Star.
London, England, 1820-06-27 00:00:00

cularly upon other Members of tha Committee.; .but
there were several others, who, from their situation,
or ether circumstances, were regarded by the Nation
is having a bias against the interests of the Illnstri•'
ous Person whose conduct was now under considera-
tion. He hoped theic Lordships would opnsider well
the great interests which were involved• is this ques-
tion, the close and vital connection *.vilich it had
with the honour and character of the Crown and
Country, and the alarm which it. had excited and
spread from one end of the Kingdom to the other.—
At least hi trusted that they would consider how far
the claims of her unfortunate Majesty had the equi-
table and just grounds which would make them de-
serving of being entertained by their Lordships in
the same way as the fair claims of every English
subject. It was not, therefore, too much to require,
that her Majesty should not be. proceeded against
further, until sufficient time had been allowed her to
bring over from the Continent, persons to establish,
her innocence. But, as she likewise prayed to be
lietrd by Counsel at the Bar of the House, who could
support her claims by stronger arguments than any
which he conld urge, be would decline saying any
thing more at present, than to move—" That. the
Petition do lie on the Table."
•
The LORD CHANCELLOR came down from the
Woolsack, as he felt himself called upon by the state-
ment of the Noble Lord, to assure the House, that

it was not any feeling of disrespect, or any per-
sonal motive whatever, which had swayed him in de-
clining to present the Petition, but he owed a duty, a
great duty to the House, while he had thee honour
of presiding there, which was paramount to all indi-
vidual considerations ; under that feeling, and that
alone he had acted, and was prevented from present-
ing the Petition by the situation which he held in
that House, thinking it would be more proper that
:illy other Noble Lord should perform that Office,
than one who sat in the place which he had the ho-
nour to occupy. He was not actuated by any motive
disrespectful to the Illustrious Person on whose part
it was preferred. He would take the liberty of
stating, that he had not three minutes to consider the
subject, but in that time he had necessarily come to
the conclusion, that it would be more consistent with
propriety, that the Petition should be presented by
any other Noble Lord in.preference to himself. He
did not, besides, know what mode there was of re-
ceiving a Petition, when presented from a perscirt of
that lank, and though he did not intend to oppose it,
he did not know of any precedent on which it was
founded. He had before been blamed by Noble
Lords, for having refused to present a letter from the
same Illustrious Person. He wished to have done it,
but on looking through their Lordships' Journals, he
found he was not justified. He was similarly cir-
cumstanced at present. He would say but a few
words upon the subject—if he had erred, it was not,
out of disrespect to the Exalted Petitioner, but it was
'in observance of a sense of solemn public duty ; and
he would rather suffer death than act against his con-
viction on a constitutional principle. He was not

aware how far it was consistent with precedent, that
the Petition should be received, but as it was his de-
cided opinion, that a person of that rank should be
enabled, some how or other, to approach the House,
he would not object to its reception.

Earl GREY observed, that no person could doubt
that the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack
always acted under the sense of a faithful and con-
scientious discharge of •his duty in that House, and
upon every other occasion. He was convinced that
no other motive but a feeling which his duty re-
quired of him, could have prevented him from beink
the bearer of the Petition which had been presented
by his Noble Friend. But he (Earl Grey) would be
permitted to state why he could not agree in ths.
view which he took, in this instance, of his duty. It
was his opinion that the Noble and Learned Lord
had not, by the situation which he filled on the Wool-
sack, any duty to perform different from that of other
Noble Lords when requested to present Petitions
from subjects complaining. of wrong and injury.—
There was no such distinction as had been just now
described between the Learned Lord and others, in
such a case. He (Earl Grey) had he beenin the same
situation, and having but one minute for considera-
tion, would have been satisfied that in resolving to
present the Petition, he would not act contrary to the
forms, or disrespectfully towards the character of the,
House, but would have felt himself bound, without
pledging himself to any opinion on the case, of which;
indeed, he was yet ignorant, to lay the Petition on
their Lordships' table. The House was open to all
Petitioners who approached it respectfully, and it-,
was the duty of every Member to give access to their
prayers. The Noble and Learned Lord acted under
a mistaken notion of the nature of his situation there,
without being in the slightest degree influenced by
any impurity of motive. He could not avoid saying
this much upon the impropriety of the distinction
which had been drawn between one Member of that
House and other individuals, whose duties were pre-
cisely the same.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was his sin-
cere wish to avoid saying many words upon the sub-1
ject. But what had been stated by the Noble Lord
who had just spoken, had been frequently maintained,
by other Noble Lords on the same side of the House.
If their view was the proper one, the majority of
that House had but to inform him (the Lord Chan-
tenor) of it, and if they imposed duties much greater
he VMS satisfied. The House had but to tell him his
duty and he would faithfully discharge it. He again
said, that although he had no objection to receiving
the Petition, yet he was not aware that any Petition
of that kind had ever before been presented. He
repeated, that he had but three minutes to consider
of it, but on subsequent, reflection he 4id not feel
that he had violated his own duty, or rgotten his
duty to the House.
Lord HOLLAbiD bore testimony to the conscien-
tious manner in which the Noble and Learned Lord

