Star. — London, England, 1820-07-15 00:00:00

r e. C~~ ~ \ 4 -1 ." • C cults on the :present question. The present was certainly a novel proceeding, but he did norconceive it one in which they ought to deviate from their established rules of proceeding. He was willing to grant to her Majesty every facility granted to any individual similarly placed since the Revolution.— But the Queen asked more, and more he would not . grant, because it would be a deviation, not only from the established rules of Parliament, but from the established rules of law, except in cases of High Treason. Was there anything in her Majesty's case different from those other ,Bills of Pains and Penal ties, which could induce them to depart from their Usual course? He thought not. No course more favourable to her Majesty could have been adopted consistently with the principles of the Constitution. —They were not to look to what was favourable to her Majesty, so much as to what was most likely to lead them to the straight forward road to justice.- 1: was because he entertained this feeling that he would give his negative to the motion. Let their Lordships consider the nature of the motion. Let them also consider what the last request of her Ma jecty was. Supposing that the present motion were carried, of what use would a list of witnesses be to the Queen; if the inquiry was to be proceeded in within twenty-four hours ?—(llcar, hear, hear). — How was her Majesty to make herself acquainted with the habits or characte:rs of those who were to give evidence against her ? The presence of the Judges being necessary, the inquiry was postponed to the 17th of August ; but even so, how, by any di ligence on the part of her Majesty or her advisers, could any efficient inquiry be made re: ecting those witnesses before that petiod? In fact, this demand was made more for popular effect, than with any view of benefiting by it. But, supposing that the list of wituessei was granted, how was it possible to make out the list of names so as to avoid a misnomer ? and that would be made use of as a ground of still further delay. He thought it would be impossible so to de scribe the witnesses as to enable one-half of them to be called. They ought not to be misled by pub lic feeling, nor ought they to mislead that feeling.— This was, of all cases, one in which the witnesses ought to be broup,ht forward unawed and unbiassed. Let her Majesty have a fair opportu:iity of disproving the charges against her. but first let them have the evidence upon record, let them know the nature of the accusation, and then let her Majesty have a full and ample opportunity cf rebutting it. Upon these grounds he opposed the motion. Lord HOLLAND could not.understand what the Noble Lord meant by talking, as ho had done, about popular effect and popular clamour—(Hear, hear). *4 It," continued Lord Holland, “ the Noble Lord alludes either to me or to my, Noble and Learned friend who has brought forward the motion, I fling b.o.k the imputation with scorn l--.(Loud eheeriag)— ail,' will tell him, that it is a most unparliamentary proceeding to attribute improper motives to any No- ble Lord—(Load cheeriag). lf, however, he alludes to the Illustrioui Individual whose case is now before the House, I tell him that I do not envy the feelings r.or admire the charity of that person who can im pute motives which he cannot know, and which it impossible for him to prove, to a party labouring under such heavy charges as the Illustrious Per sonnge to whom he alludes."—(lmmense cheering). Onto (idlers as ybu *mad they_ should do mite you t o He should vote for the motion. The Earl of- CARNARVON felt it necessary tol Mike a few observations on this very important ques- 4 tion. It was urged on the other side, that there were many difficUlties interfering against the present mo tion. He did not wish to refer to the straitened 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 mea sure, 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 ta• be scarcely worth repeating. It commenced by .stating, that "Nllereas, 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 Ber gami, a foreigner of low station, who had before served in a similar capacity." Where, he would ask, was the charge of criminality in this ?—(Hear).