Star.
London, England, 1820-06-28 00:00:00

we, a Bill of Pains and Penalties was preferred
igainst himforflying from lustice—(Hear,
Sot the present case was directly the reverse, as' it
was proposed to the Illustrious Personage under con-
sideration,
that if she would fly the country, she
would
.be rewarded for her flight by such a liberal
grant of the public money as might enable hei to
maintain her station abroad. The proposition was,
however, rejecto.l,' and thus we were in a different
situation respecting her Majesty from that which re-
garded Lord Clarendon. Looking then to all the
circumstances of her Majesty's situation, he thought
his Noble Friend must agree with him in thinking
that a very strong ground of State necessity should
be made out, before their Lordships could consis-
tently institute an inquiry which, according to high,
authority, would inevitably proye derogatory from
the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best
interests of the Empire—(Hear, hear).—But what
degree of State necessity could be adduced or ima-
gined for inquiring upon this occasion, merely_ be-
cause the Queen thought proper to return to, or to
remain, upon English ground? It was inconsistent
and unjust, he *would maintain, to call upon any por-
tion of their Lordships to make out charges upon
which they might afterwards be called upon to judge.
The Noble Lord on the Woolsack had, no doubt, al-
leged that the Green Bag contained nothing that
could justify impeachment, and this allegation the
Learned Lord grounded upon the strange doctrine ;
that nothing was impeachable that was not indict-
able at common law, in which doctrine his Noble
and Learned Friend behind him had coneorred—But
notwithstanding the, very high authority of both
those Noble and Learned Lords, he (Lord. Holland)
would ever maintain that suchscloetrinn was contrary
to the Constitution of the country, particularlytothe
privileges of Parliament. It was a proposition utterly
untenable indeed, that the rules of the lower. Courts
could fetter the discretion of Parliament, or that no
public officer could be impeached unless he commit-1
ted such an offence as yeas cognizable at common law:,
The lei consueindo parlinmenti was no doubt a part
of :he common law, but he never could subscribe to
the doctrine that indictable and impeachable offences
were convertible terms. The estatnishment of such
a doctrine, indeed, would serve to exempt Ministers
from all efficient responsibility, unless for offences of
the utmost magnitude known to the law. Let us sup-
pose, for instance, that a Minister so much abused
his authority as to involve or continue the country in
an unnecessary or dishonourable war, was not that,
he would ask, an impeachable offence, although not
such as was indictable. at common law?--(liegr).—
So, with regard to the Illustrious Personage under
consideration—she might turn out, from inquiry, to
have so conducted herself as tt, have degraded her
rank z and, if so, that conduct would, he maintained,
be impeachable. Would it then be becoming, as was
stow proposed by Ministers, that those should be ap-
pointed to draw up the charges against her, who
might afterwards be called upon to act as Judges?
hear).—Nuw to conic to the point with re-
spect to propositions of inquiry by Secret Committees.
It was known that such Coninzittees were peculiarly
odious in public estimation. The Lamed Lord on
the Woolsack had observed, that it was always the
custom to institute an inquiry upon any Message
from the Crown. But where was the instance of such
an inquiry as Ministers at present proposed upon any
Message from the Crown, containing a charge against
an individual ? He maintained that no such in-
stance could be adduced, and that every argument
of analogy and common justice was against the pro-
position of Ministers. especially in appointing those.
the accusers, who might become the Judges. Every I
precedent, indeed, upon record, would make against
such a proceeding, if the House would not refer to
the reign of Henry Vlll.—(llear, hear, hear).—
Even in Atterbuty s case, where every engine was
to excite prejudice and passion against the
accused, no sealed bags were sent down to the two
Houses of Parliament, but a Bill of Pains and. Pe-
nalties was brought into the House of Commons,
which was afterwards sent ae the Lords. In that
case the investigation of the matter was public. There
was no Sect et Committee of Inquiry. But it was a 1
little extraordinary, how differently his Majesty's •
Ministers argued upon different occasions with re-i
sleet to the expediency of instituting a Parlianien-
tiny inquiry. Upon the proposition, for instance, of
a Parliamentary inquiry relative to the conduct of
the Manchester Magistrateri, Miniszers urged that
such an inquiry would imply pre-judgment—that
it would by derogatory and degrading to the party
accused, and yet, on this occasion, they maintained
most strenuously, that such an inquiry would be an
act of kindness and mercy towards the Queen !
Streit was the consistent reasoning of his Majesty's
Ministers. But what utility could be derived front
the proposed inquiry ? Was it expected that a few
Members of that House would in a few days come
to a conclusion upon the contents of this Bag, while
kiniters had been feasting upon them for several
rnontl.s, without being able to come to any decisicn
upon the subject? but of whom was this Secret
Committee of a few Members composed ? There
were among them some individuals who ought not,
lie must say, to have been placed in such a situation.
He begged it to be understood that he meant no per-
sonal offence whatever, when he said that it was pe-
cultarly unbecoming to select as a Member of this
Tribunal, which was to inquire into the guilt or in-
nocence of the Queen, the first Prelate in the coun-
try, with whose advice hit- Majesty's name must be
understood to have been omitted in the Liturgy—
( Hear, hear).—This was a proceeding of which the
candour of the country could not possibly approve;*
for every candid man must desire to have impartial
justice done in this case, and such was his anxious
desire towards the Illustrious Personage under con-
sideration, whom he declared he knew only by sight.
The Noble Lord at the head of the Administration bad
spoken very loftily in contrasting his public conduct
with that recommended by himself and his friends.
The Noble Lord had indeed asked, quite in a tri-
umphant tone, what would have been the situation
of the country at present, if the counsels of the No-
ble Mover had been followed ? but to this he (Lord
if there were glory in the.
Holland) should only say,
pre'settt situation of the country, let the Noble Lord
amd-Ins colleagues enjoy it, ei eat ea gloriajforcer—(A
Myth);-.:.in the present case the Secret Committee
would be exposed to all deceptions, without any i
means-ii exposing them. Far, therefore, was he

