Star.
London, England, 1820-08-18 00:00:00

mad that these are ease:, ofdlvoiee. In two eases, however, to
wl ich this objection dyes not apply, and which were not in-
serted in the Report, a list of witnesses was allowed. It is now
too sate to ask for my Illustrious Client, what I have *hewn I
should have been sanctioned by precedent in asking, but I trust
your Lordships will allow me to pray to be heard in this stage.
of the proceeding against the principle of the Bill."
Her Majesty's Counsel being here ordered to with-
draw, Mr. Buouoiram, as is usual, retired a few
pace,, and then returned to the Bar.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, the regular course
would be to call upon his Majesty's Attorney-Gene-
ral 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 prin-
ciple 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 upon the prin
ciple of the Bill, independently of the Bill, or as-
suming the accusation to be made good. He could"
...lot help thinking that this was an inconvenient stage
of the proceeding for such an application, but he
•should wish to take the sense of Noble Lords oppo-
site upon the question, before he gave any decided
upinion upon it.
After a short pause, the LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that unless some Noble Lord made a motion,
the Attorney-General must of course proceed. Ac-
cording to the modern course of proceeding, it was
not usual to discuss the principle of the Bill before
the eviden'te 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 if many Noble Lords
thought as he did, 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 bird-
ships tv,:uld be ready to hear the arguMents of the
vet y able Counsel who were now attending-at their
Bat nu beliclf of her Majesty, and he should move,
therefore, that the Counsel be allowed to proceed.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought that this was
by no means a convenient stage of- the proceedings
fin- the course pointed out by the Noble Lord. The
clearest course of proceeding he conceived was, the
usual course of proceeding.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, that he could
not concur even in the limited view which the Noble
and Learned Lord had taken of this question, namely,
%;hat the time of their Lordships would be raved by
suing into the evidence before heating any objections
to the principle of the Bill, because the facts might
Pot be proved at all. He thought, that even in this
'view of the question, the argument lay quite the
other way. 'Pere were higher considerations, how-
ever, than the convenience of this House, and that
convenience ought not to.bc ptit in competition with
s.ny possible coarse by which the. House might be
roared the necessity of these painful disclosures. It
wax clear, however, that if the Counsel were allowed
to object to the principle of the Bill now, they would
not he permitted to do so hcreaftor. He thought,
therefore, that the best course would be, to give them
t!leir option as to the time at which they would deem
it most expedient to address their Lordships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having put the ques-
tion, which was carried without a division, said, he
was commanded by the House to inform her .Ma.
3estv's Coansel, that they had their option either to
be heard against the principle of the Bill. nova, or at
a future stage of the proceeding, hut that if they made
their election to, address their Lordships now, they
would not he permitted to discuss the principle of
the Bill hereafter.

Counsel be'nf, again oidered to withdraw, iMr.
BROUGHAM retired as before, and again advanced to
the Bar. The' order to withdraw, however, being
reiterated in a loud tone from some parts of the
House, Mr. BROUGHAM and the rest of her Majesty's
Counsel retired from the Bar.

. .
The EArl of LAUDERDALE observed from the
gallery, that if the- principle of the Rill were now
casegssecl, the .Counsel would preclude themselves
hereafter, from urging such arguments against the
priliciple of the Dill as the course of the evidence
might iiggeq. .The Home-were now in effect making
a bargain with her Majesty's Counsel, as to the mode
ef conducting their clients case a course which he
rausatiimprecate as torheßy unprecedented.