-- The preamble went on to state, " And whereas the said Bartolomo Pergami, or Bergami, had so enifered the service of her Royal Highness the said Princess of Vales, and a most unbecomin and disgusting inti- , macy 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 ser vice, 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 taken upon herself to institute without any just or lawful authority," What was the amount of this charge? Was it one which a grave assembly could entertain against her Majesty? Was it one which could be entertained in a Court of Law? Her Majesty was accused of having obtained orders and distinctions for this individual. If this meant anything, it was a charge against those powers who had granted these distinctions. Let their Lord ships look to the manner of distributing, as well as to the persons to whom distinctions had been given in this country, and let them consider whether this be a charge upon which her Majesty ought to be arraigned? Having finished this part of the preamble, in which he conceived there was no charge, he nest came to that part in which her Majesty was charged with having conducted herself indecently, and with having an adulteteus .. ibtercomie with this Bergami. Now, if there was any crime, it was in this Charge of adul tery. He would ask the Noble Lords opposite, whe ther they meant to persist in this charge?-whether they thought they could convict her Majestr.or it ? The vague terms in which it was made - were like the charge.of treasonable practices" against an indivi dual but who ever krider a man convicted of Treaion under such a charge? In-support of. this Bill, he had no doubt but a considerable share • of matter would be introduced, which it would be" ! betterlo keep from the public eye—matter which Would' per haps cast obloquy on her Majesty, without being suf ficient to convict her. • He did not think this was the intention of Ministers, and therefore he thought they were bound to -withdraw the preamble, and to supply it by one of a more definite nature. Biitif this was not done, he conceived they were bound to grant her Majesty a list of the witnesses against her, as her Majesty was entitled to every facility in conducting her defence. Upon these grounds he felt it his duty to support the motion. Lord LAUDERDALE opposed the. motion, on the ground that to adopt it would be to defeat the ends of justice. Did his Noble and Learned Friend call for such a list of witnesses as that prescribed by the Act of Williant ? No. He knew that to be im possible. He called for a list of the intended wit nesses, reserving to the House and to the accusers the privilege of summoning fresh ones. What justice would there be in this, either to the accusers or to the accused ? He of coarse by no means imputed such an intention to the accusers, but the adoption of the proposition would enable the accusers to give a false fist, sending the accused to inquire after nonentities, and afterwards to bring in the real witnesses by whom the case was to be established. It v.'As also to be con sidered, that by agreeing to the motion an opportu nity would be given for tampering with, and intimi dating the witnesses—an evil, against which, their Lordships must, one and all, see the necessity of guarding. He thought the national character had been already degraded by what had recently taken place with respect to some of the witnesses, ind to give a list of the witnesses would be to endanger a still greater forfeiture of that character. Lord ERSKINE made a brief reply. His motion stood on the principle, that it was justified both by the Act of William 111. and by the practice of the Courts of this country, in which suits for adultery were tried. In the Ecclesiastical Court, when a wo man was charged with adultery, (and the difference of rank could make no difference in the justice of the case), all the circumstances which it was necessary for her to know both with respect to the specific ac c asation, and to the means by which it was to be sup ported, were communicated to her. The Noble Baron (Lord Ellenborough) had said, that he would grant her Majesty as much as the law permitted, but not more. He put it to the Noble Baron to point out a single instance in which, when a woman was charged with adulterous intercourse, the information which he had described was not communicated to her? Nine out of teh of Bills of Pains and Penalties origi nated in the House of Commons ; and by the time they arrived in that House the accused was ac quainted with all theavidence, and had the power to examine such fresh witnesses as might be deemed ex pedient for the defence. His motion was founded on the analogy to the statute of William. He was shocked at the answer which had been made by the Noble Lill opposite to the argument grossing out of that analogy. The Noble Earl had said that the Act of William was in abeyance until the trial of Lord George Gordon. He called upon the Noble Lord to tell the House bow important had been the advantages derived from the Act since the period of its