•

444

lIOUSE‘OF COMMONS.

. . .
. • fr

e• t

I

from thinking_ that a Secret Committee would Le for
the safety of the Queen--(Heer): On all these
.
grounds he should vote for the-motion of the Noble
Earl ; and he implored the House, if;. as they were
told, the times were perilous-i—ifthey were:reading on
the ashes of unextinguished fire, to consider the con-
the
sequences ortaking a false step. There was another
reason, which WAS one rather of feeling than -logic,
but which bad its weitgit with him—if the Lords
now took up the busians which "the Commons had
rejected ;it would naturally be said—ft The Souse
of Commons has yet some spirit remaining ; the Mi-
nisters cannot do as they would there; nol they, are
driven back to the Lords, their old pack-horses, their
drudges, who are ready to do for them any dirty
work l",—(Hear). This would be said, he would
riot assert, with truth, but with some degree of plau-
sibility. The present subject was one which he would
not even have glanced at if he had not:felt it strongly
impressed on his mind, that the proceeding, which
their Lordships were about to follow, was one di-
rectly opposed to the dignity anif interest of the
House—( Hear, hear, hear). '
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, the Noble Baron
who had spoken last bid objected to the insertion of the name
of the Archbishop of Canterbury in th'e Secret Committee, be-
cause he was the constitutional adviser of the Crown in the al-
-1 teration of the Liturgy. Another Noble Baron, in a former
conversation, had objected to the insertion of the name of that
person, because he was the responsible adviser. He (the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury) believed that neither one nor the other of
the Noble Lordi was correct. He would ask, where was their
authority ? Ras it in any Statute? The only Au he was ac-
quainted with, which referred to this subject, was the Act of
Uniformity. Did the Noble Lords find their opiniosrs there?—
Certainly not. Unless 'then the Noble Lord.; could point but
their authority for their assertion, he was obliged to regard it as
gratuitous: There was ;a-vainly no one who would be mom
disposed than he was 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 im-
peach his integrity as a public or a private man—(Haar, lune).
Lord CIOLIAND-expl-ined, that nothing was further from
his intention than to impeach the integrity of the Reverend Lord.
but as that Reverend Prelate conveyed die acts of the King as
head of the Church to the Clergy of England, and as there was
no net done by the King, in that or any other character, for.
which there was not some ostensible and responsible adviser, he
considered the Reverend Prelate ai responsible fur the altera-
tion in the Liturgy—(!leer, hear):
The Earl- of LIVERP(X)L laid, the alteration of the Li-
turgy was the act or 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 the Council, and the Lords
of the Council who were present were perhaps strict'? respon-
sible ; but in the practice since the Revolution, the acts done in
Council were preceded by advice on the part of the King's con-
fidential servauts, who were thus the peculiar objects of respon-
sibility. The Archbishop merely acted ministerially, and was
obliged to execute the Orders in Council.
Lord DA Clt E disclaimed the slightest intention personally to
offend the Reverend Prelate. In bringing forward the Petition
of het Majesty, he bad oh served 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 de-
nied; but it was doubted whether the Reverend Prelate was
pledged on the subject, or whether he was the reccimnsible ad-
viser of the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy. The
Noble Lords on the other side might assume the responsibijity,
but they could not divest the person who waalegally responsible
of that character. If the Archbishop submitted the alteration
to the Kiug, and returned to the Council and declared the will
of the King, he was the King's adviser, and though not remov-
able, was impeachable for bad advice.
Lord LIVERPOOL again explained. The alteration of the
Liturgy was made by the declaration of the King in Commit.
—lt might be a question, whether ail the Lords present at the
Council were not strictly responsible? but, as in reality, the de-
claration was made in all Cases by the advice of the Committee
of the Council, general'? called the Cabinet, they were the per-
sons on whom Parliament would fix the responsibility. As for
the Right Reverend Prelate, he, in communicating the order to
his Clergy, had no (Motedon left him.
Earl (i REY said, the Reverend Prelate, in coiranunkating
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 ;
1 for he (Karl Grey) apprehended that the Parliannntary power
of impeachment was held, not only to chuck pernicious advisers,
but to deter any persons from executing illegal commands—
' (Ilene, ko.,:.—Though, therefore, the Cabinet Ministers were
the persons more peculiatly 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
addre.-,s the Crown, to learn who wereits advisers, as in the case
of a negative given to Hiss, for then no signature appeared ;
but to acts of the Council there were the signatures of the
Councillors-4" Not always," from Lord lAvtaroot, " not In
this case."]—at least there was an entry in the Council Books
of the Lords preset.t.
Earl DARNLEY said, he dii not rise to make any remarks,
but to state, that as the advice of the Ministers to omit the
1 name of the Queen front the Liturgy was the cause of the pre-
, sent embarrassment of Parliament if no other Lord, better
qualified to do it justice, wok up the subject, he should call the
attention of the !Nese specially to in,.
The House divided—Contents, 47—Not-Contents, 102—
Majority against the motion, s.s.—Adjourned. .