The LORD CtIA NCELLOR having again.called
rpon fret Majestrs otnisertb.rOalce their option,
lietittiCG HA M Voseitid said-0' I have in the first place
to apol4.ize to pitir Lordships for no( hating immediately with-
drawi• from your Lordship; Bar in the manner which, as it
seems, would have beer. most agreeable to some of your Lord-
ships. Many of your Lordships, who arc not much in the habit
of witnessing judicial yroeeedings in this House, may not be
aware that retiring from the Bar is a mere formality, and that.
it is usual for Counsel upon these occasions to retire half a step
Item the Bar, and then to come forward. I mention this with
a view of removing any impression that I was intentionally
gt:iity of the slightest disrespect to your Lordships, and because
I am aware that there are many, even in this I louse, who are
ready to misconstrue everything—(Lood cries of " Order"). If
I understand the terms upon which I shall be permitted to ad-
dress your Lordships against the principle of the Bill, I am to be
precluded hereafter from addressing any observations to your
Lordships, except as to the truth or falsehood of the allegations
which the evidence is meant to support. I shall certainly make
my election without one moment's hesitation, and avail myself
of the permission to be heard ewes upon these terms. I du this
with entire satisfaction to my own mind, because t know too
well the justice which reigns iu this place, not to be perfectly
'attain, that, if unexpectedly, anything comes out in the course
iof the evidence front which your Lordships may find it necea-
sari, for the ends of substantial justice, to revise your opinion,
that opinion will not be considered irrevocable, and I shall not
be precluded from again addressing your Lordships against the
principle of the Bill. My Lords, my first objection to this Bill
ts, that it is a pi ivate law made fora paricular case, and fur the
te.taishment of a particular individual. U laws of this
=tore are known in the jurisprudence of this, and of all other
(centric.; but they have never been resorted to in any country.
svel in the worst of times, without a deep sense ef their hateful
.acme-, and of their toter repugnance to every principle of jus-
te'. From the earliest times of the Roman Code, private laws
wen known by the name of ririlcgicr ; and they were divided
by Civilians into two classes, one of which was favourable to
object of enactment, the other hostile to. Win, and distin-
raisht.t by the name of pririirgium oiliossim. Such was the
ttgeta which Juris-t-onsults, as well acquainted with the force
ei isugusge as with the value of the principles of justice, have
saila.al to this speti.s a law, thereby marking to after times
tc tiley deemed it to be a measure of a hateful description,
uothing but absolete necessity could justify. These Levis
ate to he found most frequently in the blackest pages of the Rm
re a... -.nulls. They ate invariably es postliscli laws. They first
7r. .nit to he dune, and whetht.rthe party is to ba
cl'noc...it or tailty is matter of subsequent inquiry ; or
she 2e- d to be done, witlicat any notice

. . .
. .
Or amnia 16 the party areasikl, tie), Met that it shall be
deemed and taken to be. equity, I shouts be guilty of cheitilsh
pedantry were I to oteupy your Lordships' time in revertingno
the history of past ages, or of proving. that the Wisest and best
of men deprecated, and even those who were not the best of
Men, had still the honour to shudder at this most inniustinible
mode of legislation. Suffice it to say, that the history of our
own couetry, even lit its worst periods, hears testimony to the
detestation in which such measures were held. Without enter-
ing into minute details, I will just refer your Lordships to the
attainders of Mortimer and Arundel, in the reigns of Edward
•IL and Edward 111. which were measures introduced upon
the pressure of a temporary emergency. I will pass over. the
Mien of I knry VIII. that barbarous, detested, and justly de-
tested Monarch ; detestable for his unprincipled spoliations, for
his heartless cruelty, and for his violation of the tenderest ties,
and I will take my stand at a period of a better description, the
reigns of Charles I. and Charles 11. Your Lordships will pro-
bably call to• mind the attainder of Lord Strafford, the greatest
disgrace, even in the worst of times, that ever sullied the purity
of either I louse of Parliament. Your Lordships will the rather
call to mind the case of the Earl of Strafford, because it is cited,
and, for aught I knoweapproved by some df your Lordships, in
the Report of the Committee appointed to search for precedents
in cases of impeachment. Impeachmeot, did I say ? It would
have been comparatively a case of justice had the Earl of Straf-
fordbeen impeached; it wristlet thettleasse been sn quasi-judicial 1
proceeding, in which, while tl'e principles °injustice were vio- I
laced,. she forms would at' least 'bane Wei' haWnplisentred. ' Ter
show to your Lordships the sense which our ancestors enter-
tained of this foul act of iniquity and injustice, I evnl read to
your Lordships the terms in Whichnheynecntinen 'Mr opinion.