execution. He (Lord ErSkine) had been personally concerned in many cases of High Treason where lists of the wit nesses were communicated to the accused, and could therefore speak to the benefit of the proceeding. He . denied, most strenuously, that the verdicts in the Lord ELLENBOROUGH explained. « From the' respect which the Noble Lord knows I feel both for him and for his Noble and Learned Friend, he must have known that I could not intend to impute to either of them any design of exciting popular cla mour. Neither had I any intention to impute any ..!ch motive to her Majesty." Lord HOLLAND expressed himself satisfied with the Noble Lord's explanation: The Marquis of BUTE said, that he differed from the Noble Lot d (Ellenborough), regarding the inuti lity of granting a list of the witnesses to her Majesty, Lecause she could not inquire into their characters 7,vithin twenty-fours. He thought, that as some of them were stated to have been persons in the em ployment of her Majesty, and indeed must have been as they were to speak to her private habits, the knowledge of their names, if :t was only twenty-four lours before they were examined, would be of some importance to her in her defence, and upon her cross examination of them. Ile maintained that, as the Bill now before their Lord.,hips went to degrade her from the rank and dignity of 'Queen of England, and as she was entitled by the laws of that kingdom to a list of the witnesses to he exhibited against her, it was unjust to refuse them to her, when she was to submit to a trial before the Peers of that nation, as well as before the Peers of the other parts of the ljnired Kingdom. He likewise reminded their Lord ships, that the Bill now before them might not be the only Bill introduced into Parliament against the illustrious Lady. Supposing her to be found guilty ef the charges produced against her, might not a Bill of Exclusion be introduced, to prevent her suc cceding at any future time to the British Throne, to wliich it would be recollected that she would, in case of the death of certain individuals, have a legal title is I.cr own right ? The Noble Marquis concluded by o b his assent to the motion. Lord BELHAVEN said, he' could not give his vote on this occasion without making a few observa tions. They were about to pass a law, which would &price her Majesty of rights, which she would other wise possess. In such a case it was their Lordships duty to afford her every opportunity of conducting her defence. Her Majesty asked no more than that svnich, according to the laws of one part of the Bri tish dominions, was allowed to every subject, and to which she was entitled. He could not help ex. pressing hii surprise at hearing certain Noble Lords opposite, and who owed so Much to die People, raise their voice; against what ['trey called " popular clamour ;" to hear them exclaim, " the People mean , to trample on us, to di rect u s ," and so on. Ile re nambered the time, to use the words of the Poe— " When Europe bow'd beneath the yoke, " And Austria bent acid l'russia broke, " And tht firm Russian's purpose brave, " Was bartet'd by 2 timoroul slave ' At such a period as this, the Noble Lords who now • !:ec:ied poiadar feeling, tailed for and found their :::.t resource in the People—(llear,Aeor).—The Noble L Id concluded by observing, that there was a maxim Divine Authority which ought to govern Noble I —rdi, as well as other persons, On reflecting what e(,:111 be their hopes and fears were it possible they be similarly situated with her Majesty." Do ', . , . . • • • .. . • - . ,-, . • , cars to which be alluded W . ire . tini t iki_, of ghat they; .Sir. S. NEWPOR Sal twit any arranrstient a *ere the result of popular clamour. The Noble Lord do aWay.with the system 'of svarehoosing in the dis. here entered irsto a short review of the merits of the tilleries, which" he understood would Than a part of t?ials of Lord George Gordon, and subsequently of one of the Bills, would, he feared, lead 6 frauds on Hatfielt, the proceedings in the latter of which espe.! the Revenue. Any tneatisie to encourage srnel legal dial!) , had been translated into all the languages. of stills', and thus td suppress ellen distillation, wotild• Europe, and had - been generally eulogised (among l be a great benefit to Ireland. others by the celebrated Madiale de Steel) as afford. Mr. CHICHESTER objected to a proposal which iug the most admi ra bl e e xam pl e o f B r i t i s h Artspeu.l he understood formed part of the Chancellor of the dente: It was rather too much to adduce in hostility i Exchequer's plan to limit the distillation from each to the Act of William, the opinion of a puisne Judge.' small still to 2000 gallons. This amount could not —a man Whom he, nevertheless, allowed to be an in. I possibly pay the expeases of erectieg such stills. dividual of considerable learning and integrity—he I Mn. HU I 'CHINS6N would • n ot , by n o w cons eht. meant Mr. Justice Foster. It was rather ' too muchlkg to the introduction of these Bills, be considered to adduce Mr. Justice Foster a g ain s t a S ta t ute Lawlas giving his epprobation to them. The Right Horn which had existed for HO years—(Hear, hear).