A Committee was chosen by ballot to try the merits of the
Colchester Election Petition, when the followir; were ap-
pointed :—Thomas Noldswurth, F.sq. Chairman; Samuel for-
rocks, Hon. J. Butler, Robt. Downie, F. W. Grant, Arthur
Chichester, R. Shaw, J. ii. Leigh, W. Astell, Lord Kings-
borough, Sir R. Millbank, W. H. Fremantle, J. R. Grossett,
J. Dodson, and Mr. Peter Moore. •
The following were next chosen by ballot to form a • Com-
mittee for trying the merits of Wootton Basset Eleetitin Pe-
tition ;—M. Atwood, W. Dobson, Gabriel Doveton, J. J. Bux-
ton, W.J. Dennison, C. Brownlw; Iktervyn Archdall, Sir T.
Mostyn, W. Chambers, J. Carroll, L. Evelyn, E. Smith,
Reeves, C. Tennyson, and Mr. J. Caleraft. • '
A message from the Lcrds informed the House that the
Lords had agreed to several private bills.
Lord FOLKSTON& presorted a petition from certain free-
holders in the county of Berke, praying for a better regulation
in the mode of polling at elections.—Ordered to lie on the table.
A similar petition was presented from Reading, by Mr. F.
Palmer.
Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the merits of tht petition complaining of
an undue election for Limerick, that the Committee had met
that morning, but could not.proceed to business in consequence
of the absence of Sir John Shelley, one of the Members of the
Committee.
A Medical Gentleman of the name of Brand, was then called
to the bar, and he stated that Air J. Shelley was so iH as to be
unable to attend the Committee. The Roo. Member was
therefore discharged from his attendance en the Committee.
Sir RONALD FERGUSSON gave *lite, that en Thurs-
day next he should bring forward alma& respecting the Milan
Commission. . '

Lord JOHN RUSSELL sbeiettiEriliV dW wdsefereest-
sidering the Gramponsejleftsiffinsmissalketead fieutounr.
row ; it had been fterti tositth Lordship gave
notice that he should en to-morrow.
Mr. DENMA N rA7S friesflan Gaythorne
Batt, exactly similar to that pima** anibillibtiding day by
Earl Grey in the Homo of Lark itr whicittlitturtitioner, who
is now confuted in Whiteouts-meet Prism; complained of
having been unjustly committed by a Magistrate on a charge of
libel; of the decision given against him by the Drnrt of COM..
mon Pleas, when be brought an actiorugabot the Magistrate
who had so committed him, and of his bolsi iow,kest is prison
for the costs of that action. Mr. Denman, at the tow time,
expressed it as Ms own opinion, that no 14 pity
right, a_cording to law, to commit a tom to
The petition was ordered to lie ortbe table.
1 • On the motion of Mr. C. GRANT, it was onisestilmi the
House should to-morrow (this den :woke itself in s Cuessit-
tee Go the Irish Seizing Act.

