttered about commencing
instanter,
in totidem
1392
verbis,
Earl Grey
wished to understand whether the House adjourned for the purpose of receiving the answer of the Queen s counsel to the question put to them, or for the purpose of hearing to-morrow the statement of the case on the part of her majesty.
The Lord Chancellor
replied, for the former.
The Earl of Liverpool
thought, that tomorrow the question ought to be put, Whether the application of the counsel of the Queen continued the same as it had been to-day? If, however, it turned out to be that he wished to go through his case, or that he wished for an adjournment to a future period, he was of opinion that neither request ought, in justice, to be refused. If, on the other hand, a middle course were suggested, which would leave the counsel at liberty either to call his witnesses immediately, or to delay them until a future occasion, that would be a point requiring great deliberation.
The Earl of Rosslyn
did not conceive that the learned counsel had made the latter proposition in the form of an application. He had only said that until the end of his speech he ought not to be called upon to make his option.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Ordered, that the further consideration, and second reading of the said bill be adjourned to to-morrow.
INDEX
TO VOL. II.
NEW SERIES.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Alien Bill, 194, 529.
B
Bill of Pains and Penalties against the Queen, 207, 230, 304, 428, 551, 574, 587, 612, 710, 978, 997, 1295.
C
Capital Felonies Repeal Bill, 494, 524.
Capital Felonies Commutation of Punishment Bill, 525.
Criminal Law, 491, 494, 524.
Court of Chancery Bill; Irish, 569.
F
Foreign Trade; Report of the Committee on, 139.
I
Ionian Islands; Motion for Papers respecting the, 485.
Irish Court of Chancery Bill, 569.
M
Marriage Act Amendment Bill, 419, 489, 553.
N
Navy; State of the, 528.
P
Parga; Motion for Papers relating to the State of, 485.
Petition from the Queen, 195, 230, 358.
Privately Stealing in Shops Bill, 491.
Q
Queen; Petition from the, 195, 230, 358, 574.
Queen; Secret Committee on the Papers relating to the Conduct of the, 1, 167.
Queen; Bill of Pains and Penalties against the, 207, 230, 304, 428, 551, 574, 587, 612, 710, 978, 997, 1295.
R
Report of the Secret Committee on the Papers relating to the Conduct of the Queen, 1, 167.
W
Witnesses; Motion for a list of the, in support of the Bill of Pains and Penalties, 428.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Alien Bill, 292, 324, 405.
Audit Office, 404.
B
Barrack Agreement Bill, 355, 425, 473, 497, 543.
C
Campbell, Mr.; Petition from, respecting Celtic Literature, 217.
Catholic Claims, 496.
Carlisle; Complaints against the Magistrates of, 143.
Collection of the Revenue, 176.
Coronation; Expense of the, 156, 291.
Court of Chancery, 540.
Cotton Weavers; Motion respecting the Distress of the, 116.
Court of Chancery Bill; Irish, 125, 167.
Criminal Laws, 137.
E
East India Company's Volunteers Bill, 142, 394.
Edmonds, Mr.; his Petition respecting Parliamentary Reform, 609.
Education of the Poor Bill, 49, 365.
F
Female Offenders Whipping Bill, 105.
Foreign Trade; Report of Committee on, 545.
G
Grantham Election, 221, 361, 396, 397.
I
Ireland; Motion respecting Disturbances in, 91.
Irish Distillery Acts, 474.
Irish Tithes Bill, 221.
Irish Court of Chancery Bill, 125, 167,
J
Jews, 473.
K
King's Bench Proceedings Bill, 155.
King; Private property of the late, 153, 190.
King; Provision for the servants of the late, 223.
King's Message respecting a provision for the Royal Family, 124, 143.
L
Landlords and Tenants, 611.
Libel on the Queen; Complaint of a, 586, 589.
Limerick Election, 141, 322.
Linen Bounties, 138.
Lopez, sir Manasseh; Motion respecting, 367.
Lottery Bill, 290.
M
Manners, Sir William, 291, 318, 548.
Marriage Act Amendment Bill, 139.
Metropolis Turnpike Roads Bill, 123.
Milan Commission; Motion respecting the, 259.
Mills, Mr.; his Petition respecting Borough Influence, 479.
Military Interference in the City of London, 303.
Morning Herald; Complaint against the, 362.
N
Norwich General Gaol Deliveries, 216.
O
Ophthalmic Institution, 321, 362.
Out-voters at Elections; Resolution respecting the Practice of paying Money to, 397.
P
Parga, 106.
Privately Stealing in Shops Bill, 137.
Q
Queen, The; 229, 259, 272, 477, 499, 825.
Queen; Complaint of a Libel on the, 586, 589.
Queen's Counsel, 363, 400.
Queen's Plate, 477, 499.
R
Revenue; Collection of the, 176.
Royal Family; King's Message respecting a Provision for the, 124, 143.
S
Soots Malt Duty, 218.
South America, 376.
Spirits Excess Bill, 285, 417.
