The Sun.
London, England, 1820-07-06 00:00:00

her -case, you will study suit allow mere tech
objectionß to stand in die 4vay of complying
with the prayer (if her Maipsty's Petition. I know
not what is the precise object sought by her Ma-
jesty in this Peiition, but it is possible that she
may have to obi,et to the course by 1301 as pro.
posed by the Noide Earl, and if so, her Petition
would come most 6-fly to be heard before that
measure is introduced.

Lord ELLRNBOROUG -My Lords, I cannot al-
low that the argument of the Noble Linn!, as to
the high station of the Petitioner, is entitled to
Ow least weight. It is ',or duty to do equal and
;inpartial justice ; awl I cooteud that her Majesty
the Queen, as a Petitioner to this House, is entitl-
ed to no other consideration titan the lowest of
his Majesty's subjects. It is, I conceive, clear,
that nu subject petitiouing this House with a si-
milar claim to that. contained itt this Petition,
would .not, according to the forms and usages of
the House, be allowed to be heard ; and it is op-
on this ground, at this ground alone, I contend
tl,zt the prayer of the Petition of her Majesty
might not to he complied with.
The Earl GaRY-1 feel, my Lords, in rising
(non this subject, how notch it is involved in dif-
ficnity and embatrassment, whilst I am satisfied
at the same time, that that difficulty and embar-
rassment is one of the consequences of the course
ref proceeding, which has, 1 contend, been rashly
and improperly adopted L his Majesty's Mini-.
seers. Agreeing with the- Noble Lord, who has
jest spoken, that it is our duty to do equal and
impartial justice, I must, nevertheless, be allow-
ed to say, that there are circumstances peculiar to
this case, unprecedented as it is, at least in mo-
dern times, which remove it from the influence of
all ordinary rides. It has been admitted by the
Noble Lord, on the other side, as indeed it must
he, that there is no precedent or land-mark to
guide us in thin extraordinary and lamentable pro-
ceeding, and therefore it is the more retnatkable
that they should now set up technical objections.
As to the objection of the Noble Earl, that her
Majesty can have, in a Parliamentary sense, no
knowledge of the Report of the Secret Commit-
tee ; it appeals to nee extraordinary, that such an
objection should be urged when it may be so
easily imagined that an individual in that high
station need not long be ignorant of what is pass-
ing in this House with regard to het self, and when
not many days since it was never thought of urg-
ing that objection against heating her Majesty
by her Counsel, in compliance with the prayer of
her Petition. I certainly felt upon that occasion,
bat there were objections to that course of pro,-
ceeding, but uone were made by the Noble Lords
on the other side, and the House agreed without
opposition to hear her Majesty's Counsel. That
having been done, I cannot see how we can con-
sistently refuse to comply wi:h the prayer of the
present Petition of her Majesty, partienlat ly as the
case is nosy so much the stronger. Upon the former
Petition it might have been urged that the question
merely was as to the mode of proceeding in the
Rouse, but now there is a specific charge, and
that of the gravest nature, against the Queen
aCtnally laid upon the Table, supported by all the
sveight and authority of a Secret Committee of
your Lordships' House. Under these circum-
stances, and with no precedent to guide us, I
cannot think that .We ought to refuse the prayer
of the Queen's Petition. We ate at present ig-
norant of the nature of the Bill which the Noble
Earl on the other side intends to itstroduce, but
assuming it to be a Bill of Divorce, let us see
how the case stands. In all ordinary cases of this
description there are previous proceedings in the
Ecclesiastical Courts, and in the Courts below,
in the course of which the party accused has the
means of bringing forward witnesses ; but in this
case none of these preliminary proceedings are to
take place; the party accused is charged at once
with adultery by the Report of a Secret Com-
mittee, and after a part of our own body have
thus prejudged the case,-we are to proceed to the
final adjudication. In a case so entirely unpre-
cedented, it does not appear to me that, after
hearing Counsel in the former instance, we can
consistently refuse to hear Counsel also in the
present, according to the prayer of her Majesty's
Petition.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Brfore proceeding,
my Lords, to say a few words as to the immediate,
question before the Home, I wish to observe
upon the argument of prejudging this case, that it
is quite preposterous to suppose that your Lord-
ships' cannot, in enteriyg upon the judicial consi-
der:l6°n of this case, divest your minds of all the
information you have previously received upon
the subject, when the meanest juryman in the
kingdom (I do not use the term in any offensive
sense) is in the constant habit of divesting his
mind in a similar manner of the impressions it
hes received ; when, for instance, a man confess-
ing his guilt and giving evidence, but who not
giving that testimony which was expected from
him, is subsequetoly subjected to trial. With re-
gard to her Majesty's Petition, it is certain that,
io a Parliamenta'y sense, no perion beyond the
walls of the House can be supposed to be ac-
(painted wills what has passed within it. It is,
b!sideo, impossible, consistently with any of your
Lordships' forms and usages, that we can receive
Petition against a Bill which is not yet brought
into the House. It is the undoubted privilege of
guy one of your Lordships to present a Bill at
once us a matter of right, without moving for
leave to bring it in ; and were the prayer of this
Petition to be needed to, it would be in fact
giving the sanction of the House to a Petition
against your Lordships' privileges. I certainly,
therefore, cannot agree that Counsel should be
beat'd in this stage of the proceeding.
The Marquess of LA NSDOW N —my Lords, the
difficulty and embarrassment which I previously
felt with regard to this question, have been
terially increased by the speech of the Noble and
Learned Lord, because, after your Lordships'
agreed to hear Counsel ou behalf of her Majesty
in the former instance, when, it; point of fact,
‘.hat was petitioned against was merely a pro-
ceeding within the House and did not
amount to a charge against the Queen, I cannot
see upon what principle it is that your Lordships
can now refuse to hear her Majesty's Counsel
wken a heavy and setioos charge is actually laid
upon the Table against her Majesty. There may
be doubts as to the course of p:oceeding fit to be ,