LONDON.

3 per Cent. Redoced6lll i j-3 rer Ct. 77 781
4 per Centt. 85; 186 11*--5 per Cent. &rip 1; pr.

~ - . s'`+.'r .

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1820.
THE FUNDS.
PRICE Of STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONE O.CLOCK

Bank Long Ann. 17 13-16 jr-- India Bonds, 17;. 19s. pnt.

Old Annuities 6131—Ezdt. Bills is. pre. par.
Commercial 4s. ss. pr.—Omnium f pr.—Cow. for Aces. 70e 70.

Ministeri seem at length to have Anad e up their
minds as to the mode of procedure to be pursued re-
specting the Queen. Last night, Earl Genies Mo.
tion, that the Order for the sitting of the Secret
Committee on the contents of the Green Bag should
be discharged altogether, and. recommending that,
if the House should proceed at all, it should be
by open inquiry, came on for discussion. In order
to save the time of the House, the Noble Lord asked'
the Earl of LIVERPOOL whether his MAJESTY'S Mi.
Miters had abandoned the intention a still propo-
sing a Secret Investigation, or whether they meant.
to submit to the House any proposition for some
other, and more constitutional mode of proceed-
ing ? His Lordship replied,, that, from the bast
consideration which he had been able to give to the'
subject, the mode cf proceeding which had been ori-
ginally proposed to, and adopted by, Parliament, was
the fittest to be pursued; and, therefore, it was h:s
intention to propose, that the Committee should

pm-
ceed with the Secret Inquiry.-.. Earl, Garr then
moved, that_ the Order should be discharged, and
was opposed by Lord •Li trearoot, and the LORD
CIIANCLLLOIL

Lord LIVIRPOOL, in adverting to. the Qutax's Pe-
tition for delay, in order to bring to this country wit-
nesses in her defence, expressed his readiness to
postpone the public investigation, until it should per-
fectly suit the interests of her MAJEcnr. But it
was only after, the Committee •should have decided
that there was in the papers ground for inquiry,
that he considered delay necessary, or called for.
This is, however; not precisely an answer to the
QUEEN'S Petition, which deprecated a Secret Com-
mittee,* and contemplated only an open inquiry.—
Another point that suggests itself is—has the Qum/
obtained, or will she obtain, such- -information of
the charges and witnesses against her, as may cor-
respond with the rights of the accused under in-
formation or indictment ? Without this, her MA:
JESTY'S sending for witnesses would be nugatory.
Will the contents of the Bag be communicated to the
Legal Advisers of the QVCEN before their exposure in
the usual stage of the progress of a Bill iu the Lords?
for the proceeding evidently will be by Bill. Under
all suppositions, what an interminable business is the
country and the Parliament threatened with ! It h
scarcely possible to calculate what number of years
the inquiry may last; new evidence coming out, re-
quiring other evidence from Italy to rebut it, and on
each occasion six weeks' suspension of proceeding ;
and, during all this time, factious intrigue, popular
ferment, and public disgust, dividing the great mass
of mind in the kingdom. This is, indeed, a most un
fortunate occurrence in our domestic history, how.
ever it be viewed. ".

We think- it-may be gathered, from the speeches of
Ministers, that, should the Report of the Secret Com-
, mistee be unfavourable to her Manna, it is the
intention of the Ministers to introduce into Parlia-
ment, a Bill of. Pains and Penalties most probably
having fbr its objitct-to divorce her MAJIIITY from
the KING, of course; then to degrade her from
the style and title and privileges of Quint of this
Realm ; and to exile her from England for ever.
The motion of Earl GRIT was supported by Lord
HOLLAND, Lord BELHAVIN. and Lord BULKILILY,
and opposed by the Earl of DONOUGHI4OI* and
Lord LAUDERDALE. The motion was then nega-
tived by a majority of 102 to 47. The Secret Corni
mittee will• consequently proceed with the investiga-
tion this day, and unless it differ from all, the Secret
Committees appointed under similar circumstances,
in the whole course of the Parliamentary history of
this country, our Readers can be at no loss to antici-
pate its decision. It has been rumoured that a dif-
ference prevailed in the Cabinet as to the course to
be adopted on this delicate subject, and the marked
contrast between that now to be pursued and the line
of proceeding suggested the preceding night by Mi 7
nisters, in the Music of Commons, proves that the
[report Was net iinfouudei.