TUESDAY, JINE,Stei 1020. • •

- • .
Aiseharged his duties. But he could not help *hit;
that he conferred with his Noble Friend ILord Grey)
as to his view of what those duties were... it *as bis
opinion, that the duties which the Noble Lord per-
formed, when rising froth the woolsack; sieve to be
regulated as those of every other Member of that
House. One thing was of great importance, that
their Lordships should apprehend that no Petition
coming through his hands, could receive force or
authority in any other way than from .his judgment
and learning, if he favoured its prayer—but not
from his being the organ of the House. But he was
convinced that he acted in this, as in every other
instance. from pure, delicate, and honourable motives.
He had forgotten; however, that all Peers of Parlia-
ment were equal. No Member of that HoUse could
address it with greater authority than another. If his
rank conferred on him the power of doing so, it
would be destructive of the freedom of debate.—
Nothing could be inferred from a Petition having
been presented by any one Peer more than would
follow fw. its being presented by another. Tibe
NolsleaQ Learned Lord had spoken of the difficul-
ties which the subject brought with it. He (Lord
Holland) believed that he was correct in stating, that
he had searched the Journals in vain for a preceient
of a Petition from a Quern of England to that House.
But when there was no other mode of approaching
that House brit through 'a Petition presented by a
Noble Lord, it might have been as well if that Pe-
tition had been presented by the Noble Lord who
had been first applied to. As to the argument re-
specting the letter, it did not apply to the present
case. Such a letter migin indeed receive some au-
thority from that mode of communication, but it
was otherwise with a Petition. He could not pay
that compliment to the situation which the Noble
and Learned Lord held in that House, as to suppose
that he could present a Petition oa any other grounds
than as a Member of that House performing a duty
in his place, as it might be performed by any other.
The situation was not, in that respect, of the smallest

_
importance.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that he agreed in
the propriety of receiving the Petition, and he agreed
lot because it was-of a novel nature, and that there
was no precedent analogous, but in the absence of
all precedent, upon the clear public principle, that
every subject, from-the lowest to the• highest, had
access by Petition to that House. It was only to be
considered, whether the mode was in some cases to
be of a tnore•solemn and digtified character than.in
others. But he could not agree in what had fallen
from the Noble Lords opposite in the course of their
observations upon the .opinions pronounced by the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. , He ad-
mitted that all Peers were equal in their duties and
privileges as Lords of Parliament, and if individuals
had no access to the House but through one Peer,
he would concede that that one Peer should be under
a peremptory obligation to present such Petition. But
as the fact really was, that every individual Peer
could afford that access, there might be applications
made to that House very properly through some Peers
which could not come as well from, nor, indeed, be
, entertained at all by others. He was sure that if any
of their Lordships were, for instance, requested to
present a Petition which reflected on a near relation
or friend, they would object to the request. There
were,therefore, particular circumstances which might
make a Petition more proper in the hands of one
Member than another. He would say, likewise, with
reference to those who filled the situation of the
King's confidential servants, that it would ill become
them to present Petitions against measures whic)
they had thenitelves advised.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN argued, that the
absence of a precedent should not have prevented
the Petition from being presented. The principal
duty of a Peer, with respect to Petitions, was, to
observe that they were properly worded : and, al-
though circumstances might make -it sometimes
more eligible for one Noble Lord to present a Peti-
tion than another, yet there was no perpetual dis-
tinction on account of any situation which was held
by any of their Lordships. Every Lord had cer-
tainly the right of exercising a sound discretion, to
surrender which, would be to surrender one of the
most valuable privileges ; but the Learned Lord on,
the Woolsack had not urged any such reason ;•he
had spoken of a distinction which did not exist. The
Noble and Learned Lord held duties as a Peer which
he could not relinquish—duties which were common
to all their Lordships ; and when the Learned Lord
was called to the Woolsack by the King, he was still
bound to discharge his duties in Parliament in the
same manner as every other Peer: He therefore
fully concurred in the opinion stated by his Noble
Friend, though at the same time he wished to be
understood as not casting the most remote reflection
on the motives of the Noble and Learned Lord in de-
clining to present.the Petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR in explanation said,
he was fully sensible that he came to that House to
discharge all the duties, and claim all the privileges
of a Peer of Parliament ; and be also 'admitted, that
whenever a Petition was put into his bands to be
laid before their Lordships from any individual, how-
ever high, or holvever low, he should be wanting in
his duty were he to refuse to bring it before the
Hduse. But he had another duty stifl to perform, of
perhaps equal importance, and that was, to respect
the forms of the House, and to protect the privileges
of the Peerage. Now this was the first time, as far
as he knew, of such a Petition being presented to
their Lordships, and after the three minutes consi-
deration which was allowed him, he did come to 8e
conclusion, that the forms of the House rendered it
less proper for him to present it than any other No.
ble Lord. He might be in error; but, good GOD!
was he to be told that his refusal was dictated by
personal motives, because be had thought it ncry con-
sonant with his duty, from the situation which he
had the honour to hold, to bring the Petition before