—! Gentleman had t difiictilt task to perform ih regu. That Act had been called a Tory Act. If so—if it ' lating the distilleries of lieland. He would advise proceeded from Tories, it was only an additional the Right Hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity proof that GOD had created no an i ma l w hi c h was not of communicating with the dittiiie rs o f I re l an d, an d df some use or other !—(A laugh). According to others interested, to see how far the plan new pros some Noble Lords, the present proceeding was one pbsed could be beneficially adopt-ed. *hich seemed likely to set the world on fite. Those General HART complained of the late period of Noble Lords also talked of popular clamour. In his opi- the Session at which these measures were be ought nion, that which was so called in the present instance, forward, which rendered it impossible to give them was only popular reeling ; and the only way to abate due consideration. He complained particularly of that feeling was to render justice !—(1-fear, hear).— the system and principle of the Excise altogether ,Tice Noble and Learned Lord concluded, by again Mr. C. GRANT thought he had reason td Corn. intreating their Lordships to accede to his motion ; plain of the _gallant General for bringing fo r w ar d th'y had a right to reject it, because they were su - his charge against the system at a period when there preme—but they ought •to grant it, because they was neither time ibr inquiry as to the truth of the should be just !—(Hear, Hear, Hear). phargei brought forward, nor to remedy the evils if The House then divided— they existed. ' - • Foe the Motion - - 48 - General HART then alluded to two instances of Against it - - - 78 abuse on the part of Excise Officers. Ore of them re- Majority . - ,—,....50 lated to an Excise Officer having shot an individual 11111 House then Adjourned. through the bod ; the other to an Officer who, hav- TIOUSE OF COMMONS. ing been tried fqr s pie act of violence, and condemned; Mr. IRVINE presented a Report Irons the Committee on had been pardoned' . y the Lord Lieutenant. the duadaloupe Claims. Mr. C. GRANT really must complain of this con- Mr. P. MOORE presented a Petition from Olivia Sere. duct on the part of his lioncurable Friend. The The Petitioner stated herself to be the 'legitimate daughter of the late Duke of Cumberland; she asserted that she possessed a, course adopted by him 'Ras calcUlated to k i !s credia document to prove the solemnization of a marriage between her Government, and not to afford opportuniry ;Or in. mother (who was Julia Wilmot, the daughter of the late Dr. quirt'. The first instance alluded to by the gallant Wilmot) and the late Duke of Cumberland, the brother of his General would come under the consideration of the late Majesty, in the year 1767. The Duke of Cumberland had propel: Tribunal in the regular way. The c the r m an subsequebtly married another Lady', on account of which his Marriage with the Petitioner's mother Was concealed. From was convicted under Lord Ellenberough's Act, and this cause the Petitioner, who was born in 1774, had been de- condemned; but the Jury recommended his sentence prived of property which should have descended to her. She to be commuted for trahspertation ; - afterwards, stated that she possessed a document with the sign manual of his d 9 d ee in the L ord n Lieutenant, u;:o the advice of the late Majesty, acknowledging the validity cif the marriage of her Lord Chief Justice, and the mother.—ThePvtition was laitkon the table. Lord Chancellor, the Lord A. HAMILTON took occasion to say, that what he Attorney-Genetak, pardoned the man. - had said last night respecting Sir P. Murray, was mistated in After some further observations from Mr.