No language of mine, or even of the most eksoulent- orebehe
whom I have now the honour to address, can mak.eso deep in
impression upon the judgment, as the admirablennondnitf those
predecessors of your Lordships. After steting•that,•,upon vari-
ous pretexts, the turbulent party seeing no hopes to effect
their unjust designs by any ordinary way of proccenline, did 'at
last resolve to attempt the destruction of that Earl by an Aet.df
Parliament made for the express purpose, they proceed to re-
scind, repeal, and reverse this said unjust Act, and then to add
these memorable words, , And to the end that right he done to
the memory of the deceased Earl, who was thus murdered, be
it enacted further, that all records and proceedings of I arliament
relating to this attainder be wholly cancelled, defaced, and obll •
terated, to the intent that the same may not be visible In after
ages, to be brought into example to the prejudice of any person
unieseevern Of this description, substituting only for life,
rank the inost illustrious, and station the most exalted, privileges
the must esteemed among s men, and what is higher than all the
rest, and dearer than each, everything that is most dear to cha-
racter, fecliten and honour, the Bill which now lies upon the
table of your Lordships belongs strictly, and even technically,
to the class which your lordships' predecessors have thus cha-
racterized. The rest rsal of Lord Strafford's attainder manifests
the manly sense which out ancestors entertained for that abomi-
nable measure. It may be regarded as a beacon to warn posterity,
as a landmark for after ages, when future Princes and future Par-
liaments might be tempted to commit similar acts of injustice.
My Lords, I have stated the opinion of your Lordships' prede-
cessors In the case of the. Earl of Strafford, but I will venture to
say, that the attainders in the worst of former times, not even
excepting any of the attainders of Henry the Eiehih's wive!,
were regular, consistent, judicial acts, compared with this. In
the first place, nothing illegal is charged against her Majesty.
This I am bound to say, both in consequence of the decision of
the Judges, and still more upon the race of the whole proceed-
ings, that there was-no possibility of proceeding at law. If any
act had been committed in violation of the law, I ant bound to
suppose that the' extraordinary proceeding of a Bill of Pains and
Penalties would not have been resorted to. Nothing illegal has
been done—nothing illegal is charged against her Majesty. This
is a mast material consideration, to which I humbly crave your
Lordships' attention. Although no law has been violated, it
dues not follow that no judicial proceeding could be resorted to;
beemuie impeachment is eipreselyOOd emphatically provided for
the trio of matters not cognizable by theordi nary-course of law..
I do not mean to say, that one class of proceeding is necessarily
Minded in the renunciation of the other; but that crimes and
misdemeanours, which cannot be indicted in the Courti of
Westmiester, are, nevertheless, cognizable before your Lorde
ships by impeachment. In Lord Strafford's case, an impeach-
ment had been resorted to; but it was apprehended that it
might fail, and a Bill of Attainder was accordingly commenced
in the House of Lords while the Impeachment was still pending.
Why was not impeachment resorted to in the present case:—
Was the tattered and ragged evidence considered on so despe-
rate a character, that no hope could be entertained of your Lord-
ships' concurrence in a charge of impeachment? - Why Were
your Lordships distrusted ? If the Minn-. submitted to the
other House of Parliament had been sent up here with a view
to impeachment, if managers had been sent up from the other
House, they would at any rate have allowed the proceeding to
go on. See, my Lords, how much we have been deprived of
Iby not adopting this course. If an impeachment had been pre-
ferred, the charges would have been specially drawn up with a
convenient certainty ; we should have been furnished with a list
of witnesees, end with all those'advantages which belong to a
reel juliei..! proceeding. • Though I ant aware that your Lord.'