Steam Engines Committee, 217.
T
Test Act, 423.
Turnpike Roads Bill, 123.
U
Union Duties Bill, 300.
W
Westminster Abbey, 395.
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Auckland, Lord, 358, 361.
B
Bathurst, Earl, 488, 527, 584, 1057, 1068.
Belhaven, Lord, 37, 466.
Buckingham, Marquis of, 174, 206.
Bulkeley, Earl of, 37.
Bute, Marquis of, 465.
C
Calthorpe, Lord, 423, 540, 566, 739, 1074.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 47.
Carnarvon, Earl of, 171, 257, 467, 540, 562, 613, 631.
D
Dacre, Lord, 48, 195, 196, 207, 214.
Darlington, Earl of, 869.
Darnley, Earl of, 49, 172, 206, 259, 528, 529, 531, 913, 1296.
Donoughmore, Earl of, 34, 982, 1055, 1182, 1185.
Downshire, Marquis of, 925.
E
Eldon, Lord,
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 141, 197, 311, 419, 462, 465, 489, 555, 570, 940, 1006, 1055.
Erskine, Lord, 22, 314, 428, 470, 551, 563, 574, 584, 803, 911, 982, 989, 999, 1051, 1054, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1185, 1190, 1195, 1285, 1301, 1310, 1326.
Exeter, Bishop of, 245.
G
Grenville, Lord, 986, 992, 994, 1014.
Grey, Earl, 1, 2, 48, 168, 172, 197, 214, 215, 233, 235, 253, 306, 617, 709, 721, 725, 1010, 1015, 1050, 1286.
Grosvenor, Earl, 234.
H
Hamilton, Duke of, 552, 633, 980.
Harrowby, Earl of, 170, 1051, 1058.
Holland, Lord, 38, 47, 175, 194, 203, 235, 245, 255, 308, 313, 358, 359, 360, 455, 465, 490, 494, 531, 539, 552, 567, 568, 570, 573, 578, 1071, 1343.
K
Kenyon, Lord, 637, 1283, 1284, 1295.
King, Lord, 583, 709, 710, 803, 1295.
L
Lansdown, Marquis of, 29, 37, 139, 200, 234, 257, 445, 491, 494, 525, 629, 632, 637, 993, 1004, 1060, 1339.
Lauderdale, Earl of, 36, 234, 358, 470, 485, 552, 572, 638, 870, 978, 997, 1050, 1051, 1063, 1067.
Leinster, Duke of, 612.
Limerick, Earl of, 423, 469, 1074.
Liverpool, Earl of, 1, 15, 47, 48, 168, 173, 195, 207, 214, 215, 231, 234, 255, 256, 259, 304, 307, 311, 358, 450, 490, 526, 537, 566, 571, 581, 625, 631, 634, 636, 715, 721, 914, 925, 981, 991, 1002, 1015, 1049, 1051, 1052, 1054, 1057, 1063, 1182, 1283, 1286, 1295, 1300, 1326, 1342.
Lord Chancellor [Eldon] 24, 34, 199, 215, 231, 233, 234, 235, 316, 421, 440, 490, 492, 495, 524, 525, 527, 552, 553, 573, 576, 624, 637, 870, 906, 908, 913, 979, 981, 985, 1007, 1057, 1062, 1074, 1180, 1196, 1261, 1308, 1325.
M
Manners, Lord, 997.
Melville, Viscount, 529, 1300.
R
Redesdale, Lord, 202, 422, 490, 494, 552, 553, 568, 569, 912, 987, 1064, 1196, 1310.
Rosslyn, Earl of, 527.
S
Sidmouth, Viscount, 529, 980, 981.
W
Westmoreland, Earl of, 422, 556.
Winchelsea, Earl of, 914.
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Abercrombie, Hon. James, 127, 136, 339, 374, 398, 542.
Acland, Sir Thomas, 321, 372.
Attorney-general [Sir Robert Gifford] 155, 603.
B
Bankes, Henry, 225, 323, 396.
Barham, J. F. 321.
Baring, Alexander, 134, 154, 164.
Barry, Colonel, 131, 133.
Bathurst, Right Hon. Charles Bragge, 298.
Bennet, Hon. Henry Grey, 162, 275, 278, 321, 362, 404.
Bernal, Ralph, 142, 154, 292.
Binning, Lord, 357.
Boswell, Alexander, 220.
Bridges, Mr. Alderman, 303.
Bright, Henry, 236, 479, 481.
Brougham, Henry, 49, 89, 90, 363, 365, 400, 403, 835.
Brownlow, Charles, 375.
Burdett, Sir Francis, 364.
Burrell, Walter, 373.
Buxton, Fowell, 128.
C
Calcraft, John, 131, 355, 425, 473, 497, 540, 542.
Canning, Right Hon. George, 128, 142, 344, 350, 375, 390.