--Loce 77te Morning Cliionicle. Ile now repeated, that he had never HART, aril Mrs a accused Sit I'. Murray of having given up claim to the Repre- 9 Sir. otarititetviott eneral'llXii • sentation of eertistere, in order to get ofil . ce ; and, in fact, that GRANT, leave was, given to the CHANCELLOR of the h- had tot made such an assertion respelling any Candidate on Exclieettita to.bring in his Bills. • an occasion whatever. THE QUEEN: 4. The Ikinaghadee Harbour Bill was read a third time, and Si r JOHN NEWPORT exptessed a wish to know* . . passed. • whether, if the Bill. at present pending in the other Mr. HOBIIOUSE said he should, in the next Session, bring before theattention of the House, the situation of a C LAB of his Hoitse with respeCt to her hljesty, were brought Majestyts subjects, which might, and ought to be, ameliorated. down to that ilciuse,lt - Was the intention of Minister! They had heath last night mention made by Honourable Gun- to propose :he same tourse.of t proceeding that had demen of the situation of the Catholics and Dissenters; be (air. flobhoose) should shortly call their attention to the situation of been followed by the* Lords; and whether it was in. the Jewe l , who now laboured under 'disabilities which would tended to - move a call of the House? it was del) be hardly believed to exist in such an age as this, and 'especially sirable to inform the I - louse upon this subject, in order in London, and other Cities of the Empire. . to guard against ani soiprise in the event of the Bill The AppoPriation Bill was read a third time, and passed; . also die Sea Offences Bill. . being suddenly breughe d r own from the Lord&; and The EducatiOn Endowments Bill went through a Committee. also in order that those Gentlemen who had any busi -Report on Monday. - ness to transact at distant parts of the United King. zessertz's !Alt ISAtiIACKS. dom might have means afforded to have that business The Those having resolved itself into a Committee on the done in due time. Barrack Agreement Bill, The CHANCELLO I of the . EXCHEQUER said; Mr. CALCRAFT said, he should be extremely obliged to. the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some information respecting he was sure that ever); ihdividual islio had the hos the Barracks in question. He had learned. by accident, that nom : to be a Member of that House, would feel it his One reason fist the great expense with which the buildingiof these d t to a y attend upon such - a - solemn occasion. Barracks was to be attended, was, that a wall was to be built ' inclosing a large track of ground. He wished to know how many Sir JOHN Nk;WPOlt'l deelaied that he did r siat acres were to be thus inclosed, and whakwas the estimate of the - put the question from any solicitude fer his own cases expense of the wall? but for the satisfaction of others, mho, instead u The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER allowed that being left to conjecture and surmise, u islied to have the building of a boundary wall formed a considerable item in SOMedlillg like certainty upon this sutiect. the estimate. He did not know exactly the quantity of ground Inclosed, but he believed it was about eight acres. SITLEOD AND BRUCE. Mr. CALCRAFF thought it was a most improvident expen- Mr. J. P. GRANT requested to know whether in diture of the public money, to spend a large sum in building a the case of M'Cleod, who had been s enten c ed i n S co t. large wall round eight acres of Lnd for the accommodation of land to transportation for a seditious offence , it wa s 400 men. He had done his utmost to prevent this waste of the ' public money, and if the House of Commons was not disposed the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to recomnfend I Ito save X 50,000 or £40,000, ir was not his fault. He should him to mercy? He put this question beca use; f rom divide the Committee ou the main clause—(ifenej. • all the circumstancet of the case, such a sentence The CH A NCELLORof the EXCHEQUER said, the wall ought to be mitigated. His Noble Friend near hint be which had been spoken of was to built round a piece of ground for the exercise of the troops. The Barracks in question had, it was known, given notice of a motion to a b os were not like those hi Hyde Park, nears place where they could lish the power of transportation for s editi on in Sco t . & exercise their horses, as the whole of the Regent's Park was laid land, and it was also known that many high a u th o r ` out in inclosures or plantations. • Mr. C. CALVERT thought this pretence for building a high miss in Scotland entertained serious doubts as to t h e will round eight acres of ground was absurd. There were near legality of such a power. These doubts:were indeed the Opthalmic Establishment inclosures of more t h an eight acres, . expressed in a late case by one of the Judges of the where the Cavalry might exercise, without the necessity of any Court of Session,. and under such circumstances be sucbwall being built. submitted that the sentence against M . leod should Mr. THOMAS WILSON (Member for the City) wail not C satisfied that these Barracks should have been built at all. The not be carried into execution. troops might have bees kept where they were, till the tranquil- The Hon. Mr. CLIVE said, that neither the Lase ley of the times would allow them to be removed to some of the Officers of the Crown in -Scotland, nor the proper unoccupied Barracks in the neighbourhood of London. If they Officer in this country, saw any reason tb recommend were to have been built at all, they should have been built In the • most economical manner ;—on the contrary, the plan which had M'Cleod to mercy. been proposed to them for their approbation, betrayed gross ails-. - i • . Lord J. RUSSELL asked orlon what_gronnd it vvat • . , management of thepliblic money. If the wall welch was to determined to transport Bruce, who was convicted at the last Assizes of Ch es ter? This certainly was a cost so much should be esteemed necessary at some future time, it should not have been built at present, when every possible en deavour should be used to prevent the increase of the expendi- case of very peculier character; for if Bruce were ture. Even assuming the correctness of the estimate, the mode guilty, the punishment was too little, and if he was of paying the builders seemed to him injudicious, u tending to innocent, that punishment was. too much—or rathe r ,. increase unnecessarily the present annual charge on the country. if he were innocent, wily should he be punished a t a ll ? If X 70,000 had been raised at the market rate of 4f, per cent. The Mn. Hon. MCLIVE said, that his Mij i es ' ry . 's Mi the annual charge on the country would only have been 8 3400,• - . instead of 5,400 a-year. He thought the Bill should be thrown nisters saw no reason to recommend any alteration in back on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to try to force him the present sentence upon the person alluded to. to make a better bargain; and the attention of the House was ' PENRHYN. more forcibly called to the question, by the statement which — Sir C. BURRELL said, that in consequence oi an the Honourable Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Calcraft) had made on a former night, that the contractors were friends to opinion from high authority, to which he felt it his whom he was indebted for services don e him, but that he, oot- duke to tow, and also from a wish to wait the issue withstanding, felt himself bound to bring the subject forward. of the Bill brought forward by the Noble Ilitcl n e ar Sir H. PARNELL read the Resolution of,the House in the last Session in favour of economy, and asked whether it was not him upon the subject of Grampound, he bad i n t hi s a mockery pass such a Resolution, .and to sanction such a Session declined to propose the measure which 1 0 measure e o Istth is? some time since promised with respect to Penrhyn ; The Committee divided—For the Clause, 50—Against it, 33-- but, notwithstanding the delay, he should not f ee l Majority 17. himself precluded from bringing the subject before The Rill went thrbugh the Committee.—Report to-neorrow. the House, either after the adjournment, or in the ' The House went into a Committee on the Irish next Session of Parliament. Distillery Acts. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex- VOTERS IN SCOTLAND. plained the nature of the measures he intended to Mr. CLIVE laid a Return upoa the table with propose very briefly, as be stated Members would respect to the Voters for the Counties of Scotla n d. have ample time to consider them when the Bills Lord A. HAMILTON observed that this R e t urn served . to skew what he had-alleged in that H ouse -were before the House. The measures were divided into three heads, and were to consist of three distinct upon a loaner occasion, first, with rega r d to t h e Bills. The first for the regulation of large stills; the pauc itycon of the voters for counties in .Scotla n d ; ly, that the names of those voters were the second for the regulation of small stills; the third for secondly, the suppression of: illicit distillation. Under the last same in various counties ; and thirdly, althou g h not so prima fiicie, that of the few entitled to v o t e , i t .bead he should propose an enactment to permit any person to seize unlicensed stills, and to give certain was not required by law that any person should p os . rewards for such seizures, to be paid by Magistrates, secs landed property, while; in point of fact s s e vera l the sums thus expended being presented by the Grand* had neither landed nor personal property. U pon Juries at the Assizes. these grounds he had moved for papers, and on these I',