ships lis.ve every disposition to conduct this proceeding in the
spirit cf justice, your Lordships will forgive me when I say,
that tins is not a judicial proceeding. I am prepared to shew, as
well from tile authority of cases decided in this House, as from
the recent protests of 'virtuous minorities, that such acts as the
present ought never-to be resorted to, unless from absolute neces-
sity, either to avert sonic impending danger from the State, or
to prevent an absolute failure of justice. In a Protest drawn up
by Lord Chancellor Cowper, it is said that -nothing short of
such an absolute necessity can justify such a proceeding as that
now before us: What, then, is the impelling or over-ruling ne-
cessity which can justify the present measure? Is the suc-
cession in danger? It has never been even alleged or sure
mised that the succession can by any possibility be endangered.
If her Majesty had been brought up for trial under the Statute of
Edward 111. t hough this has been decided to be impossible, and
even admitting the allegations against her to be true, for the sake
of argument, yet when the long separation, and the age of the
parties were considered, no possible danger could be apprehended
to the purity of the Royal succession. The vrant of heirs may.
be one ground of danger to the suecteninete%huel thalfdisrniss
this without any observation, because no,inan pceteaclatitat the,
succession is endangered from this cause. It has been said, that
the conduct imputed to her Majeserhailinknidelneynice'degrade
the Crown, and the Nation with. wtsinnssbe. is *outvoted, and
that that connection ought therefore in tio'norokeo off. If these
charges were brought forward agaldet.irin elfin *ldie'Princess
of Wales, can any one doubt that e divorce most bateabeen sought
for in the ordinary way—that all the usual forms upon such an
occasion must have been gone through—atbatehe party seeking
-the divorce must himself have presented a Petition to your Lord-
ships-e-and, above all, that be must have come into Court with
clean hands? lint the period when my client was Princess of
Wales was allowed to go by. These accusations were delayed
until she became Queen, and thus care seemed to have been taken
to deprive her of the rights of a private subject. Ido not, how.
ever. say that these rights are gone, but others do, and this ex-
traordinary course ut proceeding is resorted to upon the alleged
ground of 'Stole necessity. Upon this plea it is attempted to
build an argument for excluding • the Queen from those rights
which any other female in the country would, on an analogous
occasion, be allowed to exercise without dispute'--which could not,
under any pretence, be refused to my clienteif these proceedings
had bean felicitated against her while she was Princess of Wales.
But I contend that her Majesty should be allowed the same'
privileges now as formerly, mine pro franc, as the lawyers say.—
Her Majesty must indeed be, in common equity, entitled to the
same rights and means of defence against the attack made in
this Bill, as if that attack had been, made aeon her while Prin-
cess of Wales. I now come to another pareof the case, and I
have tp implore your Lordships to pause while yet on the
tlu-eshotil of this extraordinary proceeding, and thus avert the
consequences which arc but too likely to follow if you deter-
mine to persevere. I will not now advert to any topic of re-
crinsitution. I should, indeed, must deeply deplore the painful
necessity of doing so upon any occasion. Set the tight of re-
crimination en the part of my client I could not exercise with-
out directly violatieg• the express injnections of her Majesty;'
nor is it my purpose to resort to that right unless driven to it by
absolutenind over-ruling necessity: I am also enjoined by My
client to abstain on thisoceasionfrem all arguments in the way
of recrimination fornhose charges of levity. or indiscretion, or
criminality, or criminal intercourse, which have been brought
forward against the Queen, according to the lannuage.of bet
iceusers ; 1 mean Chose charges, none of which have c eer been
proved, but which have been bruited abroad artd gossiped about.
But I will not at preseet.enter into any recriminatory ar-,
gunienu upon this subject. I will, indeed, postpone such
arguments until the last necessity arise to call for them. I
1 will also postpone all areurneets upon -certain coeduct pre-