Castlereagh, Viscount, 89, 104, 126, 130, 135, 143, 148, 152, 157, 193, 222, 223, 229, 230, 262, 272, 274, 285, 289, 291, 331, 371, 382, 400, 402, 418, 425, 504, 523, 595, 825, 829.
Chancellor of the Exchequer [Right Hon. Nicholas Vansittart] 130, 153, 154, 160, 189, 193, 218, 219, 228, 285, 288, 290, 356, 395, 417, 473, 474, 479.
Chetwynd, George, 105, 137, 155.
Chichester, Arthur, 475.
Cholmeley, Sir M. 595.
Colborne, N. R. 217.
Courtenay, W. 541.
Creevey, Thomas, 156, 269, 394.
Curtis, Sir William, 142.
D
Daly, James, 91, 131, 323.
Davies, Thomas Henry, 162, 293.
Denman, Thomas, 152, 352.
Dundas, Right Hon. William, 287, 481.
E
Ellice, Edward, 356, 393.
Ferguson, James, 220.
Fergusson, Sir Ronald, 259.
Fitzgerald, Vesey, 89, 102.
Fitzgerald, Maurice, 135, 222, 286, 419.
Foster, John, 103, 136, 290.
G
Gifford, Sir Robert,
see
Gilbert, Davies, 123, 404.
Gordon, Robert, 357.
Goulborn, Henry, 109.
Graham, Sir James, 319.
Grant, Right Hon. Charles, 95, 223, 476.
Grant, J. P. 154, 354.
Grenfell, Pascoe, 375.
Gurney, Hudson, 373, 610.
H
Hamilton, Lord Archibald, 145, 150, 218, 293, 512, 517, 607, 828, 833.
Harbord, Hon. E. 216.
Hart, General, 104, 476.
Heron, Sir Robert, 292, 318.
Hill, Sir George, 129.
Hobhouse, John Cam, 394, 405, 480, 483, 826.
Hume, Joseph, 113, 142, 153, 176, 190, 193, 226, 290, 300.
Huskisson, Right Hon. William, 229, 419, 518.
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H. 321, 418, 475, 514, 524.
J
James, William, 143.
K
Kennedy, T. F. 220.
L
Legh-Keck, G. A. 285.
Lennard, T. B. 498.
Lockhart, J. 123, 222, 398, 483, 543.
Lowther, Lord, 143.
Lushington, Dr. 132, 158, 376, 477, 499, 510, 600.
Lushington, S. R. 183, 482.
M
Macdonald, James, 136.
Mackintosh, Sir James, 90, 129, 133, 137, 216, 217, 322, 324, 341, 347, 385, 392.
Marjoribanks, Sir J. 220.
Marryat, James, 287.
Martin, Richard, 103, 132, 340, 362.
Maxwell, J. 116, 299, 608.
Monck, J. B. 416.
Money, W. T. 373, 394.
N
Newman, R. W. 223.
Newport, Sir John, 90, 104, 125, 126, 129, 131, 133, 136, 222, 230, 288, 356, 395, 418, 474.
Nolan, Michael, 132.
Nugent, Lord, 425, 426.
O
Onslow, Mr. Serjeant, 481.
Osborne, Lord Francis, 825.
P
Palmerston, Viscount, 134, 321, 357.
Parnell, Sir Henry, 185, 221, 301.
Parnell, William, 102.
Peel, William, 371.
Phillimore, Dr. 131, 139, 319, 397, 399.
Plunkett, Right Hon. W. C. 496.
Pole, W. Wellesley, 102, 336, 307.
R
Ricardo, David, 122, 139, 166.
Ridley, Sir Matthew White, 124, 128, 165, 230, 273, 291, 395, 396.
Robinson, Right Hon. Frederick, 121, 138, 163, 480.
Russell, Lord John, 106, 115, 367, 375.
S
Scarlett, James, 334, 337, 339, 352.
Shaw, Robert, 127.
Smith, John, 186.
Smith, Robert, 136, 609.
Smith, William, 164, 186, 227, 289, 366, 396, 423.
Speaker, The [Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton] 278, 320, 344, 484.
Stuart-Wortley, J. 517.
Sutton, Right Hon. Charles Manners,
see
T
Taylor, Michael Angelo, 217.
Tennyson, Charles, 319, 320, 548, 611.
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 151, 154, 165, 187, 279, 607, 825, 827.
Titchfield, Marquis of, 551.
V
Vansittart, Right Hon. Nicholas,
see
W
Wallace, Right Hon. T. 545.
Ward, Hon. John, 295.
Warren, Charles, 399.
Western, C.C. 827.
Wetherell, Charles, 586, 589, 608.
Wilberforce, William, 89, 833.
Williams, William, 132, 228, 356, 395, 403.
Wilson, Thomas, 162, 474.
Wilson, Sir Robert, 113, 417.
Wood, Alderman Matthew, 143, 610.
Wrottesley, Henry, 134, 398.
Wynn, Charles Watkin Williams, 281, 318, 364, 369, 398, 399, 401, 403.
Y
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 137, 373.
